re: NyAG brings civil suit against the Trump Foundation and its Board of Directors

Do you take the allegations in the petition as fact? Can we apply this standard across the board? Do you care that you are so disingenuous? Do you care you don't even have an elementary understanding of the New York trust code and the tax code?

quote:

---

How much of this kind of litigation is out there? Seems a rare sort of thing except by regulators or among competing interest in private trusts, but that would be different entirely.

---

A private foundation is often times formed as a trust. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "private trust". That isn't a term used in the tax and trust world.

I have no idea how common litigation regarding self-dealing in private foundations occur. Maybe I just got a rep as the guy who does that. I've tried 3 different cases. All 3 times it wasn't self dealing or it fell under one of the exceptions.

Like I said...being on a board of a non-profit gives you zero insight as to the merits or lack thereof in this case. You used the fallacy of appealing to authority...yet your authority offers you no insight.

quote:

---

Do you take the allegations in the petition as fact? Can we apply this standard across the board? Do you care that you are so disingenuous? Do you care you don't even have an elementary understanding of the New York trust code and the tax code?

---

dont care

Trump's a lying piece of shite with supporters like you. The more I can get that out there the better.

and his dumbass grifter family provides ample source material.

I would wager you probably think Michael Cohen is a stand up guy.

quote:

---

The more I can get that out there the better.

---

No one is listening to you loons bro

quote:

---

Trump's a lying piece of shite with supporters like you.

---

You mean educated on tax and trust law who understands the Code and doesn't sputter sentence fragments like "files charges"?

quote:

---

You mean educated on tax and trust law who understands the Code and doesn't sputter sentence fragments like "files charges"?

---

grammar nazi on tigerdroppings....really?

quote:

---

used "private" inartfully. What I intended to differentiate is between 501(c) organizations and trusts.

---

Huh. Private foundations are often trusts. Public charity and private foundations are both legal terms. A private foundations can be and often are trusts.

You see. This is the problem. You have no clue how it all works. Yet your time on the board of a charity makes you a qualified arbiter of the cases merits?

If anything, it just shows board members of non-profits can be completely ignorant to the rules...like you....and aren't necessarily shady because of it. Unless you are shady.

Mr. Bonds, we all have fake names here. I don't assume to know who you are and won't challenge your actual knowledge. But also, you won't get anywhere claiming to be the only one with legal education and extensive practice experience. I don't answer questions about what I do but I also don't try to "pull rank." For all we know you may be an unemployed former barista. That could be me also. Let's leave it at that.

I couldn't care less if you respect my opinion. There are lots of people here way smarter than me. However, what is clear (and has nothing to do with me) is that you have no clue how this works. Your appeal to your own authority as a board member of a non-profit is what I crtiticized. You had no idea private foundations can be trusts. You have no clue the differences of a private foundation and a public charity.

I have been providing facts. You give your opinion claiming authority, when in reality you were ignorant. You got called out. Deal with it.

quote:

---

The referral to the IRS isn't criminal. Don't know about FEC.

---

Yeah. And FEC probably has a little technicalities in the law that would never be applicable to your average joe, but nothing seems overtly egregious although it seems like too much unnecessary overlap to even toe any line.

quote:

---

A trustee of a private foundation may delegate. I'd be interested to know exactly what actions were being taken and if it rose above allowable delegation.

---

Yeah. It just seemed unnecessary to even have the campaign staff handling both the the campaign and the foundation's givings. I mean why have Lewandowski do it when you could just hire someone, especially since that could probably be used from the donations as it is part of the charitable process. Plus he was running the campaign.

quote:

---

Is Fisher House a non profit? I don't know the details of the suit. What was the wording of the settlement? It may be shady it may not. If fisher house isn't a non profit it would be a disallowed distribution and there would be an excise tax.

---

Fisher House is a non-profit. I don't know the exact settlement, but this is from the suit:

quote:

---

Mar-A-Lago is a private club in Palm Beach, Florida, of which Mr. Trump is the 99.99% owner, located in a district zoned residential. In August 2006, the Town of Palm Beach issued a citation to Mar-A-Lago for violation of several ordinances related to the height and location of flagpoles on residential properties, as well as for failure to seek a building permit or certificate of appropriateness for installing the flagpole.

---

quote:

---

Mar-A-Lago sued the town, arguing that the ordinances were unconstitutional. On April 17, 2007, the parties settled the lawsuit under terms that required Mr. Trump to contribute $100,000 to charities agreed to by the parties. The parties subsequently agreed that the contribution should be made to the Fisher House Foundation.

---

So the issue isn't who he gave it to, but the problem--I guess depending on the settlement agreement--is that it was a settlement against the resort but paid through the foundation. There are other similar examples as well. Maybe that's the reason the settlements sometimes agreed to paid to a foundation, making it legal. OR maybe it was used because it would typically be legal, so the agencies would would look into it wouldn't look into it, since they probably didn't know it was part of a settlement.

So it seems to me either he settled so he could benefit with a legal loophole. Although quite swampy, I guess that is good deal making. On the other hand, it may have have been good deal making, since it wasn't likely to get caught unless someone really scrutinized a normally legal transaction, but it was actually illegal.

These just seem like amounts a business should be able to handle and not worth the risk. At the same time, maybe the business didn't have the funds available to pay the $120,000 so he agreed to pay the $100,000 to a non-profit so the foundation could cover it and likely never face scrutiny (until he became the unlikely presidential candidate).