Slashdot Mirror
PetsWarehouse vs. Mailing List
klaun writes "Salon is running a story about a federal suit against members of an Internet mailing list. Seems a company got a bad review on the list and the owner sued the person that said it and everyone who agreed. But the case grew bigger from there, including a suit against the legal defense fund set up to support members of the list being sued and anyone who linked to the defense fund. The ultimate rub of it all is that it basically worked. Most of the defendants have settled." This is a truly bizarre story.
... now they have to make money using their legal departments?
someday they'll hafta make profit the old fashioned way... sell a good/service that ppl want at a decent price...
It'll prolly get /.'d, but here it is- http://216.168.47.67/psw/Default.html
As an admin of another (unrelated) aquarium board, I find the trend disturbing, especially after some of the flamewars I've seen bashing suppliers on our and other boards.
New York has an anti-SLAPP statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.
Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP action.
Fight Spammers!
I hate to stir up more trouble, but it is my opinion that PetsWarehouse are a bunch of child molesting, cocaine distributing, AIDS-infected Satanists who routinely butcher small puppies and kittens in worship of the Dark Lord. Robert Novak is best friends with Gary Condit and he helped pull out Chandra Levy's teeth with a pair of pliers.
You are welcome to post your agreement below.
The moral of the story here is that giving up on what you believe in gets you nowhere. If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court. If you stand up for your rights when you know you're correct, justice will prevail and you will know you've made a difference for netizens everywhere. What would you rather be - a victorious hero or an unprincipled loser? Don't answer here - save your response for the judge.
From the lead in it said that it was a lawsuit filed in federal court, thus New York's anti-SLAPP statutes would not be applicable (to the best of my knowledge).
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
In case it get's S'dotted.
...
... it was one of the selling points for me. Then the
Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't.
Actually the plants I received were average to maybe a bit below
average, but they'll pull through in my tank. What is crappy is their
service! And they're maybe even a bit dishonest.
Way back in the beginning of April (April 10th to be exact) I was
seduced by the huge list of plants for sale on their web site. I
ordered 4 types of plants, all quite common. Though it states on their
web site that they directly import their plants, I didn't realize that
they'd import the plants you ordered *after* you placed your order! Or
at least that's the way it seemed
I received my order today, May 15th. It only took them 4.5 weeks. And
this is after 6 phone calls. Twice they promised they'd be shipped on
a certain date, then nada. And dealing with them on the phone is,
well, let's just say they stick to their pat answers and work very
hard at getting you off the phone as quickly as possible. My 6th call
was last week, and when they realized I was calling about a plant
order they proclaimed "They will be shipped on Monday". Click. And I
didn't even give them my name or order number! Maybe *all* orders
finally went out on Monday?
There was never a "sorry for the delay" or any sign whatsoever that I
was the valued customer and they were the business providing a product
that I was paying for.
Though I found all of this very annoying, it wasn't what annoyed me
the most. On my order confirmation I was quoted a shipping price of
$7.50. Nice
order arrived complete with an invoice stating that shipping was
$18.50! When I called them today to straighten this out, they
informed me that the original quote was wrong and that I was stuck
with the $18.50. Again, no "sorry for the mixup" or any indication
that they would fix the problem (with the web site and order
confirmation system).
Another hassle - their shipments *require* a signature. I quote their
email notice telling me the plants had been shipped: "You must be home
to sign for it. We guarantee live arrival if the order is accepted on
the first delivery attempt." Yikes. This was the first I knew of this
policy. So I actually had to take a half day off work in order to be
there to receive the order! These plants are getting *very* expensive.
The whole organization has the feel of someone who started yesterday
out of your neighbors garage. It even sounds that way when you talk to
them on the phone.
Maybe I expect too much?
Though I have a few gripes about Arizona Aquatics as well, they're
light years ahead of this outfit as far as service.
As always, your mileage may vary.
dan
--
This company should learn a thing or two, from the notorious
programmer/book-author Herbert Schildt.
This gentleman has been slammed by the members of BOTH the C and C++ standardization
commitee, Academia, Usenet, and just about anyone old enough to write an Amazon review.
Herb however, acknowledges the "points" of his critics in his later books, but continues
doing what he feels like.
He is almost the "abusive boyfriend" of programming books. You know "I am sorry baby,
I don't spend as much time with you as I used, I know I have cheated on you, but BITCH,
get off my back".
It is best for this company to acknowledge the inferriority of their products, but keep
making them anyways. People wont notice it, just ask the millions of heart broken girlfriends
with black eyes.
--
However, the American justice system does allow a sufficiently large number of people to do this straight back. And I'm not talking about class action suits, from which only lawyers benefit, anyway.
It's called small claims court. Pay the filing fee (typically less than $100), bring a sufficiently plausible gripe that your case won't get dismissed, represent yourself. If you win, you can even get the filing fee reimbursed, and even if not, rest assured that the company has spent more on paying their lawyer to show up than you were asking for in damages.
