That’s a pretty meaningful mistake, given that the nature of the non-profit entanglement is fundamental to several claims. It seems like you were as confused as the community was, which sure doesn’t help any of Matt’s claims about everything being “open” and “transparent” all along.

Well, I guess this thread answers the question of “how can Matt’s lawyer possibly be encouraging this?”

Penny-wise and pound foolish.

Which word was meant to be used instead of non-profit here?

Its been almost a week, what correction would you like to make to this? You've been dodging and the community deserves honest answers.