* A Florida bankruptcy judge delivered some bad news to Bruce Rauner…
The Federal Court’s March 14 Opinion describes a “bust out” scheme orchestrated by GTCR, the private equity firm chaired by Rauner for years up until October 2012. The Court ruled that claims against GTCR for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty have merit and therefore can proceed.
The Court also ruled that claims for breach of fiduciary duty can proceed against Edgar Jannotta, formerly one of Rauner’s fellow GTCR principals. Jannotta is currently one of the largest financial contributors to Rauner’s campaign.
Under Rauner’s chairmanship of GTCR the firm was accused of complicity in the wrongful deaths of multiple nursing home residents. GTCR was then later accused of participating in a scheme allegedly intended to fraudulently transfer assets for the purpose of hiding them from successful plaintiffs and other creditors.
The opinion is here.
* The federal judge wrote that the plaintiffs’ case “has all the makings of a legal thriller” and summarized the plaintiffs’ contention with a headline about how Rauner’s “GTCR Group orchestrates the ‘Bust Out scheme’”…
In the second linked transaction, THI sold all of its stock in THMI to the Debtor for $100,000. The Debtor had been incorporated just months before the transaction by the law firm of Troutman Sanders, where Forman (one of FLTCH’s owners) was a partner.
The Debtor’s sole shareholder is Barry Saacks, an elderly graphic artist who currently lives in a nursing home. Although Saacks has some recollection of being asked if he was interested in buying computer equipment, he was not aware that he owns the Debtor or that he acquired the stock in THMI.
And, it turns out, Saacks (who did not have any money to buy any computer equipment in the first place) did not pay the purchase price—FLTCH apparently loaned him the $100,000—nor did he ever receive any of THMI’s assets. In short, the complaint paints this as a sham transaction. […]
After the sale, FLTCH rebranded THMI assets and continued generating millions of dollars of profits, but without the millions of dollars in liabilities.
Oy.
* THI was funded by Rauner’s GTCR. From the opinion…
Aside from raising capital for THI, the GTCR Group was also instrumental in THI’s day-to-day management and administration. From the start, the GTCR Group entered into a Professional Services Agreement with THI in July 1998, around the time THI was created. Under its agreement with THI, the GTCR Group was responsible for formulating THI’s corporate strategy and corporate investments, including acquisitions, divestitures, and debt and equity financing
Hmm. Rauner’s firm was far more involved than he may have let on.
Then again…
While the Court tends to agree with the GTCR Group that any one of facts alleged in the complaint (i.e., an 83% ownership interest, majority control of the board, day-to-day control over business operations, etc.), taken by itself, would not plausibly give rise to domination or control, all of the facts—when taken together—could.
* THMI was a wholly owned subsidiary of THI until March of 2006, when it sold its stock to FLTCH, Fundamental Long Term Care Holdings, LLC, and others. From the judge’s summary of the complaint…
According to the complaint, THI Holdings, LLC (“THIH”) and THIH’s primary shareholder, a series of entities referred to as the “GTCR Group,” conspired to allow THI’s two primary secured lenders—General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”) and Ventas, Inc. (“Ventas”)—to loot THI and THMI to repay $75 million in loans before the GTCR Group and THIH ultimately sold THI’s and THMI’s assets to a group of individuals and entities referred to as the “Fundamental Entities”—Fundamental Long Term Care Holdings, LLC (“FLTCH”), Fundamental Administrative Services (“FAS”), Tr ans Health, Inc.-Baltimore (“THI-Baltimore”), Murray Forman, Leonard Grunstein, and Rubin Schron—for far less than their fair market value in order to preserve the substantial investment the GTCR Group made in THI.
To complete the alleged bust-out scheme, THMI’s liabilities were transferred to the Debtor (a sham entity created for the sole purpose of acquiring THMI’s liabilities), and THI was allowed to slowly go out of business before being put into a state-court receivership.
Wow.
…Adding… From the judge…
These, of course, are only allegations in the complaint. As discussed below, the Court is required to accept all well-pled allegations in the complaint as true.
