Mayor Taylor To Give BOK $7 Mil for Great Plains

[cannon_fodder]

Swake:

A "couple million" in legal fees is absurd.  This is a fairly straight forward case, certainly not requiring some 10,000 hours of lawyer time.  And why do you say we "probably would not win" when the cause of action is "unjust enrichment" and we (the City of Tulsa) hold not riches?   A precursory look at the case has issues that are not so clear cut in either direction.

That said, offering to pay the FULL amount is not settling a case, it's just handing over the money.

This situation is far too complex for citizens like us, who pay attention to fully understand:  
Why was Tulsa not named in the original suit?
Why were we added?  
Who has interests in this transaction (other than the counsel, the mayor, the city attorney, failed businessmen, the local newspaper, a local billionaire, and a large company)?  
Was the underlying transaction legal (apperently not)?
What are our legal responsibilities likely to be?  
If we don't owe the money, SHOULD we pay it and if so... why?  
Who are the actual parties (City, BOk, TAA, TIA?)?

I'm trying to figure it out, and don't have the answers to most of those questions.  I can not say if we owe the money, and if we don't - on what basis we should pay it.  This is not a matter against Kaiser nor BOk, they are supposed to look out for themselves... my concern is with the City.  

As a citizen, I expect full disclosure and transparency.  I think we deserve a closer look and full information on this matter before we hand over $7mil (or 25% of the public funding for a new downtown stadium).

I also think all the chest puffing about who has the furthest reach casts all parties in a bad light.  Move on please.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

AOX, no one argued that Kaiser and his Family Foundation nor that BOk has not done a lot for this community.  I have extolled his virtuous giving many times.  

But the argument "George Kaiser gives lots of money to Tulsa, so lets give lots of money to him" is not a winning argument.  Sorry.  Not only is not sound logic, this matter is a legal matter... the city can not give million to whomever it deems worthy.

Then there is philanthropy and business, his philanthropy to the city should not be tied to our willingness to give him $7 million, or it really isn't philanthropy.  If he steps up and blackmails the city for $7mil he should get it - he's worth it to the community.  BUT, if that's what's going on then my opinion of him would hcange drastically.  

If you actually read, above I indicated a compromise if he was interested in philanthropy which would see the money essentially returned to the city with the benefits still given to BOk. Nothing like that was discussed that I am aware of.  BOk added Tulsa to the suit and we nearly instantly handed over the entire sum they asked for.

For the record, $7,100,000.00 is not a small amount.  It is what the average Tulsan makes in about 160 years of working.  If it is a trivial matter, why would a multi billion dollar company care, or why don't you just pay it off?  Time to step to the plate.

AND, I want full disclosure.  What relationships do you have here because your "give the money to the rich and screw it" position is contrary to your normal banter.  I'm operating on the assumption that either you or someone close to you will personal bennefit from this.  Your comments have lacked rationale for your position - "he's nice so pay him $7mil" notwithstanding.

The promoters of Great Plains Airlines, who have all left town by now, had pitched their "Direct Flights to the Coasts" deal to 2nd tier cities like Wichita and Tulsa.  

All the other cities had the sense to turn them down.

Then, the promoters used a network of gifted grifters to garner $30 million in State Tax Credits courtesy of their lobbyist Martha Erling Frette.

Then, got TAIT to pledge 22 acres of land right in the heart of the airport to the bank.

Then, in exchange for $600K in free advertising, they made World Publishing Co. the largest equity owner of GPA, despite today's Tulsa World's repeated Half-Truth that World Publishing only owned 3% of the shares.  

PREFERRED shares are not counted the same way as the common stock.  

Repeat:  The World Publishing company was the single largest equity owner of the airlines.  And, that ownership interest bought GPA many, many favorable "news" articles right up to the point when the airline crashed.

WHY didn't anyone exercise some adult leadership over the promoters when the first planes they acquired, they leased two airplanes that were incapable of flying non-stop to either coast.  

THAT was a serious RED FLAG.

In a Banana Republic like Tulsa, a few immensely rich families like the Lortons, the Helmerichs, the Kaisers, the Warrens, the Siegfrieds, the Flints, the Rooneys, and the Schusterman's have an influence far, far in excess of what is healthy for what we mistakenly persist in calling our "democracy".

It isn't really a democracy.

It is a Banana Republic.  

