Big Jerry's salon thinks something's up with Skins's island

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49869

Oh my.

A very long discussion going on there, among the customers of Big Jerry's salon.

IdesOfOctober:

Democratic Underground, LLC has its business status revoked

Something didn't seem quite right about DU this election season.

It was hard to put my finger on it.

But the problems run deeper than some may realize.

http://idesofoctober.blogspot.com/

Nanette:

What does this mean? No more DU??

Icky:

WOW!!! Incredible!!!

Good stuff, Ides!

the unkind uncouth one, KyndCulture:

seriously, what DOES that mean?

Icky:

LLC means "Limited Liability Company"

I'm not sure WHY they lost their status, but it implies they violated some rules... OR... They willfully acted to drop their Status (Perhaps they have something else in mind... 527 maybe?)

Nanette again:

Does this mean that the DU site doesn't exist anymore? I still am not sure that I understand what this means.

Idiot, er, IdesOfOctober again:

Well, additional data is available here: http://idesofoctober.blogspot.com/2008/02/dui.html

According to the information obtained by my research staff, DU LLC - or is that DULL C? - failed to file the required report, due on June 16, 2007. The DC Government revoked DULL C's business registration on November 11, 2007 for this default.

Icky again:

If they are taking in advertising revenue it could matter...

If they are taking in donations... It could matter...

IF Skinner (or whoeverthehell) owns the site, he better damned well be able to account for and claim every penny he gets... or he just might be going to jail.

If DU is making any money at all, they need a way to account for it and pay taxes on it.

OOOooooh!!! Maybe they are going to call themselves a "CHURCH" now!!!

Xena:

You need to understand what a Limited Liability Corporation is. It is a corporation, which protects the individuals from financial liability if the corporation is sued in any way. It is not a non-profit corporation. Losing their status as a LLC simply means they are no longer a corporation. If a lawsuit was filed for any reason, the individuals involved in the business would be collectively and individually financially liable.

It could mean they've dissolved the LLC and are forming another corporation. It could mean some of the participants are leaving. It could mean nothing.

The IdiotOfOctober again:

The reason cited for the revocation is failure to file a required two-year report.

http://idesofoctober.blogspot.com/2008/02/dui.html

The report was due in June, and the revocation was handed down in November. By mid-afternoon Monday, I should have additional data regarding this.

The limited liability aspect does come into play. Depending upon the laws on the books in DC, so might consumer protection and/or fraud laws pertaining to soliciting donations. At this point, it raises questions; but ones worth thorough answers.

Icky:

Xena's point about Liability is spot on!

If the "owners" of DU are sued... they PERSONALLY will be responsible... ANYTHING they have (income, assets...) will NOT BE PROTECTED.

This was foolish on their part, bigtime!!!!

Xena:

Bear in mind they could just be reforming under another type of corporation. I was interested in Skinner's three addresses, including one in Alaska. I'm curious as to what that is all about.

Xena:

Who knows. And yes they are unless they have already reformed. They are revamping the site this spring. Could be some other surprises. Skinner doesn't strike me as the type to "forget" to renew or provide info for an LLC.

Fat Che:

Computer nerds tend to be really bad with paperwork.

The above's only part of the under-the-hair-dryer discussion going on at Big Jerry's salon.

[Uhhuh35]

Does this mean what I think it does?:
http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?24962236657

That all of DU could only donate 1750 bucks to John Kerry in 2004, Or did Mr Allen himself donate the money?

A bit confused here.

[franksolich]

Does this mean what I think it does?:
http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?24962236657

That all of DU could only donate 1750 bucks to John Kerry in 2004, Or did Mr Allen himself donate the money?

A bit confused here.

The second two aren't my fellow alum Skins; only the first one is, for a measly $250.00.

It seems a little cheap, in light that the packingmama primitive gave the "legal maximum contribution" to the campaign of the Bostonian Billionaire the same year, and two years later the skumbag primitive IanDB1 gave the "legal maximum contribution" to the campaign of the J.P. Morgan heir in Connecticut.

Which of course they didn't; they lied.

At least my fellow alum Skins's contribution was real, albeit cheap.  But real.

[franksolich]

But what does bother me about Skinsflint's donation is that it was made for the Democrat primaries, not the general election.

I thought Skinsflint was supposed to be "neutral," but he supported the Bostonian Billionaire with some pocket-change when there were other Democrat candidates too.

I don't think this is going to create any good feelings for my fellow alum among the primitives; remember, most of them were for that Dean whatshisname guy.

It's $250, BadCat, not $750.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I read that thread the other day, didn't have time to bring it to anyone's attention.  I also didn't have time to read all the links, just the highlights/lowlights.

What I gather is that the DUmp simply changed its corporate classification.  They're not going anywhere, other than further down the sewer.