Taxpayer-rights organization “Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes” has won another round in its lawsuit against the state of Texas:
The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the State of Texas appeal of the CLOUT Lawsuit filed by Edd Hendee as reported by the lead counsel on the case today, Gary Polland. The State of Texas claim, offered by the Attorney Generals office, that Edd Hendee didn’t have “standing” to sue the state over the Constitutional budget spending cap provision has now lost at both the appellate and supreme court levels so the discovery efforts for the trial can proceed in 10 or so days at a minimum. Therefore, Taxpayers once again have the right to go to court to enforce the constitutional provisions voted on by the citizens of Texas in the first place.
For some analysis, we turn now to Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt:
“It’s sad to see taxpayers like Edd Hendee and Bruce Hotze having to sue their own government at the State and local level to make them live up to voter approved Constitutional or Charter provisions limiting the growth of governmental revenues. It’s the Taxpayer’s money, and if they set limits on how much more can be spent each year out of government coffers it shouldn’t take a taxpayer funded lawsuit to bring them back into line.”
Damn skippy, Taxman.
This is where it gets fun. Now CLOUT gets to do discovery — put the Austin fat cats in a chair and make them testify under oath. Stay tuned…
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
54 Responses to “CLOUT wins another round in lawsuit”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Look to the right at the Google ads. One is an ad for a child’s book “Why Mommy Is A Democrat”
No joke….
http://littledemocrats.net/samples.html
Notice the main characters are squirrels…. like real life HA!!..
I am so proud of Edd and Clout. This is going to get real interesting. Wonder what the Attorney general thinks about this?
Damn good job Edd and CLOUT
Matt - what can the tax-paying-but-too-dumb-to-really-understand-how-government-works-so-just-shutup,-pay-your-taxes-and-trust-us-politicians (NOT!!!) public do to help? Should we - God Forbid! - contact our elected representatives? Call and aggravate the Attorney Field Marshall?
The Texas budget process is complex and confusing
good luck
I predict one of the largest outbreaks of viral amnesia in the history of mankind.
Edd and Paul: my sincere thanks for leading this charge against our out-of-control state government!
They have lost their way, and apparently their minds: now they need to lose their jobs!
Problem is the the Teachers Union is watching and readying their LAWSUIT to make the State actually spend more.
If you get permission to sue now everyone can and they will
BTW everyone will fight to squash supoenas and several of the parties are no longer in office
PBFloyd says it all. Thanks!
EP, the eternal pessimist who doesn’t want us little guys to have any voice whatsoever, so long as the Government is in charge — everything is okay with EricP. Nothing to see here, move along…
Neo
first of all the MAJORITY of TEXANS voted for these representatives and officials who MADE these budgets and fiscal decisions
Millions of the little guys as you put it
I’ve expressed my opinon personally to Edd on this we have conversed heavily and are still as time as schedules allow
Also I’m not blind or unsympathetic to Edd and KSEV and where there heart is - its the hearts of those that follow this that has me wondering….
I agree that spending is to be cut but through legislation not through individuals in the courts and individual judges deciding which programs are worthy of funding and which are not - or worse a jury
then why do we even go to the ballot box?
Why did Dan even bother to run he should have just sued over everything he disagreed with.
And now whats Dan going to do, any bozo liberal now can go and sue and get any budget thrown out of the flimsiest of excuses and thats exactly whats going to happen, Dan may work for the next two years to get a compromise 14 hours a day and all for naught some liberal homeless person can get a lawyer to probono Dans work out the door.
Now some pissant appelate judge in Austin makes a big show of casting the deciding vote in a cheap bid for electivity granted a lawsuit life that clearly has no merit - thats why this CLOUT suit is where it is - politics - not substance
this is an exercise in frustration and the admission that the spending caps have more disapproval than approval in Texas
Do you really want the teachers union deciding your tax bill in a few years?
Cause unfortunately, this is the pandora’s box that this suit could open
Fortunately the meat of the suit was thrown out and upheld the ancillary parts were left in.
