It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump Refused to Pay Winner of 1M Golf Contest Prize Used Charity Money to Settle

page: 17
65
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Annee

You do realize it was an out of court settlement right?


What does that have to do with how the settlement was paid?

And for all those who say it's not about Trump. It's Trump Foundation that paid the settlement.

This is what is reported. This is not me making stuff up.



Is it clear that the settlement was specific on the golf course paying money to charity?


It was paid with charity money.

Trump spokesman says it has nothing to do with Trump or his golf course. That the people in question rented the facility.

So, why did Trump Foundation pay the settlement?

Disclaimer. Because some seem to need it. I am reporting what I've read. I am not making decisions. No I have not read terms of the settlement. I doubt they are public. But, what charities do is. Trump Foundation wrote the check according to reports.







So, by your own admission we neither have the full facts or the legal paperwork to study, and your conclusion is Trump engaged in illegal practice!? This thread and topic is without facts or merit.


I am reporting what's been reported. Period!

Stop trying to make this about me.

Here's new information: (need to read full article)





Months later, the Trump Foundation cut a check for $158,000 to Martin Greenberg’s foundation, which got the settlement money. Marcus Owens ran the charity section at the IRS, and said raising money for one charity to give to another for a settlement could be problematic “That was a misrepresentation in fundraising.” www.cbsnews.com...



Relax, I only pointed to the lack of information to determine it was Trumps fault.


FACT: there is a check from the Trump Foundation for $158k.


That's not the point - was there ever a court ruling that said Trump had to pay $158k?
If not there is no fine, no debt, no legal obligation.


What do you mean its not the point.

It is exactly the point.

The ONLY point is Trump wrote a check from his Foundation to pay a settlement.



If there was no legal ruling, then Trump can pay any other charity from his charity, as long as they are using the donation for the purposes of thier charity.
If there was a legal ruling against his golf course, then you have a point. Was there?

The fact he paid a charity through his charity, by itself, is not illegal.

You will have to prove that there was a legal ruling. Not saying there wasn't, but that is vital to determine any wrong doing. Your fact that he paid money from his charity is irrelevant on its own.
edit on 24/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If there was no legal ruling, then Trump can pay any other charity from his charity, as long as they are using the donation for the purposes of their charity.
The IRS sees self dealing differently than you do. But are you thinking that an out of court settlement is not legally binding?



Your fact that he paid money from his charity is irrelevant on its own.
True, but not if it was to settle a debt which was incurred by another entity. Something the IRS may show interest in since this has been brought to light.

edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Prove that is the case and that it was illegal or you are still not using facts to argue this.


Prove what? Argue what?

FACT: Trump cut a check for $158,000 from the Trump Foundation for this settlement.

That is the issue.

Your turn.



Still waiting for documents to prove anything about your supposition. And I'm sure Trumps lawyers are dealing within the law. They are not armchair lawyers like here.
edit on 24-9-2016 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

If there was no legal ruling, then Trump can pay any other charity from his charity, as long as they are using the donation for the purposes of their charity.
The IRS sees self dealing differently than you do. But are you thinking that an out of court settlement is not legally binding?



Your fact that he paid money from his charity is irrelevant on its own.
True, but not if it was to settle a debt which was incurred by another entity. Something the IRS may show interest in since this has been brought to light.


It depends on the nature of the out of court settlement.
Details are required.
So far there is no information provided that shows any laws broken.

There are no details of a debt relating to his golf course. there is a law suit , which did not go to court (at least I don't think it did).
edit on 24/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yup. Just rumors. Based on past actions. Patterns of behavior.

Trump provided the town with copies of the checks, which show that they came from the Trump Foundation.

In Palm Beach, nobody seems to have objected to the fines assessed on Trump’s business being erased by a donation from a charity.

“I don’t know that there was any attention paid to that at the time. We just saw two checks signed by Donald J. Trump,” said John Randolph, the Palm Beach town attorney. “I’m sure we were satisfied with it.”


www.washingtonpost.com... ory.html?tid=a_inl

Pay the debts of a for-profit from a non-profit. Self dealing.

edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Yup. Just rumors. Based on past actions. Patterns of behavior.

Trump provided the town with copies of the checks, which show that they came from the Trump Foundation.

In Palm Beach, nobody seems to have objected to the fines assessed on Trump’s business being erased by a donation from a charity.

