Wittgenfeldian Legal Logic: Epic Fail (nascent Civil complaint)

As most of you have seen, Wittgenfeld continues his Jihad on logic and the law by threatening not only Jonn and I, but also commenters.  It’s all asinine, and he is using legal threats to either bump up his comment count (see for example comments like “My goal is 600 or more comments by you jack-offs.”) or, alternatively, to cow people into not commenting.  Like everything else dealing with Wittgenfeld, it doesn’t make any sense.

I’m going to look at both the Civil and Criminal claims of Wittgenfeld, and lay them out so you can relax about all his threats.

Here’s a perfect example of Wittgenfeldian logic:

I have proof that you idiots right here came onto my facebook [sic] and stole this picture hereon [sic] from my wife… A year ago Scooty [sic] and his gang via Lilyea and Seavey and off to POWnetwork…. Links up pretty good, I think [sic]

Now, that is only slightly ironic, given that this jackass steals stuff from my friends and family on a weekly basis, and then posts it up.  Just how ridiculous is Wittgenfeld?  A few weeks ago he made another flier about my perfidy by stealing pictures from my Facebook page.  Only, the moron stole pictures of The Sniper and Ponsdorf, and mistakenly labeled them as me.

Just yesterday Wittgenfeld stole a picture of me and Uncle Jimbo, which is probably still up on his Facebook page.

Nonetheless, his latest bit of idiocy is to conflate civil and criminal law, and make perplexing statements like “We will all go to jail…. are you ready…?”

Well, actually, no.  Wittgenfeld seems to think for some reason that he is authorized under law to “procecute” (presumably he means “prosecute”) us based on the hearsay advice of his mental health counselor.  Actually, no.  Criminal law violations are handled by law enforcement officials. 

But review the data on the civil complaints that he threatens….  Take for example the earlier mentioned comment, his latest attempt to intimidate through threatened legal action, which contains this:

When I found out who and where you people operated from… I contacted your employers where you cast your cyber/harassment ploys onto honorable discharged [sic] combat disabled Vietnam War Veterans of the elite Airborne Rangers.

Now young Seavey at the National American Legion..? He is VERY vulnerable… I told him so… Still he chooses Mil/Kooking… now the burn pit will take a whole NEW direction… I promise that.

And I got the dddress [sic] of the American Legion National Headquarters andn [sic] ew-media [sic] perpetrator Seavey phone numbers and links.

And I have plenty of witnesses… I am set pretty good. We will see tomorrow.

Now, he does indeed have my address and phone number.  Because I gave it to him in the first and second emails I had with him.  Now, he further alleges he needs my private residence phone number and address.

On Seavey,… I got his business numbers and address… but to save him embarrassment in Indianapolis American Legion Headquarters he needs to send me his residence phone number and his residence address for serving his paperwork.

Actually, you do not need those numbers or addresses.  A civil suit needs to be served, but any information like my actual residence can be omitted.  The important thing would be to serve me, and he has my address to do so.  Hell, I’d meet the guy in the lobby.  No need to save me any embarrassment, there is nothing to be ashamed about being sued by a man with obvious persecution complex issues and mental instability.  Happens all the time.

The second problem for Wittgenfeld here is that he admits openly that he has contacted my employer.  He’s actually contacted a boatload of other people.  In those emails he makes allegations which are simply untrue, to wit, that I am “harassing him”.  These comments amount to defamation, but of a more interesting problem is that they also amount to the Tort of “Tortious interference”.  In Indiana, where he sent many of these emails, where he claims to be a resident, and where the actual Tort occurred:

The elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are: “(1) the existence of a valid relationship; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the relationship; (3) the defendant’s intentional interference with that relationship; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting from defendant’s wrongful interference with the relationship.” Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589, 598 n.21 (Ind. 2001) (citing Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215, 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)).

Now, he sent these emails etc to not only my work, but several other non-profits that he was well aware I had a relationship with.  So, this right there is why he won’t be suing me in a civil claim anytime soon.  He knows (or at least his lawyer does) that a) it would cost a ton to serve me in a state he’s not in; b) that he’s not likely to prevail, as he has no cause of action, and c) that I could counter-sue.

But, just for kicks, let’s look at his common complaint, that we are “harassing him.”  He has left repeated messages on this regard, and has his friend and phony SEAL Arthur South backing him up on their virtually unreadable blog, “Truth About Harassment/Archslayer-Warrior of God.”  Naturally it doesn’t allow comments, so there is no way of trying to figure out what the hell they mean by threats of lawsuit such as posed in this post:

POWNETWORK: Lawsuits are coming!!!

Looks like this will be one of MANY coming your way Mary. Hope you can deal with the heat headed your way. Not really, we do not wish you the best in anything. We want to see you squirm, like you have made so many others squirm from your posting of LIES and half truths.

OK, so let’s look at the facts.  Jonn has deleted many of Wittgenfeld’s comments, because he invariably just cuts/pastes the same comment into numerous threads.  However, the alleged “harassed” in this instance has now left no fewer than 104 comments on the blog he alleges is harassing him. He has sent me 99 emails.
For those in the cheap seats, harassment generally requires certain elements noted at this page:

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim.

The problem for Wittgenfeld (even assuming there was an actual tort for Harassment, which there is not) is that part that says it has to be “uninvited.”  One can not comment on a blog 104 times, and compound it with 99 emails (and untold more to the others he threats) and consider any comment about him “uninvited.”  In fact, in what would be considered an “admission against interest” that would doom anything he brought up, I would cite back to his comment that:

“My goal is 600 or more comments by you jack-offs.”

Rather than being a victim of any harassment, this comment proves he revels in it.  In fact, other comments vitiate his claims to victimhood as well, as he makes clear anything that we have said about him could not damage his sterling reputation:

You people are pathetic and anyone (normal) would agree with me.

In this he admits that anyone reading what we write would look down on us, not him.  That of course undermines his claim for any damages, which would be intrinsic to a tort claim. 

Lastly, far from being a “victim” again, Wittgenfeld has made clear on numerous instances that he revels in his infamy. 

Hey, I like that “flying cock and balls” brass artwork… That’s a keeper for me….

Soooo is this great picture of me on the A-Team. I love Mr-T. I used to have an A-Team Dodge Ram Van too. The girls called it “the love machine”.

LoNg RaNgE PaTrOL 41

The only conceivable Torts that Wittgenfeld might assert are “intentional infliction of emotional distress” and “defamation.”  But those fall to the legal infirmities I noted above.  1) he invited the discussions.  2) seems to revel in them.  3) has yet to allege any comments by Jonn or I that were not true. 4) has suffered (by his own admission) no damages whatsoever.

In short, he has no civil case, and likely knows (or his lawyer should) that he has himself committed torts.

Category: Politics