It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man sued for $30,000 over $40 printer he sold on Craigslist.

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
Nothing stops them but at least they have to pay their own lawyers now.


And if they lost they would have to pay for their own and the defendant's for bringing a frivolous case.




posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: F4guy
Nothing stops them but at least they have to pay their own lawyers now.


And if they lost they would have to pay for their own and the defendant's for bringing a frivolous case.


Monsanto doesn't file "frivolous" suits. They are oppresive and overbearing but, unfortunately they win most of the cases they file. Their suits are based on bad law but they do have some law on which to base the suits



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
Monsanto doesn't file "frivolous" suits. They are oppresive and overbearing but, unfortunately they win most of the cases they file. Their suits are based on bad law but they do have some law on which to base the suits


So again, since they are doing this anyway in your opinion what is the harm? Loser pays is for when the plaintiff loses, not the defendant.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: F4guy
Monsanto doesn't file "frivolous" suits. They are oppresive and overbearing but, unfortunately they win most of the cases they file. Their suits are based on bad law but they do have some law on which to base the suits


So again, since they are doing this anyway in your opinion what is the harm? Loser pays is for when the plaintiff loses, not the defendant.


Wrong! "Loser pays" describes the situation in almost every Western democracy except the US where the loser, plaintiff or defendant, pays the winner's fees. It is called the English Rule. See, Capisio, Mary V. (2002). Awards of Attorneys Fees by Federal Courts, Federal Agencies and Selected Foreign Countries. Nova Publishers.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't know what is worse, the man suing, or the messed up system that allows such insanity to occur.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
Wrong! "Loser pays" describes the situation in almost every Western democracy except the US where the loser, plaintiff or defendant, pays the winner's fees.


Actually, not wrong. There is already a state where the plaintiff and only the plaintiff is required to pay if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Overpay, and Overwork. Abusing the system is one thing. I think a Detective needs to be in this case. $30,000 is like a police doing fines on you. Which should not happen from civilian to civilians over a small thing. That is stupid.
edit on 6-6-2016 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: gladtobehere

Geez - there should be something in place - universally throughout the US, which requires abusive litigants to cover all legal fees plus damages for the person they tried to sue. Mr. Costello should get a minimum of $100,000, plus every dollar he spent on these cases, plus every dollar of missed earnings (or used paid time off) replaced by the slimeball Zavodnik. If he cannot pay immediately, he should be forced to sell all of his posessions, give up his shelter, and work at least 2 jobs until he pays the full amount, with interest. If he does not, his organs should be sold.


In the US, the losing party can be forced to pay court costs, and when that's not part of the judgment they can be countersued for them.

The problem is, Costello didn't win. Reading the story, it looks like a quirk with Indiana's law is that you have to formally respond to letters asking for an admission of guilt, and if you don't refute it you're found guilty. Costello didn't respond probably trying to avoid getting tangled up in anything (he was representing himself, but I bet that even an attorney would make this mistake) and possibly not even having known the case was taken back up by the appeals court after years of sitting dormant. Because he did nothing, it was the same as saying he was guilty and he was found liable.

I'm sure this man lives in Indiana for precisely this reason, I bet he trolls a lot of people by doing so.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Two simple words could have prevented this. ..." AS IS ". But that is no excuse for this POS coming over here and ripping people off like that....
and what kind of excuse does our judicial system have for letting it continue ?



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The problem I see is that judges allow this nonsense to even get anywhere in the judicial system.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Shoot this plaintiff in the head now.

We simply do not have time for him in this world.

At all.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I agree, suing people like that is a horrid practice. Even if the victim wins the lawsuit, they still have to spend legal fees.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: gladtobehere

Geez - there should be something in place - universally throughout the US, which requires abusive litigants to cover all legal fees plus damages for the person they tried to sue. Mr. Costello should get a minimum of $100,000, plus every dollar he spent on these cases, plus every dollar of missed earnings (or used paid time off) replaced by the slimeball Zavodnik. If he cannot pay immediately, he should be forced to sell all of his posessions, give up his shelter, and work at least 2 jobs until he pays the full amount, with interest. If he does not, his organs should be sold.

I'm not being hyperbolic, I think this should be the law. I would much rather have someone steal $30k from me, than to cost me that much money PLUS stress and time. This is far worse than robbery and torture combined, and should be treated as such (if it's even allowed in the first place.)


there already is, its called counter suing for legal costs, its done all the time in lawsuits, i would be surprised if he isnt doing that, its weird the article doesnt mention it.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: gladtobehere

I could think of several situations in which one could sue over a printer...including the fact that printers have a system that collects everything ever printed.


Say what?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

Yep. They have a database inside them that saves everything ever printed. There was a story a few years back on it. I'll find it when I get home



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: F4guy
Wrong! "Loser pays" describes the situation in almost every Western democracy except the US where the loser, plaintiff or defendant, pays the winner's fees.


Actually, not wrong. There is already a state where the plaintiff and only the plaintiff is required to pay if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous.


Actually, that was the case in Texas for a short time. But it's gone now.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

No, it is not. In a case that is deemed to be brought frivolously the plaintiff pays the defendant's legal fees. From 2011, when the law was updated:


AUSTIN, Texas—Texas Gov. Rick Perry has signed into law a tort reform measure that institutes a “loser-pays” provision in lawsuits deemed to be frivolous.




edit on 7-6-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer becasue he left it in the ladies room



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

At this stage, the man should sue the courts for allowing such a ridiculous procedure to be carried out. Thirty grand for a used printer, that he claims didn't work?? Insane!



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: gladtobehere

At this stage, the man should sue the courts for allowing such a ridiculous procedure to be carried out. Thirty grand for a used printer, that he claims didn't work?? Insane!


Yup ! It's so obvious it's ridiculous this could go so far. I mentioned Judge Judy in an earlier post, because this case would have been closed fast and sensibly. But the more I think about it, these judge shows are just another false illusion of justice...dragging things out keeps the system going, crazy laws that someone can sue you in another State for a $40 dollar printer because you didn't respond appropriately ...is basically extortion !

IDK, I was actually put in handcuffs and arrested because I had a warrant for an out standing dog license....True Story....I didn't pay the $10 dollar yearly fee and failed to notify the city our sweet dog had passed on. The Judge dismissed it in the "Interest of Justice"....but it showed me VERY clearly how insane things are...

edit on 7-6-2016 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

I imagine at some point someone will lose it and plant this turd.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join