Skip to comments.
Painting Sold At Church Auction Sells Again For $489,600 (pressured to donate part to Church)
WNNE ^
| June 18, 2004
Posted on 06/19/2004 11:46:35 PM PDT by Michael2001
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
This is a pretty interesting dilemma. If I had this type of windfall I'd probably donate some to the Church, but if I received this sort of hostility I might change my mind (as it seems that these guys might).
To: Michael2001
The second it becomes involuntary, it's no longer a donation.
2
posted on
06/19/2004 11:52:40 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(Everyone's a self-made man -- but only the successful are willing to admit it.)
To: Michael2001
3
posted on
06/19/2004 11:53:37 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Michael2001
I hope that they will rethink their situation and make a personal gesture to the Dublin community.
I can just imagine the personal gesture I'd make to the community, in this situation.
4
posted on
06/19/2004 11:55:00 PM PDT
by
cryptical
To: Southack
Would a $ 100.00 be out of line, for the donation..
To: Michael2001
Rick O'Connor and Roy Gandhi-Schwatlo, of Dublin, and Dawn Ward, of Rindge, purchased the painting at an August 2003 auction to benefit the Dublin Community Church. O'Connor was on the committee that organized the auction and was responsible for acquiring paintings for the auction.
There is a conflict of interest here. The guy is in charge of acquiring donated paintings for the church.
Here's my scenario:
1) Hale unknowingly donates expensive painting to church
2) O'Conner realizes that he may have an expensive painting on his hands. His duty is to get the best price for the church. This involves getting it appraised and informing all potential bidders of it's possible value. Instead, he tells no one except for his two friends. Sounds like fraud to me.
To: Michael2001
It really matters what the details are here.
If the "organizers" asked for the original owner to bring in the painting for auction I'd be VERY suspicious.
Even if they didn't ask, if they knew (or suspected) the true value of the painting and didn't tell their "friend" that brought in for auction then they weren't much of a friend (or worse).
Total strangers is a different matter, but not all that different.
If, and that's a big if, they didn't have any idea of the true value of the painting and they risked their $3,200 in purchasing it to help the church. Then they don't owe anyone anything.
At least that's my opinion...
7
posted on
06/20/2004 12:12:37 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: DB
It probably wouldn't take much of an investigation to determine if inquiries were made regarding the actual value and authenticity of the painting, by any of the three "investors".
8
posted on
06/20/2004 12:20:45 AM PDT
by
Joe Hadenuf
(I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: Michael2001
O'Connor was on the committee that organized the auction and was responsible for acquiring paintings for the auction. He said he never spoke with Hale about her painting, and no one in his group knew its real value before buying it. Seems suspect to me.
10
posted on
06/20/2004 12:25:51 AM PDT
by
Ruth A.
To: Michael2001
$3,200 is a pretty hefty price and I am sure the Church was happy when the sale went through. If they had bought it for $20.00, it would be a different story.
11
posted on
06/20/2004 12:27:45 AM PDT
by
BJungNan
(Stop Spam - Start Charging for Email - You get 2000 a month for free, then you pay!)
To: Michael2001
THIS IS A HUGE PEOPLE THING.
churches would be great places if it was not for people.
now let's get back to the foundational word in the greek for church.
COMMUNITY,a place for those of the same mind-set to gather.
the mind-set should not be money,but the teaching of christian values[ie;the gospel]
12
posted on
06/20/2004 12:30:12 AM PDT
by
alpha-8-25-02
(saved by GRACE and GRACE alone)
To: opinionator
Sounds like fraud to me. I am going to have to rethink my position on this. If what you say is correct, someone should be going to jail and the proceeds should go to the church.
13
posted on
06/20/2004 12:31:14 AM PDT
by
BJungNan
(Stop Spam - Start Charging for Email - You get 2000 a month for free, then you pay!)
The gesture I would give would involve the middle digit. Just because the donor and the church couldn't be bothered to get an appraisal is no reason for these folks to share a thing.
They'll probably be shunned, but that's not a bad thing. Who wants friends that begrudge you good fortune? Hopefully they'll use some of the money to move to a nice American town somewhere.
14
posted on
06/20/2004 12:34:41 AM PDT
by
Anglospheroid
(Body counts in the billions don't bother me.)
To: Joe Hadenuf
No it probably wouldn't much of an investigation.
But it could only be done by law enforcement.
Internet search records along with when would be key.
15
posted on
06/20/2004 12:38:38 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: opinionator
Sounds like fraud to me. I agree. I don't believe for a moment that O'Connor and his friends didn't know what they had on their hands. How do you even look at a painting like that and not realize it's got to be worth something? At any rate, as you pointed out, it was his respnsibility to get the best price he could for the painting, which would definitely have meant getting it appraised. The guy's a crook and should be fined heavily for his dereliction of duty.
16
posted on
06/20/2004 12:39:21 AM PDT
by
giotto
To: Anglospheroid
It all depends on where or not it was honest "good fortune".
17
posted on
06/20/2004 12:41:14 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: DB
Dang...
Make that "...whether or not..."
18
posted on
06/20/2004 12:41:58 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: Michael2001
"O'Connor was on the committee that organized the auction and was responsible for acquiring paintings for the auction. He said he never spoke with Hale about her painting, and no one in his group knew its real value before buying it. 'We were all friends and decided we would buy the painting,' he said Thursday. 'We just thought it would be a great investment.'"
Sheesh. What a weasel.
Hey, O'Connor: WWJD???
19
posted on
06/20/2004 12:53:11 AM PDT
by
formerDem
(veritas)
To: formerDem
I didn't think of this angle the first time I read the article, but as some of you pointed out it does seem a bit suspicious now - I think O'Connor may have known from the start what he had.
20
posted on
06/20/2004 1:01:32 AM PDT
by
Michael2001
(Every man lives, and every man dies, but not every man truly lives)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson