Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m telling you — these guys are shady.

I have been skeptical for years about the non-profit they run, Legacy Collective.

They claim it’s a non-profit but the money gets funneled to another non-profit, Pure Charity, which is basically a tech company that makes online fundraising portals for other non-profits (and takes their cut on top). Their website is heavy on the church words, light on actual details.

Pure Charity is what shows up on your tax deduction, not Legacy Collective. But Legacy Collective employs a CEO, Brandon was the “managing director” and other staff. So they grab a cut of the money before they pass it on...

So for $1000/month you get to give money to the Hatmakers through another company and you get the benefit of having it twice siphoned off to help the needy as determined by their very white “board.” And if you give at the $1000/month level you get to go to the Hatmakers house in Buda and have them pretend to be your friend.

The tax info goes to Pure Charity which shows contributions and disbursements but it doesn’t show what came from Legacy Collective and what was collected elsewhere. Legacy Collective claims to have given $3million away — but there isn’t an easy way to verify that from tax filings and a lot of money goes to other funds so we have no idea how much money was collected or reached the hands of the needy.

The Legacy Collective shows disbursements on their website— at different times — for the same amount. $26,316.

I want more about this

I thought let the same! Didn’t research as much as you. But, it always struck me as a bit insulting, actually. Their premise: Give is your money, because, after all, you’re too stupid to research and give to worth organizations on Your own... so, we’ll collect all your money, pool it with a bunch of other schmucks, skim off the top and give some away to causes we think are worthy. Don’t worry, we’re smarter than you and will make your money count. Yeah— count my money as it lines your pockets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m telling you — these guys are shady.

I have been skeptical for years about the non-profit they run, Legacy Collective.

They claim it’s a non-profit but the money gets funneled to another non-profit, Pure Charity, which is basically a tech company that makes online fundraising portals for other non-profits (and takes their cut on top). Their website is heavy on the church words, light on actual details.

Pure Charity is what shows up on your tax deduction, not Legacy Collective. But Legacy Collective employs a CEO, Brandon was the “managing director” and other staff. So they grab a cut of the money before they pass it on...

So for $1000/month you get to give money to the Hatmakers through another company and you get the benefit of having it twice siphoned off to help the needy as determined by their very white “board.” And if you give at the $1000/month level you get to go to the Hatmakers house in Buda and have them pretend to be your friend.

The tax info goes to Pure Charity which shows contributions and disbursements but it doesn’t show what came from Legacy Collective and what was collected elsewhere. Legacy Collective claims to have given $3million away — but there isn’t an easy way to verify that from tax filings and a lot of money goes to other funds so we have no idea how much money was collected or reached the hands of the needy.

The Legacy Collective shows disbursements on their website— at different times — for the same amount. $26,316.

I want more about this

Anonymous wrote:I’m telling you — these guys are shady.

I have been skeptical for years about the non-profit they run, Legacy Collective.

They claim it’s a non-profit but the money gets funneled to another non-profit, Pure Charity, which is basically a tech company that makes online fundraising portals for other non-profits (and takes their cut on top). Their website is heavy on the church words, light on actual details.

Pure Charity is what shows up on your tax deduction, not Legacy Collective. But Legacy Collective employs a CEO, Brandon was the “managing director” and other staff. So they grab a cut of the money before they pass it on...

So for $1000/month you get to give money to the Hatmakers through another company and you get the benefit of having it twice siphoned off to help the needy as determined by their very white “board.” And if you give at the $1000/month level you get to go to the Hatmakers house in Buda and have them pretend to be your friend.

The tax info goes to Pure Charity which shows contributions and disbursements but it doesn’t show what came from Legacy Collective and what was collected elsewhere. Legacy Collective claims to have given $3million away — but there isn’t an easy way to verify that from tax filings and a lot of money goes to other funds so we have no idea how much money was collected or reached the hands of the needy.

The Legacy Collective shows disbursements on their website— at different times — for the same amount. $26,316.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in TX. I know it’s community property. My point is exactly that. You split assets. Therefore she might need the CASH (liquidity) to buy him out of whatever his half of their Buda house is.

Plus, 50/50 isn’t always assured. It’s generally what happens - unless there’s a fight over assets - especially if one spouse stays home and takes care of kids while the other spouse is working. He could always argue for a greater split especially with her current earning potential v his. We also don’t do alimony but cases can be made for spousal support for x amount of time.

He is going to have a tough time arguing for child support if none of his kids are speaking to him, and (at least on social media) changing their names to King. It may be safe to assume that they are not hanging out with him regularly, and therefore he should not be receiving child support.

Um, that’s not how child support works

Well in fairness, to an extent it does. Its based on the number of nights the child spends with each parent. If the kids refuse to see him, there is nothing to support from a CS perspective. Could he get alimony if he isn't working? Yes. That would have no bearing on the kids feelings about him or refusal to see him.

