This is a call I made today (4/29/09) to the Sick Kids’ Hospital regarding PCS’s recent fraud. The Administrator there seemed highly upset with this, and promised something would DEFINITELY be done.
Hoorah!
This is disgusting. … This is disgusting. If he made the claim that he would hand any donations over $500 to the hospital, then that’s exactly what he should have done.
There is no excuse for this. He defrauded the public. He should be prosecuted. At the very least he should give all of the money he owes over to the hospital.
If, OTOH, he was … If, OTOH, he was effectively saying “if you want me to keep the money, please include a note to that effect wih your donation”, then arguably he was trying to be helpful and make sure people’s money went where they wanted it to go, albeit in a very self-interested manner.
(Yeah, you probably deal with all this in your series. *takes out whip*)
Kudos to you for taking action though. It needs investigating.
“he apparently … “he apparently receiveed a number of donations in which the donor specifically asked Shawn to keep the money for himself. ”
In another part of this series (I forget which one) I address this. There was only ONE person who did that, for about $15 I think it was? – and since then, he was e-mailing people, TELLING them to ASK him not to donate their money. *rolls eyes @ PCS*
What, then, was … What, then, was Shawn obliged to hand over to Sick Kids?
Any amount he received over $500 in any month, but with all those donations which told him to keep the money himself being excluded from the calculations. Oh yeah, and – obviously – any donations explcitly earmarked for Sick Kids.
Apparently, this … Apparently, this initially showed how much Shawn had received in the current month. However, when donations started coming in with “keep it yourself” messsages, I believe he took the actual figure off the site.
Anyone who donated money to the site after that would not know whether or not his/her donation would go to Shawn or Sick Kids, so must be presumed as not being that bothered whether their money went to Shawn or to Sick Kids.
include them in … include them in calculating whether or not he’d reached his $500 monthly limit. The regulation of charity fundraising is partly aimed at protecting the public from fraud and it is a fundamental aspect of charity law that the donor’s wishes should be respected. Shawn is not himself a charity, so was not obliged to keepd donations earmarked for his own use, but he was entitled to.
The only issue I can see is with the donations tally on his (now defunct) website.
Essentially, … Essentially, Shawn’s fundraising scheme was to keep the first $500 raised in evey month for himself, and to give any surplus to Sick Kids. However, he apparently receiveed a number of donations in which the donor specifically asked Shawn to keep the money for himself.
I think he was entitled to treat these donations as having been given outside the terms of his fundraising scheme. Not only was he not obliged to give any part of those donations to Sick Kids, I don’t think he was obliged to…
In partial defence … In partial defence of Shawn: fom what I’ve read and heard about VFX’s “fundraising scheme”, I don’t think it’s entirely clear that he’s done anything wrong.
I’ll say now that I’m an English lawyer, so whilst English and Canadian trust/charity law have a common ancestor (couldn’t resist the evo ref), they may now be sufficiently different for my analysis to be totally wrong.
so what’s the story … so what’s the story on this?
I’ve only just today been tipped on this Venomfang guy, and I’ve been sitting on youtube for hours now, looking up on all I can find about this case.
Have you heard any updates or feedback on the case regarding the money fraud?
None of it is … None of it is deleted. I’ll leave it all here for all the world to see what a retarded little you are. You are the one who deleted your own comment.
I think the community can judge for themselves, from your comments alone, who is the one that’s right here.
This is a call I made today (4/29/09) to the Sick Kids’ Hospital regarding PCS’s recent fraud. The Administrator there seemed highly upset with this, and promised something would DEFINITELY be done.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
if you click reply …
if you click reply again it erases previus stuff
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
666 ratings XD
666 ratings XD
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
that… actually is …
that… actually is a pretty good answer
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
Because he would …
Because he would annoy the out of his cell-mates.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
so why isn’t Shawn …
so why isn’t Shawn in jail?
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
HELL YEAH!, these 4 …
YEAH!, these 4 videos were awesome.
Anyone who makes an oral contract is obligated to fulfill it, PERIOD!
5 stars!