By reciting the factual background of this case, the Court is not making any determination regarding the veracity of the allegations. They are just that—allegations
* More from the judge…
So the GTCR Group, in an effort to save some of its investment, hatched a scheme whereby it allowed THI’s primary lenders (GECC and Ventas) to siphon millions from the company in the form of interest and fees only to later sell the company to the Fundamental Entities for far less than fair market value, with the end result that THI-Baltimore, FLTCH, FAS, Forman, and Grunstein get a company worth—when stripped free from its liabilities—over $100 million for less than $10 million, the GTCR Group pockets $10 million for a company whose assets would have gone to pay hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in judgments, and the Debtor ends up with a liability-ridden shell company.
From those facts, the Court can reasonably infer that the GTCR Group and THIH knowingly participated in Jannotta’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:33 am:
Take in money, run up credit, don’t pay bills, let maintenance and service decline, then declare bankruptcy and walk away.
Classic Mafia bustout. Yet this involved seniors and a lot of Medicaid money.
I guess we should be thankful they didn’t light a match.
- Ghost - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:34 am:
it will take years to sort out, but this could wipe out every penny Rauner has to his name.
- Ghost - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:35 am:
and the green party canidate for Gov is…..
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:36 am:
This is proof that Rauner has what it takes to be an Illinois governor!
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:37 am:
YES! This is what I’ve been telling my friends in the press. They have been barking up the wrong tree, especially with the whitewash Trib story. This was a scheme cooked up at the very top of GTCR and Rauner was intimately involved. This is where the bodies are buried…literally.
It’s not about whether Bruce personally knew about the specific activities in a specific FL nursing home. it’s about the decisions made in the board room to roll-up the homes and then strip them of resources. When it went bad, GTCR concocted this scheme to evade responsibility and liability. This is what the judge said.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:38 am:
But - but, aren’t we suppose to have them serve as governor first, then jail them?
- Almost the Weekend - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:39 am:
Voters have a tough choice this November.
A gubernatorial candidate who used millions of grant dollars as a political move to help bring out the African American Cook County vote, and arguably helped him win the 2010 election.
Or a gubernatorial candidate who stole millions of dollars from senior citizens and medicare dollars to make a profit, and arguably is using some of this money to run for governor.
With 12 million people you think Illnois would have better options.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:39 am:
All that was missing was Tommy asking Henry to double-date with him…
Sopranos borrowed this “idea” too with the Sporting Goods store owner.
To the Post,
Can anyone make the argument in 30-60 second spot, and with Quinn hobbled by a Federal Investigation, who is going to pay attention to Rauner enough, if Rauner’s Crew spend a boat load of money on TV wrapped around two words “Federal Investigation”, with a picture of Governor Quinn melding the message.
Enough “bad” there, no doubt… which “bad” is going to be heard and understood best is my question.
- Bill White - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:41 am:
Governments can make juicy targets for this “business model”
Cue the Far Side
http://ridic.tumblr.com/post/6639678373/if-we-pull-this-off-well-eat-like-kings
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:43 am:
The Court ruled that claims against GTCR for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty have merit.
What does that mean, have merit?
We have an election here. There is no merit in an election. We’ve got someone who is needing to be smeared!
Ah! Don’t you just love the smell of tar and feathers in the morning?
- Streator Curmudgeon - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:45 am:
Oy. I had a headache even BEFORE I started reading this article and trying to follow it made it worse. As Willy says, how do you mash that down to a 30 second sound bite commercial?
Maybe a quote from “Goodfellas” from Joe Pesci when they took over the bar, then another quote from Rauner about doing nothing wrong. Works for Bruce in his Blago/Quinn spot.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:46 am:
It is a complex story, but if told well, every ex-wife who has tried to collect in vain from a deadbeat dad can relate.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:46 am:
I wish Dillard was the nominee so we can read Quinn claiming that Kurt was involved in MSI.
Now we have to learn about a new scandal?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:50 am:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but reading the actual opinion, not just Doug Ibendahl’s spin on it, this is not a ruling on the facts of the case, but a ruling on a Motion To Dismiss, which assumes the facts in the case are true. The Judge didn’t find the complaint was truthful, only that IF this was true then a claim could be made. That’s a big “if”, but leave it to Ibendahl to gloss over that
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:52 am:
I don’t see how it’s a complicated story. A bustout involving seniors and Medicaid. Running a business into the ground for illicit profit. Everyone’s seen “Goodfellas” and “The Sopranos.”
This one has a ribbon on it because a federal judge used a term used for crimes usually associated with the Mafia.
