MoCo Council candidate Natali Fani-Gonzalez under review for possible tax evasion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

Military sexual assault is the primary underlying issue. They still work as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous]

He applied for and was denied temporary total disability by the VA. If he had been granted permanent total disability, why would he need to apply for temporary total disability? Furthermore, the DAT form requires the VA to fill out part of the form. Did DAT make a mistake in processing the firm or did VA make a mistake in filling it out? This all seems like something she could and should clear up very quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

[Anonymous]

Without wading into all *this* it's pretty straight forward.

She can provide the documentation that shows they are eligible for the benefit. That may even be in process, or limbo. If so, she can say that too.

What she cant do is a broad "its disgusting to go after veteran families", without providing any kind of specifics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

disability is not a permanent state, it was never (hopefully) supposed to be so.

As people get medical interventions the hope is that they are not 100% disabled.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not 100% disabled, people with PTSD can ride a bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

disability is not a permanent state, it was never (hopefully) supposed to be so.

As people get medical interventions the hope is that they are not 100% disabled.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not 100% disabled, people with PTSD can ride a bike.

The VA, which is the sole arbiter of whether someone has a service-connected disability for the purposes of the property tax benefit, has criteria for this. A panel and a judge found that he wasn’t even temporarily totally disabled. It’s a public record. In light of that finding, the next question is how they got the property tax benefit.

[Anonymous]

The twitter replies on this are as you would expect.

If you are a hardcore partisan to the left- this is a gross attack on a veteran family, and nothing more than a conservative hit piece.

If you are on the right- clearly the family has illegally tried to benefit from an exemption that is unearned.

The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle. Her husband was wounded/injured in combat. They have filed the VA claims because of that. Maybe they were turned down. Maybe they are still in process. Maybe they appealed the initial ruling.

Unless I missed something, none of us really know.

She should make a statement and tell us what the status of the claim is.

The truth is, even if they *did* falsely claim the benefit- she will win easily anyway.

[Anonymous]

Eh, I'm a democrat and I didn't like her in the first place, even before the planning board fiasco and whatever this is, but there were too many other people running for the primary so she won.
I'm in her district and this might be the one time I vote for a Republican as a protest vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

disability is not a permanent state, it was never (hopefully) supposed to be so.

As people get medical interventions the hope is that they are not 100% disabled.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not 100% disabled, people with PTSD can ride a bike.

The VA, which is the sole arbiter of whether someone has a service-connected disability for the purposes of the property tax benefit, has criteria for this. A panel and a judge found that he wasn’t even temporarily totally disabled. It’s a public record. In light of that finding, the next question is how they got the property tax benefit.

It was 100% but later 30%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without wading into all *this* it's pretty straight forward.

She can provide the documentation that shows they are eligible for the benefit. That may even be in process, or limbo. If so, she can say that too.

What she cant do is a broad "its disgusting to go after veteran families", without providing any kind of specifics.

Exactly. It’s pretty straightforward and she should have just followed the lead of Wes Moore with his water bill. Instead she’s decided on a different path which is ill advised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

disability is not a permanent state, it was never (hopefully) supposed to be so.

As people get medical interventions the hope is that they are not 100% disabled.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not 100% disabled, people with PTSD can ride a bike.

The VA, which is the sole arbiter of whether someone has a service-connected disability for the purposes of the property tax benefit, has criteria for this. A panel and a judge found that he wasn’t even temporarily totally disabled. It’s a public record. In light of that finding, the next question is how they got the property tax benefit.

It was 100% but later 30%

It’s not complicated.

She should not have claimed the benefit for every year that it was less than the 100%, should have know not to do so and also should repay the back taxes owed.

This is not a great way to start one’s political career and I do worry about the quality of her decision making.

Because it’s financial and she refuses to be transparent, this is much worse than Brandi Brooks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The twitter replies on this are as you would expect.

If you are a hardcore partisan to the left- this is a gross attack on a veteran family, and nothing more than a conservative hit piece.

If you are on the right- clearly the family has illegally tried to benefit from an exemption that is unearned.

The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle. Her husband was wounded/injured in combat. They have filed the VA claims because of that. Maybe they were turned down. Maybe they are still in process. Maybe they appealed the initial ruling.

Unless I missed something, none of us really know.

She should make a statement and tell us what the status of the claim is.

The truth is, even if they *did* falsely claim the benefit- she will win easily anyway.

Her husband has a history of financial mismanagement. He’s been sued in Maryland courts over 10 times for failure to pay debts. Add that context to this situation and it’s hard not to see it as willful shenanigans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

disability is not a permanent state, it was never (hopefully) supposed to be so.

As people get medical interventions the hope is that they are not 100% disabled.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not 100% disabled, people with PTSD can ride a bike.

The VA, which is the sole arbiter of whether someone has a service-connected disability for the purposes of the property tax benefit, has criteria for this. A panel and a judge found that he wasn’t even temporarily totally disabled. It’s a public record. In light of that finding, the next question is how they got the property tax benefit.

It was 100% but later 30%

It’s not complicated.

She should not have claimed the benefit for every year that it was less than the 100%, should have know not to do so and also should repay the back taxes owed.

This is not a great way to start one’s political career and I do worry about the quality of her decision making.

Because it’s financial and she refuses to be transparent, this is much worse than Brandi Brooks.

I agree but the OP is not informed.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not disabled.

Being 30% disabled does not mean you were never 100%

Is it really that hard to report facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The twitter replies on this are as you would expect.

If you are a hardcore partisan to the left- this is a gross attack on a veteran family, and nothing more than a conservative hit piece.

If you are on the right- clearly the family has illegally tried to benefit from an exemption that is unearned.

The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle. Her husband was wounded/injured in combat. They have filed the VA claims because of that. Maybe they were turned down. Maybe they are still in process. Maybe they appealed the initial ruling.

Unless I missed something, none of us really know.

She should make a statement and tell us what the status of the claim is.

The truth is, even if they *did* falsely claim the benefit- she will win easily anyway.

Her husband has a history of financial mismanagement. He’s been sued in Maryland courts over 10 times for failure to pay debts. Add that context to this situation and it’s hard not to see it as willful shenanigans.

Why are women responsible for their h’s actions?