PDA

View Full Version : Blimp discussion




Cyclone
12-24-2007, 12:16 AM
A lot of things have changed recently:

1. We learned the blimp team is settling a lawsuit with someone over something. What is the status of this?

2. The structure of the donations has changed: Now instead of buying advertising time from an advertising company (the thing that was supposed to circumvent FEC rules) you are making a donation to sponsor a blimp tour. What has that done to the FEC regulations and how does that affect donors? Or does it? It is a big change however.

3. The name of the company, Liberty Political Advertising is no longer on the website. If that donating to that for-profit company is what protected people from FEC regulations, then what happens when the company name is no longer there. You won't have it on any receipt for donations. We know there are rules about PACs and making large donations. Has a PAC been set up instead?

4. When you go to the Google checkout to make a donation it now states this: Order Details - RonPaulBlimpTour, 305 710-7344, 650 Pennsylvania Ave, #25, Miami Beach, FL 33139 US
Qty Item Price
1 Sponsorship of the Ron Paul Blimp Tour - Fly the Ron Paul Blimp to the Inauguration!

The old company was located in North Carolina, why is the money now going to this account in Florida?

RP4Pres2008
12-24-2007, 10:50 AM
These are all fair questions, I doubt a lot of the information can be given out though. Some of these questions have been lingering for days.

Here is a question: How long has the blimp been in the air and thus how many more days do we get for our initial $400,000?

pacelli
12-24-2007, 11:09 AM
This is a direct quote from the ronpaulblimp.com Disclosure page:


Audit Committee

We invite grassroots supporters of Ron Paul who wish to assure the financial integrity of the Ron Paul Blimp project to form into committees. We will give the committee with the largest number of CPA's unlimited access to all our records.

http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/Transparency.php

Any CPA's out there?

Cyclone
12-24-2007, 02:07 PM
Can't I be a committee of one? This seems designed to make it harder to get an answer to a question. Why is that?

Also, I am not questioning the financial integrity of the blimp project - I am not an owner. All I asked was about FEC rules and the changes in their name and this pesky lawsuit and settlement they brought up.

In my world, settlement usually means money. Since the blimp project only has money that has been donated to it, that would mean that the settlement most likely would come out of donations. Is that why they are short on funds? If so, shouldn't they disclose that?

I suppose that might have something to do with financial integrity, but what about the FEC fiction of having a company to donate to so no one gets in trouble with the FEC?

I mean, honestly, if they would answer these questions I am sure a lot more people would donate to them.

There is a guy in the "other" thread in the back room where he wanted to know one question about the blimp and if he got a satisfactory answer he was prepared to donate five thousand dollars to the project. But no one even responded to him.

Cyclone
12-24-2007, 02:36 PM
These are all fair questions, I doubt a lot of the information can be given out though. Some of these questions have been lingering for days.

Here is a question: How long has the blimp been in the air and thus how many more days do we get for our initial $400,000?


That is also a fair question. Well, days ago we were promised the answers to these questions, so I am just reminding them again that these questions still remain unanswered.

In another thread McKarnin said that Liberty Political Advertising was still in business. So, if that is true, then why are they no longer associated with the blimp? I mean all of the legality of your donation depends on this being true. Otherwise, with no PAC, then how is this all legal?

Are we paying for all of the down time? If you rented a limo and decided to drive it into the mountains and it got stuck for four days, and you returned it at the end of the week, you would still need to pay for all the time it was stuck. Is that true with the blimp? Is our money going towards the time it is in the hangar, getting repairs, returning due to bad weather, being grounded due to bad weather, etc?

Someone else asked if there was an accounting of "which" pack of time they had purchased, but now that the site is re-organized, they no longer are selling packets of time, now they are just selling support for the blimp project. Does that mean that the older donors were entitled to an accounting of which pack of time they purchased but any new donors are not?

pacelli
12-24-2007, 02:39 PM
In another thread McKarnin said that Liberty Political Advertising was still in business.

According to the North Carolina Secretary of State website which posts real-time LLC filing information for the entire state, the record for Liberty Political Advertising, LLC cannot be found.

bucfish
12-24-2007, 03:14 PM
Guys the blimp team is working hard on lots of things have faith, the results are so far good and will soon be even more so. Just please help the blimp and donate!!!

francisco
12-24-2007, 03:43 PM
According to the North Carolina Secretary of State website which posts real-time LLC filing information for the entire state, the record for Liberty Political Advertising, LLC cannot be found.