Now that’s a testimonial.
Cue the Rauner “Sgt. Schultz” act….
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:53 am:
Does it actually say that we have to elect felons as governor in our constitution, or is this one of these interpretations of who can serve as governor?
SECTION 3. ELIGIBILITY
To be eligible to hold the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller or Treasurer, a person must be a United States citizen, at
least 25 years old, a resident of this State for the three years preceding his election, a family member of a current office holder, and be able to commit felonious acts while in office, before election, or after serving as governor of Illinois.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
I think I found the problem here!
- Ghost - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:55 am:
Anonymous this is an attmept in bankruptcy court to establish a fraud claim and pierce the bankruptcy protection.
The bankruptcy proceeding is a bit harder to get around so this is more then just assuming the complaint is true kind of thing. They actually have to produce some evidence at this stage to go forward.
- RFR - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:56 am:
Procedurally, this is a ruling on a motion to dismiss, so all the facts the plaintiffs put in the complaint are assumed to be true. The Judge is not actually ruling that GTCR did any of the things it is accused of. The ruling is merely that, if GTCR did these things, it would be liable. The accusations have not yet been proved.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:56 am:
No way Quinn could have “changed the subject” like this federal judge just did.
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:57 am:
“This is proof that Rauner has what it takes to be an Illinois governor!”
Maybe Rauner will be the first Illinois Governor to be convicted BEFORE he takes office. A new twist.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:58 am:
Ghost, could you give us just a hint of the legal reasoning behind your claim that this matter could “wipe out every penny Rauner has to his name?”
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 11:59 am:
Sorry Vanilla, missed your. You beat me to it.
- Bill White - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:00 pm:
Does anyone seriously disagree with the premise that the corporate raider business model is to figure out how to do “bust out” deals that are just within the boundaries of the law?
And from time to time “mistakes will be made” and lines are crossed that shouldn’t be crossed.
Even if lines weren’t crossed, are these the types of people we want running our schools and prisons and nursing homes?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:01 pm:
I think the difficulty does fall on the “That’s Baloney!” or the “I never knew…” canned responses Rauner gives, then makes an Ad refuting the “false allegations”.
What seems simple to shrink to 30-60 seconds is the “Bust-Out”, but where it gets tricky, as I see it, is the lack of simplicity to the legalese.
The simpler it is, the more money Rauner will use to refute it, and it won’t be proportional spending.
Rauner’s Crew gloms on to one thing to wash away a boatload of sins. That is their M.O.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:02 pm:
===so all the facts the plaintiffs put in the complaint are assumed to be true===
Yes, but all the facts put forth by defendants are also assumed to be true. You conveniently left that one out.
===The ruling is merely that, if GTCR did these things, it would be liable.===
No, the ruling is about plausibility. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs made a plausible argument on that point. He ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t make plausible arguments on other points.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:03 pm:
Ghost, if you read the footnote on page one or two, actually is as simple as the Judge assuming all allegations are true.
- William j Kelly - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:03 pm:
It Rahm and Bruce aren’t too busy this weekend they should watch a great old classic called mr smith goes to Washington or they can wait for the sequel mr. Quinn goes to Springfield coming to an election booth near you in November.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:06 pm:
Is it too late to get a “None of the Above” amendment on the ballot?
- Jose Abreu's next homer - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:06 pm:
Governor Evelyn?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:06 pm:
Rich, procedurally, even in BK court, a Motion To Dismiss is not based on weight of truth, but IF true is it plausible that would be a claim under the law. It’s not a ruling on whether something is true, that’s assumed
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:07 pm:
===actually is as simple as the Judge assuming all allegations are true.===
It seems as though its saying it had the right to proceed, not a decision of truth, lie, innocence or even guilt.
- William j Kelly - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:07 pm:
Rahm is slipping, he should have vetted rauner better!
- Bill White - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:10 pm:
Maybe in Illinois, the POTUS adage that the Veep “is only a heartbeat away” should be changed to say that “only one swing of the gavel” separates the LtGov from the Mansion.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:12 pm:
Who should play Rauner in the movie version?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:12 pm:
- Jose Abreu’s next homer -,
There is not enough Plummer Meds for me to withstand that shock to my system. I can’t let that happen, for my health’s sake.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:15 pm:
Who plays Bruce Rauner?
