There were no legal threats from Karl's side to get lost in. There were statements about Jirard's conduct, but no threats or anything resembling them. I'm suddenly a lot more skeptical about what you're saying, although I'll still watch the video.
Comment on Twin Galaxies, Billy Mitchell settle Donkey Kong score case before trial
ampersandrew@kbin.social 5 months agoCounter-sue? Karl is suing Jirard? When did this happen?
You're right, miswording on my part. I got lost in the legal threats back and forth. I'll correct it.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 months ago
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 months ago
Okay, I've seen enough; I made it to 33:12. This video is way longer than it needs to be; Karl made some pretty specific allegations, which do line up with the legal definition of charity fraud (which is laid out in clear legalese in the video), if they're true. The most critical part is the way Jirard repeatedly on stream made very specific statements about where the money was going to go, or had gone, that turned out not to be true by his own later admission. The video could have started at 28:29 with "what is fraud, and did it happen," and done at most a couple minutes' Cliffs Notes for the rest.
I waited and waited for this to be addressed.
At 31:02, he artfully excerpts a statement from Jobst saying the behavior was "unethical and almost certainly illegal," by saying only the "certainly illegal" part. Those are two very different statements, and this was the first time my whoa-hold-the-fuck-up meter started to register.
At 31:30, he airs one of the statements by Jirard that's not really an issue, and explains that as a general statement it's not really an issue. How about the statements Karl took issue with? I was back in waiting mode.
At 33:04, he says, "The times where Jirard has stated that funding has occurred might be obvious miscommunications or simple misstatements. Human error."
Shut the fuck up Mr. Lawyer Man. You can't make a whole half hour lead up about why the whole thing is a huge misunderstanding and what a great position Jirard is in since he never actually did any fraud, and then just casually drop that "Oh yeah and those the times he lied about where the money had gone he probably just made a mistake and it's not a big deal." Especially since part of the defense is, well we were waiting before we actually gave the money for it to be enough to be able to do X Y Z fancy thing.
I am not a lawyer. There may be some additional explanation that clarifies why they were "obvious miscommunications." But I saw enough to satisfy my curiosity.
ampersandrew@kbin.social 5 months ago
if they're true
Look, I get your a fan of his, but this "if" is the problem, like I've been saying. The video I linked you, which you aren't interested in watching, only outlines why he may legally want to shut up about Jirard. The video author comes to this conclusion tediously because the law is tedious, but at least he's got some sense of humor. I personally just never want to watch another video of Jobst's because I think he did a poor job of reaching a burden of proof that an actual reporter would need before coming forward with a story. Even not being a journalist myself, I came to the same conclusion as that link the other user sent you. Good on you if you enjoy Jobst's videos, but I hope he holds himself to higher standards in the future.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 months ago
I'm not trying to get into a big back-and-forth about this, but just to take one more stab at what I've been saying:
The Moon video, Jobst, and the article someone else sent me here all seem to be in agreement that Jirard is on video claiming to have already donated money that it turned out later he hadn't donated. I'm not sure where you're getting that there's a lack of evidence of charity fraud.
Jobst, if I remember correctly, showed the clips of him saying it. Moon said they were "obvious miscommunications or simple misstatements." Ernie said they were "slip-ups" and that he was just filling time on his stream. To me, the latter two sound like bullshit. You are, of course, free to draw your own different conclusions and judgements about any or all of this. Just the fact that he said some things doesn't automatically mean he's guilty. But it's weird to say there's no evidence when all the sources seem to acknowledge (with their own wildly differing spins on the presentation) that there is.
As for your implication that I'm just saying all this because I wasn't interested in the video, I just like Karl Jobst's videos, etc:
"Well, I haven’t ignored [evidence for creationism]; I considered the purported evidence and then rejected it. There is a difference, and this is a difference, we might say, between prejudice and postjudice. Prejudice is making a judgment before you have looked at the facts. Postjudice is making a judgment afterwards. Prejudice is terrible, in the sense that you commit injustices and you make serious mistakes. Postjudice is not terrible. You can’t be perfect of course; you may make mistakes also. But it is permissible to make a judgment after you have examined the evidence. In some circles it is even encouraged." -Carl Sagan
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 months ago
I think I got so mad that I spent half an hour of my life watching this, that I replied to myself. But my response (after watching most of the video) is up there.