Slashdot Mirror


Novak Loses petswarehouse.com, Files For Bankruptcy

An anonymous reader writes "Remember Robert Novak, the person who has filed several frivolous lawsuits in order to silence people who criticize his business. Well, Robert Novak has lost his domain (see here)in a countersuit filed against him, and has just filed for bankruptcy ."

199 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. I have one word for him... by greg987123 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mwuhahahahahahahahah!

    1. Re:I have one word for him... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Mwuhahahahahahahahah!

      Well said! It's long overdue comeuppance for that spiteful amature lawyer, now maybe some of the same medicine will dealt PanIP and other scalawags.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:I have one word for him... by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      Wooohooo!

      That'll put marzipan in your pie-plate, Bingo!

    3. Re:I have one word for him... by Blkdeath · · Score: 4, Funny
      And as a follow-up;

      Petswarehouse.com sucks!

      Come sue me, biznatch!

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

  2. Heh by Cipster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Karma's a bitch huh?

    1. Re:Heh by greg987123 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, it is.
      Oh, you mean not just on Slashdot?
      oops.

    2. Re:Heh by JudgeFurious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Thinking about things like this keep me warm at night. Every once in a while I get to read about someone getting exactly what they deserve. Yum.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    3. Re:Heh by critter_hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm under the impression that this isn't the first time he files for bankruptcy. I'm also under the impression that he doesn't care about his business, and that he'll find a way to sue some more people next week

      What I'd like to know is: does he manage to profit from it? I'm not very knowledgeable of bankruptcy law, but is there a way he could be trading money for a bad credit history, in a way? Because if he manages and cares to do it again and again, he's probably not losing everything every time. Or maybe he's just hoping he'll get lucky?

      --
      Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
    4. Re:Heh by darthwader · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I'd like to know is: does he manage to profit from it?

      It's actually not that hard. All you do is not own anything. Make sure that all your assets are actually owned by someone you trust (your SO, spouse, sibling, etc.). Then, you declare bankruptcy, and let the courts take everything you own (which is nothing).

      Also, you live hand-to-mouth. When the money is rolling in, you buy expensive cars, live well, and lavish gifts on all people who are close to you. You don't save it, 'cause you know that the courts are going to take away your savings later. When the money stops rolling in, then you depend on your friends, SO, siblings for a while, as you dream up a new scam (business).

      Basically, once you've accepted the fact that you aren't going to have good credit, then there is no fear of declaring bankruptcy.

      For a certain kind of businessman, declaring bankruptcy is sort of like a fisherman deciding "All the fish here have been harvested, so it's time to pull up anchor and go somewhere else." In their minds, there's nothing immoral or embarrassing about it, it's just how they put food on the table.
      --
      I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
    5. Re:Heh by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Bankruptcy: IANAL, but it's my understanding that bankruptcy protection from creditors can only be granted every 7 (IIRC) years, at the discretion of a judge. Someone regularly filing for bankruptcy to profit or whenever they feel like it isn't any kind of guarantee.

      The real question is how well has he protected his assets. F'rinstance, if his home were included in business assets he stands to lose it. Possibly any pending income from suing petsforum people could be transfered to creditors, too.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Heh by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, it's been a miserable weekend hacking away at web pages and watching the last of my creativity shrivel up as I'm forced to apply myself to yet another bullshit project in order to pay the rent, but news like this still gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Thanks, Slashdot. You've just replaced Jack Daniels and Xanax.

    7. Re:Heh by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that it isn't he whose filed for bankruptcy, it's his company. His personal credit won't be harmed, only the corporation's would. Incorporated businesses have personhood, they can enter into contracts, sue, be sued, file for bankruptcy, etc. His own personal assets (if he structured his corporation right) won't be touchable, and he may only be sued up to what he's got in the company, which could be a very small amount. He'll be free to re-incorporate a new company without problems.

    8. Re:Heh by Shoten · · Score: 1

      There's just one problem with this. You can't just say, "I'm bankrupt!" and get court protection. You have to essentially ask for it...and if you've done it within a certain amount of time in the near past, you can't do it again. Furthermore, if the court looks at your past and thinks you're trying the tactic of racking up debt (which, mind you, you won't be able to do for about 7 years anyways after the bankruptcy is finished, due to your credit score), it will refuse to grant you bankruptcy status.

      So it's not all that simple to just keep living large, going broke, getting a clean slate and starting over anew again.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    9. Re:Heh by Wavicle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep in mind that it isn't he whose filed for bankruptcy, it's his company.

      From the web site:

      On June 2, 3003 Robert Novak d/b/ Pets Warehouse and d/b/a petswarehouse.com filed for bankruptcy in the E.D.N.Y.

      He is his company.

      His personal credit won't be harmed, only the corporation's would.

      I suspect his personal credit will be greatly harmed.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    10. Re:Heh by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 1

      If Novak did blur the lines between his personal finances and his company, then... for one... he's an idiot, and two... yeah, his credit will suffer.

      For all you small business owners, this is precisely why you ought to keep separate bank accounts and assets.

    11. Re:Heh by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Make sure that all your assets are actually owned by someone you trust (your SO, spouse, sibling, etc.)."

      Except that, if a person is this shifty to begin with, how reliable can their family/friends be?

    12. Re:Heh by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      I hav absolutely no idea. And I'd like to come forward and say right up front that this post of mine deserves NOTHING in moderation. It's not insightful in the least and not even a touch underrated (yet someone saw fit to moderate it that way).

      The moderation system here completely baffles me.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    13. Re:Heh by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the IRS is kinda particular if you mix your personal assets with your business assets without warning them, and sometimes they don't allow you to do it at all. Depends on the kind of business you are.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    14. Re:Heh by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a single individual running a company, it is often times advantageous to be a sole proprietor instead of incorporating. For instance you don't get double-taxed and there are no legally mandated filings or shareholder meetings. The down side, of course, is liability. Novak was rather foolish not to get liability insurance, and that is why i think he is bankrupt.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    15. Re:Heh by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The downside to being a sole proprietor is that you DO get double-taxed because you are self-employed. When you incorporate typically, you've also got that double-taxation. For individuals, it's perhaps best to file as a subchapter-S incorporation. As an S-corp, you have the advantages of being both a sole proprietor and a corp. You still have to file quarterly taxes as an employer, but you won't be considered self-employed. You then just need to file individual taxes based off of the salary you take it - which can be a very nominal amount. You end up paying less taxes than you would a sole proprietor, and you won't need liability insurance

      Novak is bankrupt because he had a fool as a tax lawyer.

    16. Re:Heh by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      The moderation system here completely baffles me.

      They say that if you get a post modded "5, Troll," you win. What you win, I don't know...do I want to know?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  3. Live by the Lawsuit... by netsharc · · Score: 5, Funny

    die by the lawsuit.

    When will this happen to the RIAA?

    --
    What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    1. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whenever someone gets a war chest big enough to sue them.

      It's remarkably hard to take down a huge coporation without a similar budget.

    2. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by fidget42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      When will this happen to the RIAA?
      It may happen rather soon to SCO.
      --
      The dogcow says "Moof!"
    3. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It may happen rather soon to SCO.

      Actually, assuming that SCO dies [which is not by ANY means certain], it is signifigantly more accurate to say that their legal strategies are more of a dying gasp, instead of saying that their defeat [if they are, in fact, defeated] is a "deathblow".

      In short, if SCO dies, it's because no-one bought their shit, not because they lost in court.

    4. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the kind of maddening garbage that makes people sound the trumpet for tort reform... and rightfully so.

      I'd like to see some kind of penalty for filing frivolous/nuisance/totally-without-merit suits, preferably a monetary penalty (jail time might be going just a wee bit too far... though it would be very satisfying).

      This should really go for all types of torts, including medical malpractice (disclaimer: I am a physician). I have multiple colleagues who have been sued, and NOT ONE of these suits had real merit, or were for any sort of egregious breach in the standard of care. How do I know? I've looked at the charts and thought "I wouldn't have done anything different." I could never testify against any of these physicians, because what they did was objectively medically reasonable. Now, they all won their cases, but some were very close... frighteningly close.

      You always play the odds in medicine... and sometimes you lose. Every surgical procedure has a certain complication rate, no matter what you do. Every disease has a certain mortality rate, no matter what you do. The medical reality is that "sh*t happens," and it inevitably happens to a certain percentage of patients. It sucks to be in that small percentage, but attorneys and "hired gun" expert witnesses attempt to pin it on the doctor. The scariest thing of all is that you can lose everything you've ever worked for, just because "sh*t happens."

      Tort reform is a good thing... trick is, you have to do it while not taking away the poor man's keys to the court room. Even so, if the poor man files a nonsense suit, he should find himself even poorer.

      Seems fair to me...

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    5. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      preferably a monetary penalty (jail time might be going just a wee bit too far... though it would be very satisfying).


      Perhaps some form of "3 strikes" approach? Small fine the first time, big fine the second time, jail time the third?

      I mean, if it's just a fine, and they manage to pressure most into settling out of court, it's still financially sound for them.
      --
      Dark Nexus
      "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
    6. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by rot26 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You always play the odds in medicine... and sometimes you lose. Every surgical procedure has a certain complication rate, no matter what you do. Every disease has a certain mortality rate, no matter what you do. The medical reality is that "sh*t happens," and it inevitably happens to a certain percentage of patients. It sucks to be in that small percentage, but attorneys and "hired gun" expert witnesses attempt to pin it on the doctor. The scariest thing of all is that you can lose everything you've ever worked for, just because "sh*t happens."

      I would find it a lot easier to agree with you 100% (instead of 90%) if you had bothered to mention the one little "gotcha"... which is that some doctors suck and shouldn't be practicing medicine and other doctors rarely if ever do anything to police their own ranks. You ALLOW the bad apples to taint you all, and so, I gotta say it, DESERVE some of the suits.


      Q:what do you call the guy who graduated from medical school with the lowest GPA?




      A: Doctor

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    7. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see some kind of penalty for filing frivolous/nuisance/totally-without-merit suits

      What you refer to is called "barratry", and it is in fact a crime in many areas, though I'm not sure where. Tort reform encompasses this and a variety of other problems. At the very least someone found to have engaged in this sort of behavior might be forced to pay his/her opponents' legal fees. New York does have an anti-SLAPP law, which could easily be used against Novak, but it probably won't be useful for much now that he's filing bankruptcy (but a judgement could at least limit the damage from future actions on his part).

      This still isn't as stupid as the lawyers' fees in the tobacco settlement.

    8. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      SCO as a company is already dead. They've been resurrected by an infusion of vile power by Microsoft. The evil lich of SCO is terrorizing the land of the living. If they succeed in turning linux into a zombie, the world will tremble.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they succeed in turning linux into a zombie, the world will tremble.
      That would takemore than alittle doing, I think.

    10. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You only call the person who graduated medical school with the lowest GPA "doctor" if they also passed the boards and have a medical license. Furthermore, there is little correlation between medical school GPA and the rate of medical mistakes. GPA, like IQ, is a crude and nearly useless metric.

      Now, what do you want us to do about it? There is a severe shortage of medical personel. Even if we wanted to we would have no time to police each other more than we do now. Do you propose that each patient to see two or more doctors with each visit? Who's going to pay for that?

      Most jobs wouldn't be so fun if you had to both work 30-40 hours a week, devote your weekends to work AND run the risk that any mistake you make could devestate your practice and family.

      At least as far as software is concerned, the PUBLIC EXPECTS BUGS and doesn't try to sue you out of existence when your program crashes.

    11. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by RiffRafff · · Score: 1

      And as a person with a brother-in-law who is unfortunate enough to have a number of maladies (and therefore has had the occasion to be treated by a larger number of doctors than the average person, I can tell you that the incidence level of ending up with a sub-par physician is much, much greater than you (or I) would have thought possible.

      People often say, "well, they're just human." Yes, yes they are. Thieves and con artists and dolts are human, too, and it seems that eight or ten years of college does not sufficiently filter them out of the medical profession.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    12. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 1
      So we shouldn't pursue remedies through the courts, and we shouldn't ask doctors to be self-policing, does that mean we should just accept that some doctors will practice sub-standard medicine and lump it? As many have noted one of the problems with the tort system is that it requires lay people to evaluate technical medical questions. I don't see any alternative to at least some degree of self-policing by physicians since they are the ones best able to judge the technical issues involved.

      At least as far as software is concerned, the PUBLIC EXPECTS BUGS and doesn't try to sue you out of existence when your program crashes

      And that is entirely a good thing? Actually I think you'll find that when software touches on life and death issues it is just as subject to suit.
    13. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Skater · · Score: 1
      Most jobs wouldn't be so fun if you had to both work 30-40 hours a week, devote your weekends to work AND run the risk that any mistake you make could devestate your practice and family.

      Which is why doctors are also paid more for their services.

      --RJ

    14. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by pjrc · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Looks like someone finally turned around and countersued. That someone was John Benn, who won $50,000 plus court costs.

      What does Novak immediately do... attempt to dodge payment by declaring bankruptcy. If you look at the last page of the 7-page PDF file, there's John Benn listed amoung the creditors, and if you flip back to page 1, on the bottom the $50,001-$100,000 box is checked for the estimated debt.

      Let's hope Johm persues this asshole further get gets a the court to impose a payment schedule so Novak doesn't weasle his way out of this one.

    15. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by danoatvulaw · · Score: 1

      First of all, Slashdot is definately not the right forum for this discussion, but that being said, I will get into it anyway. I believe one of the other posters said it best in that you, the doctors, allow the others to bring you down. Doctors cry about outrageous malpractice insurance rates and awards, and love to tell stories about frivolous lawsuits against them. What they fail to mention are stories about those doctors that cut off the wrong limb, make the wrong diagnosis, or even take a woman's breasts and find out later from a lab error that she never had cancer at all. Now you tell me, what is fair about limiting their recovery for your, the physician's, horrendous error? How much to you value your limbs/breasts/etc...

      The plain fact remains that doctors are supossed to be extremely smart people and come up with the correct diagnosis and treatment each and every time. In a field where people live and die by your judgment call, you had damn well better be right, and when you're not, you should pay.

    16. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      Your view in no way cooresponds to reality.

      There absolutely should be a limit in damages, and it shouldn't be more than about $50,000, no matter what. Doctors DO make mistakes, because they are human. It's completely unreasonable to expect them to never make a mistake, especially considering that most medical cases are a total judgement call and not as cut and dry as you somehow imagine them.

      Also consider that a huge percentage of medical malpractice cases are in fact frivolous. People (Americans) like to blame someone else when something bad happens to them. In fact it's usually the patient who is at fault for their own bad health. Doctors are an easy target for unethical money-grubbing lawyers because there is usually no way to prove whether they were actually at fault for something or simply made the wrong decision in a case where it would be impossible to know enough to make the RIGHT decision. You don't deserve money just because your doctor didn't know about a health problem you had.

      Finally, consider that when you file a medical malpractice suit for a massive amount of money, you are indirectly stealing from everyone else who pays for healthcare. Doctors, contrary to popular belief, often do not make massive incomes when insurance costs are factored in. What income they do make is well-deserved since they work long hours, at a stressful and potentially legally risky job, and have much more education than you likely do. Moreover, when you sue a doctor your case will likely just be settled by the liability insurance company out of court. This just drives up insurance costs and therefore the cost of healthcare. Think about that the next time you have to pay a high doctor's bill.

      I'm not saying that people don't deserve some compensation for medical mistakes. But it needs to be limited in scope. Otherwise, you're looking at a breakdown of the affordability of medical care in the near future.

    17. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by The+Tyro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you are absolutely correct... there are bad docs out there.

      The question becomes this: What do we do? Are you going to "profile" all doctors because a few are bad? Do you justify punitive actions against the whole group because of a few bad apples? Of course not... to say that good doctors "deserve" the collateral lawsuits is not justifiable.

      Doctors do police themselves to a degree... ask for the yearly minutes of any state's medical board, and look at the number of licenses they suspend/sanction/revoke every year; there's pages and pages of them. Usually, they are for gross breach of the standard of care, drug abuse, inappropriate relationships with patients, etc. I get those minutes sent to me every year, and sometimes I just shake my head at the stupid behavior that people jeapordize their career over... but there's often more to the story in even those cases. I've seen some cases in those minutes that I had personal knowledge of, and the punishments were totally undeserved (while others were richly deserved)... the system is far from perfect.

      The reality is this: unless the care is unbelievably substandard, it's hard to justify taking somebody's license.

      What more do you want us to do? If you are going to try to take away somebody's medical license that they've worked 12 years for, you'd better have some pretty solid proof. I can't go around in public saying what a "horrible" doctor somebody is (because one patient I referred to them had a bad result)... I'd get sued for slander... particularly if I didn't have a truckload of cases, complications, deaths, M&M minutes, etc to back it up. It takes a while to build up the kind of evidence that taking away a license requires, particularly if the care is only a little below par, but still objectively reasonable. So much of medicine is a judgement call that it can be pretty hard to simply point a finger and say "Bad! Bad doctor!."

      Yes, I realize it's not good for the patients that a "bad" doctor continues to practice while they gather data about his care... but there is little alternative. You protect patients, but you also have to protect the doctor from character assassination and slander.

      Yes there are bad doctors... but they are few... and are far outnumbered by the honest, hard-working, give-a-damn doctors.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    18. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by rnicey · · Score: 1

      Rule 11 of the Federal Civil Rules of Civil Procedure. Basically you aim at the attorney for wasting court time. It carries heavy fines and eventually the possibility of license revocation.

    19. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by The+Tyro · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm truly sorry, but I cannot live up to that ideal, much as I would like to.

      I've made mistakes when treating patients... I've even watched treatments that I've prescribed kill patients (look up the complication rate for thrombolytic treatment for strokes, you'll see what I mean). I then had to face their family, and explain to them that the medicine they were gambling on to cure their relative's stroke had, in fact, caused her death. Bad outcome? Yes. Do you think I should be sued?

      I would like nothing more than to be right all the time. Sometimes I just don't have the information I need (I work in the ER, and often have to go on little to NO information), and the patient suffers as a result. When a guy having a heart attack lies to me about his cocaine use, some of the drugs I'd normally use to treat his heart attack can harm, even kill him. What am I supposed to do? An attorney can go to court and argue that if I'd waited for his medical records to arrive, I would have seen the drug abuse in his old chart... but I have to treat RIGHT NOW, or I run the risk of breaching the 30 minute door-to-drug standard of care, and I can get sued for THAT. Hard choices.

      I don't mind being between the devil and the deep blue sea... I signed up for that. What I cannot do is be perfect, or always have a perfect outcome.

      The good news is this: most people understand... which is part of the reason that doctors prevail in 80-90% of all malpractice suits. Juries often "get it," despite the depredations of the personal injury bar.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    20. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by thynk · · Score: 1

      Most jobs wouldn't be so fun if you had to both work 30-40 hours a week, devote your weekends to work AND run the risk that any mistake you make could devestate your practice and family.

      Hmmm... Let's not forget that you know that any mistake you make might not only devestate your practice and family, but end up killing someone and destroying their life and family.

      I'm thankful that I'm not a doctor. Remember hearing that the average doctor finishes school by 30, gets out of debt by 40, retires at 50 and is dead by 60. Don't know if that's true or not, but, but I'll take my chances elsewhere!

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    21. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 1

      I am not a doctor, but some of my dearest friends are doctors and dentists. Although all of them feel harried by the press of work, they are all doing quite well financially. Still, this is subjective, let's look at the numbers.

      According to the 2000 occupational survey by the US Dept. of Labor the mean annual salary of a family practice physician in the U.S. is $107,780. Note that dentists and the various flavors of physicians have the highest mean annual salaries of all the listed occupations, beating out even lawyers and CEOs.

      I couldn't find national figures, but in Washington state a family practice physician who doesn't deliver babies pays an average of $10,000 a year in malpractice insurance. I recognize that the hours are long, and the responsility great, but this is still not a bad living. Bear in mind that other professions also have professional expenses and long hours.

      There is a crisis in malpractice coverage of several important specialites (1/6th of all the neurosurgeons in Seattle lost their coverage last week), but general whining about how poor physicians are is not going to fly.

    22. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      There absolutely should be a limit in damages, and it shouldn't be more than about $50,000, no matter what.

      No way in hell. No way in hell (repeated for emphasis).

      $50,000 is a slap on the wrist, pocket change for a well paid doctor. Are you telling me that if some idiot doctor, through gross incompetence or negligence, kills your mother, that her life is only worth $50,000? Why don't you call up Mom on the phone and tell her that her life is only worth 50 G's?