William Hurt plays Bruce Rauner.
That’s the list.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:15 pm:
==Yes, but all the facts put forth by defendants are also assumed to be true==
Incorrect. a ruling on a Motion to Dismiss looks solely to the allegations of the non-moving party and assumes only those facts are true (not ruling they are, just assuming they are). In this case the non-moving party is the Plaintiff, so the Jusge looks solely to the complaint on its face and assumes all allegations in it are true.
- Secret Square - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:18 pm:
I suspect that if the Gallup Poll on worst states were to be retaken this year, IL would become the first state in which the MAJORITY of residents want to move out….
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:19 pm:
===Incorrect. a ruling on a Motion to Dismiss looks solely to the allegations of the non-moving party and assumes only those facts are true (not ruling they are, just assuming they are). In this case the non-moving party is the Plaintiff, so the Jusge looks solely to the complaint on its face and assumes all allegations in it are true.===
Well, that makes for a “fun” 60 second Ad.
It’s so easy to explain, it’s complicated.
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:22 pm:
“Under Rauner’s chairmanship of GTCR the firm was accused of complicity in the wrongful deaths of multiple nursing home residents. GTCR was then later accused of participating in a scheme allegedly intended to fraudulently transfer assets for the purpose of hiding them from successful plaintiffs and other creditors.”
This is the guy that is going to clean up Springfield ?
- William j Kelly - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:22 pm:
Osweg-low, you are doing a great job of kissing up to rauner maybe you will get the role.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:24 pm:
You keep goading, I may Mr. Kelly.
You’re not helping, you’re hurting.
- Joe M - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:25 pm:
==Who plays Bruce Rauner?==
Mitt Romney plays Bruce Rauner.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:25 pm:
WJK, willya stop it please with the OW is a Raunerite? He ain’t. He’s proved that over and over and over and over and over again. lol
- Louis Howe - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:28 pm:
Now we know why Republicans want to get government regulations off the back of business. So they can use government provided property rights and limited corporate liability protection to screw nursing home residents.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:38 pm:
As I said, it is a complex story.
I can boil it down to a 30 second ad though, so I am sure Team Quinn can too.
The downside is that the story comes while Quinn is at the center of a feeding frenzy.
Chip is going to respond to any Quinn attacks with:
“Pat Quinn is just trying to distract…”
- Shark Sandwich - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:39 pm:
After reading this, I can’t help but imagine Rauner and his pals at GTCR trying on canary yellow cardigans that just ‘fell off a truck’, like in Goodfellas…
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:44 pm:
–Chip is going to respond to any Quinn attacks with:
“Pat Quinn is just trying to distract…”–
The hook is the federal judge in Florida saying “bustout.” You then explain what that is and dive right into the previous nursing home stuff.
Crying “politics” won’t work. It doesn’t work for Quinn when he has an auditors report and prosecutors looking into his “issue.”
- Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:45 pm:
==I can boil it down to a 30 second ad though, so I am sure Team Quinn can too.==
I have more confidence in you than Team Quinn. They need to humanize this. It isn’t just newspaper clippings and judge rulings. Need a victim. A daughter of someone who died in a Rauner nursing home. Talking directly to the camera. So many people who have tried to find safe places for aging relatives could relate to that.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:48 pm:
== The Debtor’s sole shareholder is Barry Saacks, an elderly graphic artist who currently lives in a nursing home. ==
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
That said, this is repulsive.
We’ve got VRI with Quinn and THI with Rauner. Both situations will face significant challenges connecting the dots all the way to the top, but both are bad for this state.
“None of the above” in 2014.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:53 pm:
It is totally possible to do it. Completely possible in 30 or 60 seconds. I get that.
I guess to make myself clearer, as the Ad stands alone, broken down to words and phrases like “bust-out”.
It would need to be “simply; good” in presentation. If it comes at this in an amateur way in content, looks, or execution, the formula on this presentation will be lost.
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:54 pm:
Am I the only one noticing a strange absence of Raunerbots on this thread ?
- Chris - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 12:54 pm:
For all y’all making a big deal that a “Federal Court called it a ‘bust out’ scheme”, here’s the really relevant excerpt:
“The “bust-out” scheme alleged in the complaint—even if not told in the most compelling
fashion—has all the makings of a legal thriller. Of course, it is important to remember it is not
the Court’s job to determine—at the pleading stage—whether the allegations in the complaint are
true or whether they are mostly the work of fiction.”
