Seanette writes at www.customerssuck.com/board/showthread.php?t=3841:
funny how said problems keep her from working or cleaning house
Let’s tell the truth. I own a business. The person who was not working, not even applying, was Bob.
For orthopedic reasons, I am not to do certain things, which makes cleaning impossible. I hired an agency, and got none of the services I paid extra for. She apparently spent hours wiping down an already-clean counter.
After agency cleaners told me they're not allowed to do the things I needed done, I "hired" Seanette/Bob to do what the agencies wouldn’t. They didn’t accomplish more than a couple items on the list, and much of what they did was done in a way to ensure they either wouldn’t have to complete the job (put Tupperware away with seals on, so that only two containers fit where I had previously had four or five, nested) or wouldn’t be asked to do it again (spraying RoundUp not only on the toxic vines, but also on my rose bushes).
State Labor Code assigns a value for room and board, for husband and wife roughly $1200/month. At $20/hour, I should have gotten 60 hours work a month. Everything on my lists could have been taken care of with no more than 3 days concerted effort by two healthy people.
along with supposed chronic fatigue syndrome.
It’s not "supposed", it’s officially diagnosed since 1988.
It supports her professional victimhood to insinuate that I’m pretending to be sick in order to make her do my chores. They received adequate compensation, worth $1200/month, and since they were compensated, it matters not one bit whether I can or cannot do the chores that I hired them to do. I hire friends to work in my business, and they certainly don’t consider themselves put upon when they are paid for doing work that I "could" do myself.
Game plan was for us to help get the house shoveled out, which proved an impossibility when it was already overflowing with stuff
They saw the condition a week before. If they thought it would be impossible to clean, they could have refused to move in.
(since we had a car and she doesn't drive, she considered chauffeur service to shop part of the deal)
Despite their admitted financial problems, several times a week THEY wanted to go shopping, and because they didn’t know their way around town, they asked me to navigate. I bought everything I needed in one trip. A couple days later, THEY needed to go back, and I went with them just to get out of the house.
The only shopping I remember instigating was going to the grocery store to buy the things they like to eat. They were allowed to buy anything, even expensive things that I never buy for myself, including expensive energy drinks by the case. Does that sound like they were being taken advantage of?
she kept undoing anything that was done (she'd even manage to reclutter walkways as fast as I'd clear them
During their tenancy, I stayed mostly in my own room. How could I be recluttering a part of the house I basically wasn’t using?
The first person to clean the dining room brought me a bunch of mail she found under the table. All addressed to them. Another envelope with a note tucked under the seat cushion. Two healthy people who couldn’t be bothered to put their trash in the trash can a couple feet away. They threw more stuff on the floor than I did. All MY trash went in the trashcan.
I get a text message at work from her cell phone. "PLEASE CALL", all caps (not typical).
"Not typical" because for months I told her I could not send text messages to her new phone. Just one week before, she confirmed that the text message that bounced back was never received. If I’ve been telling her for months that I cannot text her, how does she leap to the conclusion this is a text message?
I'm about 15 miles away and do not have the car.
Which is precisely why it makes absolutely no sense for me to have contacted her in an emergency. There were other people who could get here faster, with a car. This logic totally escapes her.
I call the local police ... and ask them to have someone check on her, giving the medical picture and the info about the unusual text message.
Described to the police by Seanette as the "Secret Emergency Code". Again, we had had a number of discussions about this over the prior six months. She was fixated on having a code, and I repeatedly told her I could communicate more information faster via voice mail. I never agreed to a code and had no idea what the code was when the police asked. The police could not for the life of them figure out how any rational person could interpret "please call <my number>"as "call 911" and asked "is she some sort of kook?" (their word)
Crucial information was left out. I called her at 10:17 and she didn’t call back till 10:55. Had she told the police this, the neighbor could have told them I left her house at 10:50. This critical information would have made a difference in the police response was withheld so she could insist they break in to "rescue me".
The police were led to believe I never leave the house, the only reason for me to not answer the phone/door was medical emergency. Seanette knows that I go to the doctor, to lunch with friends, go shopping, and was babysitting for neighbors. All that was concealed.
Once the police had ALL the facts, not just her lies, there was discussion of filing charges for making a false police report.
A bit later, I get a call from then_friend herself, going nuclear on me because the health department was called in by the police after they broke in and saw the place (turned out she was having lunch with her boyfriend).
