PDA

View Full Version : Blind Trust......an 'Age-Old Ruse'.........LOL



Qtec
07-18-2012, 01:28 AM
Ouch!

Oh Boy.......... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjWoIr8eXAQ)

Q

LWW
07-18-2012, 02:41 AM
Actually ... it's a legal requirement in the USA.

Qtec
07-18-2012, 02:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually ... it's a legal requirement in the USA. </div></div>

...and an <span style='font-size: 20pt'>'Age-Old Ruse' </span>, according to ROMNEY.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

LWW
07-18-2012, 03:36 AM
And ...

Qtec
07-18-2012, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And ... </div></div>

And what?

Look, it would be a lot quicker if you would just point out the things you don't understand.

Read the next bit slowly....maybe you can get it.


ROMNEY 1994.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Blind trusts are a ruse. </div></div>


ROMNEY 2012.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Trust me, my investments are in a Blind Trust.</div></div>

[ A blind trust run by my long time friend and attorney. We play golf every week but we never discuss my money.]

Q....a ruse.

Soflasnapper
07-18-2012, 09:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually ... it's a legal requirement in the USA. </div></div>

It's not a legal requirement, actually, since divestment and no reinvestment is also a suitable action to avoid conflicts of holdings with official duties.

However, absent divestment (and in the real world, millions of dollars of assets are not going to lay fallow without a return for years), the way Romney did it is probably not appropriate.

It's supposed to be an arms' length relationship, not your long time friend and personal attorney, with whom you enjoy a protected lawyer/client privilege.

LWW
07-18-2012, 10:57 AM
OH DEAR! (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-02/html/2012-15998.htm)

Soflasnapper
07-18-2012, 01:26 PM
Oh dear is right. For you, I think it would be.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (b) Scope. Two characteristics of the qualified trust assure that
true ``blindness'' exists: the independence of the trustee and the
restriction on communications between the independent trustee and the
interested parties. In order to serve as a trustee for an executive
branch qualified trust, an entity must meet the strict requirements for
independence set forth in the Ethics in Government Act and this
regulation. Restrictions on communications also reinforce the
independence of the trustee from the interested parties. During both
the establishment of the trust and the administration of the trust,
communications are limited to certain reports that are required by the
Act and to written communications that are pre-screened by the Office
of Government Ethics. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>No other communications, even about matters not
connected to the trust, are permitted between the independent trustee
and the interested parties.</span></div></div>

Unless that guy stopped being his personal attorney, if he handled anything on Romney's behalf and had any communications with him, it appears to be a violation of the independence required.

DID Romney's personal attorney quit performing that function for him, so as to provide the level of independence required by the above paragraph?

Or is that even true at all concerning Romney, who, after all, held no FEDERAL office, and instead was under the legal restrictions and requirements of STATE LAW? (Isn't this a federal law concerning federal public servants/officers?)

More from your source:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Accordingly, under its authority pursuant to paragraph
(3)(D) of section 102(f) of the Act, the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Office of Government Ethics
will not approve proposed trustees or other fiduciaries who are not
financial institutions</span>, except in unusual cases where compelling
necessity is demonstrated to the Director, in his or her sole
discretion.

(b) Orientation. After the interested party selects a proposed
trustee, that proposed trustee should contact the Office of Government
Ethics for an orientation about the qualified trust program.
(c) Independence requirements. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Director shall determine that a
proposed trustee is independent if:
(1) The entity is independent of and unassociated with any
interested party so that it cannot be controlled or influenced in the
administration of the trust by any interested party;
(2) The entity is not and has not been affiliated with any
interested party, and is not a partner of, or involved in any joint
venture or other investment or business with, any interested party; and
(3) Any director, officer, or employee of such entity:
(i) Is independent of and unassociated with any interested party so
that such director, officer, or employee cannot be controlled or
influenced in the administration of the trust by any interested party;
(ii) Is not and has not been employed by any interested party, not
served as a director, officer, or employee of any organization
affiliated with any interested party, and is not and has not been a
partner of, or involved in any joint venture or other investment with,
any interested party; and
(iii) Is not a relative of any interested party.</span></div></div>

Surely, Romney's personal attorney has been employed by him or engaged by him, and can in no way be described as independent.

But as I said, Romney's not under this federal statute (yet).

Qtec
07-20-2012, 01:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surely, Romney's personal attorney has been employed by him or engaged by him, and can in no way be described as independent.
</div></div>

Only if you suspend disbelief.

We have Mitt on record saying Trust Funds are a ruse, he should know! Especially when they are run by your attorney and long time personal friend.

Q

Soflasnapper
07-20-2012, 09:21 AM
The funny thing is that the federal statute appears to say that among the qualifications they have for a real blind trust, they will also simply wave forward as legitimate any such blind trust arrangement that has met STATE muster, not reviewing it or requiring a tightened standard.

So although Mitt's arrangements do NOT meet the federal standard as I read it, they still probably DO meet the standard by this grandfathering clause.

This man is so slick on his personal financial matters. Not so slick on political or policy matters.