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 stuffThey 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 haveWhat 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 yearSo, 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.
16 comments:
Hmm, when a guy gets so lazy that he neither works nor even does the cleaning, I think he's ripe for a chat show or two about "I am married a lazy idiot who won't do the cleaning". I think Karen should be commended for running her business - at least she's not chewing up my tax dollars. I know several people who have the same thing as Karen has. I happened to come across Karen's blog and I've told them about her yahoo group so I think the group will have some new members joining in the next few weeks.
I think that anyone who doesn't know HOW Tupperware works must be declared "Idiot of the Century" and be sent back to school to learn ins and outs of life properly. And for someone so idiotic I would have only paid minimum wage.
When I visit my mother in Colorado, she insists I tuck in with the chores, even though I am the guest. And my mother always says "It's the Christian thing to do". Are these two individuals you are talking about Christian? I think they are a disgrace to all Christians like us if they are.
I've had the same problem as Karen with a cell phone I used to have. In the end I threw it away because it was so useless.
And reading what you say about that "secret code", it looks like she is some sort of kook. Maybe I will get my brother to call her and make an appointment with her doctor for a psychiatric assessment. According to him she may have either Munchausen’s or Munchausen’s by Proxy or is plainly someone prone to stalking tendencies. His suggestion is "tell the lady this kook did this to, steer clear from the kook".
From what I read in this Seanette's gibberish on that forum, she has DSL and a computer. So she can afford them but not $2000? I find that very strange indeed. And she has a job. If this had happened to me I'd ask for an attachment of earnings of some sort.
And I sounds that this person called Nathalie is the sort of REAL friend that Karen needs. Is this person anywhere near you, Karen?
Took me some time to read through what Seanette said and then Karen's comments, and one thing is for sure. I KNOW how hard Karen works, just LAST NIGHT she did a rush job for me (ON RETAINER) for a press advertisement my company (Minuet Internet Services - www.minuet-uk.com) is putting into a local business publication. Karen has done numerous jobs for me - every time on time and on target and the way I wanted it. I sometimes wonder how she's managing to work so hard when even I can't cope working hard from time to time - AND I AM HEALTHY!!!
Seanette is a real character (saying that sarcastically). She decided to email me shortly after she had effectively got Karen thrown out of her own house. She came with some sob story that Karen was angry with her and hating her and lots more nonsense. Seanette, if you are reading, I ask you again what I asked at the time... WHY CLAIM to ME that you are going bankrupt and ending up in a mental hospital WHEN YOU WERE DOING ****THAT**** TO KAREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And how can Seanette afford DSL and a computer anyway???? Just doesn't add up.
And Seanette, a simple WRITTEN APOLOGY would have PREVENTED you from going to court.
Also I think Seanette needs to learn something that Karen and I understand:
A friend is someone who understands your past, believes in your future and accepts you today the way you are...
In a message dated 10/11/2005 2:19:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, seanette@impulse.net writes:
You know very well I know a good deal about gross exaggerations
for sympathy, deliberately playing manipulative games, etc.
Condemned in her own words. Seanette certainly does "know a good deal about" exaggerating for sympathy and manipulation, as evidenced by both her post to that board AND her perjurious lies in court.
I've seen the house in question. It was never so bad that it was "an impossibility" for a healthy person to clean, with a little initiative. But Seanette and Bob chose to spend all their time playing with their computers instead of even making the effort to clean a little every day.
After saying that a Total Allergy Clean of the bedroom should be done to see if that helped Karen's symptoms, it took 6 weeks for Seanette to get motivated for the first time to do any cleaning in there. In 2.5 months, they never vacuumed, never took down the dusty curtains and blinds, which certainly wasn't allergen reduction.
Karen did all the cooking. Karen was the one to load the dishwasher, Seanette claimed she "didn't know how". Since any idiot can load a dishwasher, it's obvious that Seanette just plain didn't want to do the job she was being compensated to do. She'd manipulated Karen into free room and board, and made a point of doing jobs wrong so that Karen would be manipulated into saying something, so that Seanette could pout and scream and refuse to do any more work because she was "being criticized".
