May 8th - $60,452.55
May 1st - $56,092.55
April 24th - $54,002.55
This makes me sick!
this makes me laugh, if true at all. Hope it was all cash only. :drumroll: They can't buy her freedom, as delusional as they are.
May 8th - $60,452.55
May 1st - $56,092.55
April 24th - $54,002.55
This makes me sick!
The FAQ page for the fund says that figure will be a "rounded-off number", so maybe their idea of rounding is different?
The FAQ page is interesting reading. It begins to explain that taxpayers will actually "fund very little" of post conviction proceedings, then launches into a long paragraph describing all of the proceedings taxpayers will be funding before finally getting to the point where a private attorney would be retained. I don't know, to me that big middle part of the paragraph felt expensive. I didn't read it as "very little" in scope, but maybe their idea of gratitude is similar to their idea of rounding.
Here's my take on the whole PPL thing and Travis. Doing PPL evidently gave TA the confidence to make something of himself and be successful. Quickly. He appears to have had natural business instincts. These qualities are all transferable. TA could very easily have started his own company and been great at it. He was somewhat heading in this direction with his book, blog, motivational speaking, etc. In the not too far distant future, he might have outgrown PPL and struck out on his own. In the meantime, it gave him structures, goals, and a chance to learn about himself with a lot of support.
I'm not sure what the "whip someone's ass" talk was about, but I will tell you from my own experience that very successful salespeople are sometimes a little rough around the edges. This is going to be even more overt the further out a salesperson is on the "car sales spectrum." Like it or not, TA definitely belonged on that "car sales spectrum." However, he may not have stayed out there his whole career. He may eventually (maybe not too far in the future) have pulled back his loud energy and integrated the skilled entrepreneur and moral conservative sides. He was a contemplator and not extroverted to the exclusion of evaluating his own personality and behavior, so perhaps he would have come around to a more consultative and mature presentation. And as for the hypocrisy, I don't believe TA was blind to it. Plus Jodi encouraged and shared in it. The DT sure liked to emphasize it, though.
This is just my sense of what was happening in Travis' career trajectory. I did not know the man.
I never thought of hiding her restraints. I'm sure she would've love to wear more form fitting clothes to show off her figure. I really think she thought her feminine charm and body would help her to persuade the male jurors. Guess it didn't work,Jodi. LOL
Here's my take on the whole PPL thing and Travis. Doing PPL evidently gave TA the confidence to make something of himself and be successful. Quickly. He appears to have had natural business instincts. These qualities are all transferable. TA could very easily have started his own company and been great at it. He was somewhat heading in this direction with his book, blog, motivational speaking, etc. In the not too far distant future, he might have outgrown PPL and struck out on his own. In the meantime, it gave him structures, goals, and a chance to learn about himself with a lot of support.
I'm not sure what the "whip someone's ass" talk was about, but I will tell you from my own experience that very successful salespeople are sometimes a little rough around the edges. This is going to be even more overt the further out a salesperson is on the "car sales spectrum." Like it or not, TA definitely belonged on that "car sales spectrum." However, he may not have stayed out there his whole career. He may eventually (maybe not too far in the future) have pulled back his loud energy and integrated the skilled entrepreneur and moral conservative sides. He was a contemplator and not extroverted to the exclusion of evaluating his own personality and behavior, so perhaps he would have come around to a more consultative and mature presentation. And as for the hypocrisy, I don't believe TA was blind to it. Plus Jodi encouraged and shared in it. The DT sure liked to emphasize it, though.
This is just my sense of what was happening in Travis' career trajectory. I did not know the man.
Some people are so foolish.....The money won't be going to any charities or to Jodi: the "trust" money goes to the Alexanders. No problem at all tracking down the conservators of any funds on Jodi's behalf and getting them prosecuted for aiding and abetting a crime, opening accounts under false names and to get around the law, money laundering, hiding $$$ for the purpose of evading bankruptcy judgments..... No problem, either, in tracking down donors. Donors are really going to get the wrong end of the stick in this. The heads of trust fund managers, fund raisers, and donors alike are going to spin faster than they can ever imagine with what's about to come down the pike.
