Then what is that reason? Maybe you should consider that Julian’s lawyers have previously lied with regard to the promise, that if Obama provided clemency to Bradley Manning, that Julian would turn himself over for extradition to the United States.
Moreover, you keep ignoring, that I demand an independent counsel FOR THE DAO, to protect the interests of the investors, and put the DAO into legal compliance.
I didn’t ignore your demand. I just don’t know what to answer you to that. I’m just a regular supporter and want to free Julian. Not more and not less.
That’s not relevant. How do you propose the DAO would make sufficient funds to pay somebody other than the existing US legal team? The DAOs next goal is surely to raise its profile and its treasury funds. Only somebody with complete DAO managerial experience could do this - and be reputable in dealing with the public.
Doesn’t the DAO have 199 ETH in its treasury, that is enough for the task.
The DAOs next goal is surely to raise its profile and its treasury funds. Only somebody with complete DAO managerial experience could do this - and be reputable in dealing with the public.
The DAO already had people who was reputable in dealing with the public because they were high profile, and all those people left the DAO already. For example Amir had actually made my initial proposal a draft proposal, which would have been able to enrich the treasury, but once the DAO had voted for the stated mission, upon compulsion by Gabriel Assange, these ideas are no longer possible.
You need to look no further than the analysis by Huobi Research, if you think that my conclusion is “irrational”.
Im not going to bother until you write your own draft proposal, separately. If you think the DAO could fund it - do more research - find out the detail and post it.
Not sure. I was going through it quickly. Some aspects seem odd to me and also go against the first proposal, which we had voted on with 96% main focus on Julian…
The proposal also mentioned that the family benefitted of the “donated” money. Actually the donation went to WAU Holland, so it’s not really correct information in it if I interpreted it correctly… The proposal states this DAO is not just for Julian… which somehow seems to be in conflict with our voted main mission… That’s also the reason, why I focused on other stuff…
Anyway, Julian’s situation is pretty serious now and I don’t want to loose my focus on other projects, issues or things where I am no expert in. It’s not productive if I spent time with things, where I am no expert in. I have not so much time for every aspect. Life is too short and I would like, if I can, to delegate such things to people that really know what they are doing in their speciality.
This proposal came before the first proposal which was submitted on behalf of the Gabriel Assange, who in fact did benefit personally in the form of a NFT brokerage fee from Wau Holland.
When you say ‘the power of the court to issue the writ extends to any circumstance where a person is in the custody or control of the US government even with an agreement with a foreign actor,’ are you suggesting that a USA legal action taken by the DAO could free Assange from UK imprisonment?
If the US courts dismiss the indictment, upon granting a writ of habeas corpus, then there is no extradition, and therefore no reason to hold Assange in UK prison.
Edit:
I just read this and threw up a little in my mouth.
Are you not, in effect, accusing Barry Pollack—Assange’s U.S. lawyer since 2013—of malpractice for failing to petition for a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. federal court?
I am impugning him for his feigned charity, to be accused of malpractice of law, you must of course first practice law for that person. So far nothing has been done, for whatever reason that may be, so he can’t commit malpractice.
I would also like to note, that in the article he stated that he would not be bringing the Assange case to the new firm. A partner to a firm have a duty to the firm and their existing clients and profit revenue, so it is entirely possible that could be precluding him.
This proposal is for a professional position to consolidate this DAO so it can advance and concentrate on direction and collaboration, get out of this rut of uncertainty re viable funding projects and thus not fold.
Does anyone deny this DAO is experiencing inertia and a disconnect? Is there an agreed roadmap? No there is not.
So does it need someone with professional DAO managerial skills to complete governance, moderation transparency, funding and synching the community to work together. Yes or no?
Or will the DAO continue with no managerial responses at the forum to people’s ideas and proposals, no community calls each month, no community decision re voting on who are holding positions or defining those positions, no agreed upon roadmap re priorities or completion of governance. If that is the case, then perhaps, the treasury should be used to reimburse all of its “shareholders” and the DAO call it quits and be satisfied it raised so much for Assange’s legal expenses.
In September 2020, Barry Pollack told journalist Kevin Gosztola that he was coordinating with the team of British lawyers representing Assange in extradition proceedings, “advising them on U.S. law, U.S. procedures, what Julian would face if he were brought here because some of that is quite relevant to the extradition proceedings.” Doesn’t such advice from one lawyer to other lawyers constitute the practice of law?