Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and AE911Truth File Lawsuit Against FBI

econ41

Senior Member
I find this success to be dubious in the extreme - there is no way Truther petitions or fundraisers perform precisely to hopes and expectations.

These fundraisers are ost definitely pimped! I have no direct evidence, but this doesn't look right.
Agreed. That 'kick' at the end would look suspicious in any trend graph. Especially in a process such as this one where there is typically an early spurt of interest then tapering off asymptotic to whatever the ultimate near flat line will be.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Agreed. That 'kick' at the end would look suspicious in any trend graph. Especially in a process such as this one where there is typically an early spurt of interest then tapering off asymptotic to whatever the ultimate near flat line will be.
Less than a day later, I saw that the count (which is updated only infrequently - sometimes 2 or 3 times a day, sometimes there are 2 or 3 days between updates) had increased by another 44 donations / US$ 2,090. They had sent out a newsletter for a third legal activity, which did not come with its own fundraiser and instead reiterated the call to donate for the FBI thingie. Still, hitting 60K at excatly the day they wanted to have 60K is fishy.

And anyway, the total number of donations now is 1,224, after 25 days. This appears very unrealistic, seeing that the Truth Movement has trouble finding more than 5,000 supporters to sign any petitions, even after years, or joining groups on social media - for free!

I have been monitoring fundraisers for a long time, and my rule of thumb has always been that donors are 1% the number of petition signers.

Neither AE911T nor the Lawyers Committee has more than 100,000 supporters, as >1,000 donors would suggest. The Lawyers' "Grand Jury Petition" petition has just surpassed 4,000 signers, after a full year:
https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/grand-jury-petition-supporters/
The AE911T petition of course is still only at 26,000 (A&E plus other supporters) - after almost 12 (!) years:
https://www.ae911truth.org/

IMO, it is unlikely in the extreme that 5% of those 26,000 AE signatories would receive, read and approve of the Newsletters AND get active to send money - a good $50 per donation on average to boot.

And this after the previous fundraiser, for the "Grand Hury Petition" activity, generated more than 1,800 donations for a total of over US$ 100,000, between December 10th of last year and February 5th of this year (after which they stopped displaying the results).

I am more convinced than not that Gage, Harrison and collaborators are pimping the numbers by donating to themselves in some way, or washing someone else's money.


Another idea that struck me earlier today: These donations go to fund the legal costs of the Lawyers Committee - read: fees for Harrison and the other attorneys of the LC. But they are handled through the website of AE911T. Maybe they do this so the income of the LC stays below thresholds, to avoid increased reporting requirements?
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
In case anyone is wondering, this case has been summarily dismissed due to the plaintiffs' lack of standing.

Because Plaintiffs fail to establish standing under the theories they advance, the Court will grant the Government's motion and dismiss the First Amended Complaint. See Friends of Animals , 828 F.3d at 995.

This decision came down on January 3, 2020. Twenty two (!) months later, AE911Truth has failed to updated their followers on it, despite updating them on the legal filings the led up to it:

1633537267677.png

Screen shot of https://www.ae911truth.org/fbi (as of October 6, 2021)
Archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20210916233447/https://www.ae911truth.org/fbi

It's almost as if AE911Truth doesn't want its followers to know what actually happened in their frivolous, PR-driven nonsense suit, which only served the end of lining the pockets of their lawyers...
 

Oystein

Senior Member
That January 3rd, 2020 decision to dismiss is fun to read! :D Paragraphs like:
Apparently recognizing the deficiencies of their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs make a last-ditch request in the final paragraph of their opposition brief. They ask for “an opportunity to submit additional and more detailed standing evidence via an evidentiary hearing or in the alternative via submission of standing declarations.” Opp’n at 34–35. The Court will not give Plaintiffs a third bite at the apple.
Almost appears as if the judges had fun dissecting the inept Lawyers ;)

The page about the "FBI" case at the Lawyers' Committee's page is even more out of date and incomplete:
https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/22-march-2019-fbi-9-11-review-commission-lawsuit/

That' stuck in March 2019, but still asking for donations,
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Here is an AE article from July 2021, indicating they now take this to the Supreme Court - without revealing the case has been dismissed:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/761...ntiffs-appeal-fbi-lawsuit-to-us-supreme-court

AE911Truth and co-plaintiffs appeal FBI lawsuit to US Supreme Court​

AE911Truth July 20, 2021
On July 16, 2021, AE911Truth joined the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine in filing a petition with the US Supreme Court in the group’s case against the FBI and the US Department of Justice related to the FBI’s 9/11 Review Commission.
Congress mandated the FBI to form the 9/11 Review Commission in 2014 for the purpose of conducting an independent assessment of all 9/11-related evidence known to the FBI that had not been considered by the 9/11 Commission.
The original petition detailed seven counts of evidence not assessed by the FBI in the commission’s 2015 report. Count one, joined by AE911Truth, was the evidence known to the FBI of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition.
The following is the Lawyers’ Committee’s summary of the petition to the US Supreme Court, reprinted from LawyersCommitteefor9-11Inquiry.org. The petition can be read here.

On Friday, July 16, 2021, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry Litigation Director, Mick Harrison, and Washington D.C. attorney John Clifford filed a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Robert McIlvaine, and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The First Amended Complaint filed in the District Court on August 30, 2019, requested the Court to order the FBI to comply with a mandate from Congress to perform an independent assessment of evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the original 9/11 Commission related to any facts that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The First Amended Complaint addressed seven areas of important 9/11 evidence that the FBI’s 2015 9/11 Review Commission failed to assess and ignored completely. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth joined this lawsuit on Count one concerning the evidence of controlled demolition (use of explosives) at the World Trade Center on 9/11.
The seven areas of evidence addressed in the First Amended Complaint related to: [skipping 7 points /Oystein]

This Petition to the United States Supreme Court by the Lawyers’ Committee et al. presents three major arguments:​

1. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit failed to properly interpret the requirements of the federal judicial disqualification statute regarding a judge who was a member of the three-judge appeals panel in the case in which the Department of Justice was a Defendant while the judge was a candidate under consideration for the nomination to be Attorney General of the United States, and failed to handle the matter in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judicial system. The Judge in question, Merrick Garland, was being considered during this time period for the nomination to become United States Attorney General and was subsequently nominated by President Biden and confirmed as Attorney General by the Senate. Judge Garland participated with the other two panel judges in a decision to rescind an earlier court order scheduling the appeal for oral argument, resulting in the case being decided without a public oral argument and in the decision being issued as an unpublished judgment. Both of these procedural consequences gave the case a lower profile, which may have been beneficial to and desired by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Department of Justice at the time was being sued in this case, in Washington D.C., and in another high-profile case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the DOJ’s failure to deliver the Lawyers’ Committee’s Grand Jury Petition to the Grand Jury as required by federal law. The Lawyers’ Committee et al. had requested a disclosure from the Court of Appeals regarding the details and timing of Judge Garland’s participation in this appeal, or in the alternative vacatur of the appeal panel’s decision, but the Court of Appeals denied this motion for any disclosure and refused to vacate the panel’s decision. Consequently, the matter is addressed in this Supreme Court Petition.
2. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in denying the Lawyers’ Committee et al. “informational” standing to sue, failed to consider and respect the clearly stated intention of Congress that the FBI, in implementing the mandate from Congress in a 2013 Appropriations Act, which provided substantial funding for the FBI to conduct an independent assessment of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, not only conduct an assessment of all 9/11 evidence not considered by the original 9/11 Commission, but also report the results of that assessment to the relevant committees of Congress. In so doing, the Court of Appeals acted contrary to the Supreme Court’s well-established precedent regarding rules of statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court’s precedent provides that legislative history regarding the intent of Congress should not be ignored, even if the language of a statute appears plain, when to do so would result in an absurdity. In this case, it was absurd for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the FBI was not required to report or disclose any information resulting from its “9/11 Review Commission” assessment, an assessment funded and ordered by Congress of the worst terrorist attack in the Nation’s history, to anyone, even to Congress itself, notwithstanding unambiguous and authoritative legislative history to the contrary. The Court of Appeals used their erroneous conclusion (that the FBI was not required to assess the 9/11 evidence or report their assessment to Congress) as the basis for denying Robert McILvaine, Architects & Engineers, and the Lawyers’ Committee “informational” standing to sue, even though the FBI, DOJ, and their 9/11 Review Commission admitted in writing in their 2015 report that the Congress had mandated both the 9/11 evidence assessment and a report to Congress.
3. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also acted contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedent in denying the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth “organizational” standing to sue. The Supreme Court’s precedent regarding standing to sue of organizations provides that an organization has standing if the defendant’s allegedly unlawful activities injured the plaintiff’s interest in promoting its mission, especially where the organization has had to engage in expenditures of time and money to counter the adverse effects on its mission of the defendants’ unlawful activities or suffered some other concrete harm. The missions of both the Lawyers’ Committee and Architects & Engineers focus on 9/11 transparency and government accountability. The FBI’s refusal to honor the mandate from Congress to assess and report all 9/11 evidence has caused both nonprofits to spend countless hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to locate, assess, and report the 9/11 evidence that Congress ordered the FBI to assess and report.
Lawyers’ Committee Litigation Director, Attorney Mick Harrison stated, “The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case is more than disappointing, it is disturbing. It is disturbing because of the extent to which the Court of Appeals has disregarded both Supreme Court precedent and the clearly stated intentions of Congress. The FBI went to extreme lengths to avoid assessing and reporting numerous categories of significant 9/11 evidence. The FBI’s 2015 “9/11 Review Commission Report” was simply a whitewash. The Court of Appeals, by denying standing to sue to Robert McILVaine, who lost his son Bobby on 9/11, and to the nonprofits Lawyers’ Committee and Architects & Engineers, has prevented these public interest plaintiffs from having their day in court to prove that the FBI deliberately prevented Congress from getting what Congress ordered — an independent assessment of all 9/11 evidence. The Congress and the American People are the ones who lose the most from this decision.”
[...]

