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.

 

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

page: 22
65
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

The IRS may think differently with additional information.

Ethics don't matter?




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Grimpachi

Trump didn't offer the prize, neither did his course. You are confused.

The course IS 150+ yards, the ball was hit from the woman's tee which shortens the length to the green.

Do you honestly think it's possible to dig up a green and tee off to redo them without anyone noticing?


Who is saying this?


It says so in the insurance company's rebuttal for the lawsuit. They also provided video and pictures to prove this.


It says he teed off the woman's tee?

You got a link?

In the conditions for the hole-in-one prize was contestant informed of rules?






This is where the golf course may have screwed up. The 150 yards could only be accomplished from the far back of the tee box, where there were a group of spectators, making it impossible to tee off from that location.
The insurer reviewed the claim and photos and video of the shot itself, determining that the position from which Greenberg indicated he'd taken his shot couldn't have actually been the spot where he'd taken it.


Thanks for the printed info.

I get all that. It's still peripheral stuff.

It's about the $158k check.


Wasn't illegal.


You don't know.

I don't know.

The check is the focus.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Annee

The rules didn't say 150 yards, that's why he was paid.

The insurance company had a stipulation of 150 yards and the organizer did not update the rules with that caveat.

The insurance company did a good job in researching the prize and covered their butts.


Thank you.

That's sounds logical.


Good so you concede that Trump was not responsible for the payment of the million dollar prize money.


I stated that where?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

The Title of the thread should read .."Trump refused to pay a guy a million dollar lawsuit settlement after the dumbass teed off at the wrong spot then tried to sue Trump for the prize money that Trump was not responsible for paying out in the first place"


NO!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct

The IRS may think differently with additional information.

Ethics don't matter?


They do. But we should distinguish breaking ethical codes and breaking laws.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Self dealing is illegal.
www.jdsupra.com...

In this case, it appears Trump may have used his non-profit for his own benefit.

edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Self dealing is illegal.
www.jdsupra.com...

In this case, it appears Trump may have used his non-profit for his own benefit.


I agree. He MAY have.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Self dealing is illegal.
www.jdsupra.com...

In this case, it appears Trump may have used his non-profit for his own benefit.


I agree. He MAY have.

Yeah. Well.
'Tis the season for rumor and innuendo. No?

I think he did it, myself.


edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Yeah sure is lol. I think he did too.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Because you perceive something to be unethical means it's illegal?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And I think rainbows come from unicorns asses...just because we think something doesn't make it true.

These circumstantial assumptions are unbecoming of you phage.
edit on 25-9-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You don't realize you agreed with him?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Annee

You don't realize you agreed with him?


What part?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Phage

Because you perceive something to be unethical means it's illegal?

No.
But self dealing is indeed illegal as well as unethical.
 


And I think rainbows come from unicorns asses...just because we think something doesn't make it true.
I realize that. What you thought about court involvement would be a good example.



These circumstantial assumptions are unbecoming of you phage.
Are you making an assumption about me?

But patterns are patterns.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I agree patterns are patterns, but you aren't describing self dealing. You are finding unethical behavior, which is not a question of legality. You've found a businessman who uses every loophole available to save as much money as possible.

Even the example you used was NOT an example of Self Dealing because no fine was paid. The fine was DROPPED after a donation from the trump foundation. Yes, obviously that seems unethical, but not illegal.


Excerpt from a settlement filed in federal court in 2007.


As we see in this case, the settlement specifically asked Trump's business to donate 100k to a charity they agreed on. Trump Foundation was agreed upon. Trump's business donated 100k to his own charity, then had the charity pay 100k to Fisher House Foundation.

While you may perceive this to be unethical, it is not illegal. It's a tax loophole. A crappy one. Donald has readily admitted he has used every available loophole to run his business, and one of his campaign points is closing all those loopholes...how he will close them has not readily been discussed...
edit on 26-9-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Trump's business donated 100k to his own charity, then had the charity pay 100k to Fisher House Foundation.


How does that make any sense?




edit on 26-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I heard this is disinformatoin



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaurenJacobson
I heard this is disinformatoin


It's more propaganda - some assumptions made with no evidence of any wrong-doing spun into a story.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaurenJacobson
I heard this is disinformatoin


What is disinformation?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: LaurenJacobson
I heard this is disinformatoin


It's more propaganda - some assumptions made with no evidence of any wrong-doing spun into a story.


Documented repeated pattern of doing the same/similar thing.

What's that quote? "Fool me once, . . . "


edit on 26-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join