LMCane said:

---

now imagine how many literally rich Americans there are because they have fraudulently stolen government money for NGOs

stolen fraudulent money for 'civil rights organizations'

stolen fraudulent money from taxpayers for different grants and Section 8 and welfare and covid and autism...

---

The Biden economy.

dreyOO said:

---

What we've been saying for years. They accuse the right of what they are actually doing.

Who knew they would actually get busted for it.

I hope there are about 20x more cases like this that show everyone from the MSM, Antifa, Soros, Act Blue, and even parts of our government have been conspiring and FUND everything that is tanking this country.

---

Well, this already happened when USAID was exposed, but Im not sure what was actually shut off and what has been reinstated now that its memory holed.

Great breakdown of all charges and ramifications for the SPLC and the democratic party:



https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/800-million-reasons-wednesday-april?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

It's like a small town volunteer fire department paying kids to start fires and the progressives defending it by saying " well it's good practice when some real fires break out."

---

I would analogize it to telling everyone (when they're not home) their house is on fire then showing up at said house and using a flame thrower to actually put it on fire.

Thank you. That was an excellent summary and I now think I understand the financial crimes aspect.

Of course, the real problem about the SPLC is how it smears any group or individual that is conservative.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You are trying way to hard to spin this. If everything they were doing was legal and above board they wouldn't be hiding money in the Caymans.

---

I'm not trying to spin anything. It's a criminal prosecution. SPLC are claiming that that these expenditures are for paying informants. I'm stating that I believe that if the government can prove that they were actually to incite criminality, than they will be able to secure convictions. If they are unable accomplish that, I think that the prosecution will fail.

Wow. They have some major assets:

Based on the most recent available IRS Form 990 filings and financial statements, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has a substantial amount of money and assets on hand.
As of the fiscal year ending October 31, 2024, the organization's financial snapshot is as follows:
Total Assets: $822,198,315
Net Assets (Endowment/Reserves): $786,768,246
Annual Revenue: $129,063,290
Annual Expenses: $128,982,970
Key Financial Context
Asset Reserve: CharityWatch, an independent nonprofit watchdog, downgraded the SPLC's rating to an "F" in May 2025. This was specifically due to the organization holding approximately 6 years' worth of available assets in reserve, which significantly exceeds the standard threshold for charities.
Investment Growth: The SPLC's endowment has seen significant growth in recent years, rising from roughly $749 million in 2023 to over $822 million by late 2024.
Liability: As of the 2024 filing, the SPLC reported total liabilities of approximately $35.4 million, which is relatively low compared to its total asset pool.

From what I can tell, the author of the article just above here believes that the real peril the SPLC is in derives from the fact that it lied when it opened a number of fake bank accounts so that it could conceal the origin of the money it was paying its informants:

Quote:

---

.....the indictment really begins to grip when it describes the scores of fake bank accounts the SPLC created and used to launder money to its "informants" in the hate groups.

It would go like this: the SPLC would dream up a preposterous-sounding business that didn't actually exist.

....Next, the SPLC would open a fake account at a bank, fund it, and use the money to pay "informants" and hate groups millions of dollars. We might call that a "left-wing laundromat." The indictment calls it both "money laundering" and a "conspiracy to commit money laundering."

Mind you, none of these businesses ever existed. No customers. No vendors. No products or services. To convince the banks to open accounts for their invisible businesses, the SPLC lied on the account applications. In writing. The DOJ now has it dead to rights.

Then critically for the indictment in 2021, one of the banks investigated SPLC's accounts, discovered they were made up, closed them, and got the SPLC to agree in a letter confirming they were all fake and actually owned by the SPLC.

The DOJ has the letter.

The SPLC has lawyers. Its lawyers, it turns out, did not bother to read the Bank Secrecy Act. The SPLC's lawyers now need lawyers of their own.

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

From what I can tell, the author of the article just above here believes that the real peril the SPLC is in derives from the fact that it lied when it opened a number of fake bank accounts so that it could conceal the origin of the money it was paying its informants:

Quote:

---

.....the indictment really begins to grip when it describes the scores of fake bank accounts the SPLC created and used to launder money to its "informants" in the hate groups.

It would go like this: the SPLC would dream up a preposterous-sounding business that didn't actually exist.

