
Man sued for $30K over $40 printer he sold on Craigslist - uptown
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/06/06/man-sued-30k-over-40-printer-he-sold-craigslist/85478168/
======
jimrandomh
Under a sensible legal system, this is a crime. It's called "barratry": filing
baseless lawsuits in order to harass or to extract a settlement. In most US
jurisdictions, however, it's not legally recognized as a crime, and so it's
widespread. From a defendant's point of view, however, it's basically
equivalent to getting mugged.

~~~
vonmoltke
Which "sensible legal system[s]" are these, and which ones punish plaintiffs
for it rather than lawyers?

Edit: I originally said "punish _defendants_ ", but meant plaintiffs.

~~~
texuf
Or judges? I would want to sue the judge that awarded $30,000 for an allegedly
broken printer.

Edit: Found this article from Sep. 2014. [0]

"The [Indiana] state high court, in an order issued Tuesday, called Zavodnik
'a prolific, abusive litigant' and put him on notice. In the unanimous ruling,
the five justices warned the Ukraine-born U.S. citizen that he 'can expect any
further abusive litigation practices ... to be met with appropriate sanctions
and restrictions.'"

0: [http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/10/01/enoughs-
enough...](http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/10/01/enoughs-enough-
indiana-supreme-court-tells-prolific-filer-lawsuits/16529893/)

~~~
nickff
The problem is that it seems that the judge made the legally correct
determination, and that the majority of judges understand that this type of
suit is ridiculous, but they have no tools to stop it.

~~~
adekok
> The problem is that it seems that the judge made the legally correct
> determination,

Judges are supposed to use some digression. I doubt _very_ much that the
litigants losses for a $40 printer are $30K. Especially since he conveniently
lost the printer.

I just don't believe that there are _any_ laws which require the judge to (a)
decide in the litigants favor with zero supporting evidence, and (b) allow
$30K in damages for a $40 printer.

FTA, the court of appeals pretty much stated the above _The $30,000 in damages
"had no basis in reality," Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote._

I'm left wondering why _anyone_ supports a position which the judges describe
as having no basis in reality.

~~~
sgustard
As quoted, "Edens acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment
"may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer."
But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously
interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline
for responding to requests for admissions."

~~~
TrickzOnU
Arent such notices supposed to be handed in person via a process server? How
could the person be held liable for a default judgement without being
personally handed court documents?

------
dbot
Two thoughts:

1\. The plaintiff exploited a loophole in the Indiana small claims rule
regarding "res judicata," which normally acts to prevent a party from re-
litigating a decided matter.

[The rule
states]([http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/small_claims/](http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/small_claims/)),
"A judgment shall be res judicata only as to the amount involved in the
particular action and shall not be considered an adjudication of any fact at
issue in any other action or court.

So the plaintiff lost a $6,000 claim in small claims, but somehow he was not
barred from bringing claims in superior court on the same set of facts for a
larger amount of money. I think the judge should have seen through this...

2\. Requests for admission are the most abused discovery tools in modern
litigation. There is no limit on the number of requests for admission. They
are designed to streamline and focus areas of dispute, but hyperactive
litigants are always trying to sneak case-killer facts into them to get
"admitted" either by accident or failure to respond, the latter of which
happened here.

~~~
DannyBee
My guess, and i'm honestly a bit lazy to find the filings, is that he changed
the claims slightly.

~~~
will_brown
I think the article says he added additional claims to the second lawsuit, but
they all flow from the same set of facts/transaction, it should be Res
Judicata. Odds are Defendant can Vacate the Judgment on:

1\. Improper Service of Process; and/or 2\. Defenses on the Merits, including,
Res Judicata.

Assuming the Defendant can establish Plaintiff knowingly obtained default
based on improper service, and show Plaintiff knew or should have known the
claims weren't supported by fact or law the Defense should recoup their fees
on the Motion to Vacate Default Judgment through sanctions.

------
mjolk
>The printer's buyer was Gersh Zavodnik, a 54-year-old Indianapolis man known
to many in the legal community as a frequent lawsuit filer who also represents
himself in court. The Indiana Supreme Court said the "prolific, abusive
litigant" has brought dozens of lawsuits against individuals and businesses,
often asking for astronomical damages...Zavodnik, a native of Ukraine who
moved to the United States in 1987 under a grant of political asylum, sued
Costello, accusing him of falsely advertising a malfunctioning printer with
missing parts, and pocketing Zavodnik's money

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Is anyone familiar with the legal system enough to know how we can help out
his current victim or (legally) bring an end to this smug conman's thievery?
Could public opinion or data that tells a compelling story help?

'Special Judge J. Jeffrey Edens' is damage in the legal process that I'm sure
can be routed around and this story is ripe for the media.

~~~
will_brown
Not that it will help this particular individual at this time, unfortunately,
but check out this Ask HN I posted yesterday about crowdfunding lawsuits,
still on Ask front page:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842051](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842051)

------
chasing
If I'm reading correctly, the key bit is:

\-----

Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within
30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as
required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and
damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according
to court records.

Costello said he never received the requests for admissions and was not
notified of the hearing.

\-----

If Costello just ignored these requests for some reason, maybe thinking they'd
go away or whatever, that this is kind of on him.

If, though, Zavodnik has figured out a way to serve people requests without
them actually knowing about it... Well, that seems like a much larger legal
loophole that needs closing.

But without digging into this, the whole article falls apart. If someone sues
you and you don't respond, you risk a default judgment against you.

~~~
opticalflow
That's assuming Zavodnik sent the requests via certified, registered mail.
Zavodnik could have easily scribbled the address in unreadable gibberish and
slapped a simple 1st class stamp on, in which case they would never have
actually been delivered. Costello claims he never received anything.

~~~
giarc
Wouldn't the onus be on Zavodnik to prove he sent the documents by registered
mail?

~~~
rdtsc
That is if he wanted those delivered. I think the idea was he didn't because
he wanted to get the default judgement.

~~~
jjnoakes
Whether he wanted them delivered or not, the legal system should require proof
on behalf of the server that the person being served was served correctly.
Basic first class mail should never suffice.

~~~
rdtsc
It should but it doesn't obviously. Perhaps a video recording of delivery and
asking for a signature should be required. Obviously some defendants could
just start running away and refuse to sign, thus delaying the lawsuit forever.
But also throwing the packet of paper in a mail with a stamp or dropping it on
the front porch while yelling "you've been served" is also not quite cutting
it. Something in the middle is needed.

~~~
cortesoft
You do realize that rules around this already exist, right? For example, in
california: [https://www.serve-now.com/resources/process-serving-
laws/cal...](https://www.serve-now.com/resources/process-serving-
laws/california)

~~~
dthrowit
and here in california, my anecdote entails me learning via first class mail
that there's about to be a judgement entered against me because I failed to
respond to papers I never received, because the plaintiff had apparently
served them to an old address of mine (probably intentionally by this shady
lawyer filing the small claims suit against me).

~~~
wl
Parties cannot be represented by attorneys in small claims court in
California[1]. Unless the person suing you was the "shady lawyer" you're
talking about, your anecdote doesn't make any sense.

[1] California Code of Civil Procedure §116.530
[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=ccp&gr...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=116.510-116.570)

~~~
dthrowit
Yes, the person suing me in small claims court was the shady lawyer himself.

------
mamon
Stupid question: if the printer was worth $40 ($75 with shipping) how come the
damages are worth $30k ? Even if Costello was right I cannot see how "damages"
suffered could exceed those 75 dollars by such a huge margin. In Europe even
if he had won the case he would have been awarded $75 in damages, and probably
another $50 in legal costs, that's all. Not possible to win $30k out of thin
air. But the difference is that in Europe "damages" mean "money lost", not
"feelings hurt".

~~~
DannyBee
"Stupid question: if the printer was worth $40 ($75 with shipping) how come
the damages are worth $30k"

That part is about the admissions, where the plaintiff requested the defendant
admit damages were 30k (or whatever), and anything not responded to is
considered admitted.

