Ship of Fools: Suing other believers

Thread: Suing other believers Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029172

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

(I think Purgatory is the right place for this. If the hosts think it would fit better in Kerygmania, feel free to move it.)

My husband and I are currently involved in a situation in which someone is wilfully trying to rip us off for a lot of money. I’m not going to go into the specifics any more than that because (a) putting up all the details of our dispute on the internet isn’t going to end well and (b) I want to discuss the general principle, for which ISTM that the details aren’t necessary.

The most obvious way forward to make this person cease and desist would be to sue in a court of law. Obviously every dispute has two sides, but we are fairly confident that a judge would give us satisfaction. The person is behaving in a way that is highly prejudicial to us, and we can prove it.

Anyway, the main reason we haven’t already got a lawyer and sued her backside into next year is this: the person in question is a GLE who attends the same church as us. Go figure. So far we have been trying to follow the principles here. We have called the person to a meeting between us and told her what we want her to do to sort it out (with a deadline). She played nice and agreed but the deadline’s coming up and so far she hasn’t done anything. Next time, we will bring a couple of witnesses to the meeting (who hold a position of responsibility in our church and are also tangentially involved in the dispute).

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.

OTOH, it’s also clear to me that the person is behaving “worse than an unbeliever”. When I tell my non-Christian colleagues what’s going on, they’re appalled. I’m not sure Paul really wants to sanction that sort of thing.

So, what say the fine people of the ship? Can there be circumstances in which it’s acceptable to sue another believer in a court of law?

(I’m aware this thread could sail close to legal hot water if we start talking too much about specific instances. For that reason I think we need to stick to the general principle to avoid posting anything potentially libellous. Thanks.)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

How ghastly for you. Its a double-hit when it is someone from your own church or faith community who is doing this sort of thing.

Now to the way forward.

You must not have as witnesses people who can be even tangentially involved: you have had one face-to-face meeting already (without any witness, but unless she denies this happened you should be OK on that one).

The next step, if you still want to give them a chance, is to involve a mediator: this would be a person independent to all of you.

That meeting should put forward a proposal for resolution with a fixed time-scale to be followed; if that isn't adhered to and the behaviour continues then you have no choice but to go to law.

It may be advisable for you to consult a lawyer now in any case, because people who behave in terrible ways are, IME, more than capable of launching their own legal pre-emptive strike. You should also see if it is possible for you to take out an insurance to cover your legal costs since these can escalate at an alarming rate.

Trying to be Christian about this is all well-and-good but if the other party is hell-bent on being as unpleasant and destructive as possible self-preservation must be higher on your list of priorities.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

I note that Paul refers to the cases being brought here as "trivial". One could argue I suppose that compared to judging angels all cases are trivial but I suspect this is an injunction against frivolous lawsuits rather than an outright ban on legal action against other Christians.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

First off, I'm going to second the point that if you're going to have witnesses formally observe a meeting then they should be as independent of the situation as is humanly possible. I'm not sure if there's Scriptural support for that, but there is an awful lot of good old common sense in it.

On the Scriptural injunction on believers taking each other to court, I think that mainly reflects a desire to avoid bringing the faith into disrepute. However, if by letting someone act in a manner that is more likely to bring the faith into disrepute than a law suit would ... well, you should be able to see where that's going.

Covering up problems, even letting abuse and other issues continue, with the intent of not bringing the faith into disrepute has been repeatedly shown to result in the exact opposite.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

No advice - but what is a GLE?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Good Little Evangelical

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Covering up problems, even letting abuse and other issues continue, with the intent of not bringing the faith into disrepute has been repeatedly shown to result in the exact opposite.

Indeed. I actually saw someone on Twitter last night try to use this passage to justify a Christian organisation not reporting abuse to secular authorities but dealing with it internally. And for "dealing with" read "brush under the carpet" [Frown]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Clarify please. What are the differences among church people at your church, church people at other churches, people you know but don't attend? Should there be differential treatment based on such factors? Do the ethics of suing differ because your relationship with the people? Should they?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Matt 18;15-7 gives three steps to follow here. First the face-to-face which you've already tried. Then the face-to-face with others present, " so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses' ".

These witnesses should be from your fellowship but preferably not involved in the dispute so that their advice can be seen as unbiased. There is then a reasonable probability that the other party will listen to their reaction and advice on the situation. But note of course that after examining things the witnesses may spot fault on your side and call on you to change as well!

The third step is

quote:
If he refuses to listen to them (the witnesses), tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-collector.

That is, in effect, if he won't give way, he will be 'excommunicated' by the fellowship. Can't guarantee that will secure the desired result, but it will be quite a shock to the person concerned and should make them think twice about their conduct.

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 think if YOU are taken to court it is OK to defend yourself, as both Jesus and Paul did in various circumstances.

Also note that Jesus' example of how to treat 'pagans and tax collectors' involves loving, caring, and seeking their restoration to fellowship....

