EDITORS’ NOTE (20/21 May): This page was written on 15 May 2014, and most of the information presented and our then suspicions still stand. We have made the decision to leave the page as is, even though a new fundraiser for $75,000 has now been launched within the last few days. The reason why additional photos were added (by Jacqueline or the organiser, Marley Cote) to the YouCaring fundraising page is because a number of women, independently of our group, all raised similar concerns.
In just sixteen months, and having raised over $10,000—another ’emergency’ plea for funds emerged in May 2014, but this time for a whopping $50,000, supposedly to keep a roof over the head of a trafficking survivor.
It was this latest plea for funds, after so many before, that raised our suspicions. Not only was the amount astounding, but much of the information was presented in a very misleading manner. We will discuss some of the background and current information in later pages. This page will examine the claims of impending homelessness as presented on the fundraiser pages.
From the first paragraph:
“Now the Erie Code Enforcement is threatening to condemn her house if she can’t get the collapsed garage/outbuilding roof fixed within 30 days.”
And in the last paragraph:
“But with her roof collapsing and the city of Erie threatening to condemn her home”
In looking at the enforcement document, on the fundraising pages, we see no mention of condemning the main dwelling due to an unsafe outbuilding.
The remedial action is to “Demolish accessory structure and remove/clean-up area”, and that failure to do so will “result in the issuance of citations”. It is misleading to say the local authority will be condemning the main dwelling for non-compliance, rather, it appears that the local authority will start issuing fines.
When the sponsor of the fundraiser, Marley Cote, was questioned about this spurious assertion, Marley apparently was in touch with Jacqueline, and relayed to all concerned that “the outbuilding and house are interconnected”. Jacqueline/Marley later related that “the shed was essential to the house because the electrical box was there” (paraphrased). We found those claims to be illogical, and worthy of further investigation, particularly as the Building Officer would most likely have noted such an arrangement.
Pictures of the front of the house, from the Authority’s website, probably due to the renovations going on in 2008, show what looks to be a fairly standard power poles on the street, and cables going to the house. (click on photos to view full size)
From Google’s satellite view, no outbuilding is connected to the house directly. There are two main outbuildings, a small shed along the western fence line (which would cost very little to demolish) and a large two-storey barn on the entire northern fence line. This would cost a substantial sum to demolish (as the Enforcement Order requests). It will be pointed out, that the fundraiser is for a ‘new roof’ for the outbuilding, not demolition, so it would be assumed that the walls are also in disrepair making the structure unsound.
Red is the property outline. House outlined in blue at bottom of page. All outbuildings well away from the house. The outbuilding in question would be the largest one outlined in yellow at the top of the photo.
A number of feminists were skeptical of a $50k figure for a ‘new roof to an outbuilding’, and general estimates obtained remotely came up with figures around $6k for a new roof. The size of this shed is huge, even allowing for doubling the estimates would be in the region of say, $10-15k, nowhere near $50k. Demolition and site clean-up would also probably be in the region of $10-15k, again, nowhere near the $50k requested. It can only be assumed that the asking amount is for a fairly substantial renovation of the two-storey barn.
It should be noted that on the fundraising page, the outbuilding in question is not pictured at all, mainly the house, the fence, but no picture of the outbuilding that requires $50k to demolish or re-roof. This outbuilding is the alleged cause of her current financial crisis, and it is a somewhat glaring omission not to picture it. (click to enlarge)
The overall presentation of facts for this fundraiser are dubious and conflicting. Instead, the main body of information on the fundraising page focuses on Jacqueline’s past life and current circumstances—both of which have major doubts and questions. We will cover these in the conflicting information pages, following.
We do concur that the “thirty days” for compliance for the Enforcement Order is correct!
EDITORS’ NOTE (20 May 2014)
The important point to bear in mind is (as we had said above; 15 May):
It will be pointed out, that the fundraiser is for a ‘new roof’ for the outbuilding, not demolition, so it would be assumed that the walls are also in disrepair making the structure unsound.
The text content of the YouCaring fundraising page has not changed since we first wrote this page, so we have screenshotted it today (20 May) in case of any subsequent editing by the fundraising organiser. Additionally we post one of the newly added photos of (yes finally!) the outbuilding in question. Our original assessment that there was probably wall damage as well is verified by this photo. Yet the fundraiser is still stating “new roof”. It is beyond repair and unsound, which is why the local authority has issued the order for demolition. So no, ‘we’ are not going to pay for Jacqueline to have the old shed demolished and a new one built, which probably would cost $50k.
Screenshots of fundraising page (as at 20 May 2014)
And finally, yes finally, a picture of the outbuilding!
Note that a power cable going to the shed is not proof of the unlikely scenario of power from shed to house.
The final tally from the YouCaring fundraiser is $1,486. This is approximately $600 more since our website was published, at around the halfway point of the fundraiser. Contrary to rumour, this site has had very little impact on that fundraiser, or the other one (currently standing at $931).