Search results

I forgot to answer this initial question. If a donor makes a general donation ("Here's a check for $100! Bye!") then they really don't have any grounds to special information. Only if they have a particularized interest ("Here's $10K for servers, and servers only!") do they have any real...

This is a classic problem in agency law. "Agency" in this case isn't agency in the sense of "Central Intelligence Agency", but more like "I am in charge and this guy over here is my agent." The question of whether somebody has the authority to bind their principal (the boss) is a very common...

Mostly yes, though in many cases the decision is up to the Board's discretion. If somebody gives money to TV with the expectation that it will be used for Tower purposes, the Board's decision how to use that money is almost always going to overrule the donor's expectation unless something...

That's a really nice thing for you to say, but I'm sure my singing voice could change your mind in a heartbeat.

After several days I am able to respond. Sorry for the delay. Here we go: No comment. Some advice that I have directly given to the Board is inappropriate to discuss here, and some I feel like I can discuss here to help educate the community as we all grapple with this. IMO this question...

Responding to this post on my phone makes me vomit. I should be able to respond tomorrow (Monday).

Prosecutors are more likely to find out quickly if the victim reports. Other routes for that knowledge exist. No further comment.

This is not correct. Prosecutors have discretion to pursue any case for which they have adequate facts. No. If the Board were to knowingly lie about or hide knowledge sought by the authorities, that's a different story. Thanks guys!

As the most recent of the posts in this vein, I have chosen this one as the one I will respond to. In this post I am in no way commenting on the Board's intentions regarding the current controversy. I do feel it would be helpful to explain a point or two about how the process works to clarify a...

Because this question touches on the nature of the evidence and/or extent of claims the Leadership has, I will respond with No Comment.

DISCLAIMER: Again I repeat that I am in no way indicating whether or what actions have been taken, are under consideration, or have been ruled out by the Board. With that out of the way: Eli's post suggests that there may be a desire among certain elements of the community to take individual...

Again: This request is so noted. As per my OP in this thread, neither I nor the Leadership will comment further on requests of this type for the reasons stated above.

RAFO is a registered trademark of Bandersnatch Group, Inc. For me to use it without permission would incur toh.

This request is so noted. As per my OP in this thread, neither I nor the Leadership will comment further on requests of this type for the reasons stated above.

Because those figures would be evidence in any legal action, the odds of those figures being released any time soon (meaning possibly a year or more) is unlikely. That is the board's decision but I wanted to set expectations appropriately.

[Edited because I fail at Quote]

For those of you who do not know who I am, I serve as counsel to TarValon.net, Inc. This post represents the official statement of TarValon.net regarding the recent controversy surrounding its ex-treasurer, B. Riley Robinson. This controversy has stirred many emotions, created some confusion...