Jackebear

Just saw this today. Darn it, I feel bad for the church group. They were so nice and this happens, just before Thanksgiving too. Of course I know thousands of people need help still but the few rotten apples like this certainly spoil the giving basket in peoples hearts. And what about another natural disaster? Groups like this, corporations and individual contributars are certainly going to think twice about helping their fellow citizen. It's a shame.

==========================================================
Couple resells home meant for Katrina victims
Church members upset by deception of apparently needy family that wasn’t
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:46 p.m. ET Nov. 21, 2006
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - 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.”

Thompson, reached at a New Orleans phone number by The Associated Press on Tuesday, thanked the church for its generosity but said she saw nothing wrong in selling the three-bedroom, two-bath house.

“Do I have any legal problems? What do you mean? The house was given to me,” she said. “I have the paperwork and everything.”

She refused further comment and hung up.

The church had decided that it would do something special for one Katrina-displaced family, in addition to its other efforts to help evacuees. The church set up a committee to find the right family and conducted several dozen interviews.

Claims of a lost job
Delores Thompson, who did most of the talking for her family, told the committee that she had lost her job as a nurse and that her husband had lost an import-export business in New Orleans, committee member Joy Covington said.

The committee also heard how the family had lost its home and most of its possessions and how the children, a 14-year-old girl and 16-year-old boy, were eager to get back in school. The family said it wanted to resettle in Memphis.

After the church settled on Thompson, real estate agent Phillips helped her pick out the house she wanted, and it was bought in Thompson’s name. She took possession in February and sold it in September. Property transfer records for the resale list her as unmarried; the papers from the original sale list her as married.

“I feel like it was a sham or a ripoff,” Covington said.

The church hasn’t discussed legal action, but the members are upset because the house could have gone to a more needy family, Covington said.

Thompson claimed she and her family were living in an apartment supplied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but did not invite Phillips over during the house search.

“She didn’t want me coming over there,” Phillips said. “She’d say, ‘I’ll meet you.”’

Covington’s husband, Edward, said the family had been listed by FEMA as displaced. But he said the church took Thompson’s word for it that their house was destroyed.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

__________________
Life's jounney is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn-out shouting, "Holy sh*t! What a ride!" - unknown

ratbastid

Generosity with conditions isn't generosity. The church expected to get new members out of it, I suspect, and they feel cheated because they didn't get what they wanted.

If I give somebody something, and they get more value and use out of it by selling it, I'm happy for them to do that.

Kaliena

I don't know about the being angry that they sold it part. I think the real anger would lie in whether this family really was displaced by Katrina and how in need they really were. Both of these conditions, I imagine, were researchable to begin with.

__________________
~Beware the waffle~

shakran

i saw the local news story on this (it's online somewhere) complete with local idiot reporter chasing the katrina victims down the street screaming at their vanishing car. Disgusting.

The church gave them the house so they could get back on their feet. Selling the house no doubt will help them do that. No it's not the outcome the church was hoping for, but to say that these people are bad for doing what they choose with their property is stupid. (let's not forget, the church GAVE it to them, it is no longer the church's property, it is the victims' property)

Carno

Uh... they gave them the house free and clear; there were no conditions on their generosity, so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

The church may have expected them to attend church, but that is neither here nor there because they gave the "couple" the house free and clear. I think the church is more upset by the fact that they may have been scammed by someone who wasn't really what they claimed to be.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Willravel

Oh, hell no. I was ready to listen to these people...maybe there's another side to this story, I figured. Nope. They are assholes, and worse, they misrepresented their situation to the church. If you apply for aid from a charitable organization, and you misrepresent yourself, they should have the right to take it back.

I'd like to see the house taken back then given to people who are actually graetful for the gift.

xepherys

How did they misrepresent themselves? I haven't seen evidence yet that they were _not_ displaced by Katrina. If there's an article that PROVES they were just scamming the church, please link/quote it. I'd certainly be interested. Until then, I'm going to have to agree 100% with ratbastid!

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Carno

I didn't say the couple aren't who they say they were.. Just that the church probably feels that way.

Also, please explain why you agree with the ridiculous idea that the church put conditions on their generosity. The couple got the house free and clear. There were no strings attached.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

ratbastid

Well, apparently there were expectations attached, at least. Like, that they'd move in there and raise a happy little family in that house for generations to come, or some crap. Expectations are just a non-binding form of conditions.

If it had been pure altruism and generosity, the church would have had no problem with the couple using the house however they wanted to use it, including selling it and using the proceeds to skip town. But there WERE strings attached--as you can see by the hurt feelings on the part of the church.

beavstrokinoff

A slimey move for sure but I would not be too upset about someone scamming the church, churches scam people every day.

