Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Did you read your post? Because the one I responded to was four words.
At least you've made it clear what you're actually arguing, that GWI thinks it's illegal and therefore it is. Humorous really, one side says it's illegal, one side says it's legal, both have legal opinions backing their stance (although one sides come from outside legal counsel and one is doing it in house and has an agenda, although that doesn't change the fact that either could be right) and yet you have decided that GWI is correct. Any particular reason why that argument is so clearly correct? You're well versed in Arizona's gift clause law I assume? Get your LLM in it?
|
... you're kidding, right? I said "And it's illegal. Again." and quoted the article snippit about the $50 million in bonds, and because you somehow failed to extrapolate the context in which I was saying it, now I'm the one to blame? I'm positive you didn't just start reading the thread two pages ago. This point has been brought up repeatedly.
Any reason why I think GWI is right? Well, clearly there wouldn't be so much trouble surrounding these bonds if someone could confidently come out and definitively say they are within the confines of the law. And I don't think the GWI would be putting the time and resources into this that they are if it wasn't illegal. You can see that Glendale is acting from a position of desperation, and you can't say it's unheard of for governments to bend/break the rules when push comes to shove. Only this time, someone is keeping them in check, and Glendale doesn't like it very much.
Yeah, actually, I did get my LLM in the State of Arizona. Twice. I was going to do it three times and then decided that it's a completely ridiculous sentiment to argue that "You don't have a law degree, therefore your opinion is invalid" when you're having a discussion on a message board that, if lucky, has no more practicing lawyers on it than you could count on one hand.