LOL Funny you had to repeat this like 62 times

I am not sure why I still try. I should just go Chuck's route (who cares with all her posts) but I guess the morbid curiosity keeps me coming back especially when it has to do with the lovely state of WI, which she seems infatuated with.

I'll try again: WAY AHEAD OF YOU. READ THE SETTLEMENT. The money going to the states - in yes, civil penalties, money just for use by the states, not for the victims of the fraud, not for underwater mortgages, the exact monies are you talking about - are outlined in the settlement to be used for housing-related losses/programs at the state level.

Not their general fund.

I can't help it - Wiphan just isn't getting it. Must have just read some newspaper lines.

AGAIN FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE!!!

VI. Payments to the States
The remaining settlement funds, approximately $2.5 billion, will be paid to the participating states.
The funds may be distributed by the attorneys general to foreclosure relief and housing programs,
including housing counseling, legal assistance, foreclosure prevention hotlines, foreclosure
mediation, and community blight remediation. A portion of the funds may also be designated as
civil penalties for the banks robo-signing misconduct

This comes from the summary of the settlement, not a liberal or conservative blog, nor a newspaper. READ IT PLEASE!!

Civil penalties do not go to the general fund... ...OK wait yeah they do, nevermind.

Duh - exactly. Please point out where the monies can go to the GENERAL FUND and not be used as described below.

NOWHERE does it say, "can use this money for general fund non-listed items". Do you know what the "general fund" Walker wants to put the millions in pays? None of the below!

The only thing I can figure out, is that you simply don't understand or know what the "general fund" is. Well, it's past due bills, buying salt for snowplows, etc. NONE OF THE BELOW.

In fact, if Walker puts millions in the general fund to fix his deficit, he's stealing millions directly from "community blight remediation" that Milwaukee needs and could use, to put in the general fund. That's the WHOLE POINT - Walker is stealing from what YOU listed the money must be used for!

Please, read what you are quoting - you're proving my contention, thanks :D

As I have said, funds can be used, according to the settlement, and quoting YOU, for:

foreclosure relief
housing programs
housing counseling
legal assistance
foreclosure prevention hotlines
foreclosure mediation
community blight remediation

WALKER wants to steal millions intended for the above, and use it instead to pay off his deficit. How hard is this for you to understand?

civil penalties-fines or surcharges imposed by a governmental agency to enforce regulations

And please read what the settlement Wiphan is quoting says the money is to be used for.

It is NOT to be used for the general fund and paying off Walker's deficit. The civil penalties part has to be used for the things listed.

Face it: Mr. "one time fixes from stealing settlement money is bad" Walker is doing the exact same thing he complained about during his campaign: stealing money from his citizens to pay off the deficit he says doesn't exist.

Just BOA and Wells Fargo got 60 Billion alone in the bailout. This is nothing. More sheep food.

It is clearly listed alone and after what the rest of the funds are to be used for, followed by the civil penalties line. Based on what I know about reading comprehension that means it is on its own and not subject to what is mentioned before it.

Any good examples of a Governor?

And they didn't even need it to spend it. They were given it at zero or low interest by the government, and used it for investing, thus making profit on it, and disbursing it in bonuses.

The above isn't the legal language of the settlement, it's the same summary that is listed on the settlement website and news articles.

You might ask the Governor's Attorney General, who was specially consulted to see if the Governor can take the money and use it outside of what is listed, and who is, aside from the Governor, the only one in the state government saying, "yes, I think it would be legal".

That Walker had to ask his Attorney General - and is NOT consulting the legislature or any other legal advice - shows Walker clearly knows his taking the money is outside the settlement use intentions.

But he has the Koch Brothers American's for Prosperity playing hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads saying Walker balanced the budget, and Walker knows that's a lie, and he has a $140 million deficit - so he's grabbing some of this money to try and cover his tracks before his recall election.

And that is why there is a lawsuit being filed against the Gov and Attorney General for it, on behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin. Because the Governor and Attorney General are beyond the accepted use of the monies, using it to pay off last year's bills, and NOT for housing-related city troubles.

