If you have been following along I have a “stalker” of sorts.
At 3:31 this afternoon I got a call from 630-489-9064. I didn’t recognized the number and didn’t catch the name they gave me. He ignored my attempts to repeat himself.
The bottom line was they claimed to be representing someone who was going to sue me for “information on your blog” and that I would be required to show up in California for the lawsuit.
I question the validity of this. I find it difficult to imagine a lawyer would take the case since no false statement of fact was made. Further confirmation of this hypothesis is that the number is not that of a law office. It is the same number that was used to deliver the threat on February 26th.
At 3:50 I received two more text messages from 619-646-7526 (this is the same phone number he used to call and sent me the text messages on February 18th):
I am suing you for internet defamation for eleven million dollars. Your site unlawfully placed information about myself that led to me being fired
See you in court really soon buddy
I suppose it is possible the blog post contributed to him losing a job but I am of the opinion, if in fact he did lose a job, that the main factor is that he has way too many screws loose.
I noticed he misspelled, “Eleventy.” What an odd number to choose. I guess we’ll have to start a Joe Huffman Legal Defense Fund now. Or he’s just looney.
You win, ChiefJayBob. I was going to say the same thing.
Like Sean, you stole my joke before I got here …
If anyone was “defamed” then he did it to himself. Nothing to give even a second thought. Just understand that this sort of thing is going to get worse before it gets better. I tend to think it’s going to get a lot worse. It’s the Dark Side trying to pull us in. The foot soldiers (the Useful Idiots of the rank and file left) are not in control of themselves. The plan has been, for a long time now, to have them rise up (Bottom Up) and the Progressives are starting to wish that their useful idiots would get on with it already.
Like every bully, the left en masse consists of cowards. Pissed off cowards. They’ll poke and prod, poke and prod, hoping you’ll take the first swing so it’ll be easier to blame you for starting the fight. Banning large sodas, demeaning men, over-taxation to the point where revenues actually decline, strangling legal restrictions at every turn; it’s all part of that cheap, nasty little school-yard contest of bullies and cowards.
A guy like your “friend” here is so beside himself with rage he cannot control himself, and so he’s easily controlled. That’s the kind of state that gets a young man to strap on explosives and blow up a Jewish school bus, or get into politics.
It’s a VERY simple and predictable game. The question is; what do we do about it? Number one; don’t play it. Don’t be tempted to get pissed off. Second; keep doing what you’re doing– watch it, report it, spread the word. This beast you’re fighting cannot stand the light of day. It MUST have cover and concealment, always hiding in “complexity”, in confusion, or pointing the finger of blame elsewhere. It will in fact destroy itself under the light. Just watch.
Yawn. Start to be concerned when a process server actually, physically shows up on your doorstep and hands you a summons. Until then, perhaps this doofus should buy some carbon offset credits – appears to me he’s off-gassing a prodigious amount of greenhouse gases.
“no false statement of fact was made”
What proof do you have that what you claim was done was actually done by JC and not someone impersonating JC? How do you know your stalker isn’t a guy renting a room from him? How do you know that it wasn’t someone else using his phone?
You are the one who put a name and address to your stalker. What proof do you have that that is his name?
Ubu ever the liberal rushes to the aid of the aggressor, provocateur, and ultimately the person who is responsible for bringing this on himself.
Just the same as you blame the victim for shooting his attacker, you blame Joe for exposing light on the actions and behavior of those who threaten to do him harm over his opinions on topics.
Tell me Ubu is there any evidence you would accept to prove his guilt short of video of him doing it?
No what Joe has is a multitude of separate pieces of evidence that ultimately all lead back to the same individual as being responsible.
Given that the use of text messages combined with voice, it can be taken that the individual used a cell phone. As it is a cell phone it is quite unlikely as it would be used by a roommate, especially with such frequency, since it is not a land line commonly shared to the household.
Further if in fact someone is impersonating “JC”, why would it be the same type of threats and behavior from the new responding party? Why not instead act like a civil and reasonable adult and contact Joe with the issue of identity theft as well as contact the associate police departments where reports have been filed?
