Darrell McGraw vrs. Wimpy Legislators

A budget presentation turned into a back-and-forth joust between legislators and state Attorney General Darrell McGraw, who persistently defended his office's handling of settlement monies in recent years.

In another skirmish in the ongoing battle between the Legislature and McGraw, members of the House Finance Committee told the attorney general he was violating the state Constitution by not allowing lawmakers to appropriate funds his office receives from lawsuit settlements.

Delegate Kevin Craig, D-Cabell, also grilled McGraw on why various state agencies that aided the attorney general in the Purdue Pharma case didn't receive any of the $10 million in settlement funds.

Craig asked McGraw why the Public Employees Insurance Agency, the old Workers' Compensation Fund and the Department of Health and Human Resources weren't awarded restitution.

"From what I've been told, they were not consulted on the settlement agreement as they should've been by the attorney general prior to the settlement," Craig said at the meeting.

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

The money at issue was garnered from a 2004 settlement with Purdue Pharma, the makers of the highly addictive painkiller OxyContin.

McGraw's office received the $10 million in four installments and doled it out mostly to county day report centers around the state and for a new pharmacy school at the private University of Charleston.

Apparently unsatisfied with McGraw's response to his question when asked the first few times, Craig continued to press him on why ……………………………………….

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200802130283

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.

Aaron wrote:

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.

McGraw has brought in billions in settlement money to the state. What is Ziggy lying about, exactly?

The state hasn't received any of it beyond the tobacco settlement.

I think we all get too excited when we accuse each other of lying. It lacks class and looks like an act of desperation.

Stephanie wrote:McGraw has brought in billions in settlement money to the state. What is Ziggy lying about, exactly?

Ziggy said he didn't say that. He did in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, that is his lie. You're a fairly smart young lady. I don't understand how you fail to see that from the post.

Now what he will say is that he didn't say that, he merely agree with what I stated. For the record, I consider his word games lies.

ohio county wrote:The state hasn't received any of it beyond the tobacco settlement.

I think we all get too excited when we accuse each other of lying. It lacks class and looks like an act of desperation.

That's a damadable misrepsentation of a lie that is just not true Jimmy.

Ziggy does not excite me.

ohio county wrote:
I think we all get too excited when we accuse each other of lying. It lacks class and looks like an act of desperation.

Thank you, Jimmy. I knew you'd get my comments.

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.

Ziggy does not excite me.

You got me. He ain't doing much for me either.

I know this issue is big for me. I see blatant malfeasance here and I think it is apparent. That it is not to some folks is exasperating to me. I've had to back off a couple times to avoid saying something I'll regret later. Maybe you guys can put it in better perspective than I can. I don't think anybody here is consciously telling any lies.

ohio county wrote:

Ziggy does not excite me.

You got me. He ain't doing much for me either.

I know this issue is big for me. I see blatant malfeasance here and I think it is apparent. That it is not to some folks is exasperating to me. I've had to back off a couple times to avoid saying something I'll regret later. Maybe you guys can put it in better perspective than I can. I don't think anybody here is consciously telling any lies.

Jimmy,

I am well aware that it frustrates you beyond words that I don't view this in the same light as you do. I wish I knew what to say about that. I'm really going to have to set aside some time and investigate this issue and McGraw himself in greater detail.

On the surface, from the news accounts I've read etc, I just don't have a problem with what he has done or what he is doing. I understand that you and many others do and I respect that.

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? There are remedies if either situation is true.

On the other hand, if the real problem is that many citizens and legislators don't approve of the way McGraw is handling these lawsuits and the funds they generate, the answer is vote him out of office. So far I don't feel the way you do, but I promise I will give it greater attention next week. I'll likely be too busy to this weekend.

Another of my primary concerns is that the legislature is going to attempt to hamstring that office. I don't want to see it come to pass where the AG doesn't have discretion to negotiate settlements as he or she sees fit. Whether McGraw is incompetent, or a crook, or the devil himself, he will only be in office for a limited amount of time. He cannot hold that office forever. I would hate to see discontent over this particular AG, or over the way this AG handles specific aspects of that office, lead to permanent changes that may be counterproductive.

However, if after a more careful examination I still disagree with you, don't think I won't tell you. We think so much alike on so many issues. If we don't disagree once in a while it will be too freaky for words, my friend.
This McGraw thing does bother me too, you know. Whenever I disagree with you I always second guess myself not just because we think alike so much on political issues, but also because of my enormous respect for your integrity and intellect.

Praise indeed. Thank you. You should be very proud and gratified by the amount of traffic here this morning. I don't have much of a problem reminding myself that if this weren't here I'd be just another republican shill at the Herald-Dispatch.

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. When I pointed that out, he said he didn't say that. I hardly see how I'm 'misinterpreting' anything.

ohio county wrote:Praise indeed. Thank you. You should be very proud and gratified by the amount of traffic here this morning. I don't have much of a problem reminding myself that if this weren't here I'd be just another republican shill at the Herald-Dispatch.

It's well deserved praise, indeed. You're a classy guy. It isn't just that we agree, I really like your style.

I've had a couple of forum members thank me for setting this up, saying they'd be totally insane without it, etc. There was no altrusim involved, I assure you. It was strictly self preservation.