‘Tis a Puzzlement

When Person A knowingly makes a false statement against Person B (or refuses to retract or correct a mistaken statement) and when the result is damage to B’s reputation, A has committed the tort of defamation. B has grounds to sue A.

However, if A’s credibility is such that no one believes him, then he can’t really cause damage to B. We have the inverse of the situation of a bad reputation making someone defamation-proof, so is A really incapable of committing defamation even if he tries?


41 thoughts on “‘Tis a Puzzlement

  1. No, person A can still defame another. Someone out there will believe A. For example, if someone in Alabama repeatedly accuses B of never having applied for non profit status for an organization, accuses him of fraud, and these accusations are not only false but unsupported, and A refuses to retract/correct the record, then he defamed B, even though A is well known as a hack with a guinea pig fetish that only other moral reprobates take seriously.

  2. I don’t think “consider the source” is an effective defense against defamation. But the size of the audience could be. If, hypothetically, person A is calling person B a lying, dishonorable, vile, vexatious, poop-flaked moron while wrapped in an extra-long-sleeved jacket in a soundproof room at Spring Grove where he belongs, that probably isn’t defamation, either.

    And I guess being stuck in the Internet equivalent, as person B hypothetically is, also doesn’t really rise to defamation.

    C’est la vie.

    • I’m inclined to ask for some sort of proof of this particular allegation, considering how well Schmalfeldt is known for lying. However to do so would simply result in being called a “troll” and then subsequently ignored by him.

      Leftist means no matter how many lies you have been caught in you never have to provide proof in order to be believed by your fellow travelers.

      • Bill’s “proof”.

        – Kimberlin’s wife left him, so that makes her crazy in Bill’s book ’cause Brett is his “most excellent” friend and no sane person would run away from him.

        -Hoge and others set up a fund for her various legal bills, that, in Bill’s small mind is “paying her”.

        -And since she allegedly has a boyfriend. QED, John paid for that.

        • The tiny bomber’s such an “excellent friend,” that he abandons William every time that it appears that might no longer be his useful idiot.

          How lonely must that man be? Gail verbally abuses him for being a weeping woman, Brett slams the door in his face regularly, and he keeps going back to both.

      • Lying under oath about material facts is considered, in most civilized realms, perjury.

        I’m sure that William will clear up any misunderstandings soon enough.

    • I must object to several false premises smuggled into this claim by Bill Schmalfeldt. The first is that the person in question is in fact “disturbed.” The second is that “disturbed” people are not entitled to leave abusive relationships. The third is that when someone in an abusive relationship decides to move on she is morally obligated to be celibate until a divorce decree. The fourth is that it is immoral to help a women move on with her life if she has moved on sexually. The fifth is presuming that charitable acts have ulterior motives. Finally, I must strenuously object to the premise that Bill Schmalfeldt has any standing to pass moral judgments upon others.

  3. You know, when I was in school, I was part of some drug studies that the Pharmacology Dept. was conducting. They’d give you the meds take some blood, conduct some balance and cognitive test. Repeat in an hour for the rest of the day.


    • You are deserving of recognition of your moral superiority, only if in addition to participation in the study, you betrayed your brother and had sex with his girlfriend. If you didn’t, you’re not in the running for the title.

      • Damn. My brother doesn’t have a girlfriend.

        But what about all “I accomplished”!?. After all, I sat there while people who knew what they were doing poked and prodded me. Isn’t that an accomplishment?

      • It’s not dice, A Reader#1. It’s more like poker with a twist: The “Hoges” are wild. One Hoge cancels 3 “I’s” unless “I’s” total more than three times the “my’s” and “me’s”, in which case, one Hoge cancels 5 “I’s”. Winner is the player whose hand consists of only 3 Hoges.

  4. I have totally lost track. Has person A dressed as a Federal Officer with a teenager beard, written about making inadvertent biggies, or both. Or neither? I think Team Kimberlin’s legal division (as opposed to the illegal division) Acme Law would consider dishonesty a defense against defamation. But they think butthurt is a tort.

  5. Of course, what Bill isn’t telling people is that DBS has been around since the early to mid 90s, this study was only to determine the efficacy of DBS on newly-diagnosed disease sufferers (the current standard is for PD sufferers who are no longer responding to the medicaions). IIRC, there are over 10,000 DBS surgeries done every year.

  6. If BS is back out on the attack, it is at his master’s behest. Trying to provoke, draw a charge. There is no truth, purposeful lying is purposeful.

    Set phasers to ignore.

  7. Well, some statements would be libel per se, and regardless of person’s A reputation, it would be actionable.

    Just sayin’.

  8. https://twitter.com/ParkinsonsHumor/status/513821068960624640

    Well, William, did you not actually attempt, albeit clumsily and with less than requisite level of legal literacy, to initiate libel proceedings based on an allegation of homosexual incest that no one actually made?

    Just because you don’t read your own court filings doesn’t mean that everyone else hasn’t. And do forgive me if I take the legal analysis of someone who misspelled his own name in his pleadings less than seriously.

  9. Occupy Parkinson’s @ParkinsonsHumor · 27s
    So, yeah. They do thousands of these every year. But the procedure is NOT approved by the FDA for early PD. Thanks to Vandy and the study?

    And then follows a Feldtdown as he tries to run around the fact that he lied about this “experimental” surgery.

  10. Perhaps William will grow a set an unequivocally state for the record that

    a) John committed perjury.
    b) His former attorney corruptly used family influence in a legal proceeding.
    c) He paid Kimberlin’s wife to cheat on the dwarf.

    It should be amusing.

    • And he dances so beautifully!

      Occupy Parkinson’s @ParkinsonsHumor · 2m
      In order to satisfy a request from Kneel and Bob, yes. I believe John committed perjury. More than once.

      Occupy Parkinson’s @ParkinsonsHumor · 1m
      Answer the second: Yes, I suspect ormer attorney corruptly used family influence in a legal proceeding.
      ReplyReplied to 0 times RetweetRetweeted 0 times FavoriteFavorited 0 times

      Occupy Parkinson’s @ParkinsonsHumor · 40s
      Answer the final: I don’t know any dwarves. However, I do believe it was part of the SCHEEEEEEEME to pay Mrs. K to lie and to support her.
      ReplyReplied to 0 times RetweetRetweeted 0 times FavoriteFavorited 0 times

      Occupy Parkinson’s @ParkinsonsHumor · 2m
      All three stated as a matter of opinion, not fact. It would be folly to make a defamatory declaration about someone without proof, right?
      ReplyReplied to 0 times RetweetRetweeted 0 times FavoriteFavorited 0 times

Leave a Reply