I tried to make sense of this article and after re reading twice i still couldnt, maybe someone else might be able to understand it(it might help you find some1 to blame)
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2569481 The article states thst retirees and pensioners filed a motion in state court to prevent the city and state from filing for bankruptcy. Their argument is that it violates the state constitution, which holds thqat the state or city can not diminish or stop earned pensions. Although the city filed for bankruptcy in federal court, the state court issued a preliminary order blocking the city's bankruptcy request.
The argument of the pensioners is that by filing for bankruptcy, the city is necessarily reducing, if not eliminating their rights to their pensions. The city would argue that they are not attacking the pensions, but taking a broader step to address 60 years of financial problems, and they can n ot say whether or not the pensions will be affected as a collateral consequence.
While the constitutionality issue may be argued on appeal in the state system, it is believed that the federal bankruptcy court, applying state law, can make a decisive ruling on the issue.
Look for the bankruptcy to proceed.
