Darrell McGraw vrs. Wimpy Legislators

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron, I'm going to let Ziggy defend himself. However, I will say this: I don't think Ziggy is lying. I think you are misinterpreting what he said.

I didn't misinterpret anything said. McGraw said it was the states repsonsibility to make up any shortfall of funding because he's raked in billions. Ziggy aggred with that statement.

In trying to climb out of the hole you put yourself in, you are trying to put words in my words but which I did not say. Where did I "agree with that statement"? Show us.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron, I'm going to let Ziggy defend himself. However, I will say this: I don't think Ziggy is lying. I think you are misinterpreting what he said.

I didn't misinterpret anything said. McGraw said it was the states repsonsibility to make up any shortfall of funding because he's raked in billions. Ziggy aggred with that statement.

In trying to climb out of the hole you put yourself in, you are trying to put words in my words but which I did not say. Where did I "agree with that statement"? Show us.

I already have. Twice.

Aaron wrote:I already have. Twice.

No, all you've given is your spin on it. I never said, nor have I agreed with anyone else who said that the legislature should pay what the feds are asking for because of other dollars McGraw's lawsuits have generated.

I asked if the state is or is not better off for the nearly billion dollar tobacco settlement, and Jimmy seems to agree that it is.

I had earlier asked if it was not correct that McGraw's lawsuits had brought in big bucks. No one has denied that they have.

So again, what have I lied about?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I already have. Twice.

No, all you've given is your spin on it. I never said, nor have I agreed with anyone else who said that the legislature should pay what the feds are asking for because of other dollars McGraw's lawsuits have generated.

I asked if the state is or is not better off for the nearly billion dollar tobacco settlement, and Jimmy seems to agree that it is.

I had earlier asked if it was not correct that McGraw's lawsuits had brought in big bucks. No one has denied that they have.

So again, what have I lied about?

Ziggy and his famous word games.

You agreed with your brother Darrell's statement that the state has to cover short payments by the feds because he's raked in billions. I posted that. You said you didn't say that. I proved you did. Twice.

I also stated what your response would be. It is what I said.

Sell your crap to someone else, I ain't buying it. You said what you said, tried to deny it hence you lied.

Three times now.

Good day!!!

Aaron wrote:Ziggy and his famous word games.

What irony! The wannabe king of spin, hype, and innuendous misrepresentations whines about "word games".

If you can't run with the pack, then stay on the porch.

Stephanie wrote:One of my main issues with this whole drama is I question why, if McGraw's actions are in fact criminal charges are not filed against him? If his management of his office and settlement funds is such gross malfeasance, why haven't steps been taken to impeach him?

Because all they have is political accusations- broadcast daily on local radio and TV stations in ads paid for by the defenders of corporate crime. Those ads have but one purpose- to turn the political "tide" against McGraw. But the corporate sponsors of those current ads are exempt from the "within 60 days of an election" usual campaign laws, and so they get to not only campaign with impunity- but to write it off as part of the costs of doing business. If John Q. and Mary Q. Public tried to do that, they would be fined by the IRS, and maybe even imprisoned.

McGraw knows the law and the Constitution better than his accusers and their audience do- and his accusers know that. So the accusers don't have to actually make their case. All they have to do is create the perception of a case against McGraw.

The state legislature could limit McGraw's legal or alledged illegal activities any time it wants to. And corporate crooks all over would love for the legislature to tie McGraw's hands.

It is telling that McGraw's biggest critics are not the good government citizen groups such as Common Cause or Citizen Action or Public Citizen. His biggest critics are the apologists for corporate crooks. I believe that our friend Jimmy here is a good guy, and is not a crook. But he obviously reads the corporate propaganda sheets.

Is Darrell McGraw obstinate, and sometimes his own worst political enemy? Yep, for sure he is. But that's the way he is- warts and all.

And since McGraw is a politician who willingly puts himself out there for public scrutiny, his critics are immune from the laws relating to libel and such. And so they don't have to actually prove anything. They are just trying to create whatever perception (missperception) it takes to get him off the backs of corporate crooks.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Ziggy and his famous word games.

What irony! The wannabe king of spin, hype, and innuendous misrepresentations whines about "word games".

If you can't run with the pack, then stay on the porch.

LOL...yeah, right dude. I don't run, I lead.

Not only did I prove you wrong and prove your lie, I stated what your cry would be when I did it. Careful of the rocker and that it don't get your shriveled up tail.

I'm not the one whining about "word games" on a public message board.

ziggy wrote:I'm not the one whining about "word games" on a public message board.

Dude, I'm not whining about anything. I figured you out a long time ago. Your BS doesn't work with me.

As for your rant, what a load of horse crapola. Sell that garbage to someone else becasue I don't believe there's anyone stupid enough on this semi-public message board to buy it.

I don't speak for Jimmy but I've never seen anyone on this forum or it's precedessor complaining becasue McGraw's sueing corporations.

