* Background is here if you need it. Public finance/muni bonds reporter for Debtwire Municipals…
*** UPDATE 1 *** Press release…
“Illinois taxpayers are so tired of Illinois Policy Institute CEO John Tillman and his named or unnamed partners who seek to profit from trying to tank Illinois’ finances,” said Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza. “This appeal should be laughed out of court the same way the original case was. Remember, that 2017 refinancing I championed saved taxpayers $4-$6 billion and helped businesses across Illinois. It hurt the profit margins of Tillman’s partners.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** The appeal is here.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 12:35 pm:
I strenuously object (exclamation marks)
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 12:41 pm:
At this point, these actions seem to be nothing more than content-generating actions for wirepoints and IPI articles. I use the word content loosely.
Nice to see our court system is being used for such above board purposes by those who still can’t figure out how to win elections.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 1:14 pm:
Interesting that Warlander dropped out.
- low level - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 1:29 pm:
Why did he stop at those GO’s? There have been others, yes? And why couldn’t he find a Chicago resident (taxpayer) to file a similar lawsuit against the City of Chicago which issues GO debt at least once a year?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 1:31 pm:
Tillman is a person who wants to watch the world burn, this appeal is ham-handed especially figuring in the bonds, who owns them, etc…
Tillman helped burn down the ILGOP, now he’s trying to take down the state of Illinois.
My hope is another smack down opinion, the last one was fun.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 4:39 pm:
== now he’s trying to take down the state of Illinois==
I think you meant he’s still trying.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 4:44 pm:
===still===
I let each failed attempt marinate in its own sauce, but I know, you’re not wrong, lol
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 5:37 pm:
I can’t blame Tillman though. It’s the only way he can be “appealing”.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 5:41 pm:
=== I can’t blame Tillman though.===
I give him, each new phony chance, an opportunity to fail miserably. Counting this all as ONE big failure doesn’t give Tillman that chance to be “appealing” and go around to say… silly stuff… again.
Sure, this is a one-trick silly, but it is fun waiting for the payoff from the bench.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 6:01 pm:
Are Tillman’s attorney(s) being paid by the word?
- Morty - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 7:40 pm:
Wasn’t there a guy who was disbarred for filing frivilous lawsuits and basically told he can never file a suit again?
Tillman should join that guy on the list.
- Tawk - Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 9:35 pm:
This section of the appeal is pretty interesting. Why would the state concede this? Isn’t this what the entire case rests on?
//
First, it conceded that, at a minimum, the specific-purposes requirements prohibit delegating discretion to executive branch officials to determine how bond proceeds will be spent:
==The cases that reference—and there’s a lot of cases that refer to this specific objects and specific purpose and they always, always, always, always talk about whether the legislature is essentially granting authority to another body to make those determinations, to offer an opinion as to what the money should be spent on or discretion as to what the money should be spent on. . . . In Peabody [v. Russel, 302 Ill. 111 (1922)] I believe the case was that they had an appropriation that was granted to three different departments of state. . . . And it says the agents of those departments get to decide . . . how these moneys should be spent. So Peabody said no, no, no, that is not a specific object and specific purpose, you are delegating legislative authority, that’s unconstitutional.==
Second, the State conceded that the specific-purposes requirement prohibits the State from borrowing money to facilitate general deficit spending:
==We disagree that the State could just say, I want more money, I’m going to issue these bonds, dump it into the general revenue fund, we’re going to figure out what to do with it later. No, that’s not what we’re saying is allowed. That would be a purpose. It wouldn’t be a specific purpose because it doesn’t say where to go.==
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Dec 5, 19 @ 7:08 am:
Borrowing to pay down overdue accounts sounds specific to me, not “general”. Does Tillman really want to spend all his time and money in court to change the meaning of words?
Maybe he would be better off inventing his own language or learning Klingon or something.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Dec 5, 19 @ 7:34 am:
Also it’s ridiculous that one can separate the merits of the case from a determination that a case is frivolous. A case with no merit IS frivolous. Those two concepts can’t be separated.