I don't watch much Completionist stuff but he really seemed like he was reading a script written by a lawyer for this "response". As well as, looking increasing angry.
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
43 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30544 readers
295 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would love to see an actual lawyer's take on this. Jirard's response is basically "we mislead everyone and were shitty for not donating before now, but it was perfectly legal for us to hold the money until now, and it was also legal for us to use donations for operating expenses of the foundation/events". While Karl presents a lot of evidence of misleading statements by Jirard, his usage of the encyclopedia brittanica to define charity fraud instead of any actual legal definition, and presentation of evidence as more damning than it actually is (and in a very hostile manner) leads me to view both sides in a negative light. At this point, I have no idea whether either side has any legal grounds for the accusations made toward the other, and I don't see that changing unless someone with actual legal knowledge weighs in
I agree. I usually like Karl’s content but his tone really did a disservice to this story. He really should have consulted someone that knows USA charity law for this. I don’t think he’s wrong, he just needed more credibility for his video. He’s also Australian, so US law isn’t something I’d expect him to know at all.
I don’t see how the completionist could make these claims about donating to specific cherities without actually donating a single cent until someone noticed. Surely USA charity law isn’t so broken that this is legal?
I mean, it's pretty scummy but "working with" could refer to just being in communications with those charities about what a potential donation would be used for. Given what Jirard has said, I assume he was completely negligent about checking in on any of the foundation's activities, and was probably just handed a paper with the names of "partners" on it for the stream. That said, I feel like the quotes about being a "major" or "main" partner with some specific organizations could get them into trouble, even if it's legal for them to hold the money that long and they pass IRS audits
Laws are only as good as the enforcers are financed. The irs has been underfunded a lot.
A lot of people here are bending over backwards to justify the behavior.
They collected money for charity. Didn't donate any of it for YEARS. Money that could have helped funding research.
I don't know US law, but I know that's just wrong.
My understanding is that in both California, where IndieLand occurs, and in the US, holding the money without directing it per the objectives of the non profit is fraud.
Jirard needed to lawyer and publicist up a month ago