~~~
Sacho
What legitimate use does that request serve?

~~~
DannyBee
It was originally meant to allow undisputed facts to enter the record, etc.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_admissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_admissions)

You can look at the history of the FRCP to see the changes over the years in
how harsh/not harsh this rule has been.

------
strictnein
On a unrelated note: every time I read an article on USA Today's website it
magically disappears and then it takes me a minute to realize that the entire
thing was in a modal and clicking in the blank space on the right or left
makes the modal go away.

What an atrocious user experience.

~~~
brandon272
Happens to me 9 times out of 10 when reading an article on that site!

------
ytNumbers
This article has persuaded me to never sell anything on Craigslist. Okay, the
odds of running into a troll are tiny, but for a few bucks, it's just not
worth the risk. Maybe Craigslist and similar sites need to start offering some
kind of free insurance policy against trolls.

~~~
Negative1
You should also never walk on a sidewalk, for fear of bumping into someone who
trips and falls and sues you for personal negligence. You may be safe if you
insure for this, though. Ask your Attorney.

~~~
sharemywin
wonder if a general liability policy would cover this sort of thing although
they would probably just settle. of course they might show up with an army of
lawyers.

~~~
Declanomous
An umbrella policy for general liability seems like it could be really useful.
They typically cover rather large sums of money, in excess of one million
dollars, and they aren't terribly expensive.

I can imagine someone suing over a misunderstanding because of an X/Y problem.
Person A asks a really obtuse programming question, Person B answers it
literally, and then Person A goes on to use Person B's answer to build a
nuclear reactor controlled by a raspi. Person B then gets sued by Person A
when it melts down.

Obviously that is a bit of an exaggeration, but it isn't hard to imagine a
point in the future where programmers will be held to the same standards as
certified professionals such as lawyers, doctors, and engineers. While it's
really unlikely any particular programmer will be sued over advice they gave
online, it would really horrible to be the person that someone chose to make
an example of.

~~~
ryandrake
Navigating into off-topic waters: Where would one go about obtaining such an
"umbrella" policy? Just call up the same company that you buy your car
insurance from? How do they price this? Do they probe your life to see how
risky you are ("ooh, you have a tile floor which is easier to slip and fall
on, that'll be $X extra per month!)

~~~
ryan-c
Most insurance companies offer them. You will have to raise the liability
limits on your car insurance to the maximums if you have a car. I don't think
they do any sort of risk assessment specifically for the umbrella policy.

------
rm_-rf_slash
He threw away the printer, so any judge should throw away his case.

~~~
dlhavema
i totally laughed out loud when i read that line, how would he have any
evidence for further cases? i guess he did though...

~~~
mcherm
Nope, he had no further evidence in the subsequent cases.

The problem is that, legally, Doug Costello (the victim who sold the printer)
admitted that he owed the money. The system is set up so that if one party
doesn't even show up, they are assumed to have agreed with everything the
other party says. They HAVE to have some kind of a rule like this or people
would just not show up and then be immune lawsuits. The law DOES say that you
must notify them personally so they know about the lawsuit and the court date
-- that is normally done by personally handing them the papers, but sometimes
it can be done other ways like mailing them. In this case Gersh Zavodnik (the
asshole who bought the printer) swears he mailed it (although Doug claims he
never received it) so that counts.

The problem here is that the judge believed he didn't have the authority to
exercise judgement and rule that this was an abuse of the system. Fortunately,
the appeals court DID think the law allowed judges to exercise that judgement,
and they did so.

~~~
kelnos
_They HAVE to have some kind of a rule like this or people would just not show
up and then be immune lawsuits._

Not really. That's the _easy_ way to do it, but the compromise would be that
if the defendant doesn't show up, the plaintiff gets to present their evidence
and argue their case, and the judge decides based on that.

Under these rules, in this case, if Zavodnik had shown up, and Costello
hadn't, Zavodnik would present the zero evidence he had, and the judge should
have thrown it out.

~~~
mcherm
That is just how the rules ACTUALLY work.

If the other party does not show up then you get a "default judgement". This
does NOT mean an automatic win. But it DOES mean (roughly) that the judge has
to believe every claim you make (all uncontested claims, and no one is
contesting it). Usually that means you win the case.

------
vinhboy
> Special Judge J. Jeffrey Edens issued a ruling. He awarded Zavodnik a
> judgment of $30,044.07 for breach of contract.

Holy cow. This guy needs to be fired immediately. That is beyond gross
negligence.