The Court is MERELY USING THE PLAINTIFF’S LANGUAGE IN ITS UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS. The Court *in NO way* is asserting that it is, in fact, a ‘bust out’–just that the Plaintiff has so alleged, and the meat of the decision is that, IF the Plaintiff *proves* it was a bust out, THEN it is possible that there will be upstream liability.
Handicapping it a bit, it would seem to me that there is a decent chance of transfers to some or all of “THI-Baltimore, FLTCH, FAS, Forman, and Grunstein” being determined to be fraudulent transfers and some or all of the funds distributed to them recaptured into the estate. I doubt that there will be success as it relates to repayment to the secured (key term) lenders GECC and Ventas, and the breach of fiduciary duties are unlikely, too, as the theory of fiduciary responsibility to *unsecured* creditors is pretty weak.
Long story short, even under the most-friendly-to-the-plaintiffs outcome imaginable, this couldn’t *in any way* end up costing Rauner as much as the primary campaign did. Just not plausible.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:01 pm:
== Am I the only one noticing a strange absence of Raunerbots on this thread ? ==
Indeed. Raunerbots must be busy astroturfing under the guise of “grassroots” in other areas.
There are, however, a few recognizable Quinn-ites and Madigan apologists.
They come out of the woodwork depending on the thread. Equal time for all
- countyline - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:02 pm:
-Am I the only one noticing a strange absence of Raunerbots on this thread ?-
No, but the feeding frenzy by the usual cadre of liberals, “progressives” and other lefties was inevitable.
- Give Me A Break - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:03 pm:
“Am I the only one noticing a strange absence of Raunerbots on this thread ? ”
I’m thinking they have outsourced their response.
- Walter Mitty - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:05 pm:
Self imposed ban over… Wrong is wrong… I think this would be earth shattering news wether it is bankruptcy or not… If it were not with PQ’s problems. I think if I had to choose the two problems, I would choose Rauner’s… Too much to try and explain. Hedge fund managers bad… Governor of Illinois under Federal investigation worse… Or maybe we are so used to our Governors being investigated… Either way, will Quinn and team respond in a coherent manner? Time will tell… It’s not an easy case to follow for the average voter… It may have been better for PQ if it came out in a week or two…. The current issues will be tough to come out too hard… It just opens PQ up to more questions as well… Wow…Only in Illinois…Willy for Gov may really take off!!!!
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:12 pm:
–No, but the feeding frenzy by the usual cadre of liberals, “progressives” and other lefties was inevitable.–
Really?
Going back, I read, mostly, “Quinn has trouble, now Rauner has trouble.”
But my sense of victimization may not be as finely tuned.
Also could you break down the distinction among “liberals, “progressives” and other lefties?”
Can’t tell the players without a scorecard.
- FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:17 pm:
I wonder if there will be a honest person who will run for Governor.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:17 pm:
It reads as if the Judge himself questions the truthfulness of the claims, noting that the plaintiffs essentially argue against themselves in another motion. But he’s obligated to assume everything they said in the complaint is true, and can only view it that way for the purpose of this Motion
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:22 pm:
If someone sues me and states in their complaint that I’m guilty of strealing their money because I wore a blue shirt, the question on a Motion to Dismiss is simply “if I was wearing a blue shirt, is that fact enough to support a claim that I stole from the Plaintiff?” It doesn’t matter if, in reality I’ve never worn a blue shirt. That’s a question of fact that can only be decided at trial.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:22 pm:
== No, but the feeding frenzy by the usual cadre of liberals, “progressives” and other lefties was inevitable. ==
countyline - to borrow a fond saying of one of my favorite commenters: You. Are. On. It.
- too obvious - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:28 pm:
I’ve never heard of a federal judge using the “bust out” phrase in an opinion, outside of mob crimes. I’m sure it’s not the first time but it’s unusual. Judge wouldn’t have repeated a term from the complaint if he didn’t think it applied. Judge even chose to highlight the term in one of his own section titles!
Beating a motion to dismiss is a big hurdle in any litigation. Rauner can no longer try to brush the nursing home issue off as “there’s no there there.” Now a federal judge has reviewed in detail and is moving this case forward. This is a huge problem for Rauner and it’s only going to get worse.