I am not attorney, but I would assume he could get alimony. I assume all those times she was on book tours of interviews or doing presentations, he was taking care of the kids. I assume just like many wives, he made many sacrifices to help her career. If a supportive wife gets alimony, why shouldn't he unless they had nannies, maids, cooks, etc.

I'm not saying he shouldnt/ I was simply correcting the misinformation that CS is not related to the parent seeing the children. Its directly related to how much time he sees the kids. Depending on their assets, I would think that if he doesnt really have the kids much, his half of the estate would likely mean he was able to continue his standard of living. How long have they been married?

Texas doesn’t have alimony.

They got married at like 21 so they definitely didn’t have a prenup.

If she petitions for full physical custody he will be on the hook for CS.

The business manager thing seems like a hindsight red flag. It makes sense since the speculation locally is of a kid from another woman.

Are you a local? Is that what people in their town think?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in TX. I know it’s community property. My point is exactly that. You split assets. Therefore she might need the CASH (liquidity) to buy him out of whatever his half of their Buda house is.

Plus, 50/50 isn’t always assured. It’s generally what happens - unless there’s a fight over assets - especially if one spouse stays home and takes care of kids while the other spouse is working. He could always argue for a greater split especially with her current earning potential v his. We also don’t do alimony but cases can be made for spousal support for x amount of time.

He is going to have a tough time arguing for child support if none of his kids are speaking to him, and (at least on social media) changing their names to King. It may be safe to assume that they are not hanging out with him regularly, and therefore he should not be receiving child support.

Um, that’s not how child support works

Well in fairness, to an extent it does. Its based on the number of nights the child spends with each parent. If the kids refuse to see him, there is nothing to support from a CS perspective. Could he get alimony if he isn't working? Yes. That would have no bearing on the kids feelings about him or refusal to see him.

I am not attorney, but I would assume he could get alimony. I assume all those times she was on book tours of interviews or doing presentations, he was taking care of the kids. I assume just like many wives, he made many sacrifices to help her career. If a supportive wife gets alimony, why shouldn't he unless they had nannies, maids, cooks, etc.

I'm not saying he shouldnt/ I was simply correcting the misinformation that CS is not related to the parent seeing the children. Its directly related to how much time he sees the kids. Depending on their assets, I would think that if he doesnt really have the kids much, his half of the estate would likely mean he was able to continue his standard of living. How long have they been married?

Texas doesn’t have alimony.

They got married at like 21 so they definitely didn’t have a prenup.

If she petitions for full physical custody he will be on the hook for CS.

The business manager thing seems like a hindsight red flag. It makes sense since the speculation locally is of a kid from another woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in TX. I know it’s community property. My point is exactly that. You split assets. Therefore she might need the CASH (liquidity) to buy him out of whatever his half of their Buda house is.

Plus, 50/50 isn’t always assured. It’s generally what happens - unless there’s a fight over assets - especially if one spouse stays home and takes care of kids while the other spouse is working. He could always argue for a greater split especially with her current earning potential v his. We also don’t do alimony but cases can be made for spousal support for x amount of time.

He is going to have a tough time arguing for child support if none of his kids are speaking to him, and (at least on social media) changing their names to King. It may be safe to assume that they are not hanging out with him regularly, and therefore he should not be receiving child support.

Um, that’s not how child support works

Well in fairness, to an extent it does. Its based on the number of nights the child spends with each parent. If the kids refuse to see him, there is nothing to support from a CS perspective. Could he get alimony if he isn't working? Yes. That would have no bearing on the kids feelings about him or refusal to see him.

I am not attorney, but I would assume he could get alimony. I assume all those times she was on book tours of interviews or doing presentations, he was taking care of the kids. I assume just like many wives, he made many sacrifices to help her career. If a supportive wife gets alimony, why shouldn't he unless they had nannies, maids, cooks, etc.

I'm not saying he shouldnt/ I was simply correcting the misinformation that CS is not related to the parent seeing the children. Its directly related to how much time he sees the kids. Depending on their assets, I would think that if he doesnt really have the kids much, his half of the estate would likely mean he was able to continue his standard of living. How long have they been married?

Texas doesn’t have alimony.

They got married at like 21 so they definitely didn’t have a prenup.

If she petitions for full physical custody he will be on the hook for CS.

The business manager thing seems like a hindsight red flag. It makes sense since the speculation locally is of a kid from another woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in TX. I know it’s community property. My point is exactly that. You split assets. Therefore she might need the CASH (liquidity) to buy him out of whatever his half of their Buda house is.

Plus, 50/50 isn’t always assured. It’s generally what happens - unless there’s a fight over assets - especially if one spouse stays home and takes care of kids while the other spouse is working. He could always argue for a greater split especially with her current earning potential v his. We also don’t do alimony but cases can be made for spousal support for x amount of time.

He is going to have a tough time arguing for child support if none of his kids are speaking to him, and (at least on social media) changing their names to King. It may be safe to assume that they are not hanging out with him regularly, and therefore he should not be receiving child support.

Um, that’s not how child support works

Well in fairness, to an extent it does. Its based on the number of nights the child spends with each parent. If the kids refuse to see him, there is nothing to support from a CS perspective. Could he get alimony if he isn't working? Yes. That would have no bearing on the kids feelings about him or refusal to see him.

I am not attorney, but I would assume he could get alimony. I assume all those times she was on book tours of interviews or doing presentations, he was taking care of the kids. I assume just like many wives, he made many sacrifices to help her career. If a supportive wife gets alimony, why shouldn't he unless they had nannies, maids, cooks, etc.

I'm not saying he shouldnt/ I was simply correcting the misinformation that CS is not related to the parent seeing the children. Its directly related to how much time he sees the kids. Depending on their assets, I would think that if he doesnt really have the kids much, his half of the estate would likely mean he was able to continue his standard of living. How long have they been married?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in TX. I know it’s community property. My point is exactly that. You split assets. Therefore she might need the CASH (liquidity) to buy him out of whatever his half of their Buda house is.

Plus, 50/50 isn’t always assured. It’s generally what happens - unless there’s a fight over assets - especially if one spouse stays home and takes care of kids while the other spouse is working. He could always argue for a greater split especially with her current earning potential v his. We also don’t do alimony but cases can be made for spousal support for x amount of time.

He is going to have a tough time arguing for child support if none of his kids are speaking to him, and (at least on social media) changing their names to King. It may be safe to assume that they are not hanging out with him regularly, and therefore he should not be receiving child support.

Um, that’s not how child support works

Well in fairness, to an extent it does. Its based on the number of nights the child spends with each parent. If the kids refuse to see him, there is nothing to support from a CS perspective. Could he get alimony if he isn't working? Yes. That would have no bearing on the kids feelings about him or refusal to see him.

I am not attorney, but I would assume he could get alimony. I assume all those times she was on book tours of interviews or doing presentations, he was taking care of the kids. I assume just like many wives, he made many sacrifices to help her career. If a supportive wife gets alimony, why shouldn't he unless they had nannies, maids, cooks, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in TX. I know it’s community property. My point is exactly that. You split assets. Therefore she might need the CASH (liquidity) to buy him out of whatever his half of their Buda house is.

Plus, 50/50 isn’t always assured. It’s generally what happens - unless there’s a fight over assets - especially if one spouse stays home and takes care of kids while the other spouse is working. He could always argue for a greater split especially with her current earning potential v his. We also don’t do alimony but cases can be made for spousal support for x amount of time.

He is going to have a tough time arguing for child support if none of his kids are speaking to him, and (at least on social media) changing their names to King. It may be safe to assume that they are not hanging out with him regularly, and therefore he should not be receiving child support.

Um, that’s not how child support works

Well in fairness, to an extent it does. Its based on the number of nights the child spends with each parent. If the kids refuse to see him, there is nothing to support from a CS perspective. Could he get alimony if he isn't working? Yes. That would have no bearing on the kids feelings about him or refusal to see him.

I am not attorney, but I would assume he could get alimony. I assume all those times she was on book tours of interviews or doing presentations, he was taking care of the kids. I assume just like many wives, he made many sacrifices to help her career. If a supportive wife gets alimony, why shouldn't he unless they had nannies, maids, cooks, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in TX. I know it’s community property. My point is exactly that. You split assets. Therefore she might need the CASH (liquidity) to buy him out of whatever his half of their Buda house is.

Plus, 50/50 isn’t always assured. It’s generally what happens - unless there’s a fight over assets - especially if one spouse stays home and takes care of kids while the other spouse is working. He could always argue for a greater split especially with her current earning potential v his. We also don’t do alimony but cases can be made for spousal support for x amount of time.

He is going to have a tough time arguing for child support if none of his kids are speaking to him, and (at least on social media) changing their names to King. It may be safe to assume that they are not hanging out with him regularly, and therefore he should not be receiving child support.

Um, that’s not how child support works

Well in fairness, to an extent it does. Its based on the number of nights the child spends with each parent. If the kids refuse to see him, there is nothing to support from a CS perspective. Could he get alimony if he isn't working? Yes. That would have no bearing on the kids feelings about him or refusal to see him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in TX. I know it’s community property. My point is exactly that. You split assets. Therefore she might need the CASH (liquidity) to buy him out of whatever his half of their Buda house is.

Plus, 50/50 isn’t always assured. It’s generally what happens - unless there’s a fight over assets - especially if one spouse stays home and takes care of kids while the other spouse is working. He could always argue for a greater split especially with her current earning potential v his. We also don’t do alimony but cases can be made for spousal support for x amount of time.

He is going to have a tough time arguing for child support if none of his kids are speaking to him, and (at least on social media) changing their names to King. It may be safe to assume that they are not hanging out with him regularly, and therefore he should not be receiving child support.

Um, that’s not how child support works