There is a "professional victim" here, and it's not Karen. She's the legitimate victim of a couple of con artists who promised her all sorts of things and didn't do any of them.
And I've been sent many photos of Karen's house by Karen in the past. Until Karen told, I thought her sofa was chocolate brown, but now know it's green.
Any chance I can get more pictures of the house... again, Karen?? ;-))
Love to see even more...
Yes, Karen DOES work.
A few months after she lost her full-time job for being too sick to work (her boss's opinion, not a figment of her imagination), she was hired to work part-time for CraftSearcher. She wrote pages and pages of information for the CraftSearcher website, and edited pages and pages written by other people.
When she was so sick that she could not even sit up without passing out, she laid in bed stitching together a hundred segments for the World Peace Ribbon, and then laid in bed writing an explanation about the reasons for the ribbon, which was read at the International Day of Peace Vigil.
The World Peace Ribbon, described as a "work of art" by the IDP organizer, hung in the actual United Nations building for a full month! It's moved many people to tears. What has Seanette or Bob ever done that achieved that level of success? And Karen did this while she was deathly ill.
So any notion that all Karen does is sit around doing nothing, whining and looking for sympathy, with her hand out looking for charity, is wrong.
It's Seanette and Bob who do nothing and mooch off charity, and Seanette, in particular, who sets herself up as a "professional victim" with her lies and exaggerations, which she ADMITS she "knows a lot about".
Seanette lied to the police, this is proven. She lied in court, this is also proven. When Karen didn't do what Seanette wanted, she threatened to sell her lies to a lawyer to make sure that Karen would lose her case, not knowing that it is illegal for a lawyer to pay for testimony. I've seen the actual e-mails. You can see them, too.
So, Karen would rather hire a cleaner than clean herself. Big deal. Lots of professional women do. Whether there were other things that weren't Seanette's fault doesn't matter -- even one violation would have been enough for Karen to be cited, and Seanette/Bob were responsible for
In a message dated 10/11/2005 2:19:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, seanette@impulse.net writes:
You know very well I know a good deal about gross exaggerations
for sympathy, deliberately playing manipulative games, etc.
Let me add a telling example of Seanette's proficiency at "playing manipulative games".
While they were living there, Karen was trying to take a nap, but Seanette was shrieking at Bob that she wanted a divorce.
Karen dragged herself out of bed, went to Seanette's computer and logged her onto a website where she could fill out divorce paperwork. Karen offered to help Seanette fill it out, if that's what it took to put an end to the screaming and invective.
Seanette then turned on Karen, shrieking at Karen "you want me to get a divorce because YOU hate Bob" and accusing Karen of trying to ruin their marriage, all because Karen offered to help Seanette accomplish what Seanette said she wanted.
That was one of several incidents that convinced Karen she didn't want to extend their lease. There was no peace and quiet (necessary to Karen's health) to be had with that shrieking harridan in residence.
You have to walk on eggshells around Seanette at least one week a month. She's the one who screams and "goes nuclear" and has "berserker rages" for no reason at all.
But there's no sympathy to be had for admitting that SHE was the one screaming at Karen, and it's sympathy that Seanette thrives on. She creates situations when there's not enough drama in her life, and Karen just happened to get caught in the crossfire of one of Seanette's excitement-creation stunts.
This Seanette person sounds like a real nut job.
She's living in your house rent-free, not doing any of the cleaning she was hired to do, and she thinks it's out of line for you to ask for a ride somewhere? Where did you want to go that made it so onerous to drive you -- Argentina?
You're supporting her AND her husband, and she wants people to believe that you can afford to do this without working? Disability insurance is a few hundred bucks a month, not even enough to support one person, and she thinks you can afford to buy groceries for three people from that, and at that all the expensive stuff they want instead of just rice and beans?
