Comments on: Hell hath no fury like a librarian scorned

Hell hath no fury like a librarian scorned

Blake — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:30:13 -0800

No... F---- you. Over the course of several months a Florida librarian received unsolicited facsimile transmissions from one particular fax blaster. The number for removal and the number to fax back the advertisements for health insurance, mortgages, hot leads, selling my business and so on just happened to be in his local zrea code. Using super librarian skills and secret librarian tools he sought (legal) revenge, and won. Moral of this story:
1) Don't screw with the librarian
2) Libraries- take action on your unsolicited faxes- they are illegal.
3) Reference tools are your friends!

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:34:43 -0800

F----? frake you? frock you? foust you?

By: dios

dios — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:34:58 -0800

Good read and good for them!

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:39:49 -0800

Sweet.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:40:00 -0800

Hiiiii-yah! (sound of body thudding heavily)

By: allen.spaulding

allen.spaulding — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:42:40 -0800

Rock on librarian dude. The fact that it's all going to charity really hammers home the disparity between the good guy and the bad guy in this story.

By: wakko

wakko — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:44:53 -0800

This is the best thing I've read all day.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:45:54 -0800

I love librarians so much.

By: Pressed Rat

Pressed Rat — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:48:39 -0800

Absolutely fantastic...

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:50:41 -0800

If no one bids higher than the judgment at the public auction the aircraft is mine. Nice.

By: mr.curmudgeon

mr.curmudgeon — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:51:01 -0800

This is great timing. I've been suffering from "Blast Faxes" for the past several months. I was thinking of starting the litigation process, but have been intimidated by the process. Maybe I'll just have to get in contact with...THE LIBRARIAN!

By: Songdog

Songdog — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:51:14 -0800

I love it.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:53:46 -0800

That's a great story, though it sounds like the person knows enough to be a lawyer. I always wondered why junk faxes were so ubiquitous given there are fairly stiff penalties written into laws. I frequently heard people say how worthless anti-spam legislation would be given how little enforcement happens around junk faxing. So it's great to hear someone did something about it.

By: jsavimbi

jsavimbi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:53:53 -0800

Who has a little passive aggressive streak running through them?

By: letitrain

letitrain — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:56:12 -0800

This has to be a hoax. A quarter million dollar aircraft over junk faxes?

By: Foosnark

Foosnark — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:56:21 -0800

Pwned!

By: mullacc

mullacc — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:58:10 -0800

Was this at his home fax? If it was the library's fax, how does he have standing?

By: punkbitch

punkbitch — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0800

wow

By: Kimberly

Kimberly — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:00:35 -0800

Hee! I second the Hiii-yaaah!

By: lalochezia

lalochezia — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:00:41 -0800

Yeah! Was my reaction first too. Is the glee we're all feeling because someone had a a quarter of a million dollar plane confiscated by the govt or because he was too stupid/proud to contest this in court? Because he sent a few faxes? I hate these f**ckers too, but something smacks at me.....it's the proportionality of it....... Imagine if someone played this game with you, when say, you broke some minor parking law and inconvenienced a business with a vindictive legal department? Or someone sues you for 'mental distress' when you get into an argument, and you ignore it because it's trivial. But as far as making an example of one of the people that make modern life unredressable and bs go, its a zinger. On preview: Sauce for goose=sauce for gander. He had a cessna: screw him!

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:02:59 -0800

Second moral of the story: Hide your assets.

By: uncle harold

uncle harold — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:03:30 -0800

Lol. Great read. Some questions for the Americans here, just out of interest: 1) Why would he get the aircraft that is worth .25 million? Force-auctioned by the police and get his part yes, but the whole thing? 2) Why does he have to pay the sheriff $800? Isn't the forced collection, like, his job? 3) Why is this librarian-specific? He just mentioned some websites.

By: dios

dios — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:04:37 -0800

This has to be a hoax. A quarter million dollar aircraft over junk faxes? posted by letitrain at 11:56 AM CST on October 14 I don't know if this is a hoax or not, but that part of the story is possible. When you execute a civil judgment, a constable can go out and seize property sufficient to satisfy a judgment. It is reasonable that sheriff could seize something worth $250k, and they often attempt to seize the least necessary items first (the idea being that you don't want to destroy the person by, for instance, taking away their only means of transportation). I'm not sure how one seizes a plane and transports it, but assuming that it is feasible, the value of the plane shouldn't be shocking. What happens is that the plane is auctioned off. The value of the judgment (10k or whatever it was) and the transaction costs are then deducted from the auctioned off price. The residual should then be returned to person from whom it was seized.