Our system of elected representation was threatened by this suit as two individuals are saying that they, not the elected representatives are the ones who have the right to tell the rest of us how things are going to be.
Neocon lives!
Where you been, sugar?
No Neo,
Thats a simplification of my argument.
Here’s what I have told Edd personally, the meat of the suit is still thrown out, and what is his remedy, to scrap and shut down the state? Which is literally what they are asking
And as far as the little guy, millions of them voted for the elected representatives who voted in this budget in 2005 and millions voted for the administrations that are servicing them.
Now Edd I trust, I agree with his principles, I gave him alternatives and he agreed in writing that they would bring relief - real relief to homeowners and taxpayers.
Lets see if Dan takes these up, these were given to the govenor in 2003 and he tried to get them done - is still trying to get them done without any cooperation from either party, but he’s still trying.
The state does not tax the individual, the local governments do. The state makes you pay a minimal and I mean minimal sales tax on purchases of non-essential items.
The thing I have always argued with you and Hamous and the rest of the good people here and Edd is your focus is totally in the wrong place.
ITS THE SCHOOL BOARDS WHO SPEND THE MONEY IN TEXAS
Now they have done the blame game for deflecting criticism by saying first the title schools were underpersorming and needed funds (ie blaming it on the poor blacks kids) then they spread the divisiveness about all the illegal aliens that are just flooding the schools (see the TEA reports the illegal aliens have been here in the same numbers since the early 70’s)
They are the one’s taxing your and my hind parts out of our houses
the State could shut completely down, your tax bill will go up
Thats a fact and this suit is not now or ever going to change that.
Except let a judge and any individual undue the entire will of the state
Dan has two years to work like a dog and finally get those idiots in Austin to put real curbs on school boards, consolidate them, redistrict them, force them into a standard system of costs and demand accountability.
this would be a great achievement, now if he manages to do it, Edd’s left the door open for anyone who disagreed to undue it in an suburban austin court house
Thats the double edges sword of judicial activism
#11 Forest Gump
Starving the beast seems easier to me than arguing with 100 independant school districts.
Let the battles begin in the courts I say.
Ahhhh…EricP. Back defending the indefensible.
So what your saying is the schools are going to take the state to court to force them to go against the constitution. So the court will rule for the state to actually break the law?
Whee, the roller coaster ride is just beginning. Right on Edd and CLOUT.
#7 PBFloyd, nicely put.
#13
Tim
The State has a fiscal responsibilty to the School districts ie they cannot regardless of the budget underfund them
thats been recently upheld in the courts
And when you can show me a state property school tax bill I’ll admit I’m wrong
15
You’re dreaming 80% of the suit was thrown out its most likely that the Supreme Court will either remand the appellate court rethink its split decision or reaffirm the district court ruling
government cannot function if thousands of individuals sue over elected decisions
waller county appraisal district is a rude organization.
they told me to call my state senator or congressman to tell me what my taxes would be.
of course standing at the urnal next to me was the county appraisaer and i said well its buildings like this is where our tax dollars go - it was that new center in katy - a palace looking place.
Neo, WB!!
Good to sees ya again; your invaluable input has been sorely missed!
#16 Thx Adee!!
#18 EPJ: If the state government can’t abide by the guiding document which allows it’s for it’s existence, and won’t be accountable and provide timely answers to the very people who fund it’s existence, then they have every right to sue!!
PBF
They have every budget was approved by both parties both houses, the comptroller and the courts
Look, Edds a great guy, I trust him - its the dark hearted SOB’s that now have the right to sue as well to get THEIR agenda passed I don’t
Isn’t it best to get legislation instead of court cases?
Will it get property tax relief to everyone here
No, it won’t
This is my point what CLOUTS mission and Dans were - GET THE property taxes lowered
All this will do is give the state a bigger surplus - thats all - and higher property taxes for the little people
Dave Wolfgang
They already did and I quote the Burnt Orange School Case that made the entire legislature go back in 2005
The Judge:
“The Schools have suffered enough under the 10% Cap”
Now that means there isn’t a cap or is there?