What planet does this girl live on to think that you voluntarily chose to go on disability, or that disability pays enough for you to "power shop" in addition to supporting two lazy louts?
And then to disparage your health problems with comments like she doesn't believe your diagnosis is real!!! She needs some serious help for her delusions and I hope she gets it real soon.
I say you put up with enough from these moochers and you should have sued them for all they were worth. You did more than most people would do for them and they repaid you with hassles.
God bless you for your charity. God will get them later.
I managed to something interesting about Seanette in September 2005 in alt.beenz where Seanette was claiming that she was involuntary "volunteered" to work on a birthday gift for someone called Trish.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.beenz/tree/browse_frm/thread/cc87c33d50317227/0e85109c149d4ad7?rnum=1&hl=en&q=seanette+trish+gift&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.beenz%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fcc87c33d50317227%2Fdb8068f63db5a4a9%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dseanette+trish+gift%26rnum%3D1%26hl%3Den%26#doc_34a6de5cf8a1ea6a
Also, Seanette, I am just wondering WHAT stale crackers with a "charming taste of mold" taste like. Did you have the runs after eating them, or is it just that you didn't like the fact they were Karen's cookies and she was eating them all herself.
Also if Karen is so horrid to put up with, why did you move into her house in the first place, Seanette? She was very generous with what she did and I don't know many people who would do the same thing.
Seanette, I suggest you grow up and start living in the real world. In the real world, we do not appreciate lies and fantasies about victimization and having a bad life - and if you are having a bad life, maybe you should look closer to home - like at the person whom you are married to and ask yourself if you are getting a fair deal.
As Bob wasn't working or even looking for a job, it sounds like he is just living off you (and Karen). Before you go attack an innocent person, you want to look at your own life, behaviour, lifestyle, etc. Just remember that, Seanette, and that from someone with more life experience than you and your husband combined.
Seanette, I had a sister who would have celebrated her 24th birthday two weeks ago. She died due to complications directly linked to CFS/ME.
The doctors said that her organs just gave up and were similar to an old woman's functioning. To me it still sounds grusome when I think about when I got told that all her inners were bleeding without stopping (her stomache, digestive system, bowels, urinary tract) and she could only bleed to death and nothing could be done for her AT ALL.
It is this sort of story that should shock people out there into believing that this disease is real, is disabling, and in some cases DEADLY!!!
And this was a young woman with promise in her life, who would have been in year 2 of her architecture degree, and who would have likely been the next famous architect around.
If you want to explain to anyone you know WHAT CFS/ME is, you can quote me on this real event about my sister. It is disease, and it is one that should be actively researched for a cure so that people can get their lives back.
And you need to EDUCATE yourself, Seanette, so you understand this disease better, or are you going to deny a person you are assessing in your current insurance assesment (see Seanette's profile on customerssuck.com) their insurance claim when you discover(ed) they have this disease/disability.
If it should be named anything else, I think (from a layman's viewpoint), it should be called "Chronic Neurocognitive Dysfunctional Disease" (CNDD), or something along those lines - knowing they want a new name for it and all that.
To show their desperation to avoid responsibility, Bob argued that they are "not professional housekeepers", but just "rank amateurs".
They weren't asked to do anything unusual like get out smoke damage or toxic sludge. This is a house, like any other house, that needs to be cleaned, just like your house or theirs. Mop the floors, wash the curtains, carry a few boxes to the basement ... the same things you do at your house. Maybe more of it, because prior cleaners hadn't properly cleaned it.
But, to escape criticism for not doing it, they had to portray this as some sort of disaster that required special cleaning skills, and not the same skills possessed by every housewife.
Any one of you, who is physically fit, could have done the job in a few days with no special training. What these people lacked was not special training to be a professional cleaner, but the initiative to do what they were hired to do. One of them lacked even the initiative to look for a job. When it was suggested that they do some cleaning, Karen was available right then and could tell them what to do, they were always too busy, too tired, too ____.
