|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Suing other believers
|
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
