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