Matthew O'Neil, a librarian at Palm Harbor Library in Palm Harbor, Florida, hates junk faxes. He's channeled his disgust for one particular fax blaster into small claims court.
His reward?

Read all about it here...
Update: The author has taken down the post, but I've got it below.
Over the course of the last few months I have 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 is also in my area code. The telephone number is not serviced by the local exchange carrier (Verizon) but a competing local exchange carrier (CLEC)After the first fax on August 7th I called the 'removal' number on the fax but it was busy. I tried about six times but it was always busy. I used nanpa.com to find out who serviced the number and complained to them (the faxer's phone company). The faxes continued. I filed 1 small claims suit against the sender and subpoenaed the records of the CLEC (competing local exchange carrier- the faxer's phone company) they sent me the records within 3 hours of receiving the subpoena. It seems that other had complained about the illegal faxing as well.
When I found out who was really sending the faxes I decided I should use my librarian super powers to find out more about them. I found out that they are incorporated in Florida (using sunbiz.org and lexis-nexus) I found out the corporation holds assets in corporate name. The corporation has only one officer and for some reason he put both an automobile and an aircraft in corporate name (thanks to lexis-nexus). I don't have any idea why he didn't put them in his own name so creditors could not attach them.
So since I knew there were assets to attach I filed one additional small claims action for each illegal fax for a total of ten. The law limits the damages to $500 for each fax sent. However if there is an egregious violation they allow treble damages. So I filed 9 additional small claims actions against the same party- each fax must be a separate action.
The legal requirements were a bit of a pain in the arse, but nothing a librarian couldn't handle. I served the resident agent of the corporation as required. We had a court date scheduled. I went to court and full well expected these geniuses to show up as they called me and asked me to dismiss the suit. I said for $1000 to the Leukemia Society (this is called an offer in compromise). They never called back. Well they never showed up in Court either. In the pre-trial conference I met with the hearing officer and asked for treble damages and costs as I the violations were egregious, I have to change my telephone number, and I had made an offer in compromise to mitigate damages. Well the hearing officer looked at my information and immediately transferred it to the judge. (In Small Claims they try to mediate things rather than punish people). A few days later after the notice of hearing was served upon myself and the registered agent a conference was held with the judge .... Guess who was there! Yep just me and the nice judge.
So the judge and I chatted for ten minutes or so in case they were stuck in traffic, then he tried the removal number on the fax and it was amazingly busy. So the hearing began and I presented all of my evidence and since they were not there they presented none of theirs (a default judgment would have garnered me only minimal damages so I asked to proceed in absentia), The judge asked me a few questions about my fax machine, what kind of toner (I use a roll which is quite expensive as opposed to the new laser faxes) and if I changed my fax number solely because of this.
Then I made a motion to merge all the cases into one hearing (as 10 copies of everything had gone out with the same date and time on them) the judge thought this was just spiffy, as it would save the Court time. I moved for treble damages and noted that their failure to show up after being properly served was contempt for the process and for the Court itself. I figured it would fail and I'd simply get default judgments X 10/ Well it worked. I asked for no stay of the execution beyond statutory requirements and was given that as well.
I figured as the nasty faxers would contact me in the interim, as there is a waiting period before judgments can be enforced. Well they never did. I guess they thought I was joking around.
So Monday I took my paperwork and a check for $800 to the sheriff and asked that they execute the judgment against the company. I asked that they seize a Cessna 340, a Lexus, and cash assets of the defendant. So the sheriff stamped and stapled and filed and collated the paperwork. Today I found out that they have seized the aircraft the corporation owns and will sell it at public auction next month.
I will get my money! The defendant has ignored all of the notices given to him and the time for appeals has passed. If no one bids higher than the judgment at the public auction the aircraft is mine. I was awarded $1500 for each fax, plus filing fees for each case of $155, plus fees for copies, printing, certified mail and the like. The total is $16837.32. I think I'll come out OK since the aircraft is valued at more than a quarter of a million dollars and it is chained to the ground until after the sheriff's sale. Oh, and I get back the $800 I paid the sheriff too.
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!Oh and it is all going to the Leukeima Society less my costs. In fact if they were nice and reading this I would settle for a ckeck for $10K to the Leukemia Society and my costs reimbursed ($10*$155, $800 plus misc postage and copying less than $200)




Comments (15)
Don't EVER mess with the li... (Below threshold)1. Posted by epador | October 14, 2005 3:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Don't EVER mess with the librarian.
1. Posted by epador | October 14, 2005 3:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 14, 2005 15:18
2. Posted by Jim | October 14, 2005 3:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Awesome!
Now if only there could be some way to apply this to those companies that make telephone calls by finding some way around the no-call lists (or simply by ignoring the no-call list).
2. Posted by Jim | October 14, 2005 3:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 14, 2005 15:30
3. Posted by McGehee | October 14, 2005 4:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Okay, I can claim some success at doing the impossible -- like getting the DMV to do right -- but I stand in awe of this story.
3. Posted by McGehee | October 14, 2005 4:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 14, 2005 16:19
4. Posted by BlogDog | October 14, 2005 5:40 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
He seems to have taken the post down. Pity. I would have liked to have seen it.
4. Posted by BlogDog | October 14, 2005 5:40 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 14, 2005 17:40
5. Posted by spurwing plover | October 14, 2005 8:55 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
SKY KING lives and his plane SONGBIRD is flying high
5. Posted by spurwing plover | October 14, 2005 8:55 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 14, 2005 20:55
6. Posted by Jay Tea | October 15, 2005 8:00 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This man is my new hero.
J.
6. Posted by Jay Tea | October 15, 2005 8:00 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 15, 2005 08:00
7. Posted by rayabacus | October 15, 2005 11:33 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is a BIG problem. There is an org I believe that it is junkfax.org or .com, I can't remember. They lay it out for you how to sue fax senders (fax blasters). I have over 200 faxes and I receive more daily that I am just waiting to sue.
The problem is that it takes time to do and I'm so enmeshed in this process called "making a living" that I just don't have the time. I hope to divest myself of some of my responsibilities by the end of the year (sell a business) then, WATCH OUT!! I'm going to go after EVERY ONE of them. I have the faxes, the fax receiving logs and tenacity (I'm pissed) to do it.
7. Posted by rayabacus | October 15, 2005 11:33 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 15, 2005 11:33
8. Posted by Jack | October 15, 2005 10:24 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Is this story true? I can find no independent confirmation of it.
8. Posted by Jack | October 15, 2005 10:24 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 15, 2005 22:24
9. Posted by pennywit | October 16, 2005 6:21 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This would be an excellent use for plaintiff's attorneys, I think ...
--|PW|--
9. Posted by pennywit | October 16, 2005 6:21 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2005 18:21
10. Posted by Sherard | October 17, 2005 7:52 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh, yeah, that's fucking spiffy. Losing a $250,000 plane over fax spam. And people actually applaud this ?? The over-reach of the government, lawyers, and the extremely disgusting litigious nature of this country will bite all you idiots in the ass eventually. I wonder if you'll be lauging or applauding as loudly then.
Morons
10. Posted by Sherard | October 17, 2005 7:52 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2005 07:52
11. Posted by Simon Oliver Lockwood | October 17, 2005 7:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think it's appropriate punishment for egregious jackassery.
11. Posted by Simon Oliver Lockwood | October 17, 2005 7:58 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 17, 2005 19:58
12. Posted by Improbulus Maximus | October 18, 2005 9:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sherard is an idiot whose understanding of civic responsibility is only noteworthy in its utter absence, and his understanding of the law will become brutally clear to him when he ignores a summons to court, and he gets assraped in a default judgment.
12. Posted by Improbulus Maximus | October 18, 2005 9:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 18, 2005 21:13
13. Posted by Salar | October 19, 2005 9:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If you've ever been picked on by a telemarketer, professional spammer etc ~ you'd understand why people would be tickled pink to see the victim get her own back (and then some) from an egregious spammer.
Did seem like too much by way of compensation, but since the usual result, after the lawyers get their cut is ofte not enough to make all the hassle worthwhile ~ maybe this judge was trying to send a message?
13. Posted by Salar | October 19, 2005 9:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 19, 2005 21:57
14. Posted by LibraryLady | November 16, 2005 4:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Very interesting.....
14. Posted by LibraryLady | November 16, 2005 4:59 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 16, 2005 16:59
15. Posted by Bostonian | November 16, 2005 8:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, he's not going to get the airplane. He gets that only if nobody bids higher than the judgement ($16837.32). If nothing else, the current owners will show up & offer at least that much (unless they're very stupid, which is possible).
If the plane is sold for higher than the judgement, I'm sure he gets only the amount of the judgement. The current owners would get the remainder.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's the only way it makes sense to me.
15. Posted by Bostonian | November 16, 2005 8:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 16, 2005 20:09