Kidnapper sues victims who escaped for breach of contract

Jesse Dimmick is suing Jared and Lindsay Rowley, whom he was convicted of kidnapping, for breach of contract. Dimmick argues that because the two won his trust when he invaded their house at knifepoint (while fleeing a murder charge which led to him driving over a police spike-strip in front of their house), and then left once he fell asleep, they violated their contract to remain his hostages. The couple lulled Dimmick with a clever strategy of watching Robin Williams's Patch Adams with him while eating Cheetos and drinking Dr Pepper.

You see, Dimmick alleges that, after breaking into the Rowleys' home with a knife and gun, they all then sat down and hashed out a deal under which they would hide him from police (the police who were right outside) for an unspecified amount of money. "Later," he complained, "the Rowleys reneged on said oral contract, resulting in my being shot in the back by authorities." Ergo, breach of contract.
Um, no, wrote the Rowleys' attorney in a motion to dismiss earlier this month. He had multiple arguments, all very good ones, as to why a contract claim would not fly here. First, there was no agreement. Second, if there was an agreement, there was no meeting of the minds on the amount of money (Dimmick admitted the "offer" was for "an unspecified amount"), and so no binding contract. Third, agreements made at knifepoint are, you may be surprised to learn, not enforceable as they are made "under duress." Finally, a contract to do something illegal (e.g. hide a fugitive) is also not enforceable.

Man Sues Couple He Kidnapped

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: christ what an asshole • crime • law • Weird

More at Boing Boing

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor

Antinous / Moderator

How do these things not get immediately dismissed?
- http://www.fagerland.org tofagerl
  
  My guess would be the judge got a chuckle out of it and wanted to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to hopefully get some more chuckles later.
Hanglyman

How did he find a lawyer who would agree to something so obviously destined to fail? Did he hold the lawyer at knifepoint too?
- http://www.disoriented.net/ angusm
  
  The article says that he’s representing himself, which calls to mind the old lawyer’s line about “a man who represents himself has a fool for a client”.
  - Hanglyman
    
    Whoops, missed that.
- ChicagoD
  
  “Mr. Dimmick is representing himself.” I was 99.9999% sure that would be true, but I was gratified to see that was the last sentence.
- http://codeflow.org/ Florian Bösch
  
  Never heard of novelty lawyers? It’s a shrewd practise of “law” in which any case, no matter how stupid is represented. Of course those cases can’t be held, or won. But the publicity for the lawyer is real.
http://robertobaca.com/ Roberto Baca

It’s so hard to find good kidnapping victims these days. Another thing illegal immigrants will soon take over.
jarmstrong

It is about to get immediately dismissed, as “the Rowley’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss earlier this month.” And Dimmick did not find a lawyer to file this case, he is representing himself (per the article).

Dimmick has probably been incarcerated since his arrest and certainly since his conviction and sentencing. Some prisoners work out, some read books, some find religion, and some sue anybody and everybody they can think of. Whatever gets you through the night.
http://twitter.com/danwall88 Dan Wallace

He should have sued them for cruel and unusual punishment after having to sit through Robin Williams’ Patch Adams.
Ianto_Jones

Convicted criminals who bring these sorts of frivolous cases out of stupidity or simply so they can continue to torment their victims should automatically have the length of their original sentence doubled.
Zero Sonico

Sounds like a case for Jim Carrey.

Oh, Fletcher!
querent

I assumed this was going to be a scientology story.
- marilove
  
  I thought the same thing! Isn’t there something going on with a Scientology kidnapping that is very similar? I SWEAR I read something about that today.
  
  OO! Found it:
  
  http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/11/valeska_paris_scientology_freewinds.php
  - mccrum
    
    Scientology kidnaps people and holds them against their will? Why, that sounds like something a cult would do! And since they have tax-free status as a church they can’t be a cult.
    