It only has the edifices of a democracy:

Elections.  

Courts.  

Judges.  

These ruling Oligarch families select our political leaders, the Mayor and a majority of our city councilors.

Their paid paladins like Cameron and Reynolds populate our city boards, commisions and authorities (like TAIT, TMUA, TARE, TIA, TDA, etc.), doing their bidding, and breaking our backs with bad, bad deals like the Trash-to- Energy Plant, clean water piped at cost to subsidize development of our suburbs, Great Plains Airlines, an arena sole-sourced to the Flint-Rooney Oligarchia Familias, etc., etc., etc.

Very scarily, they also select our District and Federal Court judges.

Newly appointed Federal judge Gregory Frizzell is Senator Inhofe's "dear" friend.  

Really scary if you are foolish enough or unlucky enough to have a legal tangle with the local Oligarchia Familias.

Their wholly-owned District Judge Jane Wiseman, took all of FIVE minutes to rule that a log-rolled 2003 Vision 2025 ballot, that figuratively sugar-coated voter rat poison, was actually not a log-rolled ballot.

Don't believe your eyes.  Believe the judge.

Dear Judge Wiseman's reward:  

Shortly thereafter, rewarded with a state Appellant Judgeship.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of Tulsa.

[:O]

If you really dislike Tulsa so much, please  move.  

You and some others are such children.  You used this issue against LaFortune to no avail and now you are doing it again.  It's obstructionist nonsense.

Judge Wiseman is one of the better legal minds we have.  She's respected by pretty much everyone -- liberal, conservative, defense, plaintiff, you name it.  They all love her.

Beyond that, you are pretty wrong with your timeline.  The V2025 vote was in the fall of '03; Judge Wiseman was appointed to the Court of Civil Appeals in late summer '04.  At the time she had been on the bench for over 20 years.  She had applied for the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  This was a well deserved promotion a long time coming.

If I remember right, the criticism on here was that she didn't write out an opinion on the infamous logjammin' case.  Newsflash: Tulsa County judges almost always give oral opinions or simply write "motion denied."  If it was such a horrible law, then go appeal it.

To insult her is such a disgrace.  There aren't many better families out there.  You have ZERO credibility.

Judge Frizzell is also a very talented judge.  You don't get that appointment without being a first rate legal mind.  He's a gentleman, something you are not, sir.

Beyond that, your Banana Republic diatribe is so silly.  If Tulsa really is an oligarchy, why did Kathy Taylor run against Bill LaFortune?  Someone get mad over a game of gold at Southern Hills?

You know what we have in Tulsa?  A whole lot of potential that gets blocked by splintered interest groups and others in power who just have bad ideas (Downtown Tulsa Unlimited, Randi Miller).  If you all would get past the conspiracy nonsense and do something other than post on message boards, maybe we'd have something.  But as it stands, it's a waste of talent attacking some of the real talent we have in the city.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Swake:

A "couple million" in legal fees is absurd.  This is a fairly straight forward case, certainly not requiring some 10,000 hours of lawyer time.  And why do you say we "probably would not win" when the cause of action is "unjust enrichment" and we (the City of Tulsa) hold not riches?   A precursory look at the case has issues that are not so clear cut in either direction.

That said, offering to pay the FULL amount is not settling a case, it's just handing over the money.

This situation is far too complex for citizens like us, who pay attention to fully understand:  
Why was Tulsa not named in the original suit?
Why were we added?  
Who has interests in this transaction (other than the counsel, the mayor, the city attorney, failed businessmen, the local newspaper, a local billionaire, and a large company)?  
Was the underlying transaction legal (apperently not)?
What are our legal responsibilities likely to be?  
If we don't owe the money, SHOULD we pay it and if so... why?  
Who are the actual parties (City, BOk, TAA, TIA?)?

I'm trying to figure it out, and don't have the answers to most of those questions.  I can not say if we owe the money, and if we don't - on what basis we should pay it.  This is not a matter against Kaiser nor BOk, they are supposed to look out for themselves... my concern is with the City.  

As a citizen, I expect full disclosure and transparency.  I think we deserve a closer look and full information on this matter before we hand over $7mil (or 25% of the public funding for a new downtown stadium).

I also think all the chest puffing about who has the furthest reach casts all parties in a bad light.  Move on please.

