[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Thanks for the reply which shows that rule, regulation and law are not the same thing though related  .

Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth.


Patrick, there is no IRS in Scotland.

I'm well aware of that, but, I thought, with your participation on this site, that you might have some friends in the U.S.
I guess not.

For proof of the construction of the earthen dams I suggest you look at the many photos, film clips and statement in the newspaper as to their existence. I of course have seen them myself when visiting last month so I know they exist. Of course you can still carry on denying their existence if this keeps your world on an even keel.

Jon, have you seen either the permits allowing for their construction or the citations issued due to failure to comply ?
How can you devine the legal status of the earthenworks ?  ?  ?

To answer your first question, they are not contained within the planning permission document including amendments. As to the second part, this shows your obvious lack of knowledge about what you are trying to discuss. Here in Scotland any work not detailed within the approved planning permission which is outside of permitted development (both of these are documents available for viewing by the general public which I suggest you do so as to be a little better informed) would be considered as 'non permissible'. When such is discovered by th planning authorities the developer will firstly be made aware of the issue and given time to rectify by altering to comply with the permission or to submit an amendment to the approved plans. This is a process that can take some while and even then any written compliance notice would not become a document of public interest and so not be made public.

Then how can you unequivically declare that he broke rules, regulations or laws.
You don't know all of the facts and details, yet you've drawn an absolute conclusion.
I asked you to document where he had been cited for any violation, and surely, the media and anti-Trump coalition would have jumped all over any breach on his part.  Yet, you can't produce a single document.

As to how do you define the legal status of the earthworks, I don't have to,. Why would I?

The reason that I can not find any documentation about them being illegal is here in Scotland we do not usually include any of the things that go under 'non permitted development and it would surprise me if they did in your part of the world.

Then how can you make unsubstantiated allegations ?


As such the non existence of the earthen dams in the planning permission is proof that they were not permitted.

NO, it's not.
That's an absurd conclusion, one totally absent logic.
You are aware that plans get amended/altered after their initial creation and submission, no ? ? ?

So find the amendment Patrick. I doubt you can however as it does not exist

I don't have to, I'm not the one who unequivically declared that he failed to conform to the permits, and that he violated Scottish laws, rules and regulations, you did, so the burden of proof is on you to prove your allegations.

It is more than possible that such infringements have been noted to the developer but such things are not so often made public being looked up on as oversights.

Are you saying that the local, regional and national Scottish Authorities were complicit in a cover up ?
That the SNH and other opponents remained silent regarding these alleged transgressions ?

No

Then produce the citations.

It would only be after repeated warnings about non compliance that any court action would be taken so there would clearly be no realistic expectancy of a court case at the moment.

Baloney, or Bologna, depending how you like it.
With the high profile nature of this project you can bet your last dollar that the scrutiny placed on every phase of the project was intense and that any violations would have been reported to the authorities and the press.

Indeed, they have been featured in the press and even on the telly

Then the citations for his alleged violations should be easily obtainable by you.
Yet, you've failed to produce a single document.

The facts are earthen dams exist. They are not in the planning permission. They are therefore non permitted development which is non compliance with the planning permission.


John, only a moron, even a nice polite moron knows that your "chain of logic" is deeply flawed.
Plan and work order changes are almost inevitable in any and every project.
To declare that earthenworks not reflected in the original plans are proof of a violation is absurd.
It ignores the fact that many plans are altered after approvals.

Patrice, read my previous statement. I do not mention 'original' just 'planning permission'.
As I have said many time if they are in the planning permission find them

Again, the burden of proof is on you.
You claimed that he didn't adhere to the permitting process, and that he violated Scottish rules and regulations.
So, produce the documented evidence.

This is not a breach of the law Patrick but a non compliance of the building regs.

No it's not.
You don't know if the earthenworks were approved.
You seem to know that Trump wasn't cited for any violation regarding those earthenworks, ergo, by your logic, he had permission.

Patrick, if it is not in the planning permission then it is not permitted what is so difficult to understand.

The failure to recognize subsequent agreements on your part.

The developer therefore needs to either get the planning permission amended to include the earthen dams or remove them so as to comply with the planning permission.


You don't know if he did that, choosing instead to declare that he didn't.
Absent any citation for the violation you allege occured, a prudent man would have to conclude that he sought and received approvals.

No, a prudent man would know that there had not been sufficient time for it to have reached the court process stage and therefore come into the public realm.

Nonsense, with all the anti-Trump vitriol, you can bet, if he was in violation that the anti-Trump coalitiion, media and politicians would have fast tracked that process for the specific purpose of putting a halt to the project they so bitterly opposed.

If the developer fails to do either then he will be served with a 'notice of compliance' which if not complied with will then lead to a prosecution.


OK, so where's the "notice of compliance" documentation.Not so far along

In other words, it doesn't exist, ergo, no breach on Trump's part

Surely that has to be part of the public record.No, it would not be on public record. Only if it were the SE as developer would this be the case

So, you're going to sit there and tell us that any breach on Trump's part, for which he was cited, has been kept secret by the Scottish Government and the Government employees, especially those who are sympathetic to the anti-Trump coalition.  That NO ONE leaked it to the media or the anti-Trump forces.

Jon, time to sign up for that refresher course in human nature and logic


If there is none, again, the prudent man rule would dictate that he sought and received approvals

If he had and received approval then there would be an amendment to the planning permission which there is not.

How do you know the entirety of the scope of agreements related to this project.
How do you know that there are no work order permits that you're not aware of ?

The prudent man would therefore conclude he had yet to get such

It is the non compliance with the 'notice of compliance' which breaks the law not the building of the earthen dams which is a breach of planning permission.

Either way, documented citations have to be issued.
WHERE ARE THEY ?
If none exist, he must have sought and received approval.

As you have not been able to answer the very clear and easy question my point is proved 

Some advice.

1     What ever you do, do not attempt to defend yourself in any civil or criminal matter, even a traffic ticket.
2     Seek the aid of an attorney.
3     Take some courses in "logic" at your local university.

It is clear that you are under the illusion that this is all covered by US laws.

Only a fool could draw that conclusion

Here in Scotland we have an older and some say more refined law.

According to you, individuals or entities can violate Scottish Law, Rules and regulations and not be cited for it.
That hardly sounds refined.
Why have laws, rules and regulations if they're not enforced.
Oh, that's right, you said it takes time.
So, when do you think the citations will reach the courts, in 2038 ?

Please try to make sure your posts stay relevant to Scottish laws, rules and regulations.

I have, it seems that you're the one totally unfamiliar with the laws, rules and regulations of the land.

Finally Patrick, either find the relevant section in the planning permission or stop flogging the dead donkey.

The burden of proof is on you.
You unequivacally declared that he didn't adhere to the permits, that he violated Scottish rules and regulations.
You made the allegations, hence, you have to substantiate them through documentation, not me.

I await the publication of the documents.

Admitting you are wrong is surely not so hard is it?

I wouldn't know, I've never had to do it.

Jon

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

your last sentence says it all. You really don't have a clue do you. It is amazing that you think you are such an expert on Scottish law and the requirements of planning for golf developments in Scotland but are neither anything to do with the Scottish legal system nor have you ever developed a golf course here.

your ignorance is only exceeded by your ego.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

your last sentence says it all. You really don't have a clue do you. It is amazing that you think you are such an expert on Scottish law and the requirements of planning for golf developments in Scotland but are neither anything to do with the Scottish legal system nor have you ever developed a golf course here.

your ignorance is only exceeded by your ego.


Jon, this is simple.

I asked you:

Did he conform to the permitting process ?

You said, "NO"

I asked you:

Did he build to code ?

You said, "NO"

I asked you:

Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

You said, "NO"

I then asked you to provide documented evidence to support your allegations.

You can't, but claim you're right.

Tell us, who's being arrogant and ignorant ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

I have more than adequately answered your questions but you don't realise it due to your inability to accept answers you don't like by simply re-asking the question over and over again. Your assertion is that if there is no documentation for something then it is legal and if something is illegal the would be documentation for it to prove its illegality is frankly laughable.


You have also been unable to answer my questions and failed to produce any evidence to support you assertion that said earthen dams are legal. Such written evidence would exist if they were, so produce it.

You overlook the fact that you are arguing from a position of ignorance in both theoretical and practical experience in both fields we are discussing.

I suggest you accept defeat gracefully.

Of course we both know you won't but hey, that's your problem not mine.

Jon

[Mark Chaplin]

Jon if 8 GCAs & Superintendents provided proof of sand splash affecting greens yet dear Patrick couldn't see it over 50 years with his own eyes I doubt he'll bow down to a little tiff over Scottish law. All good fun though!

[Jeff Goldman]

"Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth."

Uhh Patrick, I know a lot of people (assuming corporations are people, my friend) who get audited by the IRS (I call them "clients") and I tell them, the IRS and the occasional judge all the time that regulations aren't the same thing as law. They are issued pursuant to law (legal authorization) and, unless challenged in certain ways, are binding, but just how binding and how challenge-able usually depends upon the law they are issued pursuant and what kind of regulations they are (look up "Chevron deference" or pay me a bunch an hour) 

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark C,

It is a shame that Patrick is incapable of taking on new info and saying 'wow, I didn't know that' and changing his mind. But know, Patrick just keeps regurgitating the same disproved arguments of move the goal posts. Shame as he really could add so much to the discussion.

Jeff G,

thanks for the clarification. Maybe Patrick will believe you, though I doubt it

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth."

Uhh Patrick, I know a lot of people (assuming corporations are people, my friend) who get audited by the IRS (I call them "clients") and I tell them, the IRS and the occasional judge all the time that regulations aren't the same thing as law. They are issued pursuant to law (legal authorization) and, unless challenged in certain ways, are binding, but just how binding and how challenge-able usually depends upon the law they are issued pursuant and what kind of regulations they are (look up "Chevron deference" or pay me a bunch an hour) 

Jeff,

You can tell the IRS and the judge that the regulations aren't the same thing as law until you're blue in the face.

Wesley Snipes, a famous movie actor, is now serving time in prison due to his failure to adhere to IRS regulations.

I hope you didn't represent him.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I have more than adequately answered your questions but you don't realise it due to your inability to accept answers you don't like by simply re-asking the question over and over again.

NO, you didn't adequately answer any questions.
You categorically declared that Trump had violated permitting, rules and regulations.
I asked you to present substantiating documentation.
You haven't been able to do so to date.
Ergo, your allegations are unsubstantiated and my questions remain unanswered.



Your assertion is that if there is no documentation for something then it is legal and if something is illegal the would be documentation for it to prove its illegality is frankly laughable.

That's not my assertion.
That's your convoluted interpretation formulated to deliberately mislead and justify your inability to document any violations.

You see, there's something over here that we call "Due Process" and making an allegation, especially one involving criminal behavior, requires substantiating evidence.  You have been unable to provide substantiating evidence and want us to accept your allegations as fact.
I'm not prepared to do so.
If Mark Chaplin and others have such low standards for burden of proof when it comes to allegations, that's their perogative.

You have also been unable to answer my questions and failed to produce any evidence to support you assertion that said earthen dams are legal. Such written evidence would exist if they were, so produce it.

I don't have to.
That's the oldest, dumbest ploy in the books.
YOU made the allegation that Trump was in violation of the permits, rules and regulations, ergo, the burden of proof is squarely and solely on your shoulders, not mine.

