Fry's showed up -- Compaq didn't -- and claimed that they disposed of my computer on November 11, but don't have any paperwork to prove that it was donated to charity or what happened to it. I know I called them in the first week or so of November (granted, a few days after the 30 days in their notice), and was told I had to talk to someone in the office, who never returned my call. Maybe they didn't WANT to return my call because they were already in the process of getting rid of it that quickly. They claim they didn't take a tax deduction for it -- oh, c'mon, what for-profit corporation donates to charity and doesn't take a tax deduction? -- so I have my suspicions that they "donated" it to an employee. Since they didn't actually get cash for it in excess of the mechanics lien they claimed, they say they owe me nothing for the computer.
Then, in a last ditch attempt to avoid paying me even for the 3-year extended warranty that I'm getting no use from, they started arguing that there's a fee to cancel the warranty, and if the warranty is cancelled, then I have to pay for the repairs, and all sorts of other ways to make darn sure that they didn't have to pay me a cent. Moral of the story: this is the last time that I will ever deal with Fry's. After buying half a dozen computers there, they still treat me like dirt.
In the other case, we won't hear the decision for another 3 weeks. I had plenty of e-mails printed out to prove that she twists the truth to her own benefit, several things where her story after the fact, denying, bears no resemblance to her initial e-mails agreeing whole-heartedly to do it.
And then, to prove my point that she will lie about anything to avoid responsibility, she repeatedly lied to the judge, and embellished on prior lies, that my witness is a lawyer, she knows he's a lawyer because he has his own practice, don't believe me when I say he's not, because she knows lawyers aren't allowed in Small Claims Court, and therefore, he shouldn't be allowed to testify because he's a lawyer. My witness then testified that with one year of law school, he's a paralegal, not a lawyer, and has no idea where she got that notion. (From the same fertile imagination that provided all her other explanations of why what she agreed to in writing isn't what she agreed to. Say anything and hope people believe it's true without checking.) In fact, lawyers aren't allowed in to serve as lawyers, but they are allowed as witnesses, but she had to lie about that, too! She knew if he testified, the judge would hear that the condition of the house got significantly worse, not better, while they lived here.
Having thus set her up as a habitual liar, I made a good argument that she lied to the police, intentionally withheld information that would have given them reason to question whether I might just be out and about, and her "grave concern for my safety" was soooo overwhelming that when I finally called her, she never once said "thank God you're all right" ... she was more concerned with getting praise for calling the police and getting me into all this trouble. Doesn't that priority prove she was lying about being "worried sick"?
Well, faced with all the e-mails, they did decide it was in their best interest to admit they actually had promised to clean the house for free rent, but then tried to portray the house as a huge pigsty that was absolutely impossible for anyone to clean, even given 2.5 months, in contrast to Brian's testimony that it just needed a little work, but things that agency cleaners wouldn't do. And those things remained undone after they moved out, because agency cleaners STILL refused to do them.
No comments:
Post a Comment