Does Attorney General Darrell McGraw even have a clue about what happened with the controversial $10 million OxyContin settlement? His office has given several contradictory explanations for its decision to withhold settlement funds from the named plaintiff state agencies. Now, in an interview with The Shepherdstown Observer, Darrell McGraw seems to claim that the decision to distribute the OxyContin settlement proceeds was secretly made in the judge’s chambers.

Does the Attorney General have the authority to engage in “secret” settlements on behalf of the state? McGraw’s preposterous rationale suggests that the Attorney General holds himself accountable to no one. It is safe to say that state legislators will have a field day with McGraw’s comments, especially given the recently passed legislation which now requires Attorney General McGraw to provide notice to the Governor and the Legislature’s leadership prior to settling any cases.

Click here to read more of McGraw’s outlandish comments

Check out this “Potpouri” item on the editorial page of the Charleston Gazette, February 25, 2008:

“A Sunday article tallied $2 billion that Attorney General Darrell McGraw has won in consumer lawsuits and turned over to the state treasury for the Legislature to spend. Is it odd that the state Chamber of Commerce is paying hundreds of thousands for statewide TV ads denouncing McGraw because one settlement - the $10 million OxyContin verdict - required the attorney general alone to disburse the funds to public programs?”

The Gazette should deliver the truth to readers about the OxyContin settlement: that the plaintiff-state agencies McGraw himself named to the suit should be reimbursed for their damages. Any lawyer, including McGraw, is obligated to represent his or her clients and compensate them for their court awards. Nowhere did the court direct McGraw to convert the settlement dollars into what is basically his own political slush fund.

The Gazette rationale for McGraw could be extrapolated to all of us as follows: don’t pay your taxes this year. After all, when you consider how much you paid the IRS before, just forget it. Spend what you owe on whatever.

It’s time we started watching out for the public’s money.

This morning, the Charleston Gazette clearly mischaracterized the circumstances surrounding the 2004 state Supreme Court election. In its editorial on ugly campaigning, the Gazette attempted to downplay the fact that former Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw voted for a plan which would have released a convicted sex offender and placed him to work in a local high school. A court of law later found the telivision advertisements that the Gazette complains of to be factually true.

Click here to read the opinion for yourself!

Also, check out Justice Robin Davis’ critical dissent in the case.