Church Fears It Was Scammed in Home Sale (Katrina victims)

[NVMojo]

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) - A church that wanted to do something special for Hurricane Katrina victims gave a $75,000 house, free and clear, to a couple who said they were left homeless by the storm. But the couple turned around and sold the place without ever moving in, and went back to New Orleans.

"Take it up with God," an unrepentant Joshua Thompson told a TV reporter after it was learned that he and the woman he identified as his wife had flipped the home for $88,000.

Church members said they feel their generosity was abused by scam artists. They are no longer even sure that the couple were left homeless by Katrina or that they were a couple at all.

"They came in humble like they really needed a new start, and our hearts went out to them," said Jean Phillips, a real estate agent and member of the Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ. "They actually begged for the home."

The church was also shocked by an ungrateful interview the couple gave with WHBQ-TV in Memphis.

"I really don't like this area," said Delores Thompson. "I really didn't, and I didn't know anybody, so that's why I didn't move in and I sold it."


more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/nov/21/112104180.html

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Well, you know, when you give a gift - it's the getter's to do with as they please.

Either it was a Christian act of charity, or it wasn't.

Which one was it, O Religiously Conservative and Hate-Based Branch of Christianity, O Church of God in Christ you miserable little denomination of hate, fear, xenophobia, American nationalism and ignorance?

Bwuhahahahahahahaha!!!

I find it so funny that they were all proud when they so generously helped a family with a Christian charity gift, and, now that the family didn't do what the church expected, the church is claiming it was scammed. Doesn't seem like they were interested in doing cahrity at all - only being SEEN doing charity.

Bwuhahahahahahaha!!!!!

[Maddy McCall]

3. GMTA

:toast:

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Yep that's what I am thinking too

[Maddy McCall]

2. On the one hand, I feel sorry for the church if they were taken advantage of...

but on the other hand, the gift should be without strings attached, and if these two were legit and wanted to move home to New Orleans, then so be it.

Makes you wonder if the church is pissed because their token charity case took the charity and utilized their decision-making autonomy to move home. Did the church think that the house gave them some kind of sovereignty over this couple?

[w4rma]

4. A whole house? To *one* couple? That church could have helped many many people

with $75,000 (or $88,000 apparently if the church had sold it and used the money for charity).

[MadMaddie]

5. If they didn't like the area they were in they should have

never accepted the home....a family with children could have used the home and a new start...Very selfish....

The church did do a charitable deed...but it seems they were expecting something in return...that's not really charity...

[William769]

6. Ok, I'll be the odd man out here.

This couple is a piece of shit.

[FooFootheSnoo]

8. I agree

that home could have been given to a family that really needed it.

[Javaman]

29. Think about what you are saying...

Perhaps these people saw an opportunity to better their lives by selling it? did you ever consider that?

The home became the property of this couple and they are allowed to do with it what they want.

Charity is just that, charity. It's up to the receiver to decide what is done with it.

If a person is given shoes and they decide to wear them on their hands, is that wrong?

Here as always, money is the issue. If it was indeed charity, whether it was a piece of gum or a house, a monetary value should not be attached and the gift of giving and the helping of another human being is what matters.

If this house was given with the expectation that the persons live in it, then it's not charity.

Like the old saying goes, "if you ask a question be prepared for an answer you don't expect or like".

Apparently, the church didn't like the answer they were given.

And, if in fact that these two people were indeed con artists, then the fault is upon the church for not looking into the couples circumstances close enough. And once again, it comes down to money. When giving away 75 grand, I would think they would be damn sure they were giving it to the genuine article.

Personally, I think the church is angry that these people turned a profit. :)

[No Exit]

9. Yes, let's work ourselves into a lather over the monstrous ingratitude

of the recipients here.

And let's not forget that story about the people who got the $2000 federal benefit (which, incidentally, my reasonably prosperous white hurricane victim friends also all got), and... gasp!... gambled with it!

And while we're castigating these disgusting lowlife people, let's just all forget all about the fucking NINE TRILLION DOLLARS WHICH DISAPPEARED FROM THE PENTAGON WHILE DOV ZAKHEIM WAS THERE AND WHICH HAS YET TO BE EXPLAINED, or the fucking SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH which Bush/Cheney is sucking out of us to fund his futile Iraqi killing fields, and the goddam CONSTANT AND UNFAIR FEES that banks can now legally charge for everything connected with accessing our OWN MONEY which is on deposit with them. And let's just forget about the FREE, UNMETERED OIL which is going to SOMEBODY (but we don't know who, but we know it sure as hell isn't US, the American citizens) right now in Iraq--oil which American soldiers died for. And let's just forget about the fucking NO-BID contracts worth billions or trillions which have enriched Halliburton and its numerous subsidiaries, and in pursuance of which they have done really cool patriotic services like providing CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER to our soldiers. And let's not worry about the fucking MILLIONS which Republican Jack Abramoff, and his fresh-faced girly-boy friend Ralph Reed, scammed Indian tribes out of while pretending to work for them but actually in some cases working against their interests.

And let's not worry our pretty little heads about the fucking BILLIONS of oil company "profits" which are nothing more than money which was stolen from us by price-gouging--which, in my book, is a form of stealing or even robbery.

This stupid fucking article is nothing more than the usual wingnut potshots at hurricane victims because of the usual wingnut perception that hurricane victims are "black criminal democrats" or some such thing.

[ret5hd]

10. Gambled with it???

I heard they spent it all on recreational abortions and cigarettes!

[No Exit]

11. And junk food! Don't forget the junk food!!

Bunch a scum! Spend a week wading through shit-filled water and then think they're, like, ENTITLED to something!

[William769]

13. Well shit usually flows together.

[No Exit]

15. Oh--the people floating/wading in the water were "shit"?

Why aren't you in congress, with an "R" next to your name?

[William769]

17. Thats not the piece of shit I was talking about.

And trying to paint me as a Repuke isn't going to work! :rofl:

Edit: spelling.

[No Exit]

19. I knew you'd tell me what you WEREN'T talking about.

Now tell me what you WERE talking about.

When I said "Why AREN'T you in congress with an 'R' next to your name", that means I know you AREN'T.

[LeftyMom]

12. And designer purses!

The ingrates!

:sarcasm:

[No Exit]

16. Yes--those $2000 checks could've gone to the War Effort!

Instead, the War Effort has to limp along with a measly $7,000,000,000 a month!

[NorthernSpy]

21. that whole 'Katrina victims buy luxury luggage and designer clothes!' thing was a myth...

Customs in Houston trucked in some seized counterfeit merchandise so that the people at the shelter would have clean clothes and bags to keep their stuff in.

I'm sure you know this already. I'm just pointing this out for the benefit the freeper-types who read this forum. There were some absolutely vicious urban legends circulated by the racist wing of the Right in the aftermath of the storm.


https://www.just-style.com/blogs.asp?page=7

[QC]

20. You're the only one who's mentioned race here.

But for what it's worth, COGIC is a primarily black denomination, so the congregation that gave the house is most likely black.

[NorthernSpy]

23. yes, it's a black church...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15841960/

[NorthernSpy]

14. I agree completely

While hardly the biggest villains of the ongoing Katrina saga, these two have seriously abused a significant act of good will.

Apparently, the Thompsons may not have been Katrina victims in the first place. And there are still thousands upon thousands of people out there who lost everything in the storm and who wish they could just go home again.

So yeah, this story really ticks me off!


:grr:

[No Exit]

18. If they weren't really storm victims, that's a horse of a different color.

Yet the article says they went BACK to New Orleans. If they'd lived in New Orleans at the time of the storm, they did lose something significant--virtually everyone who lived there lost property in a pretty big way. Affluent people lost property, poor people lost property.

But if they weren't victims of the storm at all, they could be prosecuted. False pretenses.

If they WERE victims of the storm, and if the church truly GAVE them the house, then I think they were pretty smart to turn a $75,000 gift into $88,000. (I do think a donation to the church would have signified some gratitude.)

The people--even those who evacuated, not to mention those who DIED-- of New Orleans went through hell and are still going through hell.

Our friend in his 70's is down there right now, on about his 3rd trip back since seeking refuge here from the storm (a trip he and his wife thought would be about a 3-day trip.) He is making one last effort to salvage what he can from his house. The house held water up to the ceilings for 3 weeks. It took weeks for things to dry, and after that it was just so much toxic mess. He has salvaged a few things. He will go back down there in December to make final arrangements to have the house gutted. His next-door neighbor's house appears to not have been touched since the storm, and the neighbor's yard is full of a small jungle of weeds which are something like 6 feet high. This was not a poor neighborhood; it was a middle-class neighborhood, all of whose people had homeowner's insurance (my friend's paid him $400), and most or all of whose people had flood insurance. Only the flood insurance paid off in his case.

Although his insurance eventually paid off, he, like everyone who fled the storm, was stuck for a time with little or no access to his money. He was one of the lucky ones: he was retired and had a pension which of course kept on paying. Our friends who worked had a harder time of it, since their employers were temporarily in disarray and so they were wondering how they could get their paychecks. I lent cash to them because, although they were not destitute, they couldn't access their stuff. Even the Whitney Bank had a temporary problem--some of the safety deposit boxes were flooded. Those who weren't already doing all their banking online were left temporarily in the lurch.

He and his wife lived here after the storm, until she died in March from cancer. I'm no expert, but I have noticed that an inordinate amount of people from Lousiana, especially along the river, get cancer of some kind. There are numerous chemical plants along the river. Have been for decades. The government (both national and local, I guess) sold out to the corporations, naturally.

[NorthernSpy]

22. they were displaced from NOLA right after the storm, but the church hasn't verified...

... whether they were actually left homeless. Not everyone's house was demolished, and if theirs wasn't, then they had no business accepting a house meant for someone whose own home had been destroyed. At this point, we just don't know.

In any case, it's clear to me that the church wanted to help a new family settle into -- and become a part of -- their community in Memphis. Setting them up with a chance to make a profitable real estate deal wasn't the intent.

We should reject the exploitative, hyper-individualistic values of the Right wherever they appear. I am a strong believer in mutual aid and mutual obligation, and those require fair dealing on the part of all involved. The Thompsons talked a church into giving them a house; then they flipped it and left. In other words, they got theirs, then got out. That's not fair dealing; actually, it's abusive and unscrupulous.


Bet all this ends up on that Dr. Phil Show...


I'm sorry your friend has had a hard time. I've got family who are Katrina victims, so I understand completely.

[Ian David]

27. If "becoming part of their community" meant becoming part of their denomination...

then what the church was attempting was using the promise of a new home to bully them into accepting their "faith."

That is, if that is what was expected.

[earth mom]

25. No-that couple are free Americans who freely chose to use something given to them

as they wished. They weren't happy so they moved. Why should they please the church or anyone but themselves? The church gave the house freely yet they're trying to control the couple after the fact. How long were they planning to control that couple for exactly? For the rest of their lives?

Kinda reminds me of how rethugs behave toward welfare recipients when they whine about how "their" tax dollars are being "wasted" on them.

[William769]

28. Kind of reminds me of two assholes.

Your subliminal message doesn't work, nice try tho.

[rpannier]

24. After reading the article

I gotta say the couple that took the house are f**k-wads.
They knew where the house was and they took it anyway.
I wish the couple nothing but the worst over the next few years.

[OnyxCollie]

26. Fools and their money.

If the couple is legit, good for them for turning a profit. Tough shit for the church. It was a gift, the couple can do whatever they want with it. However, if the couple were crooks, then they are POS dirtbags. Tough Shit for the church. They should have reconsidered their idea, or at least done better checks.

On edit: The couple are crooks, IMO.

[lynne]

30. No good deed goes unpunished -

- if it is found that this couple lied to the church about being refugees from Katrina, they should be prosecuted as it is illegal to con people. If they are actual refugees, they are the type that give all others in need a bad name and will make people think twice about donating when the next disaster hits.

That being said, the church was foolish to hand them the house. They should have purchased it and let them live in it rent free, then sold it if they no longer had a need for it.