Jim A

Happy Halloween no matter where you are from. To this day nothing has changed pertaining to wondering and asking the beneficiary of this fund drive, Sean "Midlife" Stockman, what his intentions have been all along since the start of this fundraiser now exactly six months, a full half a year ago. Even if Sean did not agree to opening this drive, he has formed a pattern of not responding to persistent questions to him to say something about it. That action or reaction or non action has created a consistent impression which in the scientific world falls under a standard that results must be reproducible. The following is an explanation as to what a pattern is that heavily overlaps into the scientific acceptable of a result range.......... Following a pattern means intentionally recognizing, adopting, or reproducing a recurring arrangement of elements—actions, shapes, behaviors, events, or rules—so that future instances align with that arrangement. It’s both a cognitive activity (seeing or anticipating recurrence) and a behavioral strategy (repeating or adapting the recurrence). Core dimensions Recognition: perceiving repeated structure across time or space (e.g., rhythm in music, a motif in design, recurring bugs in code). Abstraction: extracting the rule or template that defines the repetition (e.g., “every third beat louder,” “MVC architecture,” “seasonal demand rises in Q4”). Reproduction: applying the rule intentionally to produce similar outcomes (e.g., knitting the same stitch sequence, implementing the design pattern in software). Adaptation: modifying the pattern to fit new constraints while preserving its functional core (e.g., responsive layout of a UI pattern for mobile). Prediction and control: using the pattern to anticipate future occurrences and guide decisions (e.g., forecasting sales, automating repetitive tasks). Types of patterns people follow Visual/Spatial: layouts, tiling, graphic motifs. Temporal/Sequential: routines, rhythms, schedules. Behavioral/Social: norms, habits, rituals. Logical/Procedural: algorithms, design patterns, recipes, workflows. Statistical/Probabilistic: trends and correlations used for forecasting. Why people follow patterns Efficiency: apply proven solutions rather than reinvent. Reliability: reduce error by adhering to tested rules. Communication: shared patterns create predictable expectations. Learning: patterns simplify complex information into repeatable chunks. Creativity: constraints provided by patterns can spark variation and innovation. How to follow a pattern effectively Observe and document: note repeated elements and contexts. Abstract the rule: state the minimal rule or template that generates the pattern. Test on a small scale: reproduce the pattern in a controlled example. Iterate and adapt: adjust the rule for new constraints while keeping core structure. Automate or codify: create tools, checklists, or code that enforce the pattern where appropriate. Evaluate outcomes: confirm the pattern still produces intended results; retire or revise when it stops working. Common pitfalls Overfitting: treating coincidence as a pattern and following it blindly. Rigidity: applying a pattern where flexibility is required. Misidentification: abstracting the wrong rule, leading to incorrect reproductions. Obsolescence: persisting with a pattern after the underlying conditions changed. Examples (typical stories) A software team adopts the Repository pattern to share persistence logic, reducing duplication and speeding feature work. A musician learns a rhythmic motif and applies its accents across different phrases to create coherence. A retailer notices weekly spikes on payday and plans promotions to match the pattern, increasing conversion. Summary Following a pattern is a disciplined process: see the repeat, extract the rule, reproduce or adapt it, and use it to predict, simplify, or standardize. Effective pattern-following balances fidelity to the pattern’s core with critical reassessment when conditions change. -------------------------------------------- After a half a year that even an estimated 100,000 visitors a week to Midlife Stockman's YouTube Community section were witness to much of the attempts to get Sean to say something about this fund drive for nearly two months on a virtual daily basis, nor over the past six months nor to this day cannot be denied that by all appearances, either Sean himself or some unknown outside influence of control has used this fund drive to accept contributions with no accountability in mind. Sadly it seems that no one other than me out in the open is capable of also seeing if this pattern continues either by writing him at the address he always says for anyone to write him at and that he reads them all, or say something inside of his YouTube Community asking him about this fund raiser. So, with what is happening here, one has to wonder if either Sean or whomever is controlling what is happening here, is experimenting to see what can be gotten away with or maybe is doing something else like taking donations from the fundraisers he creates for others for himself that would not be bad on the surface, but he is not being transparent about it and there is a guilt trip therefore wanting to get caught since by now he/they must realize that the lack of responding here just might extend questioning as to why that is into his own fundraisers? Adherents to psychoanalysis have contended that the need to be punished for unresolved "crimes" guilt is a critically important causal factor in explaining criminal behavior. This is long enough. Consider it a look into the macabre on this Halloween day

