...One of the important things he missed while attending that third tier toilet law skool he matriculated from is the basic principal in California defamation law that:
"[T]ruth is an absolute defense to defamation, including per se defamation. If the statement is true, it cannot be defamatory."
That fact will not serve him well.
Perhaps if he actually shares the "facts" of his meritricious "case" with the "family law" "criminal"and "trust" lawyers...at the teeny, tiny little firm whose name he is throwing around.... they will get him up to speed on the law. (Say..Wonder if they actually know about F.L.'s invocation of their firm's name? Hmmmm)
Ole F.L. should also become acquainted with the the concept of counter suit. And the sanctions that will fall on him should he actually find a law firm so incompetent that they would actually seek to bring a frivolous suit based on a foundation of his falsehoods (or, failing in that, should he attempt to file pro se...a very amusing prospect, that).
Here's a pertinent provision of applicable California law for F.L. to ponder:
California Code of Civil Procedure §128.7.
(c) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
(c)(1)....Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
What that means is...that if F.L. brings a frivolous suit, he and his law firm would be liable for damages.
Speaking just for me, I have no real interest in acquiring any of the greasy used up F.E. junk that he purports to own. But that transfer of ownership could be in the offing.
Finally, F.L. should become familiar with the general fact that his own character traits will be at issue in any defamation suit that he brings (remember, truth is an absolute defense). Generally speaking a person making defamation accusation must have a reputation for "trustworthiness" or "truthfulness" pursuant to California Civil Code. So, if F.L. has ever lied (perish the thought!) in any of the rambling babble he posted (before banning) on the F.E. forum, those lies are relevant. Those semi-coherent, invective filled screeds themselves will be relevant at trial, too. As will all of the rage, insults and dare I say...defamation... that he filled those posts with. Based on the opinions (expressed by people who apparently know F.L. personally) I have read in the comments section of several news articles regarding F.L., he may have some issues there, too. I would imagine that some of the Long Beach folks who have expressed those unflattering appraisal's of F.L.'s character might just be called as witnesses at trial against him. Their personal experiences would, I imagine, be instructive to the court.
Long and short of it: Time for Fender Lizard to just go away and stop harassing folks with risibly written, back channel threats of law suits that can never and will never be brought.