So, make up your own mind who is desperately trying to make excuses for their behavior, and who wanted only to get the house properly cleaned when hired cleaners refused to do certain tasks.
Having followed the link you provided, it is clear that the judge did NOT see things your way. Seanette is claiming that she not only won the lawsuit, but that the judge ruled with prejudice against you.
Mysteriously you have not published the ruling on your blog, as she has on hers.
As someone who has FMS I occasionally skim your blog, hoping you'll post something useful, so far I've been consistently disappointed.
Hope your minor wrist injury is better by now.
You cannot believe anything Seanette tells you.
The complete text of the Notice of Entry of Judgment is:
"Judgment was entered on October 16, 2006, as follows: The Defendants SEANETTE BLAYLOCK and ROBERT BLAYLOCK do not owe the Plaintiff KAREN M. CAMPBELL any money/property on Plaintiff's claim."
Not one word in there about "with prejudice".
I know from my own dealings with Seanette that she is a manipulator and a liar. I do not trust her and her over the top fictionalizing of the "facts" here proves that nothing she says can be trusted.
Karen's hair was combed and she was nicely dressed in quality clothing from an upscale retailer ... NOT a cheap polyester thrift store suit like Seanette. What Karen was wearing was appropriate to wear as a paralegal in a conservative law office and was appropriate to wear to court. This was a small claims hearing, not a fashion show, so there was no need for Karen to spend $250 buying a new suit when she already had something nice to wear.
Seanette brings most of her problems on herself with her lying and manipulating. She says Karen treated her like dirt, but she was manipulating Karen to let her stay forever, which puts to lie how miserable she was living with Karen. But she wouldn't get sympathy with the truth.
Unlike some people who have a baseless opinion here, I know Karen personally - have for years - and I know Seanette and Bob personally.
I saw the house deteriorate while Seanette and Bob were living there. I saw the mail addressed to them that was found after they moved out - that THEY were too lazy to throw in the trash can. I've never seen Karen put trash anywhere other than in the trash or the recycling bin.
I can tell you from personal observation that Karen's room, where she spent most of her time while they lived there, was the same throughout (was never properly cleaned by Seanette but also didn't get any worse). The areas where Seanette and Bob spent their time were the parts that looked like shit when they moved out. Seanette wants to blame Karen for the mess in the hallway, but I say the problem was Seanette and Bob being too lazy to carry groceries to the kitchen and put them away.
Seanette bitches that Karen messed up the bedroom after Seanette cleaned it. What I saw was that Karen DARED to unpack her suitcase and make a pile of dirty laundry. Laundry that Karen had to do herself because her live-in housecleaner refused I also saw that the room wasn't "clean" -- it hadn't been vacuumed, the sheets weren't changed, the things Karen wanted Seanette to put on the top shelf of the closet were still out. So much for Seanette's lie that she cleaned the room while Karen was gone.
In her post, Seanette talks about "power shopping". I don't know who she's going out with, because it certainly isn't the Karen that I help with shopping.
The one I know starts to drag after barely an hour, and that's with me doing all the lifting.
The only incident I can think of that qualifies as "power shopping", Karen suggested a trip to a needlework store about 2 hours away. She paid for the rental car, the gas, the meals; Seanette drove. As Karen described the original plan, they would go to the cross-stitch store and the knitting store, and then come home, stopping for a late lunch at a well-recommended restaurant halfway home. She thought she could handle that much in one day, since she could rest in the car.
But once they got there, Seanette dragged Karen from store to store, ignoring the plan to come home early. The restaurant Karen envisioned as a late lunch around 3 PM wound up being a late dinner at 9 PM -- Karen got home after midnight, 8 hours after she planned. The next couple of days, Karen looked like hell. It was obvious that Seanette had exhausted her by refusing to stick with the original plan.
The person who went power shopping that day (since Karen was paying for her purchases) was Seanette.
Post a Comment