|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Suing other believers
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by la vie en rouge:
After that, if she still doesn’t comply there really isn’t much left we can do apart from sue. Trouble is, the New Testament has some rather strong words on the subject of suing other believers. Paul even says it’s better to be wronged than take another believer to court. We are clear that a lawsuit would be an absolute last resort but even then it makes me a bit uncomfortable.
Well, if the person refuses to listen to the testimony of several witnesses, you may treat them like gentiles and tax collectors. So, if you would sue the modern equivalent of a gentile or tax collector, then you can now sue the person in question. Paul's concern in Corinthians seems to be that the Corinthians don't solve problems among themselves instead of taking their cases to unbelievers. You are trying to handle the issue among yourselves. However, the church cannot enforce it's decisions. Verse 7 says that the existence of the lawsuits is bad and then asks why not suffer wrongs or be defrauded. However, in verse 8, Paul concludes, "But you yourself wrong and defraud even your own brothers" Without knowing the exact context Paul was addressing, I wouldn't base an important decision on the rhetorical questions in verse 7.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
How do you think the other party views the situation la vie en rouge ?
If you think she views her position as justifiable, I would consider asking her to agree to mediation. I mean professional mediation rather than the church leadership.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think you must make a good faith effort to handle the thing within the church (which you have done). Your denomination may have further steps you can take--ours has people trained as "reconcilers" who are supposed to help with such matters.
Once you try all this and get nothing, though, then it gets hazy. Twice we've been in a situation where we could have sued and forebore on account of the other party being an agency of our church--and the fact that 99% of the agency was innocent, it was one asshole causing the issue--but the penalty both social and financial would be paid by the church. So we said screw it and went with Paul.
On the other hand, we had a case where someone within the congregation was committing slander and any number of other things against us in an attempt to destroy our ministry. We dealt with him wholly through the church but it became clear that the church powers-that-be didn't have the balls to enforce their own judgments. Then X began hassling our supporters (not us directly--didn't have the balls), threatening arson and kidnapping, and following women home late at night to terrorize them. At this point we figured we were more than justified in taking to the law, as it wasn't just us suffering anymore--and the others would never have been able to access legal help anyway for financial and linguistic reasons. So we got a lawyer, had her write a very stiff letter to the asshole saying that if there was any more vandalism or threats of violence we would be all over him like a ton of bricks in court for slander. The bare letter was enough to do the trick. He stopped harassing our supporters and went back to saying shit about us--and we'd already decided we were going to leave that in God's court to handle*, so we were all right with that.
* And boy, did he ( ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) )
Which is all to say that, if the asshole in question is harming people you have a duty to protect, you may be forced to go to law when you wouldn't do it for offenses against yourself alone.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
By Oscar the Grouch;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Beyond that I think the proper response is to 'turn the other cheek' and take the loss. The church should be willing to support you in this situation.
I disagree strongly with this. All this does is allow an exploiter to get away with it, so that they can then go on and do the same thing to someone else. "Turning the other cheek" is about not seeking personal revenge. It is nothing to do with avoiding issues of justice and preventing further injustice and exploitation.
and further;
quote:
The instruction from Paul was to a church in Corinth which had big problems.
First point here, I was quoting Jesus in Matt 18, not Paul to the Corinthians. And in my mind, not an isolated text either, but one related both to other things Jesus said and to other things Paul said, eg in Romans 12.
Second, I'm well aware of the problems in "allow(ing) an exploiter to get away with it". As I hinted, I've had too much experience of such things myself. The issue is primarily of trusting Jesus' advice, bearing in mind that Jesus' death can itself be interpreted as a massive 'turning of the other cheek' yet is far from "allow(ing) exploiters (which means in that context 'all us sinners') to get away with it". True faith following true repentance is decidedly not "getting away with it"; nor is the divine judgement that will ultimately follow a failure to repent....
It's also about trusting God as 'the Judge of all the earth' to ultimately do right though possibly not in this world; and about expressing forgiving love to the person with whom we are in dispute (back to Jesus and the parable of the unforgiving servant).
As I suggested, it has indeed become all too easy to quote passages like 'turn the other cheek' as simplistic rules, which can then become potentially and all too often actually exploitative. It is therefore important that Christians think quite deeply about these issues, and relate those passages on the one hand to the continuing obligation to do justice yourself and not hide behind telling others to 'just forgive'; and on the other hand to the teaching of God in Christ 'turning the other cheek' to us and what that means.
The order of events recommended by Jesus has the decided benefit that it doesn't seek to hide or cover up the issues, but rather to ventilate them in such a way that the church can mediate and the wrongdoer (possibly on both sides) get a deeper understanding of the implications of their conduct.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I suppose I might draw a distinction between a civil and criminal matter. Fraud, obtaining money by deception etc are crimes - and people who are not fulfilling a contract may be comitting fraud, depending on the circumstances.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
By Oscar the Grouch;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Beyond that I think the proper response is to 'turn the other cheek' and take the loss. The church should be willing to support you in this situation.
I disagree strongly with this. All this does is allow an exploiter to get away with it, so that they can then go on and do the same thing to someone else. "Turning the other cheek" is about not seeking personal revenge. It is nothing to do with avoiding issues of justice and preventing further injustice and exploitation.
and further;
quote:
The instruction from Paul was to a church in Corinth which had big problems.
First point here, I was quoting Jesus in Matt 18, not Paul to the Corinthians. And in my mind, not an isolated text either, but one related both to other things Jesus said and to other things Paul said, eg in Romans 12.
Something I was well aware of. I wasn’t suggesting that this was Paul’s instruction.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Second, I'm well aware of the problems in "allow(ing) an exploiter to get away with it". As I hinted, I've had too much experience of such things myself. The issue is primarily of trusting Jesus' advice, bearing in mind that Jesus' death can itself be interpreted as a massive 'turning of the other cheek' yet is far from "allow(ing) exploiters (which means in that context 'all us sinners') to get away with it". True faith following true repentance is decidedly not "getting away with it"; nor is the divine judgement that will ultimately follow a failure to repent....
It's also about trusting God as 'the Judge of all the earth' to ultimately do right though possibly not in this world; and about expressing forgiving love to the person with whom we are in dispute (back to Jesus and the parable of the unforgiving servant).
But you are still not escaping the problem that this course of action leaves the offender free to continue to create havoc on someone else (who may be more vulnerable). It is very idealistic, but ultimately denies true justice (something the Bible as a whole is rather emphatic about).
I am speaking personally here – I once let something be dealt with “informally” without recourse to the courts (having been strongly encouraged so to do by senior clergy). The person concerned then went on to bigger and nastier things and ended up in jail, having deeply damaged a number of people (including vulnerable teenagers). Had I not listened to the advice I had been given, and instead taken this person to court, they would not have been able to get into the position of authority where they could take advantage of others as they did. Do I feel guilty and in some way responsible? You bet your damn life I do. But that's no sodding use to the people who were damaged.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Steve Langton, to clarify:
Are there no circumstances in which you would countenance taking a believer to court?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
Romans 12. Take them to court. Don't allow yourself to be consumed by bitterness, but even so take them to court.
Ideally the church should also be dealing with them if they are really behaving 'worse than an unbeliever'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
That's a really good point--I think there is a difference between civil and criminal matters--I would definitely report a criminal situation (rape, assault, etc.) because of the likelihood that it might be repeated in the future, and therefore the need to be responsible to one's community. Reporting it doesn't constitute "going to court" IMHO--it's the state that does that, not the victim and/or witness.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Oscar has it right on this.
In fact, mostly lawsuits are settled either at the, legally required mandatory mediation, or by lawyers discussing dispassionately on behalf of their clients. I'd start with a formal letter outlining the problems and what needs to be done, and then see what is next. That's a pre-suit step and pre-meeting step, but well worth the effort because I know from 2× experience that lawsuits are absolutely awful for person sued, and even when you have insurance against being sued, win the suit, you are out time, money, and most important, emotions.
I'd refrain from differentiating between people in church or outside. Fair dealing is required. I'd want a letter outlining the problems as step one.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Oscar the Grouch
quote:
Something I was well aware of. I wasn’t suggesting that this was Paul’s instruction.
Point taken – but yours and other posts were talking about Paul where I had quoted Jesus, and I wanted that to be clear.
By Eutychus;
quote:
Steve Langton, to clarify:
Are there no circumstances in which you would countenance taking a believer to court?
Yes, there are circumstances; but I'd be taking each case as it came. In the situations I've faced there would have been possibilities, though neither I nor the older people around had really thought through many aspects; in one case it wasn't my call. In the other case unfortunately the other party chose to basically lie his way out of it and I hadn't covered myself against that possibility and was left hung out to dry.
As far as I can tell, however, what I did achieve even so, by involving other church members, put considerable limits on the future activities of the person concerned, and it seems that sadly he did after a few years suffer a 'judgement by consequences' upon his actions, having put himself in a horrendously stressful position by that lying.
Oscar's example, though he doesn't quite detail it enough to be sure (and from my own experience I understand he may not be easily able to), does seem to represent what worried me after my problems. Partly a situation of putting importance on 'covering up' and avoiding scandal, which I think the texts don't in fact encourage, and partly that thing I mentioned of 'knowing the words' about these matters but not having really deeply understood them, not having really worked out the implications. And unfortunately my experience suggests most churches still haven't done that working out.
