Posted on 02/10/2005 12:09:43 PM PST by ZGuy
The cookie conflict isn't over yet. The spat between two teens from the southwestern Colorado town of Durango and one of their neighbors over a batch of cookies they baked last summer has garnered national publicity over the past week. It has led to donations for the girls.
For Herb and Wanita Young, it has all been a nightmare.
"We have got horrendous phone calls, tons of hate mail, threats to our life," said Herb Young in a telephone interview Thursday.
The saga began in July when Taylor Ostergaard, 17, and Lindsey Jo Zellitti decided to bake chocolate chip and sugar cookies for their neighbors. They placed them outside with large red or pink construction-paper hearts that carried the message, "Have a great night" and were signed with their first initials: "Love, The T and L Club."
Things went sour when they approached the Young home. Wanita Renea Young, 49, said she heard someone banging on the door late in the evening and saw "shadowy figures" who refused to answer when she called out to them. The teens later said they did not answer because they wanted the treats to be a surprise.
A frightened Young said she spent the night at her sister's home, then went to the hospital the next morning because she was still shaking and had an upset stomach.
The Youngs said they tried to settle the dispute, even enlisting their clergy. The teens say they offered to pay the medical bills, but Young insisted on going to small claims court where a judge awarded about $900 in medical costs.
As they story spread, Denver radio station KOA raised more than enough money to pay the court award. The girls, who did not immediately return messages, were expected to be in Denver later Thursday to accept a check from the station. They have already been invited on national television shows and a cookie company has created a "Kindness Cookie" in their honor.
Things have not gone as well for the Youngs.
"It's horrible, nobody has heard our side," said Herb Young, adding the couple has had to hire a lawyer. "I don't believe the girls meant for this to happen. But they could have prevented it from happening if they had just shut their mouths when they came out of (small claims) court. Now they are caught in something they can't control."
The parents of one of the teens asked for a restraining order against Herb Young, accusing him of making harassing phone calls. He admitted calling the Ostergaards once after hearing the teens were talking to a newspaper and at one point said "the gloves were off," which apparently was taken as a threat.
"My home isn't a home any more," Young said. "We are all on pins and needles."
I'm not a troll. Funny how people on this site get so blown out of shape about things like this when everyone doesn't fall in lockstep. Then those people start name calling....troll, etc.
Number one: she was NOT "out $930." The parents of the teenagers offered to reimburse her.
Number two: it was MRS. YOUNG who file the lawsuit, and who had any sort of cause to do so. SHE CHOSE. She could have accepted an entirely reasonable offer of resitution and a written apology. But guess what? She decided that an oral apology was worth GOING TO COURT FOR. (I'll bet she STILL hasn't received it.
Furthermore, you are making an completely unfounded allegation about the "greed" of the teenager's lawyer. What if he was a family friend who worked on this case for free? There is nothing in the article to indicate otherwise. Furthermore, there is no way that a defense attorney can force this thing to court just to make money.
Again, an ENTIRELY REASONABLE settlement was on the table to be accepted, and Mrs. Young refused. She chose to go to court and waste eveyrone's time. The only person to blame for escalating this past the family-to-family settlement stage is her. Not the lawyers, not the teens, not the teens' parents.
I'm not calling you a name, I'm making an accusation. A "troll" (as you may know) is someone who posts what he does for the express purpose of getting a rise out of others. I continue to be dumbstruck that you ignore fundamental facts about this situation, and the only credible reason I can come to is that you really don't believe what you're saying.
In order for you to credibly defend your position, you need to explain why it is ever---EVER---justifiable to go to court simply to extract an oral apology from somone. Allow me to submit: it NEVER is. You go to court to obtain compensation for damages suffered. But of course, Mrs. Young didn't need to go for THAT, because it had already been offered.
I actually agree with you that it is reasonable that the girls SHOULD have offered Mrs. Young an oral apology. I do not know why the lawyer recommended otherwise, though he may very well have had a genuinely sound reason. But even I grant that they SHOULD have done so, the fact that the DID NOT does not justify the lawsuit being filed, under ANY circumstances. It is simply not an acceptable response to such a refusal, period.
Again, I remind you: the judge basically accepted the offered settlement as sufficient. He agreed, then, that Mrs. Young wasted everyone's time.
Who did you say was greedy again?
I wondered the same thing.
She has an anxiety attack about someone that is outside - so what does she do? She goes outside! (to go to her sister's house). And where was Herb??
Let me explain it to you.
Had the teenagers apoligized in the first place, there would have been NO reason to go to court. The Youngs didn't GO to court to get the apology, they went to court because they DIDN'T GET the apology.
Whatever you think doesn't matter actually. The Youngs won in court so the law was on their side. The reason they won probably had little to do with the apology one way or the other. The girls caused the anxiety attack and they were made to pay for listening to their poorly chosen lawyer.
...the only credible reason I can come to is that you really don't believe what you're saying.
And you would be wrong once again.
So, you know 100% for sure it wasn't more than 20 seconds? That would be what I would call an "opinion" or a "guess", not a fact.
The Youngs won, but only received 20% of the judgement they'd asked for. That means they lost 80%. When you consider that the final judgement was for the amount offered before the court case began, I'd say the girls' lawyer was well chosen, and had pretty good judgement.
Drew Garrett
Like the two girls in this story. The knock and hide with the "Look! We were just leaving cookies, aren't we the sweetest thangs?!" cover story they had going when it appears to me that they were getting a rise out of their "neighbors".
I'm not behind frivolous lawsuits, but my thinking from the start was these two young women were not innocently delivering cookies hither and yon.
What's amusing about this story is the vitriol those who side with the young women take to anyone who questions the little darlings' motives. It's positively hilarious.
Husband out of town, went to sister's on advice of sheriff's deputies. Makes sense to me.
I agree with both of you. But I've stayed off these threads, until now, because when I tried to defend Mrs. Young (whose husband was OUT OF TOWN) I was flamed bigtime.
I think we have a bunch of kid posters on here, to tell you the truth. A lot of nasty remarks about Mrs. Young, too, who was on FoxNews and was an unremarkable, quiet-speaking woman who said that the sheriff advised her not to sleep at home that night.
About her property--she said that the girls had climbed a fence (not used the gate) there was no way to see them, since they hid in the bushes, and that they didn't knock, they banged on her BACK door, instead of going to her FRONT door, which may well have had motion sensor lights and a peephole.
There are cardiac arrythmias that are a definite matter of concern, which some people get. Many are treated with medication. That's what I would guess happened with Mrs. Young, although I don't know for sure.
In addition, I posted on the other thread--one of the first--that my rural neighbors and I are of the opinion that the girls were lucky not to be 1)arrested and 2)shot.
10:30 at night is no time to be delivering cookies. The girls say they only went to houses with porch lights on--but they went to the BACK door, banged on it, hid in the bushes, and didn't answer when Mrs. Young asked who it was. I hope some of the posters here can at least understand why she was upset.
LOL
Years ago, some friends and I rang the doorbell of a neighbor at night and ran off. The neighbor was upset, and later told me that her brother was killed doing the same thing when they were growing up, rang the bell at a house of a very cranky fellow and was shot. It never seemed like a smart thing to do after hearing that.
The Youngs need to get a clue or get out of town.
I hear that there are lots of caves in Colorado.
What she sowed she now reaps. She got her pound of flesh now everyone can have a shot a here now.
ANyone know if the youngs voted for Kerry? ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.