Miami Beach 411
Like what you see? Let's talk about how
we can help your vacation --> Contact Us
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51
  1. #41
    Member Maria de los Angeles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    South Miami
    Posts
    9,256
    Likes Received
    194

    Default

    What I'd like to know is how many people have paid tabs "blindly" and not complained. How often does this really happen?

    Suzy, good way to raise your son!

    Doug, your incident seemed really quite out of line.

    Not long ago at Taverna Opa I was charged more for my second drink than my first by two different bartenders within a relatively short period of time (1 drink before food, 1 after). The first bartender was present and asked the second why she was charging me more. I found this to be simple, crass disregard for a local who is nice to hospitality workers and always leaves good tips.

    Luckily, this kind of thing doesn't happen to me very often.

  2. #42
    Suzanne C
    Guest

    Default

    When I read your response on Saturday morning Dictator, I wanted to jump the gun so badly and just bite back- attacking every falsehood in your statement but I had to take a step back and think about what I wanted to say. The thing is, you've attacked ME in this thread. You've aimed your responses at me specifically without even really commenting on the issue- ya just been throwin' jabs at me the whole time without having comprehended my actual comments, or maybe you didn't read them at all; granted, I did call you dic<strike>K</strike>tator so touche...Before I start rambling off every place where you misspoke, I just want to make sure you understand that I don't take offense to anything you say so please don't stereotype me as a sissy or a cry baby or even someone who is concerned with what inconsequential strangers think. Please don't think you need to apologize to me. (Also, I'm not the type of person who accepts apologies and wipes slates clean. Anyone can tell you: I hold grudges. Actions speak louder than words, err text, to me...) I don't know you. When and if I do respond to you, it's just to solicit a follow-up response from you. That's my job- notice how I never addressed the whole 'trying to get a reaction out of people'...it's the only sensible point you actually made. You're damn skippy I'm trying to get a rise out of people. It's my job to write about things that will engage participation. It's my job to answer questions- but I don't lie or fabricate things (A.K.A. <strike>talk</strike> write 'out of my a$$') in my posts . Because I enjoy my job and actually am trying to help people by offering real life scenarios, I write about my OWN adventures because it is more personal than a few lines in the paper. When I am not the source of my information, I advise accordingly. There's that little matter of credibility you know...

    That said (::takes a dEEp breath:, the Supreme Court has made decisions on things that can't be yelled in public because of the harm it can cause others. Important? Most definitely but I want to teach Nick that he alone can bring the most harm upon himself with the stupid things he says/does. That's WAAAAAY MORE important to me. Is my thought process wrong? Maybe- to you; but to me, that's what I think is important for a person to practice. I want him to address and confront WHATEVER he identifies with and wants to support (within reasonable confines of the Lord, the law and the land of course 'cuz my kid is not going to join an army, legalize marijuana or create a new energy source by abusing the environment). I want him to look at a situation from all angles- to make EDUCATED choices which he can back up. I want him to open his mouth but I don't want him to do so without asking all the right questions first so he never has to 'bactrack'...maybe it's the wanna-be journalist in me and/or all the journalism classes I've taken...I digress with the smart ass quip but it brings the whole 'questioning' to full circle. You came out and accused me of defending Mansion when in fact, if you question/research (i.e actually READ my posts in this thread), you will find no juxtaposition as to my stance on this issue- I have none. The only position I stated was that sometimes people get what they deserve. You'll see that I wrote I wanted to see what would be the response from Mansion and added that it would be a shame if Mansion suffered the consequences for what some guys might have done of their own accord. I even consequently added my own personal situations as proof that bouncers usurp their authority '@ the club' for their own personal gain without the approval or even knowledge of 'the establishment'- which brings me back to the whole 'backtracking' bit again- how can I backtrack when I never took a stance?

    As for the whole Merryman, little crotch syndrome and whether or not he and his fellow beat down recipients have it, let's clear the air- I don't know them. I can't say but I also never DID say it about him- go back and read. I offered scenarios to fill in the gaps of the missing questions that I have based on the one-sided reporting of the crime. It's called investigating. I'm not a cop but I also don't want to have to back track because I made a hasty decision without all the information...you interpreted it to mean I was backing Mansion but I'm going to use it to segway into the whole OJ bit. OJ was not found innocent of the crimes. OJ was found not guilty and he was found so because the attorneys could not prove that there was no other plausible explanation other than OJ having killed Nicole and Ron in the manner with which they say he did. The attorneys couldn't do this because OJ's dream team was able to provide alternate suggestions. The civil case was granted because it was plausible that OJ could have been involved. To explain the difference: in a criminal case you have to be convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt meaning no other option than the crime you're accused of whereas a civil case assigns financial liability to someone who may have been negligent. Did OJ do it? I don't know- I wasn't there. Did the LA attorneys prove he killed them? No but they certainly proved he was a wife beater, a shitty parent, a womanizer and short-tempered. Does that give me reason to believe that maybe he killed them? It gives me more reasons to believe it than not but not enough to stake my life, or even OJ's on it because after all, how many people have been found to have been convicted erroneously. Nothing is as infallible as bowel movements & the IRS coming after you when you don't pay. You're right- we need lawyers to protect us from people taking advantage of us.