      What proponents of so called "tort reform" should be pushing is legislation guiding the amount of awards rather than limiting them. Differentiate between simple human error and gross or criminal negligence or incompetence. And go by percentages of income rather than some flat rate. $50,000 is a hell of a lot for a doctor in a small practice who has a family to support. A high priced surgeon on the other hand, could write out a check on the spot for your dead mom and say "have a nice day".

      People need to wake up and realize that the first business of any business is to make money, and everything else (i.e. ethics) is far down on their priority list. If a company makes more money fucking consumers in the ass than it looses in your chump change lawsuites, its quite possible that they'll write off the practice as an expense and keep doing it.

    23. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 1
      Yes there are bad doctors... but they are few... and are far outnumbered by the honest, hard-working, give-a-damn doctors

      No question of this. I absolutely agree.
      Yes, I realize it's not good for the patients that a "bad" doctor continues to practice

      "Not good" is a euphanism. It can be lethal.
      Doctors do police themselves to a degree...

      I would suggest that we trade tort law reform for much more stringent self-policing by physicians. Since we patients cannot attend M&M, and most medical board hearings are closed, our means of evaluating the competency of physicians is very limted. We can only seek remedies to our injuries after the fact, and that is what has led to the current malpractice mess. I know that it can be very hard to accuse a collegue of incompetence, but as I believe you say elsewhere, physicians are used to making hard choices.
    24. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by jakefoxe · · Score: 1

      Still, let's remember that physicians are making less and less as insurance companies make collecting payments harder and harder. I know that my father (who is a physician) has to employ an office of 8 or 9 people when his former partner who retired in 1997 got by for almost 25 years with just two people. I know for a lot of physicians it's not the current state of affairs that bothers them so much as the direction that those affairs are heading.

    25. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      I understand your position, and I agree that bad doctors need to be removed from practice. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

      The state medical board is a panel of physicians, and they judge the fitness of their fellow physicians. I think this is the way to go... only another physician would have the necessary expertise. Police officers in use of force cases are judged by the standard of a "reasonable police officer," and I think a similar standard should be applied to physicians.

      M&M is brutal, and I've been to my share of them. I believe that only in a closed forum can doctors be absolutely frank about their opinions, and help prevent future errors. If it were otherwise, those opinions could be used against them, or their colleagues in a malpractice suit. Two surgeons can strongly disagree, AND both be advocating medically reasonable treatment. Can you IMAGINE what trial attorneys would pay for a seat at some of those conferences?

      I am careful about judging my fellow physicians, as I would want them to be with me, were I to make an honest mistake. I've seen some truly horrifying honest mistakes, but I believe they were truly that... honest. If I thought otherwise, if I thought a doctor was truly a lethal danger to his patients, I'd take their license myself. Unfortunately, it's never that black and white.

      Like you said... hard choices, and it's important to be right, because you're taking away someone's livelihood and reputation, right along with their license. It's tough to strike that delicate balance between patient safety, and due process for revocation. I empathize with your situation, because if I were a patient, I'd sure as hell want to know who the bad doctors are. Unfortunately, sometimes those of us who practice with them don't even know (particularly if we're in a different specialty), until it's too late.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    26. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      Thank you for what you do and what you wrote.

      Question: In your rough estimation, how much less would medical care cost if physicians and hospitals didn't have to pay malpractice insurance?

    27. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by The+Tyro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      good question... I'll try to answer it, but I'll have to plead ignorance on what the hospitals pay for malpractice, because I honestly have no idea.

      Malpractice insurance is very regional, and depends almost entirely on what state you practice in (Bad states include Florida, West Virginia, and others). It also depends on amount of coverage, and type of coverage (occurrence, versus "Claims-made"). Without getting into too much detail, my malpractice insurance as an ER doc is 35,000+ per year for average coverage, with no suits in my past. OB/GYNs have it even worse... some of them pay 100,000+ per year.

      100,000K seems like a lot of money (and it is), but believe it or not, they're the lucky ones; some specialists, like neurosurgeons, can't even GET insurance. They have to "go bare" and try like hell to protect their assets, such that if they are sued, they don't end up broke and without a license... (kind of a kick in the teeth after 15 years of training).

      I honestly don't know how much it would decrease the cost of medical care. So much of the cost of medical care is out of the control of physicians, and hidden from consumers, that it's extremely difficult to get accurate figures.

      I always ask people if they are paying less for their healthcare than they used to, and they inevitably say they are paying more. And yet, physican incomes have actually dropped in recent years. Not kept pace with inflation, not stayed even... dropped. Where did the difference go? Some would say newer/more-expensive treatments, others would say treating the uninsured... I think part of the answer is administrative overhead. More HMO employees, more office staff to file claims, more people to refile those same claims after the insurance company's routine first denial (lather, rinse, repeat). Larger salaries for HMO CEOs... there's an enormous middleman in the health care industry, and I'm not sure malpractice savings wouldn't get added into the bottom line and reappear as a stock dividend.

      Yikes... now I'm starting to sound like some of slashdot's anti-corporate anarchists.

      I think tort reform would save substantial cash, not only in premiums, but in defensive medicine costs. I know some docs that do a CT scan on every headache, just so they don't get sued for missing that 1-in-a-million 18yo stroke victim, or the early brain tumor. It's horrendously expensive to practice medicine that way. Even so, I understand why they do it... it only takes one weird case to get scared. I've seen people walk into my ER with normal neurological exams, only slightly sleepy, with half their skull full of blood. Scary thing is, by most standards, you could easily justify not scanning that person... (I'm damned glad I did the scan). and that's just one example. I try not to practice defensively, but it can be hard when the patient threatens to sue you before you even find out their name, or they are on the phone with their lawyer from their ER bed (both true stories).

      Does that sort of answer your question? I think it would help, and it would go well beyond simple premium savings.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    28. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      OK, I didn't mean to come off so forceful on the exact dollar amount. I think that's certainly quite debatable. However, I still think there needs to be some sort of a hard limit on damages.
      Here's my reasoning:

      In the end, NO amount of money could compensate for the pain someone feels when they lose a loved one. And it's not okay for doctors who truly are practicing bad medicine to keep on doing it. But I think that this sort of thing should be dealt with in a non-monetary way, because money makes people greedy and creates a motive for abuse of the system. If a doctor is repeatedly causing injury, perhaps he should face review on whether he should keep a medical license. But this review should be done by other doctors, not by a jury. Juries obviously are not going to be knowledgeable enough to make a real judgment about negligence in the majority of non-blatent cases. "Expert" witnesses paid by lawyers may be their only source of information.

      My main concern is a pragmatic one. I'm not saying that people don't necessarily *deserve* some sort of compensation for real malpractice. But I question whether anyone should get so much money in damages that the system becomes insolvent. It's just money, in the end - it's not going to replace your loved one if you get $500,000 more dollars. I don't want to fund other people's malpractice suits everytime I go to a "good" doctor who has to pay exorbitant sums to protect himself from the legal sharks. The problem with the system as it stands is that, as usual, everyone pays the price of the legal wars - not just the offenders.

      Your mother's life is priceless. No one could put a dollar figure on that. Just don't bankrupt the system for the rest of us while trying to get through your grief.

    29. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      As to being 100% right all the time, due to being smart, hey; one could as well claim programmers should always get 100% bug-free code done. And I'd be the first one to say that's the sort of rubbish only fools spew out their mouth (for different reasons than demanding 100% success rate from doctors, actually; read original poster's reply for very good reasonings).

      Basically, if you require 100% accurate diagnosis and treatment, chances are most patients will be dead before they get treated. Using autopsies it's much easier to figure out correct diagnosis. But that's pretty futile, except for predating lawyers, that need to "prove" mistakes were made.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    30. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Chutzpah · · Score: 1

      I love living in Canada, it's ALOt harder to sue anybody up here, and if you do sue someone, you had better have a strong case. Of course don't forget the MASSIVE advantages of a state-run medicare system, no medical insurance companies being huge middle-men. Yes, the care we get may not be great, waiting for 9-10 hours in the waiting room for a broken arm or leg isn't fun, but it isn't life-threatening so it's understandable that other people might come first. Another advantage is that people with money get the same level of care as people without, theres no reason why the people with money should get high priority just because they are wealthy, while someone without money is thrown on the bottom of the barrel just because they may not be able to pay an absurdly high medical bill.

    31. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      OK, I didn't mean to come off so forceful on the exact dollar amount.

      Alright then. :) I was also forcefull because I stongly belive that citizens need to be able to sue companies and individuals into the ground if the case is justified. I don't like hard dollar amounts, because if its too low its meaningless. Take Microsoft as an example: they could take a 10 billion dollar fine, write out a check and be down only 1/4 of their total cash reserves.

      Thats why I think that percentage of income is the way to go. It makes a fine meaningful for someone who would otherwise have cash to spare and not ludicrously impossible for someone who doesn't.

    32. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Nodatadj · · Score: 1

      "Yikes... now I'm starting to sound like some of slashdot's anti-corporate anarchists."

      Yikes, maybe that means they're onto soemthing...

    33. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      In most areas of the law, I agree with you 100%. I usually fully support the right of people to sue over various grievances. Unfortunately however I think that in this particular case that right has been spoiled by a large number of people abusing the system. IMO the legal system only works fairly when people in general show some restraint in who they sue and for what reasons.

      These suits should be reserved for the cases where serious harm has in fact been the result of real negligence, not these cases where someone is trying to cash in on some minor or imagined harm. If people were more reasonable about this and lawyers were less greedy, then this wouldn't be a problem and bad doctors would get punished without burdening all the good ones too badly on insurance costs. That's what really pisses me off about it - not only are frivolous lawsuits stealing from me when I pay for healthcare, they are also punishing all the doctors who are NOT negligent but still have to protect themselves from these TV lawyers who try to sell patients on the promise of easy money. This also erodes the ability of people who have REAL cases of serious harm to actually seek redress.

      Your idea of income percentage may have some merit - but I think that in the case of medical malpractice cases we need a firm limit just to stop some of the sillier cases from ever being brought.

    34. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      My wife is a doctor. Your numbers are probably accurate, except that they don't take into account payback of student loans (typically $200,000 to $250,000) or the several years of minimum-wage recidency that comes before any real earnings start.

      In a nutshell, older doctors make quite a bit of money. Young doctors are almost universally poor or nearly so.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    35. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      $50,000 is a slap on the wrist, pocket change for a well paid doctor. Are you telling me that if some idiot doctor, through gross incompetence or negligence, kills your mother, that her life is only worth $50,000? Why don't you call up Mom on the phone and tell her that her life is only worth 50 G's?

      Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Can you give me one good reason why your mom's life is worth more than $50,000? Seriously. I mean, I would hate beyond belief to lose my mother, but I don't see why I should get a multi-million dollar judgement that lets my entirely family retire forever because of a mistake.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    36. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      How about this: sue for whatever amount you feel is justified, but give the punitive damages portion of any award to some sinkhole, such as the Federal treasury. This would do two things:
      1. Allow the legal system to punish those who should be punished, and
      2. Remove any financial incentive for unjustified lawsuits.
      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    37. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 1

      I guess I would distinguish between massively in debt and being poor. Donald Trump and Bernie Ebbers are massively in debt, but I wouldn't describe them as poor. To be sure, massive debt is a major source of stress and anxiety, but most of the physicians I have known have known have had sufficient cash flow even when just starting out to make their debt payments, cover the necessities of life, and even a few of the luxuries. In my view being poor means not being able to send your kids to the dentist, depending on food stamps to feed your family, and having to pay full fare on the bus to work because you can't come up with enough cash to buy a monthly pass.

      The main complaint I've heard from doctors has not been that they aren't paid well, but that they aren't able to do the work they entered medicine to do, i.e. more of their time goes to filling out insurance and medicare forms and less to patient care.

    38. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      I guess I would distinguish between massively in debt and being poor.

      OK, that's a reasonable distinction. Still, ISTR that the average out-of-residency salary for a new doctor is about $60,000, and loan payments can eat through that pretty quickly (especially if they finance their residency on credit cards - some of my wife's friends have nasty consumer debt loads from buying groceries on plastic).

      The main complaint I've heard from doctors has not been that they aren't paid well, but that they aren't able to do the work they entered medicine to do, i.e. more of their time goes to filling out insurance and medicare forms and less to patient care.

      I definitely agree with that. I have yet to meet one person that things that any of this HIPPA nonsense will benefit patients in any way. I mean, does it really improve care or privacy to be forced to address patients by number rather than by name?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    39. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Harik · · Score: 1
      The other fact is doctors are supposed to have a clue, and frankly I wouldn't trust any I've dealt with to tie my shoelaces.

      My wife is EXTREMELY allergic to pennicilin, and all derivitives. Whenever she goes to the doctor it's right there on her chart. She also makes it a point to remind them that if they're prescribing antibiotics.

      So, she gets strep throat, they prescribe an antibiotic she hadn't heard of, and she gets it filled. Takes it and has a horrible reaction. Heart problems, temprature problems, sweating, etc. Looks up the pills online, "This is a pennicillin derivitave. Do not take if allergic to pennicillin."

      Sorry. Fuck revoking the licence. At that point you just take them out back and shoot the fucker before they hurt anyone else.

      "I'm a doctor and you're just a lowly patient. What do you know about allergic reactions?"

      A few public executions^W^W"incorrect diagnoses" will clean the field up nicely.

      --Dan

    40. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by mink · · Score: 1

      If the "treatment" leading to the loss of dear old mom cost more then $50K I think all the costs of the improper treatment should be given back as well as a punitive damage for whatever form of malpractice occured.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    41. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I hope I made a clear distinction between real and punitive damages. Real damages must, of course, be fully repaid - I'm unaware of anyone trying to cap them. However, I firmly believe that punitive damages should be capped.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    42. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by danoatvulaw · · Score: 1

      ok, for starters, your 50k cap is ludicrous, especially where the doctor has made a major medical mistake that they should not have made. I am assuming you are male for my example, but what if the doctor told you you had testicular cancer, took your balls, and then turned around two months later after you had treatment and told you oops, i made a mistake, or it was the lab that blew it. should that same physician be held only to pay 50k for all the problems he has just caused you for the rest of your life? mistakes such as that should NEVER happen.. EVER. you can tell me that they're only human and that errors happen, but that is no excuse in my mind. and dont think things equally as horrible (maybe not the exact same scenario) dont happen every day, because they do.

      Secondly, if such a major portion of medmal lawsuits are frivolous, then how do they get to the jury in the first place? If they are so outlandish that no reasonable jury could find for them in the first place, then judgement as a matter of law would be given to the defendant doctor. the fact that the jury gets the case and awards damages should tell you that these suits are not as frivolous as the physicians lobby would have you believe.

      With regard to capping awards, I have to ask you, what is fair about that? why take that element from the judicial system? if the doctor has done nothing wrong, then that will be shown at trial. if he has done something egregious, then why should there be a ceiling on what he could be forced to lose? should the bad doctors not be drummed out one way or another?

    43. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by alienw · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, you can't annul a court judgment by declaring bankruptcy. IANAL, but that's what I always thought.

    44. Re:Live by the Lawsuit... by awarlaw · · Score: 1

      I gave this some thought a while back and think I may have an idea what we can do.

      It is very simple-- If the plantiff wins, the defendant must comply (obviously nothing new here) BUT, if the plantiff loses, the defendant is AUTOMATICALLY awarded damages equal to that spent by the platiff to bring the case in the first place.

      i.e. - If XYZ company sues me and loses, I am automatically awarded the same amount they paid their own attorneys to bring the case.

      If I sue XYZ company and lose, I not only pay my attorney his fees, but I also pay XYZ the same amount I paid my attorney.

      I think this would help to clean up the industry.

      Cheers

      --
      TIME is the Aether...
  4. And the doctor by PirateDave+-) · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Gets a tast of his own medicine, one could say.

    Do we see here proof that unethical corporate practices (sueing everyone) will eventually be the destruction of your business? I for one hope so.

    1. Re:And the doctor by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      No. As I said earlier; this is the exception that proves the rule. The usual rule is that corporations have enough size and resources to withstand legal attacks [merited or otherwise].

      The less ethics you have, the larger legal department you have set up.

    2. Re:And the doctor by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 1
      Do we see here proof that unethical corporate practices (sueing everyone) will eventually be the destruction of your business? I for one hope so.
      No. At most this gives us anecdotal evidence, which is not proof because I said so.
    3. Re:And the doctor by Queezowl · · Score: 1

      Rambus, anyone?

      --
      -Q
      No users were harmed in the posting of this message.
  5. last post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    last post for this company

  6. Freedom of speech and so on.. by Soulfarmer · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Way cool. Just makes me wonder how you cannot say anything you want after all. Slightly irrelevant on this matter, I know, but hey, I am not bound by the US freedom of speech... :D

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
    1. Re:Freedom of speech and so on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Freedom of speech is an interesting subject. Though many people believe freedom of speech to be absolute, there are some cases where it is determined that the freedom to speak is not absolute.

      One of the best known examples of such a restriction involves clear and present danger. When speech results in a dangerous situation in which harm or imperilment of life may occur, speech ceases to be constitutionally protected, as SCOTUS ruled in Schenk v. United States, where a man falsely shouted fire in a crowded theatre causing many casualties.

      Exceptions are also made in cases of libel and slander, in which knowingly false or misleading speech is prohibited. These exceptions are not necessarily bad things. Though I consider personal liberty to be most important, I do not believe that the freedom to speak should be a license to use speech as a weapon against other persons. Unfortunately, the United States goes too far in restricting speech against the government. Sedition as a crime is a horrible concept.

    2. Re:Freedom of speech and so on.. by Rassleholic · · Score: 1

      Sedition as a crime is a horrible concept.
      No, it's not. You must be confusing criticism or civil disobediance with inciting open rebellion ala advocating violence against government property and/or officials.

      --
      Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
    3. Re:Freedom of speech and so on.. by Hungus · · Score: 1

      Sedition is illegal only if you fail to change the government. I remember arguing sedition cases in con. law ... and I tend to agree with you and think sedition being illegal is stupid. I will go even further to say it is also dangerous for it to be illegal.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    4. Re:Freedom of speech and so on.. by djmoore · · Score: 1

      I do not think that any fair government should fear such speech.

      "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

      On that basis, the government damn well should fear such speech, they just shouldn't be able to do jack shit about it. All officials who take an oath of office swearing to uphold the Constitution should have cold sweat trickling down their backs, as they remember that the Second Amendment is part of that Constitution, and that them getting uppity is why.

      --
      In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
  7. I see by Iammadmak · · Score: 1

    Seems that he has gotten what he deserves with a countersuit, though I could be wrong...

  8. Question for the legally-knowledgable out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Once the dust settles on this, will these cases ultimately serve as a positive precedent for sanity in domain-related and free-speech cases? Or is this just a decision that any lawyer could predict, but was a long time in comming?

  9. Learn from this one kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ya see what happens to your business when you don't have a cute sock-puppet character on your side? Oh, wait... nevermind. They didn't make it either...

  10. All I can say is... by Cali+Thalen · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Cool...

    Though, it's too bad that filing for bankruptcy doesn't mean that the frivolous lawsuits will end.

    I don't think we've heard the last of Mr. Novak somehow.

    --
    Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
    1. Re:All I can say is... by Roosey · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think we've heard the last of Mr. Novak somehow.

      We certainly haven't unless we can get him to stop showing up on Crossfire every other night.

    2. Re:All I can say is... by milkmandan9 · · Score: 1

      We certainly haven't unless we can get him to stop showing up on Crossfire every other night.

      This can't possibly be the same guy as the Bob Novak on Crossfire. Anybody have any evidence for or against this?

    3. Re:All I can say is... by bluephone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm, risking troll-mods, this is a FUNNY, not an INFORMATIVE, as they are not the same Robert Novak.

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    4. Re:All I can say is... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Though, it's too bad that filing for bankruptcy doesn't mean that the frivolous lawsuits will end.

      Indeed. It appears there's more on the dockets to be resolved, including him suing the Circuit Court of Colbert County, AL.

      I don't think we've heard the last of Mr. Novak somehow.

      Though I have never met the man, it appears this is the sort of thing he enjoys immersing himself in. Providing he achieves some level of income by it or other means (like running an online pet store) he can keep going and going so long as he doesn't tire of it. For all we know he's probably sitting at home, sipping a mug of tea and scanning this /. posting for new candidates.

      Meanwhile, I've been trying to figure out how he lost to John Benn.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:All I can say is... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      unless we can get him to stop showing up on Crossfire every other night.

      Oooooooh. I get a tingly feeling just thinking about it. After that, we'll go after Michael Savage.

    6. Re:All I can say is... by Polo · · Score: 1

      No, that's the guy from PetWarehouse. I can see how you could get confused.

    7. Re:All I can say is... by Corydon76 · · Score: 1
      It's actually quite simple: as the plaintiff in most of the lawsuits, he chose the venue, which was a courthouse conveniently located a few miles away. In the case of Benn v Novak, Benn filed the lawsuit in his (Benn's) local jurisdiction. Novak never showed up for any of those court appearances, so the default judgement was entered. Given that it's been over 30 days since the judgement was entered, and Novak STILL hasn't responded, it's unlikely that judgement will be overturned. However, it is possible that the resulting order (for the sale of his domain name) will be overturned, given the statutes governing bankruptcy.

      And, it is also certainly possible (likely?) that Benn will never recover the $50,000 judgement entered by the court. I doubt he expects it, either, given that Novak hasn't paid $37,000 in attorneys' fees for his LAST bankruptcy.

    8. Re:All I can say is... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      And, it is also certainly possible (likely?) that Benn will never recover the $50,000 judgement entered by the court. I doubt he expects it, either, given that Novak hasn't paid $37,000 in attorneys' fees for his LAST bankruptcy.

      Seems this would be terribly interesting news to the court where he's currently filing for his next bankruptcy. Considering he had funds to start up, run, and sue critics of petswarehouse and himself. I suppose the judge could look at these facts and determine he's unworthy of bankruptcy this time. What a fine pickle that would put him in.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  11. Am we finally allowed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Am we finally allowed to talk about the horrible rate of dead animal deliveries from this place?

    Seriously. This was one of the more common reasons he would sue. People would order fish, aquarium plants, rodents, etc. and they would arrive dead, not marked for paid-for weekend delivery, sent at slower than safe shipping speeds, not packaged to protect from temperature and normal handling, or even not delivered to the carrier the same day they were packaged!!!

    1. Re:Am we finally allowed... by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      Sick some animal rights activists after him... then see how much money he's got for lawyers

    2. Re:Am we finally allowed... by srn_test · · Score: 1

      Why _wouldn't_ learnt be a past tense verb? Isn't that a common word?

    3. Re:Am we finally allowed... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I had never thought that people would market still-living things over the Internet and ship them using standard package carriers.

  12. Don't Fret... by telstar · · Score: 2, Funny

    For all of your pet purchases we've still got PETsMART.com and ePets.com where we can purchase pet-favorites such as the "Pet Stairs" for that pet that's just too lazy to jump ... and the "I Gotta Go Out Door Chime". Word has it that petswarehouse.com will be selling that last item on clearance rebranded as the "I Gotta Go Out of Business Door Chime" so keep your eyes opened.

    1. Re:Don't Fret... by defile · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about petsovernight.com

    2. Re:Don't Fret... by Coke+in+a+Can · · Score: 1

      If anyone's wondering, this is a reference to one of Grand Theft Auto 3's ads/fake companies. Mod him up.

    3. Re:Don't Fret... by GoldMace · · Score: 1

      From petsovernight.com

      Forget about flowers. Send a real live present that shows how much you love someone. Everyone loves kittens! A grieving widow can be consoled by a new puppy in her life! For the man who has everything, what about a white rhino for the living room? Or a miniature Pekinese fighting bitch? If it's got a central nervous system, we've got it ready to go in a box to your house

  13. THIS is the exception that proves the rule... by RLiegh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    because usually, the system doesn't work.

  14. Domain Will Be Auctioned by corby · · Score: 1

    A layperson's reading of the judgement seems to be, "You owe your attorneys a bunch of cash. We are seizing your property and auctioning it to help pay back what you owe."

    It's not clear to me why Mr. Novak can't just go out and buy his domain back on the open market. I can't imagine it is worth more than a couple of thousand dollars. And he shouldn't have any problems getting his hands on the cash since he in in bankruptcy protection.

    1. Re:Domain Will Be Auctioned by SkArcher · · Score: 1

      Well, according to the letters (the one talking about how he has transfered the domain to TUCOWS in Canada, probably a last ditch attempt to keep the courts from getting their hands on the domain) the domain has been siezed in response to debts of $50,000 US

      Now, with all the bad press associated with petswarehouse.com, i very much doubt it will have any commercial value, except maybe as an animal-pr0n site.

      I'd laugh heartily if that turned out to be the case though.

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    2. Re:Domain Will Be Auctioned by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      It's not clear to me why Mr. Novak can't just go out and buy his domain back on the open market.

      Maybe because it's being sold in Alabama?

    3. Re:Domain Will Be Auctioned by ph43thon · · Score: 1

      Well, it's being auctioned to raise money for this person he owes cash to. So, if Novak goes out and buys it back for $X (which is say, less than the $Y that he owes) then they can just reseize it as an asset. And he could buy it back.. for whatever. Mainly, they'd keep seizing it until he payed the equivalent of what he owed.

      That's my guess.. at least. So.. why would he do that instead of just paying the money..

    4. Re:Domain Will Be Auctioned by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Well, according to the letters (the one talking about how he has transfered the domain to TUCOWS in Canada, probably a last ditch attempt to keep the courts from getting their hands on the domain) the domain has been siezed in response to debts of $50,000 US

      That actually has no effect. The Canadian courts will enforce US judgements.

      The fact the defendant is in the US makes matters even easier, the court can issue an injunction ordering Novak to hand over the domain. If he fails to comply he is in contempt and can be sent to jail until he complies.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:Domain Will Be Auctioned by SoSueMe · · Score: 1
      It is not only the domain name, but the trademark as well:
      The Court further directs that within ten (10) days of receipt of this Order Granting Writ of Execution that the United States Patent and Trademark Office surrender custody, control and rights to the mark "Pets Warehouse" (Registration Number 2600670) to the Sheriff of Colbert County, Alabama, Colbert County Courthouse, 201 North Main Street, Tuscumbia, AL 35674 in furtherance of the levy and sale of said domain name to satisfy the judgment in this case.

      That's a double whammy!
    6. Re:Domain Will Be Auctioned by echucker · · Score: 1

      Better yet, donate to the fund to defend against his law suits.

  15. marketplace confusion... by spazoid12 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Petswarehouse.com" has long been a source of confusion in the marketplace. For many years a company known as "Pet Warehouse" (not "Petswarehouse") has been a trusted source of supplies for fish enthusiasts. Long before the .com retailer thing, Pet Warehouse was, IMHO, the best of the mail order catalogs. They were eventually bought out by "Doctors Foster and Smith" (www.drsfostersmith.com), but the good Drs continue to print the "Pet Warehouse" name on their catalogs because it's a well respected name. They even continue to operate via the same old tollfree number. I've been out of the hobby for years, but hopefully they're still good.

    It's been a nuisance that Novak and his pathetic activities has brought confusion via a similar name. Good riddance.

    1. Re:marketplace confusion... by nhunsperger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and when this guy emails you, the from line reads "Pets Warehouse".

      Somebody from his 'company' found a 6th month old post to a newsgroup, written by one of my users. Angry that it put down his 'good name', he emailed our abuse address, demanding that we take action, as a computer crime had been committed. In any case, the article against Novak is an interesting read.

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Ahhh... by techturtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the link:

    Novak 3 involves a lawsuit against Novak as the result of a defamatory message that was posted claiming a Bar Complaint was pending on November 2001 against John Benn. A judgment has been rendered against Novak in that case.

    So he's going off suing people because they are (I assume rightfully) complaining about his poor business practices in a public forum. Then he publicly defamates a LAWYER'S character and loses the whole business!!! What an ultra maroon! It's big time poetic justice that Mr. Benn will get his $50,000 settlement from the obliteration of the brand.

    --
    If you don't have something nice to sig, then don't sig anything at all.
    1. Re:Ahhh... by techturtle · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know it's not good manners to reply to my own posts, but did anyone read through the Google (and other search engines and companies) law suit that this guy filed? Amazing!

      He basically alleges that he lost tons of revenue and incurred damages to his brand because other companies that paid for advertising and ranking using keywords such as "pets" and "warehouse" unfairly got more hits/click throughs than his site. He sues the copanies that paid for the advertising AND the search engines like there was some giant conspiracy to undermine his business.

      Woner if there are any complaints of people receiveing two headed animals or puppies that ate children from this guy? He's gone and slipped off the edge of reality...

      --
      If you don't have something nice to sig, then don't sig anything at all.
  18. Well, it is true... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Funny

    Time wounds all heals...

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  19. Whats the Problem? by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like this place.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  20. I want this domain! by lewp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Think of all the hilarious hate mail this guy must get on a regular basis. I want it!

    --
    Game... blouses.
  21. Re:HAH! :) by Openadvocate · · Score: 1

    I agree, suing people who just wrote they didn't like his store is f**ked up, he should have paid them for all the worries and expences they got from him being an idiot.

    --
    my sig
  22. Ah.... by HeadCrab · · Score: 1

    Poetic Justice still rings!

  23. To quote nelson by Loosewire · · Score: 5, Funny

    HA HA

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  24. Goodbye to bad rubbish by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope this idiot stays down this time. People like him make it harder for the rest of us to do business. As a guppy, and an Endler's livebearer breeder, this guy really pissed me off.

    I can't wait to see how the rest of this works out, with his other suits.

    GuppyLog

    --
    But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    1. Re:Goodbye to bad rubbish by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1

      You're a guppy?

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    2. Re:Goodbye to bad rubbish by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 1

      hahahaha. No, as a "guppy, and Endler's livebearer breeder" as in I breed both Guppies and Endler's.

      See Guppylog for more info.

      --
      But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
  25. This sounds familiar by Chatmag · · Score: 1

    There was a case in Canada a few years ago, with a "GeorgeK" filing suit against some Undernet IRC network users, "the co-defendants spoke falsely of him, thereby making other people in the IRC community dislike or distrust him."
    From what I had read from the beginning, Mr. Novak had some problems best addressed by a counselor, rather than a lawyer.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  26. Now if only... by TWX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If only we could castrate him for being a dingus, to prevent him from breeding (assuming he hasn't already bred), and somehow deport him to a third world country that could use him for labor or meat (if he won't work), we'd be good off.

    I hope that the bankruptcy court leaves him with the lifestyle of a crackfiend. I've known people whose business practices are like this guy's, and I have no sympathy.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  27. oh what sweet irony by jake666 · · Score: 1

    The very basis of the case itself is the slander of a website featured on another website where users post their own opinionated comments (sound familiar guys?). I mean the entire discussion that we are having right now is worse than the original comments on the site in the first place. Hell if he would sue over that, what would stop him from suing everyone else...

    --
    -jake
    1. Re:oh what sweet irony by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Hell if he would sue over that, what would stop him from suing everyone else...

      Well, first he has to find this discussion on Slashdot, which might be tricky if he just lost all his assets...

  28. Why is this modded as troll? by dusanv · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    There are parallels and I also sincerely wish SCO the same faith Mr. Novak got.

    1. Re:Why is this modded as troll? by imadork · · Score: 1
      There are parallels and I also sincerely wish SCO the same faith Mr. Novak got.

      The same faith? The worship of the Almighty Dollar, perhaps? Nope, with ideas this screwy and the affinity for lawyers, they must be Scientologists...

  29. I just love it... by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    ... when people like this get their come-uppins.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  30. just another tool of legal abuse by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    and has just filed for bankruptcy

    Don't think for a minute that this means this guy is broke. He's likely just using the bankruptcy laws to shield himself from paying his obligation. The guy apparently abuses the legal system to sue everyone he can to make a buck, then when a law suit catches up with him he does this to not pay on the judgement against him. Pretty typical.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:just another tool of legal abuse by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean it doesn't hurt him. A bankrupcy stays with you for 7 years and furing that time it is extremely hard to get credit. You can still get loans, but you will pay a hell of a lot more intrest for them.

    2. Re:just another tool of legal abuse by ReTay · · Score: 1

      IANAL but bankruptcy does NOT shield you from Taxes, school loans, or court ordered monetary damages. He is still stuck

    3. Re:just another tool of legal abuse by TekReggard · · Score: 1

      Check:

      http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Docket5/Docket5-01. pd f

      It doesnt show the checked off box but his total assets appear to be greater than $1Mil, while his debts are under $100k. ... heh, sickening.

    4. Re:just another tool of legal abuse by greenrd · · Score: 1
      If that's true, how can he get away with that kind of debt evasion? Are most of his assets locked up in real estate, or what?

  31. Reminds me of the Beatles lyric... by ScottGant · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The love you take is equal to the love you make"

    Methinks that Robert didn't make much in the way of love.

    Karma baby....INSTANT karma if you will.

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  32. Well... by PS-SCUD · · Score: 3, Funny

    At least we still have petsovernight.com Pets Overnight

    --


    "Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
  33. There are few people on this planet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... that I could care less if something horrible happened them. He's on the list. Suing people who contributed to the defense fund? Insanity. The guy deserves whatever bad things happens to him. He's got a mighty huge karma hammer swinging towards him.

  34. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by ScottGant · · Score: 1, Troll

    hmmm...if we're not allowed to eat other creatures, shouldn't these other "sentient beings which feel fear, joy and anger" be kept from eating other "sentient beings which feel fear, joy and anger"?

    Everyone worries about the cute little harp seal for example...but they don't worry about the penguins these seals are knocking back like tic-tacs out on the ice flows.

    I think, therefore I am....and I am thinking of having me a steak!

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  35. Novak moved to a new domain. by Gendou · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been following this story from the start, and it's been fascinating. Pets Warehouse is still up and operating. Novak switched over to a new domain shortly after the turnover of the domain was ordered, so he's managed to avoid any downtime despite losing his old domain. It's now located at Pets-Warehouse.com (Novak just added a dash). Maybe it'll soon be gone too, but Novak has been through a couple of bankruptcies already. I hope he's learned a lesson, at least.

    1. Re:Novak moved to a new domain. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the advertisement! I've been needing some more cages for the ferrets, and a jungle gym for the cat. I can't wait to order!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Novak moved to a new domain. by The+Creator · · Score: 1

      Whould you like some dead ferrets or cats with that order?

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
  36. uh oh! by scovetta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pets Warehouse.com
    1550 Sunrise Hwy, Copiague, NY 11726
    Phone: (631) 789-5400

    I called, they're still open. The lady was kind of rude on the phone though. Anybody up for a class-action?

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  37. Don't forget about his message board. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    His message board is still up, too. Wouldn't it be a shame if some dedicated Slashbotters decided to drop in and let his customers know about all this?

  38. Def: Barratry by Remik · · Score: 4, Informative

    barÂraÂtry

    1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.

    2. An unlawful breach of duty on the part of a ship's master or crew resulting in injury to the ship's owner.

    3. Sale or purchase of positions in church or state.

    What he's doing is illegal, he should be fined into oblivion or sent up the river to be married to some guy named Bubba.

    And, while we're at it, let's get the RIAA up on charges too.

    -R

  39. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by rossz · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Mensa member, beware of the high IQ
    Not bloody likely. You are a moron of the highest order. A village is short an idiot. You belong in the short bus.

    Animals are not sentient. Some members of the ape family might be on the edge of sentience and just need a little "push" to cross that border, but they aren't there yet. Dolphins aren't even close. Only one create on this planet has reached sentience - humans.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  40. Is it possible... by HexRei · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...for a judge to order him to never file another civil suit again? It really angers me to see someone abuse the system like this with no real repercussions.

    1. Re:Is it possible... by thasmudyan · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...for a judge to order him to never file another civil suit again? It really angers me to see someone abuse the system like this with no real repercussions.

      Sadly, I don't think so, it would probably hurt his rights to much. But maybe he could be fined for each abuse?
      Random fact from my memory: I'm not sure, but I think in ancient Greece sue-happy people who lost their case got automatically banned from court after a few attempts, they could never sue again...

  41. petswarehouse.com? by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny
    petswarehouse.com

    I think the self-storage business has gotten too specialized. First you could rent a storage area for your stuff, then your boat, then your car...

  42. More by heli0 · · Score: 1

    There are several threads about this from tha past week in the compuserve aquaria forum here: Aquarists & The Law

    --
    Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
  43. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wasn't meant to be a troll, just me venting a little after reading that "make animal trading illegal" comment.

    I think you're confusing vegans with vegitarians. I can totally understand chosing the lifestyle for many reasons, health, protest, whatever. What bugs me are the hardcore vegans who won't use any product that is remotely animal related. For example, they won't eat honey because it exploits the bees. They are the ones saying they aren't superior to animals while at the same time trying to be superior to animals. I wonder if they take antibiotics when they have an infection, or would that be murdering bacteria?

  44. Re:But the OED.. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    is bullshit

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  45. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by tbond_trader · · Score: 3, Informative

    Animals are not sentient. First of animal. Humans are considered animals, therefore you are already wrong. If you are speaking of other mammals, you've obviously never had a pet. The definition of sentient is: 1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : AWARE 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling #1 speaks for itself. The reactions of a dog are not random, he will greet you with affection, growl at those he doesn't recognize and many other responses to stimuli. #2 Does a dog know it exists? As much as any two year old child. The reactions of both are incredibly similar. #3 Again dogs are incredibly sensitive to their surroundings. They know when you are upset, when they have done something wrong, and so much more. Based on your response you obviously have never spent time with something you didn't eat. I would recommend you do, it's a rewarding experience. :)

  46. Good Riddance by DragonMagic · · Score: 1

    Good Riddance to this guy. One of his lawsuits went so far as to say these forums and competition be barred from using his name in their websites, so much that he listed PETS and WAREHOUSE as words pet forums and pet warehouse-sized internet businesses would be unable to use them.

    He's one of those thousand lawyers who are a good start on the bottom of a lake, from that old lawyer joke.

    [plus, two times in bankruptcy in 13 years?]

    --

    Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
  47. Before Novak.. by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Long before I read about Novak's activities, I bought some curious little silver round on an ebay auction, dated 1978, featuring Andrew Jackson below the word 'Courage' It's about 1/2 ouce of 99.9% silver issued by the 'Liberty Lobby', as a fund raising item (IIRC).

    Intrigued, I thought to look up who this Liberty Lobby was. What I found was as convoluted a pile of conspiracy theories; claims against individuals and institutions; counter claims; and a host of legal battle records. I'm still not sure who or what Liberty Lobby was, but this is what some people do with the internet and courts, not too much unlike the whole petswarehouse fiasco. It's a wonder things take so long to move through the courts with this kind of crap clogging things up.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Before Novak.. by ChrisNowinski · · Score: 1

      The Liberty Lobby is a neo-nazi far-right hate group, founded by Willis Carto in the 1950's. He apparently turned into a patriot-for-profit later and attempted to steal money from the Institute for Historial Review *spit*, a group focusing on holocaust denial.

      http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/paran oia-as-patriotism/liberty-lobby.html

  48. Anyone in Tuscumbia, Alabama? by pgrote · · Score: 1

    Please contact me if you are there or close to there. I'd like to bid on the name and use you as a proxy.

    1. Re:Anyone in Tuscumbia, Alabama? by Corydon76 · · Score: 1

      Can't. There's a stay on the sale for 90 days, as of June 5th. The court in Alabama received word of the bankruptcy filing and therefore has delayed the sale of the domain name until after a bankruptcy court hearing in September. See Exhibit C in this document.

  49. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by TheMonkeyDepartment · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love my cats, but if there was some kind of a famine and I couldn't get any food, I'd grill and eat those motherfuckers without a second thought. Because if they were starving, they'd probably try to eat me if they could!

  50. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

    Animals are not sentient? You claim to have a gun and a copy of the Constitution, and aren't afraid to them use them. How about a dictionary?

    You, sir, are the moron.

    (tig)
    "We do not inherit the land from our ancestors"
    "We borrow it from our children"

    --
    Ignorance and prejudice and fear
    Walk hand in hand
  51. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by Ellen+Ripley · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Animals are not sentient. Some members of the ape family might be on the edge of sentience and just need a little "push" to cross that border, but they aren't there yet. Dolphins aren't even close. Only one create on this planet has reached sentience - humans.

    What definition of sentience are you using? m-w.com says:
    1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
    2 : AWARE
    3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
    Animals aren't aware? Animals don't respond to sense impressions? More to the point, if animals don't have human-like emotions, they certainly are faking it really well. They're probably not exactly the same as human emotions, but they seem pretty close.
  52. Judge can award attorney's fees by mekkab · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First- disclaimer: IANAL, my wife is. What does that make me and my legal advice? WORTHLESS!
    That being said:

    At the discretion of the judge, based upon how frivolous the suit was, they can award attorney's fees.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  53. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by rossz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I meant to say "other animals" or something like that.

    Second, we need a clear definition of what is sentience. Let's toss out the PETA definition since using their rules would include insects and possibly even plants.

    So what is sentience? My personal definition is the ability to ask a simple question, "why am I here". Note that the ability to answer this question is not necessary (humans have been arguing this point for a rather long time without success). Sentience is the ability to wonder about things beyond "food, shelter, reproduce" - sadly, a large number of humans haven't evolved beyond this.

    A few members of the ape family have shown some rather interesting sentient-like behavior, but as I said in my previous post - it is only hints.

    Despite my arguing against animal sentience, I am not promoting cruelty to animals. I am very much against any type of cruelty to animals of any sort. I stopped eating veal after learning of the conditions in that industry (and I love veal!).

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  54. Wow! by michrech · · Score: 1

    Just when you think Novak has filed just about everything he can, on June 2, 3003 he filed a bankruuptcy petition. He also has sued Tucows, Inc., an Internet Registrar as well as the Circuit Court of Colbert County, Alabama.

    Wow! He lived over a thousand years to file yet another suit AND these people were able to scan through time itself to find out about it? Now THAT is the kind of service I expect to find in my news sources! :)

    --
    bork bork bork!
  55. SLAPP by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    SLAPP would not have applied in NY. If I remember correctly, the NY SLAPP applies only towards government access.

    Each state's SLAPP laws are different. Some are only when you talk about the government process, others are much broader.

    There is also rule 11, that may apply, which is for filing a frivilous lawsuit. This is not used much, but it does get invoked on occassion. There was a case in California where a plaintiff was hit with a $500k rule 11 ruling.

    I'm not sure if the bankruptcy would discharge the penaly for court sanctions as these are done maliciously (sp?).

  56. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by ScottGant · · Score: 1

    I know, I only caught this after I posted it. I ment to say lepard seals.

    But the oceans ARE connected. A determined harp seal could make the journey if he really had a hankering for penguin.

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  57. Sounds just like another case.. Fatwallet.. by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some may remember the deal discussion forum Fatwallet.com from when several retailers sued them because users posted Black Friday sales fliers ahead of time. They also got sued by a guy named Todd Short, who was running a fraudulent scheme where he was selling laptops, claiming you would pay him now and get your laptop several months later. Users did, never got their laptops, and posted their experiences on the forum. The forum, along with a user who created a website, got sued by Todd. Later, he declared bankrucy.

    Fatwallet JC Morris Thread

    Website about JC Morris Scam

  58. Re:Well, it is illiterate by rco3 · · Score: 1

    Homonyms.

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  59. Seriously good Psychiatry case write-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This guy it nuts and way out of his mind. As I recall, one of the big differences between the DSM III and DSM IV was the omission of the Passive Agressive Personality Disorder. Here are the criteria I could find:

    o Resist fulfilling their given responsibilities through procrastinating, "forgetting," sulking, or being argumentative
    o Protest, without justification, that unreasonable demands are being placed on them
    o Seem to work deliberately slowly or to do a bad job on tasks that they do not really want to do
    o Obstruct the efforts of others and fail to do their share; are uncooperative
    o Resent useful suggestions from others concerning how they might be more productive

    What I am getting at is Novak's actions are the most extreme example of passive agressive behaviors I have ever heard of. Maybe he has a personality disorder is is Psychotic out of his mind. He is using the court system as part of his psychopathology. Because of the grand scale of this, his case could easily be published in a major Psychiatric journal. Is there any way to force him to undergo a Psych eval ???

  60. A side issue, but interesting... by Dr.+Cam · · Score: 1

    .. in its own right.

    The judgment orders Tucows to give up the domain name and related documentation to a Sheriff in Alabama. Unfortunately, Tucows is in a foreign country, and is in no need to respond. How does the Judge expect to enforce the order?

    I say Novak's still got wriggle room. :-/

    Cam

  61. The Down-side of bankruptcy by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    For a certain kind of businessman, declaring bankruptcy is sort of like a fisherman deciding "All the fish here have been harvested, so it's time to pull up anchor and go somewhere else." In their minds, there's nothing immoral or embarrassing about it, it's just how they put food on the table.

    A judge doesn't necessarily grant full protection from creditors if he/she determines, possibly from information provided which indicates spending it all and declaring bankruptcy was the plan all along, that this is in bad faith.

    I've heard people suggest getting a pile of credit cards, max them out, then declare bankruptcy. Well, you can imagine the credit card companies have heard of this strategy, too, and have means to collect on debts, i.e. you are saddled with a payment plan which requires you to pay them back over time. Less kindly creditors are known to employ collection agents. It's probably a bad idea to lend your car to someone who has recently filed for bankruptcy.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  62. All-riiight!!!!! by celticchrys · · Score: 1
    Any news in the direction of slowing down this man's unreasonable litigation, I personally find to be good news!

    Can we have some ammendment to the constitution, like, a limit on the number of frivolous suits per year? Per life?

  63. Re:But the OED.. by halo1982 · · Score: 1

    learn ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lÃrn) v. learned, also learnt (lÃrnt) learnÂing, learns v. tr. To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study. To fix in the mind or memory; memorize: learned the speech in a few hours. To acquire experience of or an ability or a skill in: learn tolerance; learned how to whistle. To become aware: learned that it was best not to argue. To become informed of; find out. See Synonyms at discover. Nonstandard. To cause to acquire knowledge; teach. Obsolete. To give information to. v. intr. To gain knowledge, information, comprehension, or skill: learns quickly; learned about computers; learned of the job through friends. www.dictionary.com

  64. So many cliche's... by mcguyver · · Score: 1

    ...so little time. Here is one. You reap what you sew.

  65. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by l810c · · Score: 2, Funny
    So why should it be allowed to treat these wonders of the LORD's creation as liveless objects ?

    If the LORD didn't want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of Meat?

  66. Sorry but.... by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    the OED is the definitive dictionary. If there is any dispute between it and any other source, I will believe the OED.

    It is very boring though...

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  67. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

    So why should it be allowed to treat these wonders of the LORD's creation as liveless objects?

    If the LORD didn't want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of Meat?

    Yeah, no kidding. They taste so nice...especially with barbecue sauce...

    More to the point, if LORD is in all caps, it means Jehova, who commanded his people (Israel, through Moses) to eat animals. It's amazing what people will forget in order to try to make a point.

    --
    I got my Linux laptop at System76.
  68. I would say HAHAHA... by KU_Fletch · · Score: 1

    ... but then he might sue me.

    --
    It's not stupid. It's advanced.
  69. what do you mean by "tort reform"? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Do you mean a limit on damages, which to me is a recipie for business to rape consumers & employees in the ass, hard, if it means they'll save money in the long run? Or do you mean pass legislation that would try and bring some order to the system? What I would like to see is laws that differentiate between inevitable human error, and gross/criminal incompetence/negligence. And go by percentages of income rather than some invented fee. A different poster threw up the figure of $50,000 as a limit; to a well paid surgeon that is chump change, to a doctor who works at a small practice that would be a huge amount, epecially if he has a family to support.

  70. As long as we're off-topic... by bheerssen · · Score: 1

    What is it about being a zealot that interferes with one's ability to form clear, concise sentences free of spelling and grammar mistakes?

    And what, by the way, would everything be poised to doom? Society? The planet, maybe? Your cat? My proper digestion? Yeah, that's probably it.

    Anyway, I doubt that the morality of our society is in much danger of being corrupted, given that we've never been particularly moral in the first place. Society's morale, on the other hand, may well be in danger. But I think that has more to do with the current political/economic climate than with whether or not we eat meat.

    --
    (Score: -1, Stupid)
  71. Automatic Stay of Sheriff's Sale? by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

    One of the reasons Mr. Novak may have declared bankruptcy is that filing the bankruptcy petition should result in an automatic stay of the Sheriff's Sale of the petswarehouse.com domain name. This may result in Mr. Novak being allowed to continue to use his domain name until the bankrutpcy is settled. Since the Sheriff's sale was schedule for tomorrow (seek the link at on the front page posting), it should now not take place until some time after the bankruptcy court's hearing schedule for September 30, 2003.

    The reason why a stay is permitted is simple - all of Mr. Novak's creditors are to be treated on an equal footing. He's also complaining that he was not properly within the jurisdicton of the Alabama court that instructed the county Sheriff to sell the domain name.

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    1. Re:Automatic Stay of Sheriff's Sale? by J4 · · Score: 1

      That's highly likely, he's a major weasel.

  72. Kinda like Martha Stewart by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

    Karma is indeed a boomerang, however, noone should revel in someone else's misery or misfortune. It's just not cool.

  73. it is only $ by grolaw · · Score: 1

    What is rightful tort reform? How about the simple view that a jury ought to be the arbiter of the dispute? If juries are good enough to decide who lives and who dies (the various US Death Penalties at state & federal jurisdiction) then they are damn well good enough to decide who has to pay. No physician decides who lives and who dies â" s/he has the duty to try their best to limit pain and damage. Tort reform is all about denying access to a jury trial. FWIW I am a trial lawyer with a physician mother, brother and lawyer father and brother-in-law.

    1. Re:it is only $ by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I do not agree.

      Are juries good enough to decide who lives and who dies? I'd say it depends on who's on it. Death penalty opponents would point to a host of errors in jurys' judgements...

      I used to be a police officer, and I've been tapped for jury duty a few times. Guess what... every time, I (along with others) was thrown off the jury via preemptory challenge. Those of us in the "thrown off" groups noticed something; all of us were very well-educated, at least undergraduate or graduate degree, and were of various races. Comparing notes further regarding the other jury selectees we had met, we were probably the best-educated people in the pool. Coincidence? Maybe... or maybe the attorneys wanted a particular kind of jury... one they could lead and mold? I have my suspicions about the jury selection process, confirmed by conversations I've had with attorneys. Jury selection is an art and a game... and anyone with any legal background knows it. Are juries good enough? I guess it depends; what are your jury-selection goals? A black jury? A white jury? A dumb jury? A conservative jury? A rural jury?

      Tort reform is not about denying access... nobody is asking for tort abolition. Reform is about weeding out the suits that have no merit, and limiting astronomical jury awards that have no basis in reality. I know one surgeon who was sued for 150 million... It's sticky to put a value on a life... but how do you justify that? 150 million?

      Being a trial lawyer, I don't expect you to agree... but to deny that there's a problem, and to say that it's all about the $$$ is a little simplistic. As you well know, most docs make out better financially if they settle. Less time in court, less hassle, less stress, less time away from your practice... So why don't they? It's simple; it's not about the money for docs... it's about standing up for what you did, particularly when you did your best. It's about reputation and professional pride. Settling is like admitting your did something wrong, and that's exactly how every hosptital, HMO, and insurance carrier will view it.

      Maybe it's about the $$$ for the attorney... but for the doctor it's about far more. Scoff if you want, but not everyone is motivated by money.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    2. Re:it is only $ by grolaw · · Score: 1

      Money is not motivation - money is just about the only thing that a jury can award.
      Nobody can replace a human.
      Money can (and does) replace money just fine. But a jury is not a judge (appointed to the bench by some politician). A jury does not have a financial interest in the outcome. A jury serves as a check on the judge and attorneys.
      Show me a major company that waives a jury trial against another major company - it doesn't happen.
      Finally, a jury isn't selected: jurors are eliminated and what is left of the panel after the challenges for cause (unlimited) and preemptory strikes (usually only 6) are over is the jury.
      If you have been struck for cause then you were struck for a good reason. If you were removed with a preemptory strike each time, then you really have something strong about your personality that makes you a less-than-optimum juror.
      From what you have said, Iâ(TM)d hazard a guess that you have been struck for cause every time because of your law enforcement background.
      Very few states require doctors to serve on juries and fewer still require lawyers to serve. I doubt that there is a good reason for the latter and I can make a good argument for a doctor to serve, but Iâ(TM)d never allow me on my jury. . .

    3. Re:it is only $ by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      First, let me say that I appreciate your comments, and hope my own have not come across as any kind of rant.

      You are correct, and I misspoke; a jury is not technically "selected." However, I do stand by my comments regarding attorney attempts to mold their jury (I would also put venue changes in this same category). I certainly understand why they do it... nobody wants to argue their case to a hostile jury... I just wish the process had a little less gamesmanship.

      You would also be correct about my law enforcement background making me unlikely to be a juror... personally, I've never known a police officer who survived jury selection, particularly in a criminal case. However, my jury selection experiences were before I was a cop (and they told us we'd been booted by preemptory challenge... we asked). Also, I can't think of anything particularly "strong" about my own personality, apart from the usual geekish non-conformist/iconoclastic streak. Of course, a psychiatrist would say one's "objective" opinion of one's own personality is anything but, considering all of the typical ego defenses we all employ... but I digress.

      You've piqued my curiosity, however... the concept that personality traits are incompatible with jury service... That's really quite an interesting point. Setting aside the usual antisocials, what personality types make poor jurors? Clearly, your knowledge and experience in this setting exceeds my own, so I conceed that I may be missing a blindingly obvious point, though it's not obvious to me.

      Also, perhaps you can offer some additional enlightenment. I can understand why a defense attorney would not want a police officer to serve on a jury in a criminal case... but why would that hold in a civil case? Is it there some recognized antipathy that police officers hold for lawyers or defendants? There must be a basis for the "cause" that's used to strike a police officer from a civil jury... what is it?

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    4. Re:it is only $ by grolaw · · Score: 1

      You have been quite reasonable in this discourse. I detect no rants.
      What kind of personalities do we want to keep limited in a jury pool? Well, I gave it away when I said I wouldn't want me on my jury. I doubt that you would want you...
      Hung juries and long periods of jury repose are what we want to avoid (and we would like to win, too). If a jury has two or more strong personality types the jury could be split or whipsawed by these two playing off each other. Also, where a jury has a number of strong personality types the possibility that the jury will become hostile towards all of the parties and the judge is viewed as quite probbable.
      The view towards law enforcement types on a jury is that the "enforcement" or command skills experience of the officer will sway the jury. Also, it is widely regarded that criminal law experience leaves the officer with a cautious or questioning view of their fellow man (and that can cut either way in a civil trial: strong rules=plaintiff's verdict / plaintiff is trying to put one over on us=defense verdict) as well as a strong dislike for people beating the system.
      Cause changes with each trial, but generally it is where the party struck has personal relations with a party (or counsel to a party) or where the party seeking the strike for cause can show that the juror has a financial interest in the outcome.

    5. Re:it is only $ by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      If a jury has two or more strong personality types the jury could be split or whipsawed by these two playing off each other

      An excellent point... one I hadn't considered. I realize a jury is theoretically a team that has to work together to reach a verdict. I always wonder, however, about the value of that one insightful, perhaps personality-dominant juror, ALA "12 Angry Men" (one of my favorite Henry Fonda movies).

      And I suppose that leads into the reason why police officers are excluded, and once you put it as you did, it does make sense. Most LEOs are accustomed to persuading/ordering people into compliance, primarily with their verbal skills (arguably the most power weapon the officer has). Also, I can see other jurors defering to the officer, based on his/her courtroom experience and mantle of authority. From your point of view, I can see where you'd want the jury to be listening to you, rather than listening to the cop on the jury... so, point taken.

      Also, it is widely regarded that criminal law experience leaves the officer with a cautious or questioning view of their fellow man

      So a cynical streak disqualifies as well. That's one I would not have guessed... but you know what's funny? That disqualification leaves out almost anybody who works in emergency services (an ER staffer who doesn't develop a least one cynical bone in their body usually doesn't last long). We are so accustomed to being lied to, assaulted, vomited on, scammed out of drugs, and variously used/abused by our more antisocial patients, that one quickly develops a very keen nose for mendacity.

      Interesting. Thanks for your replies; I've learned something today.

      Much appreciated, counselor.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  74. Novak == Cheap bastard by J4 · · Score: 1

    HAHAHA That's fucking sweet. I submitted a proposal for some networking stuff at his store a few years back, but when I met with him he was talking about suing people because his son is a lawyer and he gets free legal advice.

    What a wanker!

  75. Re:Have you seen the cover of TIME? by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any business when too risky, reduces entry into the field. 10 years ago the concern was who is delivering babies in small towns? This was due to excessive malpratice lawsuits for less than perfect babies. It had to be the doctor's fault, make him pay, he has insurance, yada... Doh, the insurance rates went out of sight to cover the increased risk. Small physisians simply could not afford it and left the small town practice, or simply stopped delivering babies to drop the high insurance premium.

    The problem has not improved. With managed healthcare, not only is the risk high, but the potential earnings are down with extreme workloads.

    This is one of the great reasons I went into electronics instead of the medical field. A failure is limited to replacement cost, not pain, suffering, potential income over lifetime etc. The pay is better for a surgeon, but the risk kept me out of the field.

    So tell me, where is the next generation of doctors comming from?

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  76. Re:damn mods... by Loosewire · · Score: 1

    sorry :_(

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  77. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by blancolioni · · Score: 1

    More to the point, if LORD is in all caps, it means Jehova, who commanded his people (Israel, through Moses) to eat animals. It's amazing what people will forget in order to try to make a point.

    Genesis 1:29 says
    "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

    Sounds like God telling everybody to be a vegetarian. OK, so after the flood he gives up and lets them eat meat, but that's only because everybody was so bad, and he was just throwing up his hands in despair and saying "Like, WHATEVER"

  78. Re:F'rinstance? WHAT THE FUCK IS F'rinstance?? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    F'rinstance = For instance. Yall need to understand twofer language.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  79. I'm Shocked!!!! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I'm gonna sue. The cat giving me the finger offends me very much. http://www.pets-warehouse.com/Gallery/test/fred.jp g

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  80. How often does it happen? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    The question is how often does this happen. It doesn't seem to be very much in the US at present, at least in the big cases. In the UK, in contrast, it's common for the losing party in a case to wind up paying costs for both sides. That's a great disincentive for the idiots with lots of money but no case, who'll sue anyway hoping to force a settlement because the defendants can't afford to risk fighting in court. Now if only we had punitive damages, so a sufficiently high court could fine a company all of its profits * 1.5 when it does something scummy in the interests of lining its pockets...

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  81. The Domain Auction's a No-Go by tbase · · Score: 1

    I didn't get any details, but I called the Sherrif's office and the auction for the domain name has been cancelled. If you go to the domain, it still shows the document saying it's on for today at 11:00 am - you'd think they'd update it to cut down on the phone calls.

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
  82. Re:Trading animals should be made illegal worldwid by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
    So why should it be allowed to treat these wonders of the LORD's creation as liveless objects ?

    I like to think it's because God himself gave mankind dominion over every living thing. If you want to argue with Him, feel free to take it up with Him in person.

  83. Why is this the rule now? by edgarde · · Score: 1
    When your company is about to tank, fire off lawsuits in every direction, hurting uninvolved or innocent parties without hesitation -- what else can you say about suing someone who in good faith posts a complaint on a weblog, or someone who installs Linux on a personal computer?

    And it's becoming a sufficiently workable practice (c.f. SCO) that it's easy to imagine stockholders demanding it. Short of tort reform, is there a way to discourage this destructive pattern?

  84. Re:So what is sentience? by djmoore · · Score: 1

    There's a lot read into "Cogito, ergo sum" that I don't think is there.

    Descarte was simply looking for a starting place in an argument to show that God existed. How could he know that anything existed? After all, we experience dreams and hallucinations, so our sensory experience is not reliable. Even mathematical logic may have some subtle, undetected flaw.

    His insight was that if thinking was taking place, something, someone, was doing the thinking. Whatever was true, his self-awareness was near-tautological proof that his self-awareness, at least, existed. The world might be a dream, his body a mere seeming, other people figments of his imagination -- but the fact was that something was experiencing all that, and that something, himself, had to exist to have the experience, false or not.

    Any creature capable of framing this concept knows that it exists. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it's a dead end; it doesn't allow you to infer the existence of anything else.

    See the Wikipedia entry.

    --
    In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
  85. Re:Unfortunatly for you.. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    English changes too much to have a definitive guide. If somebody says it's a word, it's a word. Meanwhile, if somebody says it isnt a word, it's not a word.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  86. Re:Have you seen the cover of TIME? by buckinm · · Score: 1

    So tell me, where is the next generation of doctors comming from?

    India.

    --
    This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
  87. Re:Unfortunatly for you.. by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    Nor is "Unfortunatly"

    English doesn't change that fast. I can still read Lord of the Rings in its original and understand it. I might not phrase things the same way, but I understand what it means. I am not so sure of the meaning of some of the things that I hear consultants say right now though...

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  88. Re:Unfortunatly for you.. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    I fail to see how this doesnt entirely prove my point.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All