Dan made a presentation or conversation to TTPRW on Thursday night.
The problem as I see it is this:
31 riders on the bus,
11 are avowed Dems.
20 are alleged Republicans (a lot of RINOS)
1 Driver the Lt. Gov. took lessons from Michael Dukikas tank school
As the bus arrives the 11 Dems had jumped off before the door closed; and each day 1-2 of the RINOS gets off so by mid session we had about 7 Republicans and no driver, as he was catering to the 24 that had scattered.
The capacity crowd heard the message and description and there was little unity after the meeting as they all went their separate ways… and scattered just like the bus riders.
The Democrats will not win the next elections in 2008, the RINOS will work hard to defeat themselves, as they are so aptly doing here…..
23 foolme that sums it up for Texas politics.
the rhino contagion has been in process for awhile now.
Edd, thanks for you and the other involved parties. “They” hate it when their back room plans are not taken lying down; by the public. It reminds me of when Dan Patrick stood up for us on the Stadium issues and was villified by the Chronicle and The Greater(?) Houston Partnership. Maybe we could vote on renaming those types of co-opters. 1. The council on local relations. 2. Sidesteppers of the Constitutions. 3. The-people- don’t-know-no-better-so-we’ll-take-care-of-everything.
#21: EPJ, Are you saying, or even implying, that the both parties, both houses, any of these elected people, are infallible?? That because they say so, it must be right??
If the decide rattlesnakes make good house pets, do you believe them, just because they say so???
Of course not! I believe that the lawsuit, as I understand, is about them working within the fiscal constraints of the state constitution, which they, by law, are required to do.
If they do not, and refuse to be answerable and refuse to redress grievances, then why shuldn’t the court system be utilized to check their actions? Do you actually believe they should be unaccountable, even if they have been elected?
If the people of Texas, who fund this government’s existence, does not have any recourse or accountability from these elected officials, then I say we no longer live in a Republic, but rather a dictatorship, and I will not live that way.
While I would normally agree, in the interest of progress, that it is better to legislate than litigate, in this case I would not. This is why we have a system of checks and balances, designed that way so that if a arm of government is NOT acting within the bounds of it’s limits of authority, the other branches are obligated to reel them back in.
IMHO, that is exactly what is needed here; and I applaud Edd and Paul for leading the pursuit for honesty and accountability from our elected government.
If you disagree with that, EPJ, then we just agree to disagree.
PBFloyd
What accountability, you get that every year from the comptroller - who is a political enemy of the governor - and from the legislature.
Every 2 years you get to exercise your accountability with your paid for in blood right to vote.
And right out of the gate, the State will put this question to me Hendee on the stand, if we’ve overspent, why is their a huge surplus that we were trying to get back to the people?
Game over.
EPJ: Just because you choose to be obtuse or willfully stupid does not mean squat to me.
Now I see why thet call you a troll, you are just here to thwart the discusion, not advance it.
And now I will disregard what you have to say, like everyone else here.
EPJ: You are so funny….
So once we elect them, they can break the law and constitution, and we “can’t” do anything about it until they are up for re-election? Is that what you just said? Please tell me if I interpreted that wrong, but in every post on this thread, that is what you are implying. They can BREAK the law (which is what they are doing when they don’t follow the constitution), and we can ONLY get rid of them and hold them accountable when they are up for re-election…..????
Sounds like some good ole Democrat Party thinking there.
@29: dave, Yup, that is exactly what I was able to discern from EPJ’s excuse of a response.
Typical drivel socialist drivel from the Dimocrat’s, and their RINO bud’s…..and is indicative of why our state governmrnt is in the mess it currently is!
PFB and DWG
Troll I maybe, but this lawsuit has only gotten approval from liberal judges not conservative ones
This could POSSIBLY tell you something
Guys, just for the sake of amusement…
Some here are relishing the thought of disicovery, not that this suit is being allowed to proceed.
Can you picture the discovery process when some idiot school board decides to make this the hill on which they wish to die? The ENTIRE district budget, in DETAIL, to show why THAT district was unconstitutionally denied additional funding. The argument has sidestepped a key point of Edd’s filing, the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the legislature’s actions.
Obviously, my fingers can’t type very well:
Make that “discovery, now”
#31: EPJ- Well, at least your man enough to admit it-they say confession is good for the soul!
#32 Agdad- actually, I think I did touch on that point in #26, which is the crux of this whole discussion, and I concur.
32
Aggiedaddy68
The constitutionality violation was thrown out and upheld thrown out by the appellate and supreme court The agreed the LBB acted within its constitutional limits
The part where Edd had no standing was overturned and the part was still up in the air if he could sue on behalf of clout
Discovery will actually Edd being sitting in the chair being questioned for hours on end about how many members Clout really has and dissected over evey single expenditure and memo and email and website pronoucement CLOUT every had
I pray they had the best bookkeepers money could buy
The part where Edd was going to question the last upteen years of fat cats died an early death
Its like suing the Clinton administration Today that they did not have the authority to fund medicare or pick line item
can you imaging having to rewind the entire last 8 10 16 years, getting people to sit under oath?
Not going to happen
35 eric should we just give up and let the lobby run the government like they do now?
yea i like it the government trying to break a taxpayer suite by a taxpayer to get the lobbyst way to spend our money - geez! austin and DC does stink. I was involved as an expert witness in a 30 million dollar lawsuit and the defendant tried to break tge plantiff but he finally figured out he was dealing with the brother who had controlling interest in the largest law firm in MO.
to have the government treat a citizen like this is criminal and they should be put in jail imo.
It’s best to just ignore EPJ’s assessment of this suit. He simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
1. The court has yet to even hold a hearing on the material facts of the case. EVERY single hearing that has happened to date has been about standing to sue. They have all been the result of Abbott’s attempts to get the suit thrown out for lack of standing. The courts have explicitly rejected Abbott’s standing argument three times now.
2. 80% of the suit was not “thrown out.” Only one of the suit’s three material challenges against the state was “thrown out,” and this was done because the appellate court deemed it to be the legislature’s domain instead of a citizen-led lawsuit. That same court strongly affirmed that state courts were indeed the proper venue to raise the other two challenges and the remainder of the suit - including the parts that actually deal with the money being spent and the calibration of the spending caps - is still in play.
3. The judges that have affirmed this suit are not liberals. The main opinion was written on the 3rd Court of Appeals by Bob Pemberton and signed by Alan Waldrop. Both are Republicans and are probably the two most conservative members of the 3rd Court of Appeals, which is split between Republicans and Democrats thanks to Travis County’s liberal voting patterns. The Republicans’ opinion was flanked by a weaker concurrence written by Democrat Jan Patterson. And the Texas Supreme Court, which declined Abbott’s appeal on Friday, is of course entirely Republican.
4. The only “judge” who has sided with Abbott on this case is a judicial activist and isn’t even a real judge - Bill Bender. Bender is a “visiting judge” with no elective right to the office. At the court hearing he simply invented the law as he saw it and announced his decision from the bench and offered no written or stated opinion indicating why. The 3rd Court of Appeals smacked Bender down hard and directly implied that he had abused his discretion by throwing out the suit.
5. Teachers Unions did not “gain” any new right or “permission” to sue the state cases because of the CLOUT ruling. The applicable standing rule is strictly limited to the right of taxpayers to enjoin the illegal expenditure of funds and has nothing to do with suits brought to force new spending. That rule was settled back in 1916 in Terrell v. Middleton. The 3rd Court of Appeals did nothing more than reaffirm the already existant standing rule from Terrell (which Texas courts have done dozens of times since 1916). Nothing new was created.
6. Should the question of CLOUTs finances come up at discovery, I’m confident Edd Hendee will happily answer them. Abbott would be stupid to waste his time on that subject though, seeing as it is immaterial to any of the questions before the court.