....Next, the SPLC would open a fake account at a bank, fund it, and use the money to pay "informants" and hate groups millions of dollars. We might call that a "left-wing laundromat." The indictment calls it both "money laundering" and a "conspiracy to commit money laundering."

Mind you, none of these businesses ever existed. No customers. No vendors. No products or services. To convince the banks to open accounts for their invisible businesses, the SPLC lied on the account applications. In writing. The DOJ now has it dead to rights.

Then critically for the indictment in 2021, one of the banks investigated SPLC's accounts, discovered they were made up, closed them, and got the SPLC to agree in a letter confirming they were all fake and actually owned by the SPLC.

The DOJ has the letter.

The SPLC has lawyers. Its lawyers, it turns out, did not bother to read the Bank Secrecy Act. The SPLC's lawyers now need lawyers of their own.

---

---

I'm fully ready to believe at least some of the money comes from foreign adversaries seeking to undermine us...Why not? it's the same **** we've done to them for decades thru USAID etc.

Sid Farkas said:

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

From what I can tell, the author of the article just above here believes that the real peril the SPLC is in derives from the fact that it lied when it opened a number of fake bank accounts so that it could conceal the origin of the money it was paying its informants:

Quote:

---

.....the indictment really begins to grip when it describes the scores of fake bank accounts the SPLC created and used to launder money to its "informants" in the hate groups.

It would go like this: the SPLC would dream up a preposterous-sounding business that didn't actually exist.

....Next, the SPLC would open a fake account at a bank, fund it, and use the money to pay "informants" and hate groups millions of dollars. We might call that a "left-wing laundromat." The indictment calls it both "money laundering" and a "conspiracy to commit money laundering."

Mind you, none of these businesses ever existed. No customers. No vendors. No products or services. To convince the banks to open accounts for their invisible businesses, the SPLC lied on the account applications. In writing. The DOJ now has it dead to rights.

Then critically for the indictment in 2021, one of the banks investigated SPLC's accounts, discovered they were made up, closed them, and got the SPLC to agree in a letter confirming they were all fake and actually owned by the SPLC.

The DOJ has the letter.

The SPLC has lawyers. Its lawyers, it turns out, did not bother to read the Bank Secrecy Act. The SPLC's lawyers now need lawyers of their own.

---

---

I'm fully ready to believe at least some of the money comes from foreign adversaries seeking to undermine us...Why not? it's the same **** we've done to them for decades thru USAID etc.

---

The CIA spent billions developing methods and our adversaries read their playbook

solishu said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You are trying way to hard to spin this. If everything they were doing was legal and above board they wouldn't be hiding money in the Caymans.

---

I'm not trying to spin anything. It's a criminal prosecution. SPLC are claiming that that these expenditures are for paying informants. I'm stating that I believe that if the government can prove that they were actually to incite criminality, than they will be able to secure convictions. If they are unable accomplish that, I think that the prosecution will fail.

---

Unless, of course, the SPLC paying informants is a crime in and of itself.

Which is what is alleged, that the paying of informants was a crime.

Are you saying you know without a doubt that the SPLC paying informants with these funds is not a crime?

Also, what is SPLC's story that the money was all for paying informants isn't true? What if the money actually went into the coffers of these organizations, and not just to individual informants? That is possibly a crime.

Are you saying you know without a doubt that the SPLC was only paying informants, and wasn't paying the actual organizations?

solishu said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You are trying way to hard to spin this. If everything they were doing was legal and above board they wouldn't be hiding money in the Caymans.

---

I'm not trying to spin anything. It's a criminal prosecution. SPLC are claiming that that these expenditures are for paying informants. I'm stating that I believe that if the government can prove that they were actually to incite criminality, than they will be able to secure convictions. If they are unable accomplish that, I think that the prosecution will fail.

---

Is a private business, let alone a nonprofit, paying for "informants" legal? That's typically the realm of law enforcement agencies, and even they have strict oversight and procedures which must be followed.

And if they're paying for informants for information to hand over to law enforcement as some type of rogue para- law enforcement group, where is the evidence they turned over and prosecutions it led to?

If I was trying to claim the moral high ground, let alone the legal one, I'd have that paper trail ready to go.

