Now $75k

Due to the number of other women, independently of this editing team, coming to similar conclusions and questioning the outrageous sum of a $50k fundraiser—a new fundraising page for $75,000 was set up on 20 May 2014.

The new fundraiser was set up because, supposedly, the questions these other women raised “sabotaged the YouCaring fundraiser”, even though donations continue to roll in on that page (being just over $800 at the time of the sabotage allegation), and since the new $75k fundraiser was set up.

Here are the screenshots of the new $75,000 fundraiser page (as at 21 May):

JSH-indiegogo-01  JSH-indiegogo-02  JSH-indiegogo-03  JSH-indiegogo-04  JSH-indiegogo-05  JSH-indiegogo-06  JSH-indiegogo-07  JSH-indiegogo-08  JSH-indiegogo-09

You will note that on the last screenshot, that Jacqueline is the Editor of this fundraising page—so therefore, all information presented should be factual and correct as to her circumstances. Jacqueline, because she is the only named ‘Editor’ of the new fundraising page, is also the person most likely to have created the page.


The fundraising story so far

The new fundraising page goes into more detail, than the previous $50k YouCaring page, of how the money will be spent. To recap on the developments of the $50k fundraiser:

  • By the text on the YouCaring fundraising page, it was inferred that the entire $50k was needed to provide the then unpictured outbuilding with a new roof, in order to comply with the local authority’s order. Questions were raised as to the validity of this figure for “just a new roof? That seems a lot” (paraphrased)
  • New stories emerged that the outbuilding (again, still unpictured at that time) was “interconnected” with the house, and it was inferred that if the outbuilding were condemned, then the main house would be too
  • The “interconnected” assertion then became “the main power goes to the shed, and from the shed into the house” (paraphrased). Around this time, finally pictures of the outbuilding in question emerged.
  • After these new pictures of the actual outbuilding in question were finally posted, it was clear to all that “a new roof” was beyond resolving this situation, because of at least one partially collapsed wall, and the building was unsound and in need of complete demolition, as per the authority’s compliance order—the initial claims of “just needing a new roof” were an inaccurate portrayal of the true situation of the outbuilding.
  • Most people had rightfully come to the conclusion that some things were not making sense; $50k for (1) a new roof, or; (2) demolition and rubble removal was too high, and things were not adding up
  • It will be highlighted, from the original $50k fundraising page, within the text, “Jacqueline had planned on using her house as a safe place for other exited women to stay at while she teaches them about software development”  so clearly there were ‘redevelopment’ plans embedded within this fundraiser. $50k would explain the demolition or partial demolition of the existing two story barn, rebuild/repair of the walls and roof, and some degree of internal outfitting. Things were not as straightforward as the initial claim of “the Erie Code Enforcement is threatening to condemn her house if she can’t get the collapsed garage/outbuilding roof fixed within 30 days”—this is a very misleading assessment of the situation.

Now compare the above situation laid out approximately two weeks ago, with the new $75,000 fundraiser:

  • 12,000 of the 75,000 will go to electrical repairs in the main house
  • 38,000 of the 75,000 will be for the demolition and waste removal of the outlining 20′ x ____ building
  • 12.5%  of monies raised, or approximately, 10,000 dollars, will be paid to indiegogo as commission
  • “Currently, the main building on the property, where she resides, does not have electricity. Ever resilient, Jacqueline uses the out building to get electricity into her home. Electricity that enables her to continue striving towards self sufficiency as well as the opportunity to create a national non-profit that will provide safe housing as well as job training to other sex trafficking survivors.”
  • The continuing assertion that Jacqueline will be made homeless due to current circumstances. While it may be true that mounting fines for non-compliance of the Order may eventually result in that situation, it is not going to happen within the next 30 days as implied. “If she loses her residence, Jacqueline will become homeless”. It is also stated that Jacqueline is the sole owner of the property “(formerly a machine shop run by her deceased husband who willed her the property)”. Which indicates she is the sole owner of the property, no mention of the deceased husband’s three children from two marriages. It is known that the (supposedly deceased) husband purchased the property in 1990, over 23 years ago, with his second wife.

Even the new figures are somewhat alarming. $12,000 for the electrical work is, and probably still a too-high estimate for re-wiring the entire home, probably at least double the amount required. Nor have Erie Enforcement made any demands for compliance in this regard. Back in March 2014, at the launch of the pellet stove fundraiser, Jacqueline throws around a figure of $8k. Curious how it is now $12k! Are these figures just plucked out of the air? (click to enlarge)


If you recall from the $75k fundraiser: “Currently, the main building on the property, where she resides, does not have electricity. Ever resilient, Jacqueline uses the out building to get electricity into her home.”  This indicates a jerry-rigging of the electrics into the house (which would be both dangerous and illegal). Elsewhere (for the $50k fundraiser) she reported the fusebox was on the outbuilding therefore the outbuilding had to be saved! All these varying accounts conflict with one another.

The $38,000 for demolition and rubble removal of the outbuilding still seems far too high.

The new ‘accounting’ of $12,000 + $38,000 = $50,000 (the original fundraising figure) does not detail the costs estimated in setting up the proposed new “non-profit for exited women”, even though this purpose is slightly more revealed in the new $75k fundraiser. So again, the accounting figures are not an accurate reflection of how the (full) funds raised will be used. Recall too, that Jacqueline has the oft-cited ‘degree in mathematics’, and such a fully-disclosed accounting of the use of funds raised should be straightforward for someone with a degree in mathematics, and IT coding qualifications.


Why the jump from $50k to $75k?

Great question! Apart from the two stated figures of $12k for electrical rewiring and $38k for demolition and rubbish removal, and there is the 12.5% commission to the fundraising site.

What is 12.5% of $75,000?  It is $9,375.

Which should be more accurately described as “just over $9,000” rather than “approximately $10,000”. Again, the figures being thrown around are incorrectly rounded, misleading, and a stupid mistake for someone with a degree in mathematics.

Even a “commission of approximately $10,000” still does not add up.

Yes, the stated monies for repairs are still saying $50,000, so even a $10,000 commission only adds up to $60,000. This is very basic maths.

What would be the figure to obtain $50,000 with a commission of 12.5%?

In round figures, to obtain $50,000 net, and to allow for a 12.5% (hefty) commission, would be: $58,000 total fundraising target; $7,250 in commission; leaving $50,750. A couple of minutes with a calculator will get those figures. No degree in maths, no computing coding qualifications, no history of working in the financial sector, is needed. (See the Conflicting background and Conflicting present pages for more detail.)

The figures still do not add up, nor is there full disclosure and transparency of how the funds are proposed to be used. Not even any proof of quotes from local contractors for the works proposed.

Some interesting further reading on two of Indiegogo’s information pages. From the ‘Basics’ page, section 6:

  • If you reach your goal: With either a Flexible or Fixed Funding campaign you’ll keep funds you raised, but be charged a fee of 4% of your raised funds.
  • If you don’t reach your goal: With a Flexible Funding campaign you’ll keep the funds you raised, but be charged a fee of 9% of your raised funds. With a Fixed Funding campaign you won’t keep the funds you raised, all of your contributors will be refunded, and you won’t be charged any fees.
  • If you receive funds, there is an additional payment processing fee of 3-5%, depending on your selected payment options.

Further details can be found on Indiegogo’s ‘Fees & Pricing’ page. It would appear that the $75k fundraiser is set up as ‘Flexible Funding’ campaign, with any funds raised subject to a 9% fee going to Indiegogo and a seemingly calculated 3.5% going to PayPal/other fees. If the fundraiser was a ‘Fixed Funding’ option, the commission charged would be lower, but if the goal ($75,000) was not reached, then all the money would be returned to the people who donated.


Ongoing issues

Even though this proposed ‘Habitat for Healing’ centre “for shelter and job training to other survivors” is now more emphasized in the $75k fundraiser, it raises more issues:

  • The compliance order, which still requires a demolition permit to be obtained, is to demolish and remove the outbuilding
  • Building a new building in its place, or even repairing the existing structure, would be in violation of local building codes—a permit for the new structure would need to be obtained before this new work commenced
  • Even if the replacement structure was not proposed, and the main (three bedroom) house was to be used for ‘shelter and training’, this then changes the use of the building, and re-zoning permits for educational purposes would need to be obtained
  • The existing three bedroom house is not really adequate for a ‘Habitat for Healing’ centre, it certainly would not be able to provide shelter and training for many survivors—therefore the proposal is wasteful, when the money could be directed to existing training or shelter centres

This ‘Habitat for Healing’ might be a nice dream, but it is a badly proposed pipe dream, lacking in detail, and quotations of the exact work and permits needed to bring the project to fruition. It is also worth noting that $75,000 is around the figure of the existing property’s entire value, so would be a gross over-capitalisation of the property. ‘Habitat for Humanity’ may also object to the similar name. The entire proposal(s) are as unsound as the rear outbuilding.

On a final note, putting aside any grand proposals, and assuming that $50,000 was actually needed for the demolition and removal of the outbuilding—it was noticed that Jacqueline had 1,647 friends on Facebook. If all 1,647 of those Facebook friends gave just $30 each (close to an average donation figure), then Jacqueline would raise $49,410. It is telling that many supporters do not actually donate money to Jacqueline’s many ’emergency’ fundraisers.


Was there a sabotage of the last fundraiser?

No. A number of women independently came to the same conclusions that we are presenting here—that things were not adding up, that figures asked for were far too high for the stated reasons.

It should be noted that the $50k fundraising page at YouCaring is still going on. Even after a relatively small number of women started questioning elements of the fundraising, donations have continued to accrue. At the time of the sabotage accusation, the YouCaring amount was over $800, and continues to rise at around the same pace as previously.

Next page >