Absurd? Tulsa spent more two million on representation in the Black Officers lawsuit and then had to pay another amount well in excess of two million for the plaintiff's fees when the city lost.

And while the city specifically may not have been named, TIA was, and TIA is a governmental authority created and controlled by the city to administer city property. TIA is part of city government and when TIA is named in a lawsuit, the city is being sued.

[cannon_fodder]

What's your opinion on paying the funds Gold? I'm not proposing a grand conspiracy, just that when dolling out $7mil in public funds I'd like it to be a little more clear.  Having expressed confidence in the legal system (on which I agree) and your doubt of the ruling oligarchy, I'd be interested to get your take.

[sgrizzle]

Oh, and "greedy" Kaiser donated another $25M to Tulsa today, just FYI.

[tim huntzinger]

Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Swake:

A "couple million" in legal fees is absurd.  This is a fairly straight forward case, certainly not requiring some 10,000 hours of lawyer time.  And why do you say we "probably would not win" when the cause of action is "unjust enrichment" and we (the City of Tulsa) hold not riches?   A precursory look at the case has issues that are not so clear cut in either direction.

That said, offering to pay the FULL amount is not settling a case, it's just handing over the money.

This situation is far too complex for citizens like us, who pay attention to fully understand:  
Why was Tulsa not named in the original suit?
Why were we added?  
Who has interests in this transaction (other than the counsel, the mayor, the city attorney, failed businessmen, the local newspaper, a local billionaire, and a large company)?  
Was the underlying transaction legal (apperently not)?
What are our legal responsibilities likely to be?  
If we don't owe the money, SHOULD we pay it and if so... why?  
Who are the actual parties (City, BOk, TAA, TIA?)?

I'm trying to figure it out, and don't have the answers to most of those questions.  I can not say if we owe the money, and if we don't - on what basis we should pay it.  This is not a matter against Kaiser nor BOk, they are supposed to look out for themselves... my concern is with the City.  

As a citizen, I expect full disclosure and transparency.  I think we deserve a closer look and full information on this matter before we hand over $7mil (or 25% of the public funding for a new downtown stadium).

I also think all the chest puffing about who has the furthest reach casts all parties in a bad light.  Move on please.

Absurd? Tulsa spent more two million on representation in the Black Officers lawsuit and then had to pay another amount well in excess of two million for the plaintiff's fees when the city lost.

And while the city specifically may not have been named, TIA was, and TIA is a governmental authority created and controlled by the city to administer city property. TIA is part of city government and when TIA is named in a lawsuit, the city is being sued.

Wrong, TIA is NOT controled by the City of Tulsa, nor is it a 'governmental' entity or have any authority to control city property.

Tulsa is, however, declared the benefactor of TIA, but that doesn't obligate the city to whatever TIA does.

Besides all that, TIA was also not named, it is the Plaintiff in its' own suit against TAIT, originally, and, as of last week, the City of Tulsa (by Ms. Kitty's voluntary placement).

I have the distinct feeling you don't understand all the circumstances here.

What it boils down to is the Mayor had to make this payment to prevent someone, or more, from going to jail. The final piece of the cover they've been working to complete for four years.

Now they hope it just goes away.

But,we have have questions.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?

If I'm correct (speculation warning), BOK has already been paid by TIA, who was the last in the chain of obligation to BOK for those funds.

So, what the Mayor did was reimburse TIA, not BOK.

There is no suit by BOK against anyone for any of these funds.

Brash dare: Prove me wrong.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?

Because the state by law has to match his $25 million making it $50 million and that $50 million in local higher education will make more a long term difference than this $7 million ever could in a city budget of over $550 million dollars.

So, he just today gave Tulsa a donation that will with state matching funds be nine times more money than what the seven million will cost. Is there anyone that thinks that is a bad deal?

[Wrinkle]

BTW, barring any unreported activity over the weekend, today would be the last day the offer of settlement remains valid. However, our Council did not approve the 'emergency' nature of the claim, meaning it's passage would not take effect for 30 days, around July 27th.

As such, no funds should be transferred out of our Sinking Fund on this date, or until at least the 27th of July.

If there are, more rules have been broken.

And, in legal terms, I'd guess the settlement offer expires unfulfilled at midnight tonight. Or should.

Case reopened.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?