~~~
SilasX
Depends: _are_ judges supposed to spot-check claims for whether they're
reasonable? Or do they leave that entirely as "the defense's job"? Remember,
these were default judgments.

~~~
BuckRogers
Yup, sounds like a $40 default judgement to me. I always thought it would be
great to be a judge, but I'm far from jumping through all those hoops. If I
were one, I'd grant exact, verifiable damages in cases like this. It would
have to be a civil case over child molestation, assault, murder or rape to get
me to award funny money. In those relatively extreme cases involving heinous
crimes, I'd be sure to ruin the life of the perp.

------
p3anoman
Florida has a "vexatious litigant" law that allows a defendant to require a
plaintiff to post a deposit with the court under certain circumstances
(ostensibly to pay defendants court costs should the defendant prevail). I
would bet this guy would qualify

------
GoldenMonkey
Would be nice to have a 'loser pays' court system for civil trials. These
kinds of trolls would go away quickly.

~~~
MichaelBurge
'loser pays' has a couple disadvantages:

* It encourages people to pick the best, most expensive lawyer in town for every case no matter the expense, because your opponent will be picking up the tab.

* It discourages people from using the courts to resolve their disputes, which means people without resources tend not to get any justice. If, say, your landlord steals your $1500 security deposit for no good reason, are you really willing to risk $5000 in lawyer's fees over $1500? Of course not, you'll let it slide and some little injustice will remain unresolved.

* It makes the courts a weapon of last resort rather than the standard dispute-resolution mechanism. You used to see people dueling in the streets to resolve their problems.

The disadvantage of course is that people can raise disputes with you, and you
have to answer them much the same way you can't ignore filing your taxes.

~~~
objclxt
A lot of those points are simply not true in a loser pays system, such as the
UK or Australia.

> _It encourages people to pick the best, most expensive lawyer in town for
> every case no matter the expense, because your opponent will be picking up
> the tab._

The court determines whether fees being claimed by the winner are reasonable.
Bar associations (or the local equivalent) publish fee scales, and the courts
will often require winners to cover a portion of their expenses if they
determine them to be excessive.

If a litigant was found to be deliberately using the most expensive legal
representation in an attempt to bankrupt the other party they'd almost
certainly be sanctioned.

> _If, say, your landlord steals your $1500 security deposit for no good
> reason, are you really willing to risk $5000 in lawyer 's fees over $1500?_

Most loser pays systems offer similar small claims courts, which don't require
lawyer. So your $1,500 dispute would go there, rather than to a trial court.

> _It makes the courts a weapon of last resort rather than the standard
> dispute-resolution mechanism_

You have misunderstood what the courts are. They _are_ a measure of last
resort. Ask any judge or lawyer: courts expect parties in a trial to attempt
to settle. That includes going to non-binding arbitration and making
reasonable settlement offers. Courts take a very dim view of parties that
don't attempt to settle.

In fact, if the loser made a pre-trial offer that was higher than the amount
eventually awarded, the courts will often make the winner pay some or all of
their own costs. This is on the basis the winner has wasted the court's time:
they had a better offer, and they refused to take it.

~~~
fefifofu
One clarification regarding "the loser pays" system (here in Canada), is that
the loser paying isn't the default. The default is each party pays their own
costs. Then later the judge can decide to punish the loser if it was
frivolous.

I've been through the small claims process twice recently. In one, the judge
had power to make a binding decision and he put an end to the case against me
after 10 minutes. In the other, it was a non-binding settlement meeting where
he told the other party that they had no chance in court.

My point is that if you give the judge more power, good luck trying to game
him and the system.

