The UK crowdfunding for the plane and health expenses via UK crowdfunder is ongoing. It has a stretch target. Monthly and one off donations requested. The pardon mission is a factor - which is detailed in an update. Last donation one day ago.
The US crowdfunder is on-going. I can see a donation - a one off there from 6 days ago. Run by the Courage Foundation, it states: “The funds raised through this fundraiser will be withdrawn by the Courage Foundation and sent to the Wau Holland Foundation, who will be handling the payment of the jet”
The update doesn’t say the pardon is factor for the campaign, or that the campaign contributes to the pardon effort. It just says people should join the pardon campaign.
I donated to the larger earner - the UK crowdfunder - and my donation should reimburse the flight expense debt currently paid by Wau Holland foremost once the public fundraiser concludes. Both entities are under the same banner - as advertised here - merely separated by preferred currency as far as the
donators are concerned - https://freeassange.org/donate/
The donators have already been thanked - so the necesary fund transfers to WH have to be sorted re advertised public expections - as per the main objective of the fundraiser, highlighting the incredible exposure to debt re the aircraft and logistics.
What’s earned extra above the flight expense itself, I assume will be spent on his recovery and probably the Pardon campaign and that sort of lobbying is expensive. But that is up to the FreeAssange campaign and the rules of the fundraisers to sort once the fundraisers are closed.
I think a previous lobbying campaign cost USD 1.8 million to hire local US lobbyists.
The fact people are still donating to these crowd funders is indicative of the high public support for the extra.
That’s an assumption, and it’d be great if you’re right.
True and irrelevant. Wau Holland Stiftung thought they wouldn’t have to cover the costs because of the crowdfunds, and then they did. They didn’t explain why, didn’t say they were being reimbursed, and haven’t said anything at all about it since then. AFAICT, announcing that change was their last public comment.
Yes, that was one of the lobbying campaigns.
True, but I have to wonder if they would still be donating if they knew that Wau Holland had paid the jet costs already. Or about the bitcoin donation.
They don’t need to say more after their public statement. They expressed loud and clear exactly what is required. The flight expense amount should be reimbused into the account they provided the guarantee from (a temporary only measure). Any fundraiser administrator would know that is the correct action, by the way. I have no argument on what you’re pointing out on this point. This ne is a no brainer. I could see the UK fundraiser getting into major strife if they don’t act to follow their own rules.