February 7, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER
Plaintiff
vs.
Defendant
Mr: Dube: Yup! That's what I said. When I refused to pay them the money Safecareers auto triggered the safe and unlocked it, by doing so any thief can come in here and help themselves to the contents of the safe. This very much defeats the purpose of having one.
Safecareers: We are a safety storage company. As long as you pay your bills you're good with us, I mean we gotta eat too. Mr. Dube was negligent with his monthly installments and according to our contract we were permitted to show him a crack or two.
Mr. Dube: And, I kicked them in theirs by bringing them to Pieces.
Pieces: This one was quite a load. I will return with a decision.
ANALYSIS:
Safecareers installs safes and valuable protection devices. Since Mr. Dube has been robbed several times in the past he felt it time to update his alarm and safety storage system. Mr. Dube then went to Safecareers for assistance. Safecareers installed a state of the art safe with remote access and monitoring. Safecareers says they "didn't do anything wrong or against policy". Safecareers continued by saying that "once they buyer or business stops or become delinquent in payment the safe is automatically set up to uninstall the stores programmed information and to unlock itself". Safecareers states that they did not physically remove anything from the safe. They also say that they attempted to contact Mr. Dube about his missed payments and were unsuccessful in getting in contact of him. Safecareers eventually decided to show up to collect the safe from Mr. Dube and that was when Mr. Dube accused Safecareers of stealing from him, although he had no evidence of theft.
Pieces: The question is Mr. Dube, how do you make a living by stealing from yourself? You emptied the safe after you knew it would unlock when you missed your payment. So nothing was stolen. Safecareers you have done business with Mr. Dube before and cried victim when one of your safes mysteriously was broken into and several thousand dollars worth of items were claimed to have been stolen, as you only sell and install the storage safety devices you do not function in the storage of valuable goods yourselves. So here we are again this time with Mr. Dube claiming to be robbed. Mr. Dube provided no evidence of particular items being stolen or proof that they actually existed, only that he had valuables in the safe said to be worth a lot of money. In the investgation everything was said to be accounted for so nothing was actually stolen.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, That Mr. Dube be denied in his attempt to collect insurance on a frivilous claim and that he must also pay a $5,000.00 sanction to the court for such frivilous actions. Safecareers is permitted the return of the safe and will be held in contempt if found to collect pricey termination fees for a service no longer being used.
Dated: February 7, 2010 A. Sadiq
On Behalf of Pieces
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-10
February 1, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Solomon Dube and Safecareers have decided to settle their dispute with Pieces. Pieces:You left things in the open and have come here to solve such a crisis. Mr Dube: They made all these promises of how they could help and nothing came through. Pieces: So you told all and now they can do nothing for you? Mr Dube: This was a sealed, private and very intimate deal. Pieces: They were really jerking your chain by letting it all out. Mr. Dube: They exp... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris.
February 1, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Solomon Dube and Safecareers have decided to settle their dispute with Pieces. Pieces: You left things in the open and have come her to settle such crisis. Mr. Dube: They made all these promises of how they would help and nothing came through. Pieces: So you told all and now they cannot help with any of the problems you were having? Mr. Dube: This was such an intimate situation and then some. Pieces: So they turned out to be real tear jerkers. Mr... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris.
January 25, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Karema Oper and a company named Tillaries are in a dispute over being observed while "undressed" inappropriately. Pieces: Someone was planning something big! Ms. Oper: I had it all picked out, it was da bomb! Pieces: So what seems to be the problem? Ms. Oper: The way he was lookin at me. I loved the way the clothes fit but his starring at me was just annoying. Pieces: Well you made the ultimate decision, if you loved the way the clothes fit why ... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-10
January 18, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Bryer Santana and Virgo Rhymes decided to settle their disagreement with Pieces. Apparently, Ms. Santana was checking out Ms. Rhymes male at work. The two ended up in a dispute and are now out on disciplinary suspension. Pieces: Interesting little package came your way, as I understand it Ms. Santana. Ms. Santana: It was so interoffice and hardly little! Ms. Rhymes: Had she paid attention to her work, it would have been done when due and asked... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-10
January 11, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Dick Bonachuko and Annie Sloss decided to settle their dispute with Pieces. It seems as though their boat incident left Ms. Sloss not looking very well these days. Pieces: You were at high tide, Mr. Bonachuko. Mr. Bonachuko: But it was all clear to go, I was given approval. Pieces: So you proceeded as there was no caution against you? Mr. Bonachuko: Exactly! There was no reason not to. Pieces: The question I have to ask , is why the complaint? Ms... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris.
