7:56 am Monday 1/14/08
Communicated by my Higher Self
Well the other shoe dropped yesterday. Annie and Bill got notification from the court. The court date is February 8th, they are to show up at 10 am. However the good news is when the court read Annie's response and read the lawyer's response to what Annie wrote, it was kicked out of regular civil court and sent to small claims. So all that bullying the lawyer did, "if you don't pay up right now, you will have to pay thousands extra in lawyers fees and court costs," ain’t going to happen. Small claims has a ceiling of $800. Of course Annie hoped the lawyer would drop the case after he read her "explanation and defense," but he didn't, he responded to that. And it is now in small claims court to be adjudicated.
The day given for court is the same day as the Republican primary in Arizona, Annie and Bill will have to go to court, and then after their case is heard, go to vote. The summons on court paper says "the case will last 30 minutes," which means Annie has to be prepared to say whatever she wants to say in 15 minutes, since the other side gets half to say their side.
The likelihood is that everyone whose case is going to be heard that day is summoned at 10 am. Annie and Bill don't know what time their case will be heard. It is likely they will hear the cases before theirs, so they will learn how it operates.
Yes Annie has anxiety about it. But it does put a different complexion on it that it is small claims court, it changes it to small potatoes. In truth the worst that could happen now is she and Bill would be made to pay the $569 vet bill to the collections agency. But as a result of the collections agency suing her, she will have her day in court about this. There was malpractice, her dog did not survive the operation, is she required to pay the bill? The judge will decide.
At her pool is a beautiful policewoman. The day Annie was going to go down to file her "explain and defend," she told the beautiful policewoman, while they were dressing in the shower room, the story. Her friend the cop is a dog lover too, her dog sleeps in the bed with her too. She was very sympathetic but totally discouraging. She said, "my mom lives in Forest Hills, the vet gave her dog way too much anesthetic, the dog never woke up, my mom had to pay the bill, the law is very clear on this." But Annie refused to be discouraged, which was the right thing to do. Her friend the beautiful policeman, did not say "the case was taken to court," she just said "her mom had to pay because the law is clear on this." Altho the beautiful policeman said "good luck! I will be praying for you." And Annie said "thank you."
She appreciates all prayers, she knows they help.
I don't think the law is very clear on this at all. I want it to be decided in a court of law. Sure Annie and Bill both signed some contract before the operation took place. Annie did not read her copy. All she thought she was signing to, was agreeing to pay the amount $569. Of course she agreed to that, she wanted the vet to heal her dog. And that was what the vet was charging. She would have paid anything. That is the way it is with pets, they are loved and their owners will pay anything to heal them. They pay the bill with the credit card and pay it off each month little by little, which is what Annie and Bill intended to do.
There is an impression if a contract is signed the law will uphold it. There is an impression that if a bill is sent out, the law will uphold the paying of that bill. Did Annie act within or outside the law by not paying it? Since she obeyed my instructions to the letter, there is no way she can be made to feel she acted wrong and should be punished for what she did. But she did feel it was outside the law, that she had taken the law in her own hands. In other words, she felt my decision on this matter was outside the law. She knew it was Heaven's decision on it, but she assumed a court of law would back the clinic, and when the clinic sold it to collections, would back collections. In other words Annie felt a court of law would back the idea if a bill is proffered, it must be paid.
Do you see what your thinking is, Annie? You don't believe a court of law upholds fairness. You think a court of law upholds "if a bill is submitted you must pay it." I know in your heart of hearts you are still holding out hope the lawyer will drop the case before it comes to court, and you will not have to go thru it. But what if something similar happened another time? A bill arrived which was grossly unfair, for whatever reason. Or what about your friends? What if a bill was submitted to them which was grossly unfair, for whatever reason? Does a court of law support the paying of grossly unfair bills?
There have been two occasions in the past when you received grossly unfair bills. The first time I had you pay the fair amount, which was $400. When they pestered you for more, you turned over your mom's Easter check of $200 to them. And after that I ordered you to stop paying them. $400 was the fair amount, fair to you, fair to them. I did not want you to give them that extra $200. But I let you do it. But then said "you must stop now, no more money to them!" Eventually they sold it to collections and collections bugged you for a year about it, then it was over. The other grossly unfair bill I had you pay nothing. You went thru the same process. Both of those incidents occurred 12 years ago, this is the first incident since then. (You learned from the first incident, that collections agency buys the bill from hospital for 10 cents on the dollar, once the hospital or vet clinic sells it to collections, they get no money if collections succeeds in getting money from you.)
You are now being sued by a collections agency which only buys bills from hospitals and vet clinics. I would guess that 90 per cent of the people they are hounding to pay who did not pay, there is unfairness in the bill. Either the person is grossly overcharged for services rendered. Or as in your case, the service was catastrophic. Do you see what I am getting at? This is bigger than you. I am not only doing this for you, I am doing this for everyone. I do not want people to pay unfair bills. I want fairness. I want the courts to uphold fairness in every situation, fair to both sides. I want the court to determine what is fair to both sides and rule on that.
I am not talking about car repairs or plumbing repairs, where the mechanic tells you ahead of time how much the repair will cost, you agree to pay, you receive a smooth running car back in return and you pay the bill. That is fair to both sides. No matter how high the bill is, you agreed to pay that much to that mechanic to have your car restored perfectly. Fine! That is free choice.
But hospitals and vet clinics come under another category. These are not straight business propositions. This is about healing. And this is about trust. You are trusting them to heal your beloved pet, or to help you if you have an emergency. They cannot grossly overcharge you at their whim. Fairness must prevail. I want that. Healing is God's work, there must be fairness to all.
All my love to all, Annie's Higher Self
No comments:
Post a Comment