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: 5
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: theantediluvian

It is called go away money.

It would cost more to fight and could go on for years.


That doesn't matter though. It ain't legal to pay "go away money" with somebody else's money. Even if all the foundation's donations had come from Trump — and we know that's not the case, other people have put in millions while Trump hasn't donated anything to it since 2009 — it would still be self-dealing.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Still nothing showing that Trump was originally responsible for the million dollars mentioned in the OP. All this shows is that Trump's foundation donated money to a charity.

NOT ILLEGAL.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct


Still nothing showing that Trump was originally responsible for the million dollars mentioned in the OP. All this shows is that Trump's foundation donated money to a charity.


What part do you not understand? It's recorded in a letter to the court that a donation would be made to Greenberg's charity to settle the suit.

You got that part right?

The money was paid out of the Trump Foundation's account.

THAT'S NOT LEGAL

Trump can not satisfy personal or business financial obligations with foundation money. This is literally the most cut and dry "scandal" that you'll ever read about on ATS. You don't need to squint at a picture. You don't need to interpret bits of sentences in redacted emails or scrutinize spreadsheets leaked by hackers. No imagination required. No speculation required.

Maybe that's the problem? Would this be easier for people to understand as a YouTube video?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager


I think it could easily be argued that even with Trump being at fault, he only used $2000 of charity money that should have been paid out of his pocket.


No. It doesn't matter whether or not Trump's golf course was actually at fault. They settled the lawsuit. None of that is even relevant to the issue in any way shape or form other than that as part of the settlement, a donation of $158k was to be made to Greenberg's foundation (yeah I wonder how corrupt that thing is).

This is evidenced by a letter that was filed with the court.

The $158k came out of the foundation's account. That is called self-dealing. This whole thing about he only used "$2000" of charity money makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He used $158k of charity money to settle a lawsuit against his golf course.

I don't know why some people are trying so hard to not understand something that is so easily understood. (actually I do)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
The money was paid out of the Trump Foundation's account.
THAT'S NOT LEGAL


I'm not saying your wrong but can you back this up?

I'm wondering why Donalds Lawyers told him this course would be best. Surely they'd know the legality of it.

Everyone screams its ''illegal'' but can you provide the specific laws so i can read them ?

I'm not legal, but how about if Trump put $10million of his own money into an account for the foundation to run it. Would this still be considered the foundations money or Trumps that he can remove/add to when ever he likes?
edit on 21/9/16 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

I will say that democrats and its supporters don't have a leg to stand on when accusing others of illegal activities with their foundations. Its like Hitler accusing Charles Manson of being a murderer.

Stones in glass houses and all that.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I'm not a Trump supporter... but I will bite, sure.

The OP's premise is a complete fabrication of the facts.

The bet had NOTHING TO DO with Trump... other than it was between 2 completely other parties, and took place at Trump's golf course.

The bet was between former Commodities Exchange chairman Martin Greenberg and former NBA star Alonzo Mourning‘s charity.

Story here... "hole in one ace sues"

I guess to be fair to the OP... it was NY Daily News that twisted the story. I would think by now we realize that one so called "media" story does not a truth make.



originally posted by: Kali74
NY Daily News

I had to alter the title to fit it.


It was a million dollar shot until it wasn’t.

Donald Trump once refused to pay a winner of a hole-in-one contest $1 million during a 2010 golf tournament, prompting the competition’s angry winner to sue the mogul, recently unearthed documents from the lawsuit show.

And when the GOP nominee finally settled the suit for $158,000, he did so with money from his charitable foundation, which is illegal.

The claims add to mounting allegations surrounding Trump’s ethics as a businessman as well as the legal and ethical questions surrounding his charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.


This guy never pays what he owes, never keeps his word... how can anyone expect him to follow through on anything he has said on the campaign trail?


But the rules also stipulated that Greenberg’s shot had to travel at least 150 yards, a distance that Trump’s golf club, allegedly, made the hole short of, on purpose.


Like a carnival game. That's exactly what this slime ball is, a carnival barker. Sounds real great...

edit on 21-9-2016 by dasman888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Quotes used n this post are from the OP source...