Think of it as the legal equivalent of DDoS.
From the Long Island Business News ...
...
http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249
"Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York. The BBB gives Pets Warehouse an "unsatisfactory rating," the organization's lowest. Novak said some of the complaints were from another business that licensed the Pets Warehouse name and that he didn't get adequate opportunity to respond. "
Shoot for the stars
Actually, that isn't exactly what happened. On that list there is a long time trend of getting advice on where to shop (think about it, there aren't that many places to buy aquatic plants...tiny hobbie). One guy offered his opinion. Dozens more chimed in with similar stories (not just "me too"). One guy's complaint was overcharged shipping, but there were many others (including delayed shipping running into the multiple weeks, dead plants upon arrival, etc). There are just too many people that agreed for me to think he made it up. Plus, check the history of the case. The plaintiff continuously adds people each time someone says something negative about this their experiences, or even about the suit. My favorite part? Two of the defendants are John Doe and Mary Roe (in essence anyone else from the APD that he decides to add). More confusion is that he has claimed, in another article that filing suits is his "hobby." He also admits that the court is five miles from him, so it is a short drive, while each defendant has to pay for a plane ticket and motel to appear in court. The guy enjoys this. Read some of the amended complaints he has written, some are funny, most are sad, and generally all are poorly written. Why? Oh, he's representing himself. Wait, you say, how can a non-lawyer represent a corporation (Pets Warehouse Inc.)? Well, it can't, but he is doing it anyway. As soon as they sort out whether or not his company is incorporated or a sole-proprietorship maybe this will go away (if is is INC as he says, he can't represent it). For more information (and trust me, this is more about free speech and the internet than it is about plants or aquariums) here are some sites: Forum for the suits discussion (generally pro defendants) Forum hosted by the plaintiff (he has a habit of deleting messages, and blocking posters, as is his right, but be aware it will only have ONE side) The defense fund's web site A collection of court documents hosted by the lawyer in charge of the fund And, finally, to archives of the original messages, so you can read it yourself, and see what REALLY happened
.sig on vacation
I hate to say it, but where are the countersuits here? Hell, where's the DoJ nailing this bastard for violation of civil liberties?
The courts have ruled time and again that the public welfare requires that discussion of civil and criminal cases trumps ALL other rights. There is absolutely no way any suit for "trademark infringement" against a defense fund because it bore the trademark name of the company suing would last 5 seconds before a judge.
What's the alternative - "We're collecting money for unnamed people to fight an unnamed company in an unnamed state for reasons we can't discuss (and can't warn you to avoid repeating). Please be generous!"?
The ONLY reason this even got before the court was buried deep in the article - Novak was representing himself. Probably because no lawyer would touch this case with a 10-foot pole.
I'm a firm believer in the right of people to represent themselves (and equally hostile to the "YANAL, shut up!" posts we see here). Countries where access to the courts are restricted to a privileged few who must always fear the possibility of having that access revoked tend to be less free than countries where the courts are open to all. But that must come at a price - you use this access to trample the rights of others, either as a pro se asshole or a corporate SLAPPer then you need to pay a hefty price for it.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
http://www.aquaria.net/lawsuit.html
And the archive of the infamous mailing list is at:
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/index.php
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The suing individual regularly posts to usenet and to the mailing lists. Here are some messages you can look at to evaluate his behavior. Or, read the article where he talks about his suing "hobby.". The mail to the list where he calls a defendant a bum and teases people with "PS: any monies collected will be the subject of a cause of action to have those monies turned over to the Plaintiff--Give generously." is probably the best.
Hope that helps your evaluation of the plantiff. Most people get lawyers to sue. This plantiff did not. Most people don't talk about a suit in progress. Certainly, they don't try to browbeat the defendant without lawyers present. What do you think now?
I'm the best IRC client ever.
It's called 'mobbing'.
Crows hate owls and hawks and cannot possibly ever hope to win a fight with one, no matter how many crows there are. So, rather than hiding, if crows see a hawk, they will fly around it at a safe distance and SCREAM at it. Caw! Caw! More crows will come and join. If the hawk goes for any one crow, goodbye crow, and the rest will scream even worse. Result: good luck finding prey with a lot of crows tirelessly screaming around you, hawk!
Thus, the hawk is 'mobbed' by crows, and that is the defense I mean.
I read this story in Salon, from a link on CNet. The first thing I thought of was 'slashdot oughta cover this!', and then when I came to Slashdot, it was the top story. Good job, all the people who no doubt all submitted it at once... because nothing quite rivals Slashdot as a 'mobbing site'. Many, many people read Slashdot- many people who are NOT FOND OF BARRATRY.
The fact is, as things stand right now, legal attacks of this nature ARE beyond what most people can withstand, whether they are justified or not: it's unsurprising that people are forced to settle because they cannot destroy their lives just to be an example.
That's why 'mobbing', like crows mobbing hawks, is the best answer: if you have no defense and can't possibly win a fight, it CAN still be possible to make things so unpleasant for an attacker that it gives up. I would love to see this 'petswarehouse' guy bankrupt: judging from the Salon story, I think he is a danger to society, all the more because his behavior may be imitated by others realizing, "Hey, you don't HAVE to be a multinational corporation to wreck ordinary people's lives with baseless lawsuits!".
I am no more capable of this than the original victims were: but I hope I have expressed the 'mobbing' defense adequately that it may turn out useful. People do this already- the point is, rather than being whiny bitches who can't win, they are sounding the alarm in a disorganized but determined way, about a deadly threat.
"Dan Resler agreed to pay $4,150. [...] 'We believed strongly that we could win,' says Resler, 'but I was not prepared to spend $50,000 to do it. So, I settled.'".
That is horrible. It's like saying "I didn't do anything wrong but if I try to defend myself I'll ruin my life". It's redicilous to think that you only have a right to a fair trial if you have the money to do so. So I guess it's liberty and justice for those who can afford it. Hah.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Looks like PetsWarehouse.com has a message board. Maybe all us slashdoters should go over there and post our opinions on the topic.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Well, according to the article, the guy's posts were bounced because they contained mime attachments. I'd guess that the moderator had long ago gotten tired of dealing with attachments and had started rejecting anything that came in containing them. If the store owner had bothered to follow directions his postings probably would have been accepted. But then to run to a lawyer because your postings were rejected... that's a little like me shouting from the rooftop about how someone posted something I didn't particularly like and then, when they don't respond or don't respond in a way that gives me everything I want, then filing a lawsuit. A few postings doesn't (IMHO) constitute much of an effort on the store owner's part. I mean, heck, after the first posting didn't appear on the forum, wouldn't you try to figure out why? Apparently, Mr. Store Owner just got ticked off and called a lawyer.
I have to wonder -- along with some of the other people posting here -- what effort the store owner made to inquire into the alleged rip-off. His entire reaction to this isn't going to sit very well with his other customers. Who wants to do business with someone who takes you to court if you have a dispute with them? How concerned is he (really) about his business's image and reputation if he runs to the courts to fix his customers reactions instead of fixing the broken business practice that caused that reaction in the first place? (IMHO, not very.)
I predict falling sales revenues for this guy. Wonder who he'll sue next to make up for that?
Sad...
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Well, if I'm not wrong, nothing is for free, in the US specially. If you read the article, one of the main reasons for settling was that they couldn't afford facing the full trial.
Justice MUST be free, or it is not justice, it becomes just another good, which can be acquired of higher quality and quantity by the wealthiest.
That's my very humble opinion, of course.
When will companies learn that you can't just squash criticism on the internet? When you try, you just create more and more publicity and sympathy for your critics.
The aquatic plant growing community is fairly small and relatively easy to keep tabs on the entire community. All he has to do is give enough bad customer service and monitor all the message boards waiting for someone to complain. Then he can move in and start making some real money by filing lawsuits (notice that he doesn't use a lawyer, so he's not losing any money doing so).
He tries to post messages to defend his honor, but for some reason they were getting blocked. Note here that he is a regular poster to these message boards and is well aware of how to use them. But this time he decides to include MIME attachments to his posts, which I would assume he knows very well would bounce. Now he can claim that they're trying to censor him!! That's worth at least another couple of million dollars!
From the sounds of things this guy hides behind a pathetic business just to drum up people he can sue and make some real money from. Sounds like one of the lowest life forms out there. It's sad that he's making so many lives miserable, and that he seems to enjoy it. Heck, he's made a career out of it. He's probably riding high now, but it will all come back to haunt him in the end. He who lives by the lawsuit will die by the lawsuit. One way or another, he'll get the reward he so richly deserves.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
If someone were to go to a phone booth or dorm phone, avoiding the use of their home phone (which would show up on the WATS billing statement, even if line-blocking or *67 were on), and were that person to dial PetsWarehouse at 1-800-991-3299, they would discover that the call is free to the caller, yet Long Distance to Pets Warehouse.
If one were to call them a bunch of times, it would cost PetsWarehouse more. If many people were to call them many times, it would be kind of a huge phone bill for them. A phone ringing off the hook a whole lot with no business coming in would really be bad for PetsWarehouse's business, too.
To do this, of course, would be wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong. Perhaps Congress should create a law that prevent the Internet and the phones from being abused in this manner.
Oops! With this post, *I'm* a defendant.
I've dealt with this kind of behavior before from those who represent themseloves. Yes, it can be expensive to handle along the way.
But guess what, punk: I *am* a lawyer, and my hourly is $400. If you want to start this, go for it; my kids want to go to college, and I'll have your inventory and 25% of your paycheck for the next 20 years . .
hawk, esq., hoping the frivolous papers come his way . . .