Mayor Taylor To Give BOK $7 Mil for Great Plains

[FOTD]

Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions.  Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.

There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.  

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions.  Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.

There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.  

How REASONABLE you sound....

Except, that paying 100% of the Principal owed on the debt is NOT a Settlement.

It is:

A CAPITULATION.

A settlement is:  

Let's Share the Pain.

This is NOT a settlement.

[:O]

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions.  Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.

There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.  

How REASONABLE you sound....

Except, that paying 100% of the Principal owed on the debt is NOT a Settlement.

It is:

A CAPITULATION.

A settlement is:  

Let's Share the Pain.

This is NOT a settlement.

[:O]

Your numbers are wrong. I think the bank forgot interest to the tune of 5 million more. And not knowing the documents, just maybe the bank could have charged a higher default rate.

It is a settled matter.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions.  Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.

There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.  

How REASONABLE you sound....

Except, that paying 100% of the Principal owed on the debt is NOT a Settlement.

It is:

A CAPITULATION.

A settlement is:  

Let's Share the Pain.

This is NOT a settlement.

[:O]

Your numbers are wrong. I think the bank forgot interest to the tune of 5 million more. And not knowing the documents, just maybe the bank could have charged a higher default rate.

It is a settled matter.

Maybe.

The bank got it's Principal back.  

City property owners will pay.

The bank also got maybe a tiny bit of bad publicity.

On balance, who's ahead?

I suspect that eventually someone will file a Qui Tam lawsuit against the Mayor over making the city a party to litigation last week, for which the city was NOT a defendant.

In about five years, we'll get a verdict.

After the city pays about $5 million in her legal expenses.

[FOTD]

Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.

Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.

Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.

She can't draw a salary.

That would mean she'd have to fill out an IRS Form W-4.

And, that would corroborate that she has been a FLORIDA resident since shortly after her inauguration.....

None of her acts have been legal.

NOW, that WOULD keep the City Legal Department very busy!

[:O]

[Chris Medlock]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

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?

Excellent.....*****^

Wonder if Medlock went to TU to work on an A.M. talk show..?

Wonder if he ever finished TU....?

Wonder exactly how he feels he is qualified to tell Tulsa what it should and should not be doing....

When he was on the Council he spent an overabundance of time on the "Great Plains" issue........no smoking gun.. whole lot of fizz and no pop...

When he was touting himself as an alternative to "Bill" he had not finished TU..(clerical error) for sure..

That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.


[]

Congratulations...you have attained full idiot status.

Neal, Baker, Sullivan, Martinson and Christiansen denied us the money we needed to get the paper records.

I was never offered a position in the LaFortune administration, let alone money.

Not a clerical error, my error to not go back and check if the clerk had changed the grade. I took responsibility from day one.

I have the same authority to comment on events as Ken Neal or David Averill. That is to say that a professional media corporation is willing to pay me to do so.

As for you, your a petty dilettante who lacks class.

[Chris Medlock]

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?

The city was NEVER the guarantor. Period.

The 22 acres of land that TAIT put up as a guarantee was improper because using it as collateral was against FAA regulations. Period

BOK had to know the collateral was bogus because they did all the bond indenture work for TAIT and had officers that knew the land couldn't be used. Period.

In fact, the FACT is that it is a FACT that BOK NEVER FILED THE PAPER WORK WITH THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO REGISTER THE 22 ACRES of land as COLLATERAL. Why? Because they KNEW it was bogus. PERIOD.

Tulsa wasn't a party to the loan until Kathy Taylor negotiated with BOK to do so. Period.

Why was BOK and the Mayor of Tulsa working out a settlement for a case between TIA and TAIT?

No speculation here guys...it's all documented fact. Your speculation doesn't make any of this less factual.

[Chris Medlock]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.

Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.

Hmmm...if Kathy Taylor continues to not draw her salary for the next 69 years, the city should just about break even for her borderline malfeasance.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions.  Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.

There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.  

This is Queen Kathy and King Kaiser's turd. The Council didn't negotiate ****. As a matter of fact, the machiavellian maneuvering Da Mare engaged in left the Council no other options but to do her bidding against their will. Why don't you get your facts straight before you mouth off with these insults to our intelligence. Either you are just clueless or an outright liar.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.

Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.

Once again you distort the truth. Do Nancy Segal and Deidre Dexter work for free? Whatever money might have been saved by Queen Kathy not accepting a salary was spent long ago on her ever increasing number of loyal toadies and cronies(many of whom collect six figure salaries) that serve her, not the public, otherwise known as At-Will employees.

BTW, I thought the Mayor had independent counsel work out this deal because of her conflicts of interests with BOK. Maybe that was just a PR move so she could have plausible deniability if she wasn't successful in sneaking this past the public and the **** hit the fan? Either way, she gave birth to this little monster and she needs to claim it. What kind of mother would abandon her newborn like this?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Is this not control? All member appointed by mayor and approved by city council. Authority created by city ordinance and meet at city hall:

Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA)
MEMBERS:    Mayor (or full-time City Employee to serve as designee),
7 Mayoral appointees with Council approval (must be a citizen and resident of Tulsa)

Chair elected by members.
TERM:    5 years, staggered, expiring on March 7
CREATED BY:    TITLE 39, CHAPTER 10
MEETINGS:    Periodically, usually at City Hall.

When you actually read Title 39, Chapter 10, you'll see that after the Mayor and the Mayor's appointments comes Appendix I, which names a Trustor for TIA who's final authorization MUST occur before any TIA action may be taken.

Who is that Trustor?

(HINT: It contains the word "Chamber")

UPDATE: Bonus for anyone who can name all eight Trustees of TIA.

[RecycleMichael]

Wasn't Jim Hewgley, Jr. one of the original trustees?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Wasn't Jim Hewgley, Jr. one of the original trustees?

Appears so, along with K. C. Olinger, John L. O'Brien, Falkner C. Broach,  Clyde C. Cole, Jr., D. E. Frieden, L. Dean Hoye and J. E. Daley.

But, today's current listing of TIA Trustees is more evasive.

Can you name all eight?

[RecycleMichael]

Their meetings are open and their agendas are posted. Have you ever attended one?

Is your idea just to slam them because you can't name the current board?