Slashdot Mirror
Man Sued For $30K Over $40 Printer He Sold On Craigslist (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader cites an article on USA Today: Selling a used, black-and-white printer through Craigslist seemed simple and straightforward to Doug Costello. It wasn't. What the 66-year-old Massachusetts man didn't know then is that he would spend the next 6 and a half years embroiled in a complicated and confusing legal dispute in Indiana over that printer, which, according to its buyer, was broken. He would find himself liable for about $30,000 in damages. He would pay a lawyer at least $12,000 in his battle to escape the legal mess. And it all started with a piece of hardware he sold online for about $40 in 2009. With shipping and other costs, the total was less than $75, according to court records.Gersh Zavodnik, the printer's buyer, has been described as "prolific, abusive litigant" who has brought dozens of lawsuits against individuals and businesses. He often asks for "astronomical" damages.
For some reason, this whole fiasco reminds me of this scene from Office Space.
Where it's not about whether you win or lose, it's about bankrupting the opponent
So, you left a paper trail... Craigslist sales should always be in person, cash, and otherwise as anonymous as possible. Use a separate gmail account, fake name, protect yourself.
>Zavodnik, a native of Ukraine who moved to the United States in 1987 under a grant of political asylum
Send this pussy back. Get him drafted and sent to a meatgrinder in Debaltsev
"Don't smoke crack, it's a ghetto drug" - Jesse Jackson.
This is why.
Small Claims Court limits their damage to $10,000 I believe.
Even then, there are still limitations and rules.
How does a $40 item exceed the small claim courts maximum amount?
This whole lawsuit seems fraudulent from the start.
Loser pays would tamp down on a lot of people who use the process to punish people.
No matter where you go, there you are.
I'll bet this guy goes around looking for people with assets. He won't bother suing a poor person. How does one protect oneself from this kind of predatory legal action?
Along with
"No warranty from seller"
"Seller assumes no liability"
"All sales final"
"No Refunds"
for district attorneys to file criminal charges against those who are clearly and repeatedly abusing the civil litigation process. Tens of thousands of dollars claimed over a forty dollar printer? It's hard to view this as anything other than theft, and thieves have done hard jail time for far lower dollar values than those sought by the plaintiff in this case. Civil law shouldn't be a lottery, and criminal law should have the power to prevent people from treating it as one.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
While I am not an expert in the US legal system it seems like having the loser pay the legal bills might reduce some of this predatory litigation.
The question is, how much influence does the US electorate have over this kind of decision? People who rely on winning through bankruptcy are also the people who have the kind of money to lobby to maintain the current system.
Well, there's two ways to see this. This may be a crazy set of events allowed by an insufficiently judicious judiciary, but there is plenty of abuse when it comes to dismissing cases and refusing to see justice done in a timely manner.
But on the gripping hand, what are we to do when we live in a world where justice can't be done by the legal system? Where it causes more heartache, worry, and strain for people? Surely not every judge can threaten to cut a baby in half, but maybe there was something to be done here.
Typically this is solved by labeling the plaintiff as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation Vexatious Litigant. Then it becomes harder for the plaintiff to file lawsuits.
The problem comes from the assumption by the lawmakers that businesses were always honest. They basically said anyone that doesn't answer a legal demand must be guilty, but they made no attempt to ensure that the legal demands were a) actually sent and b) believed to be real, rather than a typical scare tactic used by con men.
The lawmakers in question should be flooded with legal demands from non-existent cases to assist them in learning the era of their ways.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The winning technique used by the plaintiff was thus:
The judge, who awarded him $30K (plus interest), acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions.
The appeal court noted:
Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.
"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...
