The homeless man suing for the 400K from the GoFundMe page. Watch who you "fund" - General Discussion Discussion

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

And you were just made for the
Ignore button.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

why? For discussing the topical news?

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

Yeah... I don't know why people are to quick to fund anything. Also happens a lot in Kickstarters. Well, if you want to help fund a homeless man and the raised fund is already 10,000 up why would you add even more donations? Why would a homeless man needs 400,000?? Giving money excessively would only make matters worse. Just ask any lottery winners.

Large amount of money also change people. Maybe the couple really wanted to help at first, but after seeing 400,000 they changed their mind. It's human nature. If the money raised was maybe 4,000 I bet the couple had already gave it to the homeless man. And the guy would probably already be thankful. The people giving away their money excessively is not really helping.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

Well, actionkmen,
See my post on this page about Dawn Wells. People, with exceptions, are sheepish. And I agree with what you said. However, it's doesn't always make matters worse, as long as the recipient handles their money with common sense.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

Which no homeless man would do if they were given 400,000 overnight. Even the couple which aren't homeless couldn't resist the temptation. Common sense is actually not very common.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

Not everyone is tempted by greed and being unethical, though most people may be self-absorbed. When you say it's not common, I'm not sure what percentage of people you mean. If I was given 400K, I would invest it to eventually be financially secure. The lottery winners you hear about in the news who lost it all is the reason they are in the news--the ones who did make good with their winnings are not newsworthy. When you cite the homeless man, he wasn't always homeless, and may be any one of us who is living paycheck to paycheck and one step way from being homeless.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

You are overestimating common sense and underestimating human nature.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

It depends on HOW much you think I am underestimating/overestimating. Human nature , for some people, means they have morals and do not insist on alimony ,shoplift, scam their credit card, exploit their boss, lie to get handouts,etc. (that is also a form of greed). But, again, the media advertises the rotten people because it's sensationalism, not the honest folks who have a conscience.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 6 years ago

If he made good decisions he wouldn't be homeless so giving him $400k would be stupid IMO.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 6 years ago

The 400k should have gone in a trust for the given recipient, so he wouldn't have access the to the full amount right away, but it would still be his. The people whole stole that money need to pay the price.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

Well, the GoFundMe page was for funding the couple to help the homeless man, not directly for him. The couple has the right to how they "distribute" the fund the best way.

Who's to judge what is the best way to help a homeless person? A judge, apparently.

Why don't the donators read first before giving excessive amount of money? Hmm...

Let see how the lawsuit came out.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 6 years ago

Cops wouldn't have raided their home if they did nothing wrong.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

I didn't say they did nothing wrong. There are indications that they misused the funds. However, it's not ours to judge, but, well, a judge. Being raided by cops doesn't mean someone is already guilty.

So let's see how this turns out in the eyes of the law.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

That's an interesting perspective, that's for sure. You think EVERY person who hits it big in the Lottery turns into King Midas? I guess these once well-meaning people didn't like the consequences of their actions and couldn't bear to see it through. Heck, they could generously over-see the largess and make sure the fellow has his immediate needs met. I know it might get sticky since he's an adult, but it sounds like he could use some smart help.

Idk, the whole thing sounds fishy and this is the first I've heard about it. Is this even a true story?

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

The real winners here.... Will be the lawyers. As usual.

Well, that's why I work in the legal field.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

And GoFundMe.com... they got portion of the money AND free publicity with this mess.

reply

[–] LydsLids (15) 6 years ago

I'm not 100% on this but I really don't think they can just keep the money.

I know somebody who lost a house so he set up a GoFundMe account and somebody reported it so he had to prove that he really did lose it to a natural disaster.

The reason I'm not 100% on their part is because I thought you had to have an actual reason to raise the money so what was their reason for keeping it?

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

That's why the couple now need to account for the funds in a legal arena.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

Who's the "she"? Homeless man, then a couple sets up the GoFundMe.

