Acme Legal Citation Du Jour

@weltschmerz2015|201502091346ZThe Maryland Court of Appeals disagrees.

We observe that by reason of Jacron Sales Co. v. Sindorf, 276 Md. 580, 350 A.2d 688 (1976), much of the distinction or difference between libel per se and libel per quod has in fact disappeared. Under Maryland principles of pleading the same rules continue to apply as to the nature of the libel. That is, if the libel is readily apparent as in the situation where one is called a thief, no explanation is necessary, but in the instances which previously would have been a libel per quod, the nature of the libel must be pleaded with the same particularity as formerly. Since nominal or presumed damages no longer exist, in all libel actions Maryland pleading principles require the same type of pleading as to damages as was formerly necessary in libel per quod.

Metromedia, Inc., etc. v. Hillman, et al., 285 Md. 161, 162-3 (1979). As a result,

it is obvious that it is no longer possible in Maryland to recover damages by simply alleging a libel per se.

Id., 169.

UPDATE—Hillman was a case certified to the Court of Appeals by the U. S. District Court seeking guidance on how to handle a defamation case under Maryland law.

81 thoughts on “Acme Legal Citation Du Jour

  1. “no damages need proven” What about “self inflicted” per se?

    Aaron may need to revise his IQ estmate

      • Pablo, it appears his legal strategy includes holding that info back for the most part. Who would have thought he’d ever hold anything back? hahaha

        …5. …They also cast a false light on SCHMALFELDT by portraying him to the public as a “deranged cyberstalker” and as a villain under any number of appellations as will be disclosed in the course of trial.”

        (emphasis added)

      • I thought the plaintiff had to show there’s merit to their case in the initial filing, rather than claim they’ll come up with something later.

        And if it goes as far as discovery, wouldn’t the first request from the defense be for any and all statements he’ll cite as libel? And wouldn’t failure to produce them then preclude them being raised during any trial?

        IANAL, so I’m likely confusing criminal trial practice with civil, but it seems to me those are pretty basic items that are necessary for a fair trial.

  2. You see, William? Hoge am not law. Law am law.

    Oopsie poopsie.

    Oh, and I was impressed with your courage in calling me out on Twitter, and then blocking me when you got a response that you didn’t like. That was both classy and brave.

    • May I suggest that if you feel the need to run and hide from a humble Zambian female impersonator and gamer geek, perhaps you aren’t built for the rough and tumble of high stakes federal litigation?

      Worth a thought, innit?

  3. “I spent all night creating a forged letter…”

    — William Smellfart, Twitter Attorney at Law, collector of multiple court orders from multiple states for harassment and stalking.

  4. It’s beyond doubt that William is going to withdraw this suit, his second in just nine months (three if you count his hilarious copyright counter-claim) that exists for no reason other than to be mocked. I suppose that he’ll hide behind the fig-leaf that Gail and Dr. Bombay told him too. We’ll also hear self-pitying nonsense about how he wants to spend the little time left to him free of “the hate.”

    At that point, I have a couple of procedural questions.

    1) If William moves to withdraw, could the named defendants move to have the action dismissed with prejudice, even if they haven’t yet been served?

    2) Obviously, a second (or third, depending on how you want to count these things) withdrawn federal action would be used to have him declared a vexatious litigant. But could withdrawn or no-show peace order applications be used as further evidence of bad faith, or do jurisdiction considerations come into play?

    • “… a pattern is developing that should prove an interesting narrative in court.”

      — William Smellfart, Twitter Attorney at Law, collector of multiple court orders from multiple states for harassment and stalking.

    • “freedom of speech for me when it suits my agenda. All other speech is subjected to suppression by me ”

      — William Smellfart, Twitter Attorney at Law, collector of multiple court orders from multiple states for harassment and stalking.

      • But, but …. William says that he suffers “no damage.”

        Could he be lying?

        Hmm, another one for the “sterling character” file.

    • I find it disturbing that the @KUinthegulag got suspended so quickly. It seems odd that with Bill’s abusive history that he has not been permanently banned from Twitter. Yet, Bill seems able to get other people suspended. For some time, I held a suspension that Twitter tends to favor anyone connected to the Terrorist Brett Kimberlin. It’s only a hypothesis but there is evidence that suggest that this might be the case. Also, there is some evidence that Twitter does monitor DM’s. If you get reported and nothing is on your public or private timeline,Twitter may look at your DM’s to determine if they are going to suspend you. How Bill has managed to survive on Twitter for so long may yet come to light. I will be very interested to see if Twitter has been favoring people connected to the Terrorist Brett Kimberlin.

    • hahaha

      Exactly, utahjohnny, like that’s some sort of revelation? Well, I suppose so to someone who has collected multiple restraining/peace orders from multiple states. I won’t be a bit surprised when he adds to his collection.

      In addition to the states, I heard he’s trying for other countries now.

  5. Amazingly, I just re-read William’s hysterical filing. Beginning in paragraph two, there’s a litany of claims of “permanent damage”, yet he claims differently on Twitter.

    It’s clear that he’s lying, the only question is to whom.

    • Not sure that Twitter bravado necessarily negates a legal pleading.

      However, I am forced to bring out one of my trove of pithy sayings: purposeful lying is purposeful.

      Bill isn’t mistaken or ignorant of the law. He must lie to sustain the lawfare and harassment. He cannot then be educated out of whatever position he has taken, because he takes that position in order to deceive.

      Lots of people are taking time to actually look things up and present the cites to BS. Congrats, he is calling the tune on the monkey dance, then.

      He knows that his case has no merit and is fraudulent. And he’s managed to engage a lot of people in his game.