You overlook the fact that you are arguing from a position of ignorance in both theoretical and practical experience in both fields we are discussing.

My argument is based on the facts presented, and prudent man logic.
Your argument is a witch hunt based on baseless allegations.

Hasn't it dawned on you that none of your supporters, none of the people objecting to this project have been able to produce the documentation.
No leaks from government or those involved with the project.
Doesn't that make you pause and wonder.

You made an allegation absent any documented facts.
And, arrogantly and ignorantly, you're going to stand behind your reckless behavior.

If Trump violated any permits, rules and regulations he should be held accountable.
But, if he didn't, then those making reckless allegations should also be held accountable.
I may take a while to get back to you on that as I have to check the libel and defamation laws in Scotland

I suggest you accept defeat gracefully.

Evidently you have no regard for "Due Process" and think you're entitled to make reckless, unsubstantiated allegations.
I believe in "Due Process"

Let's say that a disgruntled ex-wife/girlfriend made the allegation that you're a child molester or sexual predator, should we accept their allegation without substantiation, like you want us to accept yours ?

Of course we both know you won't but hey, that's your problem not mine.

It's not my problem, it's your problem since you made the unsubstantiated allegation, just like the hypothetical ex-wife/girlfriend.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon if 8 GCAs & Superintendents provided proof of sand splash affecting greens yet dear Patrick couldn't see it over 50 years with his own eyes I doubt he'll bow down to a little tiff over Scottish law.


Mark,

8 GCA's and Superintendents did not provide proof of sand splash changing the contours of greens.

And, the language used above, "affecting" greens is hardly the same.

I look at Jon's example with the same disdain and enlightened suspicion that I looked at Mike Nifong's allegations.

Doesn't it surprise you that none of the anti-Trump coalition has been able to produce documented evidence that Trump violated permits, rules and regulations ?

It surprises me.

But, let's say that next week, someone finds documentation revealing that there were specific violations relating to permits, rules and regulations.
Let's say for example that they had to do with discharge and/or debris.
Certainly Trump should be fined or whatever the appropriate penalty is deemed to be.

But, that doesn't change the fact that Jon was totally unaware of those violations when he made his allegations, and that's wrong.

Jon may dislike Trump, Jon may disapprove of the project, but certainly he should retain his integrity and his sense of fair play and not make unsubstantiated allegations.

I don't think that's too much to ask of anyone, do you ?

All good fun though!

True, true.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

same old, same old.


Patrick,

how many firms have you represented before the IRS?
What experience have you had with Scottish Planning application? (Already asked this once and had no answer which means none I guess)
How many golf courses have you developed in Scotland? (Already asked this once and had no answer which means none I guess)


You think you know better about subjects than people with better qualification, knowledge and experience (if indeed you have any of these). That's called delusional Patrick, you should get some counselling 

Just keep the gems coming, I laughed so hard at your last few posts it hurt;D

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

how many firms have you represented before the IRS?

Jon, you're probably not aware of it, but, the IRS also deals with individuals.
And, I've been before the IRS, up to the Appelate Division, on Corporate and individual matters.
My experience with the IRS is exponentially greater than yours.



What experience have you had with Scottish Planning application? (Already asked this once and had no answer which means none I guess)
How many golf courses have you developed in Scotland? (Already asked this once and had no answer which means none I guess)


Neither question has anything to do with you substantiating, vis a vis documentation, your wild and reckless allegations.

Please, produce the documented evidence that supports your allegations.

You think you know better about subjects than people with better qualification, knowledge and experience (if indeed you have any of these).


You're certainly not one of those people with better qualifications, knowledge and experience in the area of golf course construction/alteration, permitting, rules and regulations, so I have little to fear in the way of reliable contradiction from you.

That's called delusional Patrick, you should get some counselling 

I have, I've gone to sex addiction counseling six times, but, the only results I got were a lot of new dates.

Just keep the gems coming, I laughed so hard at your last few posts it hurt;D

When you fail to substantiate your allegations with cold hard facts, I guess laughter is your last resort and refuge.

[Paul Gray]

Patrick,

I said I couldn't make any promises.

Thanks for the ongoing entertainment.

Taking on the lawyer and the architect now and asking the architect to produce evidence of thin air. Marvellous.

So if a breach occurs and, to date, no action has been taken, has it yet to happen? Tree falls, woods, etc. I had no idea when signing up to this site I would be entering the world of pseudo-metaphyiscs.  

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat,

Snipes was convicted under or for violating a regulation?  Are you sure it wasn't something like willful failure to file under section 7203 of the code (i.e., law) or some other criminal tax statute (fraudulent claim for refund or failure to provide info)?  If he was convicted under a regulation, I would say he would have been a lot better off with me  (I recall learning somewhere that Jerry Kluger is with the criminal division of the IRS or DOJ, so he would be better if he wasn't "on the other side")  

Jeff

[Jon Wiggett]

Still not capable of answering the simplest of questions.

Like I said before, 'same old, same old'

You're certainly not one of those people with better qualifications, knowledge and experience in the area of golf course construction/alteration, permitting, rules and regulations, so I have little to fear in the way of reliable contradiction from you.[/b][/size][/color]

Patrick, when talking about Scotland, I most certainly am.

Though it doesn't surprise me with your delusions of always being right you have had quite a few run ins with the IRS

Paul,

all good points but unfortunately wasted on Patrick

Jeff, don't bother wasting your time discussing things with Patrick. Don't you know he is always right about everything. I had believed up until now that although outspoken on things he didn't really understand he was open to learning from others with a better knowledge on certain points. I was sadly mistaken. He knows Sottish planning, laws & regulation better than anyone on the planet and as for US Tax laws he is emerging as the top dog, at least in his own universe

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I said I couldn't make any promises.

Thanks for the ongoing entertainment.

Taking on the lawyer and the architect now and asking the architect to produce evidence of thin air. Marvellous.


Lack of evidence didn't stop Jon from making his allegations out of thin air, did it ?

So if a breach occurs and, to date, no action has been taken, has it yet to happen?

The problem with your example is that it makes the underlying assumption that a breach HAS occurred, when in this case you don't know if a breach has occurred, you only know that Jon has made an allegation of three separate breaches and can't substantiate any of them with documented evidence.

Tree falls, woods, etc. I had no idea when signing up to this site I would be entering the world of pseudo-metaphyiscs.  
Obviously Ran has suspended the common sense requirement necessary to participate on this site

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Snipes was convicted under or for violating a regulation?  Are you sure it wasn't something like willful failure to file under section 7203 of the code (i.e., law) or some other criminal tax statute (fraudulent claim for refund or failure to provide info)?  If he was convicted under a regulation, I would say he would have been a lot better off with me  (I recall learning somewhere that Jerry Kluger is with the criminal division of the IRS or DOJ, so he would be better if he wasn't "on the other side")  

Jeff,

Jerry was with the DOJ.

You know the intricate relationship between laws, regulations and rules, all of which can subject a violator to civil and criminal prosecution and/or penalties.

Jeff

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

I asked you if Trump had violated any permits, rules and regulations.

YOU stated that he had on all three counts.

I asked you to substantiate your allegations by providing concrete documentation confirming same.

You have failed to provide ANY documentation to support your allegations.

Any questions asked of me are irrelevant and not germane to the issue.

I can understand your desire to divert and deflect attention from your inability to provide documentation supporting your allegations, as it's the only tactic you have left.

The decent or ethical thing to do would be to admit that you misspoke, that you made allegations absent any supporting documentation and that you retract your allegations pending the production of supporting documentation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

He knows Sottish planning, laws & regulation better than anyone on the planet and as for US Tax laws he is emerging as the top dog, at least in his own universe

Jon,

I never claimed being "top dog in U.S. Tax laws", that's your attempt to take the spotlight off of you.
I never claimed to know "Scottish planning, laws & regulation better than anyone on the planet",  That again is an attempt to divert attention away from your failings.