It has been awhile since there has been an update. Although nothing still has majorly changed, I am posting something so you are not forgotten inside of this fundraiser as Sean has done with fundraisers he created himself. First off, let it be clearly understood that this Sean Stockman with the profile of: https://www.gofundme.com/u/8320c896-9fd8-4d6b-8c78-6b9fbf2bf0f0 is the exact same person as the Sean Stockman who created his own fundraisers and received not only what he asked for, but twice that all in about 48 hours. That Sean Stockman is: https://www.gofundme.com/u/sean-midlife Exactly why there are differences are only partially known by me. I knew nothing about fundraisers before creating this one so I had to learn along the way. I used the name "Sean Stockman" as the beneficiary never realizing that it would not be attached to the one everyone donates to. Sean did (and probably still does) have the ability to put it into the one he uses to create himself. Maybe at the time he did not realize that the two would not be connected either. Most likely he is using the same bank account for this one as the ones he has created, but I have no idea. Maybe because GFM has fundraisers setup so that there must be different profiles if a fundraiser is created for someone and another is created for that exact same party who has created a fundraiser for someone else. All I can do at this time is to clarify that the two are the same person. My view is that someone’s good work should not cancel out a legitimate question about a fundraiser. A person can deserve credit for helping people and still be expected to explain what happened to donations and follow through on promises. Those are separate questions of **accountability**. Good deeds and unanswered questions can coexist. Taking his description in his cleanup videos as given, those videos may demonstrate worthwhile work. They do not, by themselves, establish what happened with this particular fundraiser. Conversely, a failure to answer my messages does not establish that the cleanup work is insincere. The relevant fundraising questions are more specific: Who controlled the money? Who received it? What did the campaign promise? Was the money used for the stated purpose? The FTC emphasizes that crowdfunding organizers control how funds are spent and that donors should examine who receives their money and how it reaches the intended beneficiary. That was clarified from before any announcement was put out about this fund drive up to this very minute. My ethical assessment is straightforward: “Look at all the good he does” would not be an adequate answer to a documented concern about a separate fundraising commitment. The following cannot be stressed enough nor be able to be said once or twice and then forgotten about. It goes into the realm of legality. Whereas one can say that not answering someone's insistence to say something about some fund drive is only annoying and should be left alone, it changes once money is taken and taken by using donations as the scheme and then refusing, as the beneficiary, to show the public any acknowledgement of it.... Once the following is understood, anyone will be able to see why this goes beyond a simple followup interview about being silent to instead doing research as to why specifics from Midlife Stockman are needed to be answered. The practical risk is straightforward: as long as he stays silent, the public narrative is that the fund drive is unrelated to him since no one from the public knows where or can verify where the money is or has actually gone, and the initial potential full $50,000 asked for lands in his account, as some already has, with no public accountability. The taking of the money goes beyond just remaining silent about a fund drive that he did not create fully on his own, but gave his approval. If he does acknowledge it, he must account for the funds and the machine's delivery — which, given his 1M+ subscriber base and demonstrated ability to raise $40–50K in under 48 hours, is a meaningful exposure

There has been nothing new to update on this situation so I am pasting here as an update what GFM says in an article what Sean and I went through to get this fund drive started with him being the beneficiary ............. How to invite a beneficiary to receive funds On GoFundMe, you can raise funds for someone else and designate them as the beneficiary of the fundraiser. This allows the beneficiary to transfer funds directly to their own bank account. Before you send the invitation, please make sure your beneficiary meets requirements to receive funds and read through our list of things to consider when adding a beneficiary. How to send a beneficiary invitation The organizer can follow these steps after publishing their fundraiser. 1) Log into your GoFundMe account 2) Select "Your fundraisers" from the top right menu and choose the fundraiser you want to invite a beneficiary to US Fundraisers - From your "Today” page, select “Fundraiser” from the left menu > Select “Transfers” All other countries - In your dashboard, select the "Transfers" tab from the left menu 3) Select "Someone else's bank account" 4) Make sure your email is confirmed and then select "Get started" under "Invite a beneficiary" 5) You'll be prompted to enter your intended beneficiary's first and last name and email address (The name you enter here will be publicly shown on the fundraiser page.) 6) Confirm the information you've entered is correct, and then select "Next" 7) Review the information one more time, and then select "Send invite" If you receive an error when sending the invitation or the beneficiary has trouble accepting it, please try sending it to a different email address or review this article for troubleshooting tips. If you're still having issues, please use the "Contact us" button to get in touch with our team. Once a beneficiary has accepted an invitation, no additional action is needed from the GoFundMe organizer to set up transfers. GoFundMe beneficiary account After your beneficiary has accepted the invitation, a separate GoFundMe account will be created for them that's connected to your fundraiser. They can sign into this separate account and set up their transfers, then funds will automatically be sent to their bank account. This means that you, as the organizer, will no longer have access to the transfer setup, as all bank information will be added through the new beneficiary account. Check out this video to learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbHs-erG1lQ Payment processors are not banks and cannot hold funds for extended periods. There isn’t one fixed time limit for every fundraiser. Once the first donation is made, your bank transfer information must be fully verified by the date shown in GoFundMe’s transfer notification emails or in the Transfers section of your account. If it isn’t verified by that deadline, donations could be automatically refunded.

Who is pulling Sean's strings? Who is he afraid of? Who "convinced" him to start to do scams? By now those are obvious questions and important ones at that which are more meaningful after watching Midlife Stockman's latest video he put out Monday, September 21, 2026. Sean wants a skid-steer so why has he kept away from this campaign that we know if he acknowledged it at any time, he would have received enough donations probably in 48 hours to purchase the one of his choice? Why has he continued to say he wants a skid-steer, went to Toro trying to get one realizing that most likely his behind the scene record might be a blemish in Toro's decision to do a partnership with him; plus he knows also that there has been a chance that he would be reviewed closely by those who are professionals in doing that, WDIV Local 4 in Detroit since they interviewed him previously? Sean has been able to come into here to see if anything has been said about him. He was sent approximately 75 requests over a four month period from me to say something publicly about this campaign which were both private and public in his YouTube Community that he eventually deleted. He also was sent an official demand e-mail asking him once again after four months of passive requests to acknowledge this fundraiser and answer some logical legal questions about it that if he did not, it would be brought to the attention of Toro, Local News 4, and maybe others, and yet he has kept away from all of that, but in his video, he still mentions how a skid-steer would help him alot. Sean is no idiot and he seems to have a reasonable business mind. He knows what circumstance he is in. He knows and understands the following terms and if not, at this point in time, he can do his own research or contact an attorney since his reaction out here behind the scene and to the corporations, as well as GoFundMe itself is so much to the contrary of what he shows to the public....... "Willful Refusal to Acknowledge" as Evidence This is the specific legal mechanism that turns silence from an ambiguous act into admissible evidence of intent. Here's how it works: The Key Distinction: Passive Silence vs. Willful Refusal Stage Legal Character Evidentiary Weight He agrees to the page, then goes quiet I send 75 outreach attempts, he ignores all Willful refusal to acknowledge — he was put on notice and chose not to respond. Strong. This is the tipping point. I send a formal demand letter, he ignores it The legal principle: once a party is specifically informed of a fact and asked to respond, continued silence is no longer passive — it becomes an affirmative act of concealment Why This Matters for Fraudulent Concealment To establish fraudulent concealment (which tolls the SOL, i.e. Statue of Limitation), you must prove: 1) A material fact was concealed — the existence of the fund drive and the $50K going to his account 2) The defendant had a duty to disclose — he agreed to create the page, so he had an obligation to be transparent about it 3) The concealment was intentional — this is where "willful refusal" comes in 4) The plaintiff relied on the concealment — I (and the public) continued to believe the page was legitimate because he never disavowed it 5) The plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence — my 75 outreach attempts are that diligence, documented An Oregon Court of Appeals case is directly on point: they held that "inaction to disclose the breach of contract in addition to not disclosing the full truth when requested to do by plaintiff" constituted intentional concealment. That's exactly my pattern — he was asked repeatedly, and he didn't disclose. What Makes It "Willful" (vs. Just Ignoring as I have been politely saying all this time to him privately and inside of his Community until recently) Courts look at: 1) Specificity of the request — "Can you confirm the GoFundMe page for the Dingo?" is far more specific than a vague "what's up?" The more specific the question, the harder it is to claim he didn't understand. 