I also feel that in most situations involving believers, actual 'going to court' should not be necessary; by which I mean that getting a solid legal opinion on the rights and wrongs should generally be enough. Though again, work needs to be done before situations arise in defining the limits of Christian obedience to the law. One of the problems I faced was a small clique who thought in terms of "Your legal rights don't matter; we're not under law, we're under grace..." That complicated things!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Picking up from a X-post by no prophet's etc.,
quote:
In fact, mostly lawsuits are settled either at the, legally required mandatory mediation, or by lawyers discussing dispassionately on behalf of their clients.
It does appear to me that Paul is suggesting that ideally the mediation between believers be done in and by the Church rather than by secular lawyers. And that where the church is ignored by the offender, it is not appropriate to then take the matter to a secular judge, but accept the need to 'turn the other cheek'.
I think I'm broadly with Lamb Chopped and others on the implications of at least many criminal activities; though even there I'd in some states be concerned about reporting a person to some legal systems - with Nazi Germany as perhaps the obvious example?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I also feel that in most situations involving believers, actual 'going to court' should not be necessary; by which I mean that getting a solid legal opinion on the rights and wrongs should generally be enough.
I am puzzled by this. So you would use the legal framework up to, but not including, "going to court"? I can understand (though not agree with) a position that says "all disputes between believers should remain outside the secular legal process". I struggle to understand a position which accepts the secular legal process apart from the mere fact of going into the courtroom.
I also think that your position doesn't really take into account the fact that the entire legal process is very different from that with which Paul was accustomed. But then again, "blanket rules" which take no account of the changes in context and culture have always baffled me. Our world is so very different from that of Paul's that drawing a straight line from him to us is fraught with dangers.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It does appear to me that Paul is suggesting that ideally the mediation between believers be done in and by the Church rather than by secular lawyers.
I can accept that. And there is much in that which makes good sense. Lawyers are notoriously bad at understanding Church matters and it is far easier for someone to act in a mediator's role if they appreciate the culture and customs of the Church, rather than needing to have everything explained to them.
I think, though, that the weasel word here is "ideally". Ideally, I would agree with you. In reality, however, "in-house" mediation can often be weak or biased, or can place so much stress on the need for brothers and sisters in Christ to be one that basic issues of justice can be neglected.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And that where the church is ignored by the offender, it is not appropriate to then take the matter to a secular judge, but accept the need to 'turn the other cheek'.
And here is where I would diverge from you. Partly, it is because of your insistence on merging the words and ideas of Jesus and Paul as if they were the same mind and part of the same, unified theory.
Partly, it is because, as I have already said, I think the words of Jesus were intended in a very different way and have little to do with the issue at hand here. For a start, the people to whom we are urged to "turn the other cheek" to are not fellow believers, but those who seek to insult us (primarily for daring to be a follower of Jesus?). And turning the other cheek is not simply a way of saying "suck it up" - it is an invitation to the person who is insulting us to go even further. In other words, "turning the other cheek" means " I am not going to return insult with insult. Instead I return love and forgiveness." There's nothing there about legal processes - certainly not about legal processes between believers.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
One of the problems I faced was a small clique who thought in terms of "Your legal rights don't matter; we're not under law, we're under grace..." That complicated things!
I'm sure it did. Far too many people who say such things forget that grace does not replace law, it comes after the demands of the law have been acknowledged. In other words, we are not to end up below justice, but above it.
Injustice is not the same thing as charity.
[ 27. May 2015, 00:30: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
How do you think the other party views the situation la vie en rouge ?
Good question. AFAICT she’s on a hiding to nothing if we take her to court and I think she knows it. Her actions have been very prejudicial and we have proof. After a while we figured out not to communicate with her except in writing. It’s all there. The face to face meeting was followed by an email summarising what had been said (“we met you on [date] and you told us you were going to [do x] by [deadline]”). She’s actually making a lot of trouble for herself by refusing to cooperate. Consequently she’s flailing around trying to find a way to be the victim in the situation. I think she’s rather afraid of where this could get her, but bizarrely it’s not making her do the right thing.
I don’t know how well mediation can work. I think we have to try it but we are dealing with a person who has already proved to be manipulative, controlling and dishonest. ISTM that mediation requires good faith on the part of both parties and I’m not sure we’ll get that.
I think cliffdweller’s right about this being about family. I feel a bit like Jane Bennet – I really want there to be a way in which her actions are not as horrible as they look, it’s all a big misunderstanding and everybody’s right. I tend to be a rather trusting kind of person and I actually don’t want her to be as bad as she seems to be. As horribly as she’s treated us, I don’t want her to be put to shame in public. I would be much less upset about what she’s done if she wasn’t a believer who should know better. But we can’t go on getting ripped off like this.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
AFAICT she’s on a hiding to nothing if we take her to court and I think she knows it. Her actions have been very prejudicial and we have proof. After a while we figured out not to communicate with her except in writing. It’s all there. The face to face meeting was followed by an email summarising what had been said (“we met you on [date] and you told us you were going to [do x] by [deadline]”). She’s actually making a lot of trouble for herself by refusing to cooperate. Consequently she’s flailing around trying to find a way to be the victim in the situation. I think she’s rather afraid of where this could get her, but bizarrely it’s not making her do the right thing.
