Thom Kimmel - Victim or Vulture?
- Thread starter Norefund
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 18
Federal
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond-church-sued-over-former-deacon-s-fraud-scheme/article_94dfee96-da32-5429-a596-370731e656c6.html
I can't believe they didn't put this to rest yet. I am sure there are enough victims to support class action.
I can't believe they didn't put this to rest yet. I am sure there are enough victims to support class action.
qwerty said:
I'm not sure that it is right to sue the church... this looks more like people hoping to get $$ from them.
I agree it's not right to sue the church, or other Christians for that matter, but I do think the victims have a legitimate case.Walt said:
If Kimmel was "semi" employed by the church and the church endorsed his financial seminars then they will likely have some culpability. If I was representing the victims here, I would establish that the victims invested mainly on the recommendation of Jack Schapp. If it is proven Schapp benefited financially from this scam then the connection to the church will be difficult to disprove.
The jury will see senior citizens who lost everything because they trusted their pastor. They will also see that the pastor of FBCH was directly involved in the scam and benefited from it. In that case I'm not sure how they could side with the defense.
Walt said:
I'm not a big proponent of suing a church, but just because it's a church, it is not a blank check for gross negligence. This person had an office at the church (although in another building), was promoted by Schaap from the pulpit, in counseling, and by letter of recommendation. This is just another example of FBCH washing their hands of "one man" who was allowed to prey among their own congregation unfettered. Back when I was on staff, he was swindling other staff members by promoting the Iraqi Dinar.
Anyone who knows Cricket will most likely take offense to such a crass description. Her husband of 38 years died within the past couple years. The last 15 of those years caring for his every need since he was left a quadriplegic after an accident. Schaap welcomed them back to Hammond a few years after his accident to teach at the college and perform a show on the radio station. The kindness shown to them by their "pastor" and trust they had in his leadership no doubt led to their decision to invest the money they had for retirement into one of their trusted financial advisors.
It's more like she wants her money back. The church can say what they want, buy there are hundreds, if not thousands, that know how much this hustler was promoted by Schaap and the assistant pastors. Many refuse to even broach it perhaps of their own pride in admitting they lost money, and others because they promoted such a person among their own friends and family.
sword said:
But Jack Schaap, not the church, is the one who endorsed him; it is Schaap's evil. If a Sunday School teacher slanders someone, that person has a case against the teacher and maybe the pastor who selected him, but not the church
qwerty said:
But that was Schaap, not FBCH.
Anyone who knows Cricket will most likely take offense to such a crass description. Her husband of 38 years died within the past couple years. The last 15 of those years caring for his every need since he was left a quadriplegic after an accident. Schaap welcomed them back to Hammond a few years after his accident to teach at the college and perform a show on the radio station. The kindness shown to them by their "pastor" and trust they had in his leadership no doubt led to their decision to invest the money they had for retirement into one of their trusted financial advisors.
It's more like she wants her money back. The church can say what they want, buy there are hundreds, if not thousands, that know how much this hustler was promoted by Schaap and the assistant pastors. Many refuse to even broach it perhaps of their own pride in admitting they lost money, and others because they promoted such a person among their own friends and family.
[/quote]
OK, so you know them, and that isn't their purpose, according to you. But from reading the article it sounded like the case of someone getting held up with a Colt weapon, and then suing Colt. As an outsider reading the article, it sounded like "since Kimmel doesn't have any more money, we'll sue someone who does".
Schaap was the pastor or leader of FBCH, but he never was "the church" - FBCH's actions are only those approved by the congregation. His recommendation of this thief doesn't make FBCH guilty.
As a church member, I would be offended to be sued for something my pastor did that was not approved by the church.
Walt said:
OK, so you know them, and that isn't their purpose, according to you. But from reading the article it sounded like the case of someone getting held up with a Colt weapon, and then suing Colt. As an outsider reading the article, it sounded like "since Kimmel doesn't have any more money, we'll sue someone who does".
Schaap was the pastor or leader of FBCH, but he never was "the church" - FBCH's actions are only those approved by the congregation. His recommendation of this thief doesn't make FBCH guilty.
As a church member, I would be offended to be sued for something my pastor did that was not approved by the church.
[/quote]
Unfortunately in the real world, that is not how things operate. The Church organization is not "untouchable" or "faultless" . You are treating the Church as if it is some entity that is not responsible for the individuals it hires, pays, and trains. If this was the case, a bus driver who is negligent and causes a serous accident would be solely responsible, not the church or it's insurer. Likewise, if a Sunday School teacher molests or assaults a student....
The Church as a whole, Deacons, parishioners, Pastors, Staff and Associate Pastors are culpable for individuals with whom they entrust to lead, teach, and act on the Church's behalf. To treat it as an organization that was not responsible in allowing someone like Schaap to reign is ludicrous. They allowed Schaap to become what he became, and even after his sin was "discovered" attempted to cover it up. Everyone in the auditorium that day know what Lapina said from the pulpit.
The same for Kimmel; the deacons, if they ever chose to lead as elected members of the congregation, should have done their due diligence in researching and overseeing the activities of this employee, as they should of all employees, but THEY (the board or directors) allowed one man to wield the power on their behalf. The organization precipitated and cultivated the environment that allowed such atrocities to happen to their own parishioners and are accountable for those actions.
- Joined
- May 14, 2014
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 28
In the beginning there were assets in place to secure the liability. They were the vehicles themselves and the loans on the vehicles that were made.
The plan made sense to those involved because the interest charged to risky borrowers was more than enough to pay the interest.
Several problems occurred.
1. The loans were made to risky borrowers and the default rate was not factored in for the asset to cover the liability.
2. The vehicles were at some point devalued as the deals were made to sell the vehicles.
3. When these things occurred the principals did not reevaluate and thought the solution to their failed plan was to do more business, buy more vehicles and sell more loans. They did not let Kimmel know the issues until it was too late. However when Kimmel found out he did not cease selling investments. In fact he sold many more with full knowledge that the information that once truthfully stated the assurances of liability to asset ratio no longer was true.
This was a get rich scheme. It had a very high rate of return on investment all while acting as a "christian" way to sow your talents by using a predatory lending vehicle to do so. It wasn't helping the poor as promoted by some. It was greed. And it was greed to such an extent that at least some including names you hear involved were paid interest that was from the loans but then later the interest was paid from the Ponzi. So in fact these investors were given monthly payments by those who were being Ponzied and they were using this as income to live. Furthermore some of these investors were paid more than their investment back in the interest, and again interest at some point that was Ponzied monies. So in the interest of fairness to all who would sue 1. there should be an accounting to the amount of the investment less the amount of interest paid before a dime was ever considered to be paid by anyone. 2. any investor who promoted this scheme to someone else who lost money should also assume liability for not having done their due diligence before promoting a fraud to someone else. And again I know personally that this was done and done by at least some if not all the named plaintiffs.
The Church's Responsibility
While having hired Kimmel as a person to counsel people on how to get out of debt the church did not promote nor have much to do with individual schemes that Kimmel nor the investors came up with. Kimmel set ups his own business that had nothing to do with the church's oversight. Kimmel involved himself with unsaved people in setting up a corporation to promote this scheme without church's oversight. To be simplistic, if a person was having a funeral at the church and needed flower and Mrs. so and so said that we usually use ABC florist and then the flowers showed up all mangled would the church be financially responsible for Mrs. so and so? Take it a step further. What if the church got a credit on their account for the church's flower purchase purposes? What if other people who had gotten their flowers from ABC Florists had also gotten others to get their flowers there? If you start making other people involved who were not part of the transaction then where does the liability stop?
Investors responsibility
The investors had a responsibility to verify the truthfulness of what they had bought and to continue to ask for a Certified Accounting of the current state of the Balance Sheets. Same is true with a publicly held company in which one is investing dollars.
I was approached to be involved in this scheme by two different entities. I have seen churches torn up by these kind of things again and again. Years ago I came up with a pat answer on how to handle them. I have made it a policy to never invest money or get involved with business programs with any people from my church. I will only hire for wages or be hired for wages from them if it is profitable for both parties. These business schemes are incestual and should not be allowed to promote themselves throughout the churches. When a pastor hears of such things a watchful shepherd will warn the congregation about the hazards. When its family we tend to not keep our guard up where it should be and that allows people who prey upon that to be let loose.
IMO Kimmel failed because of fear. Fear of failing again, Fear that the people he had made promises to would think he deceived them, Fear of his reputation, Fear of losing his income and personal investments. He could have blown the whistle and stopped everything as soon as he knew what had happened and he would have been exonerated by the authorities.
The plan made sense to those involved because the interest charged to risky borrowers was more than enough to pay the interest.
Several problems occurred.
1. The loans were made to risky borrowers and the default rate was not factored in for the asset to cover the liability.
2. The vehicles were at some point devalued as the deals were made to sell the vehicles.
3. When these things occurred the principals did not reevaluate and thought the solution to their failed plan was to do more business, buy more vehicles and sell more loans. They did not let Kimmel know the issues until it was too late. However when Kimmel found out he did not cease selling investments. In fact he sold many more with full knowledge that the information that once truthfully stated the assurances of liability to asset ratio no longer was true.
This was a get rich scheme. It had a very high rate of return on investment all while acting as a "christian" way to sow your talents by using a predatory lending vehicle to do so. It wasn't helping the poor as promoted by some. It was greed. And it was greed to such an extent that at least some including names you hear involved were paid interest that was from the loans but then later the interest was paid from the Ponzi. So in fact these investors were given monthly payments by those who were being Ponzied and they were using this as income to live. Furthermore some of these investors were paid more than their investment back in the interest, and again interest at some point that was Ponzied monies. So in the interest of fairness to all who would sue 1. there should be an accounting to the amount of the investment less the amount of interest paid before a dime was ever considered to be paid by anyone. 2. any investor who promoted this scheme to someone else who lost money should also assume liability for not having done their due diligence before promoting a fraud to someone else. And again I know personally that this was done and done by at least some if not all the named plaintiffs.
The Church's Responsibility
While having hired Kimmel as a person to counsel people on how to get out of debt the church did not promote nor have much to do with individual schemes that Kimmel nor the investors came up with. Kimmel set ups his own business that had nothing to do with the church's oversight. Kimmel involved himself with unsaved people in setting up a corporation to promote this scheme without church's oversight. To be simplistic, if a person was having a funeral at the church and needed flower and Mrs. so and so said that we usually use ABC florist and then the flowers showed up all mangled would the church be financially responsible for Mrs. so and so? Take it a step further. What if the church got a credit on their account for the church's flower purchase purposes? What if other people who had gotten their flowers from ABC Florists had also gotten others to get their flowers there? If you start making other people involved who were not part of the transaction then where does the liability stop?
Investors responsibility
The investors had a responsibility to verify the truthfulness of what they had bought and to continue to ask for a Certified Accounting of the current state of the Balance Sheets. Same is true with a publicly held company in which one is investing dollars.
I was approached to be involved in this scheme by two different entities. I have seen churches torn up by these kind of things again and again. Years ago I came up with a pat answer on how to handle them. I have made it a policy to never invest money or get involved with business programs with any people from my church. I will only hire for wages or be hired for wages from them if it is profitable for both parties. These business schemes are incestual and should not be allowed to promote themselves throughout the churches. When a pastor hears of such things a watchful shepherd will warn the congregation about the hazards. When its family we tend to not keep our guard up where it should be and that allows people who prey upon that to be let loose.
IMO Kimmel failed because of fear. Fear of failing again, Fear that the people he had made promises to would think he deceived them, Fear of his reputation, Fear of losing his income and personal investments. He could have blown the whistle and stopped everything as soon as he knew what had happened and he would have been exonerated by the authorities.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 18
FBC was always a church that set people up as heroes or "great ones" or larger-than-life. I don't know if that mindset is still prevalent.
If someone was touted as Preacher's Chosen ___________________ (fill in the blank: plumber, carpenter, financial advisor, etc), then we all like sheep flocked to that Special Someone.
Thankfully, my husband and I were too wary to get involved in the dinar business, and I don't really know if anyone else approached us with any of the other ponzi schemes. Luckily, we've never had any money to invest in such precarious ventures.
Thom Kimmel, I never knew him well but he chided me a time or two for this or that. He had the typical holier-than-thou demeanor. Very much a turn off.
I haven't followed closely enough to know which venture of his it was that Cricket & Bill lost their life savings in. To me it seems a sad and complicated story.
Like my husband said, we do know a Christian is not to sue the church. But doesn't I Cor 6:4 also state: " If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. "
Now, who is least esteemed in the church? Who gets to bestow that particular distinction on someone in order to seek his opinion on a matter such as this?
I also find it so odd to see when certain people have needs, they are flocked to en masse. Recently Ken Schaap put up a Go Fund Me for a new bathtub for his son. Met the thousands needed in just a matter of hours. Others, those who don't have a name (least esteemed, perhaps?) have a need and backs are turned on them. Coldly. God help me if I am ever guilty of that. I probably am. People might argue..."But Ken is a man of God, a pastor. We are supposed to meet his needs so he can be free to advance the cause of Christ. Cricket is just a widow who was foolish. She deserves to have lost her money for trusting in uncertain riches."
If someone was touted as Preacher's Chosen ___________________ (fill in the blank: plumber, carpenter, financial advisor, etc), then we all like sheep flocked to that Special Someone.
Thankfully, my husband and I were too wary to get involved in the dinar business, and I don't really know if anyone else approached us with any of the other ponzi schemes. Luckily, we've never had any money to invest in such precarious ventures.
Thom Kimmel, I never knew him well but he chided me a time or two for this or that. He had the typical holier-than-thou demeanor. Very much a turn off.
I haven't followed closely enough to know which venture of his it was that Cricket & Bill lost their life savings in. To me it seems a sad and complicated story.
Like my husband said, we do know a Christian is not to sue the church. But doesn't I Cor 6:4 also state: " If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. "
Now, who is least esteemed in the church? Who gets to bestow that particular distinction on someone in order to seek his opinion on a matter such as this?
