Craigslist Cash Cow Pdf File
Posted : admin On 16.01.2020The 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. Judges are supposed to use some digression.Yes, and they do, however sometimes their hands are tied.
In this case by rule 36 of a series of peer approved rules which states what action the judge in this case has to take. When submitted to appeal the judges who passed the rules then said the ruling 'had no basis in reality' about their own rules, hopefully they will fix them and/or future judges will use this as precedent to in cases like this.This part of the system is functioning correctly, it's the ridiculous litigation from pro-se plaintiffs that's at fault.
Most jurisdictions have an equivalent to spam filter that passes down criminal charges on people who act like this. 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.If they had the tools to stop it, and chose to use them based on their determination rather than the 'rules' (no matter how nonsensical they be), we'd be throwing a fit about activist judges legislating from the bench.The separation of powers is there for a reason and it's not the judiciary that needs to solve this.
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, '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. 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/or2. 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. 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 moneyThis 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. 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. 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.Not likely the case. The rules of civil procedure establish the various methods of lawful service of process, as a result there are a lot of safe guards.
I don't know, my buddy works as a Process Server, and I can imagine lots of situations where the person never actually receives the paperwork.He only has to try to serve the papers a few times, and then can leave them. If the defendant were out town for a few weeks, he would never get it.
He doesn't have to check ID, so someone could say they were the person, he would hand it over, and be done with it. That person might never hand the papers to the right person.I don't think assuming papers served always get to the right person is a fair assumption. I think I addressed most of your concerns: Plaintiffs can also establish to the Court the Defendant is actively evading service, but there are many legitimate reasons one can't serve a Defendant. Still, even in the event of defaults the Courts will readily Vacate (set aside) default judgments in circumstances including, but not limited to: 1. Improper service; and/or 2. Defenses on the merits.I don't think assuming papers served always get to the right person is a fair assumption.It is a fair assumption, because that is what the rules require, and your friend or any other process server must sign an affidavit under oath and penalty of perjury for the exact steps they took to serve a party. Now assumptions be damn, you are right service won't always be done properly, but I mention safeguards such as a Motion to Vacate Default Judgments for lack of proper service.He doesn't have to check ID, so someone could say they were the person, he would hand it over, and be done with it.
That person might never hand the papers to the right person.Because you used right person you may or may not be acknowledging the fact that the actual party (defendant) in not necessarily the right person to serve or the only person who can be served to qualify as valid service of process. For example, if I sue a company I don't generally serve the company I serve their Registered Agent (ironically from time to time the Registered Agent is the same company as the defendant); more generally I can serve anyone residing at the defendants residence who is over 15 years old (FL rule); or I can serve a defendant's employer instead of the defendant. From the judgement :'More fundamentally, the plaintiff in General Motors Corp. Did not ask thedefendant to admit liability 400, 4000, or 8000 times greater than the amountoriginally in dispute, as Zavodnik did here. Zavodnik’s misuse of Rule 36 isplain.
He did not send requests claiming $30,000 and $300,000 and $600,000 indamages because he believes those figures are legally justified and thought Costello might agree; he sent them because he hoped Costello would notrespond, rendering the matters admitted by operation of Rule 36. An importantpurpose of the rule is to more quickly and efficiently reach a resolution based onthe actual facts; Zavodnik used the rule as a way to avoid such a resolution. Thetrial court’s partial denial of Costello’s motion to withdraw served to ratifyZavodnik’s blatant abuse of the rule.' Zavodnik was using these admission of discovery as a weapon.
Note that these are not suits themselves; Zavodnik is clearly trying to abuse corners of the legal system for his own benefit. It's unrealistic to assume a lay-person will know the full legal ramifications of such things, particularly after already winning a case related to the matter. The most recent judge recognizes this, disagrees with you, and has overturned these admissions. If someone sues you and you don't respond, you risk a default judgment against you.There are entire companies set up with the purpose of suing people who don't respond. They purposefully use bad law to operate these mills, and absolutely no one seems to actually care.
Google pocket filing1 if you want to see those that abuse this the most.In my state serving someone (for small claims) is simply tossing a first class letter in the mail (no tracking or registration required) to the 'last known' address. Well, last known address is trivial to game - just pull a credit report send that letter to an address you know they no longer live at and attest to the judge you did your best.