Liberty Political Advertising, LLC is registered in Missouri.

https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Corp.asp?2385286

This was discussed on the forum when the Blimp project was first formed as a business structure.

What the current role of the LLC is with the Blimp project I cannot say, as I am not one of the organizers.

pacelli
12-24-2007, 03:45 PM
Liberty Political Advertising, LLC is registered in Missouri.

https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Corp.asp?2385286

This was discussed on the forum when the Blimp project was first formed as a business structure.

What the current role of the LLC is with the Blimp project I cannot say, as I am not one of the organizers.

Thank you very much for that information!

svillee
12-24-2007, 04:31 PM
If you look at the filings (https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?2385286) for Liberty Political Advertising, LLC you will find the Creation Filing on November 28. Then there is an Agent Change/Resign on December 14.

The Agent Change/Resign is quite interesting. You can download it as a PDF. Evidently this form is supposed to be used for changing the registered agent. But the fields for present and new registered agent have both been left blank. There is only Gerald Collette's signature at the bottom.

This suggests to me that Jerry Collette has resigned as registered agent, and no one has taken his place yet. It's a little odd that Jerry was ever the registered agent for a Missouri LLC, because he supposedly resides in North Carolina.

Is it too much to hope for that the blimp team will chime in now and comment officially?

SophisticatedFarmGirl
12-24-2007, 04:46 PM
Guys, you should email them on the blimp website. I just did.

svillee
12-24-2007, 04:58 PM
Guys, you should email them on the blimp website. I just did.

I have already sent 2 emails to inquiries@RonPaulBlimp.com, and there has been no response to either one. The second of these was two days ago, a copy of which I posted here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=63546).

Furthermore, other people have been asking these questions for about a week.

pacelli
12-24-2007, 05:10 PM
I have already sent 2 emails to inquiries@RonPaulBlimp.com, and there has been no response to either one. The second of these was two days ago, a copy of which I posted here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=63546).

Furthermore, other people have been asking these questions for about a week.

We're also nearly 2 days late on the answer which we were promised to receive yesterday.

And for the record I have seen the blimp, I have donated to the blimp, and ultimately I support the concept of the blimp. I simply do not want to be involved in any legal situations that might come up in the future, and I want Dr. Paul to keep a clean name if there is indeed some type of FEC investigation (which was hinted at in several MSM press releases).

Cyclone
12-24-2007, 05:32 PM
blimp

dante
12-24-2007, 07:47 PM
A lot of things have changed recently:

1. We learned the blimp team is settling a lawsuit with someone over something. What is the status of this?

2. The structure of the donations has changed: Now instead of buying advertising time from an advertising company (the thing that was supposed to circumvent FEC rules) you are making a donation to sponsor a blimp tour. What has that done to the FEC regulations and how does that affect donors? Or does it? It is a big change however.

3. The name of the company, Liberty Political Advertising is no longer on the website. If that donating to that for-profit company is what protected people from FEC regulations, then what happens when the company name is no longer there. You won't have it on any receipt for donations. We know there are rules about PACs and making large donations. Has a PAC been set up instead?

4. When you go to the Google checkout to make a donation it now states this: Order Details - RonPaulBlimpTour, 305 710-7344, 650 Pennsylvania Ave, #25, Miami Beach, FL 33139 US
Qty Item Price
1 Sponsorship of the Ron Paul Blimp Tour - Fly the Ron Paul Blimp to the Inauguration!

The old company was located in North Carolina, why is the money now going to this account in Florida?

QFT

Cyclone
12-24-2007, 09:59 PM
Guys, you should email them on the blimp website. I just did.


A guy in the Q & A section sent them an email on Dec. 7 and is still waiting for an answer. They must be really swamped. He just wants a few questions answered but he wants to send a five thousand dollar check to the blimp. Maybe someone should tell the blimp people about his post over there.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
12-25-2007, 05:18 AM
blimp

bucfish
12-25-2007, 05:21 AM
Bump for the Blimp

Cyclone
12-25-2007, 02:27 PM
Well, maybe they will come on after Christmas and answer these questions. Wait and see.

Cyclone
12-25-2007, 02:31 PM
Guys the blimp team is working hard on lots of things have faith, the results are so far good and will soon be even more so. Just please help the blimp and donate!!!

We are in a holding pattern waiting for answers. I am not big on faith. I am big on rational discussion and finding out if donating is legal. Sorry to tell you on Christmas and all, but I don't do anything on faith. That is not an answer to me. Can't speak for others.

francisco
12-25-2007, 02:57 PM
Well, maybe they will come on after Christmas and answer these questions. Wait and see.

