Legal LULZ Du Jour

Over at whatever he’s calling his blog du jour (No, I won’t link to it.), the Cabin Boy™ is spouting his theory that if someone hasn’t been convicted of the crime of X, one can’t refer to that person as an Xer. Thus, under his theory, the San Bernardino shooters can’t be called murderers because they never stood trial.

Uh, huh.

The Cabin Boy™ thinks that it’s defamatory to refer to him as a cyberstalker. Here’s a definition of the term as it is used in common speaking and writing from the dictionary widget provided with Mac OS X.Cyberstalkinggas_stove_burner_s1If the Cabin Boy™ believes that he can prove it’s false to say that he has repeatedly used electronic communications to harass or frighten someone, I hereby offer to testify on behalf of any defendant (at my own expense), and I can provide copies of hundreds of harassing tweets which the Cabin Boy™ has sent me and which he has previously authenticated in open court.

UPDATE—BTW, Bill Schmalfeldt is a cyberstalker.

48 thoughts on “Legal LULZ Du Jour


  1. Schmalfart deciding to sue 368 different people all at once is like Aruba declaring war on the US and sending it’s entire navy (one kayak) to the Virginia Naval base and ramming a frigate with it.


  2. More importantly, he called HIMSELF a “deranged cyberstalker”. You cannot defame someone by referring to them by a term they chose for themselves.


  3. Inciting folks to report one to various agencies for imagined criminality implying that one is a criminal, contacting law enforcement to incite them and harassing family, co-workers and friends sure sounds like stalking to me.


    • Jeanette,

      So if faking that you are a reporter from a large newspaper, is that stalking too?

      asking for a friend…

      Also writing lies in Federal Lawsuits, is that stalking too?

      Saw that on a cop show once


      • I’d think the lies in a Federal Lawsuit would be perjury to perpetrate a fraud upon the court (or something like that).

        As for the “reporter” I’ve warned everyone I know about responding to calls and emails from “reporters”.


  4. Using the definition John Hoge provided, the harassment I received from William M. Schmalfeldt qualifies as cyberstalking – he sent me repeated electronic communications with threats of lawsuits and public humiliation. As the judge found them to be harassment, Bill is therefore a cyberstalker.

    If the shoe fits, wear it.


  5. John, oughtn’t you say that, “Bill Schmalfeldt is an adjudicated cyberstalker?” He has been adjudicated repeatedly as a harasser/stalker. In every instance, electronic stalking was at issue. In your case, his cyber stalking was about the only issue.


  6. Question, would hunting up a person or multiple people’s personal information thru online searches (paying actual $$ for some possibly), then looking up any addresses revealed thru such searches, THEN using that information to find pictures of their homes thru Google maps, THEN taking screen shots of said homes AND THEN tweeting/blogging about the person/people and publishing the screen shots of their actual homes count as cyberstalking????

    asking for a friend.

    cause I hear SOMEONE is claiming if person B were to repost a blog post made by person A where in person A posts his address, and pictures of his residence including an over head shot and indoor pics, (keep in mind was posted publicly online first by person A), that THAT is stalking.


    • It’s actually really simple. Stalking is when Bill doesn’t like something that’s been written. He likes all the stuff he’s written. Ergo, he is judgment proof! You, on the other hand, must give up your wife and house. Because if the court’s judgement says otherwise, then the court is stalking Shakey.


        • Yes, but I would note “defamation” is when others write something Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t like. “Stalking” is when others investigate Bill Schmalfeldt.


  7. Looks like somebody better get acquainted with case law that clearly states as long as the “gist” of it is correct it’s not defamation.
    Calling someone a cyberstalker, or swindler, or whatever does not necessitate any conviction to be one of those things (indeed, some things may fall under those words and not even be crimes.)

    But I’m just a backwoods hyperchicken.


    • Not to mention the fact that in colloquial English the statement, “Joe Doe is a stalker,” is a claim of function [“Joe Doe does the things a stalker does.”], as opposed to a claim of law [“John Doe has been convicted of stalking.”] In colloquial English, one makes the legal claim by stating, “Joe Doe is a convicted stalker.”


  8. Awwwwwwww, poor John. Bill says he won’t sue him because Bill is such a nice guy. No, Bill won’t sue John because he is scared shitless of the pulverizing that would come his way. But way to spin it Bill. You DO have an interesting way of phrasing your cowardice so it looks not so much like cowardice.


  9. Naturally, I assume the the Erstwhile Elkridge Horror holds himself to the same standard that he is demanding, and does not call other people things of which they have not been found liable of by a court of law.

    Yeah, I kid…


    • I’m pretty sure that BS has taken literally every single possible side for every single issue at some point.

      Well, except for the side of the children he lusts…I mean writes fantasies about.


  10. It might be a nice point of law whether it is defamatory to say that X was an A, when A has both a legal definition and a broader definition in the common tongue, if it were not for the First Amendment. The presumption under the First Amendment is that language is not defamatory if such a construction is reasonable in context. And with respect to Witless Willie, he will labor under the further burden of being a public figure, certainly for a limited purpose. To put it in technical, legal language, he is screwed.

Leave a Reply