Or send them something that looks very much like spam mail, so hopefully they don't even open it and toss it into the trash.When you create massive incentives to cheat what outcome do you expect to get? Legally serving someone without them knowing is trivial, and I'd argue becoming the normal default behavior for petty litigants like debt collection lawsuit mills.There are zillions of ways around process serving, from petty little games like the above all the way down to hiring corrupt process servers. The latter almost always get away with it, and I've literally recorded them tossing paperwork in the trash without ever knocking on my door while attesting to the court I was properly served. The court seemed to think this was completely normal and didn't blink an eye.Basically process serving is entirely broken and relies on the plaintiff serving you being an 'officer of the court' who would never even think about doing anything illegal or immoral! Literally that is the sole protection most defendants get - a piece of paper submitted to the court that someone really really totally served you - honest, and they are double-dog dare you not lying, promise! This piece of paper is treated as gospel by judges, even when you have video evidence showing otherwise.My few experiences with the American legal system basically have shown me the entire process is designed around corruption and getting 'free' judgments outside of court by intimidation/shady tactics around having you lose on a technicality before you even show up.
Once in court if you have money to defend yourself you generally do alright - but good luck getting there when the entire system is designed to keep you out of court and ensure you are at a disadvantage before you even start.1. In my jurisdiction the family court, which handles divorce, requires notification via sheriff.The general district court requires notification via posting on the front door of the last known address and delivery via standard 1st class mail. This can be and is easily abused by cherry picking the last known address used. The plaintiff just needs sign an affidavit that it was the last known address they were aware of. You could challenge that they didn't make a reasonable effort to get a good last known address, but the burden of proof is on you and you won't win.Also if you rented a property and have vacated it, for example if your lease has ended, your landlord can post on the front door and mail notice to the vacated property and this is considered sufficient notice. Just presenting something in court does not make it a fact, actual real evidence is required.It actually kinda does. If the other party does not challenge it.If I show up in court with a bill that shows you owe me a million dollars, I attest that we agreed to it, and you don't challenge that fact?
That's the truth as far as the court is concerned.However, the overall point I believe still stands. Weigh the case based on the evidence presented - if it later turns out that a plaintiff committed fraud to get a favorable ruling you now have actual evidence of foul play on the record. 'IMO courts should attempt to discover what is true and rule on that'But how do the courts do that when only one party is presenting the evidence? The only way that would work is if you filed a case, a neutral investigator from the court investigated your claim, and the judge ruled on what the investigator found.Otherwise, the court has to base its decision on the evidence provided. If only half the evidence is provided, unfortunately the decision must be made off that evidence.IMO, the default judgement is the best solution. It is fairly easy to get a default judgement overturned if you truly want to or believe that it is wrong.
Otherwise, you are admitting you owe the amount with a default judgement. So in reality it would be like you showed up and the plaintiff proved you owed the debt. Either way you have to pay. This is actually an option in some courts if a plaintiff asks.
I had a friend in Florida who owed a credit card bill the card company sued him. He missed the court date, his wife was in the hospital, and a warrant was issued by the judge for contempt of court. About a month later he got pulled over for speeding and was arrested on the spot. He had to post a bail that was released when he attended the new court date for the original claim. Ironically, he ended up winning the entire case on a statute of limitations technicality. 'According to court records, Zavodnik initially filed a lawsuit in Marion County Small Claims Court, where he asked for the maximum damages of $6,000. Zavodnik lost because he had thrown away the evidence (the printer), court records said.In 2010, Zavodnik sent Costello, who also was representing himself in the lawsuit, paperwork asking him to admit that he was liable for more than $30,000 for breach of contract, fraud and conversion.
The trial court dismissed the case, along with 26 others filed by Zavodnik, who appealed all of those dismissals, court records state.Zavodnik also had sent Costello two more requests for admissions. One asked Costello to admit that he conspired with the judge presiding over the case, and that he was liable for more than $300,000. Another one requested Costello to admit that he was liable for more than $600,000.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.' There's no argument anywhere that this is proportional.
