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: 7
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



The intent of such a settlement (with payment to a charity) is to penalize the "defendant." It is done when complainants don't really care about the money as much as the principle.

I can't find the entire document and I'm too tired to keep searching for it, but the fact that it is a legal document and simply says "contribution" in no way obligates it to be a cash contribution. It could have been $500,000 worth of recycled toilet paper. Without knowing the full document it leaves a lot to speculation as well.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
how can anyone expect him to follow through on anything he has said on the campaign trail?





Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, all politicians are trustworthy, except Trump. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




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?


thats why he is in polotics. and hillary is better? When wil lamericans wake up and vote for people and polices rather than being drawn into showboating - Ron paul was the only person to make america better- at the moment you guys are doomed



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Kali74

Boy the hit pieces against Trump are on fire I tell ya!!!

Only problem though, this had NOTHING to do with Trump other than it was played on his course.

The former chairman of the Commodities Exchange, Marty Greenberg, is suing former NBA superstar Alonzo Mourning over a hole-in-one, the NY Post reports.

Uh-oh, looks like Trump WASN'T the one sued.

But after the event, the insurer backing the tournament refused to pay up, because they said "Greenberg's required 150-yard shot had actually traveled only 139 yards."

Oh my, didn't meet the requirements. That's like an 18-year old winning a jackpot in Vegas.

Meanwhile, the Trump Organization says: "We had nothing to do with the matter other than they chose to use our course."

I hear he has nice courses.

And apparently the Donald offered to play a round at the course with Greenberg with some pretty sweet terms attached. If Greenberg won, Trump would hand over $1 million in cash then and there. If Greenberg lost, he'd have to pony up $100,000. Greenberg didn't take him up on the wager.


Gee it sure is fun to post sensational clickbait threads...but sucks when someone actually fact-checks it.
source


Wow - the whole thing is a propaganda hit piece?
Unbelievable - well actually its not.

So, someone else refused to pay a prize and because it was on Trump's golf course it's his fault.
These hit pieces are so weak and so contrived these days.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

there is nothing illegal about donating money to a charity from your charity, to fulfill a negotiated settlement in a csae where the only wrong you did was own a golf course.
unfortunately when you are mega rich, that is how it works.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Kali74
how can anyone expect him to follow through on anything he has said on the campaign trail?





Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, all politicians are trustworthy, except Trump. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!


Said no one ever. You missed an exclamation point.
edit on 9/22/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Could it be a more biased article? How ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: lSkrewloosel

Who said Hillary is better? Only Trump supporters have brought her up in this thread.



When wil lamericans wake up and vote for people and polices rather than being drawn into showboating


I dunno, I ask myself that often. I also wonder when morons will be able to piece together that criticism of one is not support of the other.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Yes. The stipulation of the settlement (a debt) was that payment be made to a charity. That is not uncommon.

The problem is that Trump used money from a charity to fulfill his obligation (debt). That is not how it is supposed to work.


But it wasn't Trump that was named in the lawsuit. It was a company of his. Corporations can be sued. Trump himself was under no legal obligations, his company was, corporations and people are similar yet separate entities.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Yes. The stipulation of the settlement (a debt) was that payment be made to a charity. That is not uncommon.

The problem is that Trump used money from a charity to fulfill his obligation (debt). That is not how it is supposed to work.


But it wasn't Trump that was named in the lawsuit. It was a company of his. Corporations can be sued. Trump himself was under no legal obligations, his company was, corporations and people are similar yet separate entities.


That's really weak. Trump not responsible for the company he owns - - the company is.


A for profit business can not benefit from a non-profit.

The penalty was against "Trump the Company" - - a for profit business. They can not use non-profit money (it's not their money) to pay a penalty.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Yes. The stipulation of the settlement (a debt) was that payment be made to a charity. That is not uncommon.

The problem is that Trump used money from a charity to fulfill his obligation (debt). That is not how it is supposed to work.


But it wasn't Trump that was named in the lawsuit. It was a company of his. Corporations can be sued. Trump himself was under no legal obligations, his company was, corporations and people are similar yet separate entities.


That's really weak. Trump not responsible for the company he owns - - the company is.


A for profit business can not benefit from a non-profit.

The penalty was against "Trump the Company" - - a for profit business. They can not use non-profit money (it's not their money) to pay a penalty.



I believe the arrangement for the settlement was submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the court so maybe you should be looking into corruption of the court if you believe something illegal happened.

Let me know what you find. I'm gonna bet nothing because nothing illegal happened.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Yes. The stipulation of the settlement (a debt) was that payment be made to a charity. That is not uncommon.

The problem is that Trump used money from a charity to fulfill his obligation (debt). That is not how it is supposed to work.


