Posted on 11/02/2005 12:17:55 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
But there is another side to Jay Sekulow, one that, until now, has been obscured from the public. It is the Jay Sekulow who, through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle -- complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet [...][snip]
That less-known side of Sekulow was revealed in several interviews with former associates of his and in hundreds of pages of court and tax documents reviewed by Legal Times. Critics say Sekulow's lifestyle is at odds with his role as the head of a charitable organization that solicits small donations for legal work in God's name.
For example, in 2001 one of Sekulow's nonprofit organizations paid a total of $2,374,833 to purchase two homes used primarily by Sekulow and his wife. The same nonprofit also subsidized a third home he uses in North Carolina.
At various times in recent years, Sekulow's wife, brother, sister-in-law, and two sons have been on the boards or payrolls of organizations under his control or have received generous payments as contractors. Sekulow's brother Gary is the chief financial officer of both nonprofit organizations that fund his activities, a fact that detractors say diminishes accountability for his spending.
According to documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service, funds from his nonprofits have also been used to lease a private jet from companies under his family's control. And two years ago, Sekulow outsourced his own legal services from the ACLJ, shifting from a position with a publicly disclosed salary to that of a private contractor that requires no public disclosure. He acknowledged to Legal Times that his salary from that arrangement is "above $600,000" a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
The following, if true, is what is problematic here:
For example, in 2001 one of Sekulow's nonprofit organizations paid a total of $2,374,833 to purchase two homes used primarily by Sekulow and his wife. The same nonprofit also subsidized a third home he uses in North Carolina.
If he is already wealthy, this is the sort of thing, while not illegal, just doesn't play well, particularly if your nonprofit is soliciting contributions from more modest-income types. It is the kind of thing that gives one's opposition an opening.
My rule of thumb would be to reap wealth from the for-profits, and only cover expenses with the nonprofits - but that's just what I'm comfortable with.
"For example, in 2001 one of Sekulow's nonprofit organizations paid a total of $2,374,833 to purchase two homes used primarily by Sekulow and his wife. The same nonprofit also subsidized a third home he uses in North Carolina."
Watch the careful wording here. He does NOT own any of this property.
Again, this is a hit piece
Smart investors can turn 1 million into 1.5 in one year, 1.5 into 2 1/2 to three million in 2 years, and in five have 8-12 million. It is done every day."<<<< Yup!
Now...Lets just hope Jay has invested his hard earned salary to live his lavish lifestyle..... not the hard earned dollars the "little people" are sending him to do good work!......Can u see the difference???
Of course I can see the difference. I am one of those "smart investors" who did it without a 501C3, either : )
Again, it isn't a question of legality, it's a question of appearances. If I'm giving to a nonprofit, I'm expecting the $$ to go toward the stated cause or mission - not toward buying $1M+ homes for overnight stays.
I have no idea what the political slant of the website normally is.
It was 1990 when Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson decided to create the ACLJ, and it was no accident that its acronym was one letter away from that of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Someone has got to stop the ACLU in court," said Robertson when he launched the organization.
Careful there - the ACLU DID support Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy in his medical records against the DA in FL! Have to know when your enemies are actually on your side.... ;)
"Again, it isn't a question of legality, it's a question of appearances"
Yes, for the ACLU and the MSM you are correct.They want him BAD. But if this is the case for Sekulow, just about every Democrat Senator and House member would be doing a long stretch in a federal penitentiary. Bill & Hillary included !!
Yes, if the 501(c)(3) charity bought a home and gave it to Sekulow, he would have to pay income tax on the value of the home when they gave it to him, and property taxes on it thereafter. Instead, the charity bought three homes (with donors' contributions) and owns them (tax free), but Sekulow gets to live in all three of them. As the Church Lady says, "How convenient!"
Jay has worked hard for all of the right reasons and is very successful at what he does. He is a great American. Would that all lawyers were so devoted to the constitution.
