Saturday, February 14, 2009

the facts!


[Seth] maybe you can help? what's the best way to check for ownership of a website for IRS purposes, for instance?

I thought of website certificates, which are supposed to list ownership but they probably stop at the name without verifying if it is for profit or non-profit or somebody's hobby or what... that stuff would be really useful, though!

maybe web certificates could be enhanced to include that info

could prevent non-profit poseurs, among other bad things -- when you got to a dot org website that is really a for profit (see craigslist) you'd get a warning!


(aside) to Craig's credit, he removed to The Isle of Misfits LeFoModerator' post: "Thread marked to deletion" -- had been posted as reply to my thread D.


alright, looks like this got sidetracked... I'll see if I can salvage it..

sorry about all that confusion, Dlapee! < dperiod > 02/15 13:01:24

(please ignore my prior subthread)

going back to your initial reply:

[Craig would have committed fraud] if "Craig" was carrying on operations which only a not-for-profit could while the company was not categorized as such.

would continuing to have sponsors after becoming a for-profit qualify?


STILL MORE: (8th comment) hmmm... Seth, I thought I posted another comment but I may not have or something else happened -- anyways it's on my blog if you haven't seen it yet and you'd like to see it D.

asked Seth to help, also

You are right to be confused, Seth -- it's far from clear what would have really happened. I'm trying to look into the facts (got delayed by VDay). Here is what I got so far:

maybe you can help? what's the best way to check for ownership of a website for IRS purposes, for instance?


and you are right about the ownership for tax purposes (what's the best way to check that for a website?); I do think who registered the websites (and the address given *was* Craig' home address at the time) is a good indication of who the owner was but you are right, it's not proof.


P.S. talking of IRS issues, if Craig misrepresented what the donors' money were really helping, would the "donors" be in trouble with the IRS (if they thought they were helping a legitimate non-profit but were in fact financing the development of a for profit?) D.

yeah, and we need th facts for that...
< dperiod > 02/14 09:13:05
(9th comment)

here are the facts as far as I can tell at this point:

-- in 1994, Craig started an email list about events in SF

-- on oct.24th, 1995, he registered the website, while he was living at 1010 Cole Street in SF

-- in December 1996, the former email list was on the web at

-- on September 11,1997 he registered both and as websites (the domain registration is not regulated so although it gives the impression of being a non-profit it needs not be so from the web registration point of view)

-- craigslist operated at the domain at least between Nov. 11th, 1998 and sept. 23rd, 2007

-- craigslist operated at the domain at least between December 2nd,1998 and current time

-- craigslist operated on the domain at least between December 2nd 1999 and April 28th 2000

-- -- On March 15th,2001 somebody registered

-- has changed ownership at least once

-- 0n June 14th, 2001 Craig registerd, giving the 1010 Cole Street address, his personal residence, for registration purposes

- On September 11th, 2001 (through a for profit called "1010 Cole Street, Inc.") the domain was registered

--on September 6th,2003, Craig starts using the domain as his personal blog

-- on May 15th 2008, in their response to an unrelated complaint filed by ebay, Craig and Jim admit that "Mr. Newmark formed 1010 Cole Street inc. ("1010"), which is a predecessor of craigslist, that Mr. Buckmaster was hired and received shares in 1010 and later craigslist" (page 2nd,point 7)


P.S. can't post links; my sources were (for website registration), the wayback machine function of (for time of websites operation), for info on 1010 Cole Street inc. and ebay's complaint and Craig and Jim's response to that complaint.

P.P.S. it might take a while for me to check for replies; thanks for any ideas! D.

No comments: