So we got that going for us, which is nice...
Seriously, I wouldn't vote for Pruitt if you paid me.
Seriously, I wouldn't vote for Pruitt if you paid me.
Long story short:
In 1989 southwestern bell filed for a rate increase and it passed the corporation commission by a 2-1 vote.
Subsequently, one of the commissioners ( Bob Hopkins ) and a southwestern bell attorney were convicted of bribery in the case.
Now, a lawsuit has been filed to return 14 billion dollars to ratepayers on the argument that the 2-1 was invalid because the bribed vote of Hopkins was illegal so the legal vote was 1-1 and the rate increase was not approved by the CC.
AT&T, then SW Bell, argues against the lawsuit and AG Scott Pruitt sides with AT&T before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
http://okenergytoday.com/2015/10/at...er-he-sided-with-firm-in-old-rate-case-fight/
I just want my check from the lawsuit.
You mean the one for $1.14 after the crap-weasels...errr...lawyers get their skim, right???
You got that right. Class Action suits typically don't benefit anybody but the legal folks.
Here is what I don't get. Why does a corporation need to beg for permission to set the price of their product?
Rhetorical?My question was more rhetorical. I understand that our state constitution was written at a time when the labor movement and progressivism were hip and trendy, and in many areas it reflects that. But no matter how much it's codified, it still doesn't make it right.
Enter your email address to join: