Darrell McGraw vrs. Wimpy Legislators

McGraw, however, authorized four private law firms in 2001 to file the suit against Purdue Pharma and those firms got $3.3 million of the award.

This is a huge problem that I have with Mr. McGraw, as do many. I don't see how his supporters continually defend this practice.

McGraw repeatedly told Craig he didn't directly represent those agencies, but "represented the state."

Oh, really? When McGraw’s campaign contributors… I mean deputized attorneys… filed the complaint in McDowell County Circuit Court, the Court ruled that the AG didn’t have the standing to file the case. Who did he represent? The case had to be amended and re-filed and clearly showed that he represented a handful of state agencies which had been harmed by Purdue Pharma. For him to deny what he emphatically stated it by amending the case is a lie worthy only of him.

And it wasn’t just that the four agencies in question didn’t get the money – no state agency did. But plaintiff’s attorneys did – they got $3.3 million of it. And what’s more, the director of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Resources said that you and I are going to make up the difference. “In making Medicaid payments to states, the Secretary is required to adjust payments to account for overpayments." McGraw cynically said that it is up to the Legislature to make up any shortfalls. Gues where that comes from? Brother, that’s you and me.

But according to Ziggy, McGraw has raked in billions so it's our duty to make up the shortage.

Aaron wrote:But according to Ziggy, McGraw has raked in billions so it's our duty to make up the shortage.

That's another damned lie, Aaron. I said no such thing. Why do you tell lies when the truth would serve you better?

What I did say is that OC and the Chanber of Commerce and the WV Business &
and Industry Council wouldn't be out gunning for Darrell McGraw if he didn't sue corporate crooks. If McGraw were as doless as his predecessors in the AG's office they'd be pleased as punch with him.

Look you want to fight about folks lying about you, go ahead. Don't ascribe motives to me unless you know what you're talking about.

McGraw said he represented the state and not WVHHR, Workers Comp, and PEIA. I remember he had to name his clients at the outset. Why wouldn't he? Because he doesn't want the scrutiny for violating the ethics canon.

It is true his predecessors didn't sue out-of-state corporations. But then they didn't deny the settlements to the state and deny he represented the aggrieved agencies.

He might as well not sue these corporations. He's costing the taxpayers money and accomplishing nothing except to fool the weak-willed.

It is true his predecessors didn't sue out-of-state corporations. But then they didn't deny the settlements to the state and deny he represented the aggrieved agencies.

He might as well not sue these corporations. He's costing the taxpayers money and accomplishing nothing except to fool the weak-willed.

So would the state have been better off had the AG's office not pursued this settlement- over the objection of the then sitting Democratic governor Caperton?
---------------------

Tobacco Settlement Funds
Another debt-relief measure the Legislature addressed was to agree with Manchin on his plans for tobacco securitization, which means cashing out the state's annual payments from the 1998 master settlement agreement reached between the tobacco industry and the states.

According to the 1998 tobacco agreement, West Virginia was to earn $1.7 billion over 25 years of annual payments, but new litigation brought by the tobacco industry is threatening the very existence of the master settlement agreement, according to the Manchin administration. It is possible the entire settlement could be eliminated because of litigation and problems within the tobacco industry.
If the settlement disappeared, West Virginia would have no recourse to recover the payments.

The House and Senate agreed to create the Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority, which will be in charge of cashing in on the settlement. The transaction will have to generate at least $800 million in proceeds before it can proceed.

The lion's share of proceeds will go to state debt relief.

http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=21321

I was talking about Purdue Pharma.

He settled for $10 million. He paid the attorneys he hired $3.3 million dollars. He frittered away the rest. The federal government is going to withhold whatever they feel was due WVDHHR and, in turn, the federal goverment. The federal government puts up 73 cents of every dollar the state pays in Medicaid. And they want their money back. That McGraw was trying to defraud the federal government is tacitly admitted by McGraw's mouthpiece: “[w]e have arranged a methodology that has prevented the federal government from coming back and seizing the money." Oh, yeah?