One fact remains incontravertible, namely that you made allegations that Trump violated permits, rules and regulations,
and that to date, you've failed to produce a single iota of documented evidence supporting your allegations.

You're the one with egg on his face.

No matter how many times you attempt to divert and deflect the focus, the fact that you made those allegations absent documented substantiation will remain THE issue.

I would ask others to look, with enlightened suspicion, at any other allegations you might make.

[Mark Chaplin]

Patrick - documentary evidence is your stock answer. You say it because you know it cannot be produced. If I kept on asking you to publish the Board minutes and accounts for one of your clubs you'd rightly tell me to bugger off. Anyway what's the IRS? This is Scotland we are talking about, when did you last step foot in Scotland? Please provide copy of pages of your passport to prove it 

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

I asked you if Trump had violated any permits, rules and regulations.

YOU stated that he had on all three counts.

I asked you to substantiate your allegations by providing concrete documentation confirming same.

You have failed to provide ANY documentation to support your allegations.

Any questions asked of me are irrelevant and not germane to the issue.

I can understand your desire to divert and deflect attention from your inability to provide documentation supporting your allegations, as it's the only tactic you have left.

The decent or ethical thing to do would be to admit that you misspoke, that you made allegations absent any supporting documentation and that you retract your allegations pending the production of supporting documentation.

Same old, same old

Patrick, I think your record is stuck

Jon

[Martin Toal]

I opened this thread expecting pontification and lots of hot air.







But not that much!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - documentary evidence is your stock answer.

Isn't that the preferred method for verifying Jon's allegations ?
Isn't that the prudent/academic/legal method for substantiation ?

You say it because you know it cannot be produced.


How would I know that it can't be produced ?

Haven't you and Jon ever heard of Scotland's Freedom of Information Acts which became law in 2000 and 2002.
I know it doesn't cover every agency, like the DOD, but, c'mon guys, you can't be that ignorant of your own laws.

Or, are you saying that no such violations occurred, therefore, no citations were issued, therefore documentation that doesn't exist can't be produced  ?   Now that makes sense.

As to why I say, "produce the documentation, I say it for the simple reason that it's the only equitable and prudent way to prove the veracity of Jon's allegations, allegations he made without any supporting documentation at the time he made those allegations.
Remember, Jon did not have any supporting documentation at his disposal at the time he made his allegations

If I kept on asking you to publish the Board minutes and accounts for one of your clubs you'd rightly tell me to bugger off.


There's a significant difference between public records and private documents, and I'm sure that you know that.
So, your analogy, like Jon's logic is deeply flawed to the core.


Anyway what's the IRS? This is Scotland we are talking about, when did you last step foot in Scotland? Please provide copy of pages of your passport to prove it 

OK, I'll photo them, scan them and send them to someone who knows how to post photos on GCA.com.

By the way, I was probably in Scotland before both you and Jon were in Scotland

[Patrick_Mucci]

Same old, same old

Patrick, I think your record is stuck

Jon,

I think it's more like you're tongue tied and hog tied by your inability to substantiate your allegations.

That's okay, almost everyone makes mistakes 

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

go and read the planning permission with all relevant updates and you will find that they have not been approved. The document is far to long to scan and post but feel free to find where they have been approved and post that little section.It can't be so long if it is an addition. You could also dig up the news paper reports on their approval after all such a high profile project would have this sort of thing printed in the press as you rightly said.

Oh no, of course you don't have to do you. Of course the reason you say this is because you know they have not been approved and you can't back up your allegations that they must have been.

Same old, same old, Patrick

Jon

ps. still no immigration stamp for entering Scotland posted. Guess you have never been here otherwise you could prove it with the entry stamp

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()