Much like BLM thugs I doubt they were smart enough to think that far ahead.

BusterAg said:

---

From the article:

Quote:

---

Finally, since you can't lock up a non-profit, the DOJ's indictment sought the remedy of criminal forfeiture. Remember that fact, along with the SPLC's treasure trove of $800 million, because both facts will become super important very soon.

---

Okay, before I read this, I was very, very interested.

Now, I am at the point of arousal.

If Treasury starts going after personal assets of the directors, I'm going to need a cigarette.

---

It wouldn't be the personal assets of the directors but rather the assets of the non-profit. A non-profit, at least in most states, does not have equity holders (which makes it a non-profit, not that it doesn't make more in revenue than it spends each year; kind of a misnomer in name). Thus, most non-profits have in their by-laws where their assets go if the entity is dissolved.

Let me guess: "Human Rights" Watch, ACLU, Act Blue, etc.

So they can decide where they go if THEY dissolve the non-profit. But could not the government seize their assets if they are found guilty of crimes? Similar to a drug dealer's vehicles and homes becoming the property of the government?

Quote:

---

It wouldn't be the personal assets of the directors but rather the assets of the non-profit. A non-profit, at least in most states, does not have equity holders (which makes it a non-profit, not that it doesn't make more in revenue than it spends each year; kind of a misnomer in name). Thus, most non-profits have in their by-laws where their assets go if the entity is dissolved.

Let me guess: "Human Rights" Watch, ACLU, Act Blue, etc.

---

But those assets could still be traced. I'm thinking more like when people try to hide assets in advance of filing for bankruptcy. Those transfers can be nullified and the asset seized.

I don't know for certain that paying informants isn't a crime, but I think that bits very unlikely that it is. Obviously just paying to incite criminal activity is a crime. I don't know if that's what they were doing or not (hence why I keep saying that this is what the trial will boil down to though I'm intrigued the the idea that it's actually financial shenanigans to try to hide foreign funding.)

I believe their story is exactly that - that information gained from these "informants" was turned over to LO. Whether or not that was actually the case should come out in the case I would think.

Nobody will be happier than me to see the SPLC go up in flames. I'm just speculating on the actual legal questions involved.

I dunno, I'm pretty pumped

91AggieLawyer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

From the article:

Quote:

---

Finally, since you can't lock up a non-profit, the DOJ's indictment sought the remedy of criminal forfeiture. Remember that fact, along with the SPLC's treasure trove of $800 million, because both facts will become super important very soon.

---

Okay, before I read this, I was very, very interested.

Now, I am at the point of arousal.

If Treasury starts going after personal assets of the directors, I'm going to need a cigarette.

---

It wouldn't be the personal assets of the directors but rather the assets of the non-profit. A non-profit, at least in most states, does not have equity holders (which makes it a non-profit, not that it doesn't make more in revenue than it spends each year; kind of a misnomer in name). Thus, most non-profits have in their by-laws where their assets go if the entity is dissolved.

Let me guess: "Human Rights" Watch, ACLU, Act Blue, etc.

---

If the directors of the non-profit were illegally enriching themselves by using fraud to raise money, and then paying themselves extravagant salaries that were in any way connected to that money that was raised by fraud, you can bet your ass their personal assets are at risk.

Same guys that Treasury uses to go after the personal assets of directors of corporations that commit fraud and get rich of fraudulent stock option gains. Same guys that go after the asset of drug dealer's families that were purchased with drug money. If Heisenberg buys his mom a house with drug money, that house can be seized by Treasury. Same concept here.

I've done some forensic accounting on behalf of individuals in cases like this related to tax issues. What Treasury can get away with seizing is almost criminal.

solishu said:

---

I don't know for certain that paying informants isn't a crime, but I think that its very unlikely that it is. Obviously just paying to incite criminal activity is a crime. I don't know if that's what they were doing or not (hence why I keep saying that this is what the trial will boil down to though I'm intrigued the the idea that it's actually financial shenanigans to try to hide foreign funding.)

---

I think, in this case, you are very, very wrong.

Somebody in Cayman getting a nice cut for helping to stash money. Still can't believe they acknowledged the Cayman assets on their return. Dummies trying to act smart?