WikiLeaks Delivers Contribution to Bradley Manning Defence Fund

[Hissyspit]

Source: Guardian UK

WikiLeaks delivers contribution to Bradley Manning defence fund

Website honours pledge made last July to help pay legal fees of soldier accused of leaking US embassy cables

Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 January 2011 15.23 GMT

WikiLeaks, the website that has published thousands of confidential US embassy cables, has donated $15,100 (£9,500) to the legal defence fund of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of handing providing it with the digital trove.

- snip -

In the past the Bradley Manning Support Network has indicated that WikiLeaks had promised to pay up to $50,000 in legal fees, although that offer was reduced to $20,000 in December and the payment ended up being $15,000.

Part of the problem may be explained by WikiLeaks' own financial difficulties as a result of Visa, MasterCard and PayPal cutting off its accounts after pressure from the US government.

The support network calculates that the legal fund needs to have at least $115,000 to fight a vigorous defence. Including the WikiLeaks donation, it has collected more than $100,000.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/wikileaks-bradley-manning-defence-fund?CMP=twt_fd

[wtmusic]

1. Sounds like Manning has confessed

This would be harmful to an "I didn't do it" defense.

[Robb]

2. So that's all Wikileaks has collected on Manning's behalf?

..."Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

[Hissyspit]

3. Did you miss this part?:

Part of the problem may be explained by WikiLeaks' own financial difficulties as a result of Visa, MasterCard and PayPal cutting off its accounts after pressure from the US government.

Not to mention WikiLeaks needing money for it's own legal defense problems.

[Robb]

4. PayPal "cut off" Wikileaks in December.

Manning was arrested in May.

[Hissyspit]

5. It's WikiLeaks fault if people don't donate?

WikiLeaks has had funding problems for quite a while.

[Robb]

6. So your argument is that no one donated to Wikileaks for 8 months?

...Or that Wikileaks needs the money more than Manning?

[Hissyspit]

7. No.

[Robb]

9. OK then. Why so little?

Assange said yesterday WL stands to lose half a million euros every week they don't have PayPal et al working with them. If they deal in that kind of money regularly, this pittance to Manning is absurdly low.

[elias49]

12. What happened to logic? No Paypal=no $$ Is that hard? nt

[Robb]

13. What about from May through December?

PayPal was working fine then. In six, seven months they only collected $15K? :shrug:

[elias49]

15. Christmas shopping.

:popcorn:

[msanthrope]

24. Didja notice that it's 1% of Assange's book deal; less than1/3 of the promised 50k?

So much for transparency...

[superduperfarleft]

40. What is it you have a problem with: the leaks or Assange personally? n/t

[EFerrari]

20. Do you have anything to back that smear up, Robb?

[Robb]

21. Oh, please.

Read the story. $15K is, per Assange, about what Wikileaks raises in half a day.

...Was Assange lying yesterday, or is he being cheap today? :D

[EFerrari]

22. So, that is a "no". n/t

[Robb]

23. Unless you're blind, no, it's pretty clear.

Again, either Assange was lying yesterday, or Manning's getting shafted today.

[EFerrari]

32. And how do you come to that conclusion? Can you explain it

without being insulting?

[Robb]

33. To whom is *math* insulting?

Edited to add, just in case you missed it, http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.europe1.fr/International/Assange-nous-allons-tenter-de-riposter-367509/&act=url">Assange claiming to be losing "500,000 euros per week".

[reorg]

38. You appear somewhat confused

In the article you quote Assange is cited as saying "L'argent des donateurs a du mal à nous arriver, parce que tous nos comptes sont bloqués. J'estime que nous perdons 500.000 euros par semaine" which means that they are NOT getting this amount due to the difficulties arising from blocking the accounts. Now, 500.000 is a rough estimate, obviously, and is derived from his impression that the harassment and attacks against him backfired in that his supporters were more willing than ever to send in donations, "son arrestation par la police britannique l'a, au final, servi, dans son combat". Possible that he overestimates this willingness, but that is pure speculation, just like his estimate.

