I think I'm going to side with Jim on this one. The longer you live here, the greater appreciation you have for how things work. I've been involved in two civil court cases here, both involving labor issues with fired employees of the condominium in which I live. Neither of the two was resolved in a straight-line judicial process. Both involved a "subversion" or "manipulation" of the system. The difference between the two? One event happened during our first year here and we had to be pushed by our lawyer, screaming and kicking over the perceived unfairness of it all, into making the appropriate expenditures to achieve the desired result, i.e. make the problem go away. The second, after four years living here, resolved in a quarter of the time because we immediately opened negotiations over the size of the expenditure that would make the situation go away. In each case, officials of the judicial system "dipped their beaks", as Don Corleone would say, sharing the wealth with the lawyers. In each case, the poor schmuck who was the claimant probably wound up much less than he thought he deserved. And of course, we thougth each deserved nothing, so, in a sense, everybody won something. Sadly, that's the way the system works.
Well, Mixz1, experiences like that will certainly heighten your level of suspicion! The problem with this is that, although you would certainly know what you were told about what was being done with your money, unless the judge personally "thanked" you for your contribution, you wouldn't know for sure. There is a practice among unscrupulous lawyers in the U.S. to enrich themselves by suggesting to their clients that, in addition to their fees, more will be needed to "grease the wheels", knowing that clients will more readily part with money they think is being used in this manner, than paid as fees, to which they might voice a louder objection, especially if the lawyer suggests he can guarantee the outcome (which is usually prearranged by finding out what the prosecutor will offer on a case; or, what the defendant will offer, in a civil case). The lawyer then promises a result he already knows will be forthcoming, representing it as a "result" of the payment about to be made. Of course these practices undermine the reputation of the judicial/legal system. I'm left wondering to what degree the bad rep of Mexico's legal system is deserved, well deserved, or perhaps a little unfair....
Let me clarify. We appeared at the hall of justice across Bonampak from where the old Home Depot stood. An envelope of cash was handed across the desk to the judge. I repeat, to the judge (or magistrate or factotum or whatever office he holds). The judge apportioned the money, dividing it into stacks and passed it back over the desk to the claimant and the two attorneys. A smaller amount of bills made the return trip across the desk. Case closed. Can you hear the gavel? I guess because he didn't say, "Thank you", I can't be sure, but if it looks like a bribe and smells like a bribe...
Would've thought the same thing you did. Shame the judge couldn't have at least said, "Thanks", it being good manners and all. That they would make no effort at all to disguise what was happening is the most amazing part of it, to me. It appears they were confident all around, that no one was going to rat them out (or is it that there would be no one to rat them out to...?). Thanks for adding the detail, Mixz1.
On further reflection, I wondered if I wasn't guilty of jumping to conclusions in this case (Mixz1's case, spoken of earlier on this thread). Here's why. It's possible that the procedure you went through was an arbitration of a labor dispute, in which it would be the custom (in the U.S.) for the losing party (I'm sorry Mixz1; this, coupled with all the pain of remodeling- not to mention Wilma's, "Welcome to Cancun", message- must have made you wonder about your choice of Cancun for a quiet retirement) to pay all expenses, including compensation to the "victim", his attorney's fees, your own attorney's fees (of course), and the arbitrator's fees. Did you get a copy of the decision/judgment from which you could determine if this may have been the case?
It was nice of Mixz1 to share some details of what must have been a distressing situation, and while I don't know more about the case than he's stated, the law in Mexico is written heavily in favor of employees, and it's easy to run afoul of it. For example, as I understand it, you must pay compensation to employees who are dismissed, even if for cause- something that must be nearly intolerable, at times.
Thats exactly right! There is a running joke that "no one EVER quits in Mexico".. as "quiting" (properly in writing) disqualifies you from the three months payout (and higher) that employers are required to pay to "terminated employees". I know several business owners here and they've had employees basically stop showing up then file a "demanda" for the payout many, many, many, many, times. It's quite rare for any non-professional to "quit" a job. As a result many employers have 3 month renewable contracts, or have the stated base wage as low as possible and just pay cash for everything above that to limit their exposure to the "hit-and-run employees". To a small business having employees run off/quit/fired can be devastating if you dont have enough cash reserves to pay them off when they leave.
V - forgive me for being testy, but I think my explanation of an extremely difficult set of circumstances couldn't be clearer. I need no procedural hypothesis or explanations. It was a clear cut set of cases and I was acutely aware of the players and their roles. The final paperwork is part of the condo's files and is also quite clear in it's description of the situations leading to the settlement(s). The only problem is the accounting, which makes no mention of the financial nod to the judicial aspect of the deal. Also no mention of bottle of an 1800 Anejo that went to smooth the wheels of said judicial aspect. To say I was flabbergasted in the first case would be an understatement, not because I didn't understand, but because I was astounded by the blatancy of it. In the second circumstance, I was a practiced participant and got the whole mess resolved quite quickly. The only conclusion you have arrived at correctly is that in both cases it was a dismissed employee. In both cases the dismissed employee found a lawyer who was willing to sue for far more than the employee (who had already been paid his separation) received. The opening gambit in the first case was for 600,000 pesos! They settled for 6000. I can't even fathom how his lawyer arrived at that number. How crap like this is allowed to happen is the major question and I have the cynical opinion that certain judges and lawyers conspire to make it happen. I might add that the "settlements" in both cases had no foundation in reality or mathematics. It was just the price needed to make it go away. In a totally unrelated matter, the lawyer who represented the employee in the first case was disbarred the following year for collecting his fee from some poor schmuck he had represented by robbing him at gunpoint. You can't make this stuff up!
Hey everyone. My name is Anita and I am Free Bronkhorst's girlfriend. I just wanted to thank all of you who have been supporting Free and his mother. It means a lot to him to hear that the public is fighting for him and it helps him remain strong and get through his days. I have witnessed a lot of the inside of this case, and don't want to say anything for fear of jeopardizing the case, but I was blown away at how this has all been handled. I was present in the closed door audience with the judge on December 24th and could not believe what I saw. I sat next to the judge and was completely dumb founded, watching his behaviour. That would never fly in any other country in the world. As for the kidnappers, I believe one was released this week. They are being held in the same prison as Free, however they have been kept separate from him and are not allowed to see him.
