To Be Able to Lose a Reputation, You Have to Have One to Begin With (Part II)


It’s over, it’s over

Roy Orbison, “It’s Over” (1964)

Back in Part I of this post [link] I addressed why, from a statute of limitations standpoint, Our Oaf’s libel claims in his South Carolina lawsuit1 were toast.  Here’s another reason.

In 2015 the Perennial Plaintiff sued in Maryland me and several other decent folks alleging…

you guessed it

…libel.  He complained at the time

Res Judicata - MD Complaint LibelRes Judicata - MD Complaint Libel Damages

As in South Carolina, to borrow a nicely turned phrase, the crux of the biscuit2 of a libel claim is damage to reputation.  Although the 2015 complaint was extraordinarily poorly pled

Gomer Surprise Surprise 800px

it is completely clear that, if for no other reason than from the nature of the claim itself, Bill Schmalfeldt was asserting that he had a reputation that could be damaged at the time- a “good” reputation.  Then came, for some reason3

Res Judicata - MD Complaint Dismissal Order

And there’s those two little words: “with prejudice4“.  Words that have dogged Our Oaf for almost two years now.  Words that, in everywhere but Pretendyland, can be translated, “You’re f*cked.”

In South Carolina, the case Laughon v. O’Braitis5 is about as dispositive as it gets.  On page 527 of the reporter the holding reads as follows.

Obraitis holding

Simply put, the issue of Bill Schmalfeldt’s character and reputation, as those things existed in early 2015, which in a marvelous and brutal coincidence

Hutt Conspiracy

falls right at the start of the limitations period in The Oaf’s current lawsuit, has been already determined as something “necessary to and determined in an adjudication on the merits.”  There’s no reviving that demised nag.  Like Roy said, it’s over.

Magic 8 Ball Pack it all in.png

David Edgren


1 And thus his entire lawsuit, as there are no other claims raised in it which even approach being facially valid.

2Shame on you Nanook

3 We’ll just never know, will we?

4 It is so, so sweet to call to mind that it was Bill Schmalfeldt, apparently prompted by nothing more than (heh!) the desire to relocate to Wisconsin, who inserted those words into the proposed order of dismissal. The court, of course, adopted them.

5 602 SE 2d 108 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004) [link].

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Frank Zappa, Law, Loser, Pretendyland, Stupid and Evil, The Oaf. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to To Be Able to Lose a Reputation, You Have to Have One to Begin With (Part II)

  1. BusPassOffice says:

    A 2 year old running with a bucket on his head has a better legal argument.

    plus it’s much more adorable

    Liked by 3 people

  2. BusPassOffice says:

    dave,

    he actually wrote this week that an opinion that his work is child porn, yep actually wrote that was a protected opinion. he did, on it blog titled pro se.

    I SAY NO SHIT

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Russ says:

    He really ought to learn the difference between “defamation” and “definition.”

    Liked by 4 people

    • agiledog says:

      That requires the ability to learn, something Bill Schmalfeldt has proven he can not do.

      People always make comments with something redacted, in order to not “educate the monkey”. But that is just not possible.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. Ashterah says:

    Gosh. You would think that it was frivolous and an abuse of process for Bill Schmalfeldt to keep suing over the things that he requested dismissed with prejudice. Funny how that happens.

    Liked by 7 people

  5. JeffM says:

    It is always bad to jump to conclusions.

    A plaintiff may sue alleging the same facts as in a suit previously dismissed with prejudice because he is ignorant of what “dismissed with prejudice” means. In short, no education.

    A plaintiff may sue alleging the same facts as in a suit previously dismissed with prejudice because he finds being a vexatious litigant to be fun (until it isn’t). In short, malice.

    A plaintiff may sue alleging the same facts as in a suit previously dismissed with prejudice because he has severe memory problems or is slow in the thought department or is both. In short, idiocy.

    And there may be other possibilities. It would be uncharitable to allege one or more of of them as a fact although people are free to form their opinions.

    Liked by 3 people

    • w says:

      Adding to what JeffM wrote:

      A plaintiff may sue alleging the same facts as in a suit previously dismissed with prejudice because, ‘Maryland.’

      Uh-oh.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Yes, but his contention is that all this will go to trial once he establishes jurisdiction. He says that all of our blogs are pointed to landlords in South Carolina.

    So you can’t be right David, even though, you know, you’re a lawyer and all.

    Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s