      Yes, he will probably drop his suit or it will be tossed, but he will have wasted your time.

  6. Even if he were correct that libel per se doesn’t need to be proven (I’ll admit to being somewhat surprised by the Maryland decision to the contrary), that doesn’t cure any of the other defects in his filing.

  7. Bill Schmalfeldt has always been a narcissist, has always been creepy, has always been a sociopath, and has always had delusions of grandeur (where even delusions of adequacy would have been him self-overrating himself). He’ll have to (fail)d0x me to figure out how I know this, but I do know. Hint: We’ve met IRL in NYC. Now he’s all the above and a sad, pathetic internet bully who wants to play the victim because he’s been called to task. The cure really is his only option at this point.

    • Good lord.

      The manic phase is interesting, isn’t it? He’s all bluster and confidence right now. It won’t last, and when it ends, the whining and self-pity will be epic.

      • WIMID is my very favorite part of the schmycle, and it’s always greatly enhanced by the braggadocios bravado (BB) of this stage. The BB stage is also where he usually does the most damage to himself, so that’s also pretty FUN to watch. 😉

        WIMID=Woe Is Me I’m Dying


      • Monday = I am the god-king of the universe Bill.
        Tuesday = It’s not harassment, it’s journalism Bill.
        Wednesday = You are all fools, I’ll show you Bill.
        Thursday = You’re killing me Bill.
        Friday = *DARK*
        Weekend = Concern troll Bill (Special matinee)

        • I’m on record as saying that “You’re Killing Me Bill” is my personal favorite. It could only be better if it was actually true.

      • I look forward to the “god-king” Schmalfeldt phase, because it prompts him to spew out absurd legal declarations in tweet after tweet, many of them contradictory within a few moments of each other. He doesn’t care that his legal spewings are worthless, he’s just spewing because he thinks it serves some purpose. Which it kind of does – as entertainment. Popcorn for the masses!

        Not real – Schmalfeldt’s legal spewings
        Real – Judge’s show-cause decision, soon to be issued

      • Well, here ya’ go, Charles:

        43. Every time HOGE has been shot down by legality, he remounts and tries again, with the same result.
        44. For all his court cases against SCHMALFELDT, HOGE has only won arguments where he presented [redacted so as to not include our host’s name alongside malicious allegations]

        I’ve never thought of being “shot down” as the “same result” as “[winning] arguments”.


  8. Always keep that in the back of your mind. For every word you write, YOU are RESPONSIBLE. — Bill Schmalfeldt.

    But since we don’t actually punish people for writing the truth, or opinions — or apparently even perverted fantasies involving Boy Scouts — I figure everything will work out. No reason to make a Federal Case out of everything.

  9. It really is cute how Wee Willy will come peeking out from under his rock just when it looks like Bill might have the sense so admit his lies and push him onto bigger and better lies. Ah, that is what real friendship looks like.

    • Do you think any of Schmalfeldt’s “friends” would be willing to give him a ride to the county lockup?

  10. SHOT:
    Bill Schmalfeldt @weltschmerz2015 · 7m 7 minutes ago
    .@sub_aetha @schmeltdown Meanwhile, they’re congratulating each other over “owning” me. They haven’t touched me.

    Bill Schmalfeldt @weltschmerz2015 · 4m 4 minutes ago
    .@schmeltdown Look, shithead. Either prove something or fuck off. The expert on “me” is “ME!” Not you.

    Getting a mite touchy Bill?

    • .@Twitter @support @KURedux, who you banned as @KUinthegulag who you banned as @Kimberlinunmask is making mock of Twitter TOS.

      SNITCH Schmalfeldt is at it again. As a child, it is clear that he was the neighborhood tattle-tale. No doubt, this is how he earned his so-called LoC…by snitching out his fellow sailors. Lacking the intellectual skills to go at it toe-to-toe, he gratifies his ego by SNITCHing out his betters. His first night in the slammer is going to be a penetrating experience.

      Be careful in the showers, SNITCH! It’s where real justice occurs.


      • Heh. Three hours after I was locked up and processed in, I was in the hole for a week. The fellow that touched me was in the hospital and on release was transported to a different facility. Kind of impressive what a lock in a sock can do to a fellows face …

  11. On an unrelated note …

    Bill Schmalfeldt
    .@Twitter @support @KURedux, who you banned as @KUinthegulag who you banned as @Kimberlinunmask is making mock of Twitter TOS.
    0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    4:49 PM – 9 Feb 2015


  12. To Cabin Boy’s credit, at least he’s dumped Kimberlin’s hilarious assertion that libel per se meant he didn’t have to prove falsity …

    • The short list:

    • Bill Schmalfeldt @weltschmerz2015

      My “reputation” on the “webz” is a total fabrication. It bears no resemblance to the facts or my actual life. But, GOSH, pretending is FUN!

  13. Bill Schmalfeldt @weltschmerz2015 · 24m 24 minutes ago

    “I am willing to bet real money that Krendler turns out to be some 22-year old virgin with a pizza face complexion. Takers?”

    That’s gonna be a neat trick being that you are appearing before a federal court in forma pauperis…….

      • Oh, but William was offering such generou$, graciou$, reward$ for identitie$, about which he was either lying, or is evidence of a fraud on the court.

    • I’ve never met Paul, but I’d take that bet for $100, since I’m pretty sure the odds of losing it are really, really tiny.

      However, even if Billy Boy is willing to “bet real money”, it’s pointless since he’s not going to pierce Krendler’s anonymity. (And if he ever did, somehow, I don’t see Gail being willing to open the purse strings for such idiocy on her husband’s part.)

Leave a Reply