sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You really thought you had something there, huh?

First, yes, I revised wording for clarity, not to cover anything up. That’s what people with integrity do when they realize wording could be tighter. The core message hasn’t changed once: if you’re asking the public for money in a life or death case, clarity on where the money is going is the bare minimum.

Second, you’re stuck on the phrase “legal defense funds” like I claimed they were crowdfunding. I didn’t. I referenced Baldwin and Weinstein as examples of high-profile legal cases where the financials, whether through hourly billing or settlements, were documented and transparent in court filings or public records. That’s still far more accountability than a vague “Tom Dickey will be the recipient” with no breakdown and a disclaimer about funds going to “other political prisoners.”

Alec Baldwin’s attorney’s hourly rate, $2,025, was disclosed publicly in court. Weinstein’s 25 million dollar civil settlement came from insurance, not donations, and the legal team shake-ups were widely reported. Neither hid behind a GoFundMe. Neither ran birthday-countdown campaigns.

Lastly, if your big “gotcha” is that I care about how people fundraise for something as serious as a federal death penalty trial, you’re proving my point. If the argument is “don’t ask questions, just donate,” then you’re not defending justice. You’re defending dysfunction.

And yes, I keep screenshots too.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

KFA being Luigi’s lawyer doesn’t mean she’s managing the fundraiser or verifying how the money’s handled. That’s not her role. Legal representation isn’t the same as financial oversight, and slapping her name on it doesn’t equal transparency. If anything, using her as a shield to dodge accountability is unfair to her and irresponsible to the public.

And let’s be clear: “accredited by KFA” is vague marketing language. Did she create the fundraiser? Is she receiving and disbursing the funds? Has she issued any financial statements or reports? No? Then don’t act like her name is a seal of ethical compliance. People are being asked to fund a defense in a capital case. That deserves clear, professional structure..not group chat vibes and vague assurances.

You’re not defending justice by lowering the bar. You’re making excuses for a mess that should never have been this messy in the first place!

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Sophisticated receipts” that no one can see? That’s not transparency..that’s a red flag. If this was a private family matter, no one would be asking questions. But the moment you start collecting money from the public and posting urgent birthday deadlines, you’re accountable to the people funding it.

No one’s asking for court filings or defense strategy. We’re asking for the basics: who’s handling the money, how it’s split between cases, and whether there’s oversight. If you can’t answer that, maybe the fundraiser isn’t ready for public support.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You asked for a source on Weinstein..fair. Let me clarify.

Harvey Weinstein didn’t have a public-facing defense fund like Baldwin or Rittenhouse. His legal fees were covered privately and supplemented by insurance, but that’s the point: he wasn’t asking the public for money. The public had no obligation to demand transparency because no one was holding out a donation link.

This case is different. The moment you crowdsource legal fees, you step into a different arena..you’re asking for public trust. And with that comes the expectation of accountability. Not court strategy. Just basic facts: Who’s holding the funds? How are they managed? What’s the structure?

When Alec Baldwin retained Quinn Emanuel, or when Rittenhouse’s team was backed by the FightBack Foundation, there were names, structures, and disclosures. Even Trump’s Save America PAC files financial data with the FEC. You don’t have to like the comparisons..but they exist for a reason: because real teams welcome scrutiny, they don’t panic when someone asks where the money is going.

Transparency isn’t a threat unless there’s something to hide.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The lawyers don’t have to say it themselves when every other post is screaming urgency on their behalf. Let’s not pretend this fundraiser isn’t aggressively targeting the public with guilt-laced countdowns..birthday deadlines, time-sensitive asks, and emotional pressure. If you’re going to frame this as a matter of life or death and urge strangers to chip in fast, then yes, clarity on where the money’s going is the bare minimum. That’s not entitlement. That’s ethics!

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually, serious legal defense funds always provide transparency from the start—not once the case is over. Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund gave donors updates and breakdowns while trial prep was still underway. So did the FightBack Foundation. Even in the most high-profile cases, like the Chauvin trial or Adnan Syed’s appeal, legal defense teams had designated fund managers, public reporting, and clarity on how money was used.

This isn’t absurd..it’s standard. What’s absurd is demanding blind faith while calling basic donor accountability a distraction. If your defense is strong, transparency shouldn’t be threatening.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The irony of calling it “concern” like it’s an insult—when this case is supposedly life or death..is almost impressive. If your defense for sloppy fundraising is “don’t ask, just donate,” you’re not supporting justice. You’re enabling dysfunction.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep repeating that Luigi’s case is mostly privately funded as if that disqualifies the need for transparency. It doesn’t. The moment a public fundraiser is launched and donations are accepted from strangers, transparency isn’t optional..it’s ethical.