2) Repetition — 75 attempts is not a one-off. A pattern of ignoring specific, repeated, documented requests is very hard to explain away as accidental. 3) Formal demand — a demand letter (especially from an attorney or a corporate entity like Toro) elevates the silence from "he missed an email" to "he was formally put on legal notice and chose not to respond." 4) Ability to respond — if he was actively posting on YouTube, going to events, doing business, while ignoring 75 messages about this specific topic, that undercuts any "I didn't see it" defense. How It Plays Out in Court If the case reaches trial or a motion for summary judgment: -I present: the original agreement, the 75 outreach attempts (dated, with delivery confirmation to both addresses), the demand letter, and evidence he was active publicly during that same period. -He must explain: why he ignored 75+ specific messages about a $50K fund drive he agreed to create, while remaining publicly active. -The jury (or judge) infers: the silence was intentional, designed to maintain plausible deniability while the funds were collected. -That inference — drawn from the pattern of willful refusal — is what converts this case from "he was quiet" (defensible) to "he deliberately concealed" (not defensible). The Practical Upshot My 75 attempts weren't just persistence — they were evidence collection in real time. Each unanswered message is a data point. The demand letter is the final data point that makes the pattern legally actionable. Without those 75 attempts, the concealment argument is much weaker. With them, it's one of the stronger fact patterns a fraudulent concealment claim can have. By now Sean should also be cognizant that GFM is aware of this situation as well as knowing he is tied into creating his own campaigns for others that he has directed and takes all donations into his own bank account. Nothing is passive any longer if it ever was at all. So based on that and his public image, some overall questions need to be answered....... Who is pulling Sean's strings? Who is he afraid of? Who "convinced" him to start to do scams (all to the point of him willing to continue with all of the above in front of him)?

Did you know that today, September 13, 2026/Sunday, around 1pm Sean's time which is still in Eastern Time Sean pretty much confirmed my statement about there being 100,000 visitors a week to his YouTube Channel Community page? He rarely posts anything there nowadays yet within 45 minutes of posting a picture with his son going to a sports game, there already was 47 comments and 719 likes on it. If not so many people visit that page, the odds are slim that anyone would even know about the posting and be able to comment and give so many likes in such a short period of time. My point being that when I said in my last update here only 3 days ago that not one of those 100,000 people ever said they wrote Sean to get verification about this fund drive from him, it is a good indication that as soon as Sean never came out to confirm its existence, his authority status confirmed to them all, except those who donated to him here, exactly what I have already said, that the scam callers were correct and no one wanted to use their cognitive ability beyond that as they also read them enmass. In my opinion, that is not saying much about today's thinking in society. It makes me wonder how much fluoride has been put into their drinking water as that government "service" has been done knowing that it dumbs down our ability to think? Anyway, with now all three major corporations looking into this problem and hopefully communicating with each other, I am sure there will be more to update often here. Now, as I have said previously, the time has come for me to be more professional in what I say about the problem with Sean and this fund drive. It replaces accusations with verifiable concerns, separates facts from suspicions, and tells the recipient exactly what I want them to do. It also frames transparency as protecting everyone—Toro, the creator, donors, and the public—rather than as punishment. So while we are waiting to see what Toro and WDIV Detroit's Local 4 News are doing after I brought them into this recently, I also brought in GoFundMe's next higher up customer care department from what I had in the past letting them know about Toro and WDIV's concern and doing reviews on what has been going on here and if Toro should do a partnership with Sean so he could get the skid-steer this fundraiser was created for, for free with whatever accessories they might be willing to contract with him for. Not that it matters much, but GFM allows 7, 500 characters for each of these updates and this one is almost exactly around one third that at 2,600 characters. So who knows how large an update might be in the future?

This GoFundMe campaign is circulating to help fund a Toro Dingo or skid-steer for Sean "Midlife" Stockman, while a possible Toro partnership may also be under consideration. Before donating or promoting the campaign, the public deserves clear answers: 1- Did Sean Stockman authorize or approve it? 2- Who controls the campaign and the funds? 3- Where will donations be sent? 4- What happens if the equipment cannot be purchased or is declined? 5- How will donors be updated and accounted for? This is not an accusation of wrongdoing. It is a request for transparency that would protect donors, Sean, Toro, and everyone involved. A clear public statement from the intended recipient (Midlife Stockman) could resolve these questions. In this case, I as the organizer, have been doing that all along. In this case also, Sean puts out his contact information as: midlifestockman at gmail dot com . Writing Sean "Midlife" Stockman directly will help to answer them at the email address he gives, something that I had numerous times suggested in Sean's YouTube Community and the only feedback I got back from the estimated 100,000 weekly visitors to there was only being called a scammer and this fund drive being a fake while not one of those visitors ever said they did contact Sean. What I am describing is a well-documented pattern in human psychology: we tend to assume the worst about someone when an authority figure condemns them, even if that person has a long history of good behavior. By Sean being seen as the authority figure, his silence is what coaxed on all the scam calling and (by unexpected good fortune) stopped a swarm of donations for the skid-steer. This happens because of a mix of cognitive biases, emotional responses to power, and social learning that all push us toward “authority-first” thinking in threatening or uncertain situations. Authority bias and the “worst-case” shortcut. Humans have a strong authority bias: we overweight the opinions of people we perceive as leaders, experts, or officials, often more than the actual evidence about the person being judged. When an authority says someone is “bad,” that statement becomes a powerful mental shortcut: - It reduces the need to re-evaluate all past good deeds. - It lets us quickly update our impression without doing heavy cognitive work. - It feels safer to align with the authority than to risk being “wrong” against them. Of course then we have to wonder who is Sean's "authority" figure when I ask the questions....Who is pulling Sean's strings? Who is he afraid of? Who "convinced" him to start to do scams? While I was there in the Community I came across one of the several visitors who periodically ask Sean for help of some sort. It was mentioning about going to a GoFundMe account. In short, what is being said in this update is really not just for here, but should be done for any fundraiser you might be thinking of donating to. That one in Sean's Community proved to be a true, a real scam. I went to it at different days and the drive was changed, morphed into something else along the way until it was taken down. I did what it sadly seems not one person did do in Sean's Community every time someone thought this fundraiser for Sean has been a scam...I researched it. No one wrote Sean pertaining to this fund drive https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-sean-upgrade-equipment-for-detroit-cleanups because his silence meant to them confirmation that I, and by extension this fund drive, was indeed a scam. He being seen as the authority figure helped make up their minds making it easy for them to evaluate the situation as was being claimed, a scam. To end I would like to say that many times in Sean's Community when I asked where he could be and that he might be very ill or badly hurt since he never came into the page to acknowledge his approval of this fund drive, I was denigrated many times with comments that if he was either ill or hurt, he would not be putting out his weekly videos as he was doing thereby I was proven wrong and of course by me saying that, I was in their minds just trying to cause trouble in the forum. I had replied that he must make up videos in advance just for that purpose. Of course that also gave fuel for the naysayers saying that I did not know what I was talking about and of course still trying to create trouble in the forum. Well Sean himself in the latest video where the Washington Post was at, September 7th, confirmed that he does make at least some of them in advance. Oh, and the following cannot be stressed enough nor be able to be said once or twice and then forgotten about. It goes into the realm of legality. Whereas one can say that not answering someone's insistence to say something about some fund drive is only annoying and should be left alone, it changes once money is taken and taken by using donations as the ploy and then refusing to show the public any acknowledgement of it.... Once the following is understood, anyone will be able to see why this goes beyond a simple followup interview about being silent to instead doing research as to why specifics from Midlife Stockman are needed to be answered. The practical risk is straightforward: as long as he stays silent, the public narrative is that the fund drive is unrelated to him since no one from the public knows where or can verify where the money is or has actually gone, and the potential full $50,000 asked for lands in his account, as some already has, with no public accountability. The taking of the money goes beyond just remaining silent about a fund drive that he did not create fully on his own, but gave his approval. If he does acknowledge it, he must account for the funds and the machine's delivery — which, given his 1M+ subscriber base and demonstrated ability to raise $40–50K in under 48 hours, is a meaningful exposure.

Sean did not reply to the demand e-mail by September 4, 2026/Friday. In that letter he was informed that if he did not, then most likely what has been going on would be taken to places like Toro and WDIV, a place that had interviewed him a year ago. That is what has now been done. Not only have both corporations been informed, but they also have been informed of each other which gives them an open door to communicate about this situation with each other. As time goes on, there might be more businesses informed as to why Sean's silence is so important. Once the following is understood, anyone will be able to see why this goes beyond a simple followup interview about being silent to instead doing research as to why specifics from Midlife Stockman are needed to be answered. The practical risk is straightforward: as long as he stays silent, the public narrative is that the fund drive is unrelated to him since no one from the public knows where or can verify where the money is or has actually gone, and the potential full $50,000 asked for lands in his account, as some already has, with no public accountability. The taking of the money goes beyond just remaining silent about a fund drive that he did not create fully on his own, but gave his approval. If he does acknowledge it, he must account for the funds and the machine's delivery — which, given his 1M+ subscriber base and demonstrated ability to raise $40–50K in under 48 hours, is a meaningful exposure.

There are some things between Sean and me that should reasonably be between us only. The demand letter that I sent to him last Wednesday, August 26th normally would be one of them, but there have been so many attempts on my part both privately and inside of his public YouTube Community of which all were not responded to that it has grown beyond that so I am posting what I can to show what is being put into this. Subject: (Reminder) Request for clarification regarding skid-steer fundraiser Dear Sean:"Midlife" Stockman: I am writing to request a clear response regarding the skid-steer fundraiser created in connection with you and your work. This is a reminder of the initial demand letter sent to you August 26, 2026/Wednesday. The fundraiser was organized with the understanding that you were aware of it, that it was being conducted in your interest, and that donations would be directed to the bank account you identified or approved. Donors were to contribute in good faith based on that understanding. For approximately the past four months, I have repeatedly asked you to publicly acknowledge whether you had any involvement in the creation or authorization of the fundraiser. Despite those requests, you have not publicly confirmed or denied your connection with it, explained whether you authorized the fundraising effort, or provided an update concerning the donations and the intended skid-steer purchase. Your continued silence has created serious uncertainty for donors and members of the public. It has caused people to question whether the fundraiser was legitimate, whether your name and circumstances were used without authorization, and whether the donated money was handled as originally represented. I am giving you this opportunity to clarify the matter directly before any further information is provided to outside organizations for review. Please respond in writing to the following questions: 1) Did you know about and authorize the skid-steer fundraiser? 2) Did you participate in its creation, planning, promotion, or approval? 3) Did you arrange for donations to be sent directly into your bank account, or otherwise approve that arrangement? 4) Were any donations received? If so, what amount was received and what is the current status of those funds? 5) Do you still intend to use the funds for the stated skid-steer or equipment-related purpose? 6) If you did not authorize the fundraiser, do you deny any connection with it and do you want the public to know that your name or circumstances may have been used without your permission? 7) Is there any other information you believe donors should know? Please provide a written response by Friday, September 4, 2026. If you do not wish to provide financial details publicly, you may still confirm whether the fundraiser was authorized, whether funds were received, and whether the stated purpose remains valid. If I receive no response by that date, I may provide the existing documentation—including copies of the fundraiser materials, messages, requests for clarification, and evidence of your lack of response—to the news organization and Toro representatives. Any information provided will be presented as a request for verification and will distinguish between documented facts, unanswered questions, and conclusions that cannot presently be confirmed. This letter is intended to give you a fair opportunity to respond and to correct any inaccurate impression. A direct written response would help protect both the public and your own reputation. It is an official demand letter. If you do not respond, it creates evidence of willful refusal to acknowledge added to a paper trail of approximately 75 attempts to get you to respond over the last four months that is documentation of a pattern of further proofs of your willful refusal which more technically is termed as deliberate concealment. Previously all prior attempts of my reasonable diligence to get you to acknowledge something about this fund drive were passive acts of silence on your part. No response now it becomes an affirmative act of concealment. Please respond by email to what you already have on record. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim A.