Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 83

Thread: Will another GOP gov fall? Major scandal headed toward Sarah Palin?

  1. #16
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Just thought I'd post these other comments commenting on the random whackjob's previous comments listed in the OP. May provide some background info on this.
    BuffaloGal said... Later on the Lynn site :

    Anonymous said...

    I will take her down folks...

    Been patient about it for a long time...I mean a lifetime...

    Murkowski is here to stay...

    and say a few things by her recent actions...AWAIC...

    Go Murkowski...they have honor...

    Go Palin...to federal prision...

    Grand Torino baby...
    9:26 AM
    =======================

    AWAIC is the Abused Women's Aid in Crisis in Anchorage.

    I'm developing a hunch about who this might be but I won't post it here. Don't want to make trouble for anyone.

    At first I thought it was just a kook but I have a feeling there's something to it. The only piece that doesn't fit for me is the talk about the stolen trust fund. Everything else seems to fit tho.

    I think we shouldn't dismiss it. Maybe just wait for this person to do what they're going to do. We don't accomplish too much by discovering who it is, I guess. Unless of course, we can help them in some way.

    ** scratchin' my head and goin , hmmmmmmm ***
    palingates: Sarah Palin's gates

    "The only piece that doesn't fit for me is the talk about the stolen trust fund. Everything else seems to fit tho."

    There was a story recalled by a poster on this blog under the article about Palin down below. The Raymond Carver Trust was manipulated so that the Palin's could get a mortgage and then $140,000 of the trust was turned over to Chuck Heath, Palin's dad. This provided a way for CH to just "forgive" the Palin's for paying it back. This is a summary of that post; better to read it yourself.

    I have googled to death Raymond/Kristine Carter, Amy L. Carter etc and can find no connection to who may have been a beneficiary of that trust.

    THAT person would certainly have a gripe.

    I have also posted other research I learned wrt this BL Blog posters comments.

    HE/SHE CERTAINLY KNOWS SOME HISTORY ON THE PALINS THAT IS NOT MAINSTREAM.

    I have many questions, but I no longer consider this person a nut case. Hurting and a bit looselipped for their and the "cause's" good, but understand their need to speak out.

    I think it best to not reveal their identity IF it is learned. Best to let the legal process wheels turn so the outcome is fair and just. And, to avoid hurt or threats to this person.
    palingates: Sarah Palin's gates

    Also, the Bob Lynn who is mentioned is an Alaskan legislator. He has his own blog. Recently he initiated legislation to have the ethics complaint process made private. Presumably, this is what the random commenter was, partially, bitching towards him about.

  2. #17
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Edge of the Annex
    Posts
    5,383

    Default

    Please God, bring that bicth down!

  3. #18
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Found a little bit more:
    Anonymous said... I checked the link to Bob Lynn's blog and read the comments by the guy who says he has "initiated" several claims against Palin.

    He sounds like the guy on this blog on the Sat. June 20 Open blog--that Regina linked to Anon.@ 2:31. Very interesting. Maybe he really has filed several claims.

    I also looked into the trust fund issue that he mentions. I recall reading a story about a controvery over a trust fund involving Palin's father, Chuck Heath.

    Sure enough, it looks like that in 1994 Sarah and Todd took out a mortgage from the Raymond Trust and Charles Heath (probably to secure a loan made to them). Then in 1996, the deed of trust securing the mortgage was assigned to Charles Heath. This means that the Palins then owed only Chuck Heath on the mortgage. [Dad, will you let us off the hook for the rest of the $140,000 loan? Thanks!]

    Alaska Department of Natural Resources Recorder's Office UCC Online Filing
    palingates: Sarah Palin blessed with large, loving family - The sequel

  4. #19
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    That's not fucking scandalous. Family members do that all the time. If Palin's father loaned her $ at say 5.5%, and that was lower than what mortgage rates were at the time and more than he could make with any low-risk investment, then it was a good deal for both of them.

