Time to Put Up or Shut Up

Back in November, I received an email from the Cabin Boy™ that included an image and text from email that he claimed had been sent to the property management company that manages the apartment building where he lives. I posted that email and a second one from him here.

The Cabin Boy™ quotes the first of those two email texts he sent to me in Exhibit 4 of his Proposed Amended Complaint in the LOLsuit VI: The Undiscovered Krendler. As the Gentle Reader can see, the original version of the exhibit alleged that I sent the email to the property management company, but The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt has altered the document to accuse Eric Johnson.

That raises the question of what evidence he has that either one of us sent the email. In the unlikely event that his LOLsuit survives the motions to dismiss, the Cabin Boy™ will undoubtedly have to produce any evidence he has about who sent that email as a part of discovery, and it will surely come out in the open either as part of a motion for summary judgment or at trial. (Stop laughing.) Therefore, if Schmalfeldt has any confidence in his case, he should go ahead and post the email with all its headers.

Of course, it could be that the Cabin Boy™ is simply lying again, and given his track record, that’s not an unreasonable assumption. Come to think of it, that’s probably the only reasonable assumption, and I believe I will adopt it as my publicly stated belief. Of course, if Schmalfeldt were to post proof … but how likely is that?


(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

—18 U.S.C. 1512

19 thoughts on “Time to Put Up or Shut Up

  1. Just a reminder that is a court document, voluntarily submitted, it can and will be used in a court of law–criminal court–against you if needed. I believe several stature of limitations clocks–in a number of different states–where started with it.

  2. The Hazel Doctrine makes charging with forged documents an authorized procedure. Maybe only in 4th Circuit. But the precedent is there and has not been overturned.

  3. Pingback: Cluebats For Sale | The Thinking Man's Zombie

  4. Should this joke of a LOLsuit manage to make it past MTD’s, the Lovely and Talented Cindy is sure to enjoy explaining this to you in her deposition and/or testimony.

  5. Bill “Stolen Valor” Schmalfeldt seems to be correct for a change.

    In this tweet he says he never “claims” that Eric sent the emails. In fact, he never claims anywhere in his lawsuit that Eric sent them.

    From his lolsuit we see him claiming exactly what is in Exhibit 4 which contains the email reference above.

    21. Defendant Johnson made several online statements in comments on the blogs of other people in which he accused Plaintiff of the manufacture and sale of child pornography which is a criminal offense and serious sexual misconduct. It is untrue and ludicrous allegation. (Exhibit 4)

    Now I’m not a lawyer but this is the only reference that Bill “Stolen Valor” Schmalfeldt has made to Exhibit 4 in his entire screed. The paragraph only deals with comments made on the “blogs of other people”. Bill NEVER claims that Eric sent that email. So really, why would he include it in the Exhibit where he is trying to prove comments made on a blog? Is Bill just that stupid or is he lying to the courts?

  6. So the Blob is now looking at 20 years in the penitentiary. But since he submitted it in his FAC, does than mean double? 40 Years!!!

    He just loves to [redacted], but HE is the one who should be scrambling. He needs to find a good attorney and take his legal advice.

      • “Dear lawyers looking for work, I filed a lawsuit pro se and included an obviously altered document as an exhibit. Now a guy completely not connected to the suit, who happens to be the person whose name I scratched out and replaced with someone else, says I broke the law. Tell him he’s a big poopy-head and to mind his own beeswax. — Shitless in Sheboygan”

  7. Honestly, I don’t see how the quoted section of 18 U.S.C. 1512 applies here. Did he alter a “record, document, or other object”? Yes, clearly. But “with the intent to impair the object’s integrity”? Considering that the document he altered was one that he wrote, I don’t see how that can hold up: after his alterations, the document says precisely what its author intended it to say. So how does this fit? I have to admit that, as wrong as Mr. Schmalfeldt is on most matters, I think he might be right on this particular one.

    Perhaps my understanding of legal terms is deficient, though; I certainly don’t know what “to impair the object’s integrity” is usually taken to mean in legal terms. Correcting my misunderstanding might fall under “Don’t educate the plaintiff”, though — so if you want to reply by email instead of publicly, just put a dot between my first and last names and send it courtesy of Gmail.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s