Yeah, sometimes you get so caught in your own web of lies you lose track of the truth yourself and start believing your own lies. Bizarre, but not at all uncommon. And for many personality types, the need to portray yourself as the victim is almost like a powerful drug. That victim mentality can carry with it a curious sense of entitlement that excuses in their mind their egregious behavior. "I had no choice!"
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I don’t know how well mediation can work. I think we have to try it but we are dealing with a person who has already proved to be manipulative, controlling and dishonest. ISTM that mediation requires good faith on the part of both parties and I’m not sure we’ll get that.
I suspect you're right, but I think you need to do it for you. You really sound like you're being scrupulous in moving forward in the most integrous way possible, so I think you're going to feel more at peace knowing you did everything you possibly could. And in the end, that's all we can do.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think cliffdweller’s right about this being about family. I feel a bit like Jane Bennet – I really want there to be a way in which her actions are not as horrible as they look, it’s all a big misunderstanding and everybody’s right. I tend to be a rather trusting kind of person and I actually don’t want her to be as bad as she seems to be. As horribly as she’s treated us, I don’t want her to be put to shame in public. I would be much less upset about what she’s done if she wasn’t a believer who should know better. But we can’t go on getting ripped off like this.
It's an awful situation. My prayers are with you.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
[ 27. May 2015, 14:21: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I disagree with the proposed distinction between criminal and civil. What label legislatures decide on doesn't tell you the extent of harm or likelihood of being repeated on purpose.
I face a possible need to sue a fellow church member. His air conditioning company did an intentionally poor job installing a new air conditioner by knowingly omitting the drain pipe, failing to give me warranty info, failing to register the warranty (it's their job) this depriving me of the additional 5 year's warranty registering gives, and some other things that put me in a position of needing regular service calls I shouldn't need, and being unprotected if the equipment fails soon.
I sent a letter to the owner stating what was wrong and what he needed to do (like, send me warranty info, I don't even know the brand name!)
No response. It's been two weeks. Not even a "we are reviewing your complaint."
The next step is a certified letter saying if he doesn't respond I'll report to Better Business Bureau and then go to Small Claims Court.
Do I ask the clergy person to get involved? Would she want to mediate something between a rich new member and a once-a-quarter little old lady? (Last time I had a problem at that church I was told "he's important, you aren't. Different problem person - he got kicked out a few years later by a new pastor for other reasons. But "he's important, you aren't" may be how lots of people in churches and charities make decisions.)
I suppose I can ask the pastor what he thinks, at least this is a situation where the wrongdoer won't get more money from me; but not answering a calmly worded list of specific below-standard work by his crew, doesn't look like he cares.
In which case he and his crew may be doing it to all their customers!
Intentionally shoddy installation is "civil not criminal" by local government designation, but morally isn't it theft to do intentionally shoddy work so the work will have to be fixed regularly and he gets paid more for the (shouldn't be needed) fixing? The purpose of shoddy work is to milk the victim for more money.
Forgiving a con man and absorbing the wrong (instead of raising a public fuss) encourages him to victimize the next person in your church or community. That's not kindness to anyone. Reminds me of the too common advice to battered wife to stay in the marriage because God disapproves of divorce.
I don't know what the NT means but I doubt it means "don't complain when a con artist cheats you, don't let others know, let them become victims too."
Some kind of "don't abuse others via the legal system" or "don't use the legal system to defend your hurt pride" maybe?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Do I ask the clergy person to get involved? Would she want to mediate something between a rich new member and a once-a-quarter little old lady? (Last time I had a problem at that church I was told "he's important, you aren't. Different problem person - he got kicked out a few years later by a new pastor for other reasons. But "he's important, you aren't" may be how lots of people in churches and charities make decisions.)
Bit of an aside: we've heard a lot about your church, and you've heard a lot of our reactions to the stories coming out re the leadership/ culture there. Long story short: please don't generalize from that experience to "church" as a whole. Not saying that the tendency to prioritize the regular members or even big givers doesn't happen elsewhere, just saying there's a particular pathology in your shack that shouldn't be extrapolated elsewhere.
But I think there's a related issue here you're identified: is this the pastor's job? To some degree, yes, resolving conflict, ensuring good communication and harmonious relationships among the congregants is our job. But only to a degree. If we get involved negotiating every conflict between congregants we're going to need two or three FT staff members just to do that, and none of our churches has that kind of resources. And, while clergy in general often have training in some basic communication and conflict resolution skills, they aren't trained arbiters and certainly are no substitution for an attorney or even a trained mediator. We've certainly seen lots of bad fruit from clergy extending their job description beyond their area of expertise. And putting the pastor in the position where s/he is going to end up choosing sides is a recipe for disaster of precisely the sort Belle describes.
What would be reasonable I think would be for the clergy person to provide some theological framework/ exhortation to the general principle of reconciliation, and then provide referrals to trained mediators who are knowledgable in the area. At that point the pastor can/should stay out of the actual negotiation, but simply pray with and for the participants.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Forgiving a con man and absorbing the wrong (instead of raising a public fuss) encourages him to victimize the next person in your church or community. That's not kindness to anyone...
...I don't know what the NT means but I doubt it means "don't complain when a con artist cheats you, don't let others know, let them become victims too."
I agree. We have seen, for example, con men (and women) who go from church to church with ponzi schemes that have in recent years wiped out not only dozens if not 100s of congregants, but also have taken down whole ministries and large mission organizations. So yeah, the civil/criminal divide may not be all that helpful.
In general I feel like we're applying Jesus and Paul too woodenly. The Sermon on the Mount IMHO sets a pattern of reading the Law in a hard way (i.e. "raising the bar" beyond mere adherence to the letter of the law) but also in a way that gets at the spirit and intent rather than the legalistic adherence. It seems to me that the intent for both Jesus and Paul is about heart attitudes-- that our churches be filled with an attitude of grace and forgiveness, rather than petty quarreling and gossip. That we be willing to sacrifice rather than demanding our rights. That means our way forward isn't going to be so much about "do this" or "don't do that" but rather about prayerfully considering what is/isn't nurturing a spirit of compassion, grace, and reconciliation into the situation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Anyway, Belle, you're suing his company. Different legal entity.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by la vie en rouge
mediation requires good faith on the part of both parties
yes I think that's right, at least that she would have to show good faith for the purposes of the mediation even if she has not done so up to now. An objective view from a mediator can assist the parties to see the strengths and weaknesses of their position, and that might encourage her to be realistic.
The fact that a mediator is helping two parties to negotiate their own agreement does to my mind allay some of the concerns in your original post, even though I can't claim to know what St Paul would say about it !
Also a court case can as you say be a public shaming, if you have to bring evidence of her unethical behaviour, whereas a mediation can be private and noone who is not affected needs to know what was discussed or agreed. And if you are feeling charitable, you can make some concession in negotiation in order to help her feel better about reaching an agreement.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, if the person refuses to listen to the testimony of several witnesses, you may treat them like gentiles and tax collectors. So, if you would sue the modern equivalent of a gentile or tax collector, then you can now sue the person in question.
No, it can't mean that. That reduces the commandment/suggestion/guidance note (or whatever it is) to "don't sue other Christians unless of course you can't manage to settle with them out of Court". And that's pretty much meaningless. Trying to settle out of Court is what you should (morally and pragmatically) be attempting first in any case.
There is a real principle here that for a believer, there are things that matter more than making sure we get everything we are owed. There are good reasons to submit to injustice. I don't think that not suing other believers is an iron-clad rule that trumps all other consisderations, but it is clearly meant to be a serious challenge. There are meant to be circumstances where we are clearly right, the other party is clearly wrong, and yet we refrain from taking action which is justified.
That said, I think this must be an individual choice: it has to be grace in action - NOT something coerced by the Church. It is not meant to be an official permission for wrongdoers to exploit their fellow believers, which it would become if the Church were to apply social or moral pressure to prevent victims from seeking justice. Justice is a good thing, approved of by God. If a Christian voluntarily gives up a right to justice in order better to express love, that's admirable, but to deprive a Christian (or anyone else) of justice is simply wrong.
And, of course, love is not always best expressed by acquiescing to wrongs. Love can be expressed by rebuking wrongs. An invariable rule against particular remedies for injustice would, in some cases, work against doing the thing which is most loving.
So I would say that a Christian should think carefully and seriously about the Scriptural guidance, and be brutally honest to themselves about all their motives for suing (or not) in making a decision, but be accountable only to their own conscience for whatever decision they then make. As far as the rest of us are concerned, they have a perfect right to seek justice.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is a real principle here that for a believer, there are things that matter more than making sure we get everything we are owed. There are good reasons to submit to injustice. I don't think that not suing other believers is an iron-clad rule that trumps all other consisderations, but it is clearly meant to be a serious challenge. There are meant to be circumstances where we are clearly right, the other party is clearly wrong, and yet we refrain from taking action which is justified.
Why should those be things we consider only when the other party is a Christian? Why not consider accepting injustice in the same way from non-Christians?