Perfect time for a "Come to Jesus" meeting with Blimp supporters and former supporters.

The active suppression of information by the Blimp organizers is completely at odds with the ideals of the freedom message, and plain bad business to boot. They are running out of time to turn this situation around. I have been biting on my tongue up to now, but its starting to bleed pretty badly.

pacelli
12-25-2007, 03:45 PM
Information control is thankfully in full effect regarding the blimp, so, I guess we'll just have to keep our eyes peeled on the main site and wait for updates. Looking forward to seeing this sucker fly again!

NerveShocker
12-25-2007, 03:55 PM
Does anyone have a link or source of where you found out about the legal issues involving the blimp? I have not heard anything about this. I would think if there were truly legal issues the MSM (Old Media) would have been all over it like the Brothel owner and the white supremacist story..

pacelli
12-25-2007, 03:58 PM
Does anyone have a link or source of where you found out about the legal issues involving the blimp? I have not heard anything about this. I would think if there were truly legal issues the MSM (Old Media) would have been all over it like the Brothel owner and the white supremacist story..

I don't think anything really substantial exists. Heck Wonkette would have been all over it LOL

NerveShocker
12-25-2007, 04:02 PM
That was one of the main points on this thread.. you can't just make a thread saying something without any proof...
The first post says that "We have learned that the blimp is setting a law suit with somebody over something" ... When you say we I don't know what you mean, and if what you say is true where did you get this information from?

szczebrzeszyn
12-25-2007, 04:04 PM
Does anyone have a link or source of where you found out about the legal issues involving the blimp? I have not heard anything about this. I would think if there were truly legal issues the MSM (Old Media) would have been all over it like the Brothel owner and the white supremacist story..

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=657902&highlight=settlement#post657902

pacelli
12-25-2007, 04:06 PM
Err is that a joke? That was one of the main points on this thread.. you can't just make a thread saying something without any proof...
The first post says that "We have learned that the blimp is setting a law suit with somebody over something" ... When you say we I don't know what you mean, and if what you say is true where did you get this information from?

From that thread:


With legal matters it is often the case that full disclosure is not possible before a settlement has been reached. That is our current situation.

I'm guessing that any information posted on this public site has been removed to prevent compromising the referenced settlement. Sounds like a good plan to me, there's no reason to jeapordize the blimp or its founders.

NerveShocker
12-25-2007, 04:19 PM
Thx for the link. I would guess Pacelli, that what you said above could be what is happening. It's funny someone in the other post kept demanding information on the settlement, as if that's not illegal.

LibertyEagle
12-25-2007, 07:48 PM
It's funny someone in the other post kept demanding information on the settlement, as if that's not illegal.

Why funny? :confused: The money for the "settlement" has to come from somewhere. The only revenue they have is from donations. Don't you think that the donors have a right to know if the money they are donating for advertising time is actually spent on the "settlement"?

Man from La Mancha
12-25-2007, 08:00 PM
Why funny? :confused: The money for the "settlement" has to come from somewhere. The only revenue they have is from donations. Don't you think that the donors have a right to know if the money they are donating for advertising time is actually spent on the "settlement"?
Rumor mill nothing

.

svillee
12-25-2007, 09:32 PM
Does anyone have a link or source of where you found out about the legal issues involving the blimp? I have not heard anything about this. I would think if there were truly legal issues the MSM (Old Media) would have been all over it like the Brothel owner and the white supremacist story..

Below are links to what little information we have about the blimp team's legal issues. All of these are posts by Katharine Memole (Mckarnin).

12-18-2007, 03:39 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=656073&postcount=13) More information on our need for legal assistance will be forthcoming in the next few days.

12-18-2007, 04:44 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=656856&postcount=20) We have reached out and asked for help with our problems from the demographic that we need help from right now, lawyers.

12-18-2007, 06:12 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=657902&postcount=25) With legal matters it is often the case that full disclosure is not possible before a settlement has been reached. That is our current situation.

12-18-2007, 08:26 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=659945&postcount=28) While I can't go into details, suffice it to say that the need for a lawyer is closely tied to something that has been a huge time and energy drain on the project for the last 2 weeks.

12-19-2007, 09:11 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=672217&postcount=42) I cannot answer some of the questions you are all asking for legal reasons.

12-19-2007, 09:24 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=672385&postcount=46) I have worked to answer questions. The reality is that my other tasks are frequently very time-sensitive and I have to put off answering your questions.

12-19-2007, 09:57 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=672842&postcount=22) 3 days and I should be able to answer your questions.

12-20-2007, 03:16 AM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=675915&postcount=3) Liberty Political Advertising still exists and has lawyers on retainer, etc...

In addition, francisco pointed out yesterday that Liberty Political Advertising LLC is registered in Missouri. Among the filings (https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?2385286) of this company is a document dated December 14 indicating that Jerry Collette resigned as registered agent, and nobody has taken his place. This is very likely a legal issue in itself.

The main point is that several people, including myself in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=63546), have been waiting for answers to these 4 simple questions:

(1) What is the name of the company that is selling blimp time?

(2) In what state is this company registered?

(3) Who are the principal owners of this company?

(4) Why was all mention of "Liberty Political Advertising" removed from the web site?

For about a week now, there has been no answer to any of these questions from the blimp team. That is very strange in itself. Although I'm not a lawyer, I can't imagine any legal situation that would not allow them to reveal the name of the company selling blimp time.

Cyclone
12-26-2007, 12:22 AM
svillee, nice work! Now we can all link to your wonderful research anytime we are asked these questions. So on, 12/19 she said she should be able to answer all questions in 3 days time. When she wrote that they were saying they needed a certain amount in donations by Friday, the 21st. So she was offering to give us the information on Saturday the 22nd. As someone wrote earlier, not the best business plan. Had they given the information out earlier they might have raised some funds earlier.

But I understand that sometimes for legal reasons you have to keep quiet.

Ok, so now what is the reason. And at the very least why not come back and update and say, I know you all were expecting answers on the 22nd, but it will have to wait until ...

Leaving us all hanging is just well, leaving us all hanging.

In the meantime, the website is a mess. The company is gone but they still say you are buying advertising time from a company and that is what protects you from the FEC, but then they removed the advertising time purchase option and they removed the company name as well and now call it sponsoring the blimp.

Perhaps some rich person would come in and sponsor the whole blimp if they knew what they were getting into with the FEC. But to donate now, well, you just don't know what will happen. They need to get this mess settled before they can get more donations and they are running out of time. Don't they need the money by this Friday or do I have that wrong?

Anyone have any idea how much they need by when to do what? I have gotten lost in all the updates. I don't know what the newest information is.


Also, NerveShocker, when you are just in settlement mode it is possible that no case has been filed against them at all yet and therefore there would be nothing for the MSM to dig up. As an example, if the FEC came to them and said, stop doing X or we will do Y and the two of them are negotiating it would be doubtful that anyone would hear anything. But as Liberty Eagle said above, if they have to pay money as a settlement, the only money the company has comes from donations, so anyone who ever has donated or ever will donate has a right to hear how their money was spent or was being intended on being spent. Don't you think? Again, as an example only, not being given any facts, say the FEC said pay us X by Dec. 31 and we won't do Y. What if the blimp folks came here and asked for that money and it turned out that the only thing they were going to use it on was to pay the FEC? Then you would want to know that is why they were asking for the money.

Or what if the blimp team spent x on the settlement and the only reason they need more money now is because they did spend that money. You would want to know that. Or if the FEC made them promise not to fly past the 31st, and they agreed. Again, you would want to know that before you donated.

Since we have no idea what is going on, it is making people antsy. They are worried that they could get into trouble with the FEC for donating, they are worried what their money is being used for, etc. etc. etc. I think as soon as the questions are answered, and the whole paying money to a company for advertising thing goes back into effect then the blimp will get more donations.

But then I have another question: What happens to all the people that are donating right now, while the advertising fiction is gone and there is no company to pay money to so you can buy that advertising? Are they going to get into trouble with the FEC? Will the blimp team get in trouble? What if Trevor and the others get into a whole lot of trouble for accepting all this money for a political ad funding without having a PAC? Can the FEC shut down the blimp? If so, wouldn't you want to know that before you donated another dollar?

These are all reasonable questions and they need answering.

pacelli
12-26-2007, 01:13 AM
Below are links to what little information we have about the blimp team's legal issues. All of these are posts by Katharine Memole (Mckarnin).

12-18-2007, 03:39 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=656073&postcount=13) More information on our need for legal assistance will be forthcoming in the next few days.

12-18-2007, 04:44 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=656856&postcount=20) We have reached out and asked for help with our problems from the demographic that we need help from right now, lawyers.

12-18-2007, 06:12 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=657902&postcount=25) With legal matters it is often the case that full disclosure is not possible before a settlement has been reached. That is our current situation.

12-18-2007, 08:26 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=659945&postcount=28) While I can't go into details, suffice it to say that the need for a lawyer is closely tied to something that has been a huge time and energy drain on the project for the last 2 weeks.

12-19-2007, 09:11 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=672217&postcount=42) I cannot answer some of the questions you are all asking for legal reasons.

12-19-2007, 09:24 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=672385&postcount=46) I have worked to answer questions. The reality is that my other tasks are frequently very time-sensitive and I have to put off answering your questions.

12-19-2007, 09:57 PM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=672842&postcount=22) 3 days and I should be able to answer your questions.

12-20-2007, 03:16 AM (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=675915&postcount=3) Liberty Political Advertising still exists and has lawyers on retainer, etc...

In addition, francisco pointed out yesterday that Liberty Political Advertising LLC is registered in Missouri. Among the filings (https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?2385286) of this company is a document dated December 14 indicating that Jerry Collette resigned as registered agent, and nobody has taken his place. This is very likely a legal issue in itself.

The main point is that several people, including myself in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=63546), have been waiting for answers to these 4 simple questions:

(1) What is the name of the company that is selling blimp time?

(2) In what state is this company registered?

(3) Who are the principal owners of this company?

(4) Why was all mention of "Liberty Political Advertising" removed from the web site?

For about a week now, there has been no answer to any of these questions from the blimp team. That is very strange in itself. Although I'm not a lawyer, I can't imagine any legal situation that would not allow them to reveal the name of the company selling blimp time.

Quoted for truth and to preserve what you've typed. All of the information you posted is publically available. I'm impressed in your ability to condense issues from several threads into one post - nice job on that.

pacelli
12-26-2007, 01:30 AM
Now we can all link to your wonderful research anytime we are asked these questions.

Well said. We'll keep that post as a reference just so we don't forget our facts and rehash old discussions :)


The company is gone but they still say you are buying advertising time from a company and that is what protects you from the FEC, but then they removed the advertising time purchase option and they removed the company name as well and now call it sponsoring the blimp.

Perhaps some rich person would come in and sponsor the whole blimp if they knew what they were getting into with the FEC. But to donate now, well, you just don't know what will happen. They need to get this mess settled before they can get more donations and they are running out of time. Don't they need the money by this Friday or do I have that wrong?

I'm not sure about this Friday - I don't think the ending day of the extension was announced. Could be completely off base, but looking forward to knowing if there is a final date, so we can rally for more funds. I'm actually confused about the whole FEC issue, and I'm glad you reminded me in the quote above, because I am unclear why they would have any authority over the blimp. The blimp project is for-profit, so they shouldn't even be a factor according to the blimp legal team. For crying out loud, one of the legal team members used to be the HEAD of the FEC. So I don't know why there would be any legal issues at all, but the details are none of my business.



Anyone have any idea how much they need by when to do what? I have gotten lost in all the updates. I don't know what the newest information is.

Yeah, it would be helpful to have an end date for this extension.



Again, as an example only, not being given any facts, say the FEC said pay us X by Dec. 31 and we won't do Y. What if the blimp folks came here and asked for that money and it turned out that the only thing they were going to use it on was to pay the FEC? Then you would want to know that is why they were asking for the money.

I'm sure that we'll be getting some updates from the legal team once the time is right. I haven't bothered to read the volumes of FEC rules about this type of thing, but I'm sure the blimp's legal FEC guru is on top of it. Also I'm sure the FEC is required to keep records of any communications they have with any outside company, and if memory serves correctly they can confirm or deny interaction with a company. Not sure about that one though. We might be in a limbo for awhile for further information.



But then I have another question: What happens to all the people that are donating right now, while the advertising fiction is gone and there is no company to pay money to so you can buy that advertising? Are they going to get into trouble with the FEC? Will the blimp team get in trouble? What if Trevor and the others get into a whole lot of trouble for accepting all this money for a political ad funding without having a PAC? Can the FEC shut down the blimp? If so, wouldn't you want to know that before you donated another dollar?

These are all reasonable questions and they need answering.

Well, we don't know for sure who is involved, for all we know a farmer could be raising hades because one of his horses was spooked by the blimp flying overhead. Your questions logically follow and are worthy of attention from a customer service standpoint, but I think a great deal more information is needed once the admitted issue is resolved.

francisco
12-26-2007, 01:41 AM
...Liberty Political Advertising LLC is registered in Missouri. Among the filings (https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?2385286) of this company is a document dated December 14 indicating that Jerry Collette resigned as registered agent, and nobody has taken his place.

You may be overstating the case here. The document you cite clearly indicates that it is used for changes of the registrant's address and / or agent. The document shows a one-digit change in the mailing address. So perhaps this filing was used only to correct a typo in the address, or establish a separate mailbox so that mail associated with the Blimp would not be commingled with other business of the registrant.

The fact that the lines for listing an original and new agent are left blank may simply be because there was was no change in agent. I don't know. Neither do you. But if you are making charges, you should be very precise and not veer into speculation, if only to keep your own credibility intact.

You and I probably do agree on one thing: the Blimp team owes its customers a full explanation of the challenges it is facing.

Cyclone
12-26-2007, 01:42 AM
I just found some stuff out about the FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act):

Section 309(d)(1)(A) is the main penalty provision of the FECA (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)(A)). As amended by section 312 of the Act, it states that "[a]ny person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure (i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or (ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.". (Before amendment by the Act, section 309(d)(1)(A) of the FECA provided for a maximum term of imprisonment of one year, or a fine, or both.)

http://www.ussc.gov/FEDREG/fedr0103a.htm These are proposed rule changes, but I can't tell when they were proposed or if they passed. Any law students around here? Can you find out what 309(d)(1)(A) says as of now?

pacelli
12-26-2007, 02:40 AM
I just found some stuff out about the FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act):

Section 309(d)(1)(A) is the main penalty provision of the FECA (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)(A)). As amended by section 312 of the Act, it states that "[a]ny person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure (i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or (ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.". (Before amendment by the Act, section 309(d)(1)(A) of the FECA provided for a maximum term of imprisonment of one year, or a fine, or both.)

http://www.ussc.gov/FEDREG/fedr0103a.htm These are proposed rule changes, but I can't tell when they were proposed or if they passed. Any law students around here? Can you find out what 309(d)(1)(A) says as of now?

QFT, good piece of legislation right there.

svillee
12-26-2007, 08:23 AM
You may be overstating the case here. The document you cite clearly indicates that it is used for changes of the registrant's address and / or agent. The document shows a one-digit change in the mailing address. So perhaps this filing was used only to correct a typo in the address, or establish a separate mailbox so that mail associated with the Blimp would not be commingled with other business of the registrant.


Thanks for pointing that out.

My only remaining reservation on the Missouri LLC is that on the "Legal Team" page, Jerry Collette is listed as being in Asheville, NC. In most states, the registered agent for a company must reside in that state. Maybe MIssouri is different, or maybe it's a different Gerald Collette. Just wondering.

Cyclone
12-26-2007, 09:48 PM
Elijah was here today. Can some of the blimp folks let the blimp team know that there are a whole lot of questions in here that are not being answered? Also, there are a lot of questions in the Q & A section that have a need of a response. Hopefully, the next time Elijah visits he will come here and respond.

walt
12-27-2007, 06:10 AM
still waiting

jjschless
12-27-2007, 08:17 AM
QFT, good piece of legislation right there.

How is that a 'good piece of legislation'?

pacelli
12-27-2007, 11:23 AM
How is that a 'good piece of legislation'?

Your implication is that it is not a good piece of legislation. I support following the law, and that is the law. How is it not a good piece of legislation?

jjschless
12-27-2007, 11:49 AM
Your implication is that it is not a good piece of legislation. I support following the law, and that is the law. How is it not a good piece of legislation?

You dance when there is no music going, then you answer my question with a question. Do you favor following unjust laws, simply because they are law? How about unconstitutional laws, would you follow them because they are laws?

Can you answer my simple and honest inquiry as to why it is a 'good piece of legislation'? I personally could not make a judgment based on the snippet provided and the fact that it references an Act that I have not researched. So for me to make a judgment one way or another would be utterly foolish which is why I am inclined to seek your wisdom.

How is that a 'good piece of legislation'?

pacelli
12-27-2007, 03:41 PM
You dance when there is no music going, then you answer my question with a question. Do you favor following unjust laws, simply because they are law? How about unconstitutional laws, would you follow them because they are laws?

Can you answer my simple and honest inquiry as to why it is a 'good piece of legislation'? I personally could not make a judgment based on the snippet provided and the fact that it references an Act that I have not researched. So for me to make a judgment one way or another would be utterly foolish which is why I am inclined to seek your wisdom.

How is that a 'good piece of legislation'?

In my opinion, it is a good piece of legislation because it appears to me to prevent corruption in a political campaign. That's my opinion. This thread is not my first exposure to this piece of legislation.

Yes, I do favor following unjust laws, because I favor following the law and I value my freedom. I also favor the peaceful protest of unjust laws in the form of contacting my congressional and senatorial representatives.

Duckman
12-28-2007, 10:10 AM
Section 309(d)(1)(A) is the main penalty provision of the FECA (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)(A)). As amended by section 312 of the Act, it states that "[a]ny person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure (i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or (ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.". (Before amendment by the Act, section 309(d)(1)(A) of the FECA provided for a maximum term of imprisonment of one year, or a fine, or both.)

IANAL either, but my interpretation of this is that expenditures of less than $2000 per year are legal (or at least, have no penalty). This would seem to imply, IMO, that as long as you donate less than $2000 to the blimp there is no way you can get into any kind of trouble. Can anyone tell me if that interpretation is correct? I think it would motivate alot of fence-sitters.

John P Slevin
12-28-2007, 10:41 AM
The Blimp project is not subject to FECA. It is a private company offering sponsorship advertising packages.

As for whether or not you could "get into trouble"...that is the whole point of the FEC. It exists to prevent competition to the two major parties, and to anyone within either party who challenges the powers that be.

FEC is equally divided between Democrat and Republican commissioners. They don't take the commissioner job to do good deeds; they take it as party hacks, and to follow orders.

Insurgents can be punished, as can their supporters, so it is up to you to decide if you want to exist in fear of FEC nonsense or if you want to challenge it.

Duckman
12-28-2007, 11:33 AM
After reading this thread I decided to read the FEC regs directly from their site. See my determination of what I think the "worst case scenario" might be for an individual blimp contributor in terms of the FEC at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=66863.

John P Slevin
12-28-2007, 11:46 AM
Duckman, what you cite at the thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=66863 seems correct...it would be very rare to go after supporters even if FEC was to conclude their was some way to "get the blimp".

I also am not a lawyer, but for years have worked with campaigns subject to FEC. Campaign finance law does not actually forbid large numbers of Americans consensually joining together to sponsor something like the RP blimp. And, campaign finance laws provide no way for that to be accomplished by any PAC.

So it seems to come down to, are we sheep, or can we agree to work together without interference from our government?

The blimp team got one of the best, most recognized lawyers in the nation to help them craft this answer to a difficult puzzle. The resulting for profit company seems to me a brilliant solution to a very real problem with campaign finance laws.

Blimp On!

Duckman
12-28-2007, 11:56 AM
John, I am not suggesting the blimp is illegal or that people should not donate to it. I am merely trying to encourage those who do fear the FEC coming after them.

I agree, it seems unlikely this is illegal or that the FEC will come after a small individual contributor (since elsewhere in the regs it says that the panel has to meet to consider each violator individually). But I think there are some fence sitters thinking "well, I'd love to support the blimp, but not if I could possibly be subjected to expensive fines or jail time." You can call those people sheep, but they might have a family that needs them and just be unable to take risks like this that they don't understand.

I hope that my analysis will convince these people to get off the fence, that the worst thing that can happen is a small fine (and even that is very unlikely), so maybe we can get alot more donations coming in!

John P Slevin
12-28-2007, 12:50 PM
Duckman, we agree.

And I wasn't calling anyone sheep. :)

pacelli
12-28-2007, 01:35 PM
But I think there are some fence sitters thinking "well, I'd love to support the blimp, but not if I could possibly be subjected to expensive fines or jail time." You can call those people sheep, but they might have a family that needs them and just be unable to take risks like this that they don't understand.


This accurately sums up my position. My wife gave me the OK to pay twice for the blimp. I was getting ready to pay again during this fundraising drive, but after she checked the website she informed me that the address on google checkout had changed to an apartment in Florida that was previously registered as the same address as Trevor's music company. This was a red flag for her, understandably so.

Now, the checkout address has changed back to LPA in NC. There has been no explanation for this change, and I'm not being permitted to contribute until a reasonable and specific explanation is posted. Seems understandable and perfectly reasonable. She is a RP supporter and we both support the blimp.

francisco
12-28-2007, 07:14 PM
... My wife gave me the OK to pay twice for the blimp...after she checked the website she informed me that the address on google checkout had changed to an apartment in Florida... I'm not being permitted to contribute until a reasonable and specific explanation is posted.

Geez, pacelli, as the afternoon shift shop steward for the Husband's Union here on the forum, I have to tell you that you aren't setting a good example by caving in to "management."