He just filed that he was liable for the maximum possible in each case. Conceivably he could have been found liable for $600k by default. 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. That's an interesting thought. I'm not sure how I'd handle that either. Like you said the pickup truck is the default answer.
I will say in lieu of a truck, I have a hitch on one of my cars and a small flatbed trailer0.:/ Mine has boards on the sides and bottom of it so I can haul rock and dirt. But the thought of wheeling a treadmill around is for some reason kind of hilarious.
I'd take it to the gas station though to meet someone and use a video to demonstrate it prior.Worst case, I would probably have it in the garage and they can look at it there. Probably a risk you have to take to have someone cart off a big old treadmill.One thing I would definitely do is probably sell it fairly cheap. Just to make sure it moves with the 1st person who is interested. Rather than get a bunch of time online and gazers coming over. People are also less likely to complain about something if they get a deal on it too so it's a win/win. Well other than the cash lost but I'd make that deal.0.
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.
This is the problem with these small, nonpartisan offices. Virtually nobody votes in these elections because very few people can make an informed decision, and those informed few have incentives not to endorse/oppose. If the elections are partisan, voters have more information, but elections will become politicized on abortion/social issues (whether or not the judge can rule on such matters). Even in cases of judicial shenanigans, voters choose based on name recognition and advertising, and the incumbent's advantage is enormous, they run unopposed.I am strongly pro-voting, but voting for dogcatchers and low-level judges is really bad. The problem with 'loser pays' is that it can actually encourage frivolous litigation like this. Often there are civil suits where the defendant and plaintiff agree that there are some valid claims, but they disagree on the specifics and amount of the damages. If the plaintiff knows that eventually they will 'win' their fees and costs regardless, they have an incentive to disagree with settlement offers.It looks like this:You sell me a broken printer for $30 and I hire a lawyer to sue you for $30,000.
I refuse to settle for less and tie things up as long as possible in court. Eventually I 'win' with a court finding of $30 in damages. Then you pay my attorney $50,000 in fees and costs because you 'lost'.Edit: Possible improvement would be to pay based on the distance between the award and settlement offers? '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. 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 mechanismYou 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. 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. In the UK the court has considerable discretion when awarding costs. It has an obligation to deal with cases 'justly and at proportionate cost'. Both sides must produce budgets that the court may order to be adjusted if it sees fit.
If one side tries to outspend the other then the court can refuse to award costs. No one in the UK needs to spend $5k on representation to get their landlord to return their deposit, and I think the court would take a dim view of anyone who tried!
The law is pretty simple: if the landlord does not return the deposit, less agreed deductions, then the court will order them to return the money, and in addition award a sum between 1x and 3x the value of the deposit. A tenant in your situation would only be out the cost of a few stamps. This is a feature, not a bug! Litigation is the last resort, and should only be attempted after all other attempts to settle have failed. The court will take a dim view of a litigant who has not made reasonable attempts to settle, and/or undergo some mediation or other alternative dispute resolution.
Imagine that the case is pretty good, but not airtight-let's say there's 2:1 odds, or a 75% chance, that you recover your money.The expected value of the lawsuit is therefore (0.75 1500) + (0.25-5000) = -$125, which means that very few people will go after the crooked landlord. If the leasing company has deep pockets, they could slant the outcome even further in their favor.
Spend $10,000 instead and the expected value is now -$1,375. This seems wrong.On top of this, you also have to worry about the risk of ruin. Imagine a bet where Bill Gates pays you $15M if a coin comes up heads, but you pay him $10M if it comes up tails. This bet has a positive expected value (+$5M), but most people won't take it because the losing outcome is completely devastating (unless someone rich is backing you).I wonder if anywhere has a rule where the winning side receives min(loser's cost, winner's cost). That seems like it might be reasonably fair (if you can keep both sides from cooking the books). I like the Spanish mechanism: Loser pays is possible, but it is definitely not the rule. For the loser to have to pay costs, you have to show that the suit was filed in bad faith, typically with a completely baseless claim.
This occurs a good enough percentage of the time to deter people from suing at random, but it's not in any way guaranteed to happen every time you lose: There are plenty of civil suits are there where both sides have legitimate arguments, and where everyone eats their own expenses.There's also rules about what reasonable legal costs are, to deter major bill padding. Relevant portion from the Wikipedia article on 'Contract with America.' An act to institute 'Loser pays' laws (H.R.988, passed 232-193, March 7, 1995), limits on punitive damages and weakening of product-liability laws to prevent what the bill considered frivolous litigation (H.R.956, passed 265-161, March 10, 1995; passed Senate 61-37, May 11, 1995, vetoed by President Clinton 2). Another tort reform bill, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995 when Congress overrode a veto by Clinton.
I'm not condoning violence in my observation here, but I know how the world works. And this reminds me that dude in NYC selling sunglasses that turned out to be a sham, and who was intimidating customers who complained: keep it up long enough, and I'll be surprised that your knee caps remain in like-new condition.Thankfully, speaking from the point of view of maintaining the fabric of society, the real world isn't like TV and movies and the odds of pissing off a genuine bad ass are slim (anonymous Internet tough guys like myself don't count). But $30K is beginning to look like 'real money', and for some folks under some circumstances, physical violence begins to look like a viable solution to the problem.And truth be told, the less enlightened side of me says, 'that dude needs a good ass kickin'.' The guy has devoted his life to harassing people through litigation.Exactly. He's probably not that well-versed in physical security.
Maybe he's got a gun he shoots once in awhile, that's probably going to be the extent of his precautions. He's not going to be some unassailable hermit with aggressively unreasonable defenses. Guys like that are too busy doing that to earn law degrees.So I can learn how to effectively harass him faster than he's going to be able to learn how to effectively defend himself. He might be able to win a judgment against me, but not before I've reduced his life to a shambles.John Boyd, considered by many to be the finest military strategist since Sun Tzu, invented something called the OODA loop.
Essentially, the faster you can react and respond to opposing threats, the more control you can exert over the terrain, the greater command you have over the outcome of the battle.Winning is just the start. John Boyd was one of the greatest pilots who ever lived, and he didn't just beat you in simulated air combat, he utterly trounced you in a way that left no doubt.If faced with somebody seriously threatening my lifestyle, my secret weapon isn't going to be my willingness to fight dirtier, it's the fact that my 'weapons' work faster than his. The first intimidation attempt is going to communicate, in a way that's absolutely impossible to mistake, that we're not just playing law here. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but only because it's backed up by guys with swords. If you don't have any of those, then you're going to lose, and he won't until he wins his case.The communication here will be calculated to be overwhelming and total, yet breaking only the minimum of laws. I'd trade a criminal case for assault, the state is going to be more reasonable than this asshole is, over what was described in the article.If he doesn't go away, then that means I failed and I need to know why.
I will have already considered the failure modes as a part of planning the initial intervention. Future interventions will be carefully orchestrated to hit him hard where it hurts while causing a minimum amount of attention-grabbing collateral damage. The idea is that if he complains to law enforcement, they won't have much to prosecute me with.
(faced with this, I'll absolutely start making some cop friends, guaranteed they're going to hate him more than they'll hate me. Their input on how to resolve this would be very welcome)I don't have to actually break laws in order to convey the fact that I am not someone to be fucked with. I can attenuate my response such that likely reprisals are easier to deal with than the actions they were intending to deter.The idea though, is that he just finds a softer target. The problem with this intimidation approach is that if it works, then it can be applied not only abusive litigants, but against anyone who who sues.Society in general and legal system in particular would not want that to happen.So if you execute that intimidation strategy then you are likely to become a prosecution target of legal system.-Threat, Criminal threatening (or threatening behavior) is the crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of bodily injury. 'Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury.physical or mental damage.act or instance of injury, or a material and detriment or loss to a person.' -But why even go that physical intimidation route at all if there are good legal ways to repel these baseless claims?
When I was in high school, a big kid decided to use me as a verbal punching bag off and on for like two years. It didn't particularly bug me, he didn't do it often enough to cause me to want to retaliate, I'd endured worse in middle school, but it was annoying.Junior year I decided to teach him a lesson. We were making presentations for science class and you know how they have the steps of the scientific method? Well, for the hypothesis I spontaneously opted to, out of nowhere, rip him a new one in front of the whole class, tying the experiment to the fact that he was a giant fat-ass.He jumped up and came for me, the class held him back, I got a tongue lashing from the teacher, and he never bugged me again. We even worked together on a shop project later on that year.Some people are taught respect by their parents, others have to have it taught to them by strangers. I'm pretty good at that when I need to be. I had a similar experience.
In 7th grade, I was fairly small in size (almost 6'2' today) and a relatively larger kid used to come into my history class late most days. He'd pass by my desk, behind my chair, and 'push it' each day.After school, I got similar verbal harassment from the same guy while with his friends while walking home.Long story short, I got sick of it and one day in History class, grabbed the sides of my chair and waited for him to push it as he walked. When he did, I sprang up rapidly while holding my chair and pushed back, flipping him over the desk behind me. Huge disruption to the class, etc.Teacher looked over, made no expression, and continued teaching the class. Never heard a peep from the guy after school the rest of the year, and that was the last time he touched my chair.:). It's definitely worth a few phone calls, I personally have some connected people I could turn to if I ever had to deal with something like this, but I didn't always.What makes violence a viable option is the fact that you're dealing with one person and not an organization. If it's more than one person's efforts you have to counter, then yielding is the better recourse.
A group of people will have a goal in mind when taking action against you, all you have to do is help them reach that goal and they'll bugger off. You can fight a group effectively but it's generally not worth it. 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.
Craigslist Cash Cow Pdf File Size
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. 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.
I probably shouldn't respond to your post. But spoken like someone who have never been taken advantage of. Or had so much provided that you didn't care.
And home invasion for my own satisfaction? Yes I love fighting for my dignity.
It feels great to be walked on.It wasn't just a 'TV'. It was my only possession worth anything at all.
I've worked nonstop since I was 12. I started working on a farm (not my farm, we had no farm, it was the neighbor's) and delivering papers. No one has ever given me a thing. I was born fighting in my childhood, literally fighting almost daily. My money has come very hard earned. As has any career advancement, skill acquisition. I've never been given a job through a network connection, I don't have a network.
I had a full hernia on my right side at 16 from manual labor. And I have a strong sense of justice when something is wrong, like breaking in and taking a poor working guy's $700 television. I was working 35 hours a week to pay for going to school fulltime. That may not have been much money to you, but it was to me.
I felt very taken advantage of. You must not know what it feels like to have little and have everything taken from you because it's likely you've had a better existence or maybe life didn't require much grit to get through. I've clawed my way to where I am now. I never had any money. No ones going to take what I have, not a TV, nothing.
Even to this day when I have a lot more. Doesn't matter how little it is, over my dead body. Damn right, all for the sake of a 'TV'.I am a nice person. I do have some anger but I wouldn't harm a soul that didn't have it coming.
I defended the homosexual kids who were bullied in my high school way back when. Verbally and physically. No one did that in the rural midwest. I hated seeing people get picked on. I rarely, if ever picked on anyone.
But I have squared off with men who thought I was a target, you'll have to beat me to the ground I'm not quitting. As a developer, I believe people who say 'I can't' should be fired on the spot. I feel like I'm ready for retirement and I'm not old.
Everything seems like an obstacle. I'm completely sympathetic with poor people in the US and around the world. Hell, I'm a Bernie supporter. But if robbed or my wife is hurt, I'm going to come after you and I'll haunt you like a ghost.There's a lot of different people on HN. People have different experiences and different perspectives.
I think you're over the top with the 'satisfying home invasion' talk though. I know the odds of success when you don't start life at the finish line. People born at the finish line think they've accomplished something. Yeah so what, I've been involved in what is basically gang violence. Not everyone is going to match up with your exact sensibilities. 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.
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. 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.
Cash Cow Game
They were probably going to keep quiet. Maybe bad guys met worse and got an unpleasant surprise. I find your comment in poor taste, but I'll bite because it's kind of interesting.I'd recommend watching The Perfect Murder0 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.01.
Create DocumentA Trailer Bill of Sale is an agreement for the sale of any type of structure that can be towed by a vehicle. The purpose of most trailers is for the transfer of items such as boats, vehicles, or everyday storage. They do have a vehicle identification number (VIN) which must be incorporated into the agreement as well as the make, model, number of wheels, and any other information that should be included in the sale.
Craigslist Cash Cow Pdf File Online
Upon the signature of the parties and transfer of the trailer along with the money, the sale becomes complete and final. The new owner will want to request obtaining an original copy of the form as they will need it for registration, title, and obtaining license plates in their respective State. Table of Contents.When to Use a Trailer Bill of SaleThe Trailer Bill of Sale is a document that records the details of a transaction made between a buyer and a seller for new and used trailers. Trailers can be used to transfer items, vehicles, boats or equipment and are usually towed by another vehicle.This form is important because it puts everything out on paper.
It protects the buyer and seller from risks that come from liability and fraud. How To Sell a TrailerBuying a trailer is actually pretty straightforward.
Just take a look at our short step-by-step guide below. Step 1 – What Type of Trailer is it?Trailers can range from a few hundred to thousands of dollars depending on the type. There are many types of choose from the list below:Hauling Trailers.
Boats. Kayaks. Canoes. Farm AnimalsFlatbed Trailers. Stretch. Double-DropDry-Van (Enclosed) Trailers. Refrigerated.
Not RefrigeratedVehicle Carrying Trailers. ATV. Enclosed / Open. Single / Multi-VehicleOnce you know the type of trailer it’s best to get the number (#) of axels, length, year, maximum weight (lb.), and any other specifications that would be beneficial to a prospective buyer.
Step 2 – How Much is the Trailer Worth?Unlike traditional vehicles, trailers often come in unique shapes and sizes. Coming up with a price is determined mainly by the type of trailer rather than the manufacturer (brand name). It’s best to view comparables (comps) to what others are selling (best to find in your local area). Chances are there will not be an exact match, but at the very least should be able to find a closely related trailer. Step 3 – Listing for SaleBefore making the listing, it’s best to clean the trailer of any debris and paint over any rust that exists.
This will allow for the best pictures when making a posting online. When listing for sale, it’s best to use the following online and offline options:Online. ( most popular). ( most popular).
Trailer Specific Websites.Offline. Newspaper. Local Classified Magazine / NewsletterStep 4 – Meet with Potential BuyersAgree to meet with prospective buyers in the hopes that the trailer can be sold for the asking price. When speaking with any party that is looking to purchase, ensure that they are qualified by asking them what they will use the trailer for and if they have the cash necessary to complete the sale.
Most lenders will not make underwrite a loan for a trailer unless a boat or other vehicle is apart of the sale. Step 5 – Negotiate the PriceThis usually will depend on the papers and documentation the seller has for the trailer. Separate from the title, if the seller has receipts showing that important items such as the axels or tires were repaired or replaced recently, chances are the seller will get close to their asking price.If the seller does not have any documents, including the title to the trailer, the buyer may view the trailer as a higher-risk investment and may want a significant discount in order to be motivated to purchase. Step 6 – Complete a Bill of SaleOn the form, the following information is required to be included:. Purchase Price ($);. Buyer’s name and Mailing Address;. Seller’s name and Mailing Address;.
Trailer Details;. Make;. Model;. Year;. 17 character VIN; and. Other important details of mention.
Date of sale;. Witness’s signature, name in print and date; and. Notary Acknowledgement (if applicable).To ensure each party is who they claim to be, it’s highly recommended that the buyer and seller both bring government issued identification with them (drivers license, passport, etc.). Use to enter the details of the purchase on a line-by-line format.
Step 7 – Notify / Register with the StateIf the trailer is used, the buyer will have to get the title cleared and transferred by the seller before submitting an application for registration. In most States, the trailer must be registered within 5 to 30 days otherwise it will be considered illegal to operate on the road.
Be sure to have the registration completed within this timeframe by submitting the bill of sale, title, registration application, and any sales tax to the (most likely known as the “DMV”).At this point, the sale is complete and shall have no obligations to one another unless expressly stated in the bill of sale. Where is the VIN?As mentioned above, the seventeen (17) digit vehicle identification number (VIN) can be found somewhere on the exterior of the trailer. It depends from brand to brand but usually is can be found against the inside of one of the crossing frames. How to WriteDownload in,. Step 1 – Price Agreement and Parties. Enter the Price Consideration in U.S.