Twitter Court: Libeling the Sociopath (updated)

Posted on by

macaca_nigra_self-portrait_custom-a8e13582c9ca6f71f5cd62815b8bb5d6ff112dc2-s300-c85According to Pro-se Chief Prosecutor Justice Bill S(chmalfeldt) Preston, Esq., simply calling someone who has not been diagnosed as a sociopath is libel and you’re immediately going to lose your property, wife, kids and friends.

The reasoning: A statement must be true.  If it is not, and it puts the person in a negative light, BOOM!

No really, see for yourself!

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/breitbitnews/status/889964926273560578

Schmalfeldt has a pretty high burden to meet because I’m not aware that calling anyone a “sociopath” by itself is enough to meet the standard of defamation.

IANAL, but as I have read about defamation law in South Carolina (for my own research, because reasons) this is how I understand it:

The two largest hurdles (besides jurisdiction) he has is to prove falsity of the statement made and what damages were a result of those statements.  Falsity means the person was making a false statement of fact, not opinion.  That is a very high hurdle to overcome and great care must be made when one is making the claim to establish the defendant is making a false statement of fact.

For example, say someone made the comment: “[Event] was a brutal and true depiction of  what happened.. ” If the person making that statement was not a witness, could not possibly corroborate the facts of the event, and did so with the intent to harm the person’s reputation even though they knew that they couldn’t prove their statement true, then that would be defamation.

Wait, I think I may have heard about this before..

Anyway..

Simply calling someone a sociopath is most likely protected opinion simply because the person making the statement may have been given reason to say that. The larger hurdle: How is that statement actionable?

To meet the requirements of defamation in South Carolina:

  • Must be a false statement of fact.
  • The statement must have caused reputational or material harm,
  • The person making the statement acted recklessly, with negligence, or with malice in dissemination of the statement.

But more importantly, the claims for defamation must be made with specifics and a set of facts that support the claim.  Merely saying, “She runs a hate blog and is calling me a sociopath!” is not enough.

I know, I know, in Twitter court, calling someone a sociopath puts them in a negative light and Pro Se Chief Prosecutor Justice BS Preston will likely send me to the dungeon’s to be flogged,  YET AGAIN..

On another topic, I laughed at this..

https://twitter.com/breitbitnews/status/889965523718610944

Why yes, you wrote your Second Amended Complaint!

https://twitter.com/breitbitnews/status/889965924186546176

Wait, weren’t you the one trying to subpoena WordPress and ISP’s for identities of anonymous commenters?  So he pointed out the procedural issue and you to think adding the anonymous defendants was HIS intention?

 

https://twitter.com/breitbitnews/status/889966168731156482

Dude, you suck at lawyering!  And at being a grownup.

Of course, the vaping vixen of snaggletooth chimed in.

Update:  In a stunning revelation, Schmalfeldt actually writes about the case of defamation in Texas.

In a not so surprising move, he actually shares why the case is successful and yet, at the very same time, explains why his case is completely deficient.

I mean, seriously, you CANNOT make this up.

22 thoughts on “Twitter Court: Libeling the Sociopath (updated)”

  6. I can see how Sarah might be wrong about him being a “frustrated sociopath”. Sure he’s frustrated AND he’s a sociopath, but is the frustration hindering his sociopathy? That’s not obvious. Possible Sarah should be more precise and then he wouldn’t have his panties in a bunch, which may contribute to a general frustration on his part. The sand in his mangina probably contributes to frustration as well.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply ↓

    • Is he really frustrated? Not sure we have any reliable evidence to support that.

      Remember that malignant Narcissists express themselves solely to cause their targets pain. So any expression of frustration could simply be an attempt to leverage natural human sympathies to cause his victims to feel guilt or other negative feelings.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply ↓

  7. “The two largest hurdles (besides jurisdiction) he has is to prove falsity of the statement made and what damages were a result of those statements. Falsity means the person was making a false statement of fact, not opinion. That is a very high hurdle to overcome and great care must be made when one is making the claim to establish the defendant is making a false statement of fact.”

    DERANGED (Cyberstalker)
    BRAIN-DAMAGED (Troll)
    EXECUTIVE DYSFUNCTION DISORDER
    DIMINISHED MENTAL CAPACITY
    PARKINSON’S DISEASE DEMENTIA

    Bill Schmalfeldt has HIMSELF admitted and shared that he suffers from each and every affliction listed above.

    But, he’s getting his knickers all knotted because some folks on the internet have dared to share their Constitutionally-protected, layman opinion that he is a sociopath (based on a decade+ of his very own words and antisocial behavior – it’s ALL in the vault).

    Sounds legit. 🙄

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply ↓

  9. Schmalfeldt doesn’t have a reputation. Reputation is tangible, and there must be established loss. Schmalfeldt reputation had not be harmedm in fact I don’t see how it can be hamed, his reputation is that far in the sewer

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment