Comments on: VenomFangX: Fraudster Exposed (PART 4) – Sick Kids Hospital

By: DolgLanjelin

DolgLanjelin — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:16 +0000

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?

By: lordhathor

lordhathor — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:16 +0000

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.

By: LordPanties

LordPanties — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:15 +0000

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.

By: buggerarsetitwank

buggerarsetitwank — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:14 +0000

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.

By: WhistlersBrother

WhistlersBrother — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:14 +0000

Dude, you have the …
Dude, you have the balls everyone should have. I admire you for doing this!!

By: buggerarsetitwank

buggerarsetitwank — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:13 +0000

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…

By: buggerarsetitwank

buggerarsetitwank — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:12 +0000

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.

By: buggerarsetitwank

buggerarsetitwank — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:11 +0000

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.

By: buggerarsetitwank

buggerarsetitwank — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:11 +0000

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.

By: buggerarsetitwank

buggerarsetitwank — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:47:10 +0000

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.