Skip navigation


The infamous LOLyer Deric Lostutter has been busy lately. Along with a slew of summonses (more on that in my next article) he decided to write to the defendants lawyer, first “congratulating him” and then scolding him and his clients for not doing his bidding.


To further understand what it is that Deric is talking about, I suggest you read the reference below.


Deric claims that the Federal court hearing his case has jurisdiction over it and the defendant’s have been arguing just the opposite. The court has yet to rule on the defendant’s request to the court for dismissal of the case.


The above statement is interesting for one glaring reason. Deric leaves out in his letter that one of his witnesses is a man by the name of David Spiggle. It is alleged that Mr Spiggle has a long standing dispute with one of the female defendants named in Deric’s lawsuit.

As of this writing, there are a number of legal actions being processed in regards to that dispute which I may include in the writings on this blog at a later date.

¬†Another problem for Deric is that Mr Spiggle has some alleged “dirty laundry” so to speak, that may come out in the discovery process. The inclusion of this witness in his lawsuit may do more harm than good to his case.


In the above excerpt, Deric is accusing one or more of the defendants of witness intimidation and tampering. Based on what I have been able to find out, his argument may be baseless since most of the actions alleged come in the form of opinions. In the the case of Mr Spiggle, at the time of contact by the defendant, it was not known that Mr Spiggle had contacted Deric’s wife to volunteer as a witness.

In order for the defendant to have intimidated or tampered with the witness, he would have had to have knowledge of Mr Spiggle either being a witness or intending to be a witness in the Lostutter lawsuit.


In this excerpt, Deric states the obvious. The defendant’s atty has chosen not to respond to Deric’s request for a conference. Deric is going to have to go to the court to request that the atty be compelled to have the conference and have the court rule on his request.


I would be curious to see the contents of the letter that was sent to Deric. As of this writing, the letter remains unavailable. If I am able to obtain it along with the permission to publish, I will do so.

There is more to come so be sure to:

Stay tuned