------
vinceguidry
Had this been me, at some point I'd have driven to the bar, and asked the
biggest guys I could find if they'd take $500 to show up at the guy's house
and scare the living crap out of him. Escalate accordingly. There aren't that
many situations left in this country that call for intimidation / violence,
but malicious litigation is one of them.

~~~
BuckRogers
I've actually done similar things to that, many times. I come from "salt of
the Earth" folks like you describe.

I'm a programmer and all around nice guy, I hold doors for folks. I'll walk
out of my way to go open the door for you if your hands are full everytime.
And just last night a drunk driver ran into a parked car outside, it wasn't
one of mine but I went out and took photos of everything for whoevers car it
was (including of the perps license plate that fell on the ground). I gave a
statement to the police about it today. I always take time out of my day to
help a random person. The poor girl whose car it was hugged and hugged me, she
said "people don't do that". I just shrugged. I grew up working on a farm,
fairly Earth-salty midwest guy. I'm not a self proclaimed tough guy, I'm
actually pretty soft but probably hard by today's standards. My brother is far
more rough and tumble than I am.

I do have a lot of stories, but I've done just what you describe. I had a TV
stolen when I was in college, I generally knew who did it. I got my band of
merry men together, knocked on the door and when they let us in, we blasted in
turning it upside down searching the apartment for the TV. One of the
occupants pulled a gun out on us, we took it from his hands and beat him to
the ground with it. Then we tossed it outside into the snow and continued to
pound on the guys.

The TV didn't end up being there, but they knew who took it. They were at
their house the night it disappeared. They called who stole it and allegedly
said, "I think these guys mean business". That was correct. We were going to
hunt them down like animals at their next bonfire/party they had planned and
it was going to be very bad for them. And we weren't going to stop there.

Needless to say, I had a brand new TV in the box on my doorstep at 9:30PM that
night! Problem solved and I shook on it with one of the guys who stole it.
They were drunk and broke in to steal it, I just wanted my TV back.

I've protected many men who have done me harm, financially and physically from
being harmed by calling off my goons who wanted to come after people in
different situations. They simply hadn't earned what was coming their way so I
prevented it.

All that said, this guy if he had done this little racket to my family he
would be in very serious trouble. I normally do absolutely zero questionable
behavior, I'm absolutely by the book day to day. At work, I'm a non-toxic
angel who would never step on anyones toes. I keep my head down, work a hard,
honest 8 hours and mind my own business. I'm not even a condescending smartass
or funny-guy little punk like most people try to be. I'm live and let live.

But I would haunt this man for the rest of his days. Likely me, my brother and
many others who are big, strong midwest giants who are not nice. I've been
screwed over in life in many situations, I do not retaliate like this ever or
normally.

But stuff like this story is beyond the pale. You're right, people like this
need to be handled correctly. This eastern European is one of the people who
are not to be dealt with in court. He'd realize we do not live in "new age"
where you can say and do what you want to. Something can happen to you. Worse
than any stupid Anonymous online hack or geek vengeance. He's laughing at us
here in the USA, but I assure you it's not safe for people like him.

This Ukrainian guy simply got very lucky with picking the right victims. If my
brother called me in on a situation like this, this Euro trash would be
haunted physically, mentally, and materially for the rest of his life.

The immigrant plays with fire that he doesn't fully understand. We do not live
in a New Age, where you are safe. Things can happen to you.

~~~
Chris2048
> we blasted in turning it upside down searching the apartment for the TV.

Wait, so the occupants hadn't taken your TV, but because they didn't snitch,
it was OK to enter their house and turn it upside down??

~~~
BuckRogers
I don't know their exact involvement, but they were involved. Did they help
carry it out? I don't have the play by play. It wasn't a court case and I
didn't care. The guys who drove off with it it were staying at their place
that night. I knew it was one of two groups of folks or all of them at the
house that evening. So I knew damn well I had the right people who could get
the situation resolved in an efficient manner.

You're right they didn't snitch, amazingly. They thought they were tough guys.
Maybe even as they were beaten to their knees? For the record, they weren't
harmed until they pulled a gun out. But they were going to snitch eventually
whether they thought they were going to or not.

~~~
Chris2048
Sound like you had no idea if these guys had been involved in taking your TV,
you just knew they where involved with the group that did. If a bunch of guys
broke into your place in similar circumstances, would you be ok with that?