  3. #43
    Suzanne C
    Guest

    Default

    We need them to defend us in valid situations but sadly, we also need them to ward off other creepy lawyers and scammers who try to bilk others while trying to make a quick buck using legal loopholes in juicy civil suits. You say my theoretical suit would be frivolous but in fact there are valid points and statutes on record that could have us sitting in court fighting it out until you get so tired of paying your lawyer that you agree to pay me- which incidentally is what will probably happen in this case (Mansion I mean. Relax dictator, I'm not a scammer so I'm not going to file any kind of suit...besides, I already said I put myself out there because I CAN take it...) Mansion, whether responsible or not for sanctioning the beat down, will certainly pay these guys just to end the issue. Mansion/opium Group has already lost with the students 'winning' as you say and the matter is still under investigation. The Opium Group doesn't want the negative publicity or the shady associations brought about by scandals of this sort regardless of their possible participation or lack thereof...but back to the crotches for a bit- 'Big wallet/small crotch' syndrome, although stating the word 'crotch' is not literally but rather an allusion to someone that is all bark and no bite or without the 'balls' to back it up in this case- like little animals puffing up to make themselves seem bigger than they are. You don't even have to be a scene regular to 'observe' these guys in action to see there is nothing cutesy about- comparison or not.

    As for the whole not speaking up- I would never tell ANYONE that, not even my son. I wouldn't recommend you (or my son)continue to make ill founded assumptions and follow them up by openly insulting people as it may not make you too many friends in the sandbox. You might also run across some with a short-temper like OJ or a bouncer or you could simply just make yourself look............like I said, I advise against it...

    Finally, as for Ellen...sooooooo off topic but the perfect way for you to let me prove one last point. If you would like to know*: I think Ellen got a tad too emotional about a situation that was probably causing her lots of grief in her personal circle because of the kiddies involved and tried to use her status to move the public into persuading the agency owner into bending the rules for her. Do I think it was wrong? Hell yeah- on three fronts. 1) What a bully. That's the same attitude I'm referring to as far as 'do you know who I am' and big wallet/little crotch syndrome. Just because she (a person) has fame, stature, position or wealth, she should not be entitled to play by a different set of rules. She signed a contract and honestly, you don't give KIDS back and pets should be no different. I can understand an allergy or an extreme situation but this was not the scenario with Ellen's case. I wouldn't trust her decision either!

    B) She's in the public eye. She knows there are loonies out there- loonies like the ones that started calling the agency owner and her FAMILY threatening them. Ellen knew that was coming and made her personal gain more important than the safety of this woman's family and the future of her business, and

    C) She made herself look like an a$$.

    * I don't know Ellen but I saw her stupid a$$ make a fool out of herself on national tv and newscasts for weeks!

  4. #44
    Suzanne C
    Guest

    Default

    One last thing- because I have to go file my taxes.....

    No it's not common to not receive a bill. Doug made the point of an itemized bill which is probably what dictator means by 'backtracking' but you're always handed something. Let me make it clear, I, Suzy Newhouse, have never been at a place where I wasn't given a bill. Were they itemized? No friggin clue but at that point I'm too drunk to know my name let alone read a bar tab...but again, NOPE, never without a bill.

    Which is why I question the whole incident dictator. Not because I have an affiliation with Mansion or a dislike for Merryman but rather because the one sided story doesn't make too much sense to me. It's been said that Merryman and his pals were beat down because they asked for their bill.

    That one sentence leaves so much to be interpreted that an educated person will ask:
    - Can anyone verify this- were there witnesses?

    because
    A) Who the heck has ever heard of someone getting beat up because they wanted to pay? There has to be more...
    B) You can't pay without a bill. There's something missing here...

    Then you hear that 'they questioned the $700 bill.'
    Ok, did they ask for it? Did they ask 'nicely' for it? Did they piss off the bouncer by calling him a name? Did they give the bouncer carte blanche to hit them by placing their hands on the bouncer at any time? Did they disrespect the waitress? Did they touch the waitress? Did they say they weren't paying it? (Were they given a bill doesn't come to mind because again I, Suzy Newhouse, have always been given one...)

    THEN you hear Merryman had some sort of tie to the club. The 'tie' has yet to be released. But here's where I have a few MORE questions. Why wasn't he comped? If he was on good terms with the club based on these 'ties,' why wasn't he offered complimentary service. Mansion may not have given him a free table but you sure party nicely when you have positive 'ties' to a place.

    Too may things that make you go 'hmmm' in Merryman's story to just wholeheartedly believe that they were attacked because they questioned their bill...

    As for the video, all it shows is that one guy punches another- which we already knew. Granted, I'm only seeing the bits released by the news but here's what I've seen:

    They are all in the office and one guy is kinda shaking his head then another guy clocks him but nobody else. Not a mob of bouncers- hell, they aren't even looking at him. Then, the guy who got decked is taken out of the office (NO VIDEO OUTSIDE where the supposed real beat down occurred) and then brought back in where they sit him down. Supposedly (according to the lawyer) Merryman, at this point on the video, is on the floor but you can't see him as he's out of the camera's range (aka NOT ON THE VIDEO). What you can see is the guy who got decked just random ducking into the fetal position when there is no one around him- the bouncers even turn around to see what the heck he is doing.

    I remain steadfast and renew my original statement: it would be interesting to hear the other side.

  5. #45
    Preferred Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Beach
    Posts
    285
    Likes Received
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suzy
    Vendors are actually required to provide more documentation than cardholders are when disputing charges. It would be interesting to know if Mansion did charge a credit card.
    I know when I used to work at one of the pubs, I got nailed a couple of times by patrons who, A) didn't sign the bill, and the place was so packed by the time I got to the register to close out the tab, they had taken off; B) patrons SIGNED the cc slip, then later disputed the charge saying it was not their signature. Both times, I had to pay out of pocket for their tab.

  6. #46
    Member Maria de los Angeles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    South Miami
    Posts
    9,256
    Likes Received
    194

    Default

    I too would like to hear all sides of the story, not that I'm losing sleep over this. Eventually, it's probably all going to boil down to yet another incident in the sordid history of nightclubs.

    Priscila, that really sucks. I would imagine that working at a chaotic place would present a huge liability for the server. Do you think the money is worth it? I've only ever waited tables or tended bar in small places.

  7. #47
    Suzanne C
    Guest

    Default

    As long as they can walk out on their own and sign a credit card slip, that's good enough for the club. Most places have cops right outside watching...

    As for the money, today's the deadline date to file your 07 taxes so I'm reminded that you should claim 10% of your tips. Wind down to 5 am on a Friday night when you're counting your cash-CASH. 7 to 10 tables at an automatic $75 per table that's added to the bill plus whatever the sauced(whatever the 'sauce' ) up patrons want to add after you've been serving <strike>flirting with</strike> them all night. It's also not uncommon for a gal to be tipped when the folks get there to try and ensure they have a fun night with a server who's always refilling what's needed. Some gals make in excess of $2500 just for working two nights!

    $2500 cash...2 days worth of work...

  8. #48
    New User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    16
    Likes Received
    0

    Default

    Off subject but thats a pretty new pic Suzy :)

  9. #49
    Suzanne C
    Guest

    Default

    :red:

    Thanks Monica!!! That made my day!!!!

  10. #50
    New User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    2
    Likes Received
    0

    Default

    Just wanted to add a few things to the discussion if i may. I've worked as director of security and later on as the GM of a nightclub. First thing i'd like to say is that no member of any security staff is to physically interact with a patron unless they are defending themselves, a co-worker or another patron.

    The law states that when in a confrontation with someone and you're assaulted first, you're only permitted to use enough force (or equal force) to stop the attack. Anything beyond that can be considered assault by the security staff member. So if someone hits you and you hit them back and the guy falls to the ground and no longer continues the confrontation you can not continue to hit him. If you do...that's assault no matter if you were hit first or not. If the cops are called, what usually happens next is that all parties involved will be taken to jail and then the courts will sort it out because both parties assaulted each other.

    But back to the story. Mansion and their staff is at fault because as soon as security hit the patrons without being assaulted first, they violated the "rules of engagement" i stated above. I've had several occasions where patrons who refused to pay a tab or disputed a bill were brought to my office. I wouldn't allow security staff to stay in the office, only the server and the patron because it's a "paper" dispute and not a security issue. Every POS system i've ever worked with can or does give an itemized bill even after the bill is closed in the system. They were probably disputing the number of drinks or bottles on the bill.

    We avoided this problem with a simple solution. The server was only allowed to take bottle or drink orders from the person who gave the credit card and license since that person would ultimately be responsible for signing for all items sold. If that didn't happen then the server ran the risk of having items knocked off the bill by me if there was a dispute. And let's face it, it's not worth pissing off a patron for what costs us maybe $30 or less a bottle.

    If the server is correct with the charges and they still refuse to pay then i call the police because a bill for $700 would be considered grand theft and no one wants that problem. If they decided to sign i would have the police verify the signature against the signature on the license so they can't use the "not my signature" argument for the credit card dispute on monday. Then i'd have the cop ask them if they were signing the tab of their own free will and not coerced or threatened, so the officer is a witness to their statement and not an employee of the club. Seems like a lot to go through but unfortunately it has to happen because of all the other people that try and beat clubs on their tabs.

    Bottom line...the Mansion security staff is in the jackpot for these charges regardless of why they didn't want to pay right away. Plus the video didn't show where the security staff or any other club worker was assaulted by these patrons first so it looks like Mansion will be liable for their injuries and will have to pay.

  11. #51
    Member Maria de los Angeles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    South Miami
    Posts
    9,256
    Likes Received
    194

    Default

    Jaikido, thanks for shedding some light here!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •