"In Anticipation Of Forthcoming Rape And Murder...": Annapolis Shooter's Lawsuits, Twitter Wars, Paranoia, Threats Of Violence, And Support For Trump...

Jarrod Ramos sued the paper in 2012:

Appellate court upholds ruling in favor of Capital-Gazette

Tim PrattContact Reportertpratt@capgaznews.com

Appellate court upholds ruling in favor of Capital-Gazette

Maryland's second-highest court last week upheld a ruling in favor of Capital-Gazette Communications, a former reporter and a former publisher accused of defamation.

Jarrod Ramos of Laurel made the defamation claim in Prince George's County Circuit Court in 2012 after a 2011 column by then-Capital staff writer Eric Hartley about Ramos' guilty plea to criminal harassment.

Prince George's Circuit Court Judge Maureen M. Lamasney dismissed Ramos' claim in 2013, saying the article was based on public records and Ramos presented no evidence it was inaccurate.

Ramos, who represented himself, appealed the decision to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which upheld Lamasney's ruling in an opinion filed Thursday.

"A lawyer would almost certainly have told him not to proceed with this case," the court wrote in the opinion. "It reveals a fundamental failure to understand what defamation law is and, more particularly, what defamation law is not."

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:30:36 -0500 From: "Jarrod W. Ramos" <REDACTED> Reply-To: "Jarrod W. Ramos" <REDACTED> Subject: Defendant's response To: ehartley@capitalgazette.com <http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2011/07/31-22/Eric-Hartley-Jarrod-wants-to-be-your-friend.html#comments> Dear Reader, If you're here now, you probably just Googled my name.  If this story caught you off guard, there's something you should know.  While I did commit the offense of harassment, the victim's version of events is a gross misrepresentation of what actually occurred.  Mr. Hartley has here further distorted the truth. Upon reconsideration this afternoon, Judge Jonas D. Legum has overturned my conviction despite continued opposition by the victim.  At hearing she showed her true colors and the court was unpersuaded by her attempted manipulation.  If you know me, ask me.  I certainly did a bad thing, but don't shun me for how it was portrayed by this newspaper. Mr. Hartley, This is your written notice the conditions I provided to you are hereby withdrawn.  You have chosen to ignore my letter, but your response was not invisible.  The ground you tried digging was solid, as my integrity.  Say the same to me and you've lied once more.  You can expect my lawsuit in July.  Get your people ready, because I will be. CC: ehartley@capitalgazette.com CAPITAL CENSORSHIP Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:30:15 -0500 From: "Jarrod W. Ramos" <REDACTED> Reply-To: "Jarrod W. Ramos" <REDACTED> Subject: Re: Defendant's response To: tmarquardt@capitalgazette.com, ehartley@capitalgazette.com, nlundskow@capitalgazette.com I notice my comment has been removed by HometownAnnapolis staff.  Would any of you care to offer a rationale? THEIR OWN TRUE COLORS Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:20:26 -0500 From: "Jarrod W. Ramos" <REDACTED> Reply-To: "Jarrod W. Ramos" <REDACTED> Subject: Re: Defendant's response To: "Jarrod W. Ramos" <REDACTED> Cc: tmarquardt@capitalgazette.com, ehartley@capitalgazette.com, nlundskow@capitalgazette.com You people have no explanation for the removal of my comment? Even though it appears you have acted with personal spite, ill will, and a desire to see me come to harm? Even though it appears to be a conscious effort to conceal or ignore anything contrary to the words of a vengeful source of highly questionable credibility? Are you guys truly the champions of free speech, accountability, and organizational transparency, or do those things only really matter when they suit your purposes to make people look bad and generate revenue? A CAUSE OF ACTION COMES Eric Hartley and The Capital have been aware of their exposure for months.  They have been aware of their tortiously inflicted harm, which can and has continued to accrue.  They lied there was "a call for comment left with [my] attorney" then dismissed and ultimately obstructed my answer.  They have known my lawsuit is coming and done nothing to avoid it.  All told, they just don’t care.  I envision, much like 11 years ago, it will take nothing less than a jury to change their attitudes and, hopefully, this time, culture. Jarrod W. Ramos November 20, 2011 11/21/11 - This is in case you searched "Jarrod Ramos" in quotes. DEGREES OF KNOWING

NEWSPAPER UPENDED FOR MISCONDUCT, LYING Just who is it that seems to think there’s some kind of relationship here that does not exist?  That was your source, Mr. Hartley.  I trust you aren’t “fearful;” I read you tempting another lawsuit—one that will break you, at that. Playing lawyer as you have journalist, once again you were factually self-handicapped. I’ve been learning law for a different kind of game.  It’s no publicity stunt, nor clinical insanity, nor predatory Internet fantasy, but very dangerous indeed.  If nothing else, you certainly understand this.  What two words introduce your every column?  Pick the hatchet back up.  En garde. HARTLEY — TOO LATE, YOU PUBLISHED HIM An unsuccessful run for office, a suspended law license, a criminal offense: nothing gives you the right to say as you please without consequence.  Your personal disapproval is not a basis for privilege.  Your influential position does not place you above the law.  You know all of this already, so why must I remind you?  Under your direction, Mr. Marquardt, these offenses are progressively emboldened.  It’s "a sign of the times and unfortunate."  You’re a malicious defamer, grooming another. JARROD WANTS TO BE YOUR END The judicial penalty for my misconduct was $500.  What of yours, Marquardt?  What of yours, Hartley?  How long can you prance on others, so high and mightily, your hooves smeared with tar?  How dare you? Much like a life, what is the price of a name?  Are these even two different questions?  Your counsel just wants to chat?  How dishonorable were your intentions?  Did you dismiss him?  Get serious.  Whatever piece of you Tanko took, that was only a skirmish.  You’re not ready for this war. So wipe your dirty brows, but before you check your hands—is it blood, or just sweat?—know this: protests of “Chilling Effect!” are no salvation when you set yourselves on fire. Jarrod W. Ramos May 3, 2012 THE LIFE OF KINGS Mr. Hartley is better than you!  He even got a law school education, just to save you $5.  With him representing himself, he maneuvered against the government for you.  The point was how the county treats regular people (you).  Never mind The Capital paid him for this, or that they still have to battle for free copy service (free information costs a car trip)... did you know that was his lawsuit?  It was the lawsuit of Only Eric Hartley.  He was the plaintiff himself in his suit he was.  For you. Mr. Lundskow can do whatever he wants.  He encourages the free flow of ideas except when he doesn't.  Debate and discussion are all good, except when he says so.  What does he base that on?  Basically whatever he wants.  It's tough work being Judge Nick.  He doesn't want you smearing The Capital's name.  They've built a brand on doing whatever they want, like obdurately injuring people's reputations. Mr. Marquardt views news subjects as targets, and The Capital is his shotgun.  He fills with glee when he strikes down another asshole.  Just ask John Greiber.  Some targets are easy and some targets unclear.  "Shoot it anyway," he says, "I want it dead!"  He hates it when civility and decency get in the way of his fun.  He does it for the victims, even when “She wants to be alone.”  He'd tell you his "personal animosity" has nothing to do with it, though he doesn't even know what that is.  So don't be a killjoy. OPEN SEASON That's the life at 2000 Capital Drive, from one generation to the next.  They're so sure their own shit doesn't stink, they feel their sewage bill should be paid by the people of Annapolis.  When their guilty consciences catch up to them, the people pay for that too.  They call themselves an important watchdog, but who watches the watchers? The authority that permits their power also stands poised to punish its abuse.  Even kings must answer to God, and a modern day Inquisition is at hand.  The potential judgement is no less severe; the carnage differs only in literal terms.  As this search for Truth commences, a crusader they could not kill approaches. Jarrod W. Ramos July 15, 2012