• ”WHY IS MY NAME STILL ON YOUR SITE FAGGOT”

Things the FEC doesn't likeAnd they're going after another troon for

Discussion in 'Brianna Wu' started by AnOminous, Jun 13, 2018.

Forum Guidelines
  • Limit discussion of body parts and functions. Wu is gross. Discussing fake vaginas in detail is unnecessary and disturbing.
  • Hide your powerlevel. Avoid revealing intimate, personal details about yourself in public boards. These threads are not your personal blog and we are not an asylum.
  • No trolling plans. We are not an autistic Illuminati. If you embarrass yourself or the forum trying to troll, we will ridicule you.
  • Write descriptive topic titles. Make new threads for significant events and use the appropriate thread prefix if needed. Be concise in describing the thread.

@Smutley

  1. As @Kosher Dill points out, the Wu scampaign has a lot of similar noncompliant crap in it.

    The FEC has a procedure for reporting this kind of thing. If anyone doesn't care about being doxed or is already doxed, and thinks it's worth their while, that's this:
    https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/complaint_brochure.pdf
     
    • Semper Fidelis Semper Fidelis x 11
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    AnOminous

    AnOminous life of the mind
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  2. Anyone trying this should crack the books to find out exactly what the rules are. They dinged Brad for some really petty stuff - an occupation of "Not Employed/Not Employed" is OK but "None/None" is citable.

    There are some math errors we could complain about too; if anyone's actually going to file a complaint I could dig them up again.
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
    Kosher Dill

    Kosher Dill Potato Chips
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  3. If you give me a comprehensive list of things to report I'll file it
     
    • Like Like x 11
    • Winner Winner x 9
    • Semper Fidelis Semper Fidelis x 5
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    kiwifarms.net
  4. Math errors would be nice.

    Also, the specific rule is thoughtfully listed in the FEC's letter to Manning. The language can be something like this:

    [Insert list here.]

    Literally cribbed directly from the letter, so you might want to change wording.

    I'll at least dig up the identification things some time today or tonight.

    [. . .a little bit later. . .]

    Oh, well, that was a dud. While there are a number of entries like that, they're all for people with aggregate donations of less than $200 who Frank doxed despite not needing to do that. Since they weren't required to be disclosed anyway, irregularities in those are meaningless.

    The only interesting thing I noted was the last couple quarters have had very few small individual donors.

    http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00633669/1223997/sa/ALL
    http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00633669/1222054/sa/ALL

    However, of the few donors there are, there are a couple $1,000 and $2,000 donations.

    John has apparently run out of small donors, or isn't seeking them any more, and is jerking off a couple whales for his Potbelly budget.
     
    • Informative Informative x 6
    • Like Like x 4
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 1
    #4 AnOminous, Jun 13, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
    AnOminous

    AnOminous life of the mind
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  5. No, he just stopped doxing them. Small donors now go under "unitemized contributions" as they would in a normal campaign. As far as I can tell, his take from small donors has been more or less steady over hte past couple quarters.
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
    Kosher Dill

    Kosher Dill Potato Chips
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  6. Bringing this over from the warren thread...

     
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    Dorsia.Reservation

    Dorsia.Reservation When she fuck me good, I take her ass to Dorsia.

    kiwifarms.net
  7. As someone mentioned on the main thread, she used scampaign funds to travel to a tall which she was paid for personally (not for the campaign). She disclosed the payment for her talk on the form she published to the house clerk, and she claimed the expenses for the trip on her FEC documents.
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
    nets_awesome

    nets_awesome I want you to lose turdy pound in one munt.
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  8. He’s used campaign funds to travel to talks and cons as well as to pick up the first Porsche. She coneveniently labeled them “campaign fundraisers” and “meeting with voters”.

    Not sure how you meet with MA-8 voters in Virginia, New York, and San Francisco.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    kiwifarms.net
  9. The disbursements may be a good target, but I’d need to know more than I do about what kinds of nonsense are actually legally acceptable. I know “real” campaigns get away with a lot of shenanigans, though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    AnOminous

    AnOminous life of the mind
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  10. I’ll try to give a more detailed reply tomorrow, but here are a few starting ideas.

    Yes, basic math errors are definitely something that will draw the FEC’s attention. Look for totals that don’t add up, numbers that are incorrectly carried over to subsequent reports, etc.

    Also make sure that all of the disbursements and loans that Frank made and were later repaid are correctly notated with memos. As you noticed from Brad’s RFAI, the FEC really loves to find minor autistic shit to complain about, and it’s something that they’ll pay attention to.

    I’d wait until the July report to see if paid canvassers are on the report. They should either be on there as a disbursement and/or a debt owed. She tweeted about getting on the ballot in mid-April, which means the expenses would likely be on the upcoming report. Now that we’ve mentioned it, there’s a 99.9% chance they’ll be on there.

    Ignore all of the tech purchases and unused office rental shit that we like to laugh about.

    If you’re looking at expenses, focus on travel expenses that appear to have no legitimate campaign purpose. Check her reports to verify that no money was raised at that location during that time. Cross reference it with social media activity showing what she was actually doing. It has to look painfully obvious that the trip was for personal benefit to get public attention. The Porsche thing, if true, would be fucking perfect.

    You can also search the FEC complaint database to see what past complaints have looked like. This will show how to structure a complaint and how the FEC acts on them.

    You will have to make this really solid with multiple, crystal clear violations to make the FEC care. You can always tack on things she’s already been cited for in the complaint.

    Remember that nothing will likely legally happen as a result of this. Look up Duncan Hunter or Quico Canseco for how bad things have to get before people start to pay attention.

    The only real reason to do this, in my opinion, is so there is something formally in the public record about how poorly Wu ran a shitty campaign. It’s more ammo to show how this person is just a perennial loser and grifter. I think that this in and of itself is a noble goal, but it’s not my name going on the complaint.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Semper Fidelis Semper Fidelis x 1
    stets

    stets big stank dick dad
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  11. The reason to do this is to troll Frank by making him write apology letters and re-file old reports yet again.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Winner Winner x 5
    Kosher Dill

    Kosher Dill Potato Chips
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  12. I don't know the laws on this but I feel like the "reimbursements to Frank Wu" are awfully sketchy. A couple of them say they're for video and travel, but the others are for "campaign expenses". We're talking thousands of dollars here.

    Everything they report is a "campaign expense". So classifying reimbursement for them doesn't sound like it'd satisfy the purpose. Otherwise you could just have someone else throw all the expenses on their credit card and never have to say what you're spending money on (since you'd just claim it's a reimbursement).

    Frank received $9,308 in reimbursements last year. $2,250 was for a campaign ad. $959 was for travel and a training class. The rest has no actual purpose listed. That's sketchy as fuck.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
    kiwifarms.net
  13. Sorry for the double post but I think I found something. I looked it over and I can't believe we missed this (or maybe it was brought up). Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong.

    Exhibit A
    Over the course of 2 days, Brianna traveled to give a speech and attend a candidate workshop. The costs for this were exactly $929. Frank Wu was reimbursed 9 days later for the exact same amount and for the exact same purpose listed.
    [​IMG]


    Exhibit B
    Brianna spent $2,250 for the production of a campaign video. It included 2 payments to a company called Runaway Pen Productions. 5 days later Frank Wu was reimbursed for $2,250 for the production of a campaign video.
    [​IMG]

    Now I don't see any loans or other receipts given to the campaign that would offset this. They both are expenditures on the campaign financial filings.

    I may be a complete moron and getting this wrong, but it sure looks like double-dipping on expenses. A common form of expense fraud.

    Mind you, matching these up was easy since it's one of the two reimbursements that Frank gets that list a purpose. He has a bunch of other reimbursements that don't. Makes me wonder if you added up certain expenses if they'd match his reimbursements.
     
    • Informative Informative x 11
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 3
    kiwifarms.net
  14. We covered this back when the financials came out, the "reimbursements" are legit. Frank paid for stuff on his credit card and then the campaign paid him back for it. Maybe they technically should have registered a counterbalancing donation from Frank or something, and the paperwork is wrong, but I don't think any actual fraud occurred.
    They did get the math wrong on one reimbursement which I'll get to later.

    All of them can be matched up that way if you know which ones he paid for.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    Kosher Dill

    Kosher Dill Potato Chips
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  15. A proper complaint would take significantly more time than their refiling and explanatory letter time. Who’s trolling who?

    Honestly, it’s pretty surprising how they managed to not screw up Frank’s expenses/reimbursements. You wouldn’t believe how many campaigns can’t get that right. I’m still interested in what numbers you found that didn’t add up.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    stets

    stets big stank dick dad
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  16. Thanks. I figured it was something I wasn't getting right. That would be way too obvious. Probably easier to just charge trips, meals, and whatever electronics you want on Amazon.

    I still don't understand how they spent $9,380 for campaign videos. The videos they made are shit high school kids do for A/V class as homework.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    kiwifarms.net
  17. Attached a CSV with all the "questionable" donations, though only two of them are over the $200 threshold.
    I could have sworn there was a donation from someone in Copenhagen, but I just can't find it anywhere.
    99% of this is petty shit like people who wrote "none" instead of whatever the FEC wants, but there were a few people who didn't use their full names, or gave fake addresses.

    As for their math errors: in Q2 2017 they spent $959.79 on the Emerge candidate training ($550 for the training itself, $159.09 for Residence Inn, $250.71 at Courtyard by Marriott). Then they reimbursed Frank for the expenditure, but dropped the expenditure completely off their totals. So their reported spending total was $959.79 less than it really should have been, and this error carries through to the "cash on hand" totals on all their subsequent reports.

    Then in Q4 2017 everything just gets completely out of whack and their claimed total expenditures are just a couple thousand dollars off from the sum of their itemized expenditures (this time overstating their outlay), and I have no idea how they got there.

    EDIT: also I found the rules on "reimbursement" entries.
    https://www.fec.gov/updates/interpr...-payees-of-political-committee-disbursements/
    Mostly what they're doing looks right, but it seems like combining reimbursements to multiple destinations isn't allowed, it should be one "Reimburse Frank" item for every vendor he bought stuff at, tagged with which it was.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Informative Informative x 7
    • 🤔 Thunkful x 1
    #17 Kosher Dill, Jun 14, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    Kosher Dill

    Kosher Dill Potato Chips
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  18. @Kosher Dill thanks; good work.

    I am more than happy to draft a ready-to-file FEC complaint if someone can post or PM me proof of the Porsche trip and/or other documents related to personal trips, and @Null or someone else is willing to publicly file it. While I know election law, I’m not an attorney, so it probably wouldn’t hurt to have @AnOminous or another law fag scan my work as well.
     
    • Semper Fidelis Semper Fidelis x 1
    stets

    stets big stank dick dad
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  19. I'll look at it. I think any report should literally be about one page, two at most, possibly with some attachments. It should also be limited to clear violations of actual election law. You don't want to flood them with every little quibble, because they're good at quibbling themselves. There just needs to be at least one thing that demands attention. Once you have their attention, they'll find the other things.
     
    • Semper Fidelis Semper Fidelis x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    AnOminous

    AnOminous life of the mind
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  20. Here's the short-short version:
    On the Q2 report, they claim total expenditures of $11311.08 on FEC Form 3 line 22 but the itemized disbursements on Schedule B sum to $12270.87 (because of dropping the Emerge costs)

    On the Year-End report, they claim $13544.22 of expenditures on FEC Form 3 line 22 but the itemized disbursements on Schedule B sum to $11834.93 (can't figure out why)

    On the Q1 report, reimbursements VTD7E9XN825, VTD7E9XN841, VTD7E9XN8F8, and
    VTD7E9XN8H4 to Frank Wu aggregate together multiple ultimate payees.

    On the Q2 report, reimbursement VTD7EA174M7 to Frank Wu aggregates together multiple ultimate payees.

    Itemized contribution VTE6PDHN9B2 (from Q1) for $500 lists an invalid employer "N/a".

    Itemized contribution VTE6PM0VZ40(from Q3) for $500 lists an invalid employer "self".
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    Kosher Dill

    Kosher Dill Potato Chips
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  • About Us

    The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. These people are commonly referred to as Lolcows and are each distinct thanks to their erratic public behavior. Spectators are encouraged to join discussion. The wealth of opinions and knowledge shared by users is what has enabled this peculiar fringe community to thrive despite the incredible adversity and contention brought by those we discuss.

    We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

  • Supporting the Forum

    BTC: 1LXpv9FUiazGB2LVyS44cTTEQFc8CBgPYi

    BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s

    ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5

    LTC: LNjmyhxThrTMY4izBdcdWqvW287LmCB6bg

    XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino

Copyright © 2016 Lolcow LLC
This website may contain offensive or adult content.
Discontinue browsing if it is illegal or against your wishes to see such material.
All content belongs to their respective authors and does not represent Lolcow LLC.
We have not been served any secret court orders and are not under any gag orders.