By Richard McCarty

Over the past several years, George Soros and other very wealthy liberals have been dumping millions of dollars into local district attorneys’ races all across the country. Why would out-of-touch billionaires be trying to buy district attorneys’ offices in localities where they do not live and that they may rarely, if ever, even visit? Because they are left-wing ideologues who want to elect soft-on-crime prosecutors. Before they notch any more wins, the Right needs to get its act together and organize an effective organization to stop these radicals.

Unfortunately, Soros and his cabal have won quite a few victories. For example, Soros helped elect Diana Becton in Contra Costa, California; Kim Foxx in Chicago; Kim Gardner in St. Louis; Kim Ogg in Houston; Rachael Rollins in Suffolk County, Massachusetts; Larry Krasner in Philadelphia; Jack Stollsteimer in Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Parisa Dehghani-Tafti in Arlington, Virginia; Steve Descano in Fairfax, Virginia; Buta Biberaj in Loudoun County, Virginia; and Jim Hingeley in Albemarle, Virginia, among others.

For some reason, these prosecutors do not believe they have to enforce the law; they believe that they can just ignore laws that they do not like. That is why they are refusing to prosecute thefts, disorderly conduct, prostitution, drug possession, and resisting arrest; refusing to pursue the death penalty; and firing experienced prosecutors. Clearly, Soros’s prosecutors are more interested in coddling criminals than prosecuting them; their sympathies lie more with criminals than with victims.

The good news is that Soros and his candidates can be beaten. In spite of Soros’s money, voters in San Diego; Sacramento; Alameda County, California; Washington County, Oregon; Jefferson County, Colorado; and Monroe County, New York rejected soft-on-crime candidates.

Of course, Soros is not alone in his efforts to subvert our laws. The following are some of the wealthy donors who also support soft-on-crime candidates:

• Cari Tuna, the wife of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz;
• Lauren Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs;
• Kaitlyn Krieger, the wife of Instagram co-founder Michael Krieger;
• Liz Simons, daughter of hedge fund billionaire James Simons; and
• Sonjia Smith, the wife of hedge fund manager Michael Bills.

Fresh off of their 2019 victories, Soros and his cabal are already setting their sights on the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, which is the largest local prosecutor’s office in the country. Rather than endure a tough race for reelection in San Francisco where he was the district attorney, George Gascón quit his job and moved over 300 miles south to Los Angeles to challenge Jackie Lacey, the incumbent prosecutor there. Given the sorry state of the city, one can hardly blame Gascón for not wishing to face San Francisco voters. One way or another, moderates and conservatives – and really anyone who values the rule of law – must see to it that Gascón is defeated. No doubt, there are a number of other district attorney’s offices that Soros would like to capture as well.

Just how bad do things have to get before an effective counterweight to Soros and his pals emerges? Surely someone can give or raise the $20 million necessary to go toe-to-toe with Soros and expose his radical candidates for district attorney. Otherwise, we will be bitterly complaining next year after Soros wins yet another round of races for district attorney – and the lives and livelihoods of millions of people are unnecessarily put at risk by Soros’s dangerous agenda. Over the past few decades, conservatives have wisely focused on taking back the courts, but district attorney races must not be overlooked. After all, what good is having a good judge – or even good laws and good precedent – if prosecutors refuse to do their jobs?

Richard McCarty is the Director of Research at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

---

House impeachment scammers Schiff and Nadler appointed by Pelosi

Jan. 15, 2020, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) appointment of U.S. Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to head the House impeachment managers:

“Speaker Pelosi's decision to appoint Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler to head the House impeachment management team demonstrates clearly that the Senate will hear nothing more than hearsay and presumptions against President Donald Trump. Schiff's history of lying throughout the entirety of the Russiagate investigation, combined with his unscrupulous handling of the impeachment inquiry, should solidify resolve in the Senate to bend over backwards to allow President Trump to present his case. Nadler pronounced before Nancy Pelosi even became Speaker that Democrats were going to impeach President Trump, showing clearly that this fraudulent impeachment was a foregone conclusion with the House merely filling in the blanks for the Articles of Impeachment.

“With a Senate trial likely to start next week the pubic needs to let their Senators know that they expect President Trump to be treated fairly and that any attempts by the House Democrats to expand their inquiry should be rejected. A quick, fair trial and exoneration will allow the Senate to get back to important work on behalf of the American people. The House failed in its duty to take impeachment seriously, and the Senate should dispose of this sham political maneuver fairly and rapidly.”

To view online: https://getliberty.org/2020/01/house-impeachment-scammers-schiff-and-nadler-appointed-by-pelosi/

---

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column from the UK Register’s Kieren McCarthy, ICANN won’t say who it sold .org to:

ICANN finally reveals who’s behind purchase of .org: It’s ███████ and ██████ – you don't need to know any more

By Kieren McCarthy

DNS overlord ICANN has finally released additional details over the proposed sale of the .org internet registry to a private equity firm – details that raise more questions than answers.

Key among these peculiarities is that they don't name who will end up in charge of the billion-dollar entity that oversee 10 million .org internet addresses, including many of the world’s largest non-profits and charities.

Incredibly, the names of three directors of the organization that will buy the registry remain redacted in documents published by ICANN [PDF] this month, despite the three entities pushing the sale – PIR, ISOC and Ethos Capital – claiming that publication of the information is “unprecedented” and they are “strong believers in the power of transparency.”

The rationale given for the removal of director names is that it was based “on the principles set forth in ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)” – a bizarre claim that has nothing to do with the issues at hand and which ICANN has refused to discuss.

As well as refusing to supply the names of those in overall charge, the three companies have also refused to publish the “underlying equity purchase agreement, sensitive financial information, corporate organizational information, draft organizational documents, documentation provided to governmental entities and certain supporting contractual documents.”

The few details that have emerged are a further cause of concern. The $1.135bn purchase is 32 per cent funded by debt; $360m has been raised from unnamed US financial institutions. PIR – the operator of the registry – “has sufficient operational cash flow to service the loan,” the documents claims, noting it is half what PIR has paid to ISOC each year. In other words, debt repayments will be approximately $15m a year, which points to 30-year loans.

Corporate shell game

The actual sale itself will not be a straightforward purchase either, raising questions over who is getting paid what and how during the process. According to the documents, the Internet Society – which is currently the sole owner of PIR, the registry operator – has already created a new entity that acts as a mirror entity to PIR and is called Connected Giving Foundation (CGF).

CGF “is expected to be a Section 501(c)(3) public charity,” the documents says – although it is worth noting that the process to become a 501c3 organization typically takes several months and sometimes up to a year.

CGF will then become a “member” of PIR at the same time that PIR moves from a non-profit to a for-profit organization. ISOC will stop being a member of PIR, and then CGF will sell its “membership” to another new entity that hasn’t been mentioned previously by any of the organizations in the proposed sale – a company called Purpose Domains Direct, LLC.

While the whole process is seemingly designed to enable ISOC to receive the $1.135bn as a tax-free contribution, it had been presumed up to this point that Ethos Capital – which has always put itself forward as the purchaser – would end up with ownership of .org.

Now it appears that Ethos Capital is more than just a front for former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade but a front of a front, with Purpose Domains Direct (PDD) left in overall charge. It is the names of PDD directors that have been redacted in the documents, which that redaction implicitly approved by ICANN.

What isn’t mentioned in the documents, is that Purpose Domains Direct – registered in Delaware – is not even the final corporate shell in this transaction. That company is itself owned by Purpose Domains Holdings LLC, which is also incorporated in Delaware. We don’t know who the owners are of that company either.

Adding to the sense that the entire transaction resulted from insider knowledge and careful manipulation, the documents reveals that yet another former ICANN executive – its former head of compliance – is also involved in the deal.

Grogan's Run; Dances with Woolfs

Asked by ICANN to name any “former directors, officers or employees of ICANN that are or have been involved in, have advised on or otherwise have an interest in the transaction,” the documents list former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade, his former executive assistant Nora Abusitta-Ouri – who is listed as being the “chief purpose officer” of Ethos Capital – and Allen Grogan, who was hired by Chehade in 2014 and reported directly to him. Grogan’s involvement in the deal has previously gone unnoticed.

That’s not the only unusual connection. Suzanne Woolf has previously been a director of both ICANN and PIR. She was hired as a senior director at PIR by Joe Abley, when he became CTO of PIR, having left, you guessed, ICANN. What is less well known is that Woolf has also been a paid consultant to Donuts – a registry operator that was co-founded by current PIR CEO Jon Nevett.

Nevett left Donuts when it was bought by Abry Partners – a deal that was led by Fadi Chehade and Ethos Capital CEO Erik Brooks – and his CEO role was taken over by ICANN CTO, and old friend of Chehade’s, Akram Atallah.

The fact that the Internet Society and PIR were not only willing to move ahead with a sale but have actively supported and promoted it will be a further indicator to the internet community that both companies have been willing to abandon responsible stewardship of the registry in return for cash: the corporate shell game alone should have raised red flags.

There are also some concerning conclusions to be drawn from the documents and statements made in relation to them.

As we discussed in an earlier article, it looks as though ISOC purposefully positioned PIR for sale a year prior to the Ethos Capital offer. ISOC has repeatedly avoided saying whether it has been trying to sell the registry for some time, even though it has cautiously admitted that it has received prior offers. It has not explained why it pulled an additional $30m out of PIR in 2018, removing almost all of its assets.

In addition, ICANN claimed in its posting – which, unusually, took place on a Saturday – that it only received the information from PIR/ISOC/Ethos Capital on 10 January. But on January 8, PIR informed us that it has already sent the information.

While a two-day discrepancy may seem unimportant in the larger scheme of things, it is just one more sign that all the organizations in questions are coordinating with one another while failing to admit or acknowledge the extent of their communications.

The fact that so many former ICANN executives are involved in the sale makes the almost complete lack of transparency that much more concerning. With more than a billion dollars being moved around for a critical piece of internet infrastructure, anything less than full transparency should be viewed as suspicious. So far, the little transparency that has appeared has only made this deal looks worse.

Permalink here.

---