I know you have trouble with logic and reason as well as exhibiting many of the mental problems of anti-gunners, but seriously this one is so far off the deep end I think you just found something deeper than the Marianas trench. So deep in fact I wonder if you have some sort of relationship with “JC”.
I took a course in libel law in college. My best advice is to never ever attach a name and identifying information to any accusation if you don’t want to be sued. The standard in court is PROVABLE, not probable.
“I suppose it is possible the blog post contributed to him losing a job but I am of the opinion, if in fact he did lose a job, that the main factor is that he has way too many screws loose.”
This is a potential error. Civil suits are about apportioning damages, not the binary decision of guilty or not.
It’s also an absolute defense if all the statements of fact were true.
OMG, ubu lecturing us on law … hilarious.
ubu, there is no evidentiary standard called “PROVABLE”.
Actually is a matter of preponderance of evidence and how likely or unlikely the claims are true or false.
In this case the restriction on the preponderance of evidence is lighter, read reasonable doubt. In a civil case the level of doubt is 51% where as in a criminal case it is there can be no doubt.
In this case however the individual in question, as noted by Joe, used the name and phone number and is tied to a police report. That police report can be used as evidence and is admissible in court. It becomes the responsibility of the plaintiff in a libel case to prove
1) That the statements made were false.
2) That the statement in fact caused harm
3) The statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.
In this case the plaintiff was acting in a manner to quell speech and silence the defendant. Further no evidence was provided by the plaintiff to prove his innocence or otherwise distance himself from his “impersonator”. Third, Joe went through reasonable efforts to validate the information as being real and not false.
Given the evidence, the actions of the plaintiff, and the general behavior there is no libel case immediately at hand. Doubly so if the defendant really wants to pursue this in California where there is a serious question of a SLAPP claim by the defendant given previous actions of the plaintiff against Joe.
I took plenty of law classes too, for fun I might add. If it wasn’t for the cost I’d get my Jurist Doctorate for the fun of it.
You should have paid more attention in your First Amendment law class. Regarding your #1 above, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove the statement was false. Suppose you wrote “Ubu52 has syphallis.” (That statement would fall under “libel per se.”) Your defense would be “It was true!” Truth is a defense, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove it’s not true.
What the plaintiff has to prove:
1) The statement was defamatory
2) That the statement was published
3) That the plaintiff could be identified as the person being defamed.
4) The plaintiff suffered harm.
Ubu, you need to put the law degree you found in the Cracker Jack box back.
Ubu, are you saying you have syphillis?
The original email included his name. The first caller gave me the same name and admitted he sent the email. When the police officer called he asked for that person by name.
It’s possible the guy doing all the texting and calling is someone else but it seems pretty unlikely to me at this point.
Joe, It may seem unlikely but save yourself some grief next time around. Don’t post names, addresses, etc. Make up a fake name if you want to talk about the incident. There are too many people out there who think a lawsuit is the solution for everything.
Thanks for the advice.
That’s odd, I’ve never seen ‘go screw yourself’ spelled that way before… 😀
I had a similar thing when I was a cop…dude I beat in court kept popping up, even 6-7 years later, claiming he was suing me and if I didn’t do such-and-such, I’d be hearing from his lawyer. Thing is, if you are actually getting sued, you will hear it from the lawyer, and not from the screw. He’s blowing smoke. If anything, give him your lawyer’s number and tell him to give him a jingle.
When dealing on the phone with one of the many threats I received as a businessman selling on installment credit (oh, the stories) I once responded with, “Give it your best shot”. That’s not the proper response, as it invites further trouble, especially if youre dealing with a deeply insane opponent, but in that particular case it sure did shut that woman up.
Then there’s the ever-popular, “Don’t you know who I am?” We got than one several times. The very worst of them is the racial minority…woman…single with kids…lawyer…who holds a public position. That will reach the level of the comically absurd for sure and for certain, as you’re dealing with a person with so much sense of entitlement and superiority that if you don’t bow to the floor you’re in violation right there. And for absolute certain you’re going to get robbed, one way or another, just for being there that day. I do not bow. I do not give a whit. Try me. So you can imagine the frustration that causes in such a broken dumb bitch. She’s going to crash like a wave on a rock. That’s your position here.
Years back, I was working in retail, and was confronted by a woman who insisted it was illegal to not carry a certain item (for the record, it was replacement filters for an air purifier). She ended her tirade with ‘I’ll sue!’
Whereupon my deadpan response was ‘Ma’am, that is your option. Is there anything else I can help you with?’.
Seems to me that I read about this sort of amateurish extortion. The threat sounds similar to a SLAPP lawsuit, and the extortion is exposed by first verbally agreeing to negotiate a settlement, then politely asking for the lawyer you are supposed to be negotiating with. Of course, there won’t be one.
OMG! You’re being internet sued for eleventy million dollars!
I wouldn’t sweat the Lawsuit, Joe.
I would be worried about this NutJob who might have been fired getting into his car and traveling up the coast to get you.
Reason being, a friend of mine who works for the Pinkerton’s as a Contract Security Guard gets a job every few months to go to a Workplace where someone acting like your Stalker is about to be fired, and a couple of times he’s had to cuff the guys and hold them until the local Police arrive.
What he tells me is that when such a NutJob has reached a point where he has a “Designated Target”to focus his Rage upon (be it a Spouse, a Boss, or a Blogger), that’s when the possibility of an Armed Confrontation by said NutJob really jumps up.
Which is why there a hell of lot more Guys going into a Workplace or a Home or someplace where their Target lives than there are Mass Attacks like Newtown or Aurora. You can probably find a story at least once a week where someone Shoots the Ex-Wife and the Kids or a Boss or Co-workers.
So keep your guard up, Joe. Oh, and ubu? This Nut Job is ANOTHER reason that the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the RKBA DOES apply to Individual Self-Defense.
Whether YOU like it or not.
That was my first thought too. Never play around with the unhinged. My advice to Joe (don’t ever post names and addresses and accuse people of things) applies to this blog going forward. This guy may not sue but you never know when someone else will and it’s a good idea to understand the law while you are “publishing” a blog.
I just want to clarify that I’m talking about private figures, not public figures. You can say whatever you want to about public figures. You are also free to comment on anything people post on the internet.
I think you really ought to follow SPQR’s advice (who, IIRC, is a real lawyer) and put away the cracker jack law degree.
You can still libel and/or slander a public person, such as a politician, it’s it is much harder to prove, in that it must be knowingly false and malicious.
Right, it has to be clear and convincing evidence that you were malicious, meaning that you had knowledge of the falsity of what you wrote, and you did it anyways to cause harm to the public figure.
I prefer to go for the simple solution of blocking his numbers. Then he can simply talk to himself. I suspect he has plenty of practice at it, after all.
The claim would be libel, not defamation.
Truth of the matter asserted is an absolute defense to both.
California has no personal jurisdiction over joe, and he would need to be sued in Idaho.
If he were actually being sued, for the plaintiff to contact him directly rather than though counsel would be a violation of the rules and sanctionable.
I’m sure there are a dozen other problems with the whole situation, but they all boil down to to the nutjob being a damned moron who is in over his head.
No, there is no prohibition on a party contacting another party (outside of where it would be a violation of harassment statutes as applicable). An attorney for a party cannot contact the other party if he knows the other party is represented.
Why are you trying to pretend you are a lawyer? You aren’t. You told me that a long long time ago and I guess you forgot.
Get off our lawn, kid.
A bizarre lie on your part, Ubu.
Can we please dial it down just a notch or two? This type of conflict is not productive.
I was assuming that our nutjob wasn’t filing on his own and had counsel. I realize now how silly that was (but not any sillier than thinking that anything had been filed.)
Pingback: Quote of the day—Robert Slaughter | The View From North Central Idaho