Ladies and Gentlemen, the Dumbest Lawsuit Ever Filed

I’ve written about a lot of dumb lawsuits over the years. I’ve probably referred to at least one of them as the dumbest lawsuit ever filed. Forget that. They’ve all been topped. This is the dumbest lawsuit that has ever been filed or will ever be filed. As Hemant reports, a man in Texas is suing Richard Dawkins for calling him stupid.

You may recall that Dawkins famously said in a 1989 book review, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Karl L. Dahlstrom, who wrote an anti-evolution book a few years ago, has filed a $58 million lawsuit claiming that Dawkins must have been referring to him, 24 years before he wrote his book, and has thus subjected him to ridicule:

… Plaintiff Karl L. Dahlstrom not only does not believe in Evolution, but he is the only individual on earth in the history of man that has scientifically disproven Evolution. This makes Karl L. Dahlstrom the number one candidate for Richard Dawkins attack, even though Karl L. Dahlstrom, i.e., the “somebody”, could not be ignorant, stupid, or insane or wicked as scientifically proven by the book, The Organized Universe by Karl L. Dahlstrom with C. Phillip Clegg. Thus, the allegations or accusations/statement that Karl L. Dahlstrom, i.e. “somebody”, who does not believe in Evolution is ignorant, stupid, or insane or wicked is totally incorrect and false with results being a tort or worse against the Plaintiff Karl L. Dahlstrom. Richard Dawkins has caused millions of persons to be prejudiced and biased against Karl L. Dahlstrom and injured his reputation and subjected him to hatred, contempt, ridicule and financial injury from persons not exposed to the truth about Darwinian Evolution and the position Plaintiff Karl L. Dahlstrom has taken on this issue.

Needless to say, this lawsuit was filed pro se, meaning Dahlstrom is representing himself in the case. That’s because this suit is so staggeringly moronic that even Larry Klayman would not file it. And while Dawkins was not speaking directly about Dahlstrom, I will. If he actually believes he has any chance of winning this lawsuit, he isn’t merely stupid, he is quite possibly the dumbest man ever to walk the face of the earth, a weapons-grade fucking idiot whose presumed ability to dress and feed himself seems nearly miraculous.

If you’d like to sue me over that, Mr. Dahlstrom, be my guest. Texas has one of the strongest anti-SLAPP statutes in the country and I’d be happy to use it. To make it an (almost) fair fight, I might just represent myself as well. You can read the full complaint here. To be fair, I’m sure it reads better in its original form, scrawled onto the side of Piggly Wiggly bag in crayon.

""ended with a drop dead gorgeous red head from Cleveland"I suppose we can at least ..."

OH Gov. Candidate Defends Franken by ..."
"“I believe in the Republican Party, what we stand for"Okay, stop right there. You're just ..."

AL Governor Thinks Moore Did It, ..."
"I guess it's true: to his followers, tRump is a masterfully subtle genius. That says ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • sugarfrosted

    He’s all three, it’s slander because Dawkins used exclusively or.

  • Saad

    To be fair, I’m sure it reads better in its original form, scrawled onto the side of Piggly Wiggly bag in crayon.

    LOL! Thanks for the laugh to start my Monday morning.

    Yeah, this is a new level of dumb, even for the ant-science folks.

  • Abby Normal

    I’m thinking it is not so much a lawsuit as it is a book advertisement.

  • MikeMa

    Sorry Ed, I think Klayman WOULD have filed the suit. Happily.

  • zenlike
  • Saad

    Correction to my #2:

    That should be anti-science, not ant-science.

    Apologies to any entomologists who may be reading.

  • reddiaperbaby1942

    The text is really entertaining. Mr. Dahlstrom may have written a book, but I hope he had a good copy-editor. I didn’t read the whole thing, but as far as I got my favorite is this:

    The theory of evolution us [sic] not supported by scientific proof, only numerous interferences [sic] that purportedly make evolution a fact of history.

  • zenlike

    Yep, it appears is is the same guy, or there have to be two Texans with the same name who have a wife named Carla:

    http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/purecase/dahlstm1.htm

    http://outskirtspress.com/webPage/isbn/9781478701217

    A christian crook. What a surprise.

  • MikeMa

    If reddiaperbaby1942’s quote is representative, the author may have to file a second suit against himself.

  • Dark Jaguar

    I wouldn’t worry about this. Anyone can sue anyone for literally anything. Doesn’t mean that person actually has a case, or that anyone even thinks he might have a case.

  • Artor

    Dark Jaguar, nobody is worried at all about this. We are just marveling over the abject ignorance, stupidity & insanity of the case. Dahlstrom’s ability to duck into a punch, decades after it has been thrown, is an amazing thing.

  • illdoittomorrow

    Never mind the Piggly Wiggly Bag Originalist Version, Ed. I think the complaint filed by Karl L. Dahlstrom, i.e. “somebody”, needs a dramatic reading by William Shatner to be fully appreciated.

  • caseloweraz

    Aaaand… the book gets 2.3 out of 5 stars on Amazon. That’s among the lowerst (sic) ratings I’ve seen. To quote three of the 1-star reviews:

    “320 pages of nonsense combined with numerology to make it sound scientific.”

    “Big on straw mans and ends up succeeding with confirmation bias.”

    “This is garbage.”

    Is there legal precedent for suing a class of people? It looks like Mr. Dahlstrom might have reason to try. Just sayin’.

    Customers who viewed this book also viewed the Infant Circumcision Trainer* that PZ Myers is so fond of.

    * White version, of course.

  • colnago80

    I mentioned this in a comment on the cited thread on Mehta’s site. A commenter who commented on my comment claimed that the SLAPP suit law isn’t applicable.

  • John Pieret

    In Federal court, pro se complaints are automatically reviewed by the court to see if they are at least facially sufficient to state a cause of action. This thing isn’t going to get past that review.

    Right from the get-go, he alleges Dawkins’ statement, “somebody who claims not to believe in

    Evolution is ignorant, stupid, or insane or wicked ,…..”., is a statement of fact which, of course, it is not. It is a statement of opinion, especially since it was not directed at any specific person. That’s just the beginning of why it fails.

    The Judge’s law clerks will, however, have great fun passing it around to all their colleagues and friends.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    If Dawkins thought that Dahlstrom was stupid in 1989, then why is Dahlstrom still stupid? Checkmate, Dawkinists!

  • eric

    My favorite two things about the suit:

    1. Richard Dawkins statement was in 1989. Dahlstrom’s book was written in 2013. Time-traveling evolutionists strike again!

    2. Dahltrom claims he could be the only possible target of the statement due to his book…but his book has a co-author.

  • freehand

    Anyone who thinks he can prove evolution is fundamentally wrong without providing some world-headline level, culture-shattering, and thoroughly documented evidence is depressingly ignorant about science. Anybody who spends time writing a book and still thinks that is stupid or insane. Evidence that this man is wicked is still weak.

  • Dan

    There are no Piggly Wiggly sin in Texas Ed. Now who’s stupid?

  • MikeMa

    Assuming Dawkins WAS talking about the author, there is still no grounds for the suit as Dawkins is stating an obvious fact! snark

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Dan @ # 19: There are no Piggly Wiggly sin in Texas …

    Texas has every sort of sin – just ask any preacher there!

    (If you’re attractive enough, the preacher may agree to show you – even the PW kind – first-hand…)

  • whheydt

    Note the phrasing of:

    The Organized Universe by Karl L. Dahlstrom with C. Phillip Clegg.

    That structure usually (Dahlstrom’s mental limitations may alter this) means that Clegg actually wrote the book for Dahlstrom. Probably Dahlstrom’s ideas–and money–put into actual words by Clegg. Has anyone checked to see if the book is self-published? That would be another warning flag.

  • Michael Heath

    Ed reports:

    This is the dumbest lawsuit that has ever been filed or will ever be filed. As Hemant reports, a man in Texas is suing Richard Dawkins for calling him stupid.

    I’m not sure if it’s the dumbest given the lawsuits filed by Larry Klayman and the CA dentist crazy person whose name escapes me (Orly Taitz?). But this complaint has to be in everyone’s Top Ten List for one of the funniest filed. Particularly given the amplifying feedback effect of the complaint; it’s still reverberating in my noggin.

  • Michael Heath

    Saad corrects herself:

    That should be anti-science, not ant-science.

    Coincidently, I glanced at a movie news headline earlier today and mistakenly thought a new movie was titled ‘Anti-man’ rather than ‘Ant-man’. The former sounds like a far more interesting premise.

  • MikeMa

    @Michael Heath

    Yes, Orly Taitz. You left out real estate agent to her glowing list of activities. Glowing as in radioactive.

  • blf

    Has anyone checked to see if the book is self-published?

    Yes, it is (Outskirts Press is fairly notorious). That link is hilarious, but the bit I liked best was the author’s bio:

    About Karl L. Dahlstrom

    Karl Dahlstrom is a modern Renaissance man: author, inventor, educator, legal researcher, scientist and contrarian to conventional thought. Although he is degreed (an MS in physics), his prodigious talents lie in “thinking outside the box” and finding hidden truths. …

    I haven’t bothered to track down whether or not he really has a degree, or from where.

  • Holms

    Yeah, this is a new level of dumb, even for the ant-science folks.

    What is this? THE SCIENCE OF ANTS??

  • thebookofdave

    @eric #17

    About your two favorite things:

    1. Dahlstrom may have gathered a preponderance of evidence to demonstrate that effects precede causes. Expect a breakthrough in physics during last week’s trial.

    2. Someone has to translate his work from babytalk into English and tuck him in after a day’s work. Maybe his babysitter is filing separately.

  • freehand

    thebookofdave says: Someone has to translate his work from babytalk into English and tuck him in after a day’s work. Maybe his babysitter is filing separately.

    .

    Or maybe someone has been paid for services rendered, is smarter than his recent employer, and has no intention of becoming part of this.

  • cjcolucci

    The allegedly defamatory statement was made in 1989. The lawsuit was filed in 2015. I don’t know Texas procedural law, but in every state I am aware of the statute of limitations for defamation actions is shorter than for most tort claims. (In New York, for example, the general personal injury claim must be brought within 3 years; defamation claims within one.) Although I am willing to believe many odd things about Texas law, I can’t imagine that it permits a defamation lawsuit on a 26 year-old statement.

  • hrafn

    It should be noted that this guy has unsuccessfully sued-over/appealed a tax assessment and a conviction for tax/securities fraud (respectively) previously. ‘If in (even the slightest shadow of a) doubt, sue’ seems to be his motto.