16 October 2010
Wikileaks How Rich
Wired, 15 October 2010:
"The non-profit Wau Holland Foundation in Germany, which manages the bulk of WikiLeaks contributions, confirmed to Wired.com that Assange has authorized the release of money for Mannings defense, but did not provide any other details. In all, WikiLeaks has about $1 million in contributions in its coffers."
Dear Wau Holland,
Due to the long-standing public interest in the financial affairs of Wikileaks your uniquely-privileged information would be highly beneficial for enhancing your reputation and that of Wikileaks in response to the following inquiry.
Please provide for publication on Cryptome.org information on Wikileaks funding:
1. Total amount raised since its founding in 2006
2. Categories of donations by source and amount
3. Expenditures by type and amount
4. Names and locations of all organizations and or persons providing funds management and financial advice
5. Means for accounting and fiduciary responsibility for legal oversight of funds and financial affairs.
6. Provisions for complying with taxation law in the various jurisdictions in which Wikileaks operates
7. Names, titles and locations of those responsible for the legal and financial affairs of Wikileaks and any entities established to manage its financial affairs.
8. Contracts, agreements and verbal arrangements for financial services between Wikileaks and parties, including unpaid volunteers, managing and advising on its financial affairs and any institutions serving as financial agent(s).
For any of these items which you cannot answer please provide guidance on who or what organization should be contacted for information.
Thank you very much.
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 03:53:08 +0100
John, the following may be of interest:
We (PGPBOARD) have also been knocking loudly on Wikileaks and the Wau Holland Foundation door concerning donations to the Bradley Manning Defense fund.
The following appeared here
on the 16th September 2010. Evidently Assange had authorised the donation to Mannings Defense Fund on or around the 9th September 2010. We (PGPBOARD) contacted Attorney Coombs . We published his reply here on the 23rd September 2010:
Attorney Coombs stated that he had received "no sizeable" donation from any organisation. Manning's published Defence Donation status week ending 17th October is here:
There is no clarity concerning Wikileaks donation to Manning's defence fund. What is puzzling is that there is no security issue associated with Wikileaks donation to Manning's defence fund. A statement from Assange confirming the amount of the donation, and confirmation by attorney Coombs would effectively kill such speculation. It would be a win win situation for Assange.
Finally, the Wau Holland Foundation indicated the release date of Wikileaks financial audit here:
Quote from ( http://www.bradleymanning.org/10440/legal-update/ )
Dear Supporters of Bradley Manning,
17 October 2010
Thank you for the information, much of which we have followed with interest.
As you have seen our latest inquiry is to seek more details of on the financial apparatus of Wikileaks commensurate with the reported claim of it having raised $1million. This amount, if true, requires a sophisticated management and accounting system probably beyond Wau Holland Foundation's capabilities to do it alone, or even want to do it alone.
I assume WHF has been notified of an official investigation, is under a nondisclosure order and that accounts for the delay which will likely continue. WHF is likely to waffle at least or stonewall as required by th NDA.
Anybody associated with WL financial affairs are likely to have been notified of the investigation and placed under a non-disclosure order [as with Moneybookers and perhaps PayPal and others]. Funds may have been frozen in part or completely. Promises of donation to Bradley a stall.
The items I requested are conventional in financial investigations. Without them not much provided by WHF can be verified. It is standard stalling to give a little to hide a lot.
It will be interesting to learn who among the Wikileaks insiders are cooperating with authorities to save themselves. And which insiders were placed there for that purpose. I supect some of those were on board at the beginning, not to say Assange himself running a sting. Dirty mind here.
This is not a private message.
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:54:42 +0000
In light of stories that the US government is waging financial warfare
against WikiLeaks, I believe that it should be noted that the FBI has thus far declined to investigate the Wau Holland Foundation
which, according to the Wall Street Journal, is the "linchpin" of Wikileaks funding system
17 October 2010
Thank you for the pointers. As you probably know the FBI is as cagey about its investigations as any official prober, often putting out smoke about what it is doing. As with the Swedish Prosecutor Office about the Assange investigation being strung out as a sure sign of undisclosed activities.
I thingk DoJ's FINCEN would be the one to investigate financial matters using worldwide cooperative agreements and obligatory confidentiality and secrecy to do that. FBI could help but is not the lead as I understand the distribution of tasks. Some of its counterterrorism units work closely with FINCEN, those adept at the ancient metaphysics of hiding money.
The Financial Action Task Force (FTAF), composed of a variety of international financial crime offices, is the specific unit to dig into financial investigations. These units have virtually unlimited powers to go where other officials cannot, at least openly.
These powers are derived from governments' insatiable need for tax revenue, and to expose tax cheats to show death and taxes are unavoidable.
Some wizards think these FINCEN activities are more globally intrusive than those of spies and the military, the latter utterly dependent on getting the tax booty to maintain luxurious lifestyles of highway bandits.
If Wikileaks is properly ensnared, squeezed, wrung, and hung to dry, it will give up its money, donors and volunteers, in secret if the past is followed, with maybe a limited show trial to hide how the probe was done and which does not require disclosing national security secrets -- of the which the most secret are how to maximize the profitability of governments.
Very dirty mind here.