Posted on 11/28/2001 7:31:29 PM PST by Jim Robinson
A good morning!
My pleasure. But I just penned the words, the story was created by Arator et al. Still posting I see, Arator - 65+ posts since you stated you had no intention of posting further of FR.
And that tiring claim of "We were invited back by JimRob" is a dodge by Arator and IHC to take responsibility for their own actions. As stated prior, we've seen very little of what Arator, IHC, etc. like about FR, but plenty about what they do not like. One can easily draw conclusions of the motives of the aforementioned.
I submit that JimRob did the right thing by modifying their posting status - Arator and others have made the case far, far better about their motives and their dislike for FR than anyone else.
Are you aware that there are laws in California (and other states from which you receive donations) governing charities, including those that are NOT tax exempt?
Has Free Republic registered as a charity in California, and is it in compliance with California law as to relevant disclosures and operational requirements?
If not, why not?
Once again, thanks in advance.
Again, you're in denial my friend. I've been posting here right along, uninterrupted since 1997. This site has never been "without my sorry a$$." Nor will it ever be.
Get a grip.
That's for sure. Thanks for the blanket admission, though. That type of candor is rare these days.
I don't think that came out like you meant. Pretty funny though!
And here we find the root of the misunderstanding. Good people being concerned about a good guy, thier friend. Surely this can get worked out.
If it is generally believed that the first amendment protects freedom of speech and the press, then does it necessarily follow that a private individual or company engaged in any speech related activity must provide an outlet for opposing views? If so, then must that individual bear the financial obligation of distributing opposing viewpoints?
May I choose, of my own free understanding, to give money to any individual or company so that they may use it as they please?
In response to your inquiry on charitable organizations:
I believe LLC after FreeRepublic stands for "Limited Liability Corporation" an individual (or joint) holding which may differ from a "charity"
According to California public records, the only "FR" corporation of record is Free Republic Network, with an incorporation date of 9-27-99. However, in Judge Morrow's tentative order, she notes that the Free Republic Institute was "incorporated on September 27, 1999".
In fact, wasn't the corporation filing for the old Free Republic Institute merely changed to Free Republic Network, and weren't the costs associated with the original organization paid by FR?
If so, is it accurate to say that you and Free Republic have nothing to do with Free Republic Network? If this analysis is accurate, did (or should) Bob J reimburse Free Republic for those costs?
I appreciate the opportunity to review these issues with you.
I hope....Free Republic will be here Long after the liberals have been driven out....
P.S. with accredation and apologies to the Movie Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves....
Absolutely. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the individual or company you chose to give your money to is in compliance with applicable law, however.
As to your point about the limited liability company, the form of organization has absolutely nothing to do with whether an entity is a charity, as I understand it. Charities hold a public trust, and owe a duty to the public to conduct their operations pursuant to applicable laws, regardless of their form of organization.
Callahan
Geez, who are you, The lovely Marta?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.