Previously the numbers were not that high - not by a long stretch, according to the Wau Holland Foundation that published the amount, IIRC it was about 1.2 million Euro in 2010.

As to the support of Manning, there are certain problems involved. Any over-eager financial support by Wikileaks directly may be seen as confirmation that they got the material from him. You must keep in mind that they are not like Wired, they don't closely cooperate with government snitches and make money from that, they want to protect their actual and potential sources. Another problem is that the donations to Wikileaks are tax-exempt due to the "Gemeinnützigkeit" of the purpose of Wikileaks and therefore have to be used in a way that is compliant with the legal requirements for that status. Direct financial support for someone accused of violating the law may not be covered by the stated purpose of Wikileaks, or may be construed to be in violation of the tax-exempt status of the donations.

It is probably for these reasons that they had listed a specific account for donations to support Manning, and it would appear that the amount donated to this account is exactly what has been forwarded now.

Why so late? Because the Wau Holland Foundation is a very small outfit, they are only a handful of unpaid volunteers who have repeatedly apologized last year for not being able to comply with sending out the receipts for a suddenly vastly increasing number of donations in a timely fashion.

[Robb]

39. So Assange "overestimated" with a number 26 times larger than Wau Holland collected?

Why ever would he do that?

[superduperfarleft]

41. What is it you have a problem with: the leaks or Assange personally? n/t

[reorg]

44. Well, obviously he is very concerned over Manning's defense fund

So, I guess Robb is a staunch supporter of Manning and what he supposedly did.

[superduperfarleft]

45. .

:rofl:

Nicely done.

[Robb]

50. I'm willing to bet I've contributed more to Wikileaks over the years than most people on DU.

And I'm on record here as a supporter of the organization since the Gitmo leaks. So, perhaps you'd prefer to stick to message, not messenger? :hi:

[superduperfarleft]

51. So...

So why the obsession with Assange? Do you have a problem with wikileaks having him in their employ? I'm glad you support the organization so much that you seem to have a deep investment in their own internal personnel issues.

[Robb]

54. You're trying, perhaps, to be civil, and I appreciate that.

Although I don't agree with your characterization of your earlier posts as "simple questions."

But to the point: I'm hardly "obsessed" with Assange. I'm also on record here as understanding exactly why his theatrics are necessary to the mission of Wikileaks -- remaining in the public eye is critical with the volume and complexity of the material.

However theatrics are one thing; fraud is another. I'm increasingly of the belief WL may not survive this, and I blame Assange, for reasons I trust are clear.

[superduperfarleft]

57. But people other than myself have already repeatedly explained why there may be financial

difficulties which prevented them from handing Manning's defense a giant wad of cash. Everything from their accounts being frozen, to trying to strike a balance between funding his defense and inadvertently implicating wikileaks in the crimes with which he is charged.

[Robb]

59. And I've pointed out, just a few posts above this, that there were several months

...between Manning's arrest and calls from WL for donations to his cause, and the financial institutions of this country taking a pass on all thing WL.

Besides, there's no number cut-off after which WL is "inadvertently implicated" by supporting Manning's defense. And it's certainly not $15,200.

Further, the WSJ article quotes the Wau Holland fellow as saying WL donations didn't ebb whatsoever after PayPal et al quit processing payments. Kill the messenger with regard to WSJ if you want, but if the man was misquoted, I suspect we'd hear from him, yes?

[reorg]

61. are you alleging the WHF solicited donations for Manning's defense and didn't forward the funds?

If so, I'd like to see some proof for that serious allegation.

[Robb]

63. I don't believe Wau Holland solicited a single dollar.

They process payments, as I understand it, on behalf of Wikileaks. And Assange has said they are not the organization's single source of funding, either. So "allegations" directed at them would be senseless.

