KardyeWest Sues Boston Card Hunter for Defamation

Hobby drama usually lives and dies in the comments. This one has a cause number.

On September 30, Ryan Hartman, the custom and parody card artist known in the hobby as KardyeWest, notpiggybanx, PiggySpanx, or just "Spanx," filed a defamation lawsuit against Nick Andrews, who publishes as Boston Card Hunter on Instagram, YouTube, X and other platforms. The case is Hartman v. Andrews, filed in Grant Superior Court 1 in Grant County, Indiana, cause number 27D01-2609-CT-000056.

Hartman is representing himself. He signed the complaint, affirmed under the penalties for perjury that it is true "to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief," and asked for a jury.

The four-page complaint makes two claims. The first is about private Instagram messages saying Hartman threatened to kill Andrews' family. The second is about a post on X saying Hartman lost his house to foreclosure. Hartman says both statements are false. Andrews has not answered either claim in court yet, so for now this is one side of the story, and that is how I'm going to treat it.

Claim one: the messages

According to the complaint, in or about late April 2026 Andrews said publicly that someone had called him, identified his name, his address and a member of his family, and threatened to kill him and his family, and that he had called the police.

Then, on or about May 26, the complaint says, Andrews sent Instagram direct messages to a third person, identified in the complaint only by an account handle. The complaint quotes one of those messages, which it says was marked "Edited":

"Spanx called my house and threatened to kill my family. The police are literally watching every single post on IG and tweet. He thinks he was clever blocking caller ID but they are subpoenaing the phone records and he is DONE when they do."

Andrews, as quoted in the complaint, paragraph 7

The complaint doesn't say what was changed in that message, or when.

According to the complaint, Andrews wrote in another message to the same person, sent that same day or in that same period: "Tell him his mistake was using no caller ID and the police are literally watching everything he posts. When the records come back from the carrier he is cooked. I will pursue all civil and criminal avenues to the fullest extent. He will remain blocked forever."

According to the complaint, the person on the other end replied that he "was not aware of that part of the story," and on or about May 26 he sent Hartman screenshots of the conversation.

Hartman denies the accusation. He says he did not call Andrews' house, and he did not threaten to kill Andrews or anyone in Andrews' family. He says Andrews had no evidence tying him to the calls when those messages went out, and that the accusation "rested on timing and suspicion."

The complaint calls this defamation per se. Under Indiana law, a few kinds of statements are treated as damaging on their face, so damages are presumed and the person suing doesn't have to prove a specific dollar loss. Saying someone committed a crime is one of them.

These were private messages to one person, and that can be enough. Defamation doesn't need a big audience, and a false statement made to a single third person can count as publication. The complaint adds that by writing "Tell him," Andrews was directing the accusation to be passed along. Whether the messages were defamatory is for the court to decide.

What Andrews said after

This is the part of the complaint that cuts both ways, and it's in Hartman's own filing.

On or about June 1, the complaint says, Andrews posted a public video in which he identified "Cartier-West [sic], aka Ryan Harman [sic]," said the calls came "very shortly after," said he had told people in direct messages "maybe it's him," said the conduct put "families and kids' lives in danger," and said he would "let the authorities handle this one."

That video is part of the complaint's background. The first claim is based only on the private messages from on or about May 26.

According to the complaint, Hartman emailed Andrews a written demand after that video. The same day, Andrews posted or reposted a follow-up video saying he had "no evidence at this time connecting him to those phone calls" and that connecting Hartman to the calls "wasn't fair at this time." Andrews also wrote that tagging Hartman in the same content as the calls "created an implication" and that he "should have made that distinction clearer." And in a June 1 email, Andrews wrote:

"I do not have evidence connecting you to those calls, and I am not accusing you of making those calls."

Andrews, as quoted in the complaint, paragraph 14

Hartman says that wasn't enough. The complaint argues the later statements were hedged ("at this time") and didn't undo the original messages. It also says, on information and belief, that Andrews' later statements were not sent to the person who got the "Spanx called my house" messages. "On information and belief" is legal language for something a person believes is true but doesn't know firsthand.

The complaint also quotes a separate written message from Andrews, without saying when it was sent or who received it. In it, Andrews said he was speaking "[t]o protect myself from defamation," then wrote that "it seems very likely to be him, but there is a chance it's not," and that "the hobby will find out who it really was soon enough."

Hartman uses that "chance it's not" line, and Andrews' later statement that he had "no evidence" connecting Hartman to the calls, to argue actual malice. In defamation law, actual malice has a narrow meaning: the person knew the statement was false, or seriously doubted it was true and published it anyway. Hartman's argument is that Andrews had no evidence when he sent the messages, and that Andrews' own words show he had those doubts when he sent a flat accusation to a third person.

What the filing does not say is who made the calls Andrews described. It doesn't say whether police identified anyone, whether any phone records were subpoenaed, or what they showed. The first claim turns on a narrower question: whether Andrews told someone that Hartman made those calls, whether that was false, and what Andrews knew or doubted when he said it.

Claim two: the foreclosure post

The second claim goes back to on or about April 16, 2026. According to the complaint, Andrews posted on his X account, @BosCardHunter, naming "KardyeWest" and writing:

"Poor guy lost his house to foreclosure this month - might be a good idea to focus elsewhere in life."

Andrews on X, as quoted in the complaint, paragraph 17

Hartman says that's false. Per the complaint, the property belonged to a family member, it was sold at a sheriff's auction, the interest was divided between Hartman and another relative, and Hartman's name was not on the mortgage. He says he did not lose a house titled in his name to foreclosure in April 2026, and that the post "imputed financial ruin" and hurt his standing in the hobby where he earns a living.

So the complaint itself says a family property was sold at a sheriff's auction. It doesn't say when, or whether the sale followed a foreclosure.

Unlike the first claim, this one is not labeled defamation per se, and it doesn't use the words actual malice. It says the post was made "with the fault required by Indiana law," without describing what Andrews knew about the property when he posted.

The rest of the complaint

A few other things in the filing aren't separate claims, but they're in there, and they describe, from Hartman's side, how heated this got.

On April 16, according to the complaint, Andrews got an outdated photograph from Hartman's Facebook page, which Hartman says hadn't been updated in years, and sent it to Hartman by direct message, writing that he was "just hoping this photo gets posted publicly" and that he would "screenshot immediately." Hartman then posted the photo on his own Instagram story. After Hartman did that, the complaint says, Andrews posted an Instagram story showing the photo and saying he had been hoping Hartman would post it.

The complaint also says Andrews told a public audience he was going to "wreck" Hartman, that he would leave content up "forever," and that viewers should look Hartman up on X and "say hi." It says other people later asked Hartman whether he had threatened Andrews, and that the statements damaged his reputation, hurt him in his trade as a custom card artist, and cost him time and money, along with emotional harm. The complaint doesn't put a dollar figure on any of it.

And it lays out the difference in reach. As of September 29, the complaint says, Andrews' verified Instagram account had about 43,900 followers and a bio describing him as an entrepreneur and vintage sports card and Pokémon collector who exposes hobby scams and does market analysis. Hartman's Instagram had about 1,024.

Where the case stands

As of October 3, the public docket on Indiana's MyCase site lists the complaint, Hartman's appearance form, and a summons for Andrews, file-stamped September 30 and entered on the docket October 1. It does not yet show that Andrews has been served.

Hartman's appearance form says the summons and complaint are going to Andrews through out-of-state service. The complaint says a courtesy copy will also go to Andrews by email, and notes that email is not a substitute for formal service.

Once Andrews is served, the summons tells him how long he has to respond. Under Indiana's trial rules that is generally 20 days, or 23 if the summons arrives by mail, and a defendant can get one automatic 30-day extension by filing a notice on or before the original due date. A defendant who doesn't respond at all risks a default judgment.

Andrews will have options of his own. The complaint already anticipates one fight, which is whether an Indiana court can hear a case against someone the complaint believes lives in Massachusetts. Hartman argues it can, because Andrews aimed the statements at a person he knew lived and worked in Indiana and the harm landed there. Indiana also has an anti-SLAPP law. It lets a person sued over speech on a public issue ask the court to dismiss the case early, but only by showing the speech was made in good faith and with a reasonable basis in law and fact. A defendant who wins that motion recovers reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Whether any of that comes up, and whether it applies here, is up to Andrews' side and the court.

Bottom line

No court has ruled on any of this, and Andrews hasn't told his side to the court yet. The quotes in the complaint come from messages, posts and videos that aren't attached to the four-page filing, so for now they're Hartman's account of what Andrews said.

If the case gets to the merits, the questions are narrow. Did Andrews say these things, in these words, to the people the complaint says he did? Were they false? And what did Andrews know, or doubt, when he said them?

Being accused of threatening to kill someone's family is about as serious as an accusation gets. So is getting a call like the one Andrews says he got.

Whatever you think of either one of these guys, those three questions are what's actually on the table. I'll update this piece if and when Andrews responds in court, and when anything new hits the docket.