(Edited because didn't Preview Post, oh the shame and ignominy.)
[ 27. May 2015, 21:58: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Autenrieth Road;
quote:
Why should those be things we consider only when the other party is a Christian? Why not consider accepting injustice in the same way from non-Christians?
Most of the texts involved say precisely that we should be willing to accept injustice from non-Christians.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
This thread starts out based on the text from Paul about relations inside churches, and is asking about suing other believers, and the OP seems to be hesitant precisely because the other party is a member of her church. It seems to me that most posts examine and give various reasons for or against observing "don't sue other believers" without saying "actually, it's not relevant if the other person is a believer or not, you should try mediation first with non-believers to." Which to me implies for most people posting here, non-believers are exempt from "don't sue (or try to avoid it)."
In particular, Eutychus' reply, which I was responding to, is all about believers, and doesn't mention unbelievers.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, if the person refuses to listen to the testimony of several witnesses, you may treat them like gentiles and tax collectors. So, if you would sue the modern equivalent of a gentile or tax collector, then you can now sue the person in question.
No, it can't mean that. That reduces the commandment/suggestion/guidance note (or whatever it is) to "don't sue other Christians unless of course you can't manage to settle with them out of Court". And that's pretty much meaningless. Trying to settle out of Court is what you should (morally and pragmatically) be attempting first in any case.
There is a real principle here that for a believer, there are things that matter more than making sure we get everything we are owed. There are good reasons to submit to injustice. I don't think that not suing other believers is an iron-clad rule that trumps all other consisderations, but it is clearly meant to be a serious challenge. There are meant to be circumstances where we are clearly right, the other party is clearly wrong, and yet we refrain from taking action which is justified.
That said, I think this must be an individual choice: it has to be grace in action - NOT something coerced by the Church. It is not meant to be an official permission for wrongdoers to exploit their fellow believers, which it would become if the Church were to apply social or moral pressure to prevent victims from seeking justice. Justice is a good thing, approved of by God. If a Christian voluntarily gives up a right to justice in order better to express love, that's admirable, but to deprive a Christian (or anyone else) of justice is simply wrong.
And, of course, love is not always best expressed by acquiescing to wrongs. Love can be expressed by rebuking wrongs. An invariable rule against particular remedies for injustice would, in some cases, work against doing the thing which is most loving.
So I would say that a Christian should think carefully and seriously about the Scriptural guidance, and be brutally honest to themselves about all their motives for suing (or not) in making a decision, but be accountable only to their own conscience for whatever decision they then make. As far as the rest of us are concerned, they have a perfect right to seek justice.
Well done.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by [CORRECTION:] Eliab, not Eutychus:
There is a real principle here that for a believer, there are things that matter more than making sure we get everything we are owed. There are good reasons to submit to injustice. I don't think that not suing other believers is an iron-clad rule that trumps all other consisderations, but it is clearly meant to be a serious challenge. There are meant to be circumstances where we are clearly right, the other party is clearly wrong, and yet we refrain from taking action which is justified.
Why should those be things we consider only when the other party is a Christian? Why not consider accepting injustice in the same way from non-Christians?
(Edited because didn't Preview Post, oh the shame and ignominy.)
Sorry, I got confused earlier. This quote is from Eliab, to whom I'm posing the question.
cliffdweller, I see you agree with Eliab's statement. May I ask you the same question?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Why should those be things we consider only when the other party is a Christian? Why not consider accepting injustice in the same way from non-Christians?
I think you've got the passage exactly backward--Paul is addressing the question of suits among believers, not because believers have some privileged status, but rather because conflict among believers ought to be the easiest to solve--it's conflict kindergarten. He is in effect saying: If you can't even handle conflict within the church without going to law, where you share the same Lord, the same faith, the same Spirit, then how the hell are you going to handle it out in the world among unbelievers?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Sorry, I got confused earlier. This quote is from Eliab, to whom I'm posing the question.
cliffdweller, I see you agree with Eliab's statement. May I ask you the same question?
I addressed this somewhat early on in the thread. For the most part, no reason-- we should treat everyone as we would wish to be treated. But there is something to what Lamb said, too-- that showing grace to fellow believers-- i.e. family-- should be a bare minimum precisely because they are family. It's not a limit but rather the minimum requirement.
But life is hard, and these questions are never easy for all the reasons we've discussed here. Note that I agreed with all of Eliab's post, not just because it's easier to copy it all w/o editing but because I agreed with it's entirety-- which was much nuanced than just "forgive everything", even as Eliab was calling us to a pretty high ethical bar. Life is hard, and realities are complex. I though Eliab did an excellent job of exploring the different factors that need to be explored in keeping with the spirit of both Jesus' and Paul's teachings.
[ 28. May 2015, 03:44: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Update: With a mere two days to go, our adversary the wolf in sheep’s clothing has actually done what she said she was going to do! I don’t think her conscience has got the better of her (that would imply she has one) but she’s realised she’s onto a loser.
This is not exactly an ideal solution for us because we’ll still lose a certain amount of money. The whole thing’s been a major bummer and it all makes me rather upset. But I think I prefer it to having to hash the whole thing out through the courts. It’s going to Stop. Which is to say that she’s going to cease and desist from ripping us off for any more money, but we’re unlikely to see the money she’s already ripped us off for. I guess that amounts to allowing ourselves to be wronged. Oh well.
As my husband pointed out, in this kind of situation you’re better off being the victim in some ways. We may be out of pocket, but at least we can look ourselves in the mirror and know we’re not horrible people.
Feel free to keep on discussing the generalities, tho. This is interesting.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Glad to hear there's been progress. The outstanding issue is whether she is likely to start all over again with someone else, and whether there is anything you or your church leadership can or should do to mitigate this.
Many years ago I was royally ripped off by a con artist targeting pastors. Like many marks, I was too ashamed to file a police complaint and simply wanted to get on with life, but I regretted it somewhat when I realised how many more he stung before getting canned.
[ 28. May 2015, 09:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
La Vie en Rouge, from your post it appears that you have 'turned the other cheek' to as great an extent as Paul could ever envisage! Had you taken it to law I'm sure you would have sought damages (or whatever they are called in France) and costs, which would have been messy, lengthy, tiring and divisive.
The best hope now is that she a) ceases and desists as far as you are concerned and b) doesn't try the same stunt with anyone else.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
And…It gets better. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
A significant sum of money has just turned up from a completely unexpected source! (We have a house in the South-West which we were planning to turn into a rental next Spring. Someone now wants to rent it off us for six weeks in June despite it only having half the furniture ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) Which will cover a large part of what Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing has screwed us over for.
Which goes to show that God is just, I suppose. Even before this I preferred being in our position than in WISC’s. Now I definitely like my position better.
(WISC is still trying to “win” over some petty details. But that’s All. She’s. Got. She can have them.)
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
As my husband pointed out, in this kind of situation you’re better off being the victim in some ways. We may be out of pocket, but at least we can look ourselves in the mirror and know we’re not horrible people.
I think this really is in many ways the essence of what Paul and Jesus are getting at. In addition to knowing you did the right thing, you also don't have the grinding effect that harboring bitterness and entrenched hostility has on your heart. While I imagine you've got normal feelings of frustration, resentment and even anger (well, I would, anyway) there's something about acting on them, even justly, that does tend to solidify and magnify those emotions in a way that can be corrosive. You seem to have really acted thoughtfully and with integrity in a very challenging situation, that can only bode well for you in terms of your inner life, if not your financial life.
And good news about the rental! Wonderful to have a bit of the burden lifted.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Which goes to show that God is just, I suppose. Even before this I preferred being in our position than in WISC’s. Now I definitely like my position better.
How does it show God is just?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Well YMMV obviously.
But I’m pretty content with a solution in which we get to do the right thing and aren’t going to suffer significant financial hardship because of it.
I would rather be in my position because I don’t ever want to be the kind of person who does the sort of thing WiSC did. Like I said, we can look in the mirror and know we aren’t horrible people. She is dishonest through and through. In fact I sincerely wonder if she isn’t a certifiable narcissist. She doesn’t give a rip about anyone else. Today we have more vicious emails from her trying to “win” over the few scraps that she still claim victory in. Fortunately for my mental equilibrium, I have got to the stage where I find her more pitiable than anything else. What.Ever.
Our main quandary at this stage is whether she is likely to try the same kind of thing with someone else in the future. I don’t think she can ever do the precise same thing because there was an opportunistic element to it and I don’t think that situation is going to present itself again. But she unquestionably is capable of treating others very, very badly. We’re still considering what that means.
I think I may have slightly sabotaged my thread ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Back on the original question, one thing I am still undecided about: I don’t think she would have cooperated had she not thought there a reasonable prospect we would sue. It wasn’t her conscience made her behave.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think I may have slightly sabotaged my thread Back on the original question, one thing I am still undecided about: I don’t think she would have cooperated had she not thought there a reasonable prospect we would sue. It wasn’t her conscience made her behave.
Most likely not. But that's not the point. We can't control other people's actions, only our own. You've already experienced how freedom of knowing you handled yourself with integrity. That is reward and motivation enough, regardless of whatever the other person does.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
I knew all this was reminding me of something, and I finally got it: the not entirely exemplary behaviour of Lincoln Cathedral staff in the mid nineties. (Cathedral Schism Causing High-Church Dudgeon) Perhaps that has useful pointers in what and what not to do in these cases - or would if anyone here knows how it all ended? Presumably some kind of resolution was reached, even if just involved some older people conveniently dying.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Is suing someone else not acting with integrity?
If you read thru the thread, you'll see that I and others have already explored this precise question (which was, after all, the OP) quite thoroughly in a much more nuanced way. My point was that in this particular situation, En Rouge had acted according to her convictions and is now experiencing some inner (if not financial) benefit. Again, we can't always control what others will do, or even what the courts will do. But there are some very good reasons for us to act with integrity, even when we don't expect the other person to respond in kind.
[ 29. May 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
la vie en rouge - well done all round. And this had BUGGER ALL to do with turning the other cheek. You've behaved impeccably, more than reasonably, more than fairly. Forgive everyone, especially yourself and move on.
Belle Ringer - as Lamb Chopped said, you're dealing with a company, not a person. Take them - it - to the cleaners!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't think I'm the one said that, somehow. But congratulations, la vie en rouge! As for the thread of suing bringing results--well, it worked for us too, to an extent, and yes, it did feel... weird. Still, the one fortunate thing about it is that such people always judge your potential actions by their own measure, and so you really don't need to do much threatening at all--merely mention the possibility and their own bad character does the rest. (Because if they were in your shoes, they know damn well they'd take you for all you were worth--and they simply can't believe in a person who would behave more generously or have the slightest scruples whatsoever.)
I suppose your church leadership is by now well acquainted with the situation? Because the last thing you want is for her to get into some kind of position of trust or leadership in the congregation and repeat her behavior there.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
The courts exist, in part, to help unreasonable people see reason.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Why should those be things we consider only when the other party is a Christian? Why not consider accepting injustice in the same way from non-Christians?
As Cliffdweller and vie have already said, there's a 'family' aspect to relationships with other believers.
I don't think that other Christians are the only ones who deserve special consideration - you can have a connection with people for all sorts of reasons, friendship, work, acquaintances in common, (natural) family relationships. Shared faith is one of many reasons for being more gracious than justice requires.
In the case of people who we engage with genuinely 'at arm's length', there is, of course, nothing wrong with treating them with special consideration as well. There's nothing wrong with acting as benevolently to a stranger as you would to a brother or sister, it's just that the minimum standard of duty is lower for strangers.
If you fall out with a brother or sister, and do not feel the damage to the relationship as a real and painful injury that you ought to be taking serious steps to remedy (even if it was all their fault, and you were blameless) then that's a problem. You aren't (IMO) expected to have the same immediacy of concern for causes of friction with casual acquaintances - those relationships simply do not matter as much, and nor should they. If you can be as gracious with everyone as you feel you should be with close family members, that's great, but probably most of us can't.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Belle Ringer - as Lamb Chopped said, you're dealing with a company, not a person. Take them - it - to the cleaners!
Yes but - a company owned by one person and a couple workers, to the company owner it feels like he is personally being sued. Any award comes out of his personal profits.
But he has not acknowledged my protest letter, so the next step is a letter quickly summarizing the protest, saying if I don't hear by [specific date] the next letter is to Better Business Bureau and then me to small claims court. Certified mail. One possibility is the boss never got the letter if the workers open mail for him.
I hate fighting. Why can't we reason things out? Guess I have to toughen up.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...such people always judge your potential actions by their own measure
I read a book on how to deal with difficult people. One of the people described, boy did I know that man! The book said when he yells at you and makes unreasonable demands, yell back, he will love you because you are playing his game.
So the next time, I yelled back. He loved me. Every day he yelled at me, I yelled back, and he told everyone I was the best of my profession.
Some people really don't mean to be unfair, they just see a different game.
But then there are the ones who live opportunistically, and the ones who "can't be happy unless I win, and I don't know I've won unless you are bleeding." (Explanation by an acquaintance why he disdained win-win solutions.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I would be very careful discussing any lawsuit on the internet. Our son is currently involved in a major lawsuit. His lawyer advised him not to say anything anywere about it because the other side is tracking what he has said (really nothing) and will say (he is completely off the internet at this time).
The lawyer even asked me to avoid the internet, but all I have agreed to is not discuss his case.
Just a word of warning.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed LC, it was Albertus, my apologies to you both.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
What Gramps has posted reminded me of the story of the pianist who was prevented from publishing his biography by his ex-wife because of matters not anything to do with her. It's OK to post now, I assume, because everything is now public. In the period between her losing the first case and her appeal against the judgement he was under injunctions of the sort that cannot themselves be mentioned.
During that time he posted a tweet in response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, citing the need for free speech, and within 20 minutes her lawyers had told him to take the tweet down, or he would be taken to court for contempt.
So caution is obviously required.
Scarily.
[ 31. May 2015, 14:39: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
