Proof of InnoCentive’s for-profit status was found via Delaware business record search. it’s an interactive component inside the page. There is no link readily available. Turn off Greenwald publicity and learn to conduct business record searches.

Proof of InnoCentive’s for-profit status was found via Delaware business record search. it’s an interactive component inside the page. There is no link readily available. Turn off Greenwald publicity and...

Had he donated the Bona-Fide Gift shares to the PayPal 14, Omidyar *might* have risked unpleasant consequences such as civil damages, but unpleasant consequences would not have interfered with his authority to do it.

Why only “in all practical certainty” could he have gifted those shares? Well, Omidyar, like any shareholder, had the authority to give his personal property (for that is what the Bona-Fide shares are) to whomever–unless the corporation restricted HIS authority in some way AND so secretly than no one in the world–from the SEC to all the NSFW journalists going after him–has ever heard about it. In other words, if a bunch of eBay millionaries went up to one of the world’s most powerful people/multi-billionaires and somehow persuaded him to agree, secretly, not to use his personal property as he saw fit, then yeah, my argument isn’t solid in all epistemological certainty. This is getting to the point of saying the far side of the Moon just might be made of green cheese. Ask anybody on a corporate board or a lawyer who’s fought over shares ownership (and I have asked both plus others) about this, they’ll laugh. It’s wildly implausible that eBay underlings secretly persuaded their superior, Omidyar, not to use his personal property as he saw fit. It would be like one going up to him and saying, “Excuse me, bodyguards, I have to tell my superior something. Hey, Pierre, shh, it’s a secret, but you must buy only blue Corvettes, not red ones. Agree?” Good luck with that.

Had he donated the Bona-Fide Gift shares to the PayPal 14, Omidyar *might* have risked unpleasant consequences such as civil damages, but unpleasant consequences would not have interfered with his...

From the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy by David Leigh and Luke Harding. Leigh was the Guardian’s executive editor who dealt with Assange at the time and can’t handle a passphrase, but who has certainly done a lot of business:

(Keller’s excuse is full of shit but that’s another story.)

From the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy by David Leigh and Luke Harding. Leigh was the Guardian’s executive editor who dealt with Assange at the time and...

The recent, truly helpful leak of NSA XKeyscore code, which assists pro-freedom hackers in building better defenses against surveillance, was NOT a Greewald report.

The recent, truly helpful leak of NSA XKeyscore code, which assists pro-freedom hackers in building better defenses against surveillance, was NOT a Greewald report.

Julian Assange was arrested in sync with his organization’s world-shaking release of State Department cables. In sync as correlation is fact, check the calendar. In sync as causation? Arguing that would require first understanding the (historically predictable) “official” version of the causation: The arrest was due to some combination of surprisingly empty sexual misconduct allegations that turned into this:

But arguing causation is not necessary, for “in sync” comes from the word synchronicity, which means “together in time”: correlation. The word has an exact meaning, and that is the meaning I am using.

Julian Assange was arrested in sync with his organization’s world-shaking release of State Department cables. In sync as correlation is fact, check the calendar. In sync as causation? Arguing that...