> For the record, they weren't harmed until they pulled a gun out

It seems reasonable to pull a gun on a bunch of strangers invading your home.

~~~
BuckRogers
You sound like you're trying to win some debate. You shouldn't assume things
about someone else's story to win one. Creating your own strawman then
proceeding to beat it up about how I invaded their home.

When we 'blasted in' we didn't kick the door in. We knocked, started quizzing
the guy who answered the door about the TV, one of them said to come on in and
look around. Then we blasted in.

The gun could've gotten him killed. He pulled it out but clearly wasn't
willing to use it, he waved it around as if we were going to be scared. I
wasn't, he got it ripped from his hands then he was beaten to the ground his
own gun. This kind of non-macho posturing is typical. Then we got that stupid
gun out the door and settled it.

Anyway this wasn't that big of a deal, just a robbery resolved as cordially as
you can in an efficient manner. It worked out for both parties. Especially
well for them, considering they were involved with breaking, entering and
theft. Not to mention whatever charge comes with pulling a gun out threatening
to kill people. He did say he'd shoot us. I'd say they got off rather easy,
other than bruised egos. They were my neighbors and I assure you, they didn't
want anything to do with me again.

You seem touchy about it for some reason like you were on the receiving end of
a similar situation. I personally don't like to be taken advantage of or have
my home robbed? This was a relatively tame story I was willing to post
publicly.

Zavodnik, has no idea what waits for him out there. It's not all fun and games
when you play with peoples lives as he does. Wait till he finds someone
intelligent, aggressive, willing to go to the edge or slightly over the rule
of law and with a strong sense of justice. Street justice, not the courts. I
could be that man for sure, but like most people reading this- I would only
interrupt my life for someone who affected my family. Possibly a local child
rapist or similar heinous criminal could face my wrath. It would take
something like that to activate my mob violence gene.

That guy just needs some anonymous midnight beatings by some of the victims
and their families and he'll stop. Yeah it's the "wrong answer!" even though
our nation-state does much worse. He's just gotten off with zero retaliation
so far so he's going to continue to stay within the rules but abuse our
judicial system.

~~~
Chris2048
So wait, you entered, and they just pulled a gun? They weren't trying to get
you to leave?

> Especially well for them, considering they were involved with breaking,
> entering and theft.

You implied that they _weren 't_ involved, that some other group was, and they
had just stayed there.

I've never had my home invaded, do I need to be personally affected to
sympathise with it?

You don't know me either, I'm just taking your post at face-value. _it_
suggested you turned someones place upside down, despite having only the
suspicion that they associated with the people that took it.

~~~
BuckRogers
Yes it was risky. I thought long and hard before committing that I had the
right people. I didn't know specifics on what happened or who exactly was
involved, I just knew that they either had it or knew. But I knew it came from
there for sure so I went for it. There were many people there. One invited us
in, others wanted us out including Billy the Kid.

They definitely made the mistake of inviting us in. We weren't going to break
and enter and good chance with a verbal confrontation someone says "come on
in!" at some point, which they did. I don't think they knew how serious we
were. They weren't expecting us rampaging through. If I was wrong, I was wrong
but I either did something or I didn't. I feel like you're asking for
perfection when I was just trying to achieve a goal. Bottom line is that I was
right and within an hour I had an identical, brand new TV in the box on my
front doorstep with an apology. I'm not sure we ever know _anything_ for
certain in life right? I had to try.

It is true: I did not have forensic evidence, but I knew it was them. I
suppose I could be a bad man but it was a judgement call. I never doubted
after that day that I made the right call. It was aggressive but not the worst
story I have. Not sure what else to add. I don't remember every detail as time
has passed and everything I was told, but I'm pretty sure at least one of
those guys helped toss the TV into the pickup truck that carried it away.

They weren't angels right, no one came over to tell me I had been robbed. They
were probably going to keep quiet. Maybe bad guys met worse and got an
unpleasant surprise.

------
hackbinary
Wow,just wow! Here in Scotland, that man's behaviour would be called
vexatious.

Vexatious behaviour is not tolerated in the courts here; most of the time.

------
tzz
This technique is also used by debt collectors. They sue and most often people
ignore a court action. This causes a default judgment against you. This will
give them a power to garnish your wages, place lien against your property and
even freeze your bank account.

------
why-el
> Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within
> 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as
> required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and
> damages by default

This is awkwardly similar to the other John Oliver story in today's HN, in
which debt buyers exploit this fact to have as many people admitting
liabilities as possible.

------
dsfyu404ed
Not that this isn't absurd but CL is for shit you can't ship. eBay is for
stuff you can. CL acts purely as a platform to list classified ads and leaves
dispute resolution up to the users. That's why this happened. Add this to the
other 9000 reasons you only do business via CL face to face and with cash.
Move along, nothing to see here folks.