“I don’t know that there was any attention paid to that at the time. We just saw two checks signed by Donald J. Trump,” said John Randolph, the Palm Beach town attorney. “I’m sure we were satisfied with it.”


www.washingtonpost.com... ory.html?tid=a_inl

Pay the debts of a for-profit from a non-profit. Self dealing.


That's a different case, isn't it?
Also, in the case you mention here, how do you know Trump did not transfer the money to his charity and pay it from there?
edit on 24/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Did you miss my opening paragraph?



how do you know Trump did not transfer the money to his charity and pay it from their?
To what point? If he had done so his for-profit would have received a tax deduction, but the payment would be out of pocket. By making the payment from a non-profit, he is out nothing. Self dealing

edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Did you miss my opening paragraph?


Sorry, yes I missed that first line.
So OK a different case... and like I said, how do we know Trump did not pay his charity $100k and then transfer it to the charity of choice?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

See my edit in response to yours.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

The fact he paid a charity through his charity, by itself, is not illegal.


I don't know. You found anything that agrees with you?


Your fact that he paid money from his charity is irrelevant on its own.


How?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Prove that is the case and that it was illegal or you are still not using facts to argue this.


Prove what? Argue what?

FACT: Trump cut a check for $158,000 from the Trump Foundation for this settlement.

That is the issue.

Your turn.



Still waiting for documents to prove anything about your supposition. And I'm sure Trumps lawyers are dealing within the law. They are not armchair lawyers like here.


I'm going to state this one more time. I am reporting what's been reported.

You prove what's been reported is right or wrong.

This is not about me.
edit on 24-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Did you miss my opening paragraph?


That's wrong.
He pays his charity £100k and then pays £100k to another charity from his.
He is out of pocket whether he paid directly or used his own charity as an intermediary. The tax position is the same.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop


court papers show, Trump’s golf course signed off on a settlement that required it to make a donation to a group of Greenberg’s choosing



You see that bold...

So tell me why Trump's Foundation and not his Golf Course paid the settlement???


Illegal.
edit on 24-9-2016 by Hazardous1408 because: Spelling.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Prove that is the case and that it was illegal or you are still not using facts to argue this.


Prove what? Argue what?

FACT: Trump cut a check for $158,000 from the Trump Foundation for this settlement.

That is the issue.

Your turn.



Still waiting for documents to prove anything about your supposition. And I'm sure Trumps lawyers are dealing within the law. They are not armchair lawyers like here.


I'm going to state this one more time. I am reporting what's been reported.

You prove what's been reported is right or wrong.


That's nonsense.
I report that Hillary is a space alien.
Prove I am wrong.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim and so far no proof of wrong doing has been shown.
edit on 24/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It was out of court. What aren't you getting about that? For all we know this is exactly what was asked to happen since a judge would have had to approve the settlement.

You seem totally confused on the difference between a court ordered restitution and an out of court settlement.
edit on 24-9-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




The tax position is the same.

I know. That's what I said. So what's the point of running it through the non-profit?

On the other hand, if he made no such contribution to his non-profit he is out nothing and the debt is settled. Self dealing. Malfeasance. An apparent pattern of it.

edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth




The tax position is the same.

I know. That's what I said. So what's the point of running it through the non-profit?

On the other hand, if he made no such contribution to his non-profit he is out nothing and the debt is settled. Self dealing. Malfeasance. An apparent pattern of it.


Yes - if's but's and maybe's.
When you actually have some details then there can be a discussion about proof or conclusions.
What you have right now is nothing, either regarding this case or any other. So we're left with opinions.
edit on 24/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Well did anyone get the memo that an insurance company was supposed to pay this, it was there gig, but they refused so they guy turned to Trump.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




What you have right now is nothing, either regarding this case or any other. So we're left with opinions.
I disagree. There is not nothing.
There is a check written from Trump's non-profit rather than a check from Trump. A check used to settle a claim against Trump.


edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth




What you have right now is nothing, either regarding this case or any other. So we're left with opinions.
I disagree. There is not nothing.
There is a check written from Trump's non-profit rather than a check from Trump. A check used to settle a claim against Trump.



With no evidence of any wrong doing. Nothing but speculation.
Best to wait for the IRS.
edit on 24/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join