Althouse: "The cost to taxpayers for defending the state against lawsuits over an investigation into Gov. Scott Walker and his allies has quickly escalated to more than $672,000."

September 9, 2014

"The cost to taxpayers for defending the state against lawsuits over an investigation into Gov. Scott Walker and his allies has quickly escalated to more than $672,000."

"With lawyers headed to Chicago for arguments in an appeal Tuesday, the cost is certain to climb. Already, the bills are nearly double the $350,000 that had been recorded as of June."

Tuesday = today. So, stay tuned for reports on the oral argument.

69 comments:

Larry J said...: If prosecutors lose the appeal, they risk being held personally liable for violating the free speech rights of the Wisconsin Club for Growth and one of its directors, Eric O'Keefe.

If the prodecutors lose, all legal fees should be taken from their office budget, not as a supplemental appropriation from the taxpayers. Make them have some skin in the game. Let them get by on a reduced staff and budget as a result of their misconduct. Revoke their immunity so they can be personally liable for damages.; 9/9/14, 7:49 AM
AustinRoth said...: Larry J - No. That actually punishes the people of Wisconsin, who need a fully funded prosecutors office for what should be obvious reasons, beyond their tendency to be the attack arm of the Democratic party.

I agree with the 'personally responsible' path, i.e., directly from their own pocket. That way, even of they leave their current office for a private sector job, the bill follows them.

Garnish their wages. Put liens against their property. Make sure they personally pay the price for their malfeasance.; 9/9/14, 8:04 AM
Curious George said...: Chump change compared to the millions spent by that POS Chisholm.; 9/9/14, 8:05 AM
MadisonMan said...: No wonder the structural deficit has skyrocketed.; 9/9/14, 8:06 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: NJ has spent more than $7 Million on lawyers to investigate / research/ defend the Bridgegate incident.; 9/9/14, 8:08 AM
Mark said...: Oh MadisonMan, you and your perspective.; 9/9/14, 8:18 AM
Mark said...: It does seem like a ripoff when you consider $700,000 buys you the passage of a mining bill you get to write.; 9/9/14, 8:19 AM
Original Mike said...: But the money's going to lawyers, so that's a good thing.

(Wow, I did that with the dictation feature on the iPad, and it actually worked!); 9/9/14, 8:21 AM
garage mahal said...: No wonder the structural deficit has skyrocketed.

Hell of a way to be heading down the home stretch of a campaign. Investigations and a 1.8 billion dollar shortfall. Oof. I thought the reason to elect Walker is because he's supposedly good an managing the state finances.; 9/9/14, 8:34 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
No wonder the structural deficit has skyrocketed."

It's gone down stupid. It was 3.6 billion when Walker took office. It's half of that now.; 9/9/14, 8:35 AM
Curious George said...: "garage mahal said...

Hell of a way to be heading down the home stretch of a campaign. Investigations and a 1.8 billion dollar shortfall. Oof. I thought the reason to elect Walker is because he's supposedly good an managing the state finances."

Another moron.; 9/9/14, 8:36 AM
Meade said...: MadisonMan said...
"No wonder the structural deficit has skyrocketed."

Has it really? It's now half of what Doyle handed Walker. At this rate, 4 more years of Walker and Wisconsin will be completely structurally sound.; 9/9/14, 8:36 AM
MadisonMan said...: Curious, it was less than $1.8bn at the beginning of the year. Stop measuring everything from the Times of Doyle or you'll just sound like an apologist.; 9/9/14, 8:38 AM
Curious George said...: "Meade said...
Has it really? It's now half of what Doyle handed Walker. At this rate, 4 more years of Walker and Wisconsin will be completely structurally sound."

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumbfuck don't understand how the WI budget works.

Walker was left a $3.6 Billion structural deficit left by Doyle and turned it into a $1 Billion surplus. And cut or froze taxes.; 9/9/14, 8:41 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
Curious, it was less than $1.8bn at the beginning of the year. Stop measuring everything from the Times of Doyle or you'll just sound like an apologist."

