All the time this discussion was going on, client 2 was in his room,
with a few of the strangers who were not interested in what client 1 had
to say. A few days following this discussion, client 2 walked into the
apartment with equipment he had purchased from Cox Communication. Client
1 had already had an account with Cox Communication for Wi-Fi service
only. The account was established September 2012. Client 2 opened a new
account in his own name for DSL telephone service (seeming the apartment
lacked the stated telephone for emergency calls) and cable television
services (the only television was in client 2’s bedroom). In order for
the DSL telephone to function, it needed client 1’s Wi-Fi box and
service. At first client 1 had no problem with letting client 2 use the
service. However on this particular day, client 1 was working on some
class work on his blackberry phone, seeming client 2 had stolen his
laptop. Client 2 arrived home and went to turn on the DSL, interrupting
the Wi-Fi signal of client 1.
A confrontation resulted, whereby client 1 unplugged the Wi-Fi box and
placed it in his room. Client 2 demanded that client 1 plug it back in.
Client 1 refused. Client 2 then proceeded to go to the front office of
the apartment complex and call the case workers. Client 2 returned and
informed client 1 that both case workers were coming over. When the case
workers arrived they attempted to resolve the problem. They did not
address any of the prior 6 months of neglect and police reports, or the
condition of the apartment, the welfare of the clients, simply the issue
at hand. Client 2 explained the event, by accusing client 1 of not
allowing him to use the cable signal for a telephone call. Client 1
respondent by informing the case managers that the cable signal is not
the problem, the problem is that he was in the middle of doing some
class work on his private property, with his private account that he had
invested over $700 in over the past 10 months with Cox Communication,
and that he did not feel he had to attend to Client 2’s disrespectful
demand! Client 1 pointed out to the case managers that not only has he
let client 2 use the Wi-Fi box, not once did client 2 show any
appreciation with a simple thank you. He was upset with client 2’s
constant plug in of the DSL box when both clients have cell phones, and
that it cost him $75 dollars deposit for the connection to function, by
which client 2 didn’t pay one dime. Thus in order for it to be equally
shared doesn’t seem possible, seeming client 1 had the main account
first and paid the deposit.
The case workers respondent by urging client 1 to cooperate and let
client 2 share the Wi-Fi signal. Client 1 concluded at this point that
these two case workers were incompetent and that actions must be taken
to have them reviewed. A temporary agreement was made, which client 2
enjoyed, but client 1 felt was unfair. How could two case manager
instruct a client as to how they need to allocate their private property
against their will. This was a violation of client 1’s civil liberties
(5th Amendment.). Within the 5th Amendment, it is stated..."be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation..." Considering this clause, it is important that the
following is understood, with regards to private property:
1.) The owner's exclusive authority to determine how private property is used.
2.) The owner's peaceful possession, control, and enjoyment of his/her legally purchased, deeded private property.
3.)
The owner's ability to make contracts or decisions to use, sell, rent,
or give away all or part of the legally purchased/deeded private
property. (Tom Deweese, 2012).
