A couple of years ago, our LULZ muscles were still in the throws of LOLsuit VI: The Undiscovered Krendler when the Cabin Boy™ submitted an obviously altered document as an exhibit to a filing in that case. I pointed to his screw up in a Legal LULZ Du Jour posted two years ago today.
* * * * *
This is from an exhibit submitted by the Cabin Boy™ as evidence with both his Complaint and Proposed Amended Complaint in his LOLsuit VI: The Undiscovered Krendler.
It appears to be altered.
IANAL, but I’ve been told that it’s a bad idea to proffer an altered document to a court of law.
* * * * *
Schmalfeldt’s reaction to that post resulted in a massive dose of PLM when I suggested that it was time for him to Put Up or Shut Up about his “evidence.”
* * * * *
Back in November, I received an email from the Cabin Boy™ that included the an image and text from email that he claimed had be sent to the property management company that manages the apartment build 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
* * * * *
I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.