George doesn't want his books looked at by either the state or the IRS.

Well, since Archie pointed out Terry's duplicity in the "worked for"/"didn't work for" argument, I want to add that I feel the same way.

Terry, you may have wanted to support George and FS. That's cool and had nothing to do with whether or not you worked there. But to tell us, or lead us into believeing, that you didn't work there when you are recommending his products is dishonest and unethical. I know you feel you didn't lie, and a half truth may not be a lie technically, but if the end result is the misleading of other people, the damage is the same.

And that's all I'm gonna say on that. It does seem like you got shafted by George. I hope everything works out ok, and you enjoy your Fieros for a long time to come.

I tell ya, some people would rather walk over burning coals than admit Archie was right about something.

quote Originally posted by chester: All I see is accusations and people passing judgment without having ALL the facts here. By people that WERE'NT EVEN INVOLVED! Rob D.

Testify brother! I'm sure some people have reasons to take sides (prior experience with Terry or George) but this is too much.

Excuse Me...

Would the real slim shady please stand up?

--Dillon

Here's what I got in my email:

To member: dhaag
From member: fieroshop

--------------------

This is to advice you have purchased stolen property from the Fiero Shop and it was sold to you by Terry Owens

--------------------
This email was sent by an eBay member via eBay's email forwarding system.
If you reply to the email, your response will go directly to the member and
not through eBay.

OK George, as soon as you can prove it was yours, you can have it back. Until then F*** off

The "Sh!t Disturbers" have finally left.

[This message has been edited by Bazooka (edited 03-01-2002).]

Oops double post

[This message has been edited by Dave Gunsul (edited 03-01-2002).]

quote Originally posted by Dave Gunsul: You've got to be kidding??? Lets see he didn't pay terry for any work and his books are somewhat in question. These are big time no nos. The IRS would be all over him and if there's enough violations he could very well see jail for this stuff. He would certainly see some HUGE fines to say the least. Note that those are federal violations not civil. We all know the kindness that the IRS is known for i'm sure.

I'm not stupid, I'm just asking about specifics.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'm not stupid, I'm just asking about specifics.

I didn't mean to imply you were stupid. I really thought you might actually be kidding.
Sorry if it came across that way though.

------------------
Dave Gunsul
Activities Director
Northern IL. Fiero Enthusiasts
86 GT modified
85 SE daily driver

I don't know anything about the dispute or the parties involved. As a third party looking at the agreement, I can tell you that a lawyer didn't draft it. "Promissory Agreement" is redundant. A "promise" is an agreement.

Furthermore, paragraph 2 is ambiguous in terms of "what" parts refers to. It may be argued that it doesn't include "equipment." Otherwise the parties would have explicitely stated, "equipment," or "equipment and parts." IMO opinion its pretty clear what parts meant but ambiguous as to "what" parts are being refered to. At law, ambiguity in a contract is generally construed against its maker. It doesn't say who made the contract on its face so there's no way to tell who the contract would be interpreted against. Furthermore, if deemed ambiguous, parol evidence may be introduced by the parties to establish what "parts" meant, what it doesn't mean and what actual "parts" were intended to be included in the agreement. If the term, "parts" is deemed to be so ambiguous, paragraph 2 may be unenforceable. That's what happens when lay people try to save money by drafting their own agreements.

BTW, the missing paragraph 4 means nothing. Its a mistake of omission and happens all the time when contracts are being drafted and re-drafted. It has no bearing on the terms of the agreement unless one alleges that the document has been altered. The application of the "best evidence" rule in court would clear this issue up quickly as it would require the parties to produce the actual document in court rather than a copy.

Because paragraph 2 is rather unclear, it leaves room on both sides to argue what the terms of the contract actually meant.

...and so the plot thickens...

Farknocker

quote Originally posted by Archie: Nail him to the cross, Terry.

Need a hammer? Should we talk about George bouncing checks with CFOG-I? Hmm??

------------------
Boomtastic

Anybody here see this on the e-mail lists yet?
--------
I guess some of you are right. Those that bought from Terry would not fess up, But
I have found all of the sales Terry sold on ebay and I'll be darned if all those
that bought from him are there. I saw what parts they bought, what they paid for
it and also how much the shipping was. All this is going to the Richmond police
department and as a lot of the parts were sold and shipped across state lines it
now become a federal case, or so I'm told by the police.
So I guess I will not need people to come forth but some of you have already
received an e-mail from me and it is direct thru ebay.
Some of you guys are on Pennock's and saw and read what Terry wrote but what he
wrote and what he has, the next time he goes to the head he can take all those
papers and use them there cause that is all they are worth.

George I. Miller
Fiero Shop
Richmond, Ca. 94804
866-343-7648

Well I think little Georgie losing it. Now he is sending things thru Ebay stating stolen parts were sold. The promisary note should prove to Ebay who is in the right, But now Georgie is accusing people of receiving stolen goods. I think someone should let Georgie know that false accusations are against the law. Besides, I would think that he would have to prove which parts were his and which ones were not. As Terry stated he had a car or 2 he parted out.
Either Georgie is doing this just to create headaches for Terry or he is actually stupid enough to bury himself into legal ramifications. I wonder if he realizes it's a two way street? All Terry has to do is start collecting Georgie's postings and get a slander suit going.

It sounds like Terry was in a bad situation and he tried to settle it out the best he could then walk away. But Georgie wants to harass him. I think it's time for Terry to get a good lawyer and push back.

I was asked tocome here and post so I will.
Terry, the contract you have is not valid.
1st you needed permission to take the parts and not take it upon yourself to take what you wanted.
2. All your sales on ebay are now a record with the pd that you embezzeled.
3. I have several letters from different people that you charged items to and did not ship.
4. I also have a letter that you recieved over $500.00 and did not tell me about it but put it in your pocket ie sale of hood vent.
Terry you embezzeled and stole and I will see you in jail. enough said.
5 If you were not satisfied with what I would have given you then you should have gone to court.
6. I did not authorize you to take any and all the parts you did and did not sign off. So you decided to steal
7. You were told not take any parts and not to take the tool box and yet you did. That is called theft.
The sale of items with out my authority and pocketing the money is called embezzelment.
Oh by the way here is a reciept you send a customer.
Where is the money Terry. Here is proof you embezzeled.
Hello Randy,

Well.............Sunday would be better for me as I will not be here all
day on Monday..........

Here is the breakdown as I have it.............

Driver's "A" pillar (tan) - $18.50
Driver's door panel (tan) 27.50
Headliner (tan) 169.95
Hood vent kit 150.00
Seat hinge covers (tan) 39.00
Manual shift trim w/ boot 27.95
Console (tan) 47.50
L & R fenders (med. red) 50.00

Paid 350.00

Balance 180.40
You deny this. I have other proof.
You are going to jail and that is all there is to it.
I asked you to call and resolve this with me and you ignored it. So no more discussions but I will let the Richmond pd and according to the police officer I talked to they will be asking the assistance of the FBI.
You are a felon and you will be spending more time in jail.
You will now loose everything you have and I personally will see to it.
So long and I hope you know how to hide.

------------------

[This message has been edited by fieroshop (edited 03-01-2002).]

[This message has been edited by fieroshop (edited 03-01-2002).]

WOW!

(silence falls over pennocks for a moment as crickets are heard in the background)

OK, now for round two
>DING<

Now I know Fieroshop is full of **** . Way too much time bullshitting on this forum and he still hasn't gone to the police. This has been going on for a couple weeks now.

Hey utmracing. I guess you can't read. I have gone to the police dept and have filed.

Aparantly Terry also has if I'm not mistaken a couple of other contracts.
One syate she is owed ten thousand.
Another states he has been paid by recieving two gt's
Also how do you pay somebody a forty hour week when in reality they only work less then fifteen hours a week.
Need proof I have it.
I have a mechanic here that is crippled and one of the best workers I have ever seen and he wonders hoe come Terry only worked a few hours aday and cried cause Ididn't pay him for a full day.
Terry, you have been caught in a lie, you have been caught embezzeling, you have been caught with grand theft, I have all the proof here and it is in the hands of the Richmond police department.
All those contracts you have \ in your ossesion are good for one thinbg only at this time. The next time you go to the head take them with you and use them to clean yourself up.
Books
Everything I sold and collected for is in the computer and Terry knoes it.
Oh yes I have screwed up and I am paying for my mistakes but I will manage while I will also see you in rot in jail.

[This message has been edited by fieroshop (edited 03-01-2002).]

No you haven't Fieroshop. If you had you wouldn't be emailing all ebay customers and posting BS here. You're very unprofessional and I sure hope that you never make another cent from a Fiero owner.

I don't trust either one of you but I have a feeling that the unpaid employee with a contract has many more rights than a sack of **** employer who can't pay the help. It doesn't matter if Terry owes other people, that has nothing to do with you. If you would have paid him maybe he wouldn't owe others. Ever thought about that. You lost my respect before Terry even came to explain. No reasonable honest person posts crap like that, they go right to the cops. Have you put in an insurance claim too for these missing items? I'd love to see the adjusters face after looking at these threads.

"All those contracts you have \ in your ossesion are good for one thinbg only at this time."

Are you that stoned?

[This message has been edited by utmracing (edited 03-01-2002).]

In respect for george and terry both, i do wish you guys could handle this on your own, this is not a matter for the people of this forum, this is personal, Even though some of the members probably wanna butt into all this, it needs to be resolved by the two individuals in question and a court. In my opinion terry and george should do this, all the fuss this is creating on the forum makes them both look bad, and in the effort to save face, we should stay out of it, and no more should be posted.

my two cents,

matthew cantley

Let us know the court date... I'd pay money to watch this. I'll bring a cam-corder too!

You know what guys? (PFF) If this has been started as George say he has, then there is nothing to do but sit back and wait for your legal system to take over.

George: Good luck proving any of the stuff sold on ebay is stolen. By collecting on it from people who bought it in good faith, you will torpedo your own business. More so. If you are 100% sure that it is stolen goods, go after Terry. NOT your customers. Suck it up if you have to. Oh, and you will get nowhere slandering Terry, except possibly court. Until it's proven, he's innocent, remember?

Terry: You are on a weak stand... But it is a stand. Keep bills, receipts, witnesses, etc.

Good luck to both of you. May the truth come out, and the REAL perpetrator get nailed to a tree.

The Promissory Agreement appears to be the work of an amateur. I suspect it was written by George. I am sure George would not want an Attorney to work on any of his Fieros.
Interesting thing about the Agreement is that even though it was drawn to protect George, it provides the most protection for Terry.
A short course in Legal 101, for those who are interested. Note: I have been in this business for over thirty years and have been right MOST (but not all) of the time.

In opening the agreement "I George Miller, DBA Fiero Shop, do hereby agree to a settlement with Terry Owens...."
George is declaring to be the 'First Party by Admission' and seeks a settlement with a 'Second Party by Designation' Terry Owens. He also has included an 'Additional Party' by reference to the Fiero Shop that implies a business/employer/employee relationship by continuing "... for wages owed in the amount of $19,532.40, which will be satisfied in total as follows...."
The 'Center of Dispute' is simple, Terry worked for George. Terry was expecting to be paid for this work. George didn't have enough money to pay all of Terry's wages in cash. George had an old beat-up Fiero. George had a shop full of Fiero parts. George had $800 cash. George made a deal with Terry, and he spelled out a deal in this Agreement.

The first 'Stipulation' in the agreement it goes into considerable detail:
"1987 Pontiac Fiero GT (VIN 1G2PG1194...) (Silver) to be fully restored to proper operating condition and aesthetically correct. All Title and transfer paper work to be included with the car transferring title to Mr. Owens with current registration."
This statement implies that at the time of the Agreement the Fiero was not operational and not aesthetically correct. Terry was protected here if indeed the proper restoration was not completed. Indirectly, Terry would not accept the car unless satisfied and wouldn't proceed with further action to satisfy any paper work, Transfer of Title, Registration, etc.

Stipulation 2 is very interesting:
"Parts to maintain Pontiac Fieros with a cost value in the amount of approx. 10,000.00"
Because the First Stipulation was so specific, and this Second Stipulation appears to be so vague, I would say a Court would determine quickly that Terry had 'Sole Desecration' in regards to these parts. George was only protected by 'Limitation of Amount' and had to be specific in regards to what actual Fiero parts Terry could take and the manner these parts would be obtained. George can not use this Agreement to support the fact that Terry took parts he should not have taken. Terry can use the Agreement to support taking any parts, as long as they did not exceed a COST value of $10,000. Another protection for Terry in the fact that the parts value was George's actual COST and not what the Fiero parts were actually worth. Good deal for Terry. George would have to show proof of his actual COST for each and every part that Terry had if there was ever a dispute on the actual $10,000 limit agreed on.

Stipulation Three says: "Cash in the amount of $800.00"
Again, this is as specific as it can be. It protects George if Terry would happen to change his mind and say he wanted, for example, only $5,000 in Fiero parts and $5,800 in cash.

Stipulation Five again is a measure to protect Terry:
"No liens shall be placed on the above vehicles and parts - title to all of the above is here by considered free and clear and transfered to Mr. Owens via the proper paper work."
Not only does it appear to be mis-numbered, as there is no Stipulation Four, it refers to more than one vehicle. It reinforces Stipulation One in regards to a free and clear title as well as paper work already supported in that Stipulation. I suspect a Court would consider the Stipulation to be vague in regards to any title or paper work for parts involved in Stipulation Two. Again, there are no specifics to title and paper work in Stipulation Two.
I also suspect another vehicle was involved here somewhere and was omitted (possibly the missing Stipulation Four).

"This constitutes the Promissory Agreement in its entirety and upon its satisfactory completion any and all rights to litigation will be forfited. Rights of litigation remain in effect till such time as this agreement is fulfilled as satisfied."

This is bad for George. Remember George is the First Party and the Agreement was drawn to be concluded with the fullfillment and satisfaction of the Second Party, Terry.

ALL TERRY HAS TO DO IS SAY IS: "I'm Happy. The Agreement has been fullfilled and I am satisfied."

Once Terry has been satisfied and fullfilled, it's over.
George can't do anything.
George signed his name agreeing he would forfeit any and all rights to litigation.

George also signed his name admitting he owed Terry money for wages.

It is really going to be hard for George because the Agreement has opened up additional problems. George agreed to wages in the amount of $19,532.40
As as an employeer, George has to deal with the Federal Government for Social Security, Medical, Income Tax, etc. He also has to deal with the infamous California Franchise Tax Board as well as the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for Income Tax, Workman's Compensation, etc.

George may say the Agreement is not valid but he signed it, fair and square. He has to take his chances in Court if he thinks it is not valid. Remember, he is the First Party, and it normally is the Second Party that protests.
George may say he is working with the Richmond, CA Police. I can say at this time NO Complaint has been entered, NO Warrent has been issued, and there is NO Investigation at this time involving a George Miller, Terry Owens, or any business named The Fiero Shop.
Let me know the Richmond Police Incident Number you're working this on George, and I will share the process with the rest of the Forum.
Sorry this is so long, but am hopeful this can add a somewhat professional opinion to the subject at hand.

Will you be my lawyer if i need one?

Keep this off the Fiero Racing list please. I have subscribed several parties involved in the matter in the last day or so. If all you did was subscribe to sort out your problems , you will be removed promptly.

Thank you

Jonathan McCreery
Fiero Racing List moderator

quote Originally posted by ProudGT: ...

Previous comments withdrawn... Good luck George! You gonna need it!

m0sh_man:

Not if you had a gun pointed at George's head when you forced him to sign the Promissory Agreement.

quote Originally posted by ProudGT: Sorry this is so long, but am hopeful this can add a somewhat professional opinion to the subject at hand.

Thanks! Very informative.

This has gone from a soap opera to 'Law and Order FVU' (Fiero Victims Unit)... All we need is the 'Dum-Dum!' music between each post.

well there you go.

No NO NO proudgt, im just saying will you be my lawyer if i ever need one, Nothing to do with george, im staying out of opinions with them, personally i believe that stuff should never have been seen by us.

matthew

p.s. im in west virginia, what would i need a lawyer for? owning a nice looking car?

Definately something that must be settled in court. If George hasn't filed charges, and continues to harass Terry, then I think Terry should file charges against George to force him to cease his actions. Of course, if George HAS filed charges, then it's up to the courts now.

I wil say this for the last time. I am going after Terry and you are right it has no busissness being here. So I will not post any further to this post.
It is in the hands of the law.

By the way I did not write that contract. Further I was to have revieved a copy and so far have not.

Why don't we all drop this on pennock's and what will happen from here will happen.
Like I said in is in the hands of the law and they will handle it from here.
I am done and will ppost no more to this and any other post about this matter.

------------------

ProudGT: are you sure about stipulation 2?
I still think that George has the say in what parts that terry can take from the shop even with that agreement. If Terry could just walk in and take whatever he wanted then he could even take a part that was ready to be shipped to a customer too. That doesn't sound right to me. I think, if i remember my classes correctly, that George would still have to okay the parts that Terry took before he could just take them. For one thing to keep track of what he still owes him if nothing else. I think a court will find that this is true also since that particular section is so vage.
Not arguing just discussing and i'm not saying you're definetly wrong either just relaying what i remember the way those agreements go in court. Any thoughts?

------------------
Dave Gunsul
Activities Director
Northern IL. Fiero Enthusiasts
86 GT modified
85 SE daily driver

quote Originally posted by ProudGT: Another protection for Terry in the fact that the parts value was George's actual COST and not what the Fiero parts were actually worth. Good deal for Terry. George would have to show proof of his actual COST for each and every part that Terry had if there was ever a dispute on the actual $10,000 limit agreed on.

ProudGT, So if I understand this point you make, If George bought a "parts Car" for $100, And Terry removed some parts, Which say 3 months later, Sold same on Ebay for $500.00 total (These are examples not what happened) George can only claim a portion of the initial $100 he paid?

Also, If Terry sold parts (like the "receipt" George shows), and George can only claim his costs, What happens with the parts that George cannot prove what they cost him?

Finally, Thank you for your legal disection of the agreement. It was very good and certainly very informative.

quote Originally posted by DRH: This has gone from a soap opera to 'Law and Order FVU' (Fiero Victims Unit)... All we need is the 'Dum-Dum!' music between each post.

At least it hasn't gone to CSI (Crime Scene Investigators)

quote Originally posted by fieroshop: It is in the hands of the law.

What Law? It seems that the local Police have not heard anything. Since the begining you have stated the Police/Law was involved but nobody else has heard a thing. Why don't you supply a police report number? How about the name of the Officer/Detective who is "collecting evidence".

quote Originally posted by fieroshop: By the way I did not write that contract. Further I was to have revieved a copy and so far have not.

Do you mean "Reviewed" or "Revised"?

Reviewed ~ If you have not reviewed it since you signed it, it is not Terry's problem.

Revised ~ If you planned on rewriting the agreement but "so far have not", You are out of luck. The preceeding agreement is still in effect. Unless you have something in writing and signed by both parties that the first agreement is null and void, there is nothing you can do.

BTW ~ Who was the one who brought this to the Forum? HHMM... Lets see first there was one thread, then another, then a response thread (this one). George, you started this by creating the first two threads. Now you want to quit posting/reading because it is not going in your favor. Even in your first thread you stated the Police were on the case. I think you just wanted to slander Terry here and when it backfired on you, you decided to attack his Ebay customers and other his reputation on other Fiero message boards/groups.

Your initial thread is just like your clutches, Sound good at first but once applied in the real world it falters with !

------
posted by fieroshop 02-26-2002 08:32 PM
As far as I am concerned this thred is over.
------
posted by fieroshop 02-27-2002 10:26 AM
Have fun guys I won't be reading any more of this nor will I ever post here again.
------
posted by fieroshop 03-01-2002 01:53 PM
Why don't we all drop this on pennock's and what will happen from here will happen.
Like I said in is in the hands of the law and they will handle it from here.
I am done and will ppost no more to this and any other post about this matter.
------

SURE!

[This message has been edited by Fiero5 (edited 03-01-2002).]

This is going to be real simple.

Judge: "George, Is this your signature on the Promissory Agreement?

George: "That Agreement is not valid. I changed my mind. I told Terry to forget it. I... I.... I...."

Judge: "Excuse me, but is that your signature?"

George: "Yep"

Judge: " George, did you agree to give Terry a 1987 Fiero GT as stipulated in the Agreement ? "

George: "That no good, dirty, son of ahhh

Judge: "Excuse me, would you answer the question please."

George: "Yep"

Judge: "Terry, do you have the Fiero?"

Terry: "Your Honor, yes I have the Fiero. I am satisified with this part of the agreement and have no objections, Thank you."

Judge: "George, did you promise Terry $10,000 worth of Fiero parts as stipulated in the Agreement? "

George: "Terry stole those parts, he didn't inform me he was taking them, he is a crook, put him in jail, I waaaaant my paaaaaarts baaaaack"

Judge:"Excuse me, I'll ask the question again. Did you promise Terry $10,000.00 in Fiero parts ?"

George: "Yep"

Judge: "Terry, do you have $10,000 worth of George's Fiero parts.

Terry: "Your Honor, I only have a small portion of the Fiero parts promised me, however, I am satisified with the amount of the parts and I have no objections, Thank you."

Judge: "Terry, did George give you the $800 in cash as promised ?"

Terry: "Your Honor, I did not receive the $800 in cash as promised, however, I am satisified that I received the 1987 Fiero GT and the small amount of Fiero parts that was promised and there is no objection on my part, Thank you."

There is nothing more a Judge can do in regards to the Promissory Agreement. The Judge doesn't care if anything was stolen, he doesn't care if there was a Tool Box taken, nothing in the Agreement has to do with stolen parts and Tool Boxes. The Judge can't decide how the parts were to be dispersed, after the fact. He was not present when the Agreement was signed. The Judge couldn't advise George he was making a mistake when he signed it.
There is no provision in Stipulation 2 as to what method Terry was to use to obtain these parts. George failed to protect himself in the Agreement. George should have been more specific with details in accounting for the selection, value, and disposition of the Fiero parts promised.
I am not saying that Terry did the right thing in the way he obtained the parts. Another Judge must consider Terry's intent in the theft of any Fiero parts, and that Judge must take into consideration George's obligation to pay Terry $10,000 of theses same parts as Stipulated in the Agreement.
George is between a rock and a hard place. George must prove each and every part that Terry "stole" When each part was "stolen" Exactly how much that "stolen" part was worth, and according to the Agreement, what he actually paid so he could prove Terry has more that $10,000 worth of parts. After he gets this all together, someone has to determine if Terry has any or all of these parts. It's going to take a long, long time and a lot of MONEY (a Lawyer's best friend).
The best thing Terry has going for him is George's Promissory Agreement.
I'd say, knowing only what I know so far, Terry should give George his Tool Box back and call it even.

Even? No. How about Social Security? George didn't pay it for Terry. I presume Terry will some day retire. Terry remains damaged in the long term as has was not in the system during that time and thus was not accumulating. Was Terry covered by Worker's Compensation? Thankfully he didn't have a shop accident. This is why the state gets into these things with such a vengence.