There are obviously differences of opinion with respect to how the fiasco with Martin Pieters should have been handled. Some of these different opinions come from people I know and respect. I am interested in quantifying what others think.

Question:
What was the proper course of action to handle the situation with Martin Pieters Safaris?

Choices:
File a law suit
Do nothing
Attempt to resolve it privately
File public reports

 

. . . what, no option for trial by blog site . . . fair enough, I guess file a public report is synonymous to some with trial by blog site.

I voted File a report.

After all..there is a whole company based around just that The Hunting Report "a newsletter Serving the Hunter Who Travels"

...and viewed by many as a must have for pre hunt research...

Larry,

I find these polls so impersonal.

It is not for us to handle this fiasco but rather Martin to set things right with the complainant.

In my hunting history I have never had a complaint but if and when I do I would not want it subjected to an AR poll.

Andrew:

My entire purpose of this poll is to quantify what people think. There are a hell of a lot of different opinions. This poll has nothing to do with whether Martin was right or wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Andrew:

My entire purpose of this poll is to quantify what people think. There are a hell of a lot of different opinions. This poll has nothing to do with whether Martin was right or wrong.

Got you.

I voted "d" because it is obvious that private negotiations are worthless with someone who would do this to start with, whose word is worth zilch. Lawsuit wouldn't do any good because results are not enforceable in Zim.

"D", hopefully does serious damage to his business.

I would think (and to some extent it sounds like it was tried and fell apart) to try and deal with it privately.

If that fails, then one moves to either legal or public statements.

If an outfit makes a substantial mark up, then they deserve to take the risk, imo, that they may have to pay a bunch to make it right if something goes sideways...

To many, as in most, African operators think they can screw foreigners with impunity. A public shit storm is about the only thing they respond to. Filing a law suit in a foreign country is a PITA and for most not feasible due to the logistics involved.

I'll tell you this. Martin is off my list permanently. I appreciate the heads up on this dirtbag POS. I can tolerate a mistake. Stuff happens, but I have absoloutley zero tolerance for a mistake that isn't corrected to my satisfaction.

I was contacted last weekend as a reference for a well known outfitter. I listened and felt the prospective clients might be a problem. These prospective clients met with this outfitter at SCI. He had the same opinion as I did . He would not give them the deal they sought. They signed up with Martin I am told. They might have an entertaining experience.

I have to say I am a bit surprised at the results thus far.

To those advocating litigation, have you ever sued anyone? Have you ever sued anyone in a foreign country?

I voted to Post a hunt report, but really, the proper thing would be to try and work it out privately first. Then your hunt report can reflect what the outfitter did/didn't do to rectify the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

To thus advocating litigation, have you ever sued anyone? Have you ever sued anyone in a foreign country?

. . . as they say a fool and his money are soon parted.

Taking someone to civil court in a different country is only for those of you that have enough money that you can push forward with your principals and not worry about financial ruin.

You are subject to another countries rules as well as possibly you own country of residences legal system. You need a lawyer state side and another in the other country.............it is very complicated and costly and often ends in a less than desirable outcome.

For guys like me it is not even remotely an option. You either try and sort it out privately or lick your wounds and learn from the experience.

I think the reason Jines is taking the tact he has is because he is a fairly well respected barrister and has seen the human side of things............they lie and at best color things to put themselves in a better light.

I have always found that the truth in most of these internet kangaroo courts very much falls in the middle and that the complainants are usually not telling the whole truth and the same can be said for the accused outfitter.

Absolutely not doubt in my mind that hunters resort to this sort of thing to inflict damage to an outfitters reputation and hopefully affect them financially through loss of business. If deserved, I do not see that as an issue as a court case can do the same thing,as can the reporting of a court case.

The damage is done by the inference and follow-up rarely occurs. Having said that the damage is limited by the nature of the coverage it gets. In this instance it is social media via a forum.

Contrary to the belief held by many on here..........most of the hunting world has no bloody idea what AR is, or any other "hunting" forum for that matter. I know most of my clients use forums very little or not at all........heavy on the not at all.

Myself, well I place about zero weight to this whole topic. I have seen hunters that were complete assholes and lied through their teeth about everything............and outfitters who did the same thing. In the end I rely on my own due diligence and word of mouth from people I know and trust. I just shake my head at these pissing contests on the internet because I think in the end they do all involved a disservice.

Larry,

The poll only allows one answer be chosen. I would actually vote the last two choices.

I think an attempt should always be made to directly resolve issues both during a hunt and after if needed. I also would not hesitate to give an honest representation of the issue here on AR even though some posters would immediately define the action with their own myopic psychic viewpoint.

Cheers
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:

I have always found that the truth in most of these internet kangaroo courts very much falls in the middle and that the complainants are usually not telling the whole truth and the same can be said for the accused outfitter.

