"In such a situation, complete tranparency is the only way that the
public and the state can determine if both entities are functioning
withing the requuirements of law."

There is no duty to obey the state or law when the law is illegitimate.

Care to explain your position in detail in ythis context?

Well that would ruin the concept of a quick "one-hit law-and-order
anarchist snipe and leave" action. I can write something -- I expect
you either won't like it, or think it silly.

Your appeal to the state and its laws is insufficient, since the state
is illegitimate. It exists solely upon stolen assets, naked force, and
the threat of force. There is no "social contract" creating a state.
Even if there were, the state would be in breach. (I know I signed no
such contract, or gave power of attorney to do so.)

Appeal to "public interest" is also insufficient. There is no general
"public interest" here. This issue is flatly no business of the state
or the general public.

There could be interest of parties associated with USAC/USACDF. For
example you wrote the following:

The point is that this is not set out
as a transparent relationship detailing how his USAC compensation relates to
his USACDF compensation derived from the former entity... If USAC made said
salary payment to Johnson, knowing that it was meant to compensate him in
some way for his 10+ hours per week service to USACDF, that should be made
clear along with the structure of that relationship.

I don't know if you're saying there is some kind of fraud there (or
even a lack of due care of accurate representation of relationships)
that materially harmed the "associates" of USAC/USACDF. If they said
one thing and did another, and that harmed someone, perhaps there is a
legitimate claim.

Whether the state should be allowed to court such a legitimate case is
yet another question. Since the state already seized the assets to
build courts and pay judges (etcetera), everyone is probably too poor
to afford private adjudication, or to purchase as good of private
adudication that they could otherwise afford. The state's laws are only
relevent if they happen to coincide with legitimate law (emphasis on
coincidence). It is not clear what of the state's laws you believe are
relevently legitimate. State requirements of tax filing is uniformly
illegitimate.

You also wrote:

When you have a donor foundation requiring seats on the board of
trustees of a donee organization as a condition of grantmaking,
you have a situation that is rife with potential, if not actual,
conflict of interest.

This does not sound like a conflict of interest at all. It sounds like
*direct interest*. The "donor" is explicitly saying what they want
(their interest), and they won't give unless those interests are
guarded by seats on the board. No conflict there -- quite direct
interest really. If, on the other hand, there was misrepresentation to
the associates of this relationship, then perhaps there is a claim, but
certainly not "conflict of interest." Not that I really care, but just
call out clearly what the problem is that materially harmed someone.

Here is a true conflict of interest:
A coercive state exists and writes legislation covering a geographical
area. The ostensible guardians of the constitutionality of those laws
-- the judges -- are paid by that same coercive state. Further
evidence of the conflict is that juries -- who initially are able, if
they wish, to determine both the *law* and the facts -- are denuded of
their law determining power by the paid judges, thus removing the last
barrier to balance of interests.
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...es/s066106.pdf
for example.)


Justice Hand "Do justice, sir, do justice."

Justice Holmes "That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law."

One judge called for a system of justice. The other judge resigned to
a system of laws. They are not the same.

(From http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm#)

I don't know what your beef is. Who was harmed and had their rights
violated?