 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / November 2006Katrina "Victims" Sell Free House (OT)
This happened "in my own back yard" so to speak. I saw the original news story a week ago and now it's been picked up by The Associated Press and other national media - this was published by the Chicago Sun-Times today. No offense to Catnipped or anyone else whose family and friends has truly suffered from this monster hurricane. But is it any wonder so many "victims" of Katrina are being thought of in such a bad light? http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/145838,CST-NWS-kat22.article November 22, 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 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. AP *************************************************** When I saw the original news report a week ago I was appalled. The members of the church said they had 50 families to choose from but based on the sob story from this "family" they gave the house to them. The couple never even moved in. Not only that, but they were never legally married even though the represented themselves as husband and wife. In the news report I saw on television, they had also stated they had a couple of children but it's now in doubt as to whether they did, even though they showed up at the church with a couple of children as "a family". Their idea was to take the money and run, obviously. Initially when the news broke the couple refused to be interviewed. Then they showed up, I suppose expecting something better than the reporter gave them. First the woman said she'd never intended to live in Memphis even though she's been living here with friends since the evacuation. Then the woman said she "didn't like the area" where the house was located. The real estate agent who was working with the church clearly stated she'd shown the woman and her "family" a number of houses and this was one the woman had chosen herself. The woman then got all belligerent when their marital status was questioned on the deed of sale since the free house was to be made available by the church for a family including a husband a wife and children or a single parent with children who needed shelter. She even got belligerant about the *amount* they sold the house for, saying the court records lied when it said they sold it for $88,000. Heh. The sad part is the church, when it purchased the house with contributions by church members, never put a clause in the contract stating the recipients could NOT sell the house without ever living in it. So the church can't legally recoup the money all the members of the congregation contributed OR get the house back since it was legally sold by the "owners". Bad lawyership, that. It's no wonder some people think many of the "victims" are not victims at all. Jill > This happened "in my own back yard" so to speak. I saw the original news > story a week ago and now it's been picked up by The Associated Press and [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Jill I wish to *hxll* that the media would NOT focus on stories like this one. Yes, (if the facts are true) it was not right for the couple to flip the house. But I don't know all the facts, and neither does any else, really; except the parties involved. But when the media focuses on stories like this one, it is just going to make it harder for the honest, hardworking folks (like Lori's daughter) to get the help they deserve the next time something happens. There was a story here that was about the same, only less money was involved. A deal where an alleged Katrina victim really took advantage of kind hearted people. It was splashed all over the news for days. Too much of that thrown in our faces, and we'll all be afraid to help each other at all. Sherry Sherry >> This happened "in my own back yard" so to speak. I saw the original >> news story a week ago and now it's been picked up by The Associated [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Sherry This was not splashed all over the media locally for days; I'm surprised it was picked up by the AP. I'm not afraid to help people. Even in my impoverished state I try to give to people who are worse off than I am. But this is TRASH PEOPLE who are scamming folks who are honestly trying to help real victims The Memphis news media has not been focusing on this sort of thing. It's the first in my area I've heard of. But I don't doubt it's the only story. My point was, as you know, people who pretend to be victims are scamming from honest victimized people. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. Let the GIVER beware in this or any other charitable offers. $75,000 is a heck of a lot of money and the fact that these scammers flipped a free house for a $13,000 profit and get away scot-free deserves media attention. If nothing else, perhaps the next people/church/organization they go on to scam will be alerted. And perhaps the people who are giving will have their lawyer draw up a more iron-clad contract so that they have some recourse. I'd hate to think they decide never to be charitable again. Jill > >> This happened "in my own back yard" so to speak. I saw the original > >> news story a week ago and now it's been picked up by The Associated [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Jill It's true that people do need to be aware, on second thought. And when the next tragedy happens, if people are wary about donating to others for fear their money is not being used in the way they intended it, it will be the fault of the scammers, not the media. I don't see how it's possible to deed ownership to real property over and still retain the right to tell them what they can do with it, without retaining partial ownership (which would likely involve liablity issues they wouldn't want) You can probably answer this, didn't you work in real estate? I doubt the church members would decide not to be charitable again. They know they'll be blessed for it regardless of what the recipient does. I imagine they'll check more thoroughly next time though, *beforehand*. Probably good advice for anyone; whether you give directly or through an agency. Sherry > It's true that people do need to be aware, on second thought. And when > the next tragedy happens, if people are wary about donating to others > for fear their money is not being used in the way they intended it, it > will be the fault of the scammers, not the media. The real crime, IMO, is that so many people in that situation are completely dependent on charity. Why do we not have the social and economic structures in place to help people who lost their homes through no fault of their own? This is not to say that people shouldn't donate to charity - especially in situations where there *is* no social safety net. But I still think it's important to ask the question. Charity isn't the answer. Joyce > I don't see how it's possible to deed ownership to real property over > and still retain the right to tell them what they can do with it, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sherry I know when Mom and Dad signed the property over to me rather than sell it (and since I've built a home beside their original house) the contract included an easement(?) that Dad has right-to-use on a certain percentage for so long as he shall live. It boiled down to a contractual inheritance issue. It's his until he dies, and then automatically I "reclaim" sole use. I believe with a really good real estate lawyer, perhaps one that deals with Habitat for Humanity, the church would have been better advised on how to properly protect their investment while performing community service. After just a bit of search (learned way too much real estate law in the last couple weeks) apparently what we're discussing is called "deed restrictions". http://www.pgaol.msu.edu/gift_planning_with_real_estate.html This one sounds interesting. Five minutes and I can see several places where they should have been able to retain some form of repossession if the owners attempted to sell within a certain period without retaining liability. Who knows. :) Grace > > I don't see how it's possible to deed ownership to real property over > > and still retain the right to tell them what they can do with it, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Grace Good stuff, Gracie, thanks for posting. It appears to apply to gifts to organizations. I wonder if the same thing applies to gifts to individuals. Real estate law is complicated, but really interesting. Read your abstract sometime if you never had. It's fascinating, just from a historical viewpoint. You know, those church members really had a wonderful intent, and it's a real testament to their generosity that they were able come together and buy that house. I thought it would have been neat if they could have made the home available to the alleged Katrina victims for as long as they needed to get back on their feet. *That* alone would be such a wonderful thing to do for someone. Of course then they'd always be responsible for taxes, insurance, repairs and stuff, but still it's a good thought. Sherry >> I don't see how it's possible to deed ownership to real property over >> and still retain the right to tell them what they can do with it, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Who knows. :) The way I read the story, all the scam artists are walking away with is the $13,000 difference between what the church paid for the property and what they turned around and sold the property for. Not the entire sales price. It wasn't clear and I'm not certain about that. We can always hope they don't pay the taxes due on their ill gotten gain and go to jail for tax fraud, or better yet get a huge fine. (Why should the taxpayers pay to feed and house them) I know that Habitat houses and sweat equity houses that are built in this area have restrictions on resale for a period of years but I'm not really sure how they deal with an increase in equity. People aren't always nice, and sometimes the nice people forget that. I kind of like the motto "in God we trust, everyone else we investigate" but then I'm an auditor at heart. Jo >>> I don't see how it's possible to deed ownership to real property >>> over and still retain the right to tell them what they can do with [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > is the $13,000 difference between what the church paid for the > property and what they turned around and sold the property for. *all they are walking away with*.... why should they walk away with anything?! They never intended to live in the house. They defrauded the church, pretending to be a needy family, accepted a free house and turned around and sold it. They didn't put $75,000 into the house, the members of