Bloke flogs $40 B&W printer on Craigslist, gets $12,000 legal bill A Massachusetts accountant has vowed never to sell anything on Craigslist again, after getting embroiled in a nearly seven-year legal fight over the quality of a printer he sold online. In 2009, Doug Costello sold a monochrome printer to Gersh Zavodnik in Indiana for $40, plus about $25 in shipping charges. Shortly afterwards …
The judges in the appeal ruling were pretty clear
'Before conducting any further proceedings, the trial court shall hold a hearing for purposes of determining whether this case should be dismissed pursuant to Trial Rule 41(E), based on Zavodnik’s repeated, flagrant, and continuing failure to comply with Indiana’s rules of procedure. '
That looks to me like the green light to counter-sue or at least get the case dismissed - with costs.
"Some states allow you to claim unpaid judgements on your taxes, so you get your money and the other guy gets all his money taken by the state."
There is a high likelihood he actually gets money from the government in ways which cannot be recovered. Brilliant welfare system we have here.
Ironically, isn't this the very type of "Service" that made CraigsList infamous???
I thought Craigslist was made famous by advertisements from the young ladies who were willing to be your friend for an hour and $100 - $200 (understanding anything more than time and companionship is between two consenting adults).
It's worth looking up this chap's name to see what he's been up to. I'm pretty sure he has some kind of mental illness and genuinely believes that he's a crusader for justice.
The problem with this case is that the US legal system doesn't have any allowance to recognize that some people are just grade A nut jobs.
It sounds like he's been allowed to get away with a lot of stuff just because judges are busy and can't be bothered dealing with him, so they allow the hot potato to get passed around until someone occasionally grants a judgement in his favor on technicalities.
The problem with this case is that the US legal system doesn't have any allowance to recognize that some people are just grade A nut jobs.
Understanding that English isn't his first language, the plaintiff still had a way with words indicative of being in a very weird place like some "sovereign citizen" adherents. Per page 7, paragraph 11 of the ruling:
Zavodnik came prepared with a new 53-page motion to disqualify the judge. In the motion, which began with a seven-line, 65-word title, Zavodnik characterized the Supreme Court’s opinion as follows: “Zavodnik-character assassinating-September 30th, 2014-biased-and-prejudiced-based-on-falsified-and-fabricated-capricious opinion issued by the Indiana Supreme Court, who will be held responsible for the said lies, the very same Supreme Court, which had no jurisdiction to issue that opinion[.]”
I don't know the correct term for the condition that results in obsession with grandiose legalese, odd grammar, and inappropriate CAPITALIZATION, but it seems to have repeatable, detectable characteristics. If you scroll down to the indented ruling by the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, you can see the characteristics summarized for another group of vexatious litigants. (And the conclusion is amusing: "The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe...")
"The problem with this case is that the US legal system doesn't have any allowance to recognize that some people are just grade A nut jobs."
Correction - Indiana legal system. Several US States DO have measures to prevent this and punish the plaintiff severely for bringing such a frivolous lawsuit.
Common misconception that its all the "US", but in truth the United States is still 50 independent States under a Federal style government. So there are 50 independent sets of legal systems (not including the various American Indian Nations and other Federal Protectorates like Guam and Puerto Rico), then the Federal Legal System on top of all of that when dealing with interstate legal disputes, legal issues crossing State borders, or things that affect multiple States in general. Most States' legal systems are based on English Common law, but some like Texas are based on Spanish Common Law, so there isn't one heterogeneous set of laws spanning the country per se.
That Lake Michigan is nice to swim in this time of year. Of course I don't think that one could swim to shore where I would like to drop off this guy, but...
A friend of mine got sued by a similar guy. He was a lawyer (figures), in the end it would have cost him more in lawyer fees than settling with him for some amount, so he paid him off. Some are like that. Of course you could have an extreme case...
In my case, I had loaned a friend of mine a LARGE sum of money. His estate had little left and there are lots of people arguing about it. I just want the estate to acknowledge the debt so I can write off the whole thing, unfortunately at $3000/year of normal income, or a whole bunch in capital gains (if I sell something). (*SIGH*)
The place is just a feeding ground for Lawyers.
No one will do anything for fear of being sued.
For example,
See someone collapse in the street and you administer CPR.
The person survives and then sues YOU for everything you have for practicing medicine without a license.
Nuff said?
Anon because I'm in the country at the moment and don't want to get sued for my opinion even though it is supposed to be protected by the 1st Ammendment.
While I can understand our US cousins get annoyed at the British 'superiority' regarding this kind of stuff, I'm sorry but there's too much of it Stateside to ignore.
This guy is small fry.....back in 2006 a JUDGE (not a joke....a fracking judge) sued his Dry Cleaners for a pair of lost trousers....the amount he was seeking in damages was $67 Million (again that's not a mistake).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung
Now if judges are going to try to game the system of course some peasant is.
The fundamental difference in US and UK legal systems in this regard is that costs in the UK can be awarded to the winning party...so if you issue frivolous lawsuits in the UK and keep losing you'll have to pay my legal bills as well.....whereas in the States each party is responsible for their own costs.
our legal system is actually pretty good TBH in comparison to other jurisdictions around the World.
Indeed. In fact, it is one of the UK's major "invisible" exports. Say a Panamanian tanker owner contracts with an Iranian oil company. Under what law is the contract going to be written and arbitrated?
Panamanian or Iranian? No, the other party has zero trust in that legal system.
Often it is British law, and the fine points of commercial contracts worth many millions get arbitrated here. When an adverse verdict can cost hundreds of millions, paying a good few million for the lawyers and the court is money well spent. And I've heard it said, that the losers are not always sore, having had their day in court and realising that they lost fair and square on points, and not because the judge was bribed. Although far more often, a negotiated settlement is arrived at under the principles of British law, before any all-or-nothing judgement.
There are only a few other countries whose judiciary is regarded as equally uncorruptible. (This is the best argument for highly-paid judges that I can think of!)
While I agree with the sentiment your example may not be for the reasons you think.
A substantial amount of International Ocean Freight still gets insured through Lloyds of London and it's a stipulation in pretty much all of these insurance contracts that any litigation happens in the UK (I accept for the reasons you laid out).
What's perhaps far more interesting is that the UK is becoming a court of choice for many libel actions involving the rich and powerful (AKA The Diminati).
"The fundamental difference in US and UK legal systems in this regard is that costs in the UK can be awarded to the winning party...so if you issue frivolous lawsuits in the UK and keep losing you'll have to pay my legal bills as well.....whereas in the States each party is responsible for their own costs"
In Texas and several other States, same thing in order to keep frivolous lawsuits down. Its just Indiana that hasn't caught up with the times.
i used to work as a tech in a shop in my youth, we had a cock up on a receipt and the counter guy had put Mhz down after the amd 1800, its didn't run at 1800mhz, and at the time that was the fastest chip, i had to handle the call and well i told him where togo after he didnt accept the explanation(why i was never allowed in the shop front) and he later managed to come in the store and get my boss, i was shocked he just gave the guy a full refund on his system and let him keep it he even got software covered on his warranty he was in nearly every week with some idiotic issue and would always ask for me, sure he just liked getting under my skin. needless to say after reading this i now know why he just gave him his money back and kissed his arse.
If you get an arsehole threatening disputes tribunal it's just cheaper to pay them to fuck off.
It might be cheaper, but that;'s not always the right choice.
A few years ago, a mate of mine got taken to the Small Claims Court by osme complete numpty who even made the statement on his filing that it would be cheaper to pay up and not fight. My friend, being an arsey bugger at times, was having precisely none of that.
The case went to court - I went along as a "witness", although in truth I had basically prepared the defence. Numpty-boy pissed off the judge so much, he dismissed the case, refused leave to appeal, and then turned to us to ask us if we wanted to claim expenses[1] :-)
Vic.
[1] Expenses aren't much - we were allowed to claim £50 each per day, which was awarded. It was never paid - too much hassle to follow it up, frankly. But I did enjoy this guy getting his come-uppance...
Yes, the equivalent offence is also called "Contempt of Court". However, that means the same thing as in the UK, i.e. "not doing what a court orders you to do". That's not this case, where it's just a vexatious plaintiff.
At least this case is not as bad as the following one from the NY Times last year: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/business/dealbook/sued-over-old-debt-and-blocked-from-suing-back.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=1
Debt collectors wrongly sued someone and got default judgement, then prevented him suing back to recover the money because of a forced-arbitration agreement in the small print. Yuck!
He's been described as a serial time waster by a judge. Bringing the profession into disrepute is usually still a grounds for delisting in most legal bar associations. Delist him and watch people's opinion of the profession rise very briefly...
> He could (and should) be declared a vexatious litigant.
I agree that he should be, but since he operates out of Indiana, which unlike California, Florida, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas doesn't have a law against vexatious litigation, he is unlikely to be.
He's been described as a serial time waster by a judge.
More than one judge:
"As [the Indiana] Supreme Court has recognized, Zavodnik is a “prolific, abusive litigant.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 261 (Ind. 2012)." Page 3, paragraph 2 of the recent ruling.
That's actually the opening line of the "Facts and Procedural History" of the ruling.
that lots of reasonable decent people have to live their lives in fear of a legal system such as this, the very system that is meant to be there to give some certainty and protection to them. Whilst the US is a much more mobile society than many others, probably most of them either don't have the option to relocate or have reasons to stay within this jurisdiction.
Its not really an internet problem, just bad law that flies in the face of the "for the people" bit of the Gettysburg address, and as such one would hope that decent legislators would strike it out, however what I read from US commentators here indicates that they're about as hopeful of this happening as we in the UK are about Scotland winning Euro2016
Its the same in the UK, if someone sues you in the small claims court, and you do not respond, then the case will go ahead in your absence and the court will rule against you.
However, there is the option when you do eventually find out about the claim, to ask for the earlier judgement to be set aside - but that costs money.
Costello claims he didn't get the requests, but under Indiana law, as he didn't respond to the request within 30 days or attend a hearing on the matter, then the legal rule is that he admitted the liabilities and damages by default.
So, hang on. It is possible for a serial litigant to say he sent a request and then 30 days later the victim has legally admitted liabilities?
Do they understand the concept of proof of postage?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