By: mullacc

mullacc — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:06:50 -0800

How to Steal a Plane. Sounds pretty easy.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:13:27 -0800

lalochezia- This guy, apparently, had every opportunity to defend himself, to simply show up. He didn't. His refusal to respond to the accusation left the door wide open for the judge to Make An Example of him. Second moral of the story: Hide your assets. Yeah, I have to say, this guy sucks as a crook. If you're going to shield your assets behind a corporate facade, don't use the same fake company to conduct your illegal business.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:13:47 -0800

Can I hire this guy to go after the spammers? I'd happily split any profits from shutting any of those asshats down. This was AWESOME! I love it when the effers get effed!

By: cmonkey

cmonkey — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:14:41 -0800

This kinda makes me want to set a fax machine up in my house, just to go after fax spammers.

By: afroblanca

afroblanca — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:15:19 -0800

Am I the only one who thinks that this guy's language skills are a little weak for a librarian?

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:16:09 -0800

uncle harold writes "Why would he get the aircraft that is worth .25 million? Force-auctioned by the police and get his part yes, but the whole thing?" From the point of view of the government, the plane is worth whatever it can bring in at auction. If the auction fails to generate any bids that are greater than the judgement, then the plane is worth less than the judgement, and the plantiff gets the whole thing.

By: teferi

teferi — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:17:10 -0800

[this is AWESOME]

By: geoff.

geoff. — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:18:14 -0800

This is awesome, I'm surprised a fax spammer can actually earn enough to afford a Lexus and Cessna. I'm surprised someone who can run a business does not have the intelligence to respond when requested to serve in court. The fact all the money is going to charity makes everything several times more awesome. 1) Why would he get the aircraft that is worth .25 million? Force-auctioned by the police and get his part yes, but the whole thing? If no one buys it, the county/city should not and is not forced to buy the plane. This prevents people from going in and buying the plane for less than the judgement against the claim and the victim in this case not getting the full amount she deserves. If no one bids higher than the judgment at the public auction the aircraft is mine. Someone find out where this plane is and pay the measly $10k for it, that'd be a real deal. In fact if I were her I'd buy the plane for whatever the judgement is and try to sell it over eBay. Surely even if scrapped for parts it'd be more than $10k.

By: adamms222

adamms222 — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:32:18 -0800

I assume that simply registering his fax number on the Do Not Call list would not have sufficed?

By: Sheppagus

Sheppagus — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:39:08 -0800

Am I the only one who thinks that this guy's language skills are a little weak for a librarian? No. Am I the only one who thinks it is odd that a librarian doesn't know how to spell Lexis Nexis?

By: caddis

caddis — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:40:33 -0800

I love it when true justice prevails.

By: dios

dios — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:41:04 -0800

Typos? People make them. I type stuff all the time that I butcher. It doesn't mean I don't know it; it just means I make mistakes... like everyone else.

By: scratch

scratch — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:43:02 -0800

Am I the only one who thinks that this guy's language skills are a little weak for a librarian? No. Am I the only one who thinks it is odd that a librarian doesn't know how to spell Lexis Nexis? No and no. In one of my MLIS classes is a woman who says "liberry." /irrelevant

By: Saydur

Saydur — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:45:28 -0800

Well, let's see. It's a corporation successful enough to have over a quarter million dollars in assets, and they're sending out unsolicited faxes. They clearly contacted this librarian, so they were fully aware of the lawsuit and had ample chance to do something about it. They could have settled for $1000 to charity. Most corporations of any size could turn that into a minimal loss with a bit of tax magic. A good cause benefits, the corporation comes off with minimal loss, everyone's happy. They could have shown up. The charge would likely have been $5,000 plus costs, for a grand total of $6,550. By not paying, they get a quarter million dollar plane seized for a $16,000 debt. A charity is going to get a minimum of $16,000, and a maxiumum of whatever they can parlay a quarter million dollar plane into. Best case scenario for the corporation, they get adequate value for the plane, losing $16,000 in the deal and gaining enough in money to replace this transportation. Worst case scenario, they lose a major asset. I'm all for this. The corporation not only was deeply in the wrong (Junk fax, impossible to contact removal number, blew off the case while showing they knew full well about it), and this guy is not making a tidy profit off of the matter. No, it essentially works out that he's doing some pro-bono amateur law work that benefits a worthy charity to the tune of five digits or more. Rarely is it so clear cut who the good guy is, and they win so decisively.

By: Ber

Ber — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:53:32 -0800

I have heard of people doing this before. Supposedly there was a large apartment complex that hosed a law student out his security deposit. He took it to small claims court and worked his way up the ladder. The holding company was so large and hence unorganized no one paid attention to the various summons. The student ended up owning the department. And yeah, I checked Snopes, no urban legend.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:55:08 -0800

Nice. A couple of years ago I started getting job spam faxes every Friday afternoon from some Pinkerton Security rent-a-cop franchise here in New York. I'd call them, they'd promise to stop it, a fax would arrive next week. I finally made a 500 page Word document consisting of an 8" by 10" black rectangle on each page with "stop sending me faxes" in in the middle of the page. It crapped out after about 400 pages and was soon followed by a handwritten, misspelled (natch) single page fax threatening to sue me for "harassing them". The faxes stopped after that.

By: Gamblor

Gamblor — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:58:19 -0800

mkultra, the faxer was probably using his (on paper) corporation as some kind of tax shield/cheat for his property. The brother of a friend of mine used to lease a Ferrari through his company, rather than pay for it himself, since everything was considered pre-tax dollars and it worked out to be much, much cheaper. Why the tax law would be structured that way is another discussion, I suppose. Anyways, the guy should have used separate companies for his faxing and tax avoiding purposes. But then again, he's a douche, so I'm not shedding any tears over his stupidity. btw, I used to work as a librarian in college, and I just spent a lot of time playing minesweeper. In retrospect, I guess I should have been reading legal references instead.

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:18:31 -0800

I checked Snopes, no urban legend. That means they haven't confirmed it either. Just because it's not in Snopes, that doesn't mean it is true!

By: Outlawyr

Outlawyr — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:20:17 -0800

Great link. thanks

By: Mike D

Mike D — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:23:03 -0800

Don't mess with... Conan the Librarian!

By: Mike D

Mike D — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:28:09 -0800

(Link Broken) Alright... let's try this one: Don't mess with... Conan the Librarian!

By: Vulpyne

Vulpyne — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:36:11 -0800

I must voice the question that I'm sure is on all of our minds: Is he a good bellydancer?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:15:06 -0800

His blog, entitled "Right-Wing Librarian". Content predictable. Very, very predictable.

By: aldus_manutius

aldus_manutius — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:24:31 -0800

For those who have commented on the spelling skills of the column and wondering about any librarian who commit them, just remember that Laura Bush went to library school. But the advice still holds: DON'T F**K WITH THE LIBRARIANS (OR THE ARCHIVIST, EITHER)! We have lots of nasty, legal ways of wreaking a karmically-balanced revenge...8-}...

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:10:33 -0800

Nice work!

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:17:38 -0800

lalochezia writes "Because he sent a few faxes? I hate these f**ckers too, but something smacks at me.....it's the proportionality of it....... " Well it's not like these guys were accidentally spamming him and probably 100s of thousands other machines. If they sent out 100,000 junk faxes and each cost the recipent 30 seconds and $0.10 these antisocial leaches cost society 833 man hours and $10,000 of wasted effort. Doesn't seem out of proportion at all They even have the nerve to have a "stop faxing number" and then arrange for it to be permanently busy.

By: 3.2.3

3.2.3 — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:20:15 -0800

His blog somebody please tell him that new times roman scaled at 85% is just plain unreadable. there's a reason for the point sizes.

By: cavalier

cavalier — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:39:04 -0800

Could someone with more time than me make a 'mdoneil' has a posse image with an image of, I don't know, a computer and some books and make the weight something akin to the library of congress? *mentally envisions it* *really imagines it* woOo i'm hip

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:39:13 -0800

I'm just a lowly library technician but my boss - who has an MLS - gets me to check his spelling and grammar all the time. And he needs to. So there!

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:50:11 -0800

I love it!

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800

I'm on the fence about whether this is a hoax or not. One thing that sticks out is that a librarian misspells the online "LexisNexis" as "lexis-nexus" twice in the third paragraph. Librarians and lawyers are reared on that service. A small thing -- but, nonethless stands out for me.

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:58:30 -0800

On preview -- what Sheppagus said up-thread.

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:00:08 -0800

Well folks are going after spammers these days and prevailing in court: Oklahoma Man Wins $10 Million Judgment Against a Spammer

By: exhilaration

exhilaration — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:17:43 -0800

Where the great story??? However in the settlement agreement I was asked not to discuss the particulars of the case. I agreed to remove my previous post WTF?? I wanna read it too!!! Somebody find me a mirror!

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:32:46 -0800

However in the settlement agreement I was asked not to discuss the particulars of the case. I agreed to remove my previous post Another red flag for "hoax." IANAL - what was there to settle. There was a judgment. The others had defaulted and were in contempt of all prior court proceedings. Wouldn't the judge have instructed him that he couldn't talk about the case earlier? Can someone who knows more about these matters clarify?

By: mullacc

mullacc — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:33:12 -0800

I still don't understand where this guy was receiving faxes. Do librarians often have home fax machines? And if this were at an actual library - how could this guy personally sue for something that happened to the library?

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:39:08 -0800

LexisNexis misspelling + webpage disappears on the same day of posting with an excuse of a "gag order" over a supposed settlement + library fax machine/personal lawsuit discrepancy = HOAX. I now vote for HOAX.

By: indifferent

indifferent — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:16:53 -0800

I'm with exhilaration on that one... All I see is a people posting "great job" and "good for you", but not story. Are we just not looking for the story in the right spot?

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:38:07 -0800

Are we just not looking for the story in the right spot? A lengthy web posting -- which was available earlier today and told a story of a librarian's "take down" of a fax spammer -- was replaced this afternoon with the following:

"What was here has been settled. I have entered into an agreement that makes me whole, and provides a charitable donation. However in the settlement agreement I was asked not to discuss the particulars of the case. I agreed to remove my previous post from LISNews as the company could possibly be identified. (even though I left that detail out) I can say that I am more than pleased with the outcome."

By: mullacc

mullacc — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:29:22 -0800

We need Cyrus Farivar on this case.

By: Bighappyfunhouse

Bighappyfunhouse — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:34:01 -0800

Here's a copy of the original post. Here's another "amazing" story he posted. Hoax

By: letitrain

letitrain — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:24:02 -0800

I win!

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:38:23 -0800

Goddammit; my skeptic-sense didn't tingle.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:10:17 -0800

I want to believe! ;)

By: angry modem

angry modem — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:51:54 -0800

His blog, entitled "Right-Wing Librarian". Content predictable. Very, very predictable. posted by dhartung at 2:15 PM CST on October 14 [!] Yeah, because the content on anything left wing isn't predictable at all

By: LittleMissCranky

LittleMissCranky — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:34:18 -0800

Yeah, because the content on anything left wing isn't predictable at all How do you signify an eyeroll in text?

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 08:50:23 -0800

Hmph. Judgments are public records. And any actual reference librarian worth his/her salt would know this.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 08:50:40 -0800

F----? frake you? frock you? foust you? Fax you, evidently.

By: mikewas

mikewas — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:11:42 -0800

For those who have cried hoax, I can tell you this story is not only plausible, it demonstrates the storyteller has actual knowledge of how the court systems in Florida, the junk fax laws, and judgment collection work. (I am a Florida lawyer) As for the person who cried "What is there to settle?" an unsatisfied judgment may be settled in any way the parties agree, especially when executions on property have begun. For those who want to take arms against their junk fax oppressors, note that this is not a typical tale. The largest and most notorious of the junk fax farms are lawyered up; they will come in and make you counter their First Amendment defense; if they lose you'll never collect on the judgment because the company you'll sue won't have any assets. (Unlike these dim-witted defendants) Also note that this guy paid something like $2500 out of pocket before he ever saw a dime, $1800 of that before he got the judgment. So he took a pretty big risk on this, even knowing that the defendant had attachable assets.

By: Jerub

Jerub — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:42:40 -0800

The post has now been removed.