January 4, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Memorandum In Support of Disclosure of Coverage Disclosure of coverage is designed to enable the insured entitlement of information, with regard to contractual agreements for insurance plans and specific coverage allotments herewith. The extent of coverage and disclosure of enables the participant to: a) Make decisions on care that is not covered by insurance, this would include election to seek alternative methods of care. b) Obtain supplemental insurance that wi... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Memorandum-1/10
December 28, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff v. Defendant Latisha Doone and Shane Wyatt decided to settle their dispute with Pieces after a "shopping list" that got a bit ugly. Pieces: Look you had it in your pocket so long, I could hardly see what's written! My. Wyatt: She feels as though I am supposed to etch these things out of stone. Pieces: She says that she was only asking for the basics. My. Wyatt: The basics, that greedly trollip, was eating me out of house and home! Pieces: Mr. Wyatt it is you... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-09
December 21, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff v. Defendant Robbie Benedict and Laurel Burke were roomates that are now in dispute over a "missed program". They have decided to settle their dispute with Pieces. Pieces: So you are not the best of channel buddies are you? Mr. Benedict: Look, being in charge I asked Ms. Burke to set up the following things, I don't see why this was so difficult. Pieces: A child could do this, so what seems to be the problem? Mr. Benedict: Ms. Burke was extremely incompeten... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-09
December 14, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES FORWARD The concept of creating a premiere president. Which is known as a semi-presidential system of government. If the president should expire while in office the vice president will become that of acting president and the premiere president's role will not be affected. I The premiere president will be chosen and appointed by the president. The president-in- premiere will not have the power or authority of that of the US president. Therefore, cannot give orders or make deci... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Motions
February 7, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER
Plaintiff
vs.
Defendant
Mr: Dube: Yup! That's what I said. When I refused to pay them the money Safecareers auto triggered the safe and unlocked it, by doing so any thief can come in here and help themselves to the contents of the safe. This very much defeats the purpose of having one.
Safecareers: We are a safety storage company. As long as you pay your bills you're good with us, I mean we gotta eat too. Mr. Dube was negligent with his monthly installments and according to our contract we were permitted to show him a crack or two.
Mr. Dube: And, I kicked them in theirs by bringing them to Pieces.
Pieces: This one was quite a load. I will return with a decision.
ANALYSIS:
Safecareers installs safes and valuable protection devices. Since Mr. Dube has been robbed several times in the past he felt it time to update his alarm and safety storage system. Mr. Dube then went to Safecareers for assistance. Safecareers installed a state of the art safe with remote access and monitoring. Safecareers says they "didn't do anything wrong or against policy". Safecareers continued by saying that "once they buyer or business stops or become delinquent in payment the safe is automatically set up to uninstall the stores programmed information and to unlock itself". Safecareers states that they did not physically remove anything from the safe. They also say that they attempted to contact Mr. Dube about his missed payments and were unsuccessful in getting in contact of him. Safecareers eventually decided to show up to collect the safe from Mr. Dube and that was when Mr. Dube accused Safecareers of stealing from him, although he had no evidence of theft.
Pieces: The question is Mr. Dube, how do you make a living by stealing from yourself? You emptied the safe after you knew it would unlock when you missed your payment. So nothing was stolen. Safecareers you have done business with Mr. Dube before and cried victim when one of your safes mysteriously was broken into and several thousand dollars worth of items were claimed to have been stolen, as you only sell and install the storage safety devices you do not function in the storage of valuable goods yourselves. So here we are again this time with Mr. Dube claiming to be robbed. Mr. Dube provided no evidence of particular items being stolen or proof that they actually existed, only that he had valuables in the safe said to be worth a lot of money. In the investgation everything was said to be accounted for so nothing was actually stolen.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, That Mr. Dube be denied in his attempt to collect insurance on a frivilous claim and that he must also pay a $5,000.00 sanction to the court for such frivilous actions. Safecareers is permitted the return of the safe and will be held in contempt if found to collect pricey termination fees for a service no longer being used.