Turned out, at the time she called, 10:55 AM, I had been at a doctor appointment, and he requires all cell phones to be turned off.
She knew that I was seeing a doctor, but didn't tell the police that there was a reasonable explanation why I wouldn’t be home. The only place they would have gotten the impression I'm 100% housebound was from her, because the neighbors see me out and about.
As far as "going nuclear", the policeman standing four feet away heard none of the conversation except when I raised my voice to relay to him the answer to his question, that the "Secret Emergency Code" was "please call".
The truth is, it was Seanette who went ballistic because I dared to tell her that I didn’t appreciate the expensive mess she had caused, and Seanette who slammed down the phone on me.
It was quite clear from that conversation that what Seanette wanted was a headline "Clever Heroine Saves Friend’s Life". For someone who was supposedly so concerned about my wellbeing, her own words prove she’s lying ... at no time during our conversation did she ever say anything about "thank God you’re OK". She was more concerned with trying to elicit praise.
Allegedly, she'd left voicemail (my cell carrier informed me when I asked about this that it's not possible for an attempted voicemail to transmute into a text message),
Again, Seanette’s version of the facts is not what she was told. I planned to leave voicemail but somehow wound up at the option to leave a numeric page.
was bitching about how I'd even known about the call while at work (so why'd she call then, anyway? She knew my schedule)
Doesn’t this sentence contradict her whole argument? If it was a medical emergency, why wouldn’t I have wanted her to know immediately "while at work"? And if I knew she’d be at work without a car, why would I be stupid enough to contact her to deal with a medical emergency? This excuse makes absolutely no sense.
I knew she rarely, if ever, had the car at work and it takes her over an hour to get here by bus. No one in their right mind would call someone an hour away to deal with a medical emergency requiring immediate attention. But she’d like you to believe that I am that stupid, hoping you lack the critical thinking skills to figure out the fallacy of her explanation.
In fact, there was someone less than 50 feet away, with a car, who could have responded to any medical emergency within seconds. Another neighbor is home sporadically throughout the day, and only a few feet further away. There were people closer, with keys to the house, more logical to call in a crisis.
not only was I spending the holiday weekend cleaning her house but that I was paying all financial costs.
As any moral person would have offered to do, to mitigate the damages caused by their mistake. Even after being told by several mutual friends this was "the right thing to do", Seanette refused.
Instead, I had to spend the holiday weekend (and many weeks thereafter) cleaning – which a healthy person could have largely set to rights over a single weekend – and pay for weeks in a motel, and hire help to do what I could not, and fees/fines, AND practically land in the hospital.
I *could not* deal with the berserker rage she was unloading.
"Rage" that none of the neighbors or the police standing near me heard. The police had to ask me what was said becausefrom four feet away, they didn’t hear my end of the conversation.
(apparently, she didn't bother to pay the city's fees
Anyone want to see the receipts? The documents prove who is lying here. But she wouldn’t get that sympathy a professional victim craves if she told the truth that I paid the bills but asked her to take responsibility for her screw-up.
I couldn't get the place shoveled out in the two months I was there
Let’s get this straight. This is a small house, 880 square feet, with 6 rooms. Two months, 60 days, averages out to 10 days per room. Two healthy people should have been able to do the job in a couple days. Even if there were boxes stacked floor-to-ceiling in every square foot of the house, it would not have taken 10 days per room to carry them to the basement. In fact, the room with the most boxes only had about a dozen.
The independent witness – the one Seanette desperately tried to stop from testifying by lying about him – clarified that when they moved in, the house was in pretty good shape. A couple items of heavy cleaning were needed, things the agency cleaners were not permitted to do, and some boxes needed to be moved to the basement, but it was nowhere near the pigsty Seanette portrays.
The witness testified that the condition of the house deteriorated significantly while they lived here. The living room was clean and entirely usable when they moved in. After each shopping trip, the piles of bags got higher, because all the purchases (except what needed to go in the fridge) were simply dumped on the love seat, until it overflowed, and then dumped on the couch. Neither of them made any effort to put anything away, or carry the bags to the correct room so I could put it away.
After living here 2.5 months, they were still claiming that they "don’t know where it goes". College-educated people cannot figure out that canned goods belong on the kitchen shelf with the canned goods? Maybe they ARE that stupid ... they moved my extra canned goods from the kitchen to the dining room, apparently believing that was more convenient.