I'm measuring budget to budget genius. You teach kids? I weep for our future.; 9/9/14, 8:42 AM
alan markus said...: Well, if the state is spending that much on legal fees, they must be guilty. At least in Garage Mahal's world - how many times did he come here and tell us Walker was guilty of something because he was the only Governor with a legal defense fund?; 9/9/14, 8:43 AM
DanTheMan said...: >>No wonder the structural deficit has skyrocketed.

Yes, of course. Because the main driver of government deficits is legal bills, not runaway entitlement spending.; 9/9/14, 8:44 AM
garage mahal said...: It was 3.6 billion when Walker took office. It's half of that now.

Walker has been running around bragging about a surplus.; 9/9/14, 8:45 AM
Will J. Richardson said...: The Oral Argument is scheduled for 14:30 CST. I cannot find a Seventh Circuit Oral Argument Audio feed. Does anyone know of a link?; 9/9/14, 8:46 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I remember seeing the bill to prosecute Palin that Alaska got stuck with. Honestly, I'm starting to think Republican governors need to start being a lot more forceful with dealing with frivolous law suits.; 9/9/14, 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Does this mean we have to give back the $4 tax cut Walker was constantly bragging about? Because we know the lawyers who got millions for redrawing the voting districts won't be giving theirs back.; 9/9/14, 8:50 AM
Curious George said...: "garage mahal said...
It was 3.6 billion when Walker took office. It's half of that now.

Walker has been running around bragging about a surplus."

That because we had one. Almost a billion dollars. You really have no clue on how the WI budget works, do you? I always figured you for a "halftard". You are a full on retard.

The NEXT budget faces a $1.8 billion shortfall, but that's based on the existing budget.; 9/9/14, 8:59 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "The Oral Argument is scheduled for 14:30 CST. I cannot find a Seventh Circuit Oral Argument Audio feed. Does anyone know of a link?"

I don't know about a live feed, but I expect to get the audio here very soon after it concludes.; 9/9/14, 9:07 AM
garage mahal said...: Here is the brief

Excerpt on those "paramilitary raids".; 9/9/14, 9:13 AM
Original Mike said...: It's a projection, and it looks like the U.S. economy is headed back down.

"The structural deficit represents how much the state’s finances will be out of balance by the end of the next biennium, on June 30, 2017, based on current spending and revenue levels. It does not take into account future changes in spending or revenue growth."

"Fiscal bureau director Bob Lang noted in a memo that a national economic forecast the state uses to project revenue trends has been “downgraded significantly since the state’s final tax revenue estimates were prepared.”"; 9/9/14, 9:16 AM
MadisonMan said...: The NEXT budget faces a $1.8 billion shortfall

However you try to parse this, it will not look good on the campaign trail. Now, Walker can try to play the "But Doyle did this too" and point to Burke as one of Doyle's loyal minions, but it will still beg the question: Why give away money that you end up not having? (Of course, had the state not given it away, they still wouldn't have it today because of road builders, etc).

So if Burke wins, she'll be Tony Earl all over again. Having to super-cut budgets because of inherited debt, and being a 1-term Governor as a result.

(NTTATWWT); 9/9/14, 9:17 AM
MadisonMan said...: I'm doing my part to erase the structural deficit by buying all new kitchen appliances. Althouse, I'm sorry not to be using the portal for this.; 9/9/14, 9:20 AM
Michael K said...: "That actually punishes the people of Wisconsin, who need a fully funded prosecutors office for what should be obvious reasons,"

Maybe not if this is the way they spend their time.

It does point out the defect in the Alaska laws that allowed the Democrats to punish Sarah Palin for being McCain's VP nominee. It has since been corrected.; 9/9/14, 9:27 AM
Rusty said...: Mark said...
It does seem like a ripoff when you consider $700,000 buys you the passage of a mining bill you get to write.

Not the same thing.; 9/9/14, 9:29 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
The NEXT budget faces a $1.8 billion shortfall

However you try to parse this, it will not look good on the campaign trail."

Not to idiots, true. Of which you are apparently one.

"MadisonMan said...

Now, Walker can try to play the "But Doyle did this too" and point to Burke as one of Doyle's loyal minions, but it will still beg the question: Why give away money that you end up not having? (Of course, had the state not given it away, they still wouldn't have it today because of road builders, etc)."

