Gaming @beehaw.org brie @beehaw.org 11 mo. ago

Updates regarding the IndieLand / The Completionist charity fraud allegations

TL;DR: Things look incredibly bad. The completionist has practically admitted to misleading donors, and it seems like he is expecting the IRS will get involved (IGN). It also seems he's threatening legal action for slander (Jobst).

The allegation that the money was not donated seems to be true (up until the AFTD donation in November of 2023) (IGN, AFTD). The Completionist has admitted he "made statements potentially implying donations were made when they had not yet been" (IGN). Karl basically states that it isn't a potential implication, but a direct claim that he made, and is additionally is alleging that the way The Completionist benefits from IndieLand constitutes charity fraud (Jobst).

You're viewing a single thread.

14 comments

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.

You've viewed 14 comments.