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."
Thanks for the sensible answer. I don't know if she went too far, because I'm not her. But I do live way in the boonies, where my nearest neighbor is a mile away, and we DID buy a house that had been rented by drug sellers (now in prison) and fix it up at great expense of money and labor. It took all of us neighbors several years to get all of the bad element out of our area, to where it is now a really nice place to live.
We used to have a circle drive, but we had to close half of it off, because drug buyers would come in, blink their lights and honk in a particular sequence....we found drugs stored just off our property on state land...most often they'd come late in the evening...
We're armed, and we have a great yard dog, and there haven't been any dealers around for 6 or 7 years, but...
True to form, these clowns refuse to accept that ANY of this is their fault for making a mountain out of a molehill. Nope, not one iota.
Clue to the Youngs...people hate people like you, people think there are WAY too many people like you around (and they are right), and because of your greedy hateful ways, you painted yourselves as a national poster child For People We Hate, and you're getting your just rewards. What, did you really think your ridiculous lawsuit would go unnoticed? Have fun, suckers, and hope the $900 was worth it...
They should hand them the check, and a bag of cookies with "no hard feelings" on it.
I know it is a little mean, but the girls would become legends if they did that.
Who knows? Did anyone say that or report that she was "trying to rub their noses in it"?
If so, I missed it. Still, it's possible, and I don't know the answer.
As a kid of 8, one time I walked up to a neighbor man, elderly, who was clipping roses. On a mischievous impulse, I said "BOO!" in a loud voice. He sat down on the ground, got a little bottle out of his pocket, and put a nitro under his tongue...he scolded me--he never had before--and it took a day for me to get over it, talk to my mom, and come back to apologize. He didn't have a heart attack, or even go to the hospital, but he was never welcoming to us kids after that, and I lost a good friend...
And as I have said many times, that is a completely unacceptable, insufficient reason. After all, when they decided to go to court they did not seek an apology---they sought monetary damages.
Whatever you think doesn't matter actually.
Oh, yes it does. What we are talking about here is the responsibility of citizens not to clog our court system with unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits. The Youngs wouldn't know the meaning of that.
The Youngs won in court so the law was on their side.
Not exactly. The judge refused to give them all they asked for---he only awarded them the compensation for the medical bills. But the teenagers had already offered that. So in effect, they wasted the court's time. Had they not gone to court, and accepted the offer from the teenagers, the result would have been EXACTLY the same, except that perhaps they wouldn't have this media circus, the harassment from strangers, and they wouldn't have to pay an attorney.
The reason they won probably had little to do with the apology one way or the other.
Correct, it had nothing to do with the apology. It had everything to do with whether or not the teens should be liable for the damage caused. Hence the lack of a verbal apology was not reasonable jusitification to go to court.
The girls caused the anxiety attack and they were made to pay for listening to their poorly chosen lawyer.
No, they were not "made" to pay anything more than what they had already offered to pay. The court didn't MAKE them do any more than that---except to pay the court costs. Oh, and she was not "awarded" a verbal apology, either.
So you tell me: in what way does that constitute a victory for the Youngs?
Judith---I am a bit of a funny beast on this thread. For example, I agree that the teens exercised bad judgement. And I applaud the parents' willingness to pay the medical bills.
My sole, yet quite vehement, complaint is regarding the Young's determination to take this to court. That crossed the line---particularly since the teens were already agreeing to pay the medical bills and issued a written apology. The judge apparently agreed that that was sufficient restitution in this case, too, because he refused to award the Youngs any more than that.
Our court system has no business being clogged with cases like these that can so easily be settled outside of it. The teens had offered a perfectly reasonable settlement, and the Youngs refused: and why? I have to admit I doubt the genuineness of the Youngs when they claim that a verbal apology would have been sufficient. Clearly, their court lawsuit demanded far, far more than that. But even if we take them at their word, the failure to deliver a VERBAL apology it is a wholly inadequate reason to go to court.
You can read, right?
You both gave thoughtful replies, and I appreciate that.
I don't know why it ended up in court--do any of us REALLY know? At what point was somebody intransigent--the lawyers, Mrs. Young, or the girls?
One thing that irritates me is the girls' family defending them as wonderful kids that never did anything bad, and then taking money from strangers because of this story. Maybe people are paying the bills for the girls' prank. I wouldn't--and if they were my kids I would have had a long talk with girls who are old enough to know better, frankly.
If they wanted to do a good deed, and surprise somebody, I can think of lots of ways other than what they did. Bad judgement, compounded by parents who can't say, "My daughters used bad judgement, and I've had a long talk with them about that."
Instead, Mrs. Young is demonized...in my opinion, the comments about her are way over the top.
I'm coming to the conclusion that Mrs. Young did the wrong thing by going to court, if she wanted to teach the girls a lesson (which they should have learned, by the way) she was facing an uphill battle.
I recall hearing in the FoxNews interview with Mrs. Young that the sheriff was going to issue the girls a summons, but Mrs. Young said she wouldn't press charges, she just wanted an apology in person and I would guess that's when the parents lawyered up. Once they did, Mrs. Young had to do the same.
I don't know--the whole thing got out of hand on both sides. Knowing rural courts in my own county, they're just not clogged up with cases.
The media spin of "poor little girls just wanted to be nice and that vicious pig Mrs. Young sued them FOR NO REASON!" just doesn't fly with me. It doesn't sit well. I don't trust the media for much anyway, we don't know if the person who wrote the original story was a friend of the family, we don't know anything really.
I just fall on the side of the woman at home in a very rural area with her husband out of town, and somebody banging on the back door, not answering her, not showing themselves, and with no car in sight...
Of course, as I said before, I have a big yard dog that would likely scare them off, that would be in their faces barking before they ever got to the door...
We have teens in our area, really nice kids. Not in a million years would they ever prank anyone--it just isn't done out here. Maybe Mrs. Young's area is different.
Look, I've been chastised on this forum for not knowing the full story on the Youngs' side. Well, I can certainly say the same for you. You don't really know the reason why the lawyer recommended against a verbal apology. Obviously I am leaning towards giving the girls the benefit of the doubt on that, but because the lawyer recommended against it I'm inclined to think that it wasn't because they weren't willing. If they detected---apparently, rightly so---that Mrs. Young was particularly litigious, then I could imagine that it is important that the apology be parsed so that it cannot be used in court.
Remember, one of the teens' parents offered to pay the medical bills from the very first conversation he/she had with Mrs. Young. So it's not like they were attempting to completely avoid responsibility.
"Once they did, Mrs. Young had to do the same?" No. This kind of thinking simply ignores the fact that it is always the plaintiff's prerogative to proceed with a lawsuit. Mrs. Young was in no way forced into a lawsuit just by virtue of the fact they consulted a lawyer---unless she felt she was entitled to more than was being offered, plain and simple. And remember, she was offered full compensation for her medical bills and a written apology---that's not trivial, even if it's not what she wanted.
And again, even if we accept that she truly "just wanted a verbal apology", going to court would in no way achieve that.
That wasn't good enough for her.
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.
I know that when I was a kid, and was doing the "knock and run" gag, I always started by wasting a lot of time taking the trouble baking freaking cookies for my victims. I then went around to all the other neighbors and delivered the cookies with a smile so that I could be positively identified by as many people as possible. Only then would I spring the terrible trap of knocking on the door, which of course violates all custom for doors. It was almost too perfect.
I don't know...just seems to me that the girls could think of a lot of ways to make a "nice gesture" that wouldn't get the sheriff called.
I'm not "hung up" on anything except I'm annoyed at the really low comments posted by some FReepers about Mrs. Young, and I just don't buy the GIRLS' as victims sob story. Apparently most here do.
I'm thinking BITMs' first name is Herb.
The Youngs are no strangers to court proceedings. In addition to the cookie lawsuit, records show the Youngs have sued or been sued at least nine times since 1991. Two more court actions have involved restraining orders.Again, it proves nothing, except maybe that the girls were foolish to think this could ever have been prevented from going to court with an apology and offer of payment.
Many of the suits filed by the Youngs were small claims. In 1994, Renea Young was granted a restraining order against one neighbor after they quarrelled over a shared driveway.
Another complaint was spurred by a July 4, 1997, accident in which the Youngs' pickup collided with a slow-moving hay-bale loader turning into a field as they attempted to pass it on a county road.
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.