>Actually your own cited source challenges this. No, my link does not challenge this. WE is a registered charity (as designated by CRA). It's public informatio

>Actually your own cited source challenges this. No, my link does not challenge this. WE is a registered charity (as designated by CRA). It's public information, you can look it up. I initially chose not to bring this up precisely because it detracts from the fact that there is likely corruption (as you point out). I only brought it up when pressed for why I endorsed the gist of the parents comments, but not the stated details. You know, it is possible for someone to believe that corruption occurred but also believe that getting the surrounding facts correct is important. That's all I was advocating for. You've totally misinterpreted this entire thread.