Has the actual settlement even been released yet? I am not finding it anywhere. Plenty of summaries though. If you have a copy of the doc and any applications etc, I would like to see them and what the legal wording looks like.

Didn't think so.

http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/ is where the entire court case PDF will be put, here's the current executive PDF http://www.atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/...ve_Summary.pdf

:zz: Forgive me for not being on the list at your beck and call in the past half hour. See above.

Same summary Wiphan quotes, everyone has read this. You however referenced the exact legal language of the settlement, was hoping to see where you were able to read that.

Where is THIS?

No, I referenced that the language YOU were making your determination from was not the exact legal language of the settlement.

My point: Don't jump the gun, and say that the published language makes Walker's use legal, because that's not the legal language.

It's been 10 days, and there are 49 states that have to return papers before they can publish it, and now you have the site where you can read it.

Where does this statement reference MY language?

In the post you wrote that I am responding to and referencing in the one you quoted. Keep up here :D

You made the point about the section reading "some money could be collected as civil penalties" ... and said it was separate, thus not referencing above, etc.; and I responded, "that's not the legal language of the document".

Don't make legal determinations on non-legal settlement agreement language, as Walker has already done, but realizes is dicey, as he only consulted his own Attorney General (the one that declined to investigate his office where the FBI found felonies); and Schneiderman has been all over talking about what the settle can, and can not, be used for.

But yes, we wait for the legal language, and that's why & when Scott Walker will have a lawsuit filed against his use of the funds to fix his budget deficit, rather than "housing related" problems.

I have had the site since inception hence my wondering where you had seen the official legal language, been hoping to get in there since most houses are no longer worth what they were when purchased. Suck it up, you pretended to know more than you did.

:zz: No, suck it up that you misunderstood what I said, falsely thinking I was making a claim I didn't. I never said I'd seen the official language. You mistakenly thought that's what I was intending. Nope. Just saying that's not the official language, which is why I then referenced Walker and his AG, as showing that even Walker and the AG think it will be out of the settlement agreement.

I thought I had seen one state's list of requirements for claimants somewhere, but I can't see how that can be yet.

So basically you are accusing theft of money that doesn't even exist and nobody, even you, knows how it will be distributed or handled once received and under what rules. Sound about right?

add Missouri, Pennsylvania, Vermont and possibly California to your imaginary lawsuit.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=147266500

"Imaginary"? Yet you quote an article that even quotes an attorney general saying it will be opposed, thus it isn't "imaginary" at all?

:D

Yes, Dell - lots of governors and state budgets want to steal this money from the homeowners. Walker isn't the only thief. Use of the money for non-homeowner, non-mortgage related use will be legally fought by many.

Lisa Madigan, daughter of Mike Madigan opposing Gov. Quinn? LMAO You've been gone from IL too long!

I see Madigan's public voice of opposition but until someone files; your lawsuit remains imaginary :zz:; par for the course in your case. And how ironic 'What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.'


I'm glad you realize Walker isn't the only Governor attempting to run his State on a balanced budget.

Dear god, you're weird.

I have said that yes, there are people that have said they will be filing a lawsuit, opposing the distribution of money away from the settlement recipients. You even quoted one. Are words of the future tense too hard for you to understand?

You do realize that the settlement has to be legally signed off upon by all 49 AG's, the money actually dispersed to the states, and money to actually be taken from the account before a lawsuit can be filed to protest that use and freeze it?

You can't file a lawsuit against something that hasn't yet happened? Too hard a concept for you to understand?

Your magic anticipatory vision predicting that nobody who has said they will file a lawsuit, will actually do it, is amazing :D

Taking a victory dance before the musicians have even assembled - that's pretty typical Dell :D

Or before Lisa Madigan files suit but still claiming she's your alibi for filing suit. Butterflies again! Take your medicine even if it's Lithium

Oops sorry I violated HIPPA! But it's for your well being!

Dell ... I have said that various AG's and the public have said they are going to file suit against Walker - and yes, other governors, including, btw, Democratic ones - who want to appropriate settlement funds for non-settlement purposes.

You've decided that could never and will never happen. Okay :wf

Sorry. No "lithium" (or alcohol) here. But you go right ahead and keep enjoying.