, ,

Imagine that an actual party to a lawsuit suffered horribly as a result of the defending party’s actions, and should have, no doubt, been awarded a substantial sum in damages, due to the very serious nature of those actions. The court is aware of the crisis situation that the defending party has created for the plaintiff, and, from all appearances, the case is going in the injured plaintiff’s favor, until certain acquaintances of the plaintiff’s are contacted during the discovery process of the case.

The contacted individuals are aware of the seriousness of the case, and decide to use their acquaintanceship with the injured individual to their advantage, whether that individual is a current or former intimate partner, a family member, a current or previous employer, or a friend or general acquaintance.

The non-party is an individual or several who were contacted within the parameters of standard protocol in litigation. The attorneys learn of the relationship that the plaintiff has and/or had with the acquaintance, and after they have made contact with those individuals and completed much if not all of the discovery process, a settlement offer is made, an offer that involves monetary disbursement to non-parties in the case, or a “good cause” supported by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff refuses to authorize the payment to the non-party, and opts to directly disburse whatever, if any, funds that they deemed acceptable to the subject organization. After the organization learns that the plaintiff has refused to authorize their receipt of funding through the defendant they decide to team up with the defendant to launch professional and personal attacks on the plaintiff to acquire those and all other funds that the plaintiff stood to receive…

The non-party who has been laundered said funds develops a sense of entitlement to the plaintiff and effectively persuades companies that the injured individual is interested in working for and applies to not to hire them.

The defendant in the case wants to see a return on their investment and/or the utter humiliation of the plaintiff as the payee(s), which include(s) individuals who once highly esteemed the plaintiff prior to contact with the defendant’s counsel, continue(s) their abuse of the plaintiff as a thank you for payment, or an incentive for continuous abuse…

The humiliation is inclusive of goading into certain hiring and non-hiring or non-paying companies, i.e. those to which the victim may be introduced via career steps programs sponsored by the Department of Human Services (DHS), including companies that are perhaps built with funds that should have been rightly paid in damages to that injured individual, and/or other public agencies with a nexus to the payee and/or payer, whether or not the plaintiff, or prior plaintiff, at this point, has an interest in those companies or agencies.

Typically all of the said companies and/or agencies jointly agree to become participants in the retaliation by abusing/harassing and/or threatening the already injured individual, either implicitly or forthwith, and/or by even endeavoring to physically harm or murder them or members of their family or close friends, etc.

Other forms of pseudo or under-the-table settlement of serious cases could include provision of significant raises on a job that a victim may currently have. The problem is that if the current employer has also participated in the retaliation or abuse of the victim, very likely the victim does not plan to remain employed with that particular company…

So the injured individual seeks employment with other companies that, hopefully, would not participate in the retaliation. Since the situation is very hot at this point, especially if the victim takes a job earning less money, and since the raises at the previous company hinge on the injured employee who has left, the previous company resorts to very unprofessional means of endeavoring to force the former employee to return. The former employee/victim has NO INTENTIONS WHATSOEVER of returning to that company, however.

In instances where money is laundered to a romantic or former romantic partner of an injured individual, a similar situation unfolds. The injured individual decides to dissolve the relationship due to the romantic partner’s infidelity and abusive behavior, which is clearly in entertainment of those who disbursed the dowry, for the purpose of controlling and further humiliating the injured individual…

So the former romantic partner or prospect is spending the money that they were laundered to them on behalf of the injured individual on other people with whom they become romantically involved and perhaps even marry those persons, noting that in some instances these could be people with whom the subject romantic or previous romantic partners to the injured individual may have already been involved with and/or have children with, and were, perhaps the cause that the injured individual for whom they were given a dowry decides to leave them.

The injured individual, who is extremely intelligent and/or talented, which is some of the reason the company from which they’ve resigned wants to hold on them, wants to move on and rebuild what has been destroyed of their life, and have no remembrance of the lawsuit or dealings with individuals who have participated in the sued company’s retaliation. The injured individual is fully qualified for the literally thousands of jobs that they’ve applied to that have no nexus to anyone surrounding the lawsuits, but the previous employers refuse to let go, compounding the injured individual’s suffering and that of those depending on them for support, including minor children.

The Injured Party Receives Nothing & Is Blacklisted

When very serious cases are dismissed (for the purpose of preserving the reputations of certain companies, including those that have serially/staunchly harassed, assaulted, and even murdered employees for articulating legitimate grievances), and damages are awarded to non-parties who may or may not have a real nexus to an injured party, the injuries are compounded. The typical scenario is that the non-party accepts the award with promises of sharing it with the injured party, but does not, or shares a very insignificant amount, which might include some minor purchases and/or distribution of used items. Essentially, the injured party and their dependants, which could include minor children, continue to suffer from the actions of the adverse party.

Worst of all, the injured individual is blacklisted, and has extreme challenges finding employment, and/or when they land employment the new employer’s harassment is much worse than the sued employer’s behavior, as the prior and current employer jointly decide to extend the lesson that the already injured and likely innocent employee should learn…

No individual, charity, or business should be awarded damages on behalf of an injured party to litigation. When it is demonstrated that a party to litigation has caused the other serious harm, damages should be paid to that injured individual, particularly considering the likelihood for backlash, even where it is demonstrated that the litigation is merited…

No exceptions should be made to even a church that offers benefit to an injured party to litigation, due to the potential for exploitation, including endeavors to keep the injured individual in a horrible situation so that they might continue receiving money and/or other incentives on their behalf.

A church and/or charity that would apply funds towards purchasing school supplies for local school children, including those of a subject injured party, or for other similar purposes, does not address the more serious financial and other harm caused by the defending party. Point blank, no one, not even a church or any other perceived “good cause,” should be awarded damages on behalf of an injured party to litigation and/or on behalf of their dependents, without that individual’s consent.

And most certainly an injured individual should be capable of moving on from persons who have abused them, whether a former intimate partner and/or a previous employer, neither of whom has an entitlement to an injured individual because they were laundered money or any other incentives on their behalf.