- Chris - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:35 pm:
“Judge wouldn’t have repeated a term from the complaint if he didn’t think it applied.”
Really? Based on … what? It’s a key allegation; *not* including–and then granting the motion even to one count as to one defendant–would give the plaintiffs a basis for appeal.
Does a judge get to pick and choose which allegations are deemed ‘proven’ in ruling on the motion to dismiss? What’s the precedent for that?
- countyline - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:38 pm:
Victimization….not seeing it - disagreeing with the dominant political POV on this board is not playing the victim, but it does appear that I hit a nerve. Look in the mirror and you’ll see bits of all 3, ’slinger.
As for Rauner, if he’s guilty, throw the book at him and get him suited up in orange and put him in a cell next to Blago, but until then, he’s all we got - voting none of the above will only get us another 4 years of ineptitude.
- Bored Chairman - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:41 pm:
I vote for James Cromwell to play Rauner in the movie.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:46 pm:
Cromwell is a tad too old.
Bill Hurt would have to get his hair that orange/blonde/gray(?) Rauner has, and is only 10+ years older than Bruce
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 1:52 pm:
Thanks, Countyline. Always bring a lot to the table.
What do you see when you look in the mirror?
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 2:04 pm:
@countyline:
You got all three of them in at once: liberal, progressive and lefty. Partisan hackery achieved for today. Thanks.
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 2:07 pm:
“voting none of the above will only get us another 4 years of ineptitude.”
as opposed to 4 years of a greedy abuser of the innocent and helpless.
- Bored Chairman - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 2:11 pm:
==I’ve never heard of a federal judge using the “bust out” phrase in an opinion, outside of mob crimes. I’m sure it’s not the first time but it’s unusual. Judge wouldn’t have repeated a term from the complaint if he didn’t think it applied. Judge even chose to highlight the term in one of his own section titles!==
Perhaps this means this Judge needs to go back to Judge School. There are plenty of hack judges, even on the federal bench. This sounds like one of them.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 2:11 pm:
Fill in the blanks:
Better with the (Devil, crook, questionable morals/judgment) you know than the (Devil, crook, questionable morals/judgment)you don’t know.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 2:46 pm:
“voting none of the above will only get us another 4 years of ineptitude.”
Not if my “None of the Above” amendment makes it to the ballot!
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 2:46 pm:
== it does appear that I hit a nerve ==
And a sensitive one, at that.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 2:47 pm:
Comment above is a bit harsh. I’d delete it if I could. Apologies.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 2:50 pm:
Gee, my nerves are fine. Countyline, I’ve yet to see you hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo.
But keep trying.
- Rod - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 4:30 pm:
Edgar Jannotta who was a director of GTCR is really the critical linkage that Quinn’s people need to make to Bruce Rauner. Jannotta who retired in 2011 is really the one who executed many of the alleged fraudulent practices at Trans Healthcare, Inc. that may have led to its underfunded situation and then directly to the nursing home deaths. Quinn’s people need to dig up all the golfing pictures, Board meeting photos showing Rauner and Jannotta chumming it up. We already know Jannotta is a contributor to Rauner’s campaign.
Most of the really bad choices that may prove to have been illegal were made directly Jannotta and Rauner needs to be directly linked to those choices by Quinn’s opposition researchers. A good Oppo dump for the media linking these two more closely would be well received.
Lucky Pat needs to throw a card down to get peoples minds off of problems with violence prevention programs and back on to Rauner’s links to nursing homes we would not want are parents placed in.
Illinois politics really are a beautiful thing aren’t they?
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 5:08 pm:
As I’ve said before…now we know what kind of business Brucie intends to run Illinois like….indeed his pension and other anticonsumer and antiworker ideas fit neatly w/ his anti elderly practices.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 6:25 pm:
the venture capitalist can help illinois declare bankrupcy at last ,got my vote
- RNUG - Wednesday, May 7, 14 @ 9:39 pm:
Going to have to amend that pesky Constitution first
- No Longer A Lurker - Thursday, May 8, 14 @ 6:27 am:
@Anonymous 6:25
The state of Illinois cannot claim bankruptcy.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-20/state-cant-declare-bankruptcy.html