No, I think my suspicion has been made quite clear, although I can summarize if it'll help: Wikileaks has collected a ton of money, and they're sending nearly nothing to help defend the man who (allegedly, of course) made it possible.

[reorg]

64. okay, so are you alleging that WIKILEAKS has solicited contributions to Manning's defense fund

through accounts of the Wau Holland Foundation and that they did not forward these donations to Manning's defense fund?

When I am donating to Wikileaks, I don't necessarily expect to see this money spent for an American lawyer who defends someone that may or may not be involved with certain leaks.

It may well be illegal to spend donations to Wikileaks in this manner. Have you considered this?

From what I have heard Wikileaks sought legal advice in this matter to avoid getting into even more legal troubles:

http://www.1gate.com/index.php?id=7849&d=a&i=News

(see my other post below for two quotes from Hendrik Fulda, WHF).

[Robb]

66. They asked WHF, who apparently opined it was OK to do so.

I say apparently, because Wikileaks funds were transferred to Manning's defense fund well after the article you quote below.

And you're of course correct, it is no more for me to say where money donated to WL should be apportioned than any other not-for-profit enterprise I'm not a board member of.

The word, however, for what appears to be leaving young Manning out to dry, is "shitty."

For further clarity, I have a marginally complex opinion on Manning, in that I believe much of what was released is incredibly important, and welcome it in the public sphere; most of it was wholly unimportant; some of it did more harm than good being released in this manner; and nothing about publishing the cables is remotely illegal, on the part of Wikileaks as publisher.

I also think Manning did the crime and should do the time. Or, as I tell the kids, "Don't complain about getting arrested at the protest, that's rather the point."

Further, I think Wikileaks should be going to bat for Manning as hard as possible. Again, that they appear to be not doing so is shitty of them.

[reorg]

72. the defense fund has stated they have already enough

so how is not spending the lavish amount of another 50K "leaving young Manning out to dry"?

What is up with that lawyer, anyway, why is he demanding 100K upfront, just because he has published some articles on his website?

Those who want to donate to Manning don't need to take the extra loop, they can donate to his defense fund directly. Wikileaks has no responsibility whatsoever to contribute financially.

It was probably ill-advised for Assange to make a pledge, but I think he can live with the fact that some people will find whatever he does "shitty", even if it is only because they don't think these things through, as maybe he did.

WHF has apparently forwarded the money that was earmarked for Manning's defense, money donated to a special account for that paricular purpose. I don't see how this could be seen as illegal.

What seems to be the question, though, is if Wikileaks is acting legally if they authorise money spent to support activities "geared to selflessly further the common good in material, spiritual or ethical ways" (... Tätigkeit darauf gerichtet ist, die Allgemeinheit auf materiellem, geistigem oder sittlichem Gebiet selbstlos zu fördern.) Not to mention the suspicions that may arise if said organisation could be seen not just as a benefactor but also as a beneficiary of said suspect's alleged illegal activities.

[Robb]

46. We're discussing issues, not people.

:hi:

[superduperfarleft]

47. .

:rofl:

Uh-huh.

[Robb]

48. Hopefully you'll do the same.

:hi:

[superduperfarleft]

49. I'll go ahead and respond, although I'm sure it'll be deleted.

No, you're not discussing issues. You're trying to attack the wikileaks organization by way of various personal smears on Assange.

But what you and your cohorts don't seem to realize, it's not us that are posting picture threads with Assange with his shirt off, it's not us that are posting threads about how the world just doesn't deserve Assange. I could give two shits about Assange, as long as wikileaks continues to do its work.

So how about answering the question: is it Assange you have a problem with personally, or is it the leaks as well?

[Robb]

52. Again, I'd ask you to please try to address the issue without a personal attack.

[superduperfarleft]

53. You and I clearly have a very different definition of "personal attack."

For the record, I don't define "personal attack" as "a question about my constant ad hominems that I don't feel like answering."

