ShoeMoney Subpoenaed Over Slanderous Blog Comments

SMS Text

Jeremy Schoemaker, an A List blogger who is also known as ShoeMoney, contacted me yesterday and discussed a recent legal document which was served to him by the police.

Jeremy was subpoenaed by the District Court of Saline County, Nebraska in a lawsuit wherein Kristan Yoder of the Quick Connect, Inc. company has accussed Thor Schrock of Schrock Innovations of slander.

In this landmark case, the slander took place not in a newspaper or recorded conversation, but in the comments on Schoemaker’s blog,

The ShoeMoney blog is ranked by Technorati as being one of the Top 100 most popular blogs (#93) on the Internet and according to Alexa is the 1,373rd most popular web site on the Internet.

Schoemaker first vaguely addressed the possibility of this subpoena in September on his blog:

I am sorry I have to be so vague but it appears that I am going to be deposition and logs from my blog will be subpoena for use in a case where 1 person slandered another on my blog. Anyway it looks like 1 of the people is seeking damages for what the other said on my blog.

But now the subpoena has been served, and Schoemaker will be forced to testify and hand over evidence of the slander on February 7th 2007.

Schoemaker had hired QuickConnect for a web design job and was not happy with their results. He posted his distaste with the company and how he had found a new designer in Henry Warren.

In the comment field on this blog posting, the slanderous comments in question appear to be made by Mr. Schrock:

Just learned something new about Quick Connect today. I watch their site pretty closely, and they have a staff page. At one point we courted their lead designer, Duane Teeters. We offered him a ton to come work for us, but he was loyal to Yoder and to his credit was a good employee. Well, he is GONE from their staff page. Yoder hired two kids to replace this talented guy, and their work is not nearly as good as Duane’s IMO.

Oh, and if you want a nice laugh, one of the kids he hired is named Josh. If you visit Quick Connect’s homepage at and view the source, you should do a search on the age for the word “Josh.” It looks like Josh has some hidden links on Yoder’s home page to promote his own art business.

This guy doesn’t seem to be able to keep a reign on his own employees! And also, I received a Dunn and Bradstreet report on him yesterday. He was shifted from a “likely to pay on time” category to a “high credit risk” category. That would explain where you $3,000 went. It is gone just like Duane.

My best guess is that Schoemaker will be forced to testify and hand over records proving that the comment was actually made by Mr. Schrock via proof of IP tracking and other log file tracking methods.

Why is this important to search & blogging? First Schoemaker is an expert on search marketing and arbitrage, and a respected member of the search engine marketing industry.

Second, the fact that a blog owner was subpoenaed to testify in a slander case based around the comments on his blog could bring about a landmark decision.

* Are comments made in blog comments indeed slanderous?

* And can those comments be tracked back to the person who actually made them? And if not, is the blog owner then responible?

* If these comments were made anonymously, could the plantiff in such a case subpoena for records to track down the individual who posted the comment?

Loren Baker
Loren Baker is the Founder of SEJ, an Advisor at Alpha Brand Media and runs Foundation Digital, a digital marketing strategy & development agency.
Loren Baker
Subscribe to SEJ!
Get our weekly newsletter from SEJ's Founder Loren Baker about the latest news in the industry!
  • gid

    Looks like she has too much time on her hands. What a load.

  • Kevin OKeefe

    A person posting a comment on a blog can be liable for defamation, assuming what was said is defamatory. The owner of the blog cannot be liable for what the commentor said. That’s the law.

    Getting supoenaed in thise case just means just means you are required to give testimony in a deposition and/or produce documents. Doesn’t mean you are liable for anything. Anyone who has releant information to a law suit can be supoenaed.

  • Secure Hosting

    I don’t think the issue is whether Shoe is liable for the comments. As I understand what is being reported, he is being taken into court as a ‘witness’ to supply evidence in a case.

    And if he rotates logs the way most sysadmins and ISP’s do – daily for 30 days – then I am sure he doesn’t have a copy of them anymore anyways.

    I presume he will come to court and say just that — ‘I don’t have any logs to give you.’


  • Usagi

    I think Quickconnect is demmanding Shoemaker to proof Mr. Schrock is a real person, not his alter-ego.

  • Morgan Carey

    It is funny I had this exact same situation, someone threatening to sue me over slander because I blogged complaining about thier staff spamming my forums with self promotional garbage (Self promotion is against our clearly posted terms of use policy) – You can read my original blog post at and there are quite a few comments added.

    Am I worried? Nope! The reason is everything I said in my post was true. I don’t think you can be sued for publishing the truth, just because the person you are posting about doesn’t like it.
    I will be watching this very closely.

  • Brian Clark

    Kevin is right. One other thing, written comments can never be “slanderous,” but they can be “libelous.”

    Spoken defamation=slander
    Written defamantion=libel

  • Brian Clark

    P.S. The most accurate description for what is being alleged here is “business disparagement.”

    OK, no more lawyering… ugh. 😉

  • Shaun Carter

    Sounds to me like the poster (Mr. Shrock) had proof to back up everything he said, so I’m not too sure a claim of defamation will hold up here. If it does and creates precedent, it could absolutely destroy the way many people communicate their thoughts on the Internet.

  • spinwolf

    i will eat this blog when everyone is finished with it.

    please leave mustard.


  • trafficpowersucks

    This is hardley a “landmark case”, Aaron Wall of and my site,, went through the same thing a couple of years ago. It was even written up in the Wall Street Journal. Bottom line: The lawyers for both sides made a lot of money, as will happen in this case. Schoemaker should start asking for donations now…

  • legalvanitynumbers

    couldnt agree more with kevin. Legal Vanity can help you with this situations.

  • legalvanitynumbers

    I've read this article last week and i keep reading it again and again. Why? its simply amazing.. again , thanks kevin from law firm marketing

  • legalvanitynumbers

    I've read this article last week and i keep reading it again and again. Why? its simply amazing.. again , thanks kevin from law firm marketing