What a comedown. When Carlos Lundy, Colt’s dad, sued me for “cyber-defamation of character,” he was originally seeking damages of a million dollars. A couple days ago, I received notice dated July 27, 2016 saying that the Kosciusko Circuit Court has finally rendered a decision, and the judge found against me for a penalty of $7,500.
Not that I can pay the penalty any easier than I could pay a million dollars, but it’s a helluva lot less than it would have cost me to hire a good attorney and fight Carlos’ allegations.
There were three main reasons I didn’t defend myself.
First, you don’t sue anybody who doesn’t have deep pockets. I don’t own anything and said so publicly. Any marketable assets are owned by a land trust that I have established for the benefit of the parricides I defend. Estrella Vista is already given away. You can’t recover money from someone who doesn’t have it.
Second, even though the court found that I published some information that turned out not to be correct (as well as a lot of true stuff), it ignored the fact that Carlos had first called a former associate of mine (who had been my source of the erroneous research information) making it very clear that he did not wish to be contacted again, and furthermore, that he did not want his son contacted either. In other words, Carlos himself had set up the conditions under which information would be disseminated. If you set up a situation in which information cannot be confirmed or denied, you must accept responsibility for the consequences. This guy’s an expert at evading responsibilities.
Third, Carlos did not prove that any actual damages had in fact been sustained. The ruling itself states this. In my opinion, this whole affair amounts to a “tempest in a teapot” and avoids the fact that Carlos and his former wife raised a child who ended up murdering someone. As such, Carlos had become a “public figure,” and it is inevitable that someone would write or say something that would hurt his feelings. If I were in Carlos’ shoes, I would be mortified that I was the father of a boy who was widely reputed to have been a bully, as well as a son who had resorted to murder to resolve a situation that could have resulted in a better outcome. Whatever the man’s feelings, I wouldn’t seek damages from someone who merely reports what the data in the public record seems to suggest. I would at least try to set the record straight, to speak with the source of the “wrong information,” and demonstrate that I am a responsible parent. As my previous behavior clearly demonstrates, I would have resolved things in a way that would have, or should have, satisfied Carlos.
In all honesty, I have heard some good things about Carlos from people who say they know. I have heard he is a conscientious visitor to his son. This counts for a lot. I have heard that he is building a home for Colt to live in when released. Responsible, as well. But I have also heard speculation that he may resent my role in having recruited Monica Foster, one of the most competent lawyers in Indiana, to represent Paul Henry Gingerich in his appeals for a shorter sentence. This may be an explanation for his lawsuit, as well as being a potential “spoiler” for other kids.
I will say that my view of the Kosciusko Circuit Court has gone up a notch since finding out about the July 27th ruling; I had expected them to be especially harsh towards someone who has heaped so much ridicule upon the Court after Paul Henry’s original sentence. In my opinion, the Court should have recused itself, but they did at least not find against me for the ridiculous amount of a million dollars.
This would have created a benefit for murder. This would have rewarded Carlos for being a deficient father and such a poor legal strategist.
95° and Clear