Gidduck lawsuit tossed, Wittgenfeld and allies hardest hit

| December 4, 2012

(I should note it is only against 3 defendants, not all of them, but what is true here will be true for the rest as well most likely.  Am being told that all were tossed, the judge just handled them all separately.  Trying to get the rest of the stuff now.)

First, I’d like to look at the genius legal minds from Archslayer – The Warrior of God. One of the keenest legal minds of our generation, ney, ANY GENERATION, the Archslayer had these gems of jurisprudential omniscience to put forth on his supine masses (all 3 of them) just last month:

John Giduck has one of the first solid cases against the slayers and poser hunters on Facebook, American Legion blogs with “writers” of such low character, and idiots like their best bud Scott Hughes. The first of many lawsuits. Many more are on the way. Thanks to us and all our hard work. Yes, us; we are many.

Good, defense lawyers need to get paid.

It’s going to cost you more than just your tarnished reputations, which among the true veterans and active duty military couldn’t be much worse.

Actually, pretty sure it could be, since at the same time he was posting this, the Army was asking me to go and cover troops in Kandahar and the Sinai.

You all owe Dallas Wittgenfeld an apology for harassing him publically as you all have. It’s all documented and part of the discovery stage of a few lawsuits pending.

Um, yeah, no. It was at the 12(b)(6)* stage, not discovery. And now it’s at the “ok, let’s settle up the bill and don’t call me again” stage.

*Technically I guess in Colorado it is a 12(B)(5) motion, but it would be a (6) in federal stuff, so keeping that so you legal minds will know what I am talking about.  Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

We are taking this one at a time, but you will all answer for your crimes; of that there is NO doubt.


You may want to start the apology line now for Dallas, whom you have cyber-bullied and threatened with physical harm (aren’t you so brave?) on open pages in Facebook and in your ridiculous American Legion sponsored blog. If you survive the first waves of lawsuits (which is highly unlikely) you still have to face the many others coming.

And what about me, and my legal opinion that this case would get tossed? Did the Archslayer of Legal Knowledge agree with me?

We only hope for your sakes, that you have a better lawyer than Mark C Seavey to represent you. He’s an utter ass, not to mention an idiot (oh hell, I just did). Well, to we who have read his lies it’s no secret he’s an idiot.

Yes, luckily for all involved (except Gidduck of course) they had a good lawyer.

Here’s some relevant sections of the motion to dismiss that the judge issued yesterday. Be sure to see the part where the plaintiff also has to pay all the legal fees of the Defendants.

The statements by Defendant Warrington that Plaintiff Giduck was a liar, fraud, scammer and imposter because he misrepresented his credentials are not actionable. Opining that someone is a liar, a fraud or was untruthful about his or her background, is, perhaps unfortunately, a common implement in American discourse. Such epithets are obviously statements of opinion and are protected under the rules enunciated in Milkovich and Burns….

Defendant Niblett’s statement that Plaintiff Giduck is a “piece of shit” or, a “fool,” a “fraud,” a “poser civilian,” and a “clown” are patently Niblett’s opinion and are not actionable. If every statement along these lines formed the basis for a libel or slander case, the courts of this country would be entirely devoted to the litigation of defamation claims. These are statements of opinion and are protected under the rules enunciated in Milkovich and Burns…

The statements attributed to these Defendants regarding Giduck were blunt, uncomplimentary, and probably “rhetorical hyperbole.” But they were also privileged statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment as applied in a litany of Supreme Court and Colorado appellate cases.

So, can we dispense with the legal threats now please?

Category: Politics

Comments (44)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Phony John Giduck’s Lawsuit tossed « WeaponsMan | December 4, 2012
  1. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Huzzah! Huzzah! The judge was as strong as anyone could hope in saying the case is totally meritless. You don’t get more of a “Are you kidding me? These claims are without a scintilla of hope” from a judge. Claimants have 30 days to try again but the judge’s message is clear: Unless they can overcome a litany of case law that opposes them, minimize your losses and don’t come back. Next stop: Frivolous claims bar if they persist.

  2. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Funny how that First Amendment thingie goes both ways.

  3. teddy996 says:

    The judge ruled that Gidduck wasn’t a clown, but the judge also DID NOT say that he was a phony!

    Score one for the Archslayer, baby! In your FACE, Orwellians!

  4. Ex-PH2 says:

    Niblett? One of these dopes is named Niblett? Are you serious?

    Holy crap, Batman! Does this mean I have to go back and reread all of the mindless, suffocating twaddle coming out of that quadrant?

    No, the threats of litigation won’t stop. It’s just a stub of the toe for these brain-dead cobsuckers. A washed-out road. A detour on the long and winding road to failure. A chance for more denial by the attention vampires.

    Now this learned judge is probably going to be the object of their glaucomic invective for a while.

    TSO, thank you for posting this.

  5. rb325th says:

    @ #4, “Nibblet” was one of the people being sued by Gidduck, just to clarify as it appears you believe the opposite?

    As to Wittlessone, and his butt boys south, meyers, et al..
    They have probably practiced what they preach against far more so than anyone. The word Hypocrite should have a group photo of them as its definition. That of course on top of the fact each and every one of them at one point or another have made false claims about their service, to include dillweed and his Green Beret/Special Forces “oops moments” published even decades ago. Once you can say it was the write, multiple times it sounds like a scripted Bio he had prepared for them… Anyhow, Karma is a real bitch and she will catch up to them all eventually.

  6. TAH,

    Thank you. Unlike a few other sites that were afraid to get involved, you didn’t bat an eye and took up the cause. Seriously, thank you.


  7. Old Trooper says:

    “So, can we dispense with the legal threats now please?”

    No, TSO, they are just getting started. This ruling won’t even slow them down, until they start to feel the financial pinch of having to pay the defense lawyers, also, which by what you say, is already a reality.

    I’m sure they are drooling all over themselves right now and starting to twitch with rage as they foam on about how they were wronged by “the system”.

    It will be interesting to watch.

  8. The Sniper says:

    It’s like watching “A Few Good Men” except that when Tom Cruise flew down to Gitmo to interview the Colonel, it turned out that the “colonel” was a homeless guy blowing other bums for meth money and screaming incoherently between man-cheese chunks about how he used to be an Army SEAL or some such crap.

  9. Scubasteve says:

    The dude is a douche. I read ‘Terror at Beslan’ and actually thought it hit some good and valid points. But alas, I went to the website and, in the name of seeking further information on threat assessments and the LE point of view, I was duped by this fook. Note: Google names and businesses first. Then check out research. Nobody to blame but me, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be pissed.

    #7 Sniper, good analogy.

  10. Steelbreeze says:

    I am anxiously awaiting some comment from Johnny’s camp on this. I could use a laugh.

  11. MCPO NYC USN (Ret.) says:

    TSO … are you telling me … after all this prodding, poking, name calling (truth calling), and otherwise legally protected banter … I (we) will not be sued?


    This is not fair!

  12. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    Finally, a court with some common sense!!! The SCOTUS sure doesn’t have any.

  13. NHSparky says:

    Sniper–I just had three people look at me like I’m insane, I’m laughing that hard right now.

    And most of it is from the mental imagery of Wittless blowing a homeless, which really doesn’t take that much to do.

    Oh, I’m sorry–that wasn’t Wittless you were speaking of? Aw, shit, man!

  14. Ex-PH2 says:

    @5 – Got it. I was just reacting to the story, instead of reading it. My bad.

  15. GPC says:

    Glad the court saw through the bs.

    Time to move on IMO.

  16. NHSparky says:

    GPC–but you know they won’t. They can’t. Because to do so would mean they have to face the cold hard truth that they are in fact a bunch of phony liars.

    And that just ain’t gonna happen.

  17. Ex-PH2 says:

    I just have one question, TSO, and remember before you answer, this is for posterity:

    Can I spoof Wittlessgelding and his cohorts in print?

    For example, he styles himself the Archslayer of Whatever enters his tiny mind, leaving himself wide open for parody. I hope no one ever puts him back on his meds til I’m finished.

  18. Steelbreeze says:

    @16, I don’t know if it’s possible to spoof someone who’s that far around the bend. His site reads like we’re getting a direct link to the voices in his head. I got a headache after about a paragraph of his freakish delusions and inexplicable font changes.

  19. BK says:

    I like to think that the inexplicable font changes are representative of pudding breaks.

  20. Ex-PH2 says:

    @17, that’s why I asked. He’s already made a fool of himself in a publiv forum with unintelligible gibberish, so the parody I’m thinking of is parody of a self-parody.

  21. Twist says:

    @18, That almost made me choke on my lunch.

  22. Eagle II says:

    Let Freedom Ring… Justice has been served.
    Court Documents:

  23. BK says:

    Did the judge get to watch the video of Giduck playing war with shovels before he made his decision? Suddenly he’d understand that “ass-clown” is the proper clinical description, and not rhetorical hyperbole.

  24. Ex-PH2 says:

    I found this particularly comforting, from the judge: “mere use of foul, abusive, or vituperative language does not constitute defamation”.

  25. Sniper111 says:


    It wasn’t just 3 who were cleared, it was 7. 3 used one attorney, myself and 2 others used another and one named person who never even commented in a Giduck thread or mentioned his name whatsoever anywhere on the net (but got sued anyway- apparently just for breathing) used a 3rd attorney.

    From our dismissal (McAleer et. al.):

    “There is absolutely no allegation in any of these nine claims for relief that these Defendants did anything wrong, did anything injurious to Plaintiffs, or, for that matter, that these particular Defendants did anything at all.”

    Yeah… that’s gonna leave a mark.

  26. Ex-PH2 says:

    Whipitnflogit has conveniently forgotten one little thing in his bloggerisms and balderdash, to wit: “You all owe Dallas Wittgenfeld an apology for harassing him publically as you all have. It’s all documented and part of the discovery stage of a few lawsuits pending.” (see in above article)

    He forgets that HE has repeatedly come back to TAH for attention, and continues to do so, even when TAH and its audience ignore him. HE starts the process and waits for the attention he seeks. These past few weeks, when other things were more important, even if he did post (which he did, but everyone was busy doing other things), no one pays any attention. Like a blowfly in winter, he gets into the house and even dive bombs you when you’re sitting down to dinner in peace.

    This will be a temporary failure for him…unless, of course, we just ignore him again.

  27. smoke-check says:

    Hey Dallas how was Branson last month? Haven’t heard anything from you lately. I guess you didn’t get that dance after all.

  28. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @24. Congrats!

  29. Ex-PH2 says:

    Just out of curiosity, who were the 30 John Does listed in the defendant section of the complaint?

  30. streetsweeper says:

    Em, the John Does were #1 through #30…

  31. Ex-PH2 says:

    Oh, okay. Keep it a mystery. I’ll just keep digging.

  32. TSO says:

    PH2; John Doe 1-30 are placeholder things. Essentially it would be like if someone wanted to add “Ex-PH2” to a law suit. That isn’t your real name of course, but no one knows your actual name. In the law you refer to those people in a lawsuit as John Doe.

    If 3 people beat you, and you identify 2, but not the last one, you can sue #1, #2 and “John Doe.” Then, if the group is found liable, they will turn on each other and say, “Oh, John Doe is Phil Smith, he lives at 123 Kennedy street, and you need to get him to pay 33% of this bill.”

  33. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    But the judge will say, “To be paid jointly and severally.” Then each is responsible 100% for the due restitution but you can’t collect more than the amount ordered. So, Phil doesn’t pay, the other two do, and then they beat the hell out of Phil. That’s the way it works! You get paid and Phil gets his beating.

  34. Ex-PH2 says:

    Ah! So! Then in turn, I, being one of thirty, can demand my fair share of the attorneys’ fees to be paid to me by said claimants, whether or not I was actually represented by defendants’ attorneys.

    That would be nice. I could use the money. The kitchen drawer fell apart again. I need a new kitchen.

    But let’s say that I generate characters for a novel based on the self-aggrandizing, bloviating, egocentric individuals who placed the compaint in the first place. Under 1st Amendment Free Speech, satire is protected free speech in the form of self-expression, as per the routine parodies of well-known public individuals.

    However, (and taking into consideration the sheer unadulterated idiocy of the individuals concerned), what is the probability that said indviduals, who filed the original complaint, would see a novel in which they are parodied and possibly ridiculed as another opportunity to say that they had been somehow “damaged” by said parody?

    Bear in mind, I shall endeavor to persevere. As always, it is for posterity.

  35. Chlamydia Jones says:

    I cannot believe that Homeland Security just hired Giduck to speak at a conference.

    I cannot believe that Giduck has the chutzpah to show his face in public.

    His pal Grossman recently opined that Giduck would win this lawsuit.


    It is time that all of these ersatz “experts” just go away.

  36. NHSparky says:

    Well, you know what “expert” stands for.

  37. Hondo says:

    Ex-PH2: sure you can. Up to the amount you can document you spent in attorney’s fees, of course. (smile)

  38. NHSparky says:

    Ooooohhhh…I think I had to give TSO a couple thousand bucks for a retainer.

    You can make a receipt for me, can’t you, TSO? I’ll even take back the Patriot’s “short bus” crack from the other day.

    Pinkie swear!

  39. Hondo says:

    Careful there, NHSparky. Courts actually check on stuff like that when people make claims. (smile)

  40. NHSparky says:

    Well, shit, then. Guess I won’t be taking back that crack on the Patriots after all. Sorry, man.

  41. NHSparky says:

    And yeah, I’m not exactly looking for “free money”, especially when things like “fraud”, “felony”, and “PMITA prison” are bandied about.

  42. GPC says:

    NHSparky,I know he won’t move on.
    As a John Doe I’m glad it is over.Does anyone know if Giduck perjured himself on his credentials under oath?

    I ASSume he entered his “credentials” as evidence.

  43. Wow – I can’t even believe that this actually happened – I would have assumed that he would have backed down by now 🙁 best of luck though.