Pearl Jam fill in?

[HankAndLeeStamper]

Can't have my OnlyFans gang thinking i take a one-sided view of these things.
If you missed it during the hub bub of the fest itself, here is the past president's side of things:

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_ro...cf74c4384.html

[festbabe]

Can't have my OnlyFans gang thinking i take a one-sided view of these things.
If you missed it during the hub bub of the fest itself, here is the past president's side of things:

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_ro...cf74c4384.html

Hmmm... I'm not entirely swayed.

I'm interested in the legality of the last statement: "An offer and acceptance constitute an agreement. Now the foundation seeks to breach its agreement..." Because something is offered and accepted year over year, does it make it an agreement for future years? I mean, I might offer to and complete mowing your yard every weekend, but if I get tired of it, I tell you I can't do it anymore, will you take me to court because we had an implied agreement that I would be your lawn service?

[swag]

Can't have my OnlyFans gang thinking i take a one-sided view of these things.
If you missed it during the hub bub of the fest itself, here is the past president's side of things:

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_ro...cf74c4384.html

This part seems disingenuous:

The foundation had discussed a troubling report jeopardizing its 501(C)(3) status. This was an untrue statement. Only after the lawsuit was filed did the past presidents learn that there was not any written report; more astonishing, there were no calls, emails or letters initiated by the IRS stating any type of tax endangerment.

He's suggesting that even if the board thinks something is wrong, that should keep doing it wrong until the IRS comes down on them - that's crazy.

And he's also trying to argue that a suggestion of tax issues only counts if it's written - an odd position from someone suing for perpetual benefits that were promised verbally only, and never in writing.

[kh1958]

Tax exempt organizations cannot engage in "private inurement" which might well include providing excessive lifetime benefits to ex-executives. It does not matter if the IRS is actively asserting the existence of private inurement. Any exempt organization gets advice from attorneys to make sure it stays within the bounds of the law. That article is not written by a person well informed on the law.

[Lit]

And he's also trying to argue that a suggestion of tax issues only counts if it's written - an odd position from someone suing for perpetual benefits that were promised verbally only, and never in writing.

Lawyer pet peeve alert: You mean "orally," not verbally. "Verbal" just means using words, oral or written.

[HankAndLeeStamper]

Tax exempt organizations cannot engage in "private inurement" which might well include providing excessive lifetime benefits to ex-executives. It does not matter if the IRS is actively asserting the existence of private inurement. Any exempt organization gets advice from attorneys to make sure it stays within the bounds of the law. That article is not written by a person well informed on the law.

Nobody said he was well informed on the law. We just said he's the retired chief judge of the orleans parish civil district court where he filed for the injunction.