Just kidding, on a serious note I know that that marriage is a team enterprise.

John P Slevin
12-28-2007, 07:21 PM
Here's video news coverage from the blimp in Jacksonville. (http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1359304352)

pacelli
12-28-2007, 10:21 PM
Geez, pacelli, as the afternoon shift shop steward for the Husband's Union here on the forum, I have to tell you that you aren't setting a good example by caving in to "management."

Just kidding, on a serious note I know that that marriage is a team enterprise.

Don't I know it, brother :)

Cyclone
12-29-2007, 07:26 AM
IANAL either, but my interpretation of this is that expenditures of less than $2000 per year are legal (or at least, have no penalty). This would seem to imply, IMO, that as long as you donate less than $2000 to the blimp there is no way you can get into any kind of trouble. Can anyone tell me if that interpretation is correct? I think it would motivate alot of fence-sitters.

Well, let me explain something to you. As posted, that was cited from a proposed change to rule making, implying that the rule was different and now they are proposing to change it. There was no date on it. I don't know if this passed and I don't know what the law is today. It could be that anyone who donates any amount of money to an illegal scheme will go to jail for a year, it could be a $500 threshold, or they could have changed it to a $5000 threshold. There is no way to know without someone finding the actual law as it reads today.

That will require a stop at a legal library, something I am unable to do, or a law student with free access to Westlaw to look it up, or someone willing to pay whatever it costs to get it off of Westlaw.

Right now, you have no idea what that statement means as it is written, because we do not know enough about it.

It was only posted as an explanation of the things that people think about before donating because as usual, asking any questions in this sub forum gets you attacked viciously. It was meant to be used as an explanatory device, not a definitive section of law.

Moreover, just because that section says one thing, doesn't mean another section doesn't say something much more odious. The act is huge.

Cowlesy
12-29-2007, 08:32 AM
Guys - Please see www.ronpaulblimp.com, and reach out to their legal team with your issues with the law, and not keep posting unconfirmed items to this forum where one of the 1,000's of laypersons on here may misconstrue something you post.

Thanks!

LibertyEagle
12-29-2007, 08:42 AM
Guys - Please see www.ronpaulblimp.com, and reach out to their legal team with your issues with the law, and not keep posting unconfirmed items to this forum where one of the 1,000's of laypersons on here may misconstrue something you post.

Thanks!

Cowlesy, the contact information for the "legal team" has been removed from the blimp website.

pacelli
12-29-2007, 09:39 AM
Guys - Please see www.ronpaulblimp.com, and reach out to their legal team with your issues with the law, and not keep posting unconfirmed items to this forum where one of the 1,000's of laypersons on here may misconstrue something you post.

Thanks!

It is impossible to reach out to their legal team as no contact information is provided.

John P Slevin
01-15-2008, 01:28 PM
Cowlesy, the contact information for the "legal team" has been removed from the blimp website.

Good. Lawyers cost money. If the lawyers were answering a ton of calls or responding to a flood of emails that costs....and prevents money from going directly to the blimp.

Thus, contact info is removed from the site.

See, stir up trouble, like Cyclone is doing here, by asking a bunch of questions, petulantly insisting that someone must answer the questions...and then run up the blimp team legal bills.

Cyclone repeatedly uses terms like "fiction" to describe the blimp's legal status regarding FEC. Cyclone doesn't have a clue what Cyclone is talking about, just complaining and insisting that someone answer the questions for cyclone.

There is no FEC jurisdiction, so beware anyone making a fuss, trying to get Ron Paul donors in trouble with the FEC, which is EXACTLY what Cyclone infers, and, perhaps, what Cyclone wants.

Dave Pedersen
01-18-2008, 04:29 PM
The blimp should unload $5,000 in one dollar bills over every city it flies over. That $5,000 would really kick up a storm of media coverage.. well worth $5,000 and we could say it signifies the "falling dollar" of our endangered economy. We could stamp them all with "BLIMP FALLING DOLLAR vote for Ron Paul for president 2008". They would be collectible. Imagine if everyone knew that the blimp would always do this in every city it visited. Many people would track the blimp just to grab some loot. Imagine all the people telling their stories to each other of how they got their "blimp dollars". Imagine the way the word would spread with all those stamped dollars out there in circulation saying:

"BLIMP FALLING DOLLAR vote for Ron Paul for president 2008"

gecko42
01-18-2008, 04:51 PM
I think the blimp team should take extra money and pay themselves. As far as I know they are not taking a paycheck and are in fact dumping their personal funds into the blimp project.