Hard as it may be to grasp, Kaiser and BOK are two seperate entities. Not-so-Great Plains Airlines is a big black eye for BOK in front of their stockholders. BOK cannot be shown to be a business to put Tulsa ahead of BOK. Writing off a huge loan without persuing every avenue or receiving even the smallest (7M) token would be seen as misdirection of the company.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?

Because the state by law has to match his $25 million making it $50 million and that $50 million in local higher education will make more a long term difference than this $7 million ever could in a city budget of over $550 million dollars.

So, he just today gave Tulsa a donation that will with state matching funds be nine times more money than what the seven million will cost. Is there anyone that thinks that is a bad deal?

You really don't get it, do you?

[FOTD]

TIA was the first socialist endeavor by the City and The Chamber in a joint venture that went down the tubes.....there will be others. And these too will pick the tax payer pocket.

Swake.....mutually exclusive events. But big picture non the less.....

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?

Because the state by law has to match his $25 million making it $50 million and that $50 million in local higher education will make more a long term difference than this $7 million ever could in a city budget of over $550 million dollars.

So, he just today gave Tulsa a donation that will with state matching funds be nine times more money than what the seven million will cost. Is there anyone that thinks that is a bad deal?

You really don't get it, do you?

Oh, I get it. The city of Tulsa owed $7 million dollars and paid it (or agreed to pay it) last week. This week Kaiser and his foundation not only gave back the $7 million, he added another $18 million to it, and donated the money in such a fashion that the state has to match what he donated bringing the total to $50 million.

I don't exactly have $7 million laying around, but if I had $7,000 and someone told me that if I gave them my $7,000 they would give me back $50,000 I would make that deal every day of the week, unless of course the deal was outlined in an e-mail from Nigeria.

I don't think you get "it"

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.  

I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.

If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.

Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?

A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?

A lot of probablies and maybes.

Okay, so let's say it's the "right thing" for the city to repay the debt plus a lot of "if'ns & buts".

The way the law works, not probably, not maybe is:  You have committed fraud when you put up collateral for a loan which is not yours to put up.  If it's a big enough deal, it results in prison time.

How do you feel about Dick Stupidity, Esq. and other co-conspirators walking away with total immunity on this one while they left us holding the bag for BOK?  Fine, pay back BOK who does have some redress under the law, but apply the same redress to the citizens of Tulsa so we can subrogate liability to Stupidity's EOI company.

Meh, who cares, $7mm?  It's not like it was our money or anything.

With fraud you have to prove intent to defraud and proving intent is can be very difficult. Look at all the money that has been spent on Great Plains trying to find fraud.  

Let's try another example. Flooding. You have a mortgage on your home. This is a securitized loan. Your home is destroyed by flood and you do not carry flood insurance. Your debt to the mortgage company is not erased simply because the property used to secure the loan no longer exists. You still have to pay. The city of Tulsa will have to as well.

Now, about going after the former TIA attorney for malpractice. I don't know what the city would stand to gain here. The attorney's mistake didn't create the debt, so I would say that he is not responsible for the debt. He made a (bad) mistake on how a loan was guaranteed. The city owes the debt either way, so from what I can tell the injured party is not the city here, it's Bank of Oklahoma, he could be liable for damages to the bank, but not the city. The city got the loan it wanted and the city is not injured by paying a loan it agreed to. How exactly would it work for the city to sue the attorney because the city was forced to repay a debt it agreed to guarantee?

Simple, the bank wouldn't have made a loan that large without security of some sort in the first place.  Had the opinion been the land could not be used for security, there likely would not have been a debt in the first place.  A lot of people made errant decisions on this deal which has led to the point we are at now.  Dick Stupidity, Esq. made an error or omission on his opinion, that's what EOI is for.  It's to protect those harmed by it.  

I'd like to think that GPA would have survived had it been started at another point in time, but that's neither here nor there.  It failed and there was incompetence in the management of it and in the city becoming a co-guarantor.

In lending law, it's not necessary to prove intent.  One example: Open a credit account, charge it up and file bankruptcy within 90 days of the last charge or advance.  It's fraud if the debtor fails to reaffirm the debt or surrender the collateral.  Another example: put up someone else's property which is not yours to encumber and represent it as being legally yours to encumber: it's fraud.  Third example, representing a bogus financial condition on a credit application.  No questions asked, no intent is considered.  It's pretty black-and-white in lending.