When Greenberg didn’t receive the money on that basis, he sued Trump’s club, Mourning’s charity and the insurance company that had underwritten the prize......


Oh look at that, it wasn't Trump that was sued it was his company.


.....Eventually, Trump’s club and Greenberg settled the case, with the company agreeing to donate $158,000 to a charity chosen by Greenberg, which he later decided would be the Martin Greenberg Foundation......


Oh look it was Trump's company that settled not Trump, looks like this is not a personal matter.


......Leaders of nonprofit groups and charities are legally forbidden from using money that could benefit themselves or their personal businesses.


Well being that Trump was not involved in the lawsuit it wasn't personal business nor did he benefit from it therefore.....LEGAL



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

Oh look at that, it wasn't Trump that was sued it was his company.


You really just said that?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
SELF DEALING. Charities have to keep public records.


In 1967, Congress passed specific tax regulations for private foundations, saying they can’t use their assets to benefit foundation insiders. But according to the Post, Trump businesses twice settled lawsuits by agreeing to make donations to charity.

“Now if Trump had just written the check to the charity, no problem,” said law professor Lloyd Mayer at Notre Dame. According to the Post, the checks came from the Trump Foundation. “That’s clearly self-dealing — using the charity’s assets to benefit himself and his business interests,” Mayer said. www.marketplace.org...



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

Oh look at that, it wasn't Trump that was sued it was his company.


You really just said that?


Yes. It was likely an LLC or a corporation. They couldn't sue Trump personally.

This is one of the reasons why I incorporated my business. If I broke something that costs millions they couldn't sue me personally, they could only go after my company and it's assets, this saves my house, personal accounts and any other personal assets.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
This is the guy I listened to on the radio today: David A. Fahrenthold --- Reporter --- Washington, D.C.: www.washingtonpost.com...

How a Univision anchor found the missing $10,000 portrait that Trump bought with his charity’s money



Enrique Acevedo anchors the late-night national newscast for Univision, the Spanish-language TV network. On Tuesday night, Acevedo finished the broadcast at midnight at the network's studios in Doral, Fla., near the Miami airport.

But he didn't go home.

He had a reservation.

"I used points," Acevedo said in a telephone interview, meaning American Express reward points. "I didn’t want to … spend any money on Trump’s property, so I used points."

Acevedo was headed to Trump National Doral Miami, a large golf resort owned by the GOP nominee, which was just a few blocks from the Univision studios.

Earlier that night, Acevedo had seen a report — circulated on Twitter and reported by The Washington Post — that the Doral resort was home to a semi-famous work of art.

It was a four-foot-tall portrait of Trump himself, painted by Miami Beach-based artist Havi Schanz. In 2014, the painting had been auctioned off during a charity gala at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla. Trump himself was the winning bidder, buying the painting for $10,000. Then, later, Trump actually paid for the painting with a check from his charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation. www.washingtonpost.com... ritys-money/



edit on 22-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


In 1967, Congress passed specific tax regulations for private foundations, saying they can’t use their assets to benefit foundation insiders. But according to the Post, Trump businesses twice settled lawsuits by agreeing to make donations to charity.

“Now if Trump had just written the check to the charity, no problem,” said law professor Lloyd Mayer at Notre Dame. According to the Post, the checks came from the Trump Foundation. “That’s clearly self-dealing — using the charity’s assets to benefit himself and his business interests,” Mayer said.


but it didn't benefit himself, the money went to another charity.
If trump had of purchased stock in his name or a house in his name, then yes I can see that.

Is there a specific law saying a foundation cannot donate to a charity?
there's a reason trumps lawyers advised him to settle this way, because its probably perfectly legal considering trump didnt benefit from it.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Annee


In 1967, Congress passed specific tax regulations for private foundations, saying they can’t use their assets to benefit foundation insiders. But according to the Post, Trump businesses twice settled lawsuits by agreeing to make donations to charity.

“Now if Trump had just written the check to the charity, no problem,” said law professor Lloyd Mayer at Notre Dame. According to the Post, the checks came from the Trump Foundation. “That’s clearly self-dealing — using the charity’s assets to benefit himself and his business interests,” Mayer said.


but it didn't benefit himself, the money went to another charity.
If trump had of purchased stock in his name or a house in his name, then yes I can see that.

Is there a specific law saying a foundation cannot donate to a charity?
there's a reason trumps lawyers advised him to settle this way, because its probably perfectly legal considering trump didnt benefit from it.


Of course it benefitted him.

First they rig the golf course so you can't win.

The guy sues him. They settle.

Trump uses money that does not belong to him to pay the settlement.

Trump Charity loses - - - Trump wins.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
First they rig the golf course so you can't win.
The guy sues him. They settle.
Trump uses money that does not belong to him to pay the settlement.
Trump Charity loses - - - Trump wins.

This is why people dont like debating with Clinton supporters


1. No one rigged anything and thats just a assumption you've figured out in the last 2 pages.
2. They sued the people running the charity and the insurance company, not him (him = trump)
3. It didn't benefit Trump. His foundation and donated to a charity

Until you can pull your head out of Clinton's stench and actually show me a law that forbids one foundation donating to charity being outlawed, your grasping at straws just like all the other Trump accusations.

I'm not saying such a law doesnt exist, it might - I dont know. but if it did, id have imaged it would have been on the clintons talking point list months ago.


edit on 22/9/16 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

there's a reason trumps lawyers advised him to settle this way, because its probably perfectly legal considering trump didnt benefit from it.


His lawyers negotiated a deal.

Do you really think they told him to pay it with his own charity money?

It needed to come from him personally. The money in his charity is not his.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Annee
First they rig the golf course so you can't win.
The guy sues him. They settle.
Trump uses money that does not belong to him to pay the settlement.
Trump Charity loses - - - Trump wins.

This is why people dont like debating with Clinton supporters


THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON - - in any way, shape, or form.

It's about facts.

What's legal and what's not.


edit on 22-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Alright. I've done a little more digging on this and I'll secede from part of my previous position.

Washington Post

Apparently, the settlement with Trump was for $500,000, not 158,000. And it was the Trump Golf Course, and not his foundation, that was specified in the agreement as you can see below. The 158,000 was to Greenberg's foundation. The rest of the 342,000 may have been donated to other charitable organizations through the Trump Foundation.





That's where Fahrenthold comes in. He's been tracking the money coming into and going out of the Trump Foundation, a 501(c)(3) established by the Republican presidential nominee. He spotted a contribution from the foundation to the Martin B. Greenberg Foundation listed in the foundation's 2012 federal tax filing — a contribution for the sum of $158,000. In his article Tuesday, Fahrenthold noted that the path from a debt owed by Trump National to a payment from the Trump Foundation isn't quite clear, and may not be legal.


So, it isn't clear if there was a way that Trump was legally able to have his foundation pay. But, again, I digress from my previous position and agree that this was most likely illegal.

Further, it seems that it was either Trump or the charities responsibility to properly set the markers. Below is a copy of the underwriters(?) letter denying the claim. It doesn't say who the letter is written to.




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. So whether the markers were correctly placed or not is irrelevant as it should have been the golf courses responsibility to make sure the tee off location was free from obstruction.


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. The back of the tee box was filled with spectators and other accoutrements of the contest that weren't there when Greenberg and the company's representative returned several hours later. The golf pro at Trump National told the insurer that the 13th hole could only measure 150 yards if a golfer teed off from the very back of the tee box. So Greenberg's shot was more like 135 yards, too short to qualify for the million bucks.


But, even with this - I'm still voting against Hillary



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No, I think his lawyers told him to settle the dispute without accepting fault.
The parties discussed it and it was agreed trumps foundation would make a donation to a charity.

His lawyers knew it would be legal (if it indeed it is)

so again, until you can show a law stating a foundation cannot donate to a charity you arent achieving anything.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Annee

No, I think his lawyers told him to settle the dispute without accepting fault.
The parties discussed it and it was agreed trumps foundation would make a donation to a charity..



Did the lawyers tell him to use his Charity money to pay a business debt?

edit on 22-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join