Pretty amazing that a homeless man would give his last $20 to someone who'd run out of gas and was stranded. IMO, he deserved every bit of that $400k.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

The "she" is the woman who was stranded from running out of gas. What's interesting is that she actually spends 2-3 days looking for the homeless man after he helped her to repay him.
Yes, it is strange he would donate his last 20.00--it also doesn't make sense that he could would need $20 and carry the approximation of 5-6 gallons of gas for the distance he did. However, I think 400K is more than enough. The idea of GoFundMe should be to make the person whole, not set them up in luxury

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

"Yet, looks like it was all a set-up or some plan **she** hatched along the way when **she** saw the funds growing"

This is the "she" I was asking about. Who is that She? Surely not the woman who ran out of gas and spent several days looking for the homeless man who helped her in her hour of need to repay him.

IMO, for doing such an outstanding, selfless act to help another person, he deserves the $400k.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

I didn't understand. Yes, the SHE is the woman who ran out of gas. (there are better articles on this story than the one I posted, I suppose.)

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

So the She who ran out of gas and searched for the man for 2-3 days, and started the funding, is the same She who took the money??

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

Yes, she and her partner (husband?) control the fund. The one thing they did for him was to buy him a $25,000 camper which was put on her relative's land--yet he was told to leave soon after. She claims she withheld his money so he would not buy drugs with it. Maybe he was ordered to leave the grounds and his new camper was due to him using drugs, I dont' know.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

So if it was a couple, why are you blaming it all on the woman? That's what's confusing.

I'm glad she/they bought him a $25k camper and he was allowed to live in it on her relative's land, but the rest of the story, seems like a mishmash. Whose story is the truth? 😳

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

I'm not blaming it all on the woman, but she is the one who initiated things. I did say "her partner" in my last reply as a way of indicating that is was dual-effort. Who knows if she was influenced by her partner, or the reverse. We do know that she is the one who originally made headlines.
Why, do you want sexism to be lurking behind this?

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

This is all very confusing to me. So much so, I can't form an opinion, except that some homeless guy gave his last $20 to someone who was stranded because they'd run out of gas.

The rest? Who the heck knows.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

Well, you can form an opinion when the truth comes out. So many things are confusing to me.

reply

[–] GlenEllyn (21526) 6 years ago

It turns out the camper was in her name, but it's gone now, and so is the used SUV she bought him.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

There was a SUV involved too? So she/they(?), bought him both a camper and a SUV, but both of them are now gone?

Ugh! Too convoluted for me. I don't know what to believe.

reply

[–] db20db (17235) 6 years ago

One thing that can be concluded is that the attorney who chose to represent him must feel confident that he has a case.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

I'd hope so, but who knows? I don't like to be cynical, but it's possible s/he thinks they'd win because of the coverage. OR the homeless man really was screwed out of the money that was earmarked for him.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

Yes, his attorney is pro-bono, so he doesn't receive payment unless he wins, so you're right that he must feel confident about the case.

reply

[–] db20db (17235) 6 years ago

That's not exactly accurate. A pro bono case is one where the attorney voluntarily offers his services for free. You're confusing that with a contingency case, which is what this is.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

I see.

reply

[–] GlenEllyn (21526) 6 years ago

It was a used SUV, but yes. I think the camper was used, too. Not that there's anything wrong with used, but with $400K...

reply

[–] GlenEllyn (21526) 6 years ago

And her/their new BMW is gone now, too! 😏

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

The woman/couple who are being sued? Must be, since there's no other she/their involved.

I agree there's not a thing wrong with giving him a used SUV or camper. Heck, *I'd* be thrilled with either! The problem is, as you pointed out, if the GoFundMe rose to $400K, to be given to this man, but wasn't, well then.

reply

[–] db20db (17235) 6 years ago

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

Great, heartwarming story. Thanks for posting that, Db.

Sometimes it's difficult to remember there are a lot of truly decent people out there in the world, willing to help others for no other reason than they want to help someone in need. Even better is when they get recognised and rewarded for it by those who appreciate it!