Dated: February 7, 2010 A. Sadiq
On Behalf of Pieces
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-10
February 1, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Solomon Dube and Safecareers have decided to settle their dispute with Pieces. Pieces:You left things in the open and have come here to solve such a crisis. Mr Dube: They made all these promises of how they could help and nothing came through. Pieces: So you told all and now they can do nothing for you? Mr Dube: This was a sealed, private and very intimate deal. Pieces: They were really jerking your chain by letting it all out. Mr. Dube: They exp... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris.
February 1, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Solomon Dube and Safecareers have decided to settle their dispute with Pieces. Pieces: You left things in the open and have come her to settle such crisis. Mr. Dube: They made all these promises of how they would help and nothing came through. Pieces: So you told all and now they cannot help with any of the problems you were having? Mr. Dube: This was such an intimate situation and then some. Pieces: So they turned out to be real tear jerkers. Mr... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris.
January 25, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Karema Oper and a company named Tillaries are in a dispute over being observed while "undressed" inappropriately. Pieces: Someone was planning something big! Ms. Oper: I had it all picked out, it was da bomb! Pieces: So what seems to be the problem? Ms. Oper: The way he was lookin at me. I loved the way the clothes fit but his starring at me was just annoying. Pieces: Well you made the ultimate decision, if you loved the way the clothes fit why ... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-10
January 18, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Bryer Santana and Virgo Rhymes decided to settle their disagreement with Pieces. Apparently, Ms. Santana was checking out Ms. Rhymes male at work. The two ended up in a dispute and are now out on disciplinary suspension. Pieces: Interesting little package came your way, as I understand it Ms. Santana. Ms. Santana: It was so interoffice and hardly little! Ms. Rhymes: Had she paid attention to her work, it would have been done when due and asked... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-10
January 11, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff vs. Defendant Dick Bonachuko and Annie Sloss decided to settle their dispute with Pieces. It seems as though their boat incident left Ms. Sloss not looking very well these days. Pieces: You were at high tide, Mr. Bonachuko. Mr. Bonachuko: But it was all clear to go, I was given approval. Pieces: So you proceeded as there was no caution against you? Mr. Bonachuko: Exactly! There was no reason not to. Pieces: The question I have to ask , is why the complaint? Ms... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris.
January 4, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Memorandum In Support of Disclosure of Coverage Disclosure of coverage is designed to enable the insured entitlement of information, with regard to contractual agreements for insurance plans and specific coverage allotments herewith. The extent of coverage and disclosure of enables the participant to: a) Make decisions on care that is not covered by insurance, this would include election to seek alternative methods of care. b) Obtain supplemental insurance that wi... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Memorandum-1/10
December 28, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff v. Defendant Latisha Doone and Shane Wyatt decided to settle their dispute with Pieces after a "shopping list" that got a bit ugly. Pieces: Look you had it in your pocket so long, I could hardly see what's written! My. Wyatt: She feels as though I am supposed to etch these things out of stone. Pieces: She says that she was only asking for the basics. My. Wyatt: The basics, that greedly trollip, was eating me out of house and home! Pieces: Mr. Wyatt it is you... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-09
December 21, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES CIVIL MATTER Plaintiff v. Defendant Robbie Benedict and Laurel Burke were roomates that are now in dispute over a "missed program". They have decided to settle their dispute with Pieces. Pieces: So you are not the best of channel buddies are you? Mr. Benedict: Look, being in charge I asked Ms. Burke to set up the following things, I don't see why this was so difficult. Pieces: A child could do this, so what seems to be the problem? Mr. Benedict: Ms. Burke was extremely incompeten... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Orders-09
December 14, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES FORWARD The concept of creating a premiere president. Which is known as a semi-presidential system of government. If the president should expire while in office the vice president will become that of acting president and the premiere president's role will not be affected. I The premiere president will be chosen and appointed by the president. The president-in- premiere will not have the power or authority of that of the US president. Therefore, cannot give orders or make deci... Continue reading...
Posted by Sheri Harris. Posted In : Motions
| |