[Robb]

55. If you could point to an ad hominem I've made, I'd love to see it.

Or perhaps we have different definitions of "ad hominem" as well?

[superduperfarleft]

56. The ad hominem is the idea that the importance of the leaks are somehow diminished by

Assange being a control freak, an alleged rapist, a drama queen, etc. etc. etc.

[Robb]

58. And I've said that nowhere. To suggest I did is known as a "straw man."

It's just poor argument. Worse, even, than ad hominem, IMO.

It is, however, easy to attempt to deflect criticism in this way. But it does not last.

...Perhaps you can offer a defense of this paltry sum for Manning I've not thought of?

[superduperfarleft]

71. " ...Perhaps you can offer a defense of this paltry sum for Manning I've not thought of?"

I thought I did. As did others.

Could be because certain accounts are frozen. Could be because they want to make sure they're not going to damage Manning's case. Who the hell knows? A media that attempts to convince people that an Australian citizen could be charged with treason certainly doesn't.

As far as the "strawman," you're absolutely correct in this instance, and I never said I was doing anything other than assuming what your positions are. I see nothing wrong with trying to figure out a poster's motivations for participating in a topic, as it lets me know not to bother engaging with someone who is not entering into the discussion in good faith. But as I've repeatedly asked fairly direct questions about this that have gone unanswered (as well as the continuing pile on towards the wholly irrelevant issue of whether Assange is a dick or not that I've observed, speaking of deflection) you'll forgive me if I was forced to make certain assumptions as to your beliefs on the situation.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robb]

75. I understand.

But attempting to define a person's argument by guessing their motivations -- instead of addressing the argument -- is not just bad form, it's explicitly against DU rules. With good reason, I think.

Opinions are just that, especially with a dearth of solid information. I think it looks terrible, you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Kicking these ideas back and forth is why we are here -- why almost everyone is here. Even with my experience of moderating DU, I still assume best intentions of anyone who makes their argument civilly, and am rarely disappointed. Someone having a different opinion is not a moral failing, and reacting as if it is will only end poorly.

On whether Assange is an agreeable personality, you're right, of course, it hardly matters. Although it is rare to hear of anyone who changes history to this extent who someone doesn't think is a jerk. :hi:

(The deleted message up there is mine, by the way, a hiccup.)

[msanthrope]

65. I have a problem with Manning's defense not being paid--it will affect the outcome of his trial.

When you promise 50k, and hand over less than a 1/3 of that, that comes out of the defense---that's expert reports, travel, motions. All things that Bradley Manning was promised with that pledge.

While I think Manning deserving of punishment for his alleged crimes (if found guilty), I also think that effective representation is the cornerstone of this democracy. It's not fair to Manning to not pay what was promised, especially if work was undertaken on that promise...

I think what Manning did was criminal--but he deserves a good defense. A great one. I think paying what was promised is the honorable thing for Assange to do.

[reorg]

67. The initial promise was probably well-meant, but ill-advised

as Assange was reportedly informed by lawyers.

So, since you want to see Manning punished, I can see why you so fervently push the points made by the government snitches at "Wired". You want to see Wikileaks make gratuitous donations to a suspected criminal in order that they be implicated in his supposed criminal acts. Veeeeerry clever.

[superduperfarleft]

73. Fair enough, thank you for answering. n/t

[sweetapogee]

76. both

eom

[LanternWaste]

78. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

:shrug:

[xchrom]

8. Awesome! Nt

[xchrom]

10. kick

[elias49]

11. Glad to hear it!

Pockets can't be deep enough to fight a full court press from a malicious government, but it all helps.
Bravo!

[faz]

14. Exclusive interview: Julian Assange on Murdoch, Manning

On Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of leaking diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, Assange says: "I'd never heard his name before it was published in the press." He argues that the US is trying to use Manning – currently stuck in solitary confinement in the US – to build a case against the WikiLeaks founder:

"Cracking Bradley Manning is the first step," says the Australian hacker. "The aim clearly is to break him and force a confession that he somehow conspired with me to harm the national security of the United States."

Such conspiracy would be impossible, he says. "WikiLeaks technology was designed from the very beginning to make sure that we never knew the identities or names of people submitting material. We are as untraceable as we are uncensorable. That's the only way to assure sources they are protected."

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/china-wikileaks-assange

[Joanne98]

16. WikiLeaks Contributes $15,000 to Bradley Manning’s Defense

Source: Wired.com

WikiLeaks has finally made good on a months-old pledge to contribute financially to the defense of 23-year-old Bradley Manning, according to a group raising money for the imprisoned Army private suspected of providing WikiLeaks its most important U.S. releases.

But the sum, $15,100, is less than half the $50,000 WikiLeaks originally promised. It’s also less than the group pledged in December, when WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said WikiLeaks would immediately transfer $20,000 to Manning’s defense fund.

The Bradley Manning Support Network, which expressed frustration last month that it had not received the promised pledge, praised WikiLeaks’ contribution Thursday. ”This donation from WikiLeaks is vital to our efforts to ensure Bradley receives a fair, open trial,” wrote Mike Gogulski, the network’s founder, in a press release.

Combined with funds that the Support Network has already raised for Manning’s defense, the total amounts to more than $100,000, the flat fee that defense attorney David Coombs had originally agreed to charge for defending Manning. Gogulski noted in his e-mail that the expected expense for Manning’s defense has now risen to about $115,000.



Read more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/manning-donations/

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

18. K&R

[sabrina 1]

19. Biased reporting by Wired, which is no surprise, considering

their appalling history regarding this case.

'Finally made good'. Wikileaks has had its accounts frozen by the U.S. government and its lackies in the business world.

To pay that amount Wikeleaks would have to wait for donations coming through other channels until their accounts and methods of taking donations, are unblocked.

Wired has not been a particularly credible source on the Manning/Wikileaks story.

[msanthrope]

25. Well, why did they wait 6 months to pay?

The promise was made in May.

Further, I think Mr. Assange just got a 1.5 million book deal. He could have had his publishing house cut a check to Manning directly, non?

[sabrina 1]

26. Who handles Wikileaks finances? Do you know?

During the summer months Wikileaks announced they were running out of funds as more and more leaked documents overwhelmed their resources.

As far as I know, Assange doesn't manage the funding. I'm sure there is more than individual handling donations for an organization that is made up of over one thousand people worldwide.

Jumping to conclusions without any facts isn't very informative. Wikileaks would have had to raise funds for Manning before being able to donate them. When did this occur? Do you know? Manning has been in jail for approx. seven months. When did Wikileaks promise to help with his defense? Do you know the timeline? I'm sure they had to seek legal advice regarding the ramifications of appearing to be 'in league' with him to the U.S. government who they knew were searching for a 'direct connection' between them and Manning.

To an organization like this, $50,000 is a lot of money. Now, they have begun to make good on their promise. I have no reason to doubt they will keep that promise unless the U.S. makes it impossible for them to access funds anywhere.

As for Assange's book deal, I'm sure he did not receive the full amount immediately. He also has legal fees and will have many more thanks to the persecution of the this government, the death threats etc.

But if you know all the details then please share them.

[msanthrope]

27. Interestingly, Wikileaks took in 1.2 million apparently, through Wau Holland Foundation.

"WikiLeaks has received at least $1.2 million in donations since it began accepting contributions via PayPal and bank transfer payments. The donations have been handled for WikiLeaks by the Berlin-based Wau Holland Foundation since October 2009.

The organization initially spent these contributions frugally, tapping just $38,000 between October 2009 and July 2010. But by December, its costs swelled to nearly half of its nest-egg, about $495,000. A Wall Street Journal story last month said that around $133,000 of that money was paid out as salary for WikiLeaks staffers who’d submitted invoices requesting compensation for their 2010 work.

Hendrik Fulda, vice president of the foundation, says Wau Holland will soon release a report detailing all the donations and expenses it has handled for WikiLeaks. “Our report on the money paid out is in the final stages, we’re now putting text to the numbers. So it should be out in the next week or two,” said Fulda in an e-mail. “We’re still on the legal / tax issue from our end, which seems to be complicated, but expect this to be sorted by end of January.”

The long overdue Wau Holland report will be the first public disclosure of WikiLeaks’ finances. The organization and founder Assange have been criticized by supporters and others for failing to provide a transparent accounting of donations and expenses. According to the Telegraph, the Wau Holland Foundation was issued two official warnings by charity regulators in Germany for failing to file the required financial reports."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/manning-donations/

Can't wait to see those financial reports.


"WikiLeaks led a prominent fundraising campaign on Manning’s behalf following his arrest last May in Iraq. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange indicated in June that he had hired three U.S. criminal-defense attorneys to defend Manning, and his group appealed to supporters to provide money to cover the cost of sending attorneys to the Middle East to meet with Manning.

It’s not known how much money WikiLeaks succeeded in raising for Manning’s defense. The group has yet to provide the detailed report of its contributions and expenses that was expected in August. Manning hired his own defense attorney instead of one provided by WikiLeaks.

According to a September e-mail to Threat Level from the Wau Holland Foundation, WikiLeaks authorized the foundation to release an unspecified amount of money for Manning’s defense sometime that month. But Wau Holland vice president Hendrik Fulda told the Post on Tuesday that although it was his understanding that the amount to be released was $20,000, he never received final confirmation to distribute the funds.

SNIP

WikiLeaks has raised at least $1 million in general donations, according to statements Assange made after April when his site published a classified Army video taken in Iraq. In an online chat with a former hacker who turned him in, Manning took credit for leaking the video to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks claimed it raised more than $150,000 in just two days after it published the video online."


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/manning-defens/#

[Robb]

28. Fairly damning numbers. The only move left

...for WL is either to marginalize Manning, which it's probably too late to do, or to adopt the narrative that he's beyond help.

I look forward to being proven wrong, however.

[msanthrope]

31. I suspect it will be the latter.

And Assange will laugh all the way to the bank.

[Robb]

34. Another option struck me: Assange resigns.

Wikileaks carries on, Assange's fans forgive him, and blame everyone but him in perpetuity.

[msanthrope]

68. I don't think Assange will resign voluntarily.

I think he will take Wikileaks down with him, because I think his narcissism will not allow him to separate from it.

I think Domscheit-Berg will prevail. I think his book will be an eye-opener.

[sabrina 1]

29. Wired and the Wall St. Journal are very suspect sources

regardubg Wikileaks. I cannot find any other source so far but I would not be willing to accept anything from Murdoch's WSJ regarding Wikileaks of Wired. They totally discredited themselves on this story.

I will do some research for better sources. Wired apparently lied regarding the 'online chat' so it's interesting that they would refer to that. They admitted that they were basically lying when pressured by Glenn Greenwald.

There is an all out effort to discredit Wikileaks so I will wait to some more credible sources than these two. A quick search reveals only Wired so far.

[msanthrope]

30. You do realize that Wikileaks could clear this up, right?

They could simply realize their financials, as other organizations do.

[sabrina 1]

35. Like what organizations?

Like Daily Kos eg, or DU? What obligation do any of these organizations have to reveal their financial information?

You do realize that Wikileaks is a news org that is under attack from several governments whose dirty secrets they try to keep from their citizens, Wikileaks reveals?

Speaking of financial revelations. Henry Paulson demanded that our Congress hand over nearly one trillion dollars for his Wall St. buddies and that there be NO questions asked about how they spent that money. Do you know how they spent it?

Wikileaks is under no obligation to respond to demands made by people who do not want their citizens to know what they are doing with THEIR money.

And if they did get over one million dollars, I am happy to hear that. It's not much for what they do, but it would help keep them exposing corruption and providing news on what governments are doing and perhaps keep them honest.

[Robb]

37. The Wau Holland Foundation is required to do so, as a nonprofit.

Reading the article where is is mentioned would be beneficial. It maintains a tax-exempt status in Germany, and as such is required to submit a certain amount of accounting information by German law. This would presumably include money it has been collecting on behalf of Wikileaks.

[sabrina 1]

62. But what does that have to do with Wikileaks?

That seems to be their decision and there's no reason to believe that Wikileaks has any influence over their decisions.

[sabrina 1]

70. See post #60. As suspected, the smear appears to have

been a tempest in a tea-pot. Wau Holland HAS responded. And this is why I never take anything related to Wikileaks coming from Wired and/or any of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets seriously until they are backed by more reputable and credible sources.

[superduperfarleft]

43. "Like Daily Kos eg, or DU? What obligation do any of these organizations have to reveal their

financial information?"

Very good question....

[reorg]

60. (Correction:) You will get to see the financial reports

although they are none of your business, a speaker for the Wau Holland Foundation, Hendrik Fulda said in a recent interview that they will publish their annual report.

http://www.1gate.com/index.php?id=7849&d=a&i=News (in German)

Annual reports of the WHF are filed with the Regierungspräsident (district president) in Kassel and just like those of other tax-exempt foundations not made public.

The Regierungspräsident has publicly stated, BTW, that there is nothing unusual about WHF's filing of their annual report like the Telegraph had suggested. All tax-exempt foundations have to file a report within 9 months after the end of the fiscal year. On average, about one third of these associations miss that deadline and have to be reminded. After another 6 weeks they are reminded again, and that is what happened in this case. Had they missed to comply with the second reminder, the Regierungspräsident would have commissioned an accountant to do the report. That is all there is to it.

http://is.gd/KcgPh4

The annual report was for 2009, so all these numbers you cite are not in it. Up until early last year the Wikileaks volunteers were spending their own money, due to the low amount of donations. Even until last autumn, the WHF said they had only transferred a minor sum to Wikileaks, so most of the 1.2 million were sitting in accounts in Kassel. As to why Assange does not simply authorize WHF to send a check to Manning, I believe he has mentioned that there may be legal repercussions that need to be taken into account. He has, of course, also had a few other things to worry about.

Hendrik Fulda has stated in the interview mentioned above that "Wikileaks has asked to inquire whether it makes sense to contribute to Manning's defense fund. The Wau Holland Foundation is now waiting for advice from his attorneys whether such a contribution would be legal according to German law, and whether there would be negative consequences to be expected for the accused."

"Herr Fulda sagte außerdem, dass WikiLeaks die Wau Holland-Stiftung bat festzustellen, ob es sinnvoll sei, zugunsten des amerikanischen Armeenachrichtendienstanalytikers Pfc. Bradley Manning geschaffenen gesetzlichen Verteidigungsfonds beizutragen. (...) Die Wau Holland-Stiftung wartet nun auf den Rat seiner Anwälte, ob die Spende nach deutschen Gesetzen rechtens ist und den Angeklagten dadurch keine weiteren negativen Konsequenzen erwarten."

http://www.1gate.com/index.php?id=7849&d=a&i=News (in German)

[sabrina 1]

69. I had a feeling this OP was distorted. Just looking at the

sources made it necessary to do some more checking. Not finding any others, I figured I would wait to hear from some more credible sources.

They really are going all-out to smear the New Media who so far, unlike the MSM, they have been unable to control.

Thank you for the information. This should be an OP btw.

[fascisthunter]

36. wow... this thread is mind blowing

[superduperfarleft]

42. Nah, just the usual smears and personal attacks from the posters who don't seem to have much else.

Pretty much par for the course.

[fascisthunter]

77. I Know...

but a mod too?

[midnight]

79. Why is justice so expensive? 115,000 ......