- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Support mounting for Tarsha Clark-Amar (EBRCOA)
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:18 am to Will Cover
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:18 am to Will Cover
quote:
took out a persdonal loan to pay employees
i call BS on that. No way that occurred. She only has the job b/c she is Janice Clark's daughter. If she wants to resolve this situation, just handle the trust for no compensation, like a family member would. Her monthly salary is going to eat the trust down to nothing.
1
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:23 am to YouAre8Up
quote:
Then maybe ole Gravy and MM should stop quoting the Bible since they can't see which is right and which is wrong
The fact that they hide behind Bible quotes while slinging mud and demonizing people all day is the most sickening part of their charade. In essence, they say that their viewpoints are morally irrefutable because the Bible backs up what they say. In MM's mind, it is morally just to demonize two guys (with an emphasis on their skin color and political leanings) because they are concerned that someone has taken advantage of, and profited from, a vulnerable elderly woman. These people are as much Christians as I am an astronaut.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:25 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Let's not give her the benefit of the doubt, because that sum of money is far too much to make that sort of assumption. $500/year, maybe I would allow that. $500/month? frick no. She found a get rich quick scheme, and we caught her in the act. She shouldn't be treated as anything but an unethical thief
Also they would NEVER give a white person the "benefit of the doubt" in this kind of scenario
That's well and good, but you're not drilling down to the real problem. The compensation is irrelevant, langiappe. The power as trustee/executrix is far more concerning. Attacking that part of the problem is the most effective way to approach this issue.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:29 am to upgrayedd
quote:
took out a persdonal loan to pay employees i call BS on that. No way that occurred. She only has the job b/c she is Janice Clark's daughter. If she wants to resolve this situation, just handle the trust for no compensation, like a family member would. Her monthly salary is going to eat the trust down to nothing.
Oh it's possible, they saw the gravy train beyond the light.
She knew, with connections and lies, they could get the tax payers money in the future, just have to get shite straightened out, then the $$$ flows, and no one looking over their shoulders.
One could imagine all the money they have stolen, in the name of business expenses.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:30 am to slackster
quote:
That's well and good, but you're not drilling down to the real problem. The compensation is irrelevant, langiappe. The power as trustee/executrix is far more concerning. Attacking that part of the problem is the most effective way to approach this issue.
I agree.
I've never been put in such a position as this, but it's not very difficult to see how an outside party would view this as shady. There is no way I'd ever put myself in a situation such as that. Even if I had developed a close relationship with someone and they genuinely wanted me to be executor, I'd have to recommend a third party. This is basic ethics.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:31 am to Lsupimp
quote:
If one feels that good deeds on the one hand somehow cancel out stealing family inheritance from young children, then you forfeit your moral standing to be in a position of leadership.
While I agree with your point, I wouldn't get too tied up in the specifics of the family situation of the deceased woman. It is entirely plausible that her many of them are frick-ups and were left out of the will for good reason. Getting into the weeds of the family distracts from the problem at hand - being an executrix/trustee for elderly clients that you serve through a government program is completely unethical, period.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:32 am to slackster
quote:
That's well and good, but you're not drilling down to the real problem. The compensation is irrelevant, langiappe. The power as trustee/executrix is far more concerning. Attacking that part of the problem is the most effective way to approach this issue.
How is the compensation irrelevant? The compensation is the reason this is a story in the first place. Yes, she has a COI for agreeing to be executor of the will. But if there was no money involved, most people would have waved it off. Most notaries would have approved it. But the massive compensation is what forced her to use an accomplice as the notary, and the massive compensation is the most clear sign of wrong-doing in this situation. I understand you're trying to nullify her argument that she doesn't want the money now, but she wrote and signed that legal document for all the money she would be receiving, so it's clear she's only saying she won't take the money to try and save her arse. Only the idiots and apologists are fooled by her saying she doesn't want the money
Edit: and if you don't include the payments, then she could make a reasonable argument that she didn't know it was a COI and that she was doing this as a favor and that she would not be profiting off of it. The direct payment makes this profitable for her and confirms that it was a malicious deal
This post was edited on 4/4/17 at 10:39 am
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:36 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I've never been put in such a position as this, but it's not very difficult to see how an outside party would view this as shady. There is no way I'd ever put myself in a situation such as that. Even if I had developed a close relationship with someone and they genuinely wanted me to be executor, I'd have to recommend a third party. This is basic ethics.