I also find it so odd to see when certain people have needs, they are flocked to en masse. Recently Ken Schaap put up a Go Fund Me for a new bathtub for his son. Met the thousands needed in just a matter of hours. Others, those who don't have a name (least esteemed, perhaps?) have a need and backs are turned on them. Coldly. God help me if I am ever guilty of that. I probably am. People might argue..."But Ken is a man of God, a pastor. We are supposed to meet his needs so he can be free to advance the cause of Christ. Cricket is just a widow who was foolish. She deserves to have lost her money for trusting in uncertain riches."
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 5,190
- Reaction score
- 55
- Points
- 48
In 2003, Kimmel came to the church I was serving in Alabama and presented his 'ministry' and give financial advice. I don't remember or not whether he presented his investment scheme or not. After the service, I spent some time with him receving 'advice' and he offered me nothing in the way of a get rich quick scheme at that time. He did compliment me to my pastor on having very little debt.
Once again; I don't think that Thom was promoting a 'get rich quick' scheme. But, I will tell that for years he claimed investment returns that would make Donald Trump's mouth water. When people were making 7-8% interest he was claiming 12%. In the 90's when people could make 15% and more he was claiming over 30%. Big red flag right there.
When I started asking long time church members where he came up with all his money and supposed financial expertise, nobody seemed to know. I mean you usually know if someone has spent their lives in business, investing, has family money, won lottery, etc. but nobody seemed to know about Thom. A couple of former business partners told me that he still owed them money even though he was teaching debt-free and prosperous living.
FBD had and still has a couple of men who were in the financial and investment business. Anyone could have sat down with them and asked about this scheme/investment. When the fever hit over these Iraqui dinars I had one of them explain to me how this was nearly impossible for it to work. I don't understand foreign currency markets but he seemed very sharp. Before any of this happened you could google Thom's name and come up with enough question marks to steer clear.
I hurt for the people who lost a lot of money. When the recession hit in 2008 I have a small company and was left holding the bag for guys I had worked with for years that went bankrupt. If I were smarter and knew what I knew now I could have prevented a lot but there are also a lot of things that happen to us that we have little control over. I just can't see giving money to church for years and foreign missions and then going after a church to reimburse me for something like this.
When I started asking long time church members where he came up with all his money and supposed financial expertise, nobody seemed to know. I mean you usually know if someone has spent their lives in business, investing, has family money, won lottery, etc. but nobody seemed to know about Thom. A couple of former business partners told me that he still owed them money even though he was teaching debt-free and prosperous living.
FBD had and still has a couple of men who were in the financial and investment business. Anyone could have sat down with them and asked about this scheme/investment. When the fever hit over these Iraqui dinars I had one of them explain to me how this was nearly impossible for it to work. I don't understand foreign currency markets but he seemed very sharp. Before any of this happened you could google Thom's name and come up with enough question marks to steer clear.
I hurt for the people who lost a lot of money. When the recession hit in 2008 I have a small company and was left holding the bag for guys I had worked with for years that went bankrupt. If I were smarter and knew what I knew now I could have prevented a lot but there are also a lot of things that happen to us that we have little control over. I just can't see giving money to church for years and foreign missions and then going after a church to reimburse me for something like this.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 18
No story is ever simple. Thom Kimmel is probably both victim and vulture. Cricket is probably wrong to try and go after the church. But look at her with a heart of compassion -- to have lived the way she did, with the love of her life rendered a quadriplegic; unable to do almost anything, constantly riddled with pain, delirium, the deepest depression, bedsores, pressure sores, rabid infections...that ALONE would unnerve any woman. But the fact she needed to be his round-the-clock caretaker for over a decade, and had to lose every vestige of herself to his moment-by-moment care...her own health was wrecked in the process. Breast cancer, kidney disease are only two of the issues I know she faced. They were given a settlement from his accident, it would need to last as long as either of them lived because she was unable to work for two reasons: 1) He needed her 24/7, and 2) Her health was shot. They were the typical We Do Whatever Preacher Says people. And Preacher likely guided them to make this investment. We all thought he was a god-like financial guru. He bragged on himself in that manner all the time. When the investment tanked and they lost everything and then when Bill died...well, I truly think Cricket is out of her mind. I know churches that had supported her husband's ministry when he was alive dropped the support once he died. She took issue with that as well because she intended to carry on his work...but I understand that a church is under no obligation to continue to support the wife of a man who is deceased. And after all, she does have some family, so it is not as if she is alone in the world. So is she wrong to sue the church? Yes. But my God in Heaven, this is a woman whose suffering is way more than most of ours. It is truly times like this that perplex me the most. What is our responsibility as a body of Christ to help someone like this? Or is it truly something we should cluck our tongues at and wash our hand of?
brainisengaged said:
She sounds like someone that the church should be helping for sure.