Incidentally, no charity will accept money from Jodi and her minions. What happened to St. Jude—not to mention the specious donations to a domestic violence organization which made clear they had nothing to do with the Perryville Princess and never would—will almost assuredly happen to the dog shelter and the disabled children's fund. Bad publicity alienates legitimate donors who are acting within the law. Websleuths will be all over this, making sure non-profits know what they are getting, just as they did the last time. No charity will want to be a St. Jude.
Who will be paying for Jodi's lawyers in the Alexanders' civil case? Bwahahaha! Some lucky donors are going to be left holding the bag, I'd guess.... Or maybe Sandy and Sue? MDLR? They're all going to get stiffed IMO. Or else they're going to run off with the money.
AFAIK, there are tweets that show MDLR was managing funds and not just smuggling art work.
Any money for Jodi's use has to get placed in her commissary account in a trust managed by the State of Arizona. The Alexanders will get a very significant portion of this automatically deducted. That's the law.
The FAQ page for the fund says that figure will be a "rounded-off number", so maybe their idea of rounding is different?
The FAQ page is interesting reading. It begins to explain that taxpayers will actually "fund very little" of post conviction proceedings, then launches into a long paragraph describing all of the proceedings taxpayers will be funding before finally getting to the point where a private attorney would be retained. I don't know, to me that big middle part of the paragraph felt expensive. I didn't read it as "very little" in scope, but maybe their idea of gratitude is similar to their idea of rounding.
As much as I wish what you're saying were true, I think they have covered themselves since the trust is not in JA's name. True, if those dollars were transferred to Jodi's commissary account, the Alexanders could legally set claim, but if the trust money flows directly from the trust to an appellate attorney, legally speaking it's not JA's money and never was. To my understanding, if the monies raised are actually used for legal representation, there is nothing the Alexanders can do about it. That's exactly why it's been put in a trust.
As for her legal representation regarding the wrongful death suit, well, that could eat up all her money right there, but I'm guessing she'll forego representation and simply default. There is no argument she or any attorney could offer that would change the decision the court will make about that...
Accounts that are not in Jodi's name will be tracked no problem. Anything that benefits her in anyway will be. Plus, Jodi's been managing and directing these funds from behind bars. They are not at all at arms' length. JA's groupies got very bad advice regarding trusts. Some crook no doubt charged them an exorbitant fee and just told them whatever they wanted to hear. Financial institutions don't like account holders who are attempting to evade legal obligations, because they can be liable. Even the person who opened the account can be liable if they don't perform due diligence, and that means knowing where the money is coming from and knowing where it's going. By the way, making cash deposits to an account at a financial institution? Massive red flag. Deposits to such an account: the depositors' names will be duly noted, as well as their home institutions, routing and account numbers, which can all be used to find a street address..... These twits haven't figured out that all this stuff gets scanned in when they make a deposit? All they have to do is to look at their personal account online and see the scans!
Yesterday or the day before, a blog was cited ^^^^ which spelled out way better than I can how easy it is to track down this stuff. There are special investigators who do this for a living. Plus, JA's groupies have left a trail a mile wide.
I can't tell you how much I hope you're right!
(Oh wait, I think I linked that blog post here) So I hope you're both right!
I can't tell you how much I hope you're right!
(Oh wait, I think I linked that blog post here) So I hope you're both right!
In the old days, I worked in a brokerage firm. Ops was all over brokers if they didn't do due diligence. We had required training in identifying money laundering and various money scams. We were not allowed to open accounts if there was anything remotely fishy. And now computers are way more sophisticated and can pry into many more details.
I wouldn't be surprised if Aunt Sue or the Arias's start a new 'non-profit' just long enough to take the money from the fund.
I wouldn't be surprised if Aunt Sue or the Arias's start a new 'non-profit' just long enough to take the money from the fund. Can they pull an Anthony???
As much as I wish what you're saying were true, I think they have covered themselves since the trust is not in JA's name. True, if those dollars were transferred to Jodi's commissary account, the Alexanders could legally set claim, but if the trust money flows directly from the trust to an appellate attorney, legally speaking it's not JA's money and never was. To my understanding, if the monies raised are actually used for legal representation, there is nothing the Alexanders can do about it. That's exactly why it's been put in a trust.
As for her legal representation regarding the wrongful death suit, well, that could eat up all her money right there, but I'm guessing she'll forego representation and simply default. There is no argument she or any attorney could offer that would change the decision the court will make about that...