I've been in this situation many times and I always decline such a role because it is impossible for me to fulfill my fiduciary responsibilities without opening myself up to conflict of interest concerns.
For example, who was Clark-Amar going to use to invest the money in the trust until it was needed? What bank would she use? What investment firm and which advisor?
She should have know better and the attorney that drew it up definitely should have known better, but I would have given them a pass if they simply resigned the role and mad sure it wouldn't happen again. Instead, Clark-Amar has chosen to die on this hill, and there is no going back at this point.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:39 am to slackster
Good point. 
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:39 am to Upperdecker
quote:
How is the compensation irrelevant? The compensation is the reason this is a story in the first place. Yes, she has a COI for agreeing to be executor of the will. But if there was no money involved, most people would have waved it off. Most notaries would have approved it. But the massive compensation is what forced her to use an accomplice as the notary, and the massive compensation is the most clear sign of wrong-doing in this situation.
I get what you're saying, and the compensation is certainly outlandish, but the core of the issue remains the power as executrix. You're probably right about the compensation triggering the public outrage, and without it there may not be a story, but anyone in this field knows the real issue is the conflict of interest.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:41 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Edit: and if you don't include the payments, then she could make a reasonable argument that she didn't know it was a COI and that she was doing this as a favor and that she would not be profiting off of it. The direct payment makes this profitable for her and confirms that it was a malicious deal
Perhaps, but if she legitimately didn't know there was a conflict of interest, she's woefully unqualified for such a position.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:43 am to slackster
quote:
Perhaps, but if she legitimately didn't know there was a conflict of interest, she's woefully unqualified for such a position.
Doesn't she have a law degree? If so wouldn't she know exactly what she was doing?
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:44 am to Upperdecker
quote:
How is the compensation irrelevant? The compensation is the reason this is a story in the first place.
It certainly helps in explaining a possible nefarious motive, but TCA being named executrix of the estate is the biggest issue at hand. She is in a position of power over these elderly people and has a duty to protect and care for them as defined by the COA. Her acceptance of control of a family's finances via a person directly under her care is a huge conflict of interest. The fact that she and the COA's legal council brought her to SU law school and got her to sign over her estate to the head of the COA without the family's knowledge is a massive ethical violation.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:44 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Good point.
I just don't want to get bogged down in the "she's stealing from a family" side of things or else we open it up to the family being legitimate shitheads who also abused the woman. Hell, I'm actually inclined to believe that this trust was needed to protect the assets from shady folks in the family. The problem here is that another shady individual was put in charge.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 10:46 am to slackster
quote:
but if she legitimately didn't know there was a conflict of interest, she's woefully unqualified for such a position.
yes running an organization and not having a basic understanding of the bylaws of that organization is worrisome
i think this is one of the primary drivers of the "we did nothing wrong" narrative. this is much larger than just this will. the COA and the political group that TCA is a part of cannot risk such a black eye in the public sphere.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:10 am to BengalBlood81
The problem is that the 500 dollar a month fee is WAY out of proportion with the size of the trust. The lawyer knew it. Tasha knew it. But, they did it anyway because they saw free money. Ethically and morally bankrupt.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:13 am to YouAre8Up
quote:
Doesn't she have a law degree? If so wouldn't she know exactly what she was doing?
She should have known, and if she did and did it anyway, it's malicious. If she didn't know, then she's incompetent. Both are serious issues.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:16 am to slackster
quote:
She should have known, and if she did and did it anyway, it's malicious. If she didn't know, then she's incompetent. Both are serious issues.
Oh I agree.... if she did the I didn't know excuse couldn't be used.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:17 am to Jim Smith
quote:
The problem is that the 500 dollar a month fee is WAY out of proportion with the size of the trust. The lawyer knew it. Tasha knew it. But, they did it anyway because they saw free money. Ethically and morally bankrupt.
I think it could certainly help in proving a possible motive and would consider it a compounding aspect of the issue. You can't award yourself half of the estate overvthe course of two decades as the head of the COA and expect no one to raise an eyebrow. As I've said before, I don't know if she's incompetent, thinks she can't get caught, or both.
Calling the family less than 24 hrs after the death of the lady and putting up a for sale sign at her house a few days after her death doesn't look good for TCA.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 11:21 am to Jim Smith
that $500- a month is also taxable income, wonder if she's been filing that on her tax returns?
then how many other estates is she managing?
then how many other estates is she managing?
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News