(she even screamed at me for throwing out some very stale crackers with a charming hint of mold in the taste while retrieving same from a garbage can that ISTR even had used cat litter in it at the time)
MY recollection is that I had opened a package of cookies a day or two before, which certainly were neither stale nor moldy, and I retrieved them from a wastebasket with only clean paper in it.
If you want to talk about "screaming", Seanette, let’s discuss that charming episode where you were politely asked to stop throwing away the receipts I needed to do my business taxes, and you ran screaming from the room, shrieking that I should stop criticizing you, and slammed the door. Your own husband confirmed that I asked quietly and politely and that you over-reacted to a reasonable request. You sulked because I wouldn’t apologize for making a reasonable request in a reasonable tone of voice that you stop throwing away my financial records, an act that would get me in trouble with the IRS.
marital stress, serious financial stress, her verbal abuse
Yes, let’s talk about stress and verbal abuse. Before you moved, you were specifically told that it was OK to give my phone number to your friends and relatives, but that I did not want to get any calls from your creditors.
Almost immediately, I started getting phone calls from your credit card companies, including one woman who called 8 or 10 times a day, and screamed at me that I was lying when I said that I was not Mrs. Blaylock. I took all sorts of verbal abuse from that woman, because neither of you wanted to talk to her, for days on end being called a deadbeat and a liar for bills that weren’t even mine. It took my going all the way to the president of the company before anyone bothered to confirm that I was telling the truth that both the address and the phone number are registered to a last name other than Blaylock.
And that was just one of many companies calling and disturbing my peace and quiet, because you made it possible for all your creditors to get my phone number.
the plaintiff has a history of conveniently being "too ill" for scheduled legal proceedings.
The plaintiff appeared for her deposition, willing to go forward as long as possible, and the other lawyer decided that the plaintiff was too ill to give good testimony. Hardly as manipulative as you make it out to be, since the decision was made by the lawyer.
I know from her own statement (relating to another piece of litigation of hers) that she'll do this on purpose out of sheer malice for the other party, so it won't surpriseme if she does this to me a few times.
The only malice involved is by you, Seanette. You were given ample opportunity to make amends, to volunteer to chip in toward the expenses of this fiasco, and you repeatedly refused to do anything to fix the problem you caused. Then you made threats that if I didn’t do what you wanted, you’d call the other lawyer and volunteer to sell her your (fictionalized) testimony. Meli called you on your first threat as soon as you made it, and warned you that there could be legal consequences to your actions.
the plaintiff being a professional victim
If you want to see a professional victim, look in the mirror.
Only you could somehow twist 2.5 months of free room and board in exchange for a few hours of chores into victimization.
And after you created an unnecessary, expensive fiasco, you even twisted that into victimization, because I dared to say "I don’t appreciate this".
You come up with a really imaginative story to explain yourself, but it’s full of logical flaws that cause people to question your sanity and intelligence.
I don't want a confrontation, I just want this to go away
This could have "gone away" the day you made that phone call if you had just agreed to do what you could to undo the damage you’d caused.
In fact, this could have "gone away" at the courthouse the other day if you had simply said "I’m really sorry, I did something really stupid." Instead, after the judge ordered that both sides had to talk in the hallway to try to settle, you walked away and refused to comply with that court order.
if I cough up over $2000 I don't have
What makes you think that I have $2000 to pay for your mistake?
After claiming that you were so concerned for my wellbeing that you had to have the police break in, you demonstrated complete lack of concern for my wellbeing by whining to Nathalie that you were being driven to bankruptcy and the mental hospital, and never did respond to her when she pointed out that you were doing the same to me.
then there's her paranoia about her ex_husband showing up (no evidence that he has any interest in doing so that I'm aware of)
Bob locked the front door – he’s absolutely positive he did – and went in another room. He heard the door rattling, and when he checked, the door was unlocked.
On another occasion, Seanette teased me about my compulsiveness in double-and triple-checking the front door to be sure it was locked before I went to bed. The next morning, the door was unlocked.
And, oddly enough, once the ex’s driver’s license with this address on it expired and he could no longer get a new key, the locks were changed and the door has NEVER been inexplicably unlocked again.
Reach your own conclusion about whether this is "paranoia" about an ex who has "no interest" in coming around, or whether the facts add up to a reasonable inference that someone was unlocking the door. She has to make you believe that I’m the one with the screw loose so that you won’t analyze HER actions too closely.
that I never lifted a finger when I was staying there (also totally false
That’s true, it’s totally false that I said Seanette "never lifted a finger". What I said was that very little was actually done, and that the net result was a deterioration in the condition of the house.
on the day we moved out, that house was, while still squalid, in the best shape I ever saw it, before or since
The house was in pretty good shape the first time you saw it, in 2001. The house was in much better shape when you moved in than when you moved out. (See comment to 11/1/05 blog post from the witness that Seanette tried desperately to prevent from testifying.)
It went downhill after you moved out because you had put stuff in front of EVERY cupboard, drawer and closet, to ensure I could not put anything away on my own. Just as previously, the hired cleaners wouldn’t move those boxes for me, the agency rules don’t allow it.
I'm getting a battle I didn't want and don't need. (sigh)
My health didn’t need the stress either, not the stress of being evicted from my own home, and not the stress of having to sue you to try to get you to do the right thing and chip in toward the costs incurred because of you.
___
That's called blackmail, hun. Blackmailers KNOW that people don't want confrontation, that's how they choose their victims.
Yes, let’s talk about blackmail and extortion. I promised them 2 months free room and board in exchange for cleaning, with the option (my decision) to extend the agreement if things were going well. I wasn’t satisfied with the amount of cleaning being done, so I didn’t extend it.
I immediately got all sorts of guilt trips that they had nowhere to go and manipulation trying to convince me that, after living on my own for years, I was unable to live alone and would die without them here.
What they didn’t tell me until I made it clear that they were going to move out regardless, was that their church would pay their rent. They wouldn’t have been homeless if I hadn’t invited them to move in.
After the phone call to the police, Seanette made statements that a mutual friend interpreted as "threats". I have never made threats to her.
The most telling proof that this was not as accidental as she wants you to believe is that a few days before, she stopped by here to borrow $80, and said something about making ME "shovel out this place" A couple days later, voila, she figured out how.
If your names weren't on the lease, or tenancy agreement while you lived there, how can you be responsible for her tax affairs?
Despite Seanette’s lies to make you believe it's my taxes, the bills they were asked to pay were the actual fees/fines for this fiasco caused by her lies. If the professional victim admitted that the original bill was over $1200 which I negotiated down to $300, she wouldn’t get the sympathy she so desperately wants.
Why should I pay for violations that were a result of chores they were asked to do and didn’t (e.g., they were told to move a pile of boxes in front of a window, which the inspector cited as blocking a fire exit – why would I have screamed at them for moving boxes they were TOLD to move?)
she hasn't tried phone calls in over a year
So, where’s the claimed harassment?
Oh, wait! That destroys your attempt to play professional victim.
noisily opening container of food and snacking during the wait (eating was, of course, banned).
Plaintiff popped a mint into her mouth. Hardly "snacking", except if you need to tell lies so that your online friends will give you tons of sympathy for putting up with the horrid, nasty person who treated you so badly that when your two-month "lease" was up you couldn’t wait to ... bully her into extending it for years.
(DH and I are going out of our way to behave calmly and respectfully)
You were ranting that my witness shouldn’t be allowed to testify because "lawyers aren’t allowed in Small Claims court". When we clarified that he was a paralegal, you embellished on your lie, claiming that he’s a lawyer with his own practice.
The judge could have easily checked to prove that you were lying, if he hadn’t ruled against your outburst by pointing out that no lawyer would risk being disbarred for lying in a Small Claims case. This was the most laughable part of the whole day, the judge and court personnel reacting to your desperate attempt to keep out the testimony of the one person with nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth. Even after the judge told you that there was no reason he could not testify as a witness, you kept trying to convince the judge that he shouldn’t be allowed to speak.
**I have to think that if*—*at this point*—*he was still entertaining any possibility of finding against us, that he would have given us further opportunity to explain ourselves.
At that point, the judge had seen the desperate lengths you’d go to to prevent the truth from coming to light, and probably had had enough of your lies. The documents proved that you’ll twist the truth: e-mails in 2004 discussing that you were to clean the house, and e-mails from 2005 in which you denied that you agreed to clean.
