Chuck C. Johnson Is Now Suing Gawker in California; Anti-SLAPP Here We Come

Inadvertent comedy watch
Law • Views: 71,227
Chuck C. Johnson (R) with friend George Zimmerman

Cyberstalker and vexatious litigant Chuck C. Johnson has now filed suit against Gawker Media in California, walking right into an anti-SLAPP statute that’s likely to get him in deep financial trouble. He proudly announced it on Facebook (because he’s permanently banned from Twitter) with a picture of his receipt from the court.

facebook.com

Johnson probably rushed into this because the statute of limitations is expiring on the case, and his Missouri lawsuit is likely to be dismissed because it should never have been filed in Missouri in the first place.

His filing is below, courtesy of @AdamSteinbaugh, who points out that Johnson is actually filing this pro se, which means he’s representing himself — and a corporation cannot legally file a lawsuit without a lawyer. So right off the bat our boy Chuck is in trouble; if the anti-SLAPP motion goes against him (which it almost certainly will), he’ll be on the hook for all of Gawker’s by-now very expensive legal fees.

But if you read this, and you remember what Johnson filed in Missouri, you’ll notice that he simply copied and pasted almost the entire document from his Missouri filing, even leaving intact several sections that refer specifically to Missouri! For example:

13. Per Quantcast, Gawker Media has over one million unique Missouri readers.

[…]

16. Gawker has over a million readers in Missouri, as evidenced Quantcast data showing Gawker​.com’s web traffic.

[…]

18. Further, Deadspin​.com, a Gawker media property dedicated to sports, famously, viciously, repeatedly, and continuously, attacked the St. Louis Cardinals recently.

And then there’s paragraph 2, which is basically an outright lie:

“Plaintiff Charles C. Johnson has never before initiated a lawsuit for defamation.”

Right, except for the one he filed in Missouri. Oops.

And just as in his Missouri suit, Johnson is actually trying to argue that Gawker is not protected by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, because they’re a government actor. “Far-fetched” doesn’t even begin to describe this argument.

Scribd Document

Related

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh