8
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
8 points (83.3% liked)
Gaming
19705 readers
381 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
TL;DW: In which Moonie considers 1) actual California legal definitions, 2) exactly what was said in Jobst's, SomeOrdinaryGamer's and The Completionist's videos, and 3) innocence until proven guilty, and importantly points out that tax filings can and often are inaccurate (due partly to the law being extremely complex) and are corrected/settled afterwards (possibly with a simple small fine), and concludes that:
charity fraud is plausible but is only a midemeanour
embezzlement is not substantiated by publicly available information - saying you don't spend the funds on expenses and then spending funds on expenses would probably be charity fraud rather than embezzlement
missing funds is not substantiated by publicly available information - most of the publicly available information is the tax returns but tax returns are not really evidence of your accounts because they might be wrong, that would be quite common and would not be serious legal trouble.
and that Jobst and SomeOrdinaryGamer are comically lacking in legal understanding and knowledge when you look at the seriousness of the accusations they make.