    We just made the decision to use some of our savings languishing in a mutual fund to pay off our car loan at 6.75% (from a couple of years ago). We set up a payment schedule to pay ourselves back at 6.5%, which would be tax-free and risk-free. Plus we save whatever interest we would've paid the bank for the remainder of the loan. Win-win.

    Parents who trust their children (or just like them a lot), set up similar loan arrangements all the time.

    I'm sure she's got a very big skeleton in her closet. Someone needs to dig deeper.

  5. #20
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    ^I don't think the IRS would be interested in the fact that they switched mortgage rates. But if they did not amend their taxes to reflect changes within their mortgage, then that may be what the IRS would investigate. No one really knows at this point what the IRS is allegedly investigating.

  6. #21
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    ^I don't think the IRS would be interested in the fact that they switched mortgage rates. But if they did not amend their taxes to reflect changes within their mortgage, then that may be what the IRS would investigate. No one really knows at this point what the IRS is allegedly investigating.
    Where do you live? In the U.S., when you have a mortgage you can deduct the interest paid. The bank sends you a statement every year as proof so you can take the deduction. They also send a copy to the IRS. It would be fucking stupid to deduct mortgage interest you didn't pay because it would be easily caught out in an audit. I think Palin is stupid but not quite that stupid.

    If the IRS is investigating Palin, 10/1 it's for hiding income. She probably gets tons of appearance fees under the table that she doesn't claim.

  7. #22
    Elite Member WhoAmI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Is she going to the Mideast to deflect from whatever the new ethics complaints will be? "I didn't do anything wrong, I'm visiting the troops, see how Christian I am? Geez."

  8. #23
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotncmom View Post
    Where do you live? In the U.S., when you have a mortgage you can deduct the interest paid. The bank sends you a statement every year as proof so you can take the deduction. They also send a copy to the IRS. It would be fucking stupid to deduct mortgage interest you didn't pay because it would be easily caught out in an audit. I think Palin is stupid but not quite that stupid.
    Yes, I know the IRS requirements on mortgages. I'm just trying to connect the dots on what these other people have been saying. I'm just posting it as a possible rationale because that's all I can come up with based on what has been written.

  9. #24
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,128

    Default

    I'm just getting frustrated with all this piddly stuff these bloggers are coming up with. I want to know the good stuff!

    Like I said, she's probably hiding income and Todd probably is too.

  10. #25
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotncmom View Post
    Since this woman was unleashed on the U.S. last Labor Day I've been waiting for her true character to be exposed. Palin is bad, bad news. I discerned it from the time she opened her mouth and said "community organizer" with a gleam in her eye. Frankly her veil is so thin I don't understand why everyone doesn't see through it.
    I think that's when I started loathing her too.

  11. #26
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Some further theories/clarification on this possibility from other people:
    LisanTX said... Anon. at 9:11 am, I've been looking at that real estate transaction. In 1994, Sarah and Todd purchased property from Paul and Sherry Marchille. The Palins granted a deed of trust (which secured a $140,000.00 mortgage on property) to Charles and Sally Heath, the Raymond Carter and Kristine Carter Trust, and Amy Carter.

    In 1996, the Carter Trust and Amy Carter assigned their interest in the deed of trust to Charles Heath. (this means the Carters could no longer foreclose on the deed of trust if the Palins failed to pay the mortgage)

    So then, only Charles and Sally Heath held the mortgage on the property. (At that point the Heaths could "forgive" the mortgage and let the Palins off the hook from paying the mortgage if they wanted to; I have no idea if they actually did)

    Without viewing the Assignment, it isn't possible to determine if the Heaths paid any consideration ($$$) for the assignment.

    On Sept. 23, 2002, the Palins sold the land to Henry Nosek. On Sept. 23, 2002, Todd granted Sarah a power of attorney to sign the documents on his behalf.

    Also on Sept. 23, 2002, the Wasilla City Council granted a Shoreline Setback Exemption on the property on which the Palins current home is located.

    [So, could the property obtained in 1994 be the Palins' home at that time? Which was conveyed once the Palins got an exception to shoreline setback requirements ('cause once they got the exception, they knew they could build their current house right next to the lake?)]

    This information is all of public record:
    Alaska Department of Natural Resources Recorder's Office UCC Online Filing

    2:40 PM
    run4chocolate said... LisanTx @ 2:40 - I posted this response on mudflats but appears pertinent to your comment as well:

    164 Martha Says: June 25th, 2009 at 3:59 PM

    It appears that the Palins borrowed the money from a living trust, that her parents have majority control of AND that was created approximatley 2 weeks before they borrowed the money.

    This “iceberg” threat is about the Palins and Heaths embezzling from with a trust fund that was federally guaranteed. That the federal government agencies are looking (obligated to) into this wrong doing, because of the guarantee. And that the IRS is involved in this too.
    ____________

    That part I got. Private transaction wherein Palin “borrowed” money. Did Palin not pay back the borrowed money? I don’t see embezzlement under the scenario wherein Palin borrowed money (presumably it’s a loan extended by the Carter’s).

    I can see where the IRS might have raised an eyebrow if Palin did not pay back the money. Or if they paid no interest on the “borrowed” money (which the IRS views as an interest-free loan).

    If the money was not paid back, and the value of the “borrowed” money never declared on a 1040, then there’s a problem as the IRS tends to view these types of transactions as involving undeclared income. Oops. Still gotta pay taxes on undeclared income!

    If no interest was paid on the “borrowed” money, then there’s also a problem here as the IRS tends to view the unpaid interest on no-interest loans as… income. If that income was not included on the 1040, then there’s yet another instance of undeclared income. Still gotta pay taxes on undeclared income!

    But that’s all conjecture as we do not know the nature or terms of the transaction(s) that you listed. Did the Carter’s actually loan money to Palin? Did the Carter’s expect to be paid a certain amount of interest? If there was interest, did the Carter’s declare that on their 1040? Did the Carter’s provide the appropriate IRS 1099 interest form to Palin? Has any of this shown up on tax returns released by Palin?

    There are other pertinent questions, but those are where we ought to start.

    Oh, and here’s a kicker… 1994? Are any claims by any of the parties (Palin, Carter, IRS?) barred by applicable statute of limitations? Has the bell tolled on any possible enforcement action?

    7:57 PM
    Gryphen, who runs the Immoral Minority blog, which is an Alaskan blog said this. (And when he says "this post" he is referring to the information on the "embezzlement/IRS" thing since that is what his post is about.)
    Gryphen said... Okay this post has NOTHING to do with comments made on other blogs.

    I have known about this for about two months now, though admittedly I did not have all of the details because Dennis had promised not to talk about it.

    But be aware that Dennis is VERY careful and does not go off half cocked EVER! If he says this thing is coming, you can bet the bank on the fact that it is definitely on its way.

    The commenter that everybody keeps referring to is unknown by me and I have no idea if he is to be trusted, or whether his information is the same as the information that Dennis had access to.

    But this "iceberg" is real and it is huge. And it is NOT the new ethics complaints.

    3:36 PM
    Now, I read that Phil Munger, who runs the Progressive Alaska blog and actually knew/knows Sarah Palin, stated that this current speculation regarding the mortgage and trust fund was not the "iceberg" that has been alluded to on the Alaska Report website. I couldn't find anything on his blog saying that, so I emailed him asking, "I remember it mentioned on the Alaska Report last month "heading toward the SS Palin." Now the Alaska Report is mentioning an "embezzlement/IRS" thing. Is this the same thing? Or two different things."

    His response:
    My understanding is that THIS IRS thing is not the same IRS thing as "the iceberg."
    From this, it sounds to me that there are 2 possible IRS things. And that the speculation regarding the mortgage may be only one of them and not the big one.

  12. #27
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,128

    Default

    1) It appears that the Palins borrowed the money from a living trust, that her parents have majority control of AND that was created approximatley 2 weeks before they borrowed the money.

    2) This “iceberg” threat is about the Palins and Heaths embezzling from with a trust fund that was federally guaranteed. That the federal government agencies are looking (obligated to) into this wrong doing, because of the guarantee. And that the IRS is involved in this too.
    1) A living trust is not a big deal...sounds like her father moved his assets into a living trust, which a lot of older people do. Assets in a living trust avoid probate, which is perfectly legal. A trust is a separate legal entity that can make loans or investments. If Chuck Heath were to die, Sarah and Todd would still be obligated to pay back the loan from the trust, unless there was some language that the debt would be forgiven in the event of death.

    2) To my knowledge, an living trust as specified in #1 is not federally guaranteed. It's not a bank account. If the trust made a loan and Palin didn't pay it back, I believe tort law applies and someone would have to bring a suit on behalf of the trust. The only way I see the IRS getting involved is because forgiveness of a loan can be seen as a gift, which is taxable. You can only give 12,000 per year per person. So Chuck could give 12K to Sarah and 12K to Todd each year. His wife could also gift 12K to each person each year.

    Gifts are NOT taxable as income.

    It is possible that they stupidly screwed this up by forgiving the entire loan at once, which would've triggered gift tax. But Palin could always claim ignorance of "these complicated liberal taxes" or some such and she would pay taxes and penalties. And her base would forgive her because after all, she represents regular folk and none of the regular folk understand those damn taxes, which we wouldn't even have if it wasn't for those damn liberals.


    This is very minor for a politician scandal, if that's what it is. This is not an iceberg.

  13. #28
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotncmom View Post
    This is very minor for a politician scandal, if that's what it is. This is not an iceberg.
    Perhaps. But as I stated above, according to the comment made by Phil Munger, there may be 2 IRS things. Yes, this one (the mortgage) may be minor, but it's the only information people have to go on at this point in terms of making connection between the "embezzlement/IRS" comment and other comments made in other places.

  14. #29
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    Flee, Sarah! Run across your backyard to Russia.



  15. #30
    Elite Member MontanaMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Evading P6 & P7
    Posts
    13,466

    Default

    I agree with most of what you said hotnc, except that if someone forgives a loan, it is not automatically a gift. The foregiven debt IS income, unless it is specifically a gift (and a gift tax return properly and timely filed). This doesn't seem like it's her dad's trust, otherwise it would be the Charles Heath Trust.

    If Charles was the Trustee of some 3rd party's trust and made a loan to Sarah and Todd. Then deeded that mortgage to himself and then foregave the debt, there are MAJOR embezzlement issues, but that is Mr. Heath's issue. And probably barred by the statute of limitations.

    Trusts are not federally guaranteed, unless there was some federal claim that resulted in a settlement/annuity and that is what Chucky was playing with. If the beneficiary of the trust was a minor, then the statute of limitations would be tolled and not start running until the minor became an adult - which is why there may be such a long delay on this. The result might just be that the Palins owe the beneficiary the value of the house plus interest.

    We know that the Palins underreported their income since she's been Governor and have a hefty payment due, but that's hardly new news. Something else too??
    If i hear one more personal attack, i will type while drunk, then you can cry! - Bugdoll
    (716): I'd call her a cunt, but she doesn't seem to have the depth or warmth
    Quote Originally Posted by shedevilang View Post
    (Replying to MontanaMama) This is some of the smartest shit I ever read

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2008, 05:03 PM
  2. Now animals fall victim to China toxic milk scandal
    By Honey in forum Pets and Animals
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 25th, 2008, 11:07 PM
  3. Sarah Palin says the U.S. could be headed for another Great Depression
    By Belinda in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 24th, 2008, 05:35 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 8th, 2008, 10:49 PM
  5. Why the Bristol Palin/Sarah Palin pregnancy controversy is relevant
    By rebelpleb in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2008, 05:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •