In opposing the motion to vacate the default, the most important part of the opposition will be working in a line about “how can a purported expert tarot card reader not know how to read a summons? Reading and dealing with summons are the sine qua non of being a tarot card reader.”
Did anyone in academia really believe a TikTok influencer who opines based on tarot readings?
Probably not. But there are definitely academics who wouldn't want to work with a colleague who is receiving death threats and unwanted media attention. Even if it's totally undeserved.
I would note that because the case is in Idaho, there's a small chance that the bad publicity indeed created some sort of career blockages in the mish mash of mystery that is academia and reputational damage. Academia is hellish. Idaho is hellisher. We're at present dealing with a GOP fake grass roots organization to attach 2/3 of Oregon to Idaho (Idaho reps just voted for it!)
Seems to me, Scofield is doing this for largely the same reason Taylor Swift sued someone for a dollar: because the judgment of a court matters, it speaks with some authority, and it's something you can present to anyone who has concerns. (Hat-tip to Justice Kagan in Uzuegbunam oral argument for the handy reference, of course.)
That, of course, butts up against this being a default judgment that doesn't reveal much, plus Scofield's decision to sue for far, far more than just that nominal dollar.
Would a judge have the ability to decide the award was attorney fees plus some smallish nominal amount, say a few hundred bucks? That might not outrun Guillard's ability to pay, and it would get the point across without either downplaying the weirdness of this nor inflating it beyond all recognition.
Leaving aside the broader questions raised about how the system deals with pro se litigants and just looking at the question of what relief would be appropriate, shouldn't Scofield be pushing for an injunction here? I know you can't get a preliminary injunction against defamation but I thought you could get one after an adjudication that the speech was defamatory. Presumably what she really wants is for Guillard to stop calling her a murderer and if she can prove the elements of defamation (which are and should be very speech-protective) that seems like a reasonable thing to ask. I see there's no request for an injunction in her complaint though, beyond the usual verbiage about whatever relief the court finds equitable, so maybe there's some state law bar against even post-suit injunctive relief that would apply here.
"How would a healthy system of justice deal with a pauper lunatic with a large online reach making horrible false claims about someone? What would that look like in an ideal system?"
Unpopular opinion: we already have that ideal system. It's a system that has evolved after hundreds of years of advocates pushing and pulling it into the shape it's currently in. It will never be truly "ideal" and should always be undergoing reform. But I would argue that the system is *especially* good at handling tough cases like this one, which require the delicate balancing of so many competing interests.
That doesn't mean the end result will be perfect justice. It may even be a miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the result will be arrived at through a system which is probably about as good as it can get for resolving civil disputes such as this one. (Notice I said civil disputes -- the criminal justice system is another story.)
This is I suppose obvious, but in the past a mentally insane person would have posted their opinion via mimeographed or photocopied sheets posted at laundromats and on telephone poles. Ms Giulliard has over seven million views on tik tok. The law was written for the age of print media
I feel like both plantiff and defendent would be well served by some kind of streamlined process in cases like this that allows the plantiff to get a court verdict and maybe a few thousand in damages if the court finds the conduct egregious.
What seems bad here is that to get any relief here (even an ordered retraction/seizure/deletion of social media accounts) they have to lay out large legal fees and pay a huge price in time and attention so it would be crazy for them not to sue for an amount of money that would ruin most normal people (gotta make the expected value positive and it's better tactically). That makes the lawsuit very likely to ruin one or both lives.
Yet, realistically, the plantiff isn't likely to see much money. It's just that to get any relief and impose any cost on the defamer that's their only good strategy.
Maybe it would be better to have some streamlined and more forgiving process which both parties could partake in with *limited* lawyer involvement (eg mere advice) provided the stakes were kept low. Something in between the high cost of full representation and pro-se small claims (where discovery and 1st amendment considerations might be too limited ).
I find it plausible that some prospective employers would avoid hiring anyone embroiled in controversy, even a controversy as ridiculous and baseless as this.
The trouble is, the answer to the question of what a healthy system of justice might do to remediate the harms caused by such baseless claims is predicated on the existence of a particular kind of information ecosystem.
Isn't the crux of the Streisand effect precisely the Gödelian notion that no such justice is feasible?
No one ever talks about any social good that could come from defamation suits. It looks like Professor Scofield is looking for a court judgment declaring that she was defamed, meaning the accusations were determined not to be true (or her accuser couldn't come up with any evidence when she was required to). Sort of a reverse Streisand effect.
In opposing the motion to vacate the default, the most important part of the opposition will be working in a line about “how can a purported expert tarot card reader not know how to read a summons? Reading and dealing with summons are the sine qua non of being a tarot card reader.”
Enjoyed this. Miss reading you on twitter!
Did anyone in academia really believe a TikTok influencer who opines based on tarot readings?
Probably not. But there are definitely academics who wouldn't want to work with a colleague who is receiving death threats and unwanted media attention. Even if it's totally undeserved.
I would note that because the case is in Idaho, there's a small chance that the bad publicity indeed created some sort of career blockages in the mish mash of mystery that is academia and reputational damage. Academia is hellish. Idaho is hellisher. We're at present dealing with a GOP fake grass roots organization to attach 2/3 of Oregon to Idaho (Idaho reps just voted for it!)
Dear Ken, you are a treasure.
Seems to me, Scofield is doing this for largely the same reason Taylor Swift sued someone for a dollar: because the judgment of a court matters, it speaks with some authority, and it's something you can present to anyone who has concerns. (Hat-tip to Justice Kagan in Uzuegbunam oral argument for the handy reference, of course.)
That, of course, butts up against this being a default judgment that doesn't reveal much, plus Scofield's decision to sue for far, far more than just that nominal dollar.
Would a judge have the ability to decide the award was attorney fees plus some smallish nominal amount, say a few hundred bucks? That might not outrun Guillard's ability to pay, and it would get the point across without either downplaying the weirdness of this nor inflating it beyond all recognition.
Leaving aside the broader questions raised about how the system deals with pro se litigants and just looking at the question of what relief would be appropriate, shouldn't Scofield be pushing for an injunction here? I know you can't get a preliminary injunction against defamation but I thought you could get one after an adjudication that the speech was defamatory. Presumably what she really wants is for Guillard to stop calling her a murderer and if she can prove the elements of defamation (which are and should be very speech-protective) that seems like a reasonable thing to ask. I see there's no request for an injunction in her complaint though, beyond the usual verbiage about whatever relief the court finds equitable, so maybe there's some state law bar against even post-suit injunctive relief that would apply here.
"How would a healthy system of justice deal with a pauper lunatic with a large online reach making horrible false claims about someone? What would that look like in an ideal system?"
Unpopular opinion: we already have that ideal system. It's a system that has evolved after hundreds of years of advocates pushing and pulling it into the shape it's currently in. It will never be truly "ideal" and should always be undergoing reform. But I would argue that the system is *especially* good at handling tough cases like this one, which require the delicate balancing of so many competing interests.
That doesn't mean the end result will be perfect justice. It may even be a miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the result will be arrived at through a system which is probably about as good as it can get for resolving civil disputes such as this one. (Notice I said civil disputes -- the criminal justice system is another story.)
This is I suppose obvious, but in the past a mentally insane person would have posted their opinion via mimeographed or photocopied sheets posted at laundromats and on telephone poles. Ms Giulliard has over seven million views on tik tok. The law was written for the age of print media
I feel like both plantiff and defendent would be well served by some kind of streamlined process in cases like this that allows the plantiff to get a court verdict and maybe a few thousand in damages if the court finds the conduct egregious.
What seems bad here is that to get any relief here (even an ordered retraction/seizure/deletion of social media accounts) they have to lay out large legal fees and pay a huge price in time and attention so it would be crazy for them not to sue for an amount of money that would ruin most normal people (gotta make the expected value positive and it's better tactically). That makes the lawsuit very likely to ruin one or both lives.
Yet, realistically, the plantiff isn't likely to see much money. It's just that to get any relief and impose any cost on the defamer that's their only good strategy.
Maybe it would be better to have some streamlined and more forgiving process which both parties could partake in with *limited* lawyer involvement (eg mere advice) provided the stakes were kept low. Something in between the high cost of full representation and pro-se small claims (where discovery and 1st amendment considerations might be too limited ).
I find it plausible that some prospective employers would avoid hiring anyone embroiled in controversy, even a controversy as ridiculous and baseless as this.
you may be a 'dumb litigator' but you are my favorite 'dumb litigator'! great break down!
The trouble is, the answer to the question of what a healthy system of justice might do to remediate the harms caused by such baseless claims is predicated on the existence of a particular kind of information ecosystem.
Isn't the crux of the Streisand effect precisely the Gödelian notion that no such justice is feasible?
Shouldn’t Guillard already know how this is going to end?
Some seer she is.
Ken: Funny typo at the end: "...unless its TOO lawyers." (Emphasis added)
No one ever talks about any social good that could come from defamation suits. It looks like Professor Scofield is looking for a court judgment declaring that she was defamed, meaning the accusations were determined not to be true (or her accuser couldn't come up with any evidence when she was required to). Sort of a reverse Streisand effect.