They link to the petition on the LC911I site, which is here:
https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...eme-Court-Petition-for-Cert-with-Appendix.pdf

The Appendices are interesting:

Appendix A (page 52):
Unpublished Judgement of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed February 16, 2021
with
J U D G M E N T The court considered this appeal on the record from the United States District Court and the briefs of the parties. See D.C. Cir. R. 34(j). The panel has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

And Appendix B (page 57):
Order of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed April 16, 2021, denying Appellants' Motion for Disclosure and Alternative Motion to Vacate Judgement
with
O R D E R Upon consideration of appellants' motion for disclosure of material facts or, in the alternative, vacatur of the panel decision, appellants' motion to stay issuance of the mandate, and the combined response thereto, it is ORDERED that the motions be denied.

@benthamitemetric can you find for us whether there is a more current status to this case before the SC?
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Here is an AE article from July 2021, indicating they now take this to the Supreme Court - without revealing the case has been dismissed:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/761...ntiffs-appeal-fbi-lawsuit-to-us-supreme-court



They link to the petition on the LC911I site, which is here:
https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...eme-Court-Petition-for-Cert-with-Appendix.pdf

The Appendices are interesting:

Appendix A (page 52):

with


And Appendix B (page 57):

with


@benthamitemetric can you find for us whether there is a more current status to this case before the SC?
I guess I'm not surprised that they continued to chase appeals that were dead on arrival (it generates more legal fees). It seems the Court of Appeals for the DC circuit (one of the most well regarded appellate courts in the US) denied the appeal of the original dismissal on February 16, 2021, and that denial can be found here. That opinion contains no sympathy for the nonsense suit, concluding tersely:

The plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying their request “to bolster their standing allegations” via an evidentiary hearing or supplemental declarations. Appellants Br. 57. But the plaintiffs had sufficient opportunity to submit any such evidence before their complaint was dismissed. The government moved to dismiss for lack of standing before the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint; the plaintiffs could have attached standing declarations to their amended complaint or their opposition to the government’s motion. See Lawyers’ Comm. for 9/11, 424 F. Supp. 3d at 36. And even if they had been allowed yet another opportunity to submit or gather evidence, the evidence they suggest they would have presented sought to bolster the same flawed theories of informational and organizational standing that we reject. See Appellants Br. 58. The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the request. See United States v. Aguiar, 894 F.3d 351, 355 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

