I think neither you or me know the reason.
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.
I think neither you or me know the reason.
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.
Same. We’re not ignoring it. It has been noted.
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.
This has already been done 3 months ago. This is the draft submitted by Amir.
What do you think about this Draft Proposal?
Rick - ignoring the other issues here, what do you think of the Draft Proposal? Just trying to keep this on topic.
So they should be replaced. We need someone who can be on camera, if need be.
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?
In my mind that would be a DAO specialist, with a proven track record in DAO management!!!
No, otherwise all of the “lawtube” and “blawg-o-sphere” people would be “practicing law”, and could be sued for malpractice by merely giving out legal information on the internet. Lawyers talk alot of the time, and there are mailing lists and in person events, where they discuss legal issues. The practice of law involves the drafting of legal documents for a person, representing a person in court.
Still trying to use rhetorical claims about whether or not I’m accusing him of malpractice, is irrelevant to the fact that even if we grant the last time he was engaged was almost 2 years ago, I do not see any work product from this attorney, where he is representing Julian Assange.
I do not care to speculate why he has failed to produce a writ of habeas corpus, but I am not going to be naïve enough to trust lawyers on blind faith, having seen enough lawyers lose on account of their lack of preparation or plain incompetency, only to have these people found to be innocent years later. For example, our state was violating the defendants right to a unanimous jury trial for decades, and lawyers were uninterested in fighting for this constitutional guarantee for their defendants, and it took a jailhouse lawyer going to the US supreme court to fix it.
Again this could be because pro bono work conflicts with his duties as a partner of a law firm to generate revenue, or because he was waiting for money to come from Assange, or that he neglected to consider the legal issue. I cannot speculate why he failed to deliver, but I do not have illusions that any individual is selfless enough, to voluntarily fall one one’s sword over a pro bono case. There are unfortunately too much work and not enough pay in the criminal defense industry, to the extent that my state claims to only have 1/3rd of the required number of defense attorneys, which is the entire reason why i started on the ML / LAW endeavors to begin with.
Moreover another concern I have is that a lot of lawyers want to have a famous client for PR reasons, as it helps them land people who have deep pockets and are looking for “the best lawyer money can buy”, and some of those PR / money hungry individuals in the past been shown to be dishonest, such famous recent examples include Michael Avenatti, Lin Wood, Sidney Powell.
I very much agree that DAO’s decisions or proposals should be initiated by professionals or elites, and finally confirmed by snapshot. But at present, going to the proposal to hire the operation director cannot solve the problem of DAO, and the time is wrong.
The logic should be to establish perfect DAO governance rules, open the right to propose proposals, determine the organizational form of DAO governance after thorough discussion, and then elect the responsible person through voting. Some would think that would take too much time, but in fact our DAO is at a low point and we have time. What we’re going to do now is to build the foundation on which the DAO operates. Of course, I proposed in the previous post that a governance committee should be formed. We cannot rely on one person. This is very dangerous, and the fault tolerance cost of DAO will be very high.What should the DAO do next? Governance! Governance! Governance! - #6 by zian
Also, our DAO is very poor and any proposals for the use of treasury funds should be avoided until the responsible team of the treasury and the economic model of the treasury are determined, otherwise they will again be faced with the dilemma of lack of funds to work.
In addition, PMA’s departure is full of controversy, and if this proposal is passed, it will only prove once again that his departure was a decision-making error. This can be reversed. Under the current DAO organizational structure, this proposal has no possibility of being passed.
In conclusion, there is no need for discussion on this proposal. But this is the wealth left by the PMA to the DAO, which may be used rationally at the right time in the future.