Richard Schimel and Benson Fischer Are Suing Me for $6 Million—Here’s Why That’s Ridiculous

Yes, you read that right. Attorney Richard E. Schimel and his client, self-proclaimed marketing guru Benson J. Fischer, have filed a lawsuit demanding $6,000,000 in damages because I had the audacity to write about them. Not fabricate, not lie—just write.

Their 19-page complaint, which you can read for yourself (because transparency is apparently something they fear), throws every possible accusation at the wall to see what might stick. Let’s break down the claims, why they’re legally flimsy, and why this whole thing makes them look absolutely ridiculous.

First, What Is a SLAPP Lawsuit?

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It’s a tactic used by people with money and thin skin to try to silence critics. These lawsuits usually don’t win in court. That’s not the point. The goal is to intimidate, drain time and money, and discourage others from speaking out.

Many states—including Maryland—have anti-SLAPP laws designed to prevent this nonsense. And let’s be real: this complaint is textbook SLAPP. It’s bloated, vindictive, and aims to bury me in legal fees simply for sharing public information and opinion.

Count 1: False Light / Invasion of Privacy

They say I made them look bad. Not because I lied, but because I made publicly available information easier to find—like past lawsuits, business failures, and suspicious marketing practices.

Their complaint even admits the facts are real but complains that I interpret them as a “pattern of failure.”

Sorry, but you don’t get to curate your past when it’s public record.

Count 2: Defamation and Trade Libel

They claim I said:

• Fischer has been in 50+ lawsuits? That’s in public records.
• He had over $1M in judgments?  Also public record.
• That his 5-star reviews might not be authentic?  I said it’s worth scrutiny. That’s opinion, and opinion is protected speech.

And let’s be clear: calling something “suspicious” or “potentially misleading” is not defamation. It’s journalism. It’s commentary. It’s called the First Amendment.

Also important: Fischer positions himself as a high-profile entrepreneur, franchise consultant, and national marketing authority. He touts 45+ years of experience, dozens of franchises, and a coast-to-coast presence. That makes him a limited-purpose public figure—a legal term that matters a lot in defamation law.

Why? Because public figures must prove actual malice to win a defamation claim. That means they’d have to show I knowingly lied or showed reckless disregard for the truth. And given that:

• I quoted public records and court documents
• I invited them multiple times to clarify any inaccuracies
• I cited sources directly and offered to correct any errors

…this isn’t actual malice—it’s due diligence.

Count 3: Intentional Interference with Business Relations

They claim that because I posted facts and opinions online, people may not want to do business with them anymore.

Imagine blaming the thermometer for telling you it’s cold. If your business collapses because someone looked up your legal history and saw red flags—maybe the issue isn’t the messenger.

Count 4: Injunctive Relief

This one is rich. They want a judge to:

• Take down my blog post
• Ban me from writing anything about them ever again

Not only is that unconstitutional prior restraint, it’s also laughably hypocritical from people who’ve spent months publicly attacking a franchise brand (Nautical Bowls) that they’re supposedly protecting “franchisees” from.

Count 5: Cybersquatting

They’re mad that I bought benson-fischer.com and richardschimel.com. But here’s the kicker:

• I didn’t pretend to be them
• I didn’t try to profit from their name
• I just posted factual documentation about their behavior

That’s not cybersquatting. That’s digital accountability. Courts have routinely upheld the right to register and publish on domains criticizing public figures or businesses—as long as it’s not misleading or fraudulent.

Count 6: Cyberstalking

Their evidence? LinkedIn messages where I told them they were “2 out of 100” on a power scale.

If that’s cyberstalking, then every influencer with a spicy DM is a felon. There’s no credible threat, no repeated harassment, and no stalking. This is pure dramatics.

In Summary:

Schimel and Fischer are throwing a legal tantrum because they don’t like being held accountable. They call it “extortion” when I ask them to stop attacking people. They call it “libel” when I cite court records. They call it “harassment” when I respond to their public messages.

And now, they want $6 MILLION dollars in damages?

That’s not a legal complaint—it’s a meltdown in PDF form.

Let this be a masterclass in what happens when people with skeletons in their closet try to threaten someone who knows how search engines—and the law—actually work.

What Happens Next?

I’ll fight this. And I’ll win. Because:

• Truth is a defense
• Opinion is protected
• Fair use is legal
• Public figures must prove actual malice—and I’ve got receipts
• SLAPP tactics don’t work when the facts are on your side

Want to see the complaint yourself? I’ve published it here.

More posts coming soon. Because unlike these guys, I believe facts belong in the daylight.
Update: Benson Fischer and Richard Schimel Just Filed Their $6 Million Lawsuit

Disclaimer: Everything in this post is based on documented evidence and publicly available information. If Benson or Richard believe something is inaccurate, I welcome a factual correction. What I don’t welcome? Bogus lawsuits and baseless threats.