Legal LULZ Du Jour

Thus tweeteth the Cabin Boy™—RD201603221551ZIf the Cabin Boy™ is discussing defamation, then, no, that’s not my understanding of the law in Maryland. A defendant has no obligation to prove what he said or wrote was true. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that any allegedly defamatory statement is false. If the plaintiff can’t do that, he has no cause of action. The Dreadful Pro-Se Kimberlin’s lost on a directed verdict in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. because he never showed that the statements that we defendants admitted to making were false.

The Gentle Reader may assume that if I am suing someone for defamation, then I believe that I have evidence that someone made a false statement about me that also meets all the other elements of defamation.

29 thoughts on “Legal LULZ Du Jour

  1. William does have … interesting standards.

    He’s suing Eric Johnson specifically because he hasn’t been “convicted” of child pornography charges, but is rather comfortable accusing folks of perjury, even in the absence of a charge or conviction.

    But that’s what makes him the Diminished Capacity Kid!

    • Jphnson to my knowledge has never said schmalfeldt is a convicted child pornographer. Conviction is not a necessary condition for actually producing pornography.

      Announcing himself “unconvicted” doesn’t clear Bill automatically from the accusation. Bill can testify his contrary opinion, but that’s what it is.

      I don’t know what terms Johnson specifically used, but Bill has no case if Johnson provided the underlying basis for his concern to the apartment people, i.e. the tapes or an accurate description of their contents. Even if a finder of fact agreed with Bill that (IMO vile pornographic enactment) was obviously a bad attempt at a joke (I don’t think they will) if Johnson explained why or sent a link or true recording as the basis of his assessment, his opinion is protected. ” Here’s what I think and the underlying facts why I think it” isn’t a tort against Bill even if he thinks an ordinary person would not agree with the thinker.

      Considering, as I do, his depictions of minors as he did in that audio bit in contention, done for the purposes of sadistic and fetishistic exhibition (he gets off on the imagined shock of the listener) more than “humor” (and I think his pornographic anal rape fantasy that got him booted off of the Daily Kos done for similar reasons), It’s not really much of a stretch to call it child pornography. It’s a subjective evaluation.That’s opinion, since the conclusion is subjective. Acting out the rape of a child is well within the parameters of a reasonable person calling it child pornography.

      If contrary to anything I’ve ever seen written, Johnson called BS a “convicted” child pornography, well as far as I know that would be a defamatory falsehood.
      Saying that awful “comedy” bit is pornographic is not. It’s not only subjective and protected opinion, but a very reasonable opinion.

      I wonder sometimes if his particular disorder has got him unable to process semantics as a healthy person would. It’s a common feature of Parkinsons patients and a sign of emerging dementia.

  2. It is my considered professional opinion that Bill is a total stranger to truth, having never been in the presence of it. To be blunt, Bill wouldn’t recognize truth if it walked up to him and hit him with an aluminum baseball bat!
    Thus, he cannot be convicted of perjury nor lying as he is disabled because he cannot recognize truth. He needs an ‘accommodation’ before the court because of his disability. This accommodation is that the court must accept as true everything Bill says, without proof or factual backup.
    (This is Bill’s hoped for situation in all cases)
    Reality will not be kind to Bill!
    Please pray for the demented and evil person that is Bill.

      • Simple. William’s myriad self-contradictions must be construed in the light most favorable to William. It’s settled law.

        Why? Because…


      • In Bill’s fantasy of how things work, if Bill contradicts himself, even in the same sentence, the court will ignore that as it is prejudicial against him and that is not allowed because he is disabled. This only applies to Him and no one he is suing is to ever win or have a motion against Bill GRANTED, ever!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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