The lion's share of the proceeds will go to knicknacks and trinkets. All of the payback will come from the taxpayers.

So would the state have been better off had the AG's office not pursued this settlement- over the objection of the then sitting Democratic governor Caperton?

I brushed off this question. I'm sorry. I owe you an answer.

As a matter of personal responsibility, I disagree with the tobacco litigation. However, the state is undeniably better off as a result of the tobacco settlement.

With regard to the Purdue Pharma, the state is a net loser. A new pharmacy school is a wonderful thing, no doubt. But the state has realized nothing from this suit and stands to lose a great deal.

And, as a seperate matter, there is the question of the huge payout to his campaign contributors among the plaintiffs attorneys appointed to carry out the duties of the Attorney General's office.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:But according to Ziggy, McGraw has raked in billions so it's our duty to make up the shortage.

That's another damned lie, Aaron. I said no such thing. Why do you tell lies when the truth would serve you better?

What I did say is that OC and the Chanber of Commerce and the WV Business & and Industry Council wouldn't be out gunning for Darrell McGraw if he didn't sue corporate crooks. If McGraw were as doless as his predecessors in the AG's office they'd be pleased as punch with him.

And I will state .... that was a damned lie ........ because you know better.

The "gunning" for McGraw has absolutely nothing to do with "suing corporate crooks".

It has everything to do with the "crooked dispersement of the funds by McGraw that were received in the settlement from said lawsuits".

Zigster, why is it that you passionate hate all corporations, calling them all "crooked", ......... but adamently defend and support "government crooks" that violate the Laws and Statutes of the State of West Virginia?

Me thinks you have "sold your soul to any Devil", and could care less how they do it, ....... that will exact retribution on anyone or anything that you passionately hate.

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:But according to Ziggy, McGraw has raked in billions so it's our duty to make up the shortage.

That's another damned lie, Aaron. I said no such thing. Why do you tell lies when the truth would serve you better?

What I did say is that OC and the Chanber of Commerce and the WV Business &
and Industry Council wouldn't be out gunning for Darrell McGraw if he didn't sue corporate crooks. If McGraw were as doless as his predecessors in the AG's office they'd be pleased as punch with him.

That's a damned lie Ziggy. When this was posted earlier and McGraw said he had brougth in billions to the state so the state could make it up, you agreed 100% with him. Keep your lies stright.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:But according to Ziggy, McGraw has raked in billions so it's our duty to make up the shortage.

That's another damned lie, Aaron. I said no such thing. Why do you tell lies when the truth would serve you better?

What I did say is that OC and the Chanber of Commerce and the WV Business &
and Industry Council wouldn't be out gunning for Darrell McGraw if he didn't sue corporate crooks. If McGraw were as doless as his predecessors in the AG's office they'd be pleased as punch with him.

That's a damned lie Ziggy. When this was posted earlier and McGraw said he had brougth in billions to the state so the state could make it up, you agreed 100% with him. Keep your lies stright.

Aaron,

I read through the other thread on this subject, I couldn't find where Ziggy said any such thing.

Once again you are making an accusation. The burden of proof is on you.

I have to tell you all something......this isn't limited to Aaron. It is not my intention to single him out.

As a forum member, as your friend, I'm becoming increasingly dismayed at the increasing attacks on other forum members of being liars. It upsets me most when the charges are waged at someone who isn't part of this new forum to defend themselves, but this upsets me too.

If you're going to call somebody a liar, you ought to be able to back it up. It's a real pet peeve of mine and I just needed to get it off my chest.

I'm really busy. What is the topic name on the thread and I'll find exactly what he said.

And this is my other brother, Darrell...

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I read in the paper yesterday where the Feds are going to withhold 2.5 million Medicare money to the state over the oxycotton settlement. When ask he would be responsible for filling that gap on the money, McCraw told the legislature it would be there job to come up with the funding because he's brought in billions into the state in settlement money.

Well, he has, hasn't he?

You take from this what you like Stephanie. It says exactly what I said it does earlier and as far as I'm concerned proves beyond any doubt that Ziggy is lying here.