I've seen plenty complain about what he does AFTER he gets a settlement but I don't ever recall anyone complaining because he sued big tobacco or over oxy cotton or any other business.

My complaint on this thread (see post #2) was that he GAVE $3.3million dollars of taxpayers money to lawyers. I stated that I don't see how his supportes can defend that.

You've whined about me and OC, cried about poor Darrell and how his detractors are out to get him because he sues big business but you've yet to defend him GIVING our money away. Care to stop crying about things that have never been said and defend that!!!

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:I'm not the one whining about "word games" on a public message board.

Dude, I'm not whining about anything. I figured you out a long time ago. Your BS doesn't work with me.

As for your rant, what a load of horse crapola. Sell that garbage to someone else becasue I don't believe there's anyone stupid enough on this semi-public message board to buy it.

I don't speak for Jimmy but I've never seen anyone on this forum or it's precedessor complaining becasue McGraw's sueing corporations.

I've seen plenty complain about what he does AFTER he gets a settlement but I don't ever recall anyone complaining because he sued big tobacco or over oxy cotton or any other business.

My complain on this thread was that he GAVE $3.3million dollars of taxpayers money to lawyers. I stated that I don't see how his supportes can defend that.

You've whined about me and OC, cried about poor Darrell and how his detractors are out to get him because he sues big business but you've yet to defend him GIVING our money away. Care to stop crying about things that have never been said and defend that!!!

So your complaint about McGraw is that he subcontracted some legal work? Or is it the amount those subcontractors were compensated?
Do you think he is the only, or even the first, AG to use special prosecutors?

Aaron wrote:

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.

My complain on this thread was that he GAVE $3.3million dollars of taxpayers money to lawyers. I stated that I don't see how his supportes can defend that.

The corporate propagandists have long had the agenda of discrediting a percentage fee for plaintiff's lawyers- ALL plaintiffs' lawyers. That's because they know that if plaintiffs can't pay their lawyers, that lawsuits won't be filed. There is nothing illegal- nor even unethical- about lawyers working on a percentage of funds recovered.

And of course the corporations would rather be sued by a plaintiff with lawyers who are salaried AG staff lawyers- and who do not have the resources to compete against the multi-million dollar corporate defense lawyers- than by plaintiffs' lawyers who actually know how to prove corporate crimes.

Stephanie wrote:
So your complaint about McGraw is that he subcontracted some legal work? Or is it the amount those subcontractors were compensated?
Do you think he is the only, or even the first, AG to use special prosecutors?

Are you defending him GIVING away $3.3million of tax payer dollars away?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

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.

The corporate propagandists have long had the agenda of discrediting a percentage fee for plaintiff's lawyers. That's because they know that if plaintiffs can't pay their lawyers, that lawsuits won't be filed. There is nothing illegal- nor even unethical- about lawyers working on a percentage of funds recovered.

And of course the corporations would rather be sued by a plaintiff with lawyers who are salaried AG staff lawyers- and who do not have the resources to compete against the multi-million dollar corporate defense lawyers- than by plaintiffs' lawyers who actually know how to prove corporate crimes.

Bullsh!t!!!!!

This ain't a car wreck and the state of WV don't need Danny Cline to get us the money we deserve!!!

I'm not the least bit suprised you defend this type of garbage.

And I'm not the least bit surprrised that the corporate crime industry would rather be up against lawyers that don't have the resources to prove corporate crimes.

Do you really believe that some $50,000 AG staff lawyer with maybe one secretary can compete against corporate law firms with virtually unlimited resorces at their disposal?

ziggy wrote:And I'm not the least bit surprrised that the corporate crime industry would rather be up against lawyers that don't have the resources to prove corporate crimes.

Do you really believe that some $50,000 AG staff lawyer with maybe one secretary can compete against corporate law firms with virtually unlimited resorces at their disposal?

The lawyer's not the question. If he can't do the job then he shouldn't have the job. That's simple. The support staff is the question. You can contract a hell of a lot of paralegals and support staff for a hell of a lot less then



With guys like you running our government for the past 70+ years, it's no wonder we're in the mess we are!!!

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
So your complaint about McGraw is that he subcontracted some legal work? Or is it the amount those subcontractors were compensated?
Do you think he is the only, or even the first, AG to use special prosecutors?

Are you defending him GIVING away $3.3million of tax payer dollars away?

Why is that GIVING money away but if the state DOT subcontracts road work that's acceptable? Just how big do you want our state government to be? Various state departments regularly subcontract work, the AG's office sure isn't the first in that regard.

Legal work is very expensive and if the AG's office didn't have litigators with the skills and experience required to be successful in this suit, then he was wise to contract it out.

