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?