Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 839164)

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.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 839124)

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.

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 839171)

Where does this statement reference MY language?

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 839168)

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.

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 839173)

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.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 839175)

: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.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 839172)

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.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 841729)

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

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

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 841767)

"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.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 841998)

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.'

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 842150)

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

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 842175)

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!