Yes, convenient AND intelligent. Not only for himself, but for the charity as well. The money will grow faster(5 times faster)in prime real estate than in the bank at 4% interest.
Posters here are jumping on the left wing "ENVYMOBILE"
The ACLU and the rest of the left are trying to GET Jay anyway they can.
Would that Mr. Sekulow was as devoted to the Constitution as you think he is.
I consider him to be a judicial supremicist.
Which nobody, even here in the bastion of online constitutionalism, seems to notice...
Merely a flea on the parasites back..
When do we have/get a good look at the AARP or ACLU...
How about the executors of Americas largest family foundations.. whom contribute massivily to ALL of the main anti-american non profit organizartions, literally trillions of dollars.. held in trust..
A tip of the iceberg Sekulow is, no even not a tip, Sekulow is in the cool air coming off the iceberg..
Amen! He has and is doing a great job. No one is anywhere near as effective in defending the rights of Christians,
Let's take your silliness in order:
And your doctrine is??? Poverty, Sickness, Failure??? It's sooo much easier to be poor and believe God wants you poor, than to be poor and to dare to believe God wants you rich. That's takes faith
Let's put aside the inevitable efforts to put words in another's mouth that is the usual last-ditch desperation tactic of those on the losing side of a debate, and instead concentrate on distinctions that should be crystal clear to even the dimmest bulb: there is a world of difference between acquiring great wealth because one is good at something--a trade, a skill, a unique talent, sheer hard work--and doing so while in the service of the Gospel. This was the raison d'etre of my original observation. It angers you because you've managed to delude yourself into believing that the Bible holds as a core doctrine the key to making you rich. Well, fine: perhaps God is on the verge of handing out sacks of cash to "CAWats"--but that doctrine is no where to be found, no where, in the Bible. That said, the reverse is not automatically implied: save in very limited instances, the Bible implicates no one in some kind of vow of poverty. What the Word of God does indicate, repeatedly, is that those who specifically enrich themselves by naming the name of God are a rather despicable class of people. That is a fact, and no amount of evasions, cute distortions, and Scriptural cherry-picking can change that.
Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Mat 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." Luk 1:37 "For with God nothing shall be impossible."
The latter two Scriptures have nothing to with the issue at hand or, even, material wealth at all. You just tossed them out there to make some kind of obscure point known only to you.
Your invocation of the former Scripture, however, is a different case: here you bring shame not only on yourself, but also on the Faith you claim to represent.
The theme of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews is about that very subject: Faith. Not your stripe of "faith," though: it says absolutely nothing about using "faith" as an entree into worldly wealth or material riches. Indeed, the very first verse of that chapter states precisely the opposite: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). The chapter then goes on to review the Faith of the patriarchs & the prophets. It is about the spiritual Faith of mankind in his relationship to God.
That you would attempt to distort this passage in order to make a dreary point in support of your brand of Get-Rich-Christianity is indeed shocking.
The vow of poverty crap from Christians is tiresome. Jay Sekulow does the work that very, very few Christians can get done. Good for him that as he is a blessing, he is blessed.
Sekulow's youthful resume would not have gotten him an interview at a prestigious firm as a new attorney; but, given his creative smarts and apparent work ethic, I don't think it would have held him back in the money-making department as a more experienced professional in the same 20+ years.
As public perception is the reality, why are liberals and Democrats held to lower standards than Republicans? Why does no one question Soros' demands for increased taxes on Americans while his own income is run through Cayman Island businesses? How can Jesse Jackson continue to get away without revealing his tax forms while running questionable non-profits? Why does no one question the money run through Kennedy trusts based in Fiji or the ability of Joe Kennedy III to "process" his income through his family's oil-based foundation? Why did no one question Dick Gephart's ability to own a 7-garage luxury beach house in North Carolina when his only income was that of a Congressman while his wife was working as a receptionist in a doctor's office to "make ends meet"? And why is no one running Pat Robertson's finances through a sieve as Sekulow would be no place without enabling from Robertson himself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.