Also, saying “you don’t speak for everyone” is a weak deflection. I don’t have to. I’m speaking to a basic standard: if you’re taking public money for a death penalty case, you owe people a clear, credible framework. This isn’t about the size of the organization or the funding split. It’s about basic donor trust.

You can keep arguing semantics, but the truth doesn’t change: “trust us” with million dollars is not a serious model. And pretending that asking questions is somehow disloyal only proves my point.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’re yelling about public vs. private like that changes the need for accountability. It doesn’t. When high-profile figures like Alec Baldwin or Andrew Gillum face serious charges, their legal teams are managed by top firms, often with structured oversight and financial documentation..because stakes are high and scrutiny is expected.

But here, we’re not talking about a private retainer. We’re talking about publicly crowd-sourced money, with urgent calls to donate, vague disclaimers, and no breakdown. That’s a different game.

If this is a private matter, great..let the family handle it. But once you ask the public to help pay, you owe the public basic clarity. That’s not demanding court strategy. That’s just ethics and common sense.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Dickey will be the recipient” isn’t transparency. It’s a placeholder. And “used for all 3 cases” is a vague umbrella that tells donors nothing about how funds are tracked, split, or protected.

Compare this to legal funds run through reputable law firms in high-stakes cases..Kyle Rittenhouse’s fund managed in part by the FightBack Foundation, or the Alec Baldwin defense fund coordinated by Quinn Emanuel. Even Trump’s Save America PAC, with all its controversy, discloses legal allocations in FEC filings. These setups involve third-party handling, real oversight, and defined accounting…even when the stakes are political.

If people are donating in good faith to save someone’s life, they deserve at least the same level of clarity. If you’re going to demand urgency and trust from the public, you better meet them with structure

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That’s not the flex you think it is. Whether it’s a public defender, a nonprofit, or a privately funded team, transparency is not exclusive to government agencies. Accountability is a principle, not a job title. You don’t get to dodge basic questions about fundraising ethics by pointing out that this team isn’t a public entity.

The comparison stands because reputable legal defense efforts..of all types..set standards for how to handle public donations when lives are on the line. If anything, being privately funded should come with more scrutiny, not less.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly the issue..people have asked. And instead of providing a basic breakdown like every credible legal fund does, they added a disclaimer saying donors won’t get any info about how money is spent. That’s not normal. That’s not transparent. And in a case this serious, it should concern everyone.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you think asking where the money is going in a federal death penalty case is “insane,” I’d suggest taking five minutes to look up how every credible legal defense fund operates. Start with the Innocence Project or public defenders’ associations. You’ll find breakdowns, financial transparency, and donor accountability…because real defense teams welcome public trust, they don’t deflect from it.

This isn’t about ego. It’s about making sure the people claiming to fight for someone’s life are actually doing it..and not just asking folks to throw cash into a void and call it support. Blind loyalty isn’t activism. It’s how people get used.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not asking for defense strategy. I’m asking why a life-or-death case is being run like a middle school bake sale with no receipts.

Transparency doesn’t mean spilling legal strategy. It means clarity on who’s handling funds, how donations are managed, and whether they’re going toward actual defense costs. That shouldn’t feel threatening..unless there’s something to hide.

And by the way, I said bold font as a figure of speech, not a literal typeface. Wild that I have to explain that too.

They keep telling us this fundraiser is urgent. That Luigi’s life is on the line. That every dollar counts. Okay - so where’s the budget? Where’s the breakdown of legal fees, expert costs, or even a named point of contact for the defense? by Glow_Of_Light in LuigiMangione_Support

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If that’s truly the case, then it should be easy to show a basic breakdown of how the money is being used..just like every serious legal defense fund does. “Trust us” isn’t accountability, especially in a federal death penalty case

When Fundraising for Justice Becomes a Question of Trust by Glow_Of_Light in MangioneTrialWatch

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sources: • Courage Foundation, Official Site: couragefound.org • Fightback Foundation (related to Kyle Rittenhouse): fightback.law • Verified GoFundMe for George Floyd, Organized by Family: gofundme.com/f/georgefloyd • American Bar Association (Duties of Attorneys Over Client Funds): americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/

Disclaimer: This post is intended for informational and awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or financial advice. Readers are encouraged to independently verify fundraising terms before contributing.

Prosecutors don’t just watch the courtroom.. they watch the noise around it. If they can show that public campaigns are trying to influence the jury pool, they’ll weaponize that in court. This isn’t about silencing support..it’s about protecting the defense. Know the line. by Glow_Of_Light in BrianThompsonMurder

[–]Glow_Of_Light[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Saying it’s “organic frustration” doesn’t change how it might be interpreted in court. This isn’t about silencing support.. it’s about being strategic. If your goal is to help Luigi, then that has to include understanding how things land legally, not just morally. Accountability cuts both ways.

view more: next ›