Varewulf

I Am A Delight

Old queer trans woman from Norway. Mainly post in English. I write stuff sometimes. Expect bad jokes. Girls and cats are nice.


So I made the regretful decision to actually watch Jirard the completionist's 20-minute response video about the whole charity mess that dropped like a day or two ago, and boy is it a doozey. Is that the word? I feel like I've heard that saying.

And I've seen all these reactions like "Oh wow, he did so good, he answered every question, he showed so much evidence", and I'm just like... did he? Did he, though?
And then worst of all comments that "he did nothing wrong" which is like... did you actually watch the video? Because he does explicitly admit that he fucked up, should have done better, and wants to take responsibility. He claims he legally didn't do anything wrong, but that's not the same thing.

Let's go through this a bit. (Or a lot.)


So the video starts off with said "I fucked up" section, phrased in a very... let's just say it sounds like a script that was proofread by at least one lawyer. The phrasing is very careful. Honestly it feels rather insincere, and... kinda manipulative to me. Not to mention how he brings up a lot of things that it was kinda unnecessary to include, as if he wants to garner extra sympathy.

And then he transitions into being weirdly aggressive, like his whole expression changes, and he becomes very firm in his denial of things. He also misrepresents the charges/questions aimed at him to a severe degree. Not actually addressing much of what was actually said in those original videos, or at least being very picky about which accusations/issues to actually answer. No, he did not answer everything. If you think so, you have not been paying attention.

Which is kinda fair, because it's been a lot, but if you were to take him at his word (which I don't think you should) there was a lot said about him in those actual videos that there simply wasn't. At best he's exaggerating. At worst... Well, regardless, it really skews the narrative.

He also contradicts a lot of stuff he's said previously, but at least he does it with confidence, eh? Heck, there are probably contradictions within the video itself. "Take my word for it" is a recurring theme throughout the video, and he's very confident about it. I'm sure he knows that's the trick.

Some of the things he said has been said about him has shown up in youtube comments, and tweets made by various randos. Heck, even I speculated about this year's money, but we won't actually know about that until next year's filings are available. But he lays that squarely at the feet of those video creators who brought all this to light in the first place, as if they literally said those words themselves. There are very serious accusations he is saying (or maybe he's being vague enough that it only counts as implying) they literally accused him of, and that feels like a clear way to manipulate people into taking his side. Lie about (or exaggerate) what specific people said about him, and then stand up to those non-existing/misleading statements in perceived bravery.

Maybe all of this has simply melted together in his head. Maybe he genuinely thinks they said those things, and it wasn't just some rando comment aimed at him that he happened to read. Though this script of his has to have been run by at least one lawyer. Surely they would have verified the truth, right? Right?

He also drops the very noticeable line as an "apology" to those who have donated that "I'm sorry if you feel you were misled". "I'm sorry you feel that way" is one of the most insincere forms of apology anyone can offer. It's the classic non-apology.

As I said, he's being very careful with his wording to avoid as much of the responsibility he claims he's taking as possible. Only answering the questions he feels confident in confronting. Making minor points sound like they're a much bigger deal than they are, as if trying to strengthen his case, and ignoring everything else.

As for the actual evidence/receipts he offers, it's a bunch of links to various publicly available information, and definitions of various things more or less pertaining to the case at hand.
And then four actual documents, three of which directly pertain to the Open Hand Foundation that are spread out down the list rather than gathered together.
It makes me a little curious if they added all those links to pad out the list, and make it look more like serious effort? That is just speculation, though.

First is the autopsy report of his late mother, whose body they say they donated to the university of san francisco for research purposes. I don't think that was necessary to include, especially since it was a private matter, and not actually done through the charity.

The second is a document from the IRS confirming that their application to stop being a private foundation, and instead operate as a public charity has been accepted. At least that's proof of a thing.
I believe a minor question that came up was why they were using tax return forms for private foundations even though they were a public charity, and apparently they were told to do so for as long as the 60-month trial period lasted. If they passed the trial, they could switch forms. At least that proves they were operating as a public charity with the knowledge of the IRS.
Which... wasn't a big point of contention to begin with, but I guess they want to make it seem bigger than it was.

The third is unlabelled, showing page 02/02 of... something. Was page 01 not relevant? This one is too legalese for me to really comprehend, but the title is "Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Miscellaneous Excise Taxes", date signed 22/02/2016. I think it might be further documentation related to to the second document, since the 60-month time period stated matches.

And then finally a confirmation of passing an IRS audit, which is stamped 12. April 2016, and says "Tax periods ended: 31. December 2014".
If I understand that correctly, and I might not, that means that all of their business for 2014 was deemed acceptable.
I am not sure how that relates when all the issues raised were things that happened after 2014.

The video concludes with Jirard saying he and his family are considering legal action against the video creators that by his claim defamed him. With all of these charges he's misrepresented, cherry-picked, or just lied about.
And finally this weird "come at me bro" statement of saying he's sure an IRS audit is on the way, and he welcomes it.

He does bring up a lot of numbers in the video, implying that maybe they do actually have proper accounting for all of it. Hopefully that's true, and their audit goes well. The ideal outcome of all of this is that all of this money goes where he said it was going all along.

Leaving aside all of this speculation about missing funds, there is still the fact that their own filings said there was $655 000 in that account, and we have confirmation they have donated $600 000 of it. Maybe you should hand out the final $55 000 to someone too? Or are you planning to stockpile until you have another $600k? So long as you are open about that, it is not technically wrong, though I would personally call it unethical.

This went way longer than I initially intended. I will end with this completely personal, but honest take.
Just in my own personal opinion: Jirard is a liar, and manipulator. He has been acting for so long he might not be able to tell what his own sincerity looks like himself. The video was uncomfortable, and just raises more red flags. Perhaps they can actually prove that they did nothing legally wrong, but I am certainly not going to take his word for it, or trust anything he says. He cares more about his reputation than anything else here. And I don't really want him to get away with this.
(I also think it's vile how he brings up his mother at every possible occasion in what feels like an attempt to gain sympathy. It's not making him seem more sincere.)


You must log in to comment.