Again, you are flat out wrong. The state did not give away money it did not have...it had a surplus. More money than it needed to pay bills. So it gave some back. Really, you fucking teach? Gym I hope.

"MadisonMan said...

So if Burke wins, she'll be Tony Earl all over again. Having to super-cut budgets because of inherited debt, and being a 1-term Governor as a result."

There is no inherited debt. Even with the tax cuts, there STILL is a surplus. Got it?

The 1.8B is derived from an existing tax rate being applied which produces estimated revenuew....and existing spending. This is a jump off point.

Now who do you want to trust with tackling this $1.8B issue...the guy that faced double the challenge and created a surplus without raising taxes, or the dumb ass that worked for the guy that raided highway funds and victim funds to "balance" the budget (which Walker paid back BTW) and had worker furloughs.; 9/9/14, 9:31 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
The NEXT budget faces a $1.8 billion shortfall

However you try to parse this, it will not look good on the campaign trail."

Not to idiots, true. Of which you are apparently one.

"MadisonMan said...

Now, Walker can try to play the "But Doyle did this too" and point to Burke as one of Doyle's loyal minions, but it will still beg the question: Why give away money that you end up not having? (Of course, had the state not given it away, they still wouldn't have it today because of road builders, etc)."

Again, you are flat out wrong. The state did not give away money it did not have...it had a surplus. More money than it needed to pay bills. So it gave some back. Really, you fucking teach? Gym I hope.

"MadisonMan said...

So if Burke wins, she'll be Tony Earl all over again. Having to super-cut budgets because of inherited debt, and being a 1-term Governor as a result."

There is no inherited debt. Even with the tax cuts, there STILL is a surplus. Got it?

The 1.8B is derived from an existing tax rate being applied which produces estimated revenuew....and existing spending. This is a jump off point.

Now who do you want to trust with tackling this $1.8B issue...the guy that faced double the challenge and created a surplus without raising taxes, or the dumb ass that worked for the guy that raided highway funds and victim funds to "balance" the budget (which Walker paid back BTW) and had worker furloughs.; 9/9/14, 9:31 AM
Curious George said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/9/14, 9:31 AM
traditionalguy said...: This is better stimulus money than High Speed Trains rolling to Chicago.

Prosecuting and defending Walker "The Criminal" Governor keeps on keeping on Wisconsin lawyers at full employment, and that keeps U. of Wisconsin Law School open and that keeps Althouse happy. What a great Governor.; 9/9/14, 9:33 AM
Anonymous said...: At least with this case the costs are small enough that a number can be assigned to it. The amount of money that the state has spent prosecuting the singers in the capitol (with zero convictions)is so huge that the Department of Justice wasn't able to calculate, when ordered by a court to do so, the costs associated with it.; 9/9/14, 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Sure glad we got Curious George here to explain to all the dummies how the deficit is actually a surplus and it is a good thing. Unless it was under Doyle, then the deficit really is a deficit and it is a bad thing.

Just one question: If I got paid today but my bills aren't due for another two weeks does that mean it is considered a surplus and I should celebrate by taking all my mining buddies out for dinner and drinks?; 9/9/14, 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Now who do you want to trust with tackling this $1.8B issue...the guy that faced double the challenge and created a surplus without raising taxes

If he created a surplus then why the deficit?

(Try and use your indoor voice when answering. No yelling, no name calling, no cussing, if you can help it); 9/9/14, 9:49 AM
Mark said...: Thank you for the links to the audio.

Looks like I have something to listen to while cooking dinner and doing dishes tonight, and then after kiddo goes to bed.; 9/9/14, 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: LIGHTEN UP GUYS.

This is not about a Walker budget.

It is about liability and who pays.

the DA's may or may not have overstepped their bounds and if they did it maliciously, 'on their heads be it'

certainly, from the conservative viewpoint, the DA's had no problem with secret warrants to most every conservative organization in the state, and those legal bills were just fine from the DA viewpoint.

The power of the legal system to punish political opponents needs to have some checks.; 9/9/14, 9:57 AM
Levi Starks said...: Lawyers... Duhhhh.; 9/9/14, 10:07 AM
rehajm said...: The bill for the lawsuit makes the headline, but the cost of the wild goose chase which begat the lawsuit is just baked into the budget?; 9/9/14, 10:17 AM
MadisonMan said...: Is the $672K a large number when it comes to the State defending one of its own? It looks like a lot to me, but IANAL.

