Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Three different ways of looking at the same situation
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Open thread
Posted in:
* Background is here if you need it. Public finance/muni bonds reporter for Debtwire Municipals…
“At the petition stage, the trial court was tasked with determining solely whether these arguments are ‘frivolous or malicious’ or ‘otherwise unjustified,’’ the appeal argues. “Tillman briefed his arguments accordingly. Yet the court ignored this limited standard of review and +
— Caitlin Devitt (@Caitlindevitt) December 4, 2019
Tillman's favor that the 2003 and 2017 GO bonds violate state constitution bc were essentially deficit financing. hedge fund Warlander, which had joined Tillman in original complaint, is not to be found on this appeal. The hedgie's involvement sparked controversy bc +
— Caitlin Devitt (@Caitlindevitt) December 4, 2019
it would profit from default as it owns credit default swaps on state's GOs.
State has 35 days to respond. Hearing not expected til spring 2020. #muniland #twill— Caitlin Devitt (@Caitlindevitt) December 4, 2019
*** 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.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 12:06 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Three different ways of looking at the same situation
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Open thread
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I strenuously object (exclamation marks)
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 12:35 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.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 12:41 pm
Interesting that Warlander dropped out.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 1:14 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?
Comment by low level Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 1:29 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.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 1:31 pm
== now he’s trying to take down the state of Illinois==
I think you meant he’s still trying.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 4:39 pm
===still===
I let each failed attempt marinate in its own sauce, but I know, you’re not wrong, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 4:44 pm
I can’t blame Tillman though. It’s the only way he can be “appealing”.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 5:37 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.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 5:41 pm
Are Tillman’s attorney(s) being paid by the word?
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 6:01 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.
Comment by Morty Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 7:40 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.==
Comment by Tawk Wednesday, Dec 4, 19 @ 9:35 pm
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.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Dec 5, 19 @ 7:08 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.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Dec 5, 19 @ 7:34 am