Absolutely not doubt in my mind that hunters resort to this sort of thing to inflict damage to an outfitters reputation and hopefully affect them financially through loss of business. If deserved, I do not see that as an issue as a court case can do the same thing,as can the reporting of a court case.

The damage is done by the inference and follow-up rarely occurs. Having said that the damage is limited by the nature of the coverage it gets. In this instance it is social media via a forum.

Contrary to the belief held by many on here..........most of the hunting world has no bloody idea what AR is, or any other "hunting" forum for that matter. I know most of my clients use forums very little or not at all........heavy on the not at all.

Myself, well I place about zero weight to this whole topic. I have seen hunters that were complete assholes and lied through their teeth about everything............and outfitters who did the same thing. In the end I rely on my own due diligence and word of mouth from people I know and trust. I just shake my head at these pissing contests on the internet because I think in the end they do all involved a disservice.

I guess what I find so objectionable about threads like the one in question is that they seem to evoke a sort of mob mentality. And that has gotten worse not better over the last few years. Someone comes in, throws a turd in the punchbowl and everyone lines up for a big glass of punch. Facts be damned. Motive be damned. Everyone hears a snippet of one side of the story and they immediately infer that they know the entire story and start calling for a rope or a pot of boiling oil. And anyone standing in the way of the mob better be careful too . . . once the mob gets its blood up they are ready to hang anyone else that gets in the way. As you so rightly point out nine times out of ten, the true facts are going to fall somewhere in the middle and the Internet is never going to bring out the true facts. We now return you to your regularly scheduled lynching.

quote:

Everyone hears a snippet of one side of the story and they immediately infer that they know the entire story and start calling for a rope or a pot of boiling oil. And anyone standing in the way of the mob better be careful too .

You seem to be convienetly overlooking the fact that Pieters replied several times with his side of the story and it didn't wash.

It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

quote:

the true facts are going to fall somewhere in the middle and the Internet is never going to bring out the true facts.

Mike:
You are correct, but what is the alternative? I think most agree that one can't file suit in Zim. It is clear Peters won't work to resolve the issue--he will keep the money. So, other than the imperfect internet forums, is there another alternative? I, for one, appreciate being informed on matters such as this. Years ago Martain asked me to hunt with him and bring my .600. My plans were set prior and I never thought about it. Now, I will think about it and decline.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?

Perhaps that's worth more then any collectable judgment.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?

Perhaps that's worth more then any collectable judgment.

. . . so you are right back to suing on principle just like Skyline said. Got more money than sense, go for it.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?

Now there's a great business plan.

Fail to deliver as promised, get sued, and then stop attending shows limiting an avenue to book more hunts.

Are you serious?

Certainly takes more money than brains to sue and expect to be made whole but it takes more poor business sense than brains to market hunts on an internet forum and later not adequately attempt to placate the needs of a client, but instead just "disappear and wait for things to blow over".

Two equally foolish plans.

Bottom line is there are operators who have a nearly immacualte track record (e.g. CMS) and there are others-like MP. His defenders are easy to spot but I appreciate AR exactly for that visibility. Even if it concerns one of its historic celebrities.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?

Now there's a great business plan.

Fail to deliver as promised, get sued, and then stop attending shows limiting an avenue to book more hunts.

Are you serious?

Certainly takes more money than brains to sue and expect to be made whole but it takes more poor business sense than brains to market hunts on an internet forum and later not adequately attempt to placate the needs of a client, but instead just "disappear and wait for things to blow over".

Two equally foolish plans.

Look who is getting snippy now . . .

I guess you had not noticed that there are hunting shows all over the world, like the one in Dortmund currently. Many outfitters have never shown at SCI or DSC and do just fine with bookings in Europe and elsewhere. Also, plenty of outfitters use agents so there is no need for them to attend the shows. So, yes, I am serious. Besides, a judgment, with no ability to attach assets, leaves you with . . . a judgment. Come to the shows, let them serve you at the shows, fail to answer, let them get a judgment . . . they can have your booth at the next show. Just have the client wire the money after the show.

Suing an overseas outfitter over a hunt is a fool's errand.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:

I have always found that the truth in most of these internet kangaroo courts very much falls in the middle and that the complainants are usually not telling the whole truth and the same can be said for the accused outfitter.

Absolutely not doubt in my mind that hunters resort to this sort of thing to inflict damage to an outfitters reputation and hopefully affect them financially through loss of business. If deserved, I do not see that as an issue as a court case can do the same thing,as can the reporting of a court case.

The damage is done by the inference and follow-up rarely occurs. Having said that the damage is limited by the nature of the coverage it gets. In this instance it is social media via a forum.

Contrary to the belief held by many on here..........most of the hunting world has no bloody idea what AR is, or any other "hunting" forum for that matter. I know most of my clients use forums very little or not at all........heavy on the not at all.

Myself, well I place about zero weight to this whole topic. I have seen hunters that were complete assholes and lied through their teeth about everything............and outfitters who did the same thing. In the end I rely on my own due diligence and word of mouth from people I know and trust. I just shake my head at these pissing contests on the internet because I think in the end they do all involved a disservice.

I guess what I find so objectionable about threads like the one in question is that they seem to evoke a sort of mob mentality. And that has gotten worse not better over the last few years. Someone comes in, throws a turd in the punchbowl and everyone lines up for a big glass of punch. Facts be damned. Motive be damned. Everyone hears a snippet of one side of the story and they immediately infer that they know the entire story and start calling for a rope or a pot of boiling oil. And anyone standing in the way of the mob better be careful too . . . once the mob gets its blood up they are ready to hang anyone else that gets in the way. As you so rightly point out nine times out of ten, the true facts are going to fall somewhere in the middle and the Internet is never going to bring out the true facts. We now return you to your regularly scheduled lynching.

Perhaps you are right. However, look at the different reaction to the MP thread versus the elephant hunt gone wrong thread where the PH misjudged the elephant. Yes, MP is taking a beating here. The client who clearly thought he was going to extract revenge on the PH took a serious beating in the other. Does the mod always pile on or do they look at the facts?

Personally, I am torn. How else do we as clients find out about problems unless candid reports are filed? I would completely ignore the complaints of the client in the elephant hunt gone wrong thread. That guy is just wrong. I am being polite.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?[/QUOTE

Which he in fact did when he was subject to a certain frivolous lawsuit which for the record he got out of without paying a single cent in damages.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?

Now there's a great business plan.

Fail to deliver as promised, get sued, and then stop attending shows limiting an avenue to book more hunts.

Are you serious?

Certainly takes more money than brains to sue and expect to be made whole but it takes more poor business sense than brains to market hunts on an internet forum and later not adequately attempt to placate the needs of a client, but instead just "disappear and wait for things to blow over".

Two equally foolish plans.

Look who is getting snippy now . . .

I guess you had not noticed that there are hunting shows all over the world, like the one in Dortmund currently. Many outfitters have never shown at SCI or DSC and do just fine with bookings in Europe and elsewhere. Also, plenty of outfitters use agents so there is no need for them to attend the shows. So, yes, I am serious. Besides, a judgment, with no ability to attach assets, leaves you with . . . a judgment. Come to the shows, let them serve you at the shows, fail to answer, let them get a judgment . . . they can have your booth at the next show. Just have the client wire the money after the show.

Suing an overseas outfitter over a hunt is a fool's errand.

Well now, back to the frivolous lawsuit previously mentioned. Jerome the owner of Africa Hunting. Com was in the same frivolous lawsuit. He did not respond. He got an $850,000 judgment against him. Guess what? They have not been able to collect a single cent of that judgment and they never will. Years have passed.

Respectfully, no one including MP has disputed they paid for one area and got sent to another. That is enough for me.

How to keep it from happening in the future escrow trophy fees, an actual contract with a jurisdiction clause that a U.S Court and case law is binding on the contract and specifically stating the area/concession to be hunted with changes only being made in writing by outfitter and client. Make the trophy fees and the arrogate of the daily rate liquidated damages per the contract. Then, it is on the client not to accept a change not in writing.

If someone expects me to pay thousands of dollars, then they are going to at least have me in the spot we agreed on. Most hunts are booked at conventions here in the U.S. Guess what that establishes jurisdiction in the US in federal district court where the booking is made. If the booking is in deed a contract. This assumes the parties do not choose a venue and jurisdiction in the contract.

Will a good contract stop a bad actor; no.

However, good men are not afraid to shift/share the risk. MP might be a foreign entity, but he is conducting business and making contracts when he is booking hunts in Dallas or Vages.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?

Now there's a great business plan.

Fail to deliver as promised, get sued, and then stop attending shows limiting an avenue to book more hunts.

Are you serious?

Certainly takes more money than brains to sue and expect to be made whole but it takes more poor business sense than brains to market hunts on an internet forum and later not adequately attempt to placate the needs of a client, but instead just "disappear and wait for things to blow over".

Two equally foolish plans.

Look who is getting snippy now . . .

I guess you had not noticed that there are hunting shows all over the world, like the one in Dortmund currently. Many outfitters have never shown at SCI or DSC and do just fine with bookings in Europe and elsewhere. Also, plenty of outfitters use agents so there is no need for them to attend the shows. So, yes, I am serious. Besides, a judgment, with no ability to attach assets, leaves you with . . . a judgment. Come to the shows, let them serve you at the shows, fail to answer, let them get a judgment . . . they can have your booth at the next show. Just have the client wire the money after the show.

Suing an overseas outfitter over a hunt is a fool's errand.

Well now, back to the frivolous lawsuit previously mentioned. Jerome the owner of Africa Hunting. Com was in the same frivolous lawsuit. He did not respond. He got an $850,000 judgment against him. Guess what? They have not been able to collect a single cent of that judgment and they never will. Years have passed.

Bingo. To win a lawsuit you have to prove liability and damages . . . many cases are lost because liability is shown and no damages are proven or vice versa. But more importantly if you are looking for something other than a moral victory, you have to show liability, damages and have to be able to collect the damages. Sue an insolvent company, prove liability and damages, you can frame the judgment and look at it with satisfaction every day. Sue an outfitter that does not have assets in the US, prove liability and damages, you can hang that framed judgment right next to the other one in your collection.

I suppose first step is try to solve it privately.

But, in this case we see that has failed.

Next step is what one might find more in his favour, and as it involves at least three countries, the likelihood of anything positive coming out of any legal fight does not exists, next step is make sure that no other client falls into the same trap again.

Which in turn puts the outfitters - in this case, both of them - on the black list.

Martin seems to have been taken for a ride.

But, I also suspect, from what has been posted, that he and his second PH were willing to break the law by guiding in another country where they were not licensed.

I am getting this impression from what has been posted as they requested additional rifles for themselves to us.

Martin can put all this to rest, if he can negate what the client has written, by producing the relevant documents.

Again, each of us forms his own opinion based on what is posted, and the above is what I can see.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I suppose first step is try to solve it privately.

But, in this case we see that has failed.

Next step is what one might find more in his favour, and as it involves at least three countries, the likelihood of anything positive coming out of any legal fight does not exists, next step is make sure that no other client falls into the same trap again.

Which in turn puts the outfitters - in this case, both of them - on the black list.

Martin seems to have been taken for a ride.

But, I also suspect, from what has been posted, that he and his second PH were willing to break the law by guiding in another country where they were not licensed.

I am getting this impression from what has been posted as they requested additional rifles for themselves to us.

Martin can put all this to rest, if he can negate what the client has written, by producing the relevant documents.

Again, each of us forms his own opinion based on what is posted, and the above is what I can see.

+1

As long as the public reports are totally factual, I see nothing wrong with that.

However, I understand in some countries you can be sued for posting something negative (even if true) about a person or corporation if they can show some type of damages like loss of income.

So be careful.

Just saying.

BH63

Privately, but it that fails, go public.

Sauce for the outfitter is sauce for the client.

Pound sterling or pound of flesh.

Your choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
Privately, but it that fails, go public.

Sauce for the outfitter is sauce for the client.

Pound sterling or pound of flesh.

Your choice.

Which ultimately puts everyone on notice no get involved in this sort of avoidable shinanigans!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

If he has a judgment against him and he comes to the states and you (or your attorney) notify the correct authorities...it could be collected. Martin does come to the states and it is fairly public knowledge...thus possible.

I voted resolve privately though.

If that did not work...I probably would have done what Chris did.

Lawsuits are a crapshoot and expensive.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

If he has a judgment against him and he comes to the states and you (or your attorney) notify the correct authorities...it could be collected. Martin does come to the states and it is fairly public knowledge...thus possible.

Getting personal jurisdiction over someone does not give you access to their assets overseas. Sure, someone could be served at the shows . . . assuming they were stupid enough to continue coming to the shows with the lawsuit pending . . . but even if you did serve them and get a default judgment that is not going to give you jurisdiction over their assets, accounts, etc. not in the US. You would have to get an order here then get an order from a court in the country where the assets are located accepting the US order and allowing assets to be seized to satisfy the judgment. Want an idea of how good such a lawsuit would be . . . take it to a contingent fee lawyer and see if you can get them to take the case on a contingent fee . . . if you can get an answer out of them despite the laughter.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

If he has a judgment against him and he comes to the states and you (or your attorney) notify the correct authorities...it could be collected. Martin does come to the states and it is fairly public knowledge...thus possible.

Getting personal jurisdiction over someone does not give you access to their assets overseas. Sure, someone could be served at the shows . . . assuming they were stupid enough to continue coming to the shows with the lawsuit pending . . . but even if you did serve them and get a default judgment that is not going to give you jurisdiction over their assets, accounts, etc. not in the US. You would have to get an order here then get an order from a court in the country where the assets are located accepting the US order and allowing assets to be seized to satisfy the judgment. Want an idea of how good such a lawsuit would be . . . take it to a contingent fee lawyer and see if you can get them to take the case on a contingent fee . . . if you can get an answer out of them despite the laughter.

Agreed...but it still can be accomplished. I know from experience. With a judgement...they can be held in- country until they wire funds...or make other arrangements to pay. But you are correct...they would be smart to stay out of country...then you would be screwed for sure.

I am agreeing with you that it is a long-shot...but if your goal is retribution...it can change their life.