It makes me wonder: What would the Office in Milwaukee have been doing otherwise? Is there no other public corruption to chase down? Were they just trying to make work for themselves to justify their salary?; 9/9/14, 10:26 AM
MadisonMan said...: Now who do you want to trust with tackling this $1.8B issue

Unfortunately, "none of the above" is not an option.

The path Walker put the state on is not sustainable, apparently -- even though I'm getting new appliances. Will he get it right next time? I have yet to be convinced.; 9/9/14, 10:48 AM
garage mahal said...: What would the Office in Milwaukee have been doing otherwise? Is there no other public corruption to chase down? Were they just trying to make work for themselves to justify their salary?

Two weeks after subpoenas were served the WisGOP attempted to change the laws that pertained specifically to the subpoenas.; 9/9/14, 11:02 AM
Mark said...: Bauer, Easterbrook, and Wood will be hearing the case.

The same trio heard the Georgia Thompson appeal [and pretty dramatically reversed Randa's ruling].; 9/9/14, 11:03 AM
Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/9/14, 11:03 AM
Drago said...: garage: "Two weeks after subpoenas were served the WisGOP attempted to change the laws that pertained specifically to the subpoenas."

When the left engages in lawfare it's perfectly reasonable to attempt to change the laws to keep the dems from violating the constitutional rights of non-dems/lefties.

In fact, nothing could be more reasonable.

In the same way that the Alaska legislature changed the quirky law that allowed Palin to be sued over and over again while governor so that the dems could not do it again.

Of course, with Ted Stevens, the left found another way to engage in lawfare and win a seat.; 9/9/14, 11:16 AM
Drago said...: MadisonMan: "The path Walker put the state on is not sustainable, apparently -- even though I'm getting new appliances. Will he get it right next time? I have yet to be convinced"

Did Walker and the republicans make structural changes to the biannual budget that resulted in a decrease from $3.6B to $1.8B?

Related: was the $1B surplus created last year the result of 1-time actions which would not be carried over year over year?; 9/9/14, 11:20 AM
garage mahal said...: When the left engages in lawfare it's perfectly reasonable to attempt to change the laws to keep the dems from violating the constitutional rights of non-dems/lefties.

Don't investigate us and we won't have to change laws we are bound by!

You're like the clumsy French waiter.; 9/9/14, 11:25 AM
Drago said...: garage: "Don't investigate us and we won't have to change laws we are bound by!"

LOL

Yes, he wrote that.

And he doesn't even know whats funny about it.; 9/9/14, 11:32 AM
Curious George said...: MadisonMan said...
"Now who do you want to trust with tackling this $1.8B issue

Unfortunately, "none of the above" is not an option.

The path Walker put the state on is not sustainable, apparently -- even though I'm getting new appliances. Will he get it right next time? I have yet to be convinced."

He balanced two biennial state budgets without raising taxes, and did the same thing for eight years as Milwaukee County Exec.

Or you have mary Burke, who endorsed Doyle programs, which resulted in BILLIONs in tax increases and still produced huge structural deficits.

And you're not convinced? That's a special kind of stupid.; 9/9/14, 11:32 AM
MadisonMan said...: He balanced two biennial state budgets without raising taxes

And yet here we are, with a structural deficit.; 9/9/14, 12:11 PM
Drago said...: MadisonMan: "And yet here we are, with a structural deficit."

Hence my questions above.

Clearly there has been a reduction.

What are the primary reasons for the remaining deficit?; 9/9/14, 12:14 PM
MadisonMan said...: I would say, having read the article in the paper this morning (and linked to by Orig Mike), that reduced tax revenues are at least partly to blame, but only maybe a smallish portion of it, so I'm not entirely clear (and the article doesn't help) on where the rest comes from. (Curious Geo. will probably say that means I'm "stupid").