7. The Supreme Court isn’t going to reverse the appellate court because it just declined to take Abbott’s appeal of the appellate court’s ruling. It isn’t going to reinstate the district court’s unwritten ruling for the same reason. And it isn’t going to remand the case to the appellate court because the appellate court already remanded the case to the district court to begin discovery and adjudication of the material facts of the case.
37
Pemberton is a Rino elected by a Razor thin margin - he switched his vote it originally was upheld, Waldrop abstained or had originally voted against the liberal democrat judge voted for it and so did one term Bob
Phil
The Appellate court remanded the case throwing out the constitutionality issue and only reinstated Edd’s right to sue as an individual
Thats it -
The meat of the case the cause celeb was thrown out the authority of the LBB.
So there will only be Edd in the chair, none of the administration nor the legislature
But thats the spin one expects
But as we get further and further away Phil
explain what was Clouts mission as it raised funds? And how is this suit going to achieve that goal of its acronym?
I noticed you left that alone
How is this going to lower property taxes?
Hmmmm?
I’m all for Edd’s goals, however I have noticed that the school unions are preparing suits to reinstate full salaries, bond issues being tied to bonus’ etc
If Edd can sue so can they - so goeth the ruling
Precedent trumps the constitution every day of the week and if you knew anything about the law you would recognise this as the 800 lb gorilla in the house…..
So in retrospect
You have proved that even though I know very little of what I am talking about I can at least count to three,
there was only one court (1 Dem 1 Rino Judge) who threw out one count Edd’s right to sue and remanded back one count to be corrected if they could “Clouts standing to Sue”
let me add, again
even in your own words
Only one of the suit’s three material challenges against the state was “thrown out,” and this was done because the appellate court deemed it to be the legislature’s domain instead of a citizen-led lawsuit.
Yes the main challenge and thats the 80%
the Texas Supreme Court Rarely takes up split appellate decisions especially where some charges are thrown out and some reinstated
Without the legislature part of the suit it will just be Edd in the chair - he has no standing to sue the legislature
that was Upheld by now count with me 2 courts
EPJ: To quote a 16th century bard, of some repute, I might add, ‘Me thinkest thou doest protest too much’….!!!!
#37 - EPJ - The rambling incoherency and general lack of sentence structure in your post aside (hint: learn to use a period), your argument about the judges simply makes no sense. Pemberton beat a liberal Dem on a razor thin margin because the 3rd court of Appeals includes Travis County. It’s hard for Republicans to get elected there. But Pemberton and Waldrop did - both by defeating liberal dems.
Nor do you comprehend much of anything about the 3rd Court’s ruling. Pemberton spelled it out very plainly for any literate human being to comprehend, though again your demonstrated difficulty with syntax provides plenty of reason to question whether that category includes you. To quote it directly though:
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim alleging unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers for want of jurisdiction. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ remaining two claims seek declarations that future expenditures under H.B.1’s appropriation are unconstitutional or illegal, the district court erred or abused its discretion in dismissing those claims based on the record before it, and we reverse those portions of the district court’s judgment.”
As for the “meat” of the case, it remains and was always about the legality of the state’s expenditures and the means of calculating the cap. The court made it clear that the case may proceed on those grounds. All that got thrown out was the question on the legislature’s constitutional right to delegate its powers to the LBB, and that was dropped only for want of jurisdiction.
Re #40
Evidently not. Back in #18 you claimed by way of a straggling grammatically challenged mid-sentence insertion that “80% of the suit was thrown out” by the 3rd Court of Appeals. As best as I can glean from your equally incoherent postings tonight you appear to be reiterating that same 80% claim.
Let’s do the math.
As quoted in my previous post, the 3rd Court’s ruling states that the suit has three components. It threw out one of them and remanded the other two for trial. 1/3*100 = 33.34%, not 80% as your challenged mathematical renderings previously suggested.
