Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

It’s no fun being sued, but it is satisfying when a court throws out all or part of a LOLsuit because it isn’t  based on any recognized cause of action. Several of the counts in The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s original Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. LOLsuit bit the dust at summary judgment because they weren’t things that could be the subject of a lawsuit, and the Hypertechincality Du Jour from a year ago today dealt with a non-tort alleged in The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt’s LOLsuit VIII.

* * * * *

The core of The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt’s problem is not that he is trying to use an unconstitutional statute and whether the federal court would enforce it. He has an even more basic procedural issue. He is trying to use a criminal statute as the basis of a civil claim. When a pro se litigant tries that (lawyers never seem to make the mistake), the court throws out the complaint without having to get into the issue of the law’s constitutionality. Here’s what the court said the last time a pro se litigant tried to use § 16-7-150 as the basis for a civil claim—

In short, he cannot bring a civil action for alleged violations of criminal statutes, see S.C. Code Ann. § 17-1-10[.]

Sanders v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-CV-2313-JMC-PJG, Order and Opinion, ECF No. 103, (D.S.C. Sep. 27, 2016) