Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh verse, same as the first
A little bit louder, and a little bit worse
Herman’s Hermits, “I’m Henry the Eighth I Am” (1965)
An Oaf is suing a number of good folks for libel. He’s suing in federal court in South Carolina, but the court there will apply that state’s law as no federal claims are raised in the Pachydermic Plaintiff’s complaint, which contends:
Now, lets assume for the sake of argument that the law cited here is correct1. It seems pretty clear to this observer that even the Ponderous Petitioner can identify from this statute the three elements necessary for a successful libel claim: intention, publication and damage to character or reputation. And he clearly thinks he’s got ’em all.
Let’s see, that looks like intention and publication, aaaaaaaaand
Yep, there’s damage to character or reputation.
In Pretendyland, anyway.
Now let’s step back in time. To 2014.
Whoa! Wait a minute. 2014. Hmmmm. That was sure a long time ago. In fact, without looking too hard, one can find claims by Our Oaf that his reputation has been destroyed by us evil people that date back close to five years.
Libel laws, unfortunately for Bill, aren’t the only thing the South Carolina legislature has been busy passing. There’s this gem at SC Code § 15-3-550 (2013).
So, although not made explicit in the complaint2, what is being alleged is that the various defendants committed their libelous acts from the spring of 2015 on. Anything done before that time cannot, by South Carolina law, be taken into account by the court.
Once again, though, the Barrel-shaped Barrister sees only what he wants to see. He sees what people wrote. And he sees that his reputation is ruined. What he misses, though, is that in order for there to be a determination that a given act was libel, all of these events must fall within the limitations period. In other words, if his reputation was, by his own admission, “trashed” and thus ruined in 2014, a statement published by any of the defendants from the spring of 2015 on isn’t a basis for the court to find anything.
As the plaintiff, The Oaf will have the burden of proving that he had a reputation that could be damaged in the first months of 2015. If this case would ever make it to a trial3 before the jury- a jury that he requested- beyond his admissions that his reputation was already ruined before that time4 can you imagine what conclusions that jury will draw about Bill Schmalfeldt’s pre-2015 reputation in the community- any community- after it has had a trial day full of such highlights as listening to Bill’s “comedy stylings” about Scouts, anal sex, coprophilia, and the like? My guess is that he is going to find out that his peers aren’t going to like those things very much.
If that isn’t bad enough, there’s another good reason having to do with The Oaf’s claims that this case is DOA, in this instance probably by motion for summary judgment. This post has run long, though, so you’ll have to wait ’til tomorrow for that. Like I said- stay tuned.
David Edgren
1 A precarious assumption at best, but sometimes you just go with what you got. In any event, this is what The Oaf believes the law to be in connection with the claims he’s raising. Stay tuned.
2 Pretty much nothing is made explicit in The Oaf’s complaint, which is about as poorly pled as it gets. It cannot be excused by saying, “Well, it’s a typical pro se filing.” Bill Schmalfeldt has had a lot of practice at this, folks, and it is apparent he has learned absolutely nothing from the experience.
3 We’ve covered this before. This case will not make it to trial. But, after all, one of the parties does hail from Pretendyland, so lets indulge him a bit.
4 The Oaf might want to read up on the “admission against interest” hearsay exception. Just sayin’.
August 6, 2013 is an amusing date.
LikeLiked by 3 people
May 18, 2012 is, as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oopsie poopsie!
LikeLiked by 3 people
He may in fact have some evidence of falsity, but I very much doubt that he can can come up with actual proof of all his claims. I can’t be bothered to re-read his complaint to be sure, but my recollection is that there is evidence -that he published himself- for the things said about him. That throws reckless disregard out the window, So even if he can actually prove falsity, he will also have to prove that the defendants were also in possession of said proof at the time of the allegedly defamatory statements.
Oopsie poopsie!
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s the “comedy stylings” that will assuredly do him in, in the alternative universe in which this thing makes it to trial.
LikeLiked by 5 people
This is the universe where South Carolina law applies itself retroactively to things that had nothing to with South Carolina nor anyone who lived there, right?
LikeLiked by 3 people
In Pretendyland, you don’t have to be a resident at the time of offense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If you wrote the things that ruined my rep, YOU ruined my rep. Not me.”
Oh, DUMBFUCK, you’ve forgotten one of the internet’s truest truisms: “All that is necessary to discredit Bill Schmalfeldt is to quote Bill Schmalfeldt.” You know, like Popehat did so beautifully.
YOU wrote and did the things that ruined your reputation, and you’ve been writing and doing them for many years. Others simply wrote about them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Fununny how he never sued Popehat, and Popehat has a much, much, wider audience than probably all the Lickspittles combined.
LikeLiked by 6 people
He could be joined by the defense as a necessary party.
That’d be hilarious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also funny is that the aforementioned post (on the miniscule chance that LOLSuit VIII ever sees the inside of a courtroom) is coming into evidence as proof of the state of DUMBFUCK’s prior reputation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Exactly. He wrote the things that ruined his rep; we just happened to notice. “As (his) tender anal tissues can attest.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Twitter Attorney at Law just cant help himself!! He MUST
LikeLiked by 1 person
………post his legal strategy for all to see. In his mind, Twitter Court is where his battles MUST be fought and won. Pathetic
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can one ruin a poor reputation?
Seems Cousin Bill has had such a reputation for decades…
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Stop saying nice things about me–you’re gonna ruin my poor reputation!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: To Be Able to Lose a Reputation, You Have to Have One to Begin With (Part II) | The Artisan Craft Blog — Dave Alexander & Company with David Edgren and Gus Bailey