There’s stupid, damn stupid and there’s this:
A plaintiff is “libel-proof” when his reputation has been irreparably stained by prior publications. At the point the challenged statements are published, then, plaintiff’s reputation is already so damaged that a plaintiff cannot recover more than nominal damages for subsequent defamatory statements.
So, in other words, since Brett Kimberlin’s past is so odious as to have already damaged his reputation beyond repair, the defendants can say anything they want about him and Brett Kimberlin is quite powerless to stop them.
However, a court will not dismiss a defamation action merely because the plaintiff already has a bad reputation. Schiavone Construction Co. v. Time, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 1511, 1516 (D.N.J. 1986), rev’d, 847 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 (3rd Cir. 1988). Finklea, 742 S.W.2d at 516 (“[E]ven the public outcast’s remaining good reputation is entitled to protection.”) Rather the statement upon which the defamation claim is based should relate to the same matters upon which the prior bad reputation was founded, or to substantially similar matters.
There is one provision:
In extreme cases, a plaintiff’s general reputation may be so bad that a court will hold a plaintiff libel-proof on all matters. For example, Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler could not be damaged by defamatory statements. Langston v. Eagle Publishing Co., 719 S.W.2d 612, 623 (Tex. App. 1986).
So now they’re going to have to prove Brett Kimberlin is Hitler. Or Charles Manson.
Oh…it seems that was tried before when motions were filed by Seth Allen to elevate Brett Kimberlin’s status to that of a public figure when Brett was suing him for defamation. I wonder how that worked out?
Predictably, it didn’t.
Brett Kimberlin is not a public figure and there is legal precedent for this claim. He’s not Adolph Hitler nor is he Charles Manson.
Let us view the Cardillo suit a little closer:
By the way Mr. Smith, Cardillo tried to sue Doubleday for defamation on things he was already convicted of in a court of law and that Doubleday reported on in the book they wrote about him while he was in prison serving time for his convictions. At no time did Doubleday ever say he was involved in pedophilia, or that he SWAT’d anybody, or that he was a domestic terrorist.
You know…A plaintiff is “libel-proof” when his reputation has been irreparably stained by prior publications…
…and the statements upon which the defamation claim is based should relate to the same matters upon which the prior bad reputation was founded, or to substantially similar matters.
Your client isn’t being sued for telling the truth.
Expect your motion to be denied.
The mockery continues…