That denial was then the subject of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which received such petition on July 16, 2021. The respondents (the FBI) then waived their right to respond to the petition on August 23, 2021 (i.e., didn't even bother responding), and the petition was denied on October 4, 2021 (just three days ago as of the date of this post). The case is now finally decided and unappealable and it is a complete and utter loss for the plaintiffs (Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, etc.). See: https://certpool.com/dockets/21-93

No. 21-93​

Docketed: July 23, 2021 v. Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.​

from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Docket Entries
on October 4, 2021
Petition DENIED.
on August 25, 2021
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
on August 23, 2021
Waiver of right of respondent Wray, Christopher, et al. to respond filed.
on July 16, 2021
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 23, 2021)

Parties​

Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc., et al., Petitioner, represented by John Michael Clifford
Wray, Christopher, et al., Respondent, represented by Brian H. Fletcher

How many hundreds of thousands of Ed Asner's $ were burned pursuing these nonsense claims? Only Richard Gage, a few unscrupulous lawyers, and Ed's poor heirs know.

Of course, AE911Truth has not updated its followers on this devastating outcome.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
...

How many hundreds of thousands of Ed Asner's $ were burned pursuing these nonsense claims? Only Richard Gage, a few unscrupulous lawyers, and Ed's poor heirs know.

Of course, AE911Truth has not updated its followers on this devastating outcome.
But hey, they just made Ed honorary President of the Lawyers' Committee, which means this Meiswinkle fellow is no longer their President, Asner is ... and Asner is the first recipient of some award they just invented, which will be presented to said heirs. Now if that won't keep them happy...
And I kid you not, here it is: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzqFneYHh7Y&t=19s

Today, Ed Asner was going to be uh doing the welcome to you, and unfortunately, as you probably know, Ed passed recently. What we did, our Board, a few days ago we passed a motion where he would become the honorary President, so technically, I'm no longer President, Ed Asner is the honorary President of the Lawyers' Committee [...] [0:54 min:] We also want to award Ed with the first annual Lawyers' Committee 9/11 Truth Advocate Award, uh, so we will send that to his daughter Lisa [...]

Anyway, thanks for the dig and the good news - smart move on the part of the FBI to speed things up by doing nothing and letting the SC do its thing.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Be fair, the lawyers were not responsible for the quality f the evidence that their clients produced.
Maybe. But two points:
1) The Lawyers' initiatives never reached the stage of assessing the "evidence" on merits. If I am correct the debates to date have been legal procedural matters - principally issues such as "standing". So definitely lawyers' professional territory; and
2) The questions of legal ethics and integrity could be interesting. I understood that the lawyers could have been at least in part their own clients. Which raises questions of separation - so called "Walls of China" - between those lawyers acting purely as advocates and any who may have been "clients" presenting evidence. And your guess is as good as (possibly better than) mine as to the risks of perjury.

A long term wish of mine - I would love to see Gage, Szamboti, Chandler, Cole et simile called as witnesses in a new investigation with para-legal powers. They would be carved to shreds under professional cross examination. I recall the analogous situation when Michael Behe gave evidence for the Creationists in "Kitzmiller v Dover" - the last big "Creationism v Evolutionary Science" court trial. Read the transcript. It was cruel! Gage. Szamboti et al would be well advised to stay way from any such para-legal situation.
 
Last edited:

Marc Powell

Active Member
A long term wish of mine - I would love to see Gage, Szamboti, Chandler, Cole et simile called as witnesses in a new investigation with para-legal powers. They would be carved to shreds under professional cross examination. I recall the analogous situation when Michael Behe gave evidence for the Creationists in "Kitzmiller v Dover" - the last big "Creationism v Evolutionary Science" court trial. Read the transcript. It was cruel! Gage. Szamboti et al would be well advised to stay way from any such para-legal situation.
I share your longings for seeing the 9/11 "truth" leaders called as witnesses in a new investigation. Perhaps under cross examination Richard Gage could be asked to explain why the version of the Ginny Carr audio recording presented in his films is so radically different from the version stored at the 9/11 Digital Archive. My hope would be that exposing that one instance of fraudulent manipulation of evidence would be the initiating event for a progressive collapse that would bring down the entire 9/11 truth movement at "freefall speed."
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I share your longings for seeing the 9/11 "truth" leaders called as witnesses in a new investigation. Perhaps under cross examination Richard Gage could be asked to explain why the version of the Ginny Carr audio recording presented in his films is so radically different from the version stored at the 9/11 Digital Archive. My hope would be that exposing that one instance of fraudulent manipulation of evidence would be the initiating event for a progressive collapse that would bring down the entire 9/11 truth movement at "freefall speed."
You are naive. The truther mind lacks critical thinking abilities. Information which undermines their beliefs is ignored or discarded. Gage and his "truther leaders" completely believe what comes out of their mouths. They have no interest in what actually happened to cause the collapse of the towers. They only have an interest in convincing naive non critical thinkers that the official accounts are spin PR and hide the real agenda. Szamboti and Gerry were shown their flawed thinking and never admitted it. They just go silent and hang amongst their truther friends. Gage was a grifter... but his followers could not see that.
 

Marc Powell

Active Member
You are naive. The truther mind lacks critical thinking abilities. Information which undermines their beliefs is ignored or discarded. Gage and his "truther leaders" completely believe what comes out of their mouths. They have no interest in what actually happened to cause the collapse of the towers. They only have an interest in convincing naive non critical thinkers that the official accounts are spin PR and hide the real agenda. Szamboti and Gerry were shown their flawed thinking and never admitted it. They just go silent and hang amongst their truther friends. Gage was a grifter... but his followers could not see that.
I was merely sharing econ41's fantasy about Gage et al. answering for their misrepresentations in a court of law. That said, I completely agree that truthers seemingly lack critical thinking skills. However, they are not psychotic and can't possibly actually believe the malarkey they dispense. The fraudulent evidence they cite to back up their claims didn’t just manipulate itself.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
I was merely sharing econ41's fantasy about Gage et al. answering for their misrepresentations in a court of law.
I don't think we will see it happen.
That said, I completely agree that truthers seemingly lack critical thinking skills.
I agree that limited thinking skill is probably a defining characteristic of most truthers.

Which is why I'm surprised by your next comment:
However, they are not psychotic and can't possibly actually believe the malarkey they dispense.
I suggest they are and many of them do. My assessment over many years is that so-called "truthers" cover a wide spectrum ranging from (a)Those who simply did not understand the events of 9/11 especially WTC collapses; across to (b) those who are psychotically obsessed and disbelieve anything spoken by any authority >> usually blaming Government for anything they cannot understand. And with many "shades of grey" between the two extremes.

Read the recent comments by Richard Gage following his ousting from AE911. The claimed reason was his advocacy of COVID and anti-vax conspiracy theories. BUT his writing suggests that he fully believes what he says.

It is a complex topic BUT I suggest that the ranking of importance for CTs is "Psychotic Obsession" is the overriding cause of CT for many. "technical details" of a specific area of CT comes second. And THAT is the main reason why no extent of accurate technical rebuttal or explanation of issues like WTC collapse will persuade the truly committed who are psychotically obsessed.

The fraudulent evidence they cite to back up their claims didn’t just manipulate itself.
... which is yet another separate and complex range of issues...
 

Marc Powell

Active Member
I don't think we will see it happen.

I agree that limited thinking skill is probably a defining characteristic of most truthers.

Which is why I'm surprised by your next comment:

I suggest they are and many of them do. My assessment over many years is that so-called "truthers" cover a wide spectrum ranging from (a)Those who simply did not understand the events of 9/11 especially WTC collapses; across to (b) those who are psychotically obsessed and disbelieve anything spoken by any authority >> usually blaming Government for anything they cannot understand. And with many "shades of grey" between the two extremes.

Read the recent comments by Richard Gage following his ousting from AE911. The claimed reason was his advocacy of COVID and anti-vax conspiracy theories. BUT his writing suggests that he fully believes what he says.

It is a complex topic BUT I suggest that the ranking of importance for CTs is "Psychotic Obsession" is the overriding cause of CT for many. "technical details" of a specific area of CT comes second. And THAT is the main reason why no extent of accurate technical rebuttal or explanation of issues like WTC collapse will persuade the truly committed who are psychotically obsessed.


... which is yet another separate and complex range of issues...
When I said "truthers," I was specifically referring to the movers and shakers of the 9/11 Truth Movement, not the paranoiacs who march to their drum beat. Unlike his followers, Richard Gage is perfectly in charge of his mental faculties. If he was honestly mistaken, I would respect him for having the patriotism to stand up for what he believes to be true. However, it can be conclusively proven that Gage is lying, fabricating evidence and concealing information that would explain the mysteries he tries to create. He is making a dishonest buck by exploiting the deaths of the 9/11 victims, bringing shame on the USA and abetting its enemies. There is nothing remotely patriotic, respectable or forgivable about that.
 

econ41

Senior Member
When I said "truthers," I was specifically referring to the movers and shakers of the 9/11 Truth Movement,........................... If he was honestly mistaken, I would respect him..........................
I was not distinguishing "leaders" from "followers". But I was referencing the three classes of "belief". Using "belief" in CD at WTC as the example topic there are three classes:
1) Those who are genuinely ignorant >> and MAY accept a reasoned explanation of forensic physics.
3) Those who genuinely do understand but tell lies for whatever reasons. (I think you have the TM leaders in this class)
AND
2) Those who for whatever reasons genuinely believe there was CD at WTC on 9/11. << I THINK you recognise that class but don't put R Gage in it.

OK - forget Gage. Do we agree the three classes of the basis for professed "belief"? We can discuss later if we need to, whether R Gage is a deluded but genuine believer.

Do you comprehend that at law "genuine belief" is a defence against charges of lying and perjury? More simply a person can tell untruths but NOT be a "liar"?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Distinguish between belief and understanding.
My understanding about the collapses may be incorrect, incomplete.. etc. but my understanding is informed by critical thinking, some level of knowledge of engineering/physics and the actual structures of the buildings.
Truthers at any level hold beliefs... which do not need critical thinking, knowledge of physics/engineering or of the actual structures. If it looks like a duck, it is a duck. The deniers and liars are those who should and likely do know better. Tony Sz is an example as is Gage. The dumb may not be lying because they are too ignorant to understand.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
On Guidestar, the entry for the LC can be found here:

https://www.guidestar.org/profile/81-2563999

Guidestar does not yet have any financial data, but "the IRS granted an organization tax exempt status" in 2016, and thus they are required to file an IRS Form 990-N.
[...]
Similarly on CitizenAudit: https://www.citizenaudit.org/organization/812563999/
[...]
I'll attach their IRS Form 990 files for 2019 and 2020, which I downloaded from GuideStar.

Some quick key financials:

Total revenues (all from "Contributions and Grants"):
2016 - n/a (zero?)
2017 - n/a (zero?)
2018 - US$ 73,155
2019 - US$ 234,115
2020 - US$ 104,062

Total expenses:
2016 - ?
2017 - ?
2018 - ?
2019 - 127,485
2020 - 176,886

Salaries:
2019 - US$ 79,000 (Mick Harrison 52,500. David Meiswinkle 26,500)
2020 - US$ 109,974 (Mick Harrison 49,974. David Meiswinkle 48,000. Jane Clark 12,000)
These are 62% of total expenses in both years.
The 2020 form also shows "Professional fees and other payments to independent contractors" in one lump sum: US$ 55,345

Officers, Directors, ...:
David Meiswinkle - President (*)
Ed Asner - Vice President (*)
Mick Harrison - Litigator
Barbara Honegger - Secretary (*)
Jane Clark - Treasurer (*)
William Jacoby - Director
John O'Kelly - Director
(The 2019 form is "amended". The original submission also listed Mike Springman - Director)
(*): Denotes "Officers"
All are listed as spending an average 2 hours per week on their jobs. That's a more than $1000/hour wage for Harrison ^^

(If it seems like my post is oddly out of place in this conversation and surely off-topic: No, it's not - all the other posts are :p)
 

Attachments

  • IRS Form 990 for 2019-812563999-202023239349301532-9A (amended).pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 18
  • IRS Form 990 for 2020-812563999-202112149349200721-Z.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 18
Top