~~~
chillacy
Would ebay's contracts or customer support prevent this situation? They have
arbitration on-site, but what stops a buyer from going to the legal system?

------
cft
California for example [1] has a list of vexatious litigants [2].

1\. [http://www.courts.ca.gov/12272.htm](http://www.courts.ca.gov/12272.htm)

2\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation)

------
chdir
Does it help to have a generic boilerplate contract (jurisdiction-wise) signed
by both buyer & seller for such transactions, where the buyer would sign that
they have inspected the item to their knowledge and assume full responsibility
of the purchase, and that they won't hold the seller responsible for blah
blah. At the same time, the seller assumes that they have given up ownership
of the said item for whatever money they've received in this transaction ?

~~~
Spooky23
I rarely use Craigslist, as it's a cesspool of fraud. But when I sell used
stuff online, I lost the terms as "As is" and don't make representations as to
working condition.

------
hackaflocka
The problem is a system where pieces of paper are sent by mail (often with
addresses mis-spelled), and the supposed recipient is in trouble for not
responding.

There needs to be a better system.

~~~
knodi123
There is, it's called registered mail. And there's a better solution than
that, too- it's called a process server. All of them are vulnerable to corrupt
middle-men, but the article doesn't really say what method was used to contact
the defendant, so there's really nothing to speculate about.

------
zellyn
Anyone have any idea why so many judges recused themselves?

------
sandworm101
My civpro prof loved Rule11 and told us many tales of nefarious attorneys
being humiliated by judges as punishment for this sort of behavior. It can
happen even to the pro se as a party.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11)

------
LinuxBender
Is this not a risky precedent to have in a legal system?

If John Q. Public know they will have to jump through legal hoops any time
someone makes a claim against them, will this not encourage some folks to take
the law into their own hands, thus encouraging actual damages vs. claimed?

------
fiatmoney
There's no good reason not to be relatively anonymous when buying or selling
on craigslist.

~~~
jjnoakes
When money changes hands, short of using something like cash, how does John
Doe remain anonymous?

I assume once the matter is in front of a court it is only a matter of time
before your identity is readily available.

Some form of obfuscating one's name and/or address may raise the bar a bit,
but I don't see how this is a solution to the problem of malicious litigation
for selling something on craig's list.

~~~
jkaunisv1
Short of using something like cash...for buying something off Craigslist? What
else would you use? Why do you make it sound so difficult to use the most
easily accessible form of currency around? Joe Craigslist isn't going to have
a debit/credit machine for me to pay on. I'm not writing him a personal
cheque. Use a burner email, don't give names, meet in a public place..how
would you track somebody down like that?

~~~
jjnoakes
Because buying something online might mean the item has to be shipped? Since
buyer and seller may not be able to meet up for some reason? Mailing cash
seems like a terrible idea. Do you think we should find a cash escrow service
too?

~~~
wl
Craigslist is for in person deals. Craigslist itself warns against shipping
items[1].

[1]
[http://www.craigslist.org/about/scams](http://www.craigslist.org/about/scams)

~~~
jjnoakes
So this discussion doesn't apply to other online sites which do ship items?

What stops an ebay buyer from the same malicious litigation?

~~~
fiatmoney
Usually markets like ebay have reputation systems for both sides, and it is
easier to enforce disclaimers and arbitration agreements.

~~~
jjnoakes
None of that stops a willful malicious individual like the topic of this post.

And that's just ebay. The comments in this thread were about generic online
transactions between strangers, not about any specific site.

------
bluedevil2k
It doesn't make any mention about the plantiff's ability to actually collect
the damages. In Texas at least, it's extremely difficult to actually collect
damages, which make small claims court somewhat meaningless.

~~~
choward
It also means the courts aren't being utilized as much, so there is time to
handle the cases for patent trolls.

------
busterarm
Going to be a bit flippant here, but if I sold somebody a $40 used printer and
they mugged me using the courts for $30,000, I would seriously consider murder
to be a viable option towards resolution.

Good on this guy for keeping his wits about him through all this. Guy probably
needs a long, relaxing vacation.

~~~
knodi123
That is a very legitimate and real risk that zavodnik should take into
account. If he got a judgment of $600,000 against me, causing me to lose my
business and my home... I'd seriously be weighing pros and cons of sacrificing
my freedom in order to rid the earth of this scum.

~~~
kristopolous
I'm sure many people get away with perfect murders every day.

People dying due to a malfunctioning car or some other kind of unlucky event
... I bet there's a lot of clever and quiet murder that goes on in the world
with a plausible deniability, alibis and everything else set up.

The murderer carefully covers up evidence of sabotage or malice and the victim
succumbs. People think "oh my, what a tragic accident" and regretfully move on
in life - never being the wiser.

Probably every day.

~~~
Mandatum
I find your comment in poor taste, but I'll bite because it's kind of
interesting.

I'd recommend watching The Perfect Murder[0] documentary, although what they
detail isn't exactly practical. Less than 15% of murder is committed by
strangers [1].

I think if you aren't caught directly after the initial act, you don't have
any relation to the victim and no DNA is left, your chances of "getting away"
is relatively high.

Your comments on a "malfunctioning car" are misguided, given that any fatal
automobile accident, provided the reason the driver "crashed" is not apparent,
will result in someone looking at the car to see WHY it malfunctioned. A cut
brake line or similar would obviously scream foul play.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjEBb4LhQdU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjEBb4LhQdU)

[1] [https://top5ofanything.com/list/8a1bf3d1/Murders-by-
Relation...](https://top5ofanything.com/list/8a1bf3d1/Murders-by-Relationship-
to-the-Victim-in-the-United-States)

------
ausjke
This guy should be packed and shipped back if there is any sanity in the legal
system here at all. What a loser who ruins other peoples' life for his
ridiculous greed.

~~~
chillacy
I wonder if he has a (destructive) mental illness.. it just seems too far-
fetched for him to believe that Costello was conspiring with the judge against
him and develop what seems to be a persecution complex.

------
rdlecler1
Where is Peter Theil when you need him! Getting your legal team behind this
could ameleorate some bad PR.

------
yttrbug900
If Trump was president this guy would never have gotten into this country in
the first place.

~~~
throwaway420
While there are certain things about Trump that are worth admiring, one
character flaw of his is that he does seem to routinely file a lot of petty
lawsuits himself.

------
5ilv3r
Send him home.

------
MarlonPro
I remember what a lawyer said in a case that I served as juror, "the US
justice system is not perfect but it's the best justice system in the world."

~~~
maxxxxx
Reflexively saying "The US has the best everything in the world" is what will
bring it down eventually. There are plenty of areas the US is way behind.

~~~
ewindisch
It's like when I applied for a mortgage back in 2007 and the mortgage people
told me incredibly silly things, like, "take a balloon mortgage and get a
bigger house, real estate _always_ goes up!". Real estate was considered too
big to fail and too certain to go wrong.

I was smart enough to realize how stupid that was. Just not savvy enough to
draw the line to seeing that I should short the market...

------
CIPHERSTONE
It might be easier to state that you are selling your time and not the item,
the item is a free gift you are giving to the person that you agree to meet
with for your time.

"Oh you like this printer? Well the printer is free, but if you want it, you
have to pay me $40 for 1 second of my time."

You meet, say hello. Collect $40. Give the free printer.

~~~
knodi123
You might be surprised at how judges react to that sort of sophomoric
cleverness. A better solution is to include a simple waiver form such as
you've probably signed a thousand times saying "seller is not responsible for
any damages blah blah blah". You can find generic versions of those online.

~~~
CIPHERSTONE
>sophomoric cleverness

True but my way works for craigslist sales and my gigolo side business, so
I've got that going for me..