I'd also comment that before such situations as this arise, it's important that churches should have it as part of their regular teaching that ideas like 'turn the other cheek' are NOT a charter for exploiters! (I could say a lot more about this based on some bad past experiences, but would be interested to see how other Shipmates react....)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I agree with l'Organist, Paul. and Alan Cresswell, subject to the proviso that you describe the dispute as "significant" and that legal action is a last resort once all other avenues have been exhausted or reasonably attempted.

The most frequent use of Paul's advice to the Corinthians in my experience is precisely as a licence to exploit Christians and/or to cover up abuse, sometimes criminal abuse, by Christians.

Don't necessarily expect support from your church if you go down this road though. [Frown]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

So the fellow church member is differently treated because they are an insider. Got it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So the fellow church member is differently treated because they are an insider. Got it.

I don't think anyone's saying that, simply that it's more fraught-- both because of the strictures against suing fellow Christians in the NT and because it's family. Most people, no matter how awful their upbringing was, would find suing their own mother or father more fraught than suing a stranger. Maybe we shouldn't-- we're all children of God-- but most of us would. I think that's all we see happening here.

To the OP, I would second the recommendation of mediation-- binding mediation if possible. Once you've taken that final step, it seems to me that you have complied with the spirit of the law as laid out in NT. Obviously Jesus and Paul are dealing with a very different culture than we have, and particularly a different legal system-- and a different ecclesiastical system. "Bringing someone before the elders of the church" has a lot more teeth when there's not a dozen other churches down the street the offender can simply toddle off to when the elders excommunicate them. I think we're intended to apply the spirit of the Law here, not the specifics. You've made every attempt to resolve the matter peacefully, which seems to be the intent. You seem here to be careful to refrain from gossiping about it or bad mouthing the offender at church, which again, seems consistent with the intent of the law. But I think in general you're on the right track.

[ 26. May 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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.

As to the issue in general, I would have no qualms about getting a lawyer involved now, if the matter is so serious. That doesn't stop you from continuing to seek an informal mediated resolution, but it does mean that you are showing that you regard this as a serious matter and that you are not backing down. Often just the threat of legal involvement will bring someone to their senses.

If the church doesn't like this - then leave and go to a church that has better sense.

The instruction from Paul was to a church in Corinth which had big problems. We cannot be sure exactly what he was arguing against and we certainly cannot be sure that he would have regarded ALL legal action as wrong. And even if he did, I would not regard that as "authoritative" - just as I do not regard his comments about women covering their hair as "authoritative".

There are some tricky issues involved here, and simplistic use of a few bible verses is not really adequate. We need to look at the bigger picture of justice and love for others (especially the vulnerable).

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by no prophet's flag is set so...

quote:
So the fellow church member is differently treated because they are an insider. Got it.

I hope you didn't get that impression from my earlier post.

I would never advocate treating a church member differently over something like this: IMO wrong, bullying behaviour is completely unacceptable whoever someone is and whatever 'club' they belong to.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

My reading of 1Cor 6 v1-7 is that while it is preferable to take matters to the Saints than to law before the unrighteous', Paul recognises that you may not get satisfaction because there is no one of sufficient standing in the church to judge the wrongdoer. The passage ends with "Why not rather be defrauded?" which while a rhetorical question is nevertheless a question which to my mind, leaves things open.

The context of this passage is in a pretty stirring rebuke to the entire church at Corinth, and it appears that he is trying to persuade and encourage the church to get a handle on the wrongdoings of its members from the inside, in which case 1Cor 6 v1-7 fits very neatly.

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

There’s definitely something going on here with the Corinthians boasting that they are wise and Paul challenging them to prove that they are wise by sorting out legal disputes themselves.

But Anthony C. Thiselton in his Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary on 1 Corinthians makes the point that in the administration of Roman civil law that prevailed in Corinth at the time, judges and even juries would expect to be offered a reward if they gave a favourable verdict. The courts there favoured the rich. So what the start of chapter 6 is saying is that rich Christians shouldn’t attempt to manipulate justice by using corrupt courts against a more vulnerable believer. It’s part of a series of warnings Paul gives about grasping behaviour in this chapter.

If Thiselton’s explanation is correct, then whether it’s right to go to court depends on two things: whether you are the one who is grasping or manipulative, and your view of the quality of the French legal system.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

The general thread topic reminded me of this:

"If you're doing business with a religious..."

1:12 in the video. Salty language.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

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.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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!]

)

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.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Steve Langton, to clarify:

Are there no circumstances in which you would countenance taking a believer to court?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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'.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

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!

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

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?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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 ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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]

[ 27. May 2015, 14:21: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Anyway, Belle, you're suing his company. Different legal entity.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

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 ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

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.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

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?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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 ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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 ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Congratulations! Do get it in writing. Signed. With witnesses... [Big Grin]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

And…It gets better. [Big Grin]

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]

) 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.)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.
[Smile]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

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?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

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]

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Is suing someone else not acting with integrity?

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

The courts exist, in part, to help unreasonable people see reason.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.)

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Indeed LC, it was Albertus, my apologies to you both.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

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 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0