But it wasn't Trump that was named in the lawsuit. It was a company of his. Corporations can be sued. Trump himself was under no legal obligations, his company was, corporations and people are similar yet separate entities.


That's really weak. Trump not responsible for the company he owns - - the company is.


A for profit business can not benefit from a non-profit.

The penalty was against "Trump the Company" - - a for profit business. They can not use non-profit money (it's not their money) to pay a penalty.



I believe the arrangement for the settlement was submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the court so maybe you should be looking into corruption of the court if you believe something illegal happened.

Let me know what you find. I'm gonna bet nothing because nothing illegal happened.


You "believe"?

It's a tax law. You can't use charity funds to pay a for-prophet business debt (judgement).



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Yes. The stipulation of the settlement (a debt) was that payment be made to a charity. That is not uncommon.

The problem is that Trump used money from a charity to fulfill his obligation (debt). That is not how it is supposed to work.


But it wasn't Trump that was named in the lawsuit. It was a company of his. Corporations can be sued. Trump himself was under no legal obligations, his company was, corporations and people are similar yet separate entities.


That's really weak. Trump not responsible for the company he owns - - the company is.


A for profit business can not benefit from a non-profit.

The penalty was against "Trump the Company" - - a for profit business. They can not use non-profit money (it's not their money) to pay a penalty.



By the way what "penalty" are you referring to? There was no penalty ordered by the court to be paid. In fact there was no ruling by the court faulting anyone, therefore there was no legal obligation for any of the participants in the lawsuit to pay any penalty.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Done.

I don't do circular.

Another link: www.google.com...
edit on 22-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Yes. The stipulation of the settlement (a debt) was that payment be made to a charity. That is not uncommon.

The problem is that Trump used money from a charity to fulfill his obligation (debt). That is not how it is supposed to work.


But it wasn't Trump that was named in the lawsuit. It was a company of his. Corporations can be sued. Trump himself was under no legal obligations, his company was, corporations and people are similar yet separate entities.


That's really weak. Trump not responsible for the company he owns - - the company is.


A for profit business can not benefit from a non-profit.

The penalty was against "Trump the Company" - - a for profit business. They can not use non-profit money (it's not their money) to pay a penalty.



I believe the arrangement for the settlement was submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the court so maybe you should be looking into corruption of the court if you believe something illegal happened.

Let me know what you find. I'm gonna bet nothing because nothing illegal happened.


You "believe"?

It's a tax law. You can't use charity funds to pay a for-prophet business debt (judgement).



Yeah, the court has to sign these things off you know.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct



Yeah, the court has to sign these things off you know.

Only if it goes through the court system.

You know, "out of court." There's a reason for that terminology.

edit on 9/22/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Yes. The stipulation of the settlement (a debt) was that payment be made to a charity. That is not uncommon.

The problem is that Trump used money from a charity to fulfill his obligation (debt). That is not how it is supposed to work.


But it wasn't Trump that was named in the lawsuit. It was a company of his. Corporations can be sued. Trump himself was under no legal obligations, his company was, corporations and people are similar yet separate entities.


That's really weak. Trump not responsible for the company he owns - - the company is.


A for profit business can not benefit from a non-profit.

The penalty was against "Trump the Company" - - a for profit business. They can not use non-profit money (it's not their money) to pay a penalty.



I believe the arrangement for the settlement was submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the court so maybe you should be looking into corruption of the court if you believe something illegal happened.

Let me know what you find. I'm gonna bet nothing because nothing illegal happened.


You "believe"?

It's a tax law. You can't use charity funds to pay a for-prophet business debt (judgement).



It is possible the court didn't know where the money was to come from. It may not have stipulated that in the paperwork. IF it did then as the court signed off on it then it's the fault of the court IF something illegal happened there.

IF it did not stipulate in the paperwork where the money was to come from and IF the money transfer wasn't legal then there might just be something to this.

IF IF IF IF We can find the paperwork we can get to the bottom of this. If we can't then this will go nowhere.

How's that Annee?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct



Yeah, the court has to sign these things off you know.

Only if it goes through the court system.

You know, "out of court." There's a reason for that terminology.

Then, on the day that the parties informed the court they had settled their case, a $158,000 donation was sent to the Martin Greenberg Foundation. 
Annee's source

Looks like the court reviewed it. Probably so that they can't keep getting sued for the same thing by the same people over and over, there needs to be at least minimal oversight.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee




It's a tax law. You can't use charity funds to pay a for-prophet business debt


But those damn prophets charge so much! And most the time they're not even close with their predictions, not to mention they are ALWAYS taking charity money



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct


Looks like the court reviewed it.
The court was told that the case was settled. In other words, the lawsuit was dropped. The court played no part at that point.

Why are you ignoring the fact that the agreement specified the entity which was supposed to make payment?

edit on 9/22/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join