Church sues over building
By KATRINA A. GOGGINS
COLUMBIA — A black South Carolina pastor and his church claim they own the building that houses a so-called Klan museum and store where KKK robes and T-shirts emblazoned with racial slurs are sold, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The Rev. David Kennedy said the property was transferred in 1997 to his Laurens County church by a Klansman who was fighting with others inside the hate group. A clause in the deed entitles John Howard, a man who runs the store, to operate his business in the building until he dies.
Kennedy said he'd like to close the store, but at the very least should be allowed to inspect the property.
"We've been outright denied," said Kennedy, pastor of New Beginnings Baptist Church. "Right now what we're focusing on is removing this cloud of doubt and this whole lie that we are not the real owners of the Redneck Shop building."
The lawsuit seeks to establish Kennedy's church as the legal owner of the property and stop Howard and associates from claiming to hold the deed.
According to the lawsuit, Howard and his associates have filed several court documents since the property was given to Kennedy's church that attempt to transfer the deed between various Klan-related owners, ignoring the church's claim.
"We think the actions they did were willful," said Kennedy's attorney Rauch Wise.
Howard, who calls himself a former Ku Klux Klan grand dragon for South Carolina and North Carolina, said Tuesday he hadn't heard of the lawsuit and hung up the phone on an AP reporter.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
DanniD (anonymous) says...
oh the irony...a black church owning a KKK store. this is like something from comedy central.
September 3, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
Rev. Kennedy really does support free speech, provided it aligns with his!
Would he raise objections if the store sold militant, pro-black paraphenalia?
September 3, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigSargeofSC (anonymous) says...
There's actually a KKK store? I thought their robs and hoods right next to the Boy Scout uniforms in Sears?
September 3, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
In no way do I support the KKK and their racist agenda, but I do acknowledge their right to speak freely.
September 3, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
"A clause in the deed entitles John Howard, a man who runs the store, to operate his business in the building until he dies."
There is something in that sentence that keeps ringing in my ear. Until he dies, dies, dies, dies, dies, dies, dies, dies, dies, dies!
September 3, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
Lovely One! now now
wpc3iop: "Rev. Kennedy needs to be worried about crime, drugs, education and other problems in the black community and not be bringing attention to a KKK store...but that would make sense, wouldn't it?"
Once again, you are making assumptions about an individual based on a few sentences. Do you know this man personally to be able to say that he isn't concerned with the Black community or doing whatever he can to alleviate those same problems?
I highly doubt it.
If a property has been legally deeded to a person or entity then by all means that person/entity should use whatever legal avenues available to them to secure the property.
As usual wpc3iop, you race bait and denigrate a Black man when there isn't a need to do so.
But to do anything else would be asking too much of you.
September 3, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
Eyfig,
I slapped my own hand for my comment :-(. I realized that it was totally uncalled for and I apologize for it. Thanks for calling me on it as well.
September 3, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MP (anonymous) says...
The deed transfer contained a conditional provision. If the recipient (the church) does not want to live by the condition, return the deed to the property to the original owner or their estate.
September 4, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- UPDATE: Missing woman's fiance seen leaving scene of burned SUV, carrying a shovel
- Magnolia Gardens offering free dream wedding to contest winner
- Body of missing woman's fiance was found near handgun
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams
- Black women today: Strong. Resilient. Ambitious.
- MCDERMOTT COLUMN: Golf business has risks, rewards
- Ex-Boeing worker claims racism, retaliation in firing
