Imagine that the Peanut Corporation of America had lost a legal battle regarding the salmonella outbreak and was ordered to pay $1 billion dollars in a class action settlement. "Oh no," says Peanut Corp, "I'm suing Fred the Vat Guy for not washing his hands." "When I get my money from Fred the Vat Guy, I'll pay the families of the dead".
Would you laugh? Cry? Shake your head in disgust? The decision of the West Lafayette Republican administration to give a pass to Weida Apartments and "chase" the tenants" (three college students - J&C 2/10/09) seems equally as wacky. Most of us will consider a regulation trivial or vital depending on how it is framed for us. Wounded businesses howling about "lying students" to absolve themselves of any blame is outrageous. We do not think over-occupancy is an accident. The testimony in the Weida case proved that to the satisfaction of Judge Busch and the Indiana Appellate Court. We think it is planned. We think it is policy. We know it is damaging. If this is what the city means by "reforming" the over-occupancy code, "chasing the tenants", I may have to quit the committee assigned that task.
3 comments:
What if it came out in the trial that Fred the Vat Guy didn't "accidentally" forget to wash his hands, but instead intentionally and secretly poured a vile of salmonella into the peanut butter?
Additionally, Fred the Vat Guy is one of several hundred independent contractors, contracted to be at-home makers and sellers of peanut products under their name on Peanut Corp property.
Lawsuit thrown out, Fred the Vat Guy in jail for murder.
But wait, Old Democrat City has an ordinance written by Old Democrat Atty. interpreted by Old 'impartial' Judge which says there's a "duty to monitor" said contractors private in-house escapades.
Conveniently, "duty to monitor" can't be defined by anyone representing the city on the stand, but can be wisely adjudicated to mean whatever 'impartial' Judge thinks it happens to mean on that particular day - "vagueness" evidently evaporating the closer one gets to a Greater Lafayette courtroom.
Undefinable duties being the easiest to declare unmet, Peanut Corp goes down and Fred the Vat Guy goes on to rent from Jelly Corp down the street much to his delight.
What does it all mean? I'll leave it to you and your 4 readers to ponder, but the pig ain't flyin' much longer.
It looks like Weida's attorney is one of the 4 readers of Mr. Bunder's blog. Purpose served!
Most of us suspect both the landlord and tenant play the game. The courts may have to decide again.
My question is, will the Weida's really go after their clients, the ones paying their bills? Patty has said some pretty stupid things, but this one may bite her in the _____. Go ahead, go after your bread and butter, maybe we can drive the Weida's out of business.
I just wanted to thank you for actually clearing the air on these issues. The J&C writes such one-sided information about this case that everyone seems to be misinformed. The Weidas have let this all go on long enough....why rack up more bills that the students (now alumni) will never pay? They just graduated college, have no assets, and no significant income. Why chase money that just isn't there? They keep wasting resources when this all could have been concluded SO long ago....
But thanks again! Your Blog is great....not to mention FAIR!
Post a Comment