« POLINAUT: “CIRESI TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL?” | Home | PICTURES OF TAX CUT RALLY AT STATE CAPITOL »
AP: “CIRESI CLOSE TO CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCEMENT”
By Michael Brodkorb | April 13, 2007
"(AP) St. Paul – Minneapolis attorney Mike Ciresi appears close to an official U.S. Senate campaign kickoff.
Spokeswoman Julia Piscitelli says Ciresi plans to make his intentions clear on Wednesday.
Ciresi is a Democrat best known for getting a multi billion dollar settlement from big tobacco companies in a lawsuit brought by the state." Source: Associated Press, April 13, 2007
Click here for complete story.
###
This post also appears on Blogs for Norm!, an online community and blog covering the 2008 U.S. Senate campaign in Minnesota. The primary goal of Blogs for Norm! is to organize bloggers who support U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 14 Comments »
14 Responses to “AP: “CIRESI CLOSE TO CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCEMENT””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Mike Ceresi should be questioned about the tobacco settlement. Why did the Cerisi law firm want to get all their money upfront when the plaintiffs, (IE: We the taxpayers) get the money over 25 years? Due to lower cigarette consumption the payments that Minnesota (IE: We the taxpayers) get is significanly less than originally scheduled. The solution to this is to extend the payments by the tobacco companies beyond the twenty-five years.
What happens if litigation against tobacco companies is sucessful and “big tobacco” goes bankrupt? Will Minnesota (IE: We the taxpayers) ever see the money when Cerisi’s law firm got all their money “up front”.
You can’t depend on the Star Tribune to report on this. Right after the settlement (memory) the Strib hailed the “great deal” ignoring hte fact that the Cerisi law firm got all the money up front and Minnesota (IE: We the taxpayers) might get it over 25 years. As I recall the Star Tribune considered both monies “equal” claiming that the Cerisi law firm got “only six percent”.
As the old saying goes “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” The Wall Street Journal as I recall, put the real value of Cerisi law firm cut at something like 23%.
At the time of the settlement the lottery had it’s first $200 million jackpot. I recall it was won by an elderly Cheesehead who said he was going to buy a “Harley Davisson with a sidecar”. Everyone who had bought a lottery ticket understood that “lump sum” was around 50% but apparently the esteemed “economists” at the Star Tribune couldn’t figure this out. I recall that because I have sidecar motorcycles.
Anyway, the tobacco settlement is a point of vulnerability for Cerisi. He definitely has some “splaining” to do.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Yes, how dare anyone make money suing giant corporations making huge profits from a deadly, highly addictive substance marketed to teenagers?
Only in the conservative world, where one never questions “big daddy”, is being successful a sin.
When “big daddy” corporation sells deadly products, one mustn’t object.
When “big daddy” Bush tells lies to start an illegal war, one mustn’t object.
One must never question “big daddy”.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Robert,
One must question your sanity. The government, as well as smokers, has known for more than 50 years that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Why hasn’t anyone worked to ban cigarettes? Instead, the government (ie. big daddy) takes taxes from the cigarettes and makes money off the backs of the smokers who are dying.
As for the war being illegal – it isn’t. The UN resolutions in the Security Council approved military action. And while we’re at it, the president didn’t lie. No more than Bill and Hillary Clinton did when they said the same thing about Iraq. You’re just another rabid anti-American leftist kook.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Greg is absolutely right that Mike Cerisi made a fortune off the backs of the taxpayers on this case. His firm made tens of thousands of dollars an hour. And the legislature didn’t even approve the agreement between RKMC law firm and the state. Rather, this was a sweetheart no-bid contract given to Cerisi by his buddy Skip Humphrey. Yes, Skip made Cerisi a multi-millionaire off the backs of the taxpayers. And people like Robert have the balls to complain about Halliburton.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Yes, Chris, the war is illegal. Yes, the president did lie. And yes, you are just another rabid kook who refuses to question “big daddy” Bush.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Robert,
You’re like a two year old child. Just because you say so doesn’t make it true. Back up what you say or go spout off somewhere else. The war is sanctioned by UN resolution. And no, Bush didn’t lie. You’re lying when you say the war is illegal.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Robert,
You’re like a two year old child. Just because you say so doesn’t make it true. Back up what you say or go spout off somewhere else. The war is sanctioned by UN resolution. And no, Bush didn’t lie. You’re lying when you say the war is illegal.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:01 AM
In post #2 “Robert” never dealt with my main point of the Ceresit Law firms getting all it’s money from the tobacco settlement “up front” while the state of MN/Blue Cross (IE: us) have a now reduced payment over 25 years or longer.
BTW: I looked up my original $57K 1986 30 year 8% fixed rate mortgage. The total payout, according to contract was $152K. That would have been %57K for the “principle and $95K for interst. The loan had an FHA garantee built into the priciple so there was basically no “risk cost” like there is the the structure of the tobacco settlements to MN and Blue Cross (IE: us)
BTW: I refinanced the loan a couple of times for balance only and ended up paying of the http://searshouse.com mortgage in under 19 years.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:53 AM
Greg, since you make no case for any criminal wrongdoing, I see no point to your post about Minnesota taking payments over 25 years.
As I remember it, the argument was that if the states demanded their payments immediately, the combined burden would have the consequence of bankrupting the industry.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Chris, Bush went to war without a specific Congressional authorization to do so, in contravention to the Constitution.
In order to get the authorization to “use force” (which is not the same as a declaration of war), he and his agents lied repeatedly to the American public.
But you are too much of a child to face the facts: your president lied us into another Vietnam.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:19 AM
Robert,
Which law school did you attend? Oh, that’s right – you didn’t go to law school. I did go to law school Robert and I know that Congress passed a binding resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq. I also know from going to law school that the Supreme Court has never struck down a binding resolution authorizing the President to use military force. I also know that the Constitution does not specify HOW Congress declares war — nor has the Supreme Court specified the procedure for Congress declaring war. In fact, I would argue that an authorization allowing the President to use military force is the SAME as a declaration of war. But since you were “educated” by MoveOn.org and the Daily Kooks, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to understand the subtle distinctions in the law.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:36 AM
[...] This may be Franken and Ciresi first meeting after Ciresi announces on Wednesday. The question is what will Ciresi announce? [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 11:25 AM
[...] This may be Franken and Ciresi first meeting after Ciresi announces on Wednesday. The question is what will Ciresi announce? [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Chris,
Are you the same Chris who manages a few vitriolic spasms in each thread of this blog? Which law school prof trained you in the arts of labeling folks “kooks” and calling them two-year-olds?
What else can you show us?
M.