the church did. The recipients sold it for $88,000. I'm not sure how that equates to them only making a $13,000 profit since they put absolutely nothing into the purchase of the house themselves. Sounds to me like they got $88,000 out of it. Jill > >> I believe with a really good real estate lawyer, perhaps one that > >> deals with Habitat for Humanity, the church would have been better > >> advised on how to properly protect their investment while performing > >> community service. Indeed. DP says I'm paranoid the way I investigate and lay in clauses etc to cover my butt, but there's times I've been glad I didn't put my faith in the honour of others. I think it just goes to show how careful one has to be about things such as background checks, legal clauses, etc. I wonder if the church did credit check, background investigation, etc on these people. I also wonder if it's legal to refuse to transfer ownership unless the person accepting agrees to actually live there....it ought to be, I think. I found out that if I want to give my friend my car when I get a new one, I have to pay taxes on the "profit" I make from the car to the tune of the car's actual book value. So, even if I sold the car to him for a dollar, I wouldn't pay 14 cents, I'd have to pay in taxes what the car is actually worth--which granted is probably not a lot, but more than 14 cents. --Fil >>>> I believe with a really good real estate lawyer, perhaps one that >>>> deals with Habitat for Humanity, the church would have been better [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > --Fil Really? I guess I owe the Canadian govt. taxes then because I did give my car to my friend when we moved to Thailand. I didn't even charge him a dollar, just signed it over as a gift. Never heard another thing about it and doubt I will now, but it never even occurred to me that I couldn't give my car do whomever I pleased without being dinged for taxes.  SignatureBritta Purring is an automatic safety valve device for dealing with happiness overflow. Check out pictures of Vino at: http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album "badwilson" <badSPAMwilson@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Really? I guess I owe the Canadian govt. taxes then because I did give my > car to my friend when we moved to Thailand. I didn't even charge him a > dollar, just signed it over as a gift. Never heard another thing about it > and doubt I will now, but it never even occurred to me that I couldn't > give my car do whomever I pleased without being dinged for taxes. Sadly, if that happened in the states and you moved back as an old white haired woman.... the amount you'd owe from taxes, not to mention being held accountable for "tax evasion"... Ow. The system is boggling at times. Stupidity at work. Grace > "badwilson" <badSPAMwilson@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ow. The system is boggling at times. Stupidity at work. In the USA you could owe a federal gift tax if the gift was worth more than $12,000. The gift tax exists to prevent avoidance of the the federal estate tax by giving your estate to your heirs while you are still living. There are also state taxes to consider. I suppose other countries with death duties would have similar gift or transfer taxes. I can't give you anything but love, baby. It's the only thing I've plenty of, baby. Bud > In the USA you could owe a federal gift tax if the gift was > worth more than $12,000. The gift tax exists to prevent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suppose other countries with death duties would have similar > gift or transfer taxes. Indeed. In the UK, it IS possible to give a large gift, such as a property, to your heirs - or anyone else - but only if you survive for seven more years after the date of the gift. If cash is given as a gift, I believe the limit is £7,000 (about $13,500 US) per annum. SignatureMatSav >I found out that if I want to give my friend my car when I get a new >one, I have to pay taxes on the "profit" I make from the car to the >tune of the car's actual book value. So, even if I sold the car to him >for a dollar, I wouldn't pay 14 cents, I'd have to pay in taxes what >the car is actually worth--which granted is probably not a lot, but >more than 14 cents. But wouldn't any profit normally be negative in that situation? Since the definition of profit is revenue minus expenses, if you bought a car for $10k some time ago, and you managed to sell it for the current book value of $3k, then your profit would be -$7k. >>>> I believe with a really good real estate lawyer, perhaps one that >>>> deals with Habitat for Humanity, the church would have been better [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > --Fil That doesn't sound right. Under U.S. law the taxes are paid by the recipient, not by the giver, but there *are* limits to "gifting" (which I don't understand - if it's yours you should be able to give it away if you want with no penalty). > >>>> I believe with a really good real estate lawyer, perhaps one that > >>>> deals with Habitat for Humanity, the church would have been better [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > don't understand - if it's yours you should be able to give it away if you > want with no penalty). I believe the limits pertain only to income taxes owed by the recipient. In OK a parent is allowed to gift a child up to ten thousand per year without the child paying taxes on it. I"m not sure whether this also applies to nonrelated people. Sherry >> >>>> I believe with a really good real estate lawyer, perhaps one that >> >>>> deals with Habitat for Humanity, the church would have been better [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Sherry Its more than $10000 (annual limit) now and it applies to anyone. The person getting a gift NEVER pays tax on it. If you are gifting more than the annual limit to anyone it doesn't mean you have to pay tax on it. It only means you have to file an information return to keep track of it. There are some really high lifetime limits it you are rich. If you have lots and lots of money, call a tax attorney and learn exactly what the rules are and how to keep track of them. Jo Jo >> I found out that if I want to give my friend my car when I get a new >> one, I have to pay taxes on the "profit" I make from the car to the >> tune of the car's actual book value. So, even if I sold the car to >> him for a dollar, I wouldn't pay 14 cents, I'd have to pay in taxes >> what the car is actually worth--which granted is probably not a lot, >> but more than 14 cents. > That doesn't sound right. Under U.S. law the taxes are paid by the > recipient, not by the giver, but there *are* limits to "gifting" (which I > don't understand - if it's yours you should be able to give it away if you > want with no penalty). But Fil is Canadian. Maybe they do things different 'round those parts. Joyce > > That doesn't sound right. Under U.S. law the taxes are paid by the > > recipient, not by the giver, but there *are* limits to "gifting" (which I > > don't understand - if it's yours you should be able to give it away if you > > want with no penalty). > > But Fil is Canadian. Maybe they do things different 'round those parts. I think it has to do with insurance...ie, if I'm insured for the car being worth $1000, if I sell it for less, I've still transferred ownership of something worth more. Therefore, I should sell it for what the insurance people say it's worth, (or else tell the insurance company that I only value my car at a buck, and if I wreck it, all they owe me is a dollar.) Though come to think of it, I don't purchase the insurance that replaces the vehicle for me--I'm only insured for damages to myself, other people, or the other car. I stopped insuring the value of my car when it got to be 10 years old. The car's now 12, and I'd be paying more in insurance dollars every year than the vehicle is actually worth. I'm going to look into that more though, rather than take the word of someone who knew someone else who sold a car....will try to talk to a lawyer or some such if I actually decide to part with the car. To be honest, right now I think I'll drive it into the ground...it's in very good condition for its age and gets great mileage. --Fil > I think it has to do with insurance...ie, if I'm insured for the car > being worth $1000, if I sell it for less, I've still transferred > ownership of something worth more. OK, but in that case, it would make more sense to me that the person who buys the car should pay the tax - they are the one receiving the item that is worth more than they're paying for it! Joyce >> >> I believe with a really good real estate lawyer, perhaps one that >> >> deals with Habitat for Humanity, the church would have been better [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > --Fil Either you don't live in the US or you have been using the car for business and have deducted its cost on your taxes. Or the above is mistaken. Jo (retired CPA) > I found out that if I want to give my friend my car when I get a new > one, I have to pay taxes on the "profit" I make from the car to the > tune of the car's actual book value. So, even if I sold the car to him > for a dollar, I wouldn't pay 14 cents, I'd have to pay in taxes what > the car is actually worth--which granted is probably not a lot, but > more than 14 cents. Wow! I'm quite sure it's not that way in the US. You have to pay taxes if you're selling things as part of a for-profit business, but not if you just want to get rid of an item you owned and used. Joyce >> I don't see how it's possible to deed ownership to real property over >> and still retain the right to tell them what they can do with it, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Grace That's exactly what I was thinking. The real estate agent the church utilized was simply an agent who is a member of the church, not a real estate attorney. There are plenty of real estate lawyers out there who would have (should have) drawn up the contract differently, exactly according to what you site, Grace. Jill > Let the GIVER beware in this or any other charitable offers. $75,000 is a > heck of a lot of money and the fact that these scammers flipped a free house [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lawyer draw up a more iron-clad contract so that they have some recourse. > I'd hate to think they decide never to be charitable again. The sellers are going to be hit for about $20,000 in taxes if they bother to file, and more in interest and penalties - including perhaps a stretch in federal prison - if they don't. Bud >> Let the GIVER beware in this or any other charitable offers. >> $75,000 is a heck of a lot of money and the fact that these scammers [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bud Heh. I'm pretty sure they've changed identities by now and are on their way to scamming some other innocent people out of another house or whatever else they can get their hands on. Sad, isn't it? And they were not in the least repentent, indeed, tried to justify their actions on camera (I saw them). Jill ... ...