Carno

No, there were no strings attached. The church had some measure of expectation maybe, but that means jack shit. The family was given the house free and clear, and they sold it legally. I'm still failing to see any of these attached strings.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

ratbastid

You're arguing with me, but I'm saying what you're saying.

It turns out that from the church's perspective, there were strings attached. Like, "We'll give you this house, but you're supposed to actually live in it." But certainly--at least, from what's been posted here--they're under no legal requirement to keep the house for any length of time. I'm not talking about legal or contractual "strings". More like the church has moral or emotional stuff hung up on this. And they probably didn't realize they did until the couple didn't do what they were "supposed to".

jorgelito

Nowhere in the article does it say that the church expected them to attend services, nor raise a little family blah, blah blah. Nor does it it state there were any other expectations of the "victim". The church has every right to have hurt feelings especially if it does indeed turn out that the "victims" are not victims at all.

The couple's excuse was lame. They didn't like the area? Then they should have said so and ask the church to buy them a house in the area they wanted to live in. The couple sounds way to shady here. We'll have to see though cause we still don't have all the facts.

If anything, there church was naive and too trusting by not doing the background checks and taking the couples word for it that they were victims of Katrina. It seems there's a lot of anti-church bias here. If this was the Red Cross that got scammed would people feel differently?

Daniel_

Hit the nail on the head.

Once you give a gift, you cannot complain about hw it's used if you were too dumb to put a caveat into the gift rules.

I personally have a concern about a church group that thought giving a house was the way to go - surely the most sensible thing to do would have been to rent out the house for a marginal fee, or let people live in it for nothing, if theyre worried that someone else has profitted by it.

Could also be sour grapes - the church gave a 75g house that was sold for 88g - nice return.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

ratbastid

But what's the "scam"? Nothing has said that the couple WASN'T actually destitute. What's the church "out" here? They helped some people! Isn't that enough? Wasn't that the whole point? What more do they want?

The absurdity of this... The church watches the house they bought for this couple get sold, and suddenly, oh my god, we could have helped somebody really needy. Were they even a couple? Did they even need a house? Oh my god. We've been HAD!

Now, this couple... they've got an attitude, now that God, Jesus, and the TV News are all chasing them around scolding them for doing what they did. I'd probably have an attitude too, at that point! The only thing I can fault them for (in the absence of evidence of actual wrongdoing) is poor self-control in front of the media. But, frankly, the 99.9% of us with no media training probably wouldn't do much better.

Mister Coaster

I think the main concern here is the fact that the family in question...

A. Might not BE married or an actual family
B. May not have been displaced by Katrina
C. May have been scamming the whole thing from the word "go."

I realize that these are all maybes at this point, if they genuinely were a family and their home destroyed by Katrina, then I see no fault for them selling it. But a lot of their story seems shaky, shaky enough that someone may want to get to the bottom of it after the fact. And if it was all a scam, then boo on them. And boo on the church for not looking far enough into their background story.

__________________
If you have any poo... fling it NOW!

Carno

I was arguing your point where you said the church wasn't generous. They gave away a $75K house for absolutely nothing. I'd say that's damn generous.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Willravel

And that generosity was used to make a quick buck. Actually, a lot of quick bucks. The idea behind the gif is part of what makes a gift so wonderful. If I give someone a great book that I know they'll love, then they turn around and sell it...I have every right to be pissed, and, more importantly, I have every right not to want to give gifts anymore because people seem uninterested in thoughfulness. Bottom line: it's wrong. I don't care about this 'conditionless giving', of which there is no such thing. We all expect at least grattitude upon giving a gift, thberefore it's never 100% altruistic. I think it was made clear that this was an effort to give a home, not $88,000, to a family in need. I think that the family should donate the $88,000 to victims of Katrena.

ratbastid

Okay, and I'm saying: there's clearly something they wanted out of it. We can see that because, having not gotten what they wanted, they're now all upset. That makes it not generosity, but investment.

I'm not saying it was a bad thing to do or that they're not generous, good people. I AM saying that we human beings are weird about our motivations a lot of the time.

xepherys

D. They may be devil worshippers
E. They may be Jews
F. They may be *gasp* ATHEISTS
G. They may be wealthy
H. They may not floss
I. They may br alcoholics
J. ...

Why does any of this matter? There are only accusations, and no proof of wrong-doing. They may or may not be anything... none of us, nor the media nor the church, it seems, actually KNOWS. Why alwasy assume the worst?

I don't agree with this, really. I don't EXPECT gratitude for anything. It's nice when it happens. When it doesn't *shrug*. Also, if the family was destitute, they did donate the $88,000 to victims of Katrina... themselves! Why is that so different?