The fact that no good explanation is given makes me wonder if there's a political reason for the deficit, and I wonder if it's not as big as claimed. I hope it's not large, as Budget Repair bills are a recipe for all sorts of silly shenanigans (read: unrelated to the budget) in this state.; 9/9/14, 12:38 PM
garage mahal said...: The fact that no good explanation is given makes me wonder if there's a political reason for the deficit, and I wonder if it's not as big as claimed.

The LFB Director says almost entirely due to revenue shortfall. See here (PDF); 9/9/14, 12:42 PM
Original Mike said...: @MM: From the article:

"Fiscal bureau director Bob Lang noted in a memo that a national economic forecast the state uses to project revenue trends has been “downgraded significantly since the state’s final tax revenue estimates were prepared.”

It appears that they are now projecting less revenue in the upcoming biennium because the U.S. economic forecast has worsened (which ain't surprising).

(And Curious George should take a lud.); 9/9/14, 12:48 PM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
He balanced two biennial state budgets without raising taxes

And yet here we are, with a structural deficit."

Actually, we have an anticipated one. That budget isn't until next year. So "here we are" is factually wrong and a continuation of this "Why give away money that you end up not having" idiocy.

The proper way to think of it is "Here's were we think we will be if we do nothing". And of course do nothing is never going to happen.

And here is another moron with no clue on how the WI budget works:

madisonfella said...
Sure glad we got Curious George here to explain to all the dummies how the deficit is actually a surplus and it is a good thing. Unless it was under Doyle, then the deficit really is a deficit and it is a bad thing."

Uh, like Walker Doyle balanced the budget. It's a law...it MUST be balanced. He did it by stealing money from the highway fund and raising taxes by BILLIONS. But his stupid policies (endorsed 100% by Mary Nurke!) left the next budget $3.6 billion short, and he had no more money to steal, and knew he couldn't raise taxes, and didn't have the balls to do what was necessary, so he folded up his tent. WIth that said, let's move on...

"madisonfella said...Just one question: If I got paid today but my bills aren't due for another two weeks does that mean it is considered a surplus and I should celebrate by taking all my mining buddies out for dinner and drinks?"

Uh, that isn't an accurate comparison. This budget is in surplus. We will collect more money than we will pay out. Strike two.

madisonfella said...
Now who do you want to trust with tackling this $1.8B issue...the guy that faced double the challenge and created a surplus without raising taxes

If he created a surplus then why the deficit?"

There is no deficit. You are truly a moron. But we knew that.; 9/9/14, 1:03 PM
Drago said...: garage: "The LFB Director says almost entirely due to revenue shortfall."

LOL

Your state spends X.
Your state receives Y in revenues from taxes/fees/etc.

If X > Y you could just as easily say that X is too high as you could Y is not high enough.

Of course, if you view all money earned by all people as rightfully belonging to the government, it's probably intellectually impossible to see it from the POV of the former proposition.; 9/9/14, 1:04 PM
hombre said...: Who in the hell ever heard of DAs with dozens of lawyers and investigators on their payrolls going to the AG or hiring outside counsel and investigators to defend actions taken in their official capacities?

The purpose is transparently to enrich their lawyer friends and or political supporters.

These people are brazenly corrupt.; 9/9/14, 1:14 PM
hombre said...: BTW, if these jerks run the risk of personal liability for their actions, how are taxpayers obligated to pay for their representation?; 9/9/14, 1:20 PM
MadisonMan said...: I don't see how you can vote in a DA and then decide not to pay for their work. The assumption is that they do the work they were elected to do, isn't it?

So while it's nice to visualize lawyers destitute as a result of their poor choices (starting, perhaps, with their choice to be a lawyer), it's not likely to happen.; 9/9/14, 1:58 PM
damikesc said...: So, Starr's expense in prosecuting Clinton was a crime because it wasted money.

The Joe prosecutors expense in prosecuting Walker is a crime because Walker is spending too much defending himself.

If not for double standards, progressives would have no standards at all.; 9/9/14, 2:25 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: District attorney’s wife drove case against Wis. Gov. Walker, insider says

No word yet on if she once was a Walker supporter.; 9/9/14, 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "that reduced tax revenues are at least partly to blame"

Whenever I read something like this, my ears turn red. Is math really that hard for the media to understand?

I realize they need to oversimplify, but it becomes nonsense, rather than news.

Here is the simple version that the media expects you to swallow, and same with a lot of government agencies.

If the tax rate = 10%
And the GDP = $100,000.00
Then income = $10,000.00

If you lower the tax rate to 9%
The GDP remains $100,000.00
Then income = $9,000.00

If there is a $5,000 shortfall in the budget, then $1,000.00 is to blame on the cut in taxes.

It all seems so simple!

Except, where did that $1,000 go?

Suppose it went into the economy, creating more wealth, and no the GDP is $150,000.

Well, 9% of $150,000 = $13,500.00.

But they never look at the growth.

The way to balance budgets is to foment policies that grow the economy, not the government. The way for the government to help grow the economy is to get out of the way of business and reduce the tax burden.

I mean, we could raise the taxes year after year, but ultimately we'd wind up with a 100% tax rate and an economy that looks a lot like Cuba's, or Venezuela's.

Or we could lower the tax rate and reduce the burden on the citizenry, and have an economy that looks more like our historical economy.; 9/9/14, 4:58 PM
Mark said...: Oral arguments are available; 9/9/14, 5:02 PM
The Godfather said...: Imagine, please, that the money was going to YOUR side (because, whatever side you're on, there's money going to it that "could" be illegal). Is a criminal prosecution a good way to spend public resources? Isn't it obvious that campaign finance laws do not, and will not, and cannot prevent "special interests" from supporting politicians that favor their interests? All these laws do is provide political opponents opportunities to attack whoever won the last election by attempting to criminalize politics?

For gosh sakes, let's repeal all these damn campaign finance laws. They do NO good and MUCH harm.; 9/9/14, 5:12 PM
Original Mike said...: "For gosh sakes, let's repeal all these damn campaign finance laws. They do NO good and MUCH harm."

Amen.; 9/9/14, 5:18 PM
MadisonMan said...: "that reduced tax revenues are at least partly to blame"

Whenever I read something like this, my ears turn red. Is math really that hard for the media to understand?

It's not the reduction in tax rates that is to blame. Rather, the reduction in taxes linked to the sluggish economy. Apparently people are tightening belts and not spending money and generating sales tax.

That's my understanding.; 9/9/14, 6:30 PM
RecChief said...: file this under 2nd order effects that Democrats didn't see coming (case 111,989).

Suddenly, court costs are too much for the state to bear. Should've thought about the tables being turned on their lawfare at some point.; 9/9/14, 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...: "It's not the reduction in tax rates that is to blame. Rather, the reduction in taxes linked to the sluggish economy. "

When the economy was sluggish after Clinton left office (Remember, we had a recession?) This is what Wikipedia has to say about that recession:

"The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history. The collapse of the speculative dot-com bubble, a fall in business outlays and investments, and the September 11th attacks,[46] brought the decade of growth to an end. Despite these major shocks, the recession was brief and shallow.[47] Without the September 11th attacks, the economy might have avoided recession altogether.[46]"

Now, it doesn't say why the recession was "brief and shallow" but everyone pretty much agrees that it was.

On a completely unrelated note, President Bush and the Republicans cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003.

Now, what does Wikipedia have to say about the most recent recession?

"The subprime mortgage crisis led to the collapse of the United States housing bubble. Falling housing-related assets contributed to a global financial crisis, even as oil and food prices soared. The crisis led to the failure or collapse of many of the United States' largest financial institutions: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Citi Bank and AIG, as well as a crisis in the automobile industry. The government responded with an unprecedented $700 billion bank bailout and $787 billion fiscal stimulus package. The National Bureau of Economic Research declared the end of this recession over a year after the end date.[51] The Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) finally reached its lowest point on March 9, 2009.[52]"

Now, Wikipedia doesn't call this recession brief or shallow. On the other hand, it does mention a stimulus (IE: More spending). Most people would agree that the "recovery" from this last recession was a terrible one and we might get a double dip recession.

On another completely unrelated note, President Obama and the Congress have not cut our taxes, but have instead raised them in many different ways and in many different areas of our lives. Unless you count the extension of the Bush tax cuts as tax cuts.

Just saying.; 9/9/14, 11:20 PM