When is "100%" not really "100%"? When Ezra says so.

A fundamental complaint in Ezra Levant's 2016 defamation action against me is that I defamed him by pointing out (quite correctly, as he later admitted in his own Statement of Claim) that his insistence that "100%" of donations would be turned over to the Red Cross was utter rubbish. Rather than eviscerate that lie all over again, I will refer you to my comprehensive two-part series (but after you read them, come back here for a bit of a wrap-up):

• Part One
• Part Two

In case you didn't follow all of that, let's recap:

1. From the beginning, Ezra insisted that 100% of all donations would be transferred to the Red Cross, when he absolutely knew that that was a lie.
2. Under intense criticism on this very point, Ezra never, ever, ever clarified what he meant by "100%".
3. Only in his June 2016 Statement of Claim did Ezra introduce the novel defense that his initial $10,000 "donation" was not a donation after all, but insisted (with no evidence whatsoever) that its purpose from the beginning was to make up for the loss of 5% from everyone else's donations.

Did you catch all that? I'm asking since, in my anti-SLAPP motion against Ezra, the motions judge didn't understand the first thing about this. Seriously, she had no clue what was happening, and perhaps I'd better leave it at that.

In any event, now you know the actual story behind Ezra Levant's utterly bogus and misleading assurance to all his donors that their full donation was going to make it to Fort McMurray wildfire victims.

Have a nice day.

JUST IN CASE you need a handy graphic to make sense of all this, here's the final total for donations as listed on Rebel's Indiegogo fundraiser page:

and here is, from a few months later, an email I received from the Red Cross' Sue Larkin, verifying the precise final amount received:

That would be a total of $156,921.00. I believe I've made my point.

HOMEWORK AND BOUNTIES: I believe this is the first reasonable opportunity to introduce a new feature into these blog posts -- homework assignments for the public at large where you have the chance to make some actual cash. A lot of people talk about "crowdfunding" legal actions or defenses; here, we're going to crowdsource actual gathering of evidence in a totally public way so you all get to play along.

The first bounty of $50 (CAD) will be for the first person who can produce a public admission or clarification by Ezra Levant that his claim of "100%" turnover to the Red Cross was based on his redefinition of his own initial "donation" of $10,000. This is a critical part of his defamation action against me, so it behooves all of us to see if Ezra, at any time since his May 2016 fundraiser, has ever explained that, when he said "100%," he didn't really mean it ... or at least he didn't mean it in the way almost everyone would have understood it.

I've looked for such an admission for quite some time, and have never found it, but perhaps someone else will be luckier. And if you find such an admission, the $50 is yours via Interac transfer to the e-mail address of your choice.

Remember, what we're after is a clear, unequivocal and -- most importantly -- public explanation by Ezra Levant as to what he really meant when he assured donors that the full "100%" of their contributions would be passed on to the Red Cross. So, there's your homework assignment, and there's the payoff.

And ... go.

P.S. As always, there is the fundraiser.

AFTERSNARK: I wonder if Ezra realizes that his feeble rationalization that he didn't mean to include his own donation in the final total is totally undercut by his own "Alberta Bureau Chief" Sheila Gunn Reid who, partway through the fundraiser, was openly crowing over how Rebel Media had raised more than $160K for fire relief:

Yeah, it's a mite awkward when you're inventing legal defenses and you forget to tell your own reporter.