StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If TLTC is really petty the other store manager will never see the car again, at least not in one piece.

you know, I wonder if that is how all of this will eventually end... with "If I cannot have it NO ONE will!"
With a "mysterious fire" burning down the shoe shop and TLTC mysteriously "vanishing"

Broomstick wrote:Possible but very unlikely. It would be hard to argue she is legally incompetent as she is functional enough to hold down a job, own a home, care for herself and child on a basic level... choosing to do the wrong thing is not a psychiatric disease. If poor judgment could get you out of a legal problem half the people sitting in jail, at least, would be free.

In The Great Delinquent Pumpkin-Harpy's case you could make a case that she is in fact mentally ill, but it's one of those illnesses that in a previous generation we'd have called "is a treacherous, self-righteous, inconsiderate jackass."

The court system pretty much ignores those, with reason. When they do bother to pay attention to them, you get things like "my client is a psychopath raised by rich idiots and therefore was not responsible for his actions when he killed four people in a drunk driving accident."

Thaaat doesn't play well with juries.

Broomstick wrote:Suggest? It's been told to her point blank by more than one person. As I said, though, she's easily manipulated. Also, she apparently doesn't have a set of keys herself.

Let's face it, neither of these ladies is a particularly bright light bulb.

Hire a locksmith and/or a tow service, get the car to a dealership that can make her a key, something like that? It's her vehicle, she can legally do that if she wants, right? I mean, if I somehow lost the last copy of the key to my vehicle I would have some kind of practical recourse.

Simon_Jester wrote:In The Great Delinquent Pumpkin-Harpy's case you could make a case that she is in fact mentally ill, but it's one of those illnesses that in a previous generation we'd have called "is a treacherous, self-righteous, inconsiderate jackass."

I just wanted to say that I love "Great Delinquent Pumpkin-Harpy". I might start using it.

An important thing to remember about the "insanity defense" is that it doesn't cover all mental disorders. It applies only to those who are so disconnected from reality as to be unable to distinguish right from wrong. That's actually a very small sub-set of psychiatric disorders. A sociopath, for example, knows what's right and wrong, legal and not legal, but may choose to do wrong or illegal things if he thinks it will provide more benefit than penalty for him. If you understand the difference between legal and not legal and choose to break the law anyway it doesn't get you off the hook regardless of what mental dysfunction you may or may not have.

The Great Delinquent Pumpkin-Harpy is functional enough to understand the law but chose do otherwise. Choices have consequences.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Broomstick wrote:Suggest? It's been told to her point blank by more than one person. As I said, though, she's easily manipulated. Also, she apparently doesn't have a set of keys herself.

Let's face it, neither of these ladies is a particularly bright light bulb.

Hire a locksmith and/or a tow service, get the car to a dealership that can make her a key, something like that? It's her vehicle, she can legally do that if she wants, right? I mean, if I somehow lost the last copy of the key to my vehicle I would have some kind of practical recourse.

Oh, I quite agree that's a totally viable means to regain the vehicle. The major hitch I see here (other than store manager's mental inertia) is money. It costs money to tow that car and get the lock changed. Or just to go to where the car is while accompanied by a locksmith, get it changed, and drive off. She doesn't have any. She hasn't been paid in months. For all I know the last time she got paid was before the last time I got paid and she's going over a year now with essentially no income (living off her girlfriend, I guess, and an occasional dip into the till).

What it sounds like to me is that the Store Manager is simply naive and far too polite and forgiving for her own good. I'm guessing she's actually a nice woman thats made the mistake of assuming good intentions from everyone.

Yes, that's a pretty good description. Really, she'd be happiest going through life being nice to people and rescuing orphaned dogs. I think she's made some mistakes and hurt people in this whole affair but in her case there was no malice or intent to hurt. She made some mistakes and there has been pain as a result of it, but if she could set things to right herself she'd probably attempt to do so even if it caused her some additional pain and sacrifice. The Pumpkin-Harpy takes advantage of that.

Broomstick wrote:Oh, I quite agree that's a totally viable means to regain the vehicle. The major hitch I see here (other than store manager's mental inertia) is money. It costs money to tow that car and get the lock changed. Or just to go to where the car is while accompanied by a locksmith, get it changed, and drive off. She doesn't have any. She hasn't been paid in months. For all I know the last time she got paid was before the last time I got paid and she's going over a year now with essentially no income (living off her girlfriend, I guess, and an occasional dip into the till).

It might be possible to arrange with a collections agency for them to repossess and sell the car, then split the proceeds with her, assuming she can find one that will make a deal on a single case. That could eliminate the monetary barrier to recovery and get her some needed cash.

Broomstick wrote:I just wanted to say that I love "Great Delinquent Pumpkin-Harpy". I might start using it.

Glad to be of service.

An important thing to remember about the "insanity defense" is that it doesn't cover all mental disorders. It applies only to those who are so disconnected from reality as to be unable to distinguish right from wrong. That's actually a very small sub-set of psychiatric disorders.

I agree. Put this way...

On the one hand we have the question of whether the Great Delinquent Pumpkin-Harpy is pathological, and has some kind of mental malfunction that causes her to act against her own best interests, to lie and cheat people and then act as though she thinks nothing is wrong.

On the other hand, we have the question of whether she's eligible for the insanity defense.

The odds are, I think, that the answers are 'yes' and 'no.'

The Great Delinquent Pumpkin-Harpy is functional enough to understand the law but chose do otherwise. Choices have consequences.

Ayup.

If the car is in her name and everything could she simply report it stolen and let the police recover it for free?

That would probably turn out to be a horrendously bad idea, since there was technically no theft committed.

Failing to return something which legally belongs to you is theft. Thus if the office manager still has her name and ONLY her name on the title, she can legally demand it back whenever she wants. That's why the DMV makes a big stink about filling out the change of ownership when you buy a car, so the original owner can't "claim" the car was stolen and demand it back after you paid him.

You're probably right; I don't know the law. I'd figured employing the police like that would be the equivalent of buying someone a Christmas present and then demanding its return.

Lagmonster wrote:You're probably right; I don't know the law. I'd figured employing the police like that would be the equivalent of buying someone a Christmas present and then demanding its return.

Unless there's a change of ownership to the recipient of the gift, or a document signed by both parties to the same effect, then there's no proof it's a gift. It could be an extended loan or a "favor". At worst, they would probably demand the fat bitch pay the manager back for what she paid on the loan so far and let the bitch keep the car.

If the ownership and insurance on the car is in the name of the assistant doormat, and Fat Bitch is refusing to return it, it's already theft.

Most likely, not much will happen on this until after the next hearing, February 21. The Pumpkin Harpy has filed papers saying no, I shouldn't get the money because a certain amount is for her kid and she needs something to live on and... well, that's entirely within her rights and of course we have to play fair. So, the seized money is in limbo until then.

I did hear one of the work people she owes money to threatened to report her to the IRS for tax fraud if she didn't make payment arrangements. Apparently, he faxed the relevant statute and penalties to her day job she has with another employer. So much for keeping that part of her life concealed from her exploited serfs work force. Have no idea if that tactic will work, but sooner or later the IRS will find out about her. Likely, after I file my taxes this year because I don't expect a W2 from her, and even if I got one I don't expect accuracy.

Anyhow, unless something truly fascinating occurs we might not see a post here for several weeks.

Broomstick wrote:Most likely, not much will happen on this until after the next hearing, February 21. The Pumpkin Harpy has filed papers saying no, I shouldn't get the money because a certain amount is for her kid and she needs something to live on and... well, that's entirely within her rights and of course we have to play fair. So, the seized money is in limbo until then.

I did hear one of the work people she owes money to threatened to report her to the IRS for tax fraud if she didn't make payment arrangements. Apparently, he faxed the relevant statute and penalties to her day job she has with another employer. So much for keeping that part of her life concealed from her exploited serfs work force. Have no idea if that tactic will work, but sooner or later the IRS will find out about her. Likely, after I file my taxes this year because I don't expect a W2 from her, and even if I got one I don't expect accuracy.

Anyhow, unless something truly fascinating occurs we might not see a post here for several weeks.

As long as we get all the juicy details after the demise of the Pumpkin Harpy has been well and thoroughly accomplished, we shall not hold it against you.

All in all, this has been a most entertaining thread so far, so thank you for that!

Wow, glad to see things worked out in your favour, Broomstick! (At least the legal side of things)


The Pumpkin Harpy reminds me a lot of a person I know, both in behaviour and girth, although this guy hasn't gone so far in abusing people around him (yet).

One thing I think they both share, though, is that they both truly believe their lies. I think it is their egos preventing them from self-reflection, and forcing their mind to rewrite events, no matter how ludicrous the rewrite is.

As for the store manager, I also know of people in a similar mindset: Generally nice and unassuming people who are easily manipulated (or even brainwashed) by the bullies, and can't be easily broken out of the mindset.


I'm also eager to learn more, it is very instructive.

Latest update - the Store Manager has jumped ship. She quit the shoe store and got a job at the big box Meijer's store working 30 hours a week. Has also apparently reconciled with her long-term partner.

That's good news for the (former)Store Manager.

Well, here we are on the 21st of February. The hearing was held and the verdict is...

Apparently the Pumpkin Harpy really is nearly broke (shocking, right? ) She has been ordered to pay the Clerk of the Court with jurisdiction $100/month until the penalty is paid off. When she does so the Clerk of the Court will then issue me a check. So... $100/month. Every third check I get I turn around and write my lawyer a check to pay his share of the contingency fee. It would take 3-4 years to pay it all off, with interest accruing at 8%/year. And if she fucks up the court will go after her.

There is some issue with the bank accounts which will require yet another hearing, that one for March 21. Apparently there was only $1,300 total between two accounts and she is allowed to keep some of that for her child, so essentially I get half (and my lawyer gets 1/3 of that half) but, again, there will be another hearing before that takes place.

Looks like I get $100 starting next month (only a week away) and the bank account slice in April at the earliest.

I'm really hoping she doesn't try to do something stupid like not pay at all.

The thought of her not paying almost makes you wish for debtors prisons doesn't it?

$100 a month eh? Not bad. That's enough to buy you a shiny new high-speed internet connection.

Jub wrote:The thought of her not paying almost makes you wish for debtors prisons doesn't it?

Wouldn't increase her chances of getting the money back, though. I mean, do you really think this woman has enough friends and relatives who actually want her back badly enough to pay up?

Forget debtor's prison - indentured servitude. If she can't pay me in cash then pay me in labor.

But - while I was hoping for a lump sum (which I might still get to some degree) having a payment plan is cool.

Zaune wrote:

Jub wrote:The thought of her not paying almost makes you wish for debtors prisons doesn't it?

Wouldn't increase her chances of getting the money back, though. I mean, do you really think this woman has enough friends and relatives who actually want her back badly enough to pay up?

No, but sometimes the fact that you've ruined her life utterly is almost as good as getting paid.

Broomstick wrote:Forget debtor's prison - indentured servitude. If she can't pay me in cash then pay me in labor.

Would you really trust her not to try and steal from you if this happened?