Gleeful Troll Todd Kincannon Files First Amendment Suit Against South Carolina Attorney Authorities

Print This Post

You may also like...

28 Responses

  1. Patterico says:

    Stop confusing me with so many quotable lines.

  2. trebuchet says:

    Off-topic, but this post is displaying in a format utterly unlike the usual. Full screen width for the text and no graphics. Chrome browser on Win 7. I've reloaded it a couple of times, it's consistent.

    ETA: Now that my post comes up, the appearance is normal.

  3. Tom says:

    Wow. That doesn't even look like the work of a competent jailhouse lawyer. They'd at least invoke the court's jurisdiction at some point.

    Also, this is among the funniest things I've ever seen in a document allegedly drafted by a lawyer:

    [signed, J. Todd Kincannon]
    Attorney for Plaintiff [J. Todd Kincannon] (Appearing Pro Se)

  4. John Beaty says:

    He's not The Honey Badger of politics, he's the Honey Boo-Boo of political ignorance.

  5. John Beaty says:

    "Apparently it's a think piece."

    Priceless.

  6. Dave says:

    "offends someone bad enough"? I don't care if this is some sort of first draft or "placeholder" suit. I wouldn't let him draw up a will for my cat (and I don't even own a cat).

  7. Chris says:

    Nice piece about a true douche, but I think you mean "indolent" where you have "dilatory".

  8. Fasolt says:

    @trebuchet:
    I'm seeing the same thing with Chrome and Firefox. Posting up to see if it reverts back to normal for me like it did for you.

  9. Fasolt says:

    Worked.

  10. ZarroTsu says:

    Kincannon, Kincannon, Kincannon, Kincannon
    Argh! Snake, a snake!
    Snaaake! A snaaaake, oooh its a snake!

  11. N. Easton says:

    I don't want to out myself as an enemy of the first amendment or anything, but I'm not actually sure that allowing attorneys to advertise has improved the practice of law.

  12. Anton Sirius says:

    It's been a few weeks since Todd tweeted anything. I guess he was too busy putting together this complaint to go on the interwebz and be stupid.

  13. That complaint blows. Too refined and whiny. What's Jonathan Lee Riches' rate these days? At least his pleadings are funny.

  14. Connie says:

    Reading the complaint came across as the equivalent of someone saying 'They're being mean to me' and sulking over his book rather than documenting specific instances and providing valid exaples.

  15. Ollie says:

    @ZarroTsu,

    I see what you did there.

    Mushroom, mushroom.

  16. Nancy says:

    Partway through the complaint I remembered the quote, "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

  17. Sarah says:

    I'm no fan of Kincannon but I am a big fan of the 1st Amendment along with the rest of the bill of rights. We are allowed to have political and social opinions that offend others. I really don't see a lot of difference between Todd and the average progressive… except that Kincannon actually supports the rights of all people to hold opinions that are offensive without being punished by the government.

  18. Trent says:

    The new site theme thing is random, it comes and goes. It's been happening to me for about a week. For example I get it if I go in the top post, but not the second. I'm not sure if they are beta testing a new site or if this is accidental script injection on the part of wordpress. Either way it's definitely just another theme on top of wordpress as most of the same info is still there. It would be interesting if Ken commented on whether this is intentional on their part, that is if he's even aware it's happening.

  19. Resolute says:

    How much does it cost to file the paperwork to start such a case? Probably the cheapest, easiest means of promoting his book he could find. And it will no doubt resonate well with his target audience.

  20. CJK Fossman says:

    @sarah

    Kincannon actually supports the rights of all people to hold opinions that are offensive without being punished by the government.

    How you can write that after reading about his body bag statement?

    What are you thinking?

  21. Don Kenner says:

    Todd Kincannon is indeed an idiot. But writers in publications like Salon who wax indignant had little to say when Sarah Palin was regularly pelted with obscene and misogynistic comments, included references to her "retard" children. Indeed, they cheered. I'm not impressed with their feminist ethics.

  22. Anonymous Coward says:

    Performance artist? You're too generous. He's just a troll. Don't feed the trolls.

  23. L says:

    "But writers in publications like Salon who wax indignant had little to say when Sarah Palin was regularly pelted with obscene and misogynistic comments, included references to her "retard" children. Indeed, they cheered."

    Citation?

  24. Arthur Kirkland says:

    Mr. Kincannon (who claims to have been a Law Review member at South Carolina, which if true indicates South Carolina's law school possesses no legitimate reason to exist) asserts that his income from awesome law-talking dudery already exceeds $1 million this year and is expected to reach $3 million.

    Which should be more amusing: (1) the discovery regarding this point, or (2) the inquiries from the Internal Revenue Service if someone alerts the revenuers to Mr. Kincannon's income claims?

  25. Liz says:

    And here I thought the complaint would be about him sending pictures of his junk to random women he met on Twitter (note: he was engaged at the time, now he is married). I guess the bar association has no comment about him distributing dick pictures but his crude and insulting comments warrant investigation.

  26. Niall says:

    @Arthur Kirkland: I saw that, but my thought was more that it seemed to have no merit in such a filing, unless having a "lucrative" law office somehow made the threat of loss of income more important than that of a less lucrative firm, whose actual existence would then be in peril, making the threat more important in this case, so Boom Goes The Logic. Plus, having a lucrative law office has zero connection to having a good practice; that's just false implication.

  27. Canuckamuk says:

    Liz July 22, 2014 at 4:18 am
    And here I thought the complaint would be about him sending pictures of his junk to random women he met on Twitter

    A little research would find that this was discredited long again as a smear done by left wnger on Twitter trying to shut him up. Google Jason Wade Taylor AKA Randy Hahn for classic creepiness

    Even if the man does take his shtick to the nth degree, I thought free speech was one of the U.S. great principles?

    The cheering in the comments section here for coordinated attacks having his twitter accounts banned multiple times; multiple frivolous complaints to the Bar to jeopardize his ability to earn a living; as well as book banning seems to prove numerous of Kincannon points that there is a discriminatory posture when it comes to liberal\conservatives and free speech.

    And for L, a citation example – http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/sarah-palin-bill-maher-trig-comment-92706.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>