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Carno

Was the family legally required to attend the church, or legally required to stay in the home for a certain period of time? Were they legally required to do anything in return for the house?

No.

Gratitude is obviously a given, but that's hardly a legally binding condition.

Wtf? If you gave someone a $75K house, you wouldn't expect gratitude for it??

So if you gave me a hundred bucks, and all I said was, "Damn right bitch, you better give me that fucking money," you wouldn't be at least annoyed that I didn't say thanks??

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

ShaniFaye

The church bought the house and gave it to them, so yes they are "out" something...mainly the 75k it cost to buy the house. If the couple didnt "want" to live there, they should have given it back to the church so they could have helped another needy family.

I have no problem believing they "scammed" the church. Lord knows there was enough of that going on here when the red cross set up their centers here to help the Katrina refugees. People from the area and NOT new orleans were taking and taking and reselling or using the money or housing in non katrina affiliated ways.

RB I just cant wrap my mind around your way of thinking, what these people did was wrong wrong wrong. If the church wanted anything out of it, it was to help a truly needy family and they got scammed. The motivations of the "family" are what need to be scrutinized, NOT the church. The churches here do LOTS to help the needy, free clothes, help with paying bills, free groceries etc without expecting one single thing in return, including service attendance...and I know cause I've been on the "giving" end and the only thing that was ever said when the "gift" was given was...one day when you're on your feet maybe you can do like kind.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Daniel_

What if they'd lived there for 10 years and sold it for a huge profit?

Would that be wrong?

See - a gift means you own the thing. So surely you can sell it?

What shocks me is that the church were naiive enough to be shocked. In this country (UK) it would be inconceivable that a church would give a house to one family, when the same money could be used to rent property for ten families.

Even if they were going to gift a house to one family, they'd likely lease it for a tiny rent, not give it over.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Mister Coaster

The difference is there is no law against any of your examples, fraud is against the law. If they faked being a family, faked being displaced by Katrina and faked losing their jobs, that's fraud... and it's illegal. Just because they pulled this on a church and not the government or business doesen't make it OK. You are correct in stating that right now they are accusations and no proof exists, (which I already stated in my other post) but the situation itself warrents it being looked into further. SOMETHING is not on the up and up.

__________________
If you have any poo... fling it NOW!

SirLance

I think the issue here is that the church decided to give a very generous gift to a displaced family, and they went through a selection process, and apparently were deliberately misled. The issue is not expectations, but rather that people actually in need were deprived by a couple of con artists. It is clear from the quotes that the church didn't object to the sale, but rather that they are concerned that these people misrepresented themselves.

__________________
DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

ratbastid

Carno--I don't understand why you're doing this dance with me. I'm not saying there was anything formal or legally binding about the strings that were attached to this gift. Obviously there wasn't, I never claimed there was. They were completely one-sided strings of expectation. I've said that like four times now.

It's clear that there was something the church members expected from the house recipients. You can see that from how upset they are now.

Is this hard to follow? It seems very straightforward to me.

I'm not saying it wasn't a great thing to do. It was (though I'm with Daniel, I sort of would rather they'd broken that money up and given less to lots more people). I'm just saying I don't see the uproar over it. There's no evidence that's been posted so far that anything underhanded took place. Instead I see a congregation that didn't see the gratitude they expected, and so now they're in Suspicion Mode. I see a family that's on the defensive because so many people are cursing their name. None of that is what Jesus would do.

I guess I'm just not rushing to judgment on this one, is all.

What if the church DID help a needy family? What if that money was a total godsend for them, allowing them to go resume their lives in New Orleans? Isn't that just as possible as them being con artists?

Look, set aside the whole "church's motivation" thing. That was one thing I said early in this thread, and it grew out of all proportion, so let's drop it. I just don't think we can condemn the family without knowing more.

ShaniFaye

Well unless she got a divorce in the 7 month interim, there is indeed something underhanded going on since she claimed to be married when she got the house, but unmarried when she sold it

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

ratbastid

Fair enough.

EDIT (cause I'm too damn dumb to leave well enough alone): I guess what surprises me about this is how quick people are to condemn the family without having heard their side of it. And I can understand how the family would be in batten-down-the-hatches mode, given the national spotlight they're suddenly in.

Maybe it's just that I'm not automatically pro-church that I'm not instantly shocked and suspicious about this. I hope I'm not too automatically anti-church either--I just know that a church is an institution made up of well-meaning but human human beings, and I don't grant it any automatic passes just because it's got a cross and a steeple. I've seen churches make real differences in people's lives, and I've seen churches do some stupid things.

I believe Jesus would have been happy for the family, and wished them well in their new live in New Orleans. :shrug: I dunno. This whole thing seems to me like a lot of hubbub over not very much. Which is also how this thread seems to me (now that I've posted in it a dozen times and stirred up a whole bunch of mess... ).

