Upload
66
WHY VENOMFANGX IS A REPREHENSIBLE CHARITY DEFRAUDER:
WHY VENOMFANGX IS A REPREHENSIBLE CHARITY DEFRAUDER:

1. Watch VFX's "seeking meaningful employment" vid (see my favorites) to see what he promised to the hospital. His e-beg starts at about 8:00 and the crucial promise is stated at 8:55 onward: "As soon as I hit 500, ok, then ANYTHING above and beyond that I'm gonna put toward Sick Kids Hospital."
His proposal was essentially an agreement for hire under specific compensation terms. It was a VERBAL CONTRACT, legally binding in every respect.

2. Watch the Woodrow/VFX videos (all in my favs) to hear VFX's self -damning admissions and lies. At 0:53 of part 3 VFX admits to collecting "about $4000" and (at 7:10 of part 4) that he gave NOTHING to the hospital.
At 1:31 of part 2 he says: "I said if I received 500 bucks AFTER RECEIVING ONE-DOLLAR DONATIONS then anything above and beyond that I'd send off to Sick Kids". But the original promise (verbal contract cited above) states NO CONDITION REGARDING THE SIZE OF DONATIONS THAT HE WOULD COUNT TOWARD THE 500 LIMIT. He actually emphasized how he would keep no more than $500 if more came in, to lure and assure donors that he would not get more than required for himself. He got GREEDY. He LIED. "Bait and switch" is ILLEGAL.
At 2:24 of part 2 VFX admits that he "quickly retracted my statements", which is unlawful as further explained below.

VFX's illegitimate excuse was that his "intention" was to collect "one-dollar" donations only. But the verbal promise of his e-beg vid did NOT stipulate that donations of other sizes would not be counted. The reasonable (& legal) interpretation of "ANYTHING over $500per month will go to Sick Kids" means ANYTHING, with no "future amendments may apply" expectations. Legally, it is a matter of "reasonable interpretation". A reasonable person would have believed that he literally meant what he said, since NO exclusion was pointed out at that time. That's the crucial issue here as far as the law is concerned. At least some of the donors did not want him to keep more than $500, and were LED TO BELIEVE that he would divert such excess to the hospital. But VFX admits he gave the hospital NOTHING. Furthermore, you obviously cannot change terms of any contract without the agreement of all parties. By changing terms without the consent of ALL the donors, he committed BREACH OF CONTRACT.
If a SINGLE donor (his temporarily-posted count showed that there were hundreds) did not give him expressed permission to renege on donating to Sick Kids then he unlawfully broke his contract with them. That clearly happened, since he admits that he did not contact ALL of them for such permission (5:01 of part 2).

And of course VFX also promised full and continuing disclosure (including a running tally) but only complied briefly and partially.
And he started counting only $1.33 donations since Paypal was taking $.33 on each.
And he stopped counting the month's total a week before the end of the first month.
And he otherwise repeatedly changed the terms of his original verbal promise on his website, despite the legal requirement that verbal contracts CANNOT be altered without the agreement of BOTH parties.
And beyond that, he did not have permission from Sick Kids Hospital to solicit donations USING THEIR NAME (trademark violation), nor to do so and never actually donate!

[VFX did once show himself donating $100 to 4 separate "charities" (not $600 or $1000, both of which he states in the Woodrow vids), but one was also a diploma mill, and NONE of them were the stated hospital.]

As to why no criminal charges were brought: For the police to investigate, the victim --the hospital-- would have to force it. To recover a few thousand dollars in a complicated scheme where the scattered evidence involves dozens of already-removed videos was not practical for them. Their legal costs would exceed what was due, and it likely wasn't worth the risk of losing other donors who may become reluctant to donate because they recalled a scam involving their charity (despite the hospital's innocence).

So there it is. By his own admissions VFX embezzled at least $3500 (= $4000 - $500) of money that many donors correctly EXPECTED him to redirect to Sick Kid's hospital. He was NOT supposed to keep that, and the verbal contract he made to solicit the funds was NOT honored. That was GRAND LARCENY BY PROMISE. Keeping the money was EMBEZZLEMENT as a self-appointed Trustee of the hospital.

And of course this isn't the first time he has broken the law--recall his thorough admission to PERJURY: watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4 .

There are several dozen YT videos elaborating on VFX's scam. I urge you to review them to get even more detail and evidence. If anyone can show that my argument is wrong, I will gladly back down.

In the aftermath of his additional false DMCA's and LIBEL (against  dprjones), I hope this clarifies the most obscured criminal actions of VFX, who now hopes to appear an innocent,  victimized martyr.
to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...