2007-03-06 thoughts on trial

I'm not sure who I'm writing this for, as the Grievers and all their associates seem convinced of the rightness of their case and aren't interested in looking at the evidence or understanding an opposing point-of-view, while everyone on my side of the issue thinks I should have ditched the Grievers ages and ages ago and that I'm wasting my time even thinking about this.

But I do think about these things, and I need to set it down in writing while it's still fresh in my mind.

"Friends"

The defense made a big deal out of how we were "friends", and how the business relationship was like a "marriage" gone sour. I want to make it completely clear that I was never in favor of doing business on the basis of friendship. From the very beginning, I pushed for there to be some kind of agreement in writing, if only for our own reference purposes. It didn't need to be legally binding; it just needed to be a clear statement of what we had each agreed to do. The Grievers steadfastly resisted every attempt on my part to arrive at a written agreement. "Written agreements and contracts are how people get screwed" is something Bubba said on at least one occasion.

No. Written agreements are how people avoid getting screwed. Failure to have a written agreement is how I've been screwed, and how the Grievers apparently ended up feeling screwed.

In any case, throughout the duration of our working relationship, the Grievers repeatedly made a big deal about how we were all friends and "we're all in this together". In the context of the court battle, however, they do their best to make it sound like I was the one claiming we were all friends and using that as a tool to maintain their trust. I never did this. I attempted to set forth my understanding of our working relationship in writing on many occasions. The Grievers either ignored these or rejected them, verbally, without making any suggestions of their own. It seems to me that their motive at all times was to keep things vague.

J. Whitehill's testimony

For those who weren't there, this is in regards to (Lynne's daughter) Jess's testimony of an incident in which I said something along the lines of "Bubba, what do I have to convince you that I'm not trying to steal the store? The merchandise is yours, it has always been yours, and I would never try do that do you." (I am hoping I can get a transcript of the trial so I can quote this more accurately.)

This obviously bothers me a great deal, because it certainly looks as if I promised something and then blatantly violated that promise. It also seems to contradict the basic premise of one of our main arguments during the trial, i.e. that there was no effective business arrangement because they never provided the merchandise, so therefore the merchandise belongs to me.

This testimony came as a surprise to me; I had forgotten the incident, and it has taken some time to figure out what happened. I'm still piecing it together, but here is what I've figured out so far.

1. At the time I said this, it was true. I considered the merchandise to belong to the RDA, and I had no intention of "running off with the store".
2. Those two facts were contingent upon certain understandings, however, including: (1) that the RDA acknowledged their personal debt to me and was continuing to work towards paying back, which is what I had been led to believe; and (2) that we were able to continue working together productively.
3. Both of those understandings were later violated by Lynne and/or Bubba:
   • Bubba began conducting his area of the business in a way that was extremely destructive of the business's health.
   • Both of them denied that my accountings were accurate or valid, but they refused to offer any corrections or produce any accountings of their own. More on this under #Accounting.
4. In other words, although I probably shouldn't have said it, it is actually true: I meant it the way I said it. I did consider the merchandise to belong to them – as long as they were really going to pay me back for it. I wouldn't ever "just run off with the business"; I finally cut Bubba loose after many many months of attempted reconciliation, with Bubba and Lynne both taking hardline positions and repeatedly demonstrating a lack of interest in my point of view. What I said was true, and I stand by it.
5. Furthermore, I was confused. I had forgotten, at the time, that the "80-20 split" was based on an assumption that the "artist" (RDA) was supposed to provide the merchandise up front, and that I had (reluctantly) agreed to "loan" them the money to provide this merchandise when they were unable to – said arrangement also being something I never should have agreed to, as this meant I was taking all the financial risk and they were still getting 80%, in exchange for unspecified services. I shouldn't have agreed to that, and yet I did; mea culpa.

   However: The question remains that if they were depending on this arrangement, and had begun to distrust my motives, why didn't they ask me for something in writing? A verbal promise is hardly any basis for a business relationship, and I certainly was not trying to dissuade them from setting down an agreement in writing. Whatever it was that they were asking for, to which my response was presumably the words to which Jess testified, it was not anything in the nature of a promise or guarantee. Had we made one at that time, our situation now would be much less ambiguous.

   It seems to me much more likely that Lynne was well aware of the sweet deal they had in this situation, and that she hoped to prolong its exploitation by leaving things as ambiguous as possible. This is the only possible explanation I can see for the consistency with which she and Bubba worked to blur any and all understandings we might have achieved.

6. On at least one occasion, I told them not to depend upon anything I told them verbally, and that if they were counting on me to live up to something which they believed I had promised, they should confirm that understanding via email. What was I supposed to do if they chose to ignore this advice? I wasn't deliberately misleading them. At worst, I was making verbal promises and then forgetting that I had made them – and they were choosing to believe and act on those promises in spite of my warnings not to. More likely, I think, they made a regular habit of taking things I said in an informal context and re-imagining those words as binding promises. That's hardly fair or reasonable.

Accounting

I don't know if it is a willful misunderstanding on their part or simply ignorance, but they seem to have no clue of the process by which a mutually acceptable accounting is worked out on paper; they seem to have the idea fixed in their head that it is necessary to meet in person and verbally hash things out. This point came up again during the trial, when Bubba seemed baffled by the suggestion that his claim of "a stack of checks that Nick doesn't have in his accounting" should have resulted in Bubba sending me a list of those checks so that I could include them.

The only point I can see at which such a meeting might be helpful is after everyone's transactions have been compiled together and any corrections or deletions have been suggested and after everyone has gone through their paperwork (which in our case would have been at different locations, so "getting together" would have meant that one of us would be at a serious disadvantage). At that point, it might make sense to do a little give-and-take: "Well, I can't find backing for this transaction, but I'll grant you this transaction of yours if you'll grant me this one of mine" kind of thing. We never got anywhere near that point.

In any case, it is my understanding that it is standard accounting practice to put all accountings, claims, disputes, et cetera in writing. This is even more true when there are disputes to be resolved.