To obtain the 80% figure, the suit would have needed at least 5 components, with 4 being thrown out. That’s 2 more components than the suit actually had and 3 more components than the number actually thrown out.
So no, Eric. You evidently cannot count to three or any other number in its vicinity.
…except that Edd didn’t sue the legislature, Eric. He sued the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, and the Legislative Budget Board. The 3rd Court of Appeals explicitly affirmed his standing to do so for the purpose of enjoining an illegal expenditure.
And since your math continues to be challenged by even the simplest of calculations, let’s look at the rulings to date.
1. August 2006 - State District Court dismisses suit without comment. The plaintiff disagreed with this ruling and appealed it. The state supported it.
2. April 2007 - 3rd Court of Appeals 3 judge panel reverses and remands the District Court ruling on 2 of 3 counts. The plaintiff agreed with this ruling on 2 of 3 counts. The state opposed it on 2 of 3 counts and appealed them to the full court.
3. May 2007 - 3rd Court of Appeals denies Abbott’s motion for reconsideration en banc before the full court, affirming the 3 judge panel. The plaintiff fully supported this decision. The state appealed it to the Supreme Court.
4. July 2007 - Texas Supreme Court denies Abbott’s petition for review of the 3rd Court’s ruling. The plaintiff fully supported this decision. The state exhausted its appeals.
That’s a total of four rulings, Eric. Not two. Three of those four rulings have gone either mostly or wholly in favor of the plaintiff. Only one was not welcomed by the plaintiff, and it contained no written or spoken rationale. The higher court also concluded that the judge in that case had abused his discretion and chastised him for doing so.
44
Phil you are getting personal and again not factual, you can attack me all you want but you still are inncorrect.
First the meat of the suit was the LBB’s authority to set budgetary limits and spending, and the district court and the apellate court stated Edd had NO part in challenging the system - thus the suit was and still is thrown out - thats huge.
Without the standing to sue the legislature over a legislative matter the suit lost its merits
There has been two ruling issued
One court throwing out all three counts, One major two minor
One court reinstated one minor count, remanding one minor count for remediation and upholding the throwing out of the major count (this is hardly the repudiation that the spin is making)
the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, at this time
The State has not even begun to exhaust its appeals since the matter was remanded the whole process for one of the counts remains, Can Edd speak for Clout
this will go through the process again
Again, your misconception that the Supreme court decided for Edd is misleading, denied is when they actually rule on it, they just refused to hear it at this time, the state can rephrase, research the legal arguments compelling the TSC to hear the case or make it be heard in the USSC
So it can and will be brought up again until they do hear it.
but this is all a diversion by you from the real question:
I see though you still haven’t answered the question
How and if this is going to lower your property taxes which was my original point in all of this
How are you and the readers going to get tax relief?
So Again Phil
Flawed I am,
Please answer the question
Is this suit going to lower my taxes?
Houston awaits your response
You can detract and deflect all you want all lawsuits name everybody, thats standard boilerplate tactics
Cry victory all you want
But answer the question, how is this lawsuit going to lower your property taxes?
#45
Actually Eric, I’m critiquing you on both fronts as neither is mutually exclusive of the other. It is a recently demonstrated fact, for example, that you cannot count to three, though this also says much about you personally.
You arbitrary designations otherwise notwithstanding, the meat of the suit is spending. This may be plainly established from the FAQ published last June (though I must warn you again that this document requires literacy as a prerequisite). The first question on that document illustrates your error in assessment:
IOW, it’s about the spending. And it always has been.
Let’s turn to your other points next, Eric. First you say:
Too bad the legislature was never sued. The Lieutenant Governor, Speaker, and Legislative Budget Board were. And the court said the standing exists to do so if the purpose is to enjoin illegal expenditures. Strike 1 against Eric.
Where oh where to begin. First, in order to even make sense that statement would have to read “There HAVE been two rulingS issued.” Second, as I illustrated in #44 the courts have ruled in one form or another at least four times - not twice. That’s strike 2.
I’m not even going to bother with the innebriated syntax in that one, Eric, but on a factual basis it is entirely wrong. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision from last week was specific to an appeal that the state made of the 3rd Court of Appeals’ en banc affirmation of Pemberton’s ruling. The Supremes said they were not going to take that appeal, thus effectively ending Abbott’s little charade over standing. As for the SCOTUS to get involved, that would require removing the case to federal court and establishing an issue for federal jurisdiction. Since the matter of this case is ENTIRELY an issue of state budgetary law, the chances of SCOTUS having any discretionary interest in it what so ever are between none and…well…none. That’s strike 3, Eric. You’re out.
Oh, and as regards your silly little diversionary question on CLOUT’s mission statement. Aside from its complete irrelevance to the material issue of the case, and aside from the fact that I never suggested its relevance one way or another despite your increasingly delusional implication otherwise, I will state right now that I really don’t give a damn. CLOUT’s mission statement is whatever CLOUT wants it to be, and if that includes reigning in state spending I’m perfectly fine with that.
Now go sober up, invest in a copy of Strunk and White, and fix the period button on your keyboard.
Again PhilM
You are getting personal, see the Texas Supreme Court site they issued no ruling on CLOUT the case was refused to be hear AT THIS TIME
As far as the FAQ I never believed it, I read the suit and talked with Edd, believe me the FAQ was a response to my letter to the Chron and several local blogs about the motivations of the suit.
Its all about the money
But Lets say you are correct, lets say CLOUT wins and the FAT cats are beaten with sticks paraded down the streets with the enraged citizens of Texas throwing rotten fruit at them and their families and forced to live their lives in disgrace and humiliation and they state is shut down for two years and cannot spend a single penny in punishment for their outlandish transgressions.
Everything is won, now answer the question because everything you have said has been sooo much BS
When does the property taxes go down in this lawsuit?
Actually Eric, the Supreme Court’s ruling is online here and says nothing that you claim.
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2007/jul/071007.htm
The “petition for review,” of course, was Abbott’s appeal of the 3rd court ruling.
Your claim about the FAQ is similarly absurd. Nobody at CLOUT cares one way or another about your comments, and I very much doubt you addressed them in a conversation to Edd that occurred anywhere other than your mind. As for the Chronicle letter - I realize they print barely literate ungrammatical garbage all the time, but your English proficiency is challenged even by their low standards.
As for the rest of your complaint, remember thee old saying: if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. That, and learn to use the period key.
Phil,
Review is denied, no ruling, just not heard
BTW
I see you still haven’t answered the question
how is this lawsuit going to lower your taxes?
Phil M
Please I’m an ignorant cretin please enlighten all of Houston and Harris County how this suit will bring homeowners’ relief to Texas?
I’m glad to see that the LBB was sued goesh for a minute there I thought they forgot to sue the right people
BTW
Thats a slam at you not at Edd and CLOUT they knew the LBB was the party to sue……..
Just to set the record straight
Oh, and please use the following periods and comma’s to correct my posts
…………….,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
#51 - The Supreme’s denial of the appeal petition is an order of the court and has their full weight behind it.
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp
Like it or not, Abbott’s appeal was rejected.
As I indicated previously, your question about taxes is silly and contrived. Neither Edd nor CLOUT ever alleged this suit would directly result in tax relief, and tax relief is not a material question of the case. In fact, the FAQ that you have so much trouble comprehending made that explicit too:
Asking a question that pretends otherwise only illustrates your own ignorance of the case, Eric.
BTW, I’m glad to see you finally figured out how to locate the period key. Implementing its use in the proper location is another skill entirely though. Most people acquire that skill at an early age in grade school. Sadly, you seem to be one of the children who got left behind that our President keeps talking about.
I’m not here to teach you basic syntax skills though - only to occasionally mock the trouble it gives you on a regular basis, hoping that such mockery will incentivize you to spend more time carefully researching and constructing your arguments instead of ignorantly and haphazardly shooting your mouth off as you presently do.