I seem to recall you stating you were some kind of math whiz in another thread. You "visualize" algebraic equations, or whatever it is you think you can do. It shouldn't be difficult for you to "visualize" that 2/3's of $10 million is a whole lot more than 100% of nothing.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
So your complaint about McGraw is that he subcontracted some legal work? Or is it the amount those subcontractors were compensated?
Do you think he is the only, or even the first, AG to use special prosecutors?

Are you defending him GIVING away $3.3million of tax payer dollars away?

Why is that GIVING money away but if the state DOT subcontracts road work that's acceptable? Just how big do you want our state government to be? Various state departments regularly subcontract work, the AG's office sure isn't the first in that regard.

Legal work is very expensive and if the AG's office didn't have litigators with the skills and experience required to be successful in this suit, then he was wise to contract it out.

I seem to recall you stating you were some kind of math whiz in another thread. You "visualize" algebraic equations, or whatever it is you think you can do. It shouldn't be difficult for you to "visualize" that 2/3's of $10 million is a whole lot more than 100% of nothing.

See previous response!!!

Seems you'd fit right in with those running this state for the past 70+ years.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:And I'm not the least bit surprrised that the corporate crime industry would rather be up against lawyers that don't have the resources to prove corporate crimes.

Do you really believe that some $50,000 AG staff lawyer with maybe one secretary can compete against corporate law firms with virtually unlimited resorces at their disposal?

The lawyer's not the question. If he can't do the job then he shouldn't have the job. That's simple. The support staff is the question. You can contract a hell of a lot of paralegals and support staff for a hell of a lot less then

3.3 FREAKING MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

With guys like you running our government for the past 70+ years, it's no wonder we're in the mess we are!!!

Keep rolling your eyes. Aaron, do you think that the most skilled and talented attorneys are going to work for $50k a year? At that rate some of lawyers wouldn't pay off their student loans by the time their children are in college.

You get what you pay for. Lawyers with great skills and abilities in this type of litigation are not on state payrolls. They make big bucks because they are successful, so they earn it.

If the AG's office didn't receive assistance in cases against big industry such as coal, tobacco, and the insurance industries, the people would never have adequate representation. These corporations have extremely deep pockets and will spend till it hurts to avoid a judgement against them. The only way a small state with minimal resources can ever hope to compete is by subcontracting the work to highly skilled lawyers willing to work on a contingency basis.

Stephanie wrote:Keep rolling your eyes.

Stephanie wrote:You get what you pay for.

If McGraw's not competant enough to lead a team of associate lawyers, parelegals and support staff that can be had for a HELL OF A LOT LESS then



then he's got no business being our AG, don't you agree!!!

I'm done attempting to reason, or explain anything to Aaron. I have more success with my 16 y/o cat and much more intelligent feedback than this:

See previous response!!!

LOL...yeah, right. This from the lady that had to have Cato tell her that I'm not in favor of entitlements.



See you in 10 days. I'm going to Florida!!!

Legal work is very expensive and if the AG's office didn't have litigators with the skills and experience required to be successful in this suit, then he was wise to contract it out.

And even wiser to contract it out to his contributors. If you don't pay, you don't play.

ohio county wrote:

Legal work is very expensive and if the AG's office didn't have litigators with the skills and experience required to be successful in this suit, then he was wise to contract it out.

And even wiser to contract it out to his contributors. If you don't pay, you don't play.

If indeed he did contract out to his campaign contributors, Jimmy, I would agree that wasn't a good thing to do, and I'd rather he hadn't done that. Do you know which specifc law firm he contracted out to?

"I don't speak for Jimmy but I've never seen anyone on this forum or it's precedessor complaining becasue McGraw's sueing corporations."

Well guys I apologize for jumping in the middle of an ongoing discussion.

But I am gone so much I have to jump in in the middle if I want to spout off.

I fear some well meaning folks are being hoodwinked, as evidenced by Aaron's post alluded to above.

The goal of this organized campaign against McGraw is precisely that - to prevent him from suing or otherwise holding to account these big money bandits and corporate ne'er-do-wells.

Remember when Darrell was right up front in the initial effort to hold the tobacco companies accountable?

They went all out to prevent his participation and they got the full capitulation of then Governor Caperton and the full Legislature. Both parties.

They declared the whole suit groundless and crazy and declared Darrell crazyand it was a waste of money, yada yada.

But when he persisted despite all their opposition and got a huge settlement from Big Tobacco, they were all right there with their hand out wanting to divvie up the loot.

The facts are out there for anyone who wants to check.

http://darrellmcgraw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=9

He is a thorn in their side and they want to discredit him any way they can, and their toadies and Uncle Toms in the Legislature can be brought on board cheap.

Do you know which specifc law firm he contracted out to?

Yes, it is a matter of public record. On a previous thread I indicated that he appointed M. Eric Frankovitch and Carl Simon to get information from Leviton and Cooper Industries that they were unable to obtain in their own litigation against them. Which case causes your indignation? He's spread the joy around and in every case, the appointees are his campaign contributors.