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

But, it's getting out of hand: now a "friend" of Dawn Wells (from Gilligans' Island) has set up a fund due to her "financial problems". And people are only donating because they liked her on a Tv show 50 yrs ago. We often have to face misfortune when things go wrong and are debilitated or losing our savings, but she is responsible for her money like the rest of the population who did not happen to be an actor with fans. Actors are not superior than non-actors. She claims she wants a "better nursing home", as if she is in a position to choose. Is anyone going to fund any of us when we reach her age, or we endure a bad investment? Yet, it says her wealth is 7 million on her bio as of 2017. Absurd.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

I'll say one thing, which is if so many people have and are willing to part with cash, and all these Funds are flourishing, a lot of people are doing very well these days. I don't begrudge Dawn Wells the generosity of her fans, and my own future isn't a factor. If she is half as sweet as she appeared on TV, she deserves some nice treatment. What's wrong with that?
I don't understand about the $7M figure from 2017. If that's the case then none of this makes any sense. I've never been confident about these figures.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

snepts,
That's not it. She is in a assistance medical facility, but she "wants" to be in a smaller one that caters to SAG members and movie stars (likely the one in Westwood ,CA) She is lucky the facility she has is accepting of her.

And there should be a cap on goFundme, or it becomes exploitation. If the fund grows to 500K, then she can buy another house on us. She could not pay the IRS, as well. Now, if it was not Dawn Wells (or another "sweet" celebrity) , the masses would judge the unfortunate person to be a slacker. Miss Wells' ego is as big as Tina Louise's.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

I'm not arguing against you, but I'm amazed and gratified so many people have enough spare cash to make these funds swell. And it's a free country. People willingly give what they choose to whatever fund they choose.
Yes, the fund administrators get their cut, and we should all be informed consumers. But to shepherd people over their discretionary spending even makes an old Democratic Socialist like me squirm.
If DW doesn't really need the $$, then we should know this. But if people want to support her in her old age, why would anyone like you or I want to begrudge her that? Heck, it's a tax write-off !!
And no -- we aren't all lucky enough to have masses of people care about us, but they do. Begrudging them the fruits of their popularity doesn't make you or I any richer.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

I don't know if you're arguing against me, but I tend to look at the bigger picture: When enough of this gofund "me" is exploited, and the public catches on, it will be eliminated in the same way everything else has to ruined.

Why not support her in her old age? I almost can't believe you asked that. Because gofundme was not designed to give people inordinate-charity, or we would need to do that for everyone in their old age. That is what Social Security/ Medicare is for. So, the cap should be the 180K her friend set, not give her a form of sweepstakes-prize. You dont' know the woman except she was sweet as "MaryAnne", and her interviews. She may have squandered and made bad choices with her money.

My point is: the masses are only doing it because she was an actress many years ago, happened to be on a TV show, and she (and her friend) thinks she is above a regular medical facility. Nobody is owed to be admitted to the Motion Picture Home in Woodland Hills, CA. Why not fund people in their old age like those who save lives for a living and contribute to humanity in the most self-less way? This all goes back to our fixation (obsession ) with celebrities which is a sickness.

I'd assume give my last change to a homeless person or a doomed-child with cancer who never had a chance at life, and could not control their misfortune. Yet, people look in disgust at "regular" people and make ignorant assumptions about their misfortune.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

I hope you understand that I truly agree with your sentiment, it's just that life doesn't work that way.

Needy, anonymous people don't get the same breaks famous people do. They should, but it's almost an axiom (especially in this anti-socialist, extreme capitalist society the USA has) that famous people will get more than the rest of us. How do you contribute individually to people you don't even know?

And I try not to resent Dawn Wells for having the residual charm of being able to coax a bunch of old fans into making her life a little more comfortable. It's something they choose to do. I agree it may not "pass the smell test," But that there are enough people around with enough disposable income to help ANYONE, in the case being Dawn, I can't see that as being a negative.

We should all support our better charities. Some of us do, and some of us do it quietly.

Btw, I'm a big NHL hockey fan, and many of those teams try to brighten up people's days by going to local hospitals and hang out with people who are stuck there, at least for a short time. Sometimes I'm a little cynical of why they are there, but it sure looks good when I see it.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 6 years ago

Hopefully there will be justice.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/us/philadelphia-gofundme-homeless-trnd/index.html

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 6 years ago

New reports coming out today that these people squandered the money on luxury vacations, a BMW, designer clothes, gambling debts and other crap that they didn't need.

https://people.com/human-interest/johnny-bobbitt-homeless-gofundme-couple/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/10/gofundme-couple-allegedly-spent-homeless-mans-money-on-shoe-collection-pricey-vacations-report.html

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

All are facing prison. There was no homeless man coming to the rescue, no woman needing gas, no anything...but a 3 -way conspiracy.
(sigh)

reply