> Let the GIVER beware in this or any other charitable offers. $75,000 is a heck of a lot of money and the fact that these scammers flipped a free house for a $13,000 profit and get away scot-free deserves media attention. ... > Jill They've been identified. I'll bet they get the attention of the IRS. Most likely, not only the $75,000 is taxable as income, in addition the $13,000 also will kick in capital gains tax. If the scammers conveniently "forget" to declare it as income, the IRS there will be hefty penalties. When it happens, maybe the scammers will again get media attention, this time that crime doesn't always pay. I hope so. Annie > The sad part is the church, when it purchased the house with > contributions by church members, never put a clause in the contract > stating the recipients could NOT sell the house without ever living in > it. So the church can't legally recoup the money all the members of > the congregation contributed OR get the house back since it was > legally sold by the "owners". Bad lawyership, that. But if the representations of the 'impoverished' people were fraudulent, they have a case. Chak SignatureI've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I usually make the right decision. --Maya Angelou >> The sad part is the church, when it purchased the house with >> contributions by church members, never put a clause in the contract [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Chak I think they are going to pursue it but I'm not sure. I certainly hope they do. People like this just make others hesitant to help others. Jill > This happened "in my own back yard" so to speak. I saw the original news > story a week ago and now it's been picked up by The Associated Press and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > went out to them,'' said Jean Phillips, a real estate agent and member of > the Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ. You know, IMHO, when people give gifts, its really only a *gift* if it is given with no strings attached, otherwise it is a 'transaction'. Once the house was owned by the couple, they were free and clear to do whatever the heck they wanted with it. They made a nice profit on it, so in fact the church should be happy that they used their God-given ingenuity to increase the value of the gift that was given to them, so that perhaps they can now have a house *and* some furniture, or food or fittings or clothes or... well, whatever they felt was necessary. As to whether they were *legally* man & wife or not..... I seem to recall someone important warning the people not to judge others, and to love one's neighbours, not to 'look after neighbours who only meet certain legal or moral requirements'. True, they may have been scam artists, but they may have just been smart people who wisely used the resources that they were *freely* given. Since I don't know what was in their hearts when they sold the house, I am not going to sit in judgement of them. Nor am I going to stop being charitable just because some people take advantage of that generosity. Yowie > You know, IMHO, when people give gifts, its really only a *gift* if it is > given with no strings attached, otherwise it is a 'transaction'. > Once the house was owned by the couple, they were free and clear to do > whatever the heck they wanted with it. They made a nice profit on it, so in > fact the church should be happy that they used their God-given ingenuity to > increase the value of the gift that was given to them Thank you, Yowie! This is how I felt about this, but as usual, you said it so well! > As to whether they were *legally* man & wife or not..... I seem to recall > someone important warning the people not to judge others, and to love one's > neighbours, not to 'look after neighbours who only meet certain legal or > moral requirements'. That part really bugged me! I even wrote up a post about that, but didn't send it because I wasn't sure I had all my facts straight. However, I don't think much of someone who will only help out this or that type of person. > True, they may have been scam artists, but they may have just been smart > people who wisely used the resources that they were *freely* given. Since I > don't know what was in their hearts when they sold the house, I am not going > to sit in judgement of them. Nor am I going to stop being charitable just > because some people take advantage of that generosity. Brava! Joyce > This happened "in my own back yard" so to speak. I saw the original news > story a week ago and now it's been picked up by The Associated Press and [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Jill While the scammers are making illicit profits and turning public opinion against all Katrina victims, the true innocents are getting screwed yet again. First a bit of background. Katrina victims were allowed to not pay taxes last year - and in addition to this were paid back the taxes they paid the two years before that. Also, FEMA gave $25,000 to people who weren't qualified for a Small Business Association low-interest loan and $10,000 to people who were qualified for an SBA loan (for loss of all content in their homes). The American Red Cross, despite the billions of dollars donated to it for Katrina, didn't give anyone anything aside from the $350 given a few days after the storm. This year the federal government gave the affected states $12 billion to finance the "Road Home" project. This would give all families who lost their home enough to pay off their mortgage (which, even if every family were given $150,000 - which they won't be - would still only come to about $2 billion... anyone want to guess where the rest of it will go???). Now it's just been revealed that not only will those given this money have to pay taxes on it - that would be bad enough - but they will have a choice... either pay back the three years they got in "forgiven" taxes *WITH* penalties and interest, or they could add the money on their tax for as additional income - which would knock them into a higher tax bracket and make them pay more taxes on *ALL* of their income, disqualify them for any homestead exemptions they may have, and even cause the discontinuing of some social security benefits. Tell me, how mean-spirited and chintzy can a government be to its own people????! SignatureHugs, CatNipped See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/ > While the scammers are making illicit profits and turning public opinion > against all Katrina victims, the true innocents are getting screwed yet [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > CatNipped You expect this sort of behaviour from the government, but not a charity like the red cross. Did the Red Cross ever explain what they used the money for? Dewi. >> While the scammers are making illicit profits and turning public opinion >> against all Katrina victims, the true innocents are getting screwed yet [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Dewi. What would you expect from an organization that would *SELL* insulin that was donated to them! Here are some related articles, and it appears that they're claiming that "volunteers" misappropriated funds - but this is much larger than what volunteers could do, this has to be happening at a much higher level... http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N14/14long1.html http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Investigation_finds_Red_Cross_agreed_to_withho ld_New_Orleans_aid_operates_in_tandem_with_Home_0913.html or http://tinyurl.com/yz86w7 http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/03/red-cross-investigates-internal-fraud.html SignatureHugs, CatNipped See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/ > > You expect this sort of behaviour from the government, but not a > > charity like the red cross. Did the Red Cross ever explain what they [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > CatNipped That's bl**dy appalling. Although not scandalous like the red cross story, when I was a young teenager (back in the late '80s) we lived in Ethiopia for a little while. Whist there, the CEO of World Vision visited Ethiopia where he was put up at the Hilton Hotel. That really disgusted me, as many of the volunteers and workers of this and other organisations stayed in more humble settings, as they well should. Ever since then I've been wary about donating money to large organisations that provide humanitarian support. I much prefer to donate to more grass roots humanitarian organisations as most don't have enough money to squander and less will get wasted on the actual running the organisation. Dewi >>> You expect this sort of behaviour from the government, but not a >>> charity like the red cross. Did the Red Cross ever explain what they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N14/14long1.html http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Investigation_finds_Red_Cross_agreed_to_withho ld_New_Orleans_aid_operates_in_tandem_with_Home_0913.html >> or http://tinyurl.com/yz86w7 http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/03/red-cross-investigates-internal-fraud.html >> -- >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Dewi That doesn't surprise me. I remember reading an article in the 1970's which said more than 50% of Rolls Royce cars sold in Britain were bought by charities. I would imagine not much has changed. SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy and Bagheera) Cats leave pawprints on your heart. http://community.webshots.com/user/clowderuk >>> While the scammers are making illicit profits and turning public opinion >>> against all Katrina victims, the true innocents are getting screwed yet [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > "volunteers" misappropriated funds - but this is much larger than what > volunteers could do, this has to be happening at a much higher level... If the misappropriation of funds across the country was anything like what happened in California, it could be really large. The only way they caught what was happening here, was it just wasn't statistically believable that all that many people from New Orleans had made their way to Fresno California of all places to apply for aid. Unsupervised "volunteers" were passing out vouchers to everyone they knew. Jo |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.