Daniel_

Oops.

OK - that smells fishy.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

ShaniFaye

for anyone that wants to see the on camera interview

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=5.7.1

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

ktspktsp

Well, unless they faked being victims of Katrina (and ok, that whole married/unmarried thing is fishy), then I don't see what's wrong. A house is a monetary asset given to them, they can sell it and live elsewhere if they want...

I guess there still isn't enough information about this.

ratbastid

Well! That's a much more thorough piece than the one in the OP. Nobody came off looking very good in that story, I'm afraid.

The family sounded at least very defensive. The husband should have kept his ass off camera--he was jumping in there to save his wife, but he just made it a bunch worse. And the news piece was clearly edited to make them look as foolish as possible (and they did have a reporter pushing a microphone in their faces). Not that they did themselves any favors, but still.

The church members sounded whiny and accusatory. Not a great position for a church to take.

The part I was really listening for was at the end: The church said they gave them the house with the understanding that they were moving to Memphis. That might have gone without saying, considering they were buying a house and all, or the couple might have said it explicitly. Either way the church didn't have anything on paper about that, of course, so there's nothing illegal in what this couple has done. I guess the morality of it is arguable, though.

jorgelito

Rat, I actually thought the opposite, that people were condemning the church, not the family.

I don't think there ever was an issue of legality (unless it's fraud) but rather more of a "scummy thing to do to people trying to help you out" mentality (assuming the principals were indeed shady). On the face of it, it does seem like they scammed the church.

Beneath the surface, the church aspect should be irrelevant because similar scams happened to Red Cross etc. That's why it so shocking for people to jump on the church's case when they're just trying to help out. I guess the bottom line, it just seems like the "victims" played the church in bad faith.

ShaniFaye

I find it very hard to believe they are married, that man is gay IMO

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

caver

Just from the description, it seems clear that the couple were running a scam.
Scammers are evil, Die scammer Die!!

However, the blame for this can be placed entirely on the church for not doing their homework. It is incredibly irresponsible to make a gesture this huge, and not verify the background of the recipients. I also think the outright giving,
is just dumb. There are too many different options available.

Giving a "gift" of this value without due diligence only encourages other
evil scammers to join in. It also makes other organiziations less likely to help out.

__________________
"They misunderestimated me."

"You never let the crack whore tie you up on the first date." (The_Jazz)

Infinite_Loser

The couple's excuse for selling the house was "We don't like the area!" and some of you are defending that??? That's fucking unbelievable. I know people displaced by hurricane Katrina who not only lost everything but still don't have a place to stay and would take any house they get right now.

The couple said that they wanted to resettle in Memphis but after the received the house they sold it under the pretenses that they didn't like the area. I don't care if the couple was given the house free-of-charge; They had absolutely no intent of staying there and that house could have been given to someone who really needed it. End. Of. Story.

Edit: I believe in poetic justice. I sincerely hope that couple moves into a new house and it burns down. It'd serve them right.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

It's good to agree with people you don't normally agree with sometimes. IL: I couldn't agree more. These people are liars and cheats, and I hope Robin Hood steals their $88,000 and gives it to the real victims of Katrena.

little_tippler

I agree that aside from all the rationalization we can make regarding the conditions of the gift, this just feels like a scam, and a nasty way to deceive people, particularly after such a great tragedy that involved so much loss as Katrina.

Anyone see the thread Clavus made about reverse warning labels? I agree that maybe we do need to do some natural selection of our own!

__________________
Whether we write or speak or do but look
We are ever unapparent. What we are
Cannot be transfused into word or book.
Our soul from us is infinitely far.
However much we give our thoughts the will
To be our soul and gesture it abroad,
Our hearts are incommunicable still.
In what we show ourselves we are ignored.
The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged
By any skill of thought or trick of seeming.
Unto our very selves we are abridged
When we would utter to our thought our being.
We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams,
And each to each other dreams of others' dreams.

Fernando Pessoa, 1918

yournamehere

The church got scammed. Period.
The same way generous people get scammed when they give money to a "homeless" beggar, only to see him drinking away the money.

The only defense against such people is a healthy dose of cynicism.
Defending them just reinforces their immorality.

They took away something that could have been put to good use by a truly needy family, and that's inexcusable, IMHO.

__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

Brewmaniac

I agree with this, the church reviewed several needy families and although maybe this "loose family"(and there's millions of them) may actually have been struggling, this Delores Thompson must have really played the church committee for them to be chosen.

To turn and coldly sell it without any remorse or gratitude is wrong period!

Maybe under the law it's there's no crime, but how could they live with themselves!

I don't know what this world is coming to?

__________________
"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"