Like the 3,200 other pages of evidence uncovered and descriptions of crimes on this site, this web page is only one part of a massive multi-state entanglement of government corruption and cover-up. See size
Evidence was uncovered in parts over years, and not in the same order as the crimes occurred or the evidence was created. Statements were made based on what was known at the time.
Dates are approximate because government filings and reports vary in some cases up to months if not This is part of cover up. One example is Oklahoma's Openbooks, which started out late with only a fraction of what was required to be added each year. Plus, the data was littered with data entry and spelling errors, meaning you have to go through one entry at a time. This amount to more than 17,000 entries in 2017.
Grandfathering
Another smoke screen providing an excuse to slip in another $330 million under deadline pressure.
A."Any person or entity that has obtained a favorable determination letter from the Oklahoma Tax Commission, prior to March 15, 2006, regarding the ability to claim or otherwise utilize any of the tax credits."....
B. "Such qualified investment is made prior to November 1, 2006...."
Sources have informed me that attorneys were brought in from out of state in a rush mode to generate these letters during the Grandfather window early June thru November 1, 2006. During the period 20 some new determination letters were issued amount to $330 million in tax credits.
This simply stating funds yet to be invested must be invested prior to November 1, 2006. Something very clear and unmistakable. Leaving the obvious question of why anyone would need a new ruling?
Most request for determination letters appear to be asking for a new determination for funds to be invested at a latter date.
The letters were very vague in referring to any favorable determination letter, received prior to March 15, 2006. Simply referring to dates of "some" prior communications, never specify any unique identifying criteria, such as file numbers or any other specifies that could identify the actual letter or contents. Several of these new request for rulings referred to the same series of six separate dates. Suggesting they were all referring to only one ruling. Very likely and entirely different investment.
Some of the prior ruling would have expired as they has exceeded the 18 month period allowed for an investment.
Some letters from the Tax Commission were dated the following business date after request of the request for ruling, suggesting this was a rubber stamp. Further suggesting that the tax commission is simply a rubber stamp.