A writer's refusal to defend a defamation case filed against him by mystery novelist Patricia Cornwell has resulted in a $35,780 default judgment and a troubling court order that restrains his future speech.

Cornwell will likely not be able to collect on the award since Leslie Sachs, who claims to be living in Belgium, has said he will not submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. But U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon also permanently enjoined him from making certain statements about her.

“[T]he allegations that Plaintiff is a book burner, is a neo-Nazi anti-Semite, a felon and an attempted murderer ... do not merit protection under the First Amendment as false and defamatory statements and injure both the Plaintiff and readers of the statements,” Moon said in a recent order.

After Sachs accused Cornwell of plagiarizing one of his books, he waged an Internet vendetta against her, even claiming that the prosecutor of “Scooter” Libby was seeking to indict her on charges of fraud, bribery and extortion. Cornwell sued him in February 2007 for libel damages and injunctive relief.

Prior restraints on speech are nearly always impermissible under the First Amendment and the general legal rule is that “equity will not enjoin a libel or slander.” But Sachs did not appear at a hearing in May on Cornwell's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Moon granted that motion in a June 6 order, finding the defendant had made no fewer than 45 false statements about Cornwell. In restraining Sachs's future speech, he relied in part on a California Supreme Court case which held that a Newport Beach woman could be barred from repeating defamatory statements about a restaurant.

Balboa Island Village Inn v. Lemen, 40 Cal.4th 1141 (2007), might have been distinguishable since the prior restraint in that case followed a trial on the merits. But Sachs did not appeal the preliminary injunction order.

Cornwell requested $37,780 in damages to cover the costs of operating a website containing the injunction, monitoring the Internet for two years to notify her of any new defamatory statements by Sachs, and diverting search traffic to her new site that would formerly have linked to “Defendant's defamatory websites.”

“[I]t is clear that Defendant has not defended this case not because of inadequate notice or service, but because of his purposeful and deliberate disregard for the judicial process,” Moon ruled. “Accordingly, I find the entry of default judgment appropriate in this case.”