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
Great work on this. …
Great work on this… You kick ass.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
“please don’t call …
“please don’t call them and… spam them” LOL!!!
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
Great work on …
Great work on exposing that lying bastich, LordHathor!
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
Amen
Amen
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
This is disgusting. …
This is disgusting. If he made the claim that he would hand any donations over $500 to the hospital, then that’s exactly what he should have done.
There is no excuse for this. He defrauded the public. He should be prosecuted. At the very least he should give all of the money he owes over to the hospital.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
You in my book are …
You in my book are a hero my friend. Good work
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
I think YouTube may …
I think YouTube may have lost the first half of this comment.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
If, OTOH, he was …
If, OTOH, he was effectively saying “if you want me to keep the money, please include a note to that effect wih your donation”, then arguably he was trying to be helpful and make sure people’s money went where they wanted it to go, albeit in a very self-interested manner.
(Yeah, you probably deal with all this in your series. *takes out whip*)
Kudos to you for taking action though. It needs investigating.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
“he apparently …
“he apparently receiveed a number of donations in which the donor specifically asked Shawn to keep the money for himself. ”
In another part of this series (I forget which one) I address this. There was only ONE person who did that, for about $15 I think it was? – and since then, he was e-mailing people, TELLING them to ASK him not to donate their money. *rolls eyes @ PCS*
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
P.S. I’m an atheist …
P.S. I’m an atheist who thinks VFX is a tool, so believe me, my defence does not spring from any affection I have towards him.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
What, then, was …
What, then, was Shawn obliged to hand over to Sick Kids?
Any amount he received over $500 in any month, but with all those donations which told him to keep the money himself being excluded from the calculations. Oh yeah, and – obviously – any donations explcitly earmarked for Sick Kids.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
Apparently, this …
Apparently, this initially showed how much Shawn had received in the current month. However, when donations started coming in with “keep it yourself” messsages, I believe he took the actual figure off the site.
Anyone who donated money to the site after that would not know whether or not his/her donation would go to Shawn or Sick Kids, so must be presumed as not being that bothered whether their money went to Shawn or to Sick Kids.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
include them in …
include them in calculating whether or not he’d reached his $500 monthly limit. The regulation of charity fundraising is partly aimed at protecting the public from fraud and it is a fundamental aspect of charity law that the donor’s wishes should be respected. Shawn is not himself a charity, so was not obliged to keepd donations earmarked for his own use, but he was entitled to.
The only issue I can see is with the donations tally on his (now defunct) website.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
Essentially, …
Essentially, Shawn’s fundraising scheme was to keep the first $500 raised in evey month for himself, and to give any surplus to Sick Kids. However, he apparently receiveed a number of donations in which the donor specifically asked Shawn to keep the money for himself.
I think he was entitled to treat these donations as having been given outside the terms of his fundraising scheme. Not only was he not obliged to give any part of those donations to Sick Kids, I don’t think he was obliged to…
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
In partial defence …
In partial defence of Shawn: fom what I’ve read and heard about VFX’s “fundraising scheme”, I don’t think it’s entirely clear that he’s done anything wrong.
I’ll say now that I’m an English lawyer, so whilst English and Canadian trust/charity law have a common ancestor (couldn’t resist the evo ref), they may now be sufficiently different for my analysis to be totally wrong.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
Dude, you have the …
Dude, you have the balls everyone should have. I admire you for doing this!!
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
A least …
A least myrmecia1977 can use proper grammar.
“now why dont you go crawl back into your hole you ferret.”
I learned that a sentence begins with a capital letter in the first grade. You are a failure.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
so what’s the story …
so what’s the story on this?
I’ve only just today been tipped on this Venomfang guy, and I’ve been sitting on youtube for hours now, looking up on all I can find about this case.
Have you heard any updates or feedback on the case regarding the money fraud?
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:47 am
None of it is …
None of it is deleted. I’ll leave it all here for all the world to see what a retarded little you are. You are the one who deleted your own comment.
I think the community can judge for themselves, from your comments alone, who is the one that’s right here.