    Oh well. Must just be some reporter making up a story for their deadline. [/sarcasm]
http://twitter.com/grownduskier Davey

For a moment I thought I’d confused BB with The Onion and that this had to be a parody news article but nope…genuine.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stefan_e_jones/ Stefan Jones

If this was a side-story in an episode of Breaking Bad, involving Saul the As Seen On TV lawyer, I’d think it was entertainingly absurd.
Palomino

I wonder what kind of contract he thought he had with the individual he murdered.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Trent-Baker/100000123865597 Trent Baker

Contracts made under duress are not binding.
Warren_Terra

As has already been repeatedly noted, the article contains the following key sentence:

Mr. Dimmick is representing himself.

He’s got nothing better to do with his time than think up legal cases to bring – and in this case, he was already involved in a legal tussle with his victims, because they were suing him for damages. It’s funny, and it’ll get tossed in a hot minute, but it’s probably a better use of his time than watching Patch Adams.
Brainspore

Competent kidnappers know that oral contracts are less binding than rope and duct tape.
Patrick Spargur

Would it be possible for someone here to rewrite this story as a string of facebook updates and tweets? I believe it is the only way to truly grasp the moment by moment drama.
nathanroberts

Further proof that you can sue absolutely anyone over absolutely anything. (Even if it gets laughed out of court in the first five minutes)
bardfinn

My verdict:
Dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff is fined $60,000.00 plus court costs plus defendant’s legal costs, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to perform 2000 hours of community service.
robuluz

I like the way the article shows the cover of ‘Patch Adams’, as though endorsing it for emergency use in home invasion hostage situations.

It could be kept in a glass case beside the DVD player.

“Heeey there, crazy knife wielding murderer guy who just broke into our house, lets all take it easy now. Why don’t we just chill and watch this movie I have here (*sound of glass breaking*) Oh wow, ‘Patch Adams’! Honey, grab some Cheetos… (*sound of glass breaking from kitchen*).”
Guest

I’d pay to see the judge’s response to this.
subtle

I don’t know. Suing someone you have horribly wronged for an absurd reason? Sounds to me like this gentleman would have an excellent career arguing foreclosure law on the behalf of US Bank.
benher

Can they afford to litigate though? Maybe they should just settle. He’s only demanding a Patch Adams Blu-Ray and a big gulp of DP…
http://twitter.com/Maxwell256 Jason Crume

The kidnap victims should be requesting attorney fees and sanctions because this is a frivolous claim. A plaintiff acting pro se has to follow the Rules of Professional conduct and a lawyer cannot file a frivolous law suit.
- DeargDoom
  
  Any legal expertise I have comes from watching Judge Judy but as far as I can tell from the article the kidnapper is the defendant and the two victims are the plaintiffs. He is counter suing with a claim which will presumably cause nothing other than amusement.
- blueelm
  
  Hope they filed for damages in addition to the criminal trial. It would be funny. If I were a lawyer I’d honestly have represented the couple for free, just for the chance to write that utterly hilarious motion for dismissal.
ciacontra

Wow, their attorney was probably just bored and laughing his head off. Either #3 or #4 is quite enough to toss this psycho’s motion.

I just have to wonder what sort of damages he was seeking?
OriGuy

Judges tend to give pro se plaintiffs a little extra leeway. It doesn’t sound like the case has gotten to a preliminary hearing, though. It probably won’t last past that.
Jeremy Wilson

What really sucks is that the couple will have to pay an attorney to deal with it, even though it is completely ridiculous. When it’s dismissed, will they be reimbursed for fees?
bart

From the original article, last paragraph:

>Mr. Dimmick is representing himself.
Lobster

“The couple lulled Dimmick with a clever strategy of watching Robin Williams’s Patch Adams with him while eating Cheetos and drinking Dr Pepper.”

A shared trauma can bring people together.
Colin Rosenthal

I think this guy is actually being paid by the editors of a new Yiddish dictionary who are trying to improve the definition of “chutzpah”.