Jirard is a YouTuber who runs a channel known as the Completionist, where he plays games to 100% completion and reviews them based on how enjoyable the experience was.

The Open Hand Foundation, which was co-founded by Jirard in 2014, was set up to raise money for dementia charities after his dementia-stricken mother passed away. However, their yearly filings with the IRS suggest that none of this money has been donated to charity.

Jacque (Jirard's brother) responded to Karl's emails to the Open Hand Foundation claiming that they are still searching for the correct charity to partner with and disburse these funds, whereas Jirard claimed that he was only aware that none of the funds had gone out last year, yet is still openly promoting Open Hand on stream and claiming they support the UCSF, Alzheimer's Association, the AFTD and many other charities.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jirard’s Open Hands charity is a nonprofit so you can see their books through their tax filings.

The most likely explanation is that Jirard is incredibly busy running a successful YouTube channel and so he had no idea how the charity is being run.

When being made aware in 2022 he said he stepped in to make sure the money is being donated the way he believed it was. That wasn’t reflected in their 2022 tax filing but it still can be true for 2023, the public will find that out when those filings are made public.

Karl Jobst is a really good content creator but he has a bit of a dramatic flair and tends to call things “illegal” when they actually aren’t and he did in this video again. Still I think that it’s important to make call outs like this. And I think that Jirard will make it right, now that he has been made aware. It’s clear from the filings that they aren’t committing fraud or skimming off the top. They just were sitting on the money probably because the task of running a charity was beyond their capabilities

[–] olmec@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I feel like your comment is the most reasonable explanation. The charity sounds like it isn't actively being run. It is probably a misunderstanding. I can see the charity paying for a group to run the charity, but because their income is very small, they want the charity ran frugally, and are paying the minimum required for management. The management is running the account, making sure taxes are filed, etc, but Jirard thought they were dispersing the funds too. They don't talk much, other than a quick review at tax season, and the issue is never addressed, because both sides don't interact enough to see the difference.

This video really frustrated me, because Jobst is claiming things "Fraud" when the evidence he provided looks nothing like that. It isn't great PR, but nothing so far looks remotely illegal, or even unethical. The internet just loves ragging on a "bad guy," and are eager to get mad at the bad guy of the day.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The one thing that does lean more towards malice is the quote from the UCSF guy who was fired long before the charity existed.

That said, I otherwise agree. If the IRS forms are right, the money is just sitting there. That's not illegal in itself. It just looks bad.

Jobst also doesn't always know US law, since he has a legal background in Australia (and I'm not sure what his specialty was, either).

He particularly mentioned in the video that the IRS isn't an all-knowing monster ready to pounce on unsuspecting taxpayers, which is true. I've seen the bullshit US tax protesters sometimes get away with. Irwin Schiff, for example, once signed a blank 1040 form and sent it into the IRS. He almost made it to the statue of limitations until he went on The Tomorrow Show (a nationwide NBC talk show) and bragged about it. That said, people in the US do tend to think of the IRS as an all-knowing monster ready to pounce on unsuspecting taxpayers, and that's why the response with the guy came back that way. Jobst doesn't seem to be fully cognizant of how people in the US view the IRS.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, their quoting of the guy who was fired before they filed as a non-profit was very deceptive. And soliciting with the list of other organizations that the money supposedly goes to is as well. It is probable that they donated funds to these places when it was just them raising money for their mom before they decided to organize as a non-profit in 2014 (when Jirard's YouTube channel started to really gain popularity). The problem lies in that these donations can't really be proven just based on public filings and so they create the appearance of impropriety if not proving actual impropriety.

[–] Goronmon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Over half a million dollars isn't "very small" for this type of charity in my opinion.

Not to mention, they seem to admit they've known about the issue for a while, but have continued to fund raise and present the charity as if it's been running along doing good this whole time, but they've just been hoarding the money so far.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm certain he's very busy. He's busy with his channel, and he was also one of the cast of G4 for the short time it returned, and they were being overworked I think there, and he was still running his channel. This is why you hire people to handle these things though. It's bad that it wasn't handled properly, but not necessarily malicious. I'll forgive a mistake, but if it turns out it was a scam that's unforgivable.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Based on the reported expenses being around $10,000 a yea; I don't think they were trying to run a scam or trying to be malicious. I think they wanted to honor their mom, but didn't have the time to run the charity or donation volume to justify hiring someone to run it. Not an excuse for how they ran things of course, I think it wasn't fair to the people who gave them money that they solicited donations on how they wanted things to be rather than how they actually ran it. Whether they knew or not that the money was just sitting there isn't an excuse. If they were soliciting donations then they have a duty to inform themselves.