Whether the sold printer was broken, whether the seller really did try to sell a lemon — that's small potatoes. What pan Zavodnik exposed was the incompetence of Indiana's judges. Hurrah for the hacker!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Anybody can sue anybody for anything. That's how the system works. To counterbalance the potential for abuse in such a system, filers of frivolous suits are often subject to awards of attorney's fees plus sanctions for dragging blameless defendants into court. What you cannot do is bungle your defense on the assumption that a judge will eventually see you're being screwed and throw the case out. How is a judge supposed to adjudicate a dispute between two unrepresented parties who don't know or follow the rules, and both claim they're right? This guy got himself into a huge procedural mess by failing to respond properly in his first response to the lawsuit. If you get sued, especially by a litigious moron, hire an attorney immediately. These things NEVER get easier to handle later on, and it is NEVER better to try it yourself first. The best defenses to ridiculous lawsuits MUST be raised immediately, correctly, and aggressively. You want the system to work differently? Talk to your legislators. Until then, lawyer up.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
This is why I don't want to sell anything like this. Oh sure, I might make some money here and there. Friends will say, "You should have a garage sale." Why? So I can make a couple hundred dollars (that I have to pay tax on, BTW), and take on the possibility of getting sued? While strangers come over and case out my house?
I have to ask myself, what is my goal? It is to get rid of junk. Better to just dispose of it, donate it, send it to the recycler's. Then it's gone. No hassle, no taxes, no liability.
If you are at the threshold of itemized deductions donating an item can make almost as much money as selling it used, since you can write off donated items.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is America after all, I'm surprised that one of the hapless defendants hasn't snapped and gone postal.
(not that I approve of that kind of behavior)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
He who goes to bed with itchy butt wake up with smelly finger
Edens acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule
He certainly didn't find himself constrained by common sense.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
He should counter-sue for barratry, libel, slander, arson, extortion, jaywalking and anything else he can think of.
About a million - nah, make it two - should be about right.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
How is this not Barratry or Vexatious Litigation?
Help us, God Emperor Trump. You're our only hope.
We do not know, whether the plaintiff's intent was to expose the flaws in the state's legal system. Nor do we know, the target really was innocent, actually. Quite possibly, pan Zavodnik had a valid case — and if he didn't, Indiana should've dismissed his cases (he filed many) years ago.
But I'd be happy to hear your proposals on how to correct flaws in such a system... Raise awareness, perhaps? Print buttons, colored ribbons, and bumper stickers: "Abolish Rule #36"?
Every time someone uses the legal system to get at someone else in a way we deem "unjust", the bulk of our anger must be aimed not at the hacker, but at the system itself. Because as long as it remains there, it could be used against any one of us.
This is not the same as the case of hacker exploiting a weakness in a personal computer or a door lock — those are maintained by the victims themselves. No, this system and run by the establishment, but the victims are private citizens (and businesses). Whether it is a maliciously sent SWAT, or a case like this, the system is to blame first and foremost.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In the UK, small claims court expects that people will not have legal representation. Anyway, if you're being hit with an idiot case, you spend a few hours researching how to conduct yourself online - a lawyer won't help because the judge still has to be convinced by the other party, and pure bullshit is not convincing. So, why do people hit with such frivolous lawsuits end up with huge legal bills? What are they having to spend money on?
The simple solution here would be to have some sane limits.
IE if plaintiff #1 spends $5k on the case and loses against a guy who spends $100k, maybe #1's liability should be limited to something around $5k.
Or have the judge make a decision -
without basis: loser pays
has basis: IE the situation was complicated enough that yes, a court was needed. No court costs.
Note: "No basis" would include a company dragged into court for something it should darn well have paid for earlier and without the fuss.
I don't read AC A human right
For just 10k I get a guy in Russia that will end this problem once and for all, why should I pay you 30k?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Has anything good ever come out of Ukraine?
The RIAA should have this guy on the payroll.
Dark Reflection
He claimed he never received the letters before the default judgement. Shouldn't the plaintiff be required to show proof that the letter was received? Otherwise he could just never send letters and win default judgement after default judgement.
It's high time to add this slimeball Gersh Zavodnik to the ranks of vexacious litigants who abuse the law system. In the article a judge who dismissed his case has already highlighted the plaintiff's abuse of process.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
The obvious question is whether he was actually served with the request to admit. I don't think he was, if he was, then there is a problem in that he didn't respond. Everyone should know you don't ignore a court case otherwise you will lose by default.
It's not the buyer an idiot only, but a country with its legal system that facilitates such acting.
Nobody sell anything ever in under any conditions to Gersh Zavodnik. Let him grow his own food on a rented land.
Seriously, you don't have 30k in "damage" when the product you got only cost you $75. This is why the justice system is broken... And this is not even the first time this a-hole does this.
Lay people should not be allowed to file pro-se. I'm sorry but today the number of lunatic sovereign citizen wackos and basically homeless people filing dozens of nonsense claims trolling for settlements against literally anybody they run into is overwhelming the small claims and lower district courts. It is a massive problem. They abuse the system like crazy and it can take years to get a vexatious litigant order in place against them preventing these lunatics from filing lawsuits. They've ruined the system and the only reform that will work is preventing all non-lawyers from filing suit. The ambulance chasers have licenses they risk. The reality is lawyers generally do no file frivolous actions. Its too expensive and endangers their licenses. They also have houses and assets they aren't about to risk. These pro-se lunatics are literally living in homeless shelters half the time.
Don't documents have to be served in a way that reasonably verifies receipt unless such a method of delivery is impossible?
Sending him a 1099 for stuff like that? I'd have to think about it, but it sounds evil. Especially if they still lose.
That being said, they can deduct legal expenses, so it ends up being a wash.
I don't read AC A human right
Dude, the taxes thing is really dumb.
Nobody pays taxes on selling a few hundred bucks at a garage sale, because you always sell them for less than what you paid for them.
You've just being ridiculous now.
Did anyone else notice this?
"Zavodnik, a native of Ukraine who moved to the United States in 1987 under a grant of political asylum"
I'm assuming that he went to the U.S. to escape the U.S.S.R., but that fell to pieces a few years after arriving. I don't know what his current immigration status is, but wouldn't asylum eventually be revoked? Seems like you wouldn't get granted asylum from a government that no longer exist (barring the current political crisis with Crimea, which occurred over 20 years after he left).
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Zavodnik is one such person.
and in some case it leads to companies fine print saying we will use our Million dollar legal team on you.
People in Indiana each send him many thousands of requests, each claiming many thousands in damages. He will not possibly be able to reply to all of them. Where he fails to reply within 30 days, it is a clear admission of guilt.
"Gersh Zavodnik, the printer's buyer, has been described as "prolific, abusive litigant" who has brought dozens of lawsuits against individuals and businesses. He often asks for "astronomical" damages."
Isn't there any way to turn the Internet loose on this guy?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Just a thought: someone should bring justice and start a class-action crowd-funded counter-lawsuit against Gersh Zavodnik .
Hell yeah, freedom to sue for any bullshit reason.
Ain't it great to live in such a wonderful country ? Free weapons and free sueing for everybody.
Vote Republican and you too will be able to sue negroes, climate change supporters, lebians, gays, transgender, latinos etc...
Here is mine: require the judge to enquire into the factual basis of the amount of the claim and then limit any award to a reasonable amount, instead of just accepting the amount claimed by the plaintiff.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If the penalty scales with net worth then you still have a big problem:
The poor who get advocate/activist lawyers. I had a family member who was repeatedly dragged through the courts by a mentally ill person with no resources but an uncanny ability to convince various lawyers working for the "less fortunate" to take up her cases. She lost every case over the years but my relative spent a mountain of money defending these cases and would have recovered nothing with a "loser pays" system.
Before the 1960s and 1970s when the huge wave of "consumer advocates", activist lawyers led by Ralph Nader and friends (many of whom later become activist judges), and advocacy lawyers etc our legal system had responsible judges who did their jobs. Those judges tossed-out baseless lawsuits. It was part of the basic job of judges to toss suits that any competent lawyer/judge knew full-well was frivolous/malicious/baseless leaving the courts to deal with legitimate cases. The rise in all the activism and the hyper-legalization of society assisted by activist judges who used to be activist lawyers is the primary reason why our legal system is now so completely clogged that no matter how much more money we throw at it every year nobody truly gets a "speedy trial" any more and inmates on death row are more likely to die of old age than from an encounter with a needle or bullet or rope or "old sparky".
Everyone with a case deserves his day in court... but that might just be to see a judge who yells "get this idiocy out of my court!, and GROW UP!". Nobody is entitled to YEARS in the courts, unless they can show they were victims of legal hanky-panky.
...I'd love to run across when he's lost in a barren desert in the mid morning of a scorching summer day and he has been there for a couple days and hasn't had water in 24 hours and doesn't have a satellite phone and there's virtually no possibility of another person coming by in the next few weeks.
He can see my big jugs of ice water in my air conditioned off SUVs, he can watch me drink and even pour ice water over my head to cool down with the excess disappearing into the sand.
He finds that every time he stumbles closer to my vehicles, we move just another 50 yards away.
That could amuse me for a couple of hours while I reminded him what a disgusting human being he is.
Maybe, if I was in a really good mood, I'd remember to call for help for him when I got somewhere cell phone reception, but there are SO many interesting things to look at in nature, I'm not sure that would happen all that soon.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!
Yeah, that's all good and clever. Except it's pretty much the same as blaming the knife when somebody stabs you.
People who do bad things are bad people, no matter what tool they choose to use.
"Abolish Rule #36"?
Can't we abolish Rule 34 first?
Costello would have been better off in the long run if Zavodnick had just hit him on the head and jacked his car, like all those other Craigslist buyers.
Stories like this are why whenever I finish with some consumer item that still has some useful life, whether it be a printer or an SLR camera with a set of original lenses, I just give it to my local thrift and take a modest writeoff for the item.
"Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records."
Courts don't like to be ignored. It's the worst possible thing you can do.
Respond promptly and equivocate: "I do not concede your claim. I expect to deny your claim." Equivocation lets you back away from a statement later if it turns out you were wrong or if the statement could have had some unintended legal meaning.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Loser pays would also make it basically impossible to sue any entity that has more money than you. The risk would be far too great, even if you had a legitimate dispute.
Let the judge award "loser pays" only after meeting a high threshold. Such as in situations where no rational person would consider it a legitimate dispute.
I agree. In the state Pennsylvania, state cases have a loser pays provision. You pay a filing fee but will get it awarded back to you if you win your case, as well as reasonable legal fees, etc. Without going into the whole crazy story, I found myself suing an old landlord for damages. While I won the initial case, the landlord was able to appeal... and appeal again after that. I couldn't keep paying the attorney fees to keep going further and so ended up settling, which cost me something like net $1500, rather than winning the $1500 in damages I was hoping for. While that may seem small to some of you, at the time I basically was making minimum wage and used my savings to do it. It wasn't sustainable. Based on that experience, I'd only go to court if I knew I was able to fight all the way to the top state courts, because that's pretty much what you're in for if your opponent has money.
If you're on minimum wage and can't pay the up front filing fees and attorney fees, you're screwed. In principle, you'd get it back -- but how are you going to get the money to initiate it in the first place? And what happens if you do end up losing? The poor in our country get no justice.
It would seem like the defendant could counter-sue for abuse of process, but I'm not even a secretary for a lawyer so I may be speaking incoherently.
Where did Mr Costello live when he sold the printer? Was it in Mass? If so, why would Indiana even have jurisdiction in this? Assuming Mr Costello lived in MA at the time and advertised on a LOCAL Craigslist, I should think Indiana laws would not apply at all.
So I had a smallish accident a couple years ago where I skidded on ice onto a guy's door. Cost approx $2000 to fix.
Unfortunately I backed into a guy's truck a few weeks ago. Causing about $100 of damage scuff to the door. It was a company vehicle.
They refused to do the deal out of pocket. The insurance company are now raising my rate by about $100 a month. So I figure that $100 scuff is going to cost me at least $6000 before it rolls off my policy.
And there is *zero* I can do about it.
In some jurisdictions, I believe the law allows the judge to award costs to the victor, i.e., the loser pays, but as with damages the actual amount is at the discretion of the judge. That means if HugeMegaCorp, Inc. turn up with a "million dollar" legal team to defend a hundred buck trial against a customer who feels they were unfairly treated, and the customer's complaint isn't upheld by the court but the case had genuine merit, the judge can decide to award less than the million dollar legal fees.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Every time someone uses the legal system to get at someone else in a way we deem "unjust", the bulk of our anger must be aimed not at the hacker, but at the system itself. Because as long as it remains there, it could be used against any one of us.
I don't think you'd feel this way if you were the one being faced with a bill for a $30,000 court-ordered settlement over a $40 printer. My anger is first at foremost at the asshole abusing the system, then the system.
...And the Indianapolis Star, and USA Today, and Kristine Guerra, and me, Anonymous Coward.
Happy now Manishs?
It does raise a question about frivolous lawsuits. One of the things the legal system has to deal with.
We do not know, whether the plaintiff's intent was to expose the flaws in the state's legal system.
Actually, we do know the intent of the plaintiff. He is well-known by the court system (which comes up repeatedly in rulings) for buying stuff online and then suing people. Perhaps he's trying to make a living out of it. But his so-called "exposure" of the "flaws" in Rule 36 only came very late in the process after he had already sought ridiculous action in small claims court and the case had been dismissed. Are you seriously claiming that he filed a case in small claims court under a ridiculous premise so it could be dismissed and then several years later he could take another action to "expose the flaws in the state's legal system"?
Nor do we know, the target really was innocent, actually.
Actually, we do know that the "target" was "innocent," because this is a civil action. The DEFENDANT was either found LIABLE or NOT. (You may want to bother to learn some legal terminology before commenting on what you think is wrong with the system.)
But, even IF the defendant was liable, there is no possible circumstance under which I can imagine that a person should be found liable for a defective $40 printer and have to pay out $6000 to a plaintiff (which was asked for in the first case in small claims court), let alone the $30,000 adjudicated in the later court case. Well, I suppose if the defendant had deliberately and maliciously made modifications to the printer to cause serious injury to the person he sold it to (e.g., printer has new installation that shoots strong acid out at user when turned on), MAYBE I could that -- but there was no claim of anything so dire except the printer may have been defective. At most, the plaintiff should be entitled to the cost of replacement plus a nominal fee for his trouble, no more than a few hundred dollars at most.
This whole thing was ridiculous from the very beginning.
Quite possibly, pan Zavodnik had a valid case â" and if he didn't, Indiana should've dismissed his cases (he filed many) years ago.
Did you even bother reading TFA?? Indiana DID dismiss the case he filed in small claims court. It's unclear why it was even allowed to go forward in a superior court, except that the plaintiff appears to be a lunatic who pestered and annoyed judges and filed motions to have them recused so much that many finally relented... and he probably eventually got a judge who agreed to let them matter go forward. That sounds like blatant abuse of the court system by the plaintiff, not the other way around.
But I'd be happy to hear your proposals on how to correct flaws in such a system... Raise awareness, perhaps? Print buttons, colored ribbons, and bumper stickers: "Abolish Rule #36"?
Uh, once again, RTFA. Also, follow the link in the article to read the actual court ruling... you might learn something. For example, you might learn that Rule 36 actually sounds pretty reasonable as written -- and in its text EXPLICITLY gives discretion to the courts about when to throw out these sorts of demands. And there have been conflicting rulings in the past (which were cited by the higher court ruling) that make the lower court's award of $30,000 a bit ridiculous. The lower court chose a particular reading of Rule 36 that seems incongruous with the way it has often been interpreted... which is why it was reversed on appeal.
Sometimes there's nothing wrong with Rule 36 -- sometimes it's just a judge in error. (And, in this case, it wouldn't surprise me that a judge screwed something up given how much the plaintiff participated in blatant judge shopping.)
Every time someone uses the legal system to get at someone else in a way we deem "unjust", the bulk of our anger must be aimed not at the hacker, but at the system itself. Because as long as it remains there, it could be used against a
I wonder if this guy is on Anonymous' radar.
No. Simply because you can't get money from a rock. If you sue a large company, lose, and bankrupt yourself in the process, the company can try as much as they want to "recoup" money from you. It's just not there. (Something like that happened to McDonald's in the UK, trying to silence two penniless critics with a libel suit. They ended up with a long, expensive, messy lawsuit and unable to recoup any of their costs).
add another burden to the loser
Well, then maybe you should settle if you think you're about to lose? And if you get sued and win the case, why should you have to bear the costs for being the right?
the fact that the sale of a cheap used printer could spawn such a legal nightmare is a telling indictment on the American legal system
The plaintiff is from Ukraine belonging to a pro se non attorney litigation group trying to stop court system corruption. I rest my case.
This is so sad i would have just had him send it back and refund him his money. His multiple lawsuits against people for trivial things makes me wonder why someone has not sued him or worse sent him to prison
Anyone have his address and details? If we all send him "requests for admissions", and he neglects to reply to just a few of them, we should be able to bankrupt him.
economics teaches about incentives, but far simpler is this: dont let government or lawyers charge for doing nothing, and bar them from creating fees ro penalties that raise issues to insanity like this, far far reduce judge and lawyer pay, they are overpaid government welfare workers and a drain making life harder for all, firing all of them and replacing with software and objective law and al lot of doing nothing but repairing injured party if a loss happens IOF it is liable, becasue liability is just an idea, and like many ideas is not applicable in many cases
There was no question "why". You've contributed 0 to the conversation and your posting failed to fail to suck. Try harder next time — should you feel it necessary for the "next time" to ever happen. Remember to logout.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Typical that this litigious asshole is not called John Smith or Steve Davis.. No, it's Gersh Zavodnik..
I actually have legal representation included in my home-insurance... the insurance costs me about $150 per year and covers court-costs (even if i loose) up to $50-60k.. If i loose i have to pay the insurance-company after the fact i lost.. So if i'm sure i will win i can choose to keep going for infinity..
Scumbags like the litigant are not the exception, they are the rule.
EBay. We promise you won't get sued for using our auction platform. Please don't use CL, it's bad for our business, as well as yours!
If only Zavodnik had taken a course at Trump U, but nooooooo.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Crap like this just makes me pray for the destruction of the government, the fact that their efforts to create a "more efficient" court system opens up such flagrant abuses is typical for a government that couldn't care less about the people, just their special interest groups. The sad this is, debt collection groups use the same tactic to get their lawsuits won, flood the defendant such that they cannot respond to all the requests, and suddenly they win. There's going to be a lot of people burning in Hell for this sort of abuse.
Costello willfully ignored the requests for admission send by Zavodnik. The Michigan Rules of Judicial Procedure require those notices to be either served in process or sent via certified mail, return receipt, and they cannot be judged in default unless those process notices or return receipts are admitted along with the original request letters.
So, the fact that they were judged in default means they were in fact properly served on Costello, and he simply ignored them.
When you are sued, it is still your responsibility to know the laws and rules to which you are bound. Being a defendant in a civil case carries with it serious legal responsibilities.
In my opinion, the Appellate court should have ruled that the $30,000 judgment was insufficient, and raised it to the $600,000 requested by Zavodnik, since Costello did not respond to it and therefore admitted the liability by default. The judge erred and ignored the law. The law may suck, but it is still the law.
I thought the Indiana Supreme Court disbarred him from filing additional lawsuits, unless his life was threatened.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/10/01/enoughs-enough-indiana-supreme-court-tells-prolific-filer-lawsuits/16529893/