I think a lot of people read the OP just fine. It's still bullshit. The dude basically spammed lawsuits in varying levels of the judiciary until the guy finally failed to respond to one of the dozens and dozens of summons.
Reading the article, he failed to respond to a request for admissions. You have 30 days to admit or deny each allegation in a request for admissions and if you fail to respond, you are automatically deemed to have admitted them. Even if you think a suit is frivolous, it's not wise to miss court deadlines.
Watching John Oliver yesterday makes me think this system is busted.
Debt Collectors file lawsuits a thousand times a day that lawyers have to read a case in 4 seconds, and if the person doesn't even know he got sued because of the amount of paperwork that could get lost, they lose the case by default.
That's exactly what the post you quoted is saying.
Spamming frivolous shit until a summon falls through the cracks on the defendant's side shouldn't be a valid tactic.
Litigation DDOS lolol
I'm pretty sure I'd dedicate my life to making this mans life an eternal living hell. Leave rotten meat on his property, have his car towed, sign him up for an endless amount of spam email and physical mail. Post ads on backpage with his number/address/email
Then again, I tend to talk a big game.
Isn't this the reason there is a judge in place?
Judge should have just dismissed the case.
Can't people be declared vexatious litigants in USA and be barred from the court ? That is how they are dealt with in other countries .
Judge should have just dismissed the case.
So many people failing to read the OP. I don't know how you see the judge that awarded him the case but miss the big paragraph right above it explaining why.
Holy shit, what an asshole!
I don't understand some of what you're trying to say here (read a case in 4 seconds?), but the defendants should know they're being sued because they have to be served before they can have a default judgment against them.
Why is this the case? In what scenario is admitting the default? Why is it not automatic denial? Is this some pettiness of the court, in that they see not responding as an insult/contempt and therefore decide in your worst interest?Reading the article, he failed to respond to a request for admissions. You have 30 days to admit or deny each allegation in a request for admissions and if you fail to respond, you are automatically deemed to have admitted them. Even if you think a suit is frivolous, it's not wise to miss court deadlines.
Why is this the case? In what scenario is admitting the default? Why is it not automatic denial? Is this some pettiness of the court, in that they see not responding as an insult/contempt and therefore decide in your worst interest?
The defendant's lawyers only have 4 seconds to review a case because they get 1000 cases of lawsuits a day against the same defendant from the same plaintiff.
Missed reading or representing one piece of paper, plaintiff wins.
How did he get his info to sue him if it was craiglist? Email address?
wait he shipped things he sold over craigslist... that's risky.
It sounds like they did declare him that but an appeals court reversed that decision and reinstated his lawsuits.
I'm sorry, I simply don't understand what you are talking about. A defendant gets 1000 cases filed against them a day from one plaintiff?
I don't get the logic here, why is it so important that someone show up in court? Proof is proof. If the case relies on the defendant admitting it, then you don't have a case...It's the same way with criminal cases. If you don't show up to prove the case against you, you're automatically found guilty by default. I think the logic is, if that wasn't the case, nobody would ever show up to court if there isn't any accountability.
For example, if you get a speeding ticket and you don't pay it or show up on the court date, a bench warrant is issued for your arrest. At that point you've lost the ability to appeal the initial charge, because you were found guilty by default.
That's exactly what the post you quoted is saying.
Spamming frivolous shit until a summon falls through the cracks on the defendant's side shouldn't be a valid tactic.
Isn't there some law that prevents a person from be declared guilty -- or whatever the term is in civil suits -- in absentia? Or does that only apply in criminal court?
I don't get the logic here, why is it so important that someone show up in court? Proof is proof. If the case relies on the defendant admitting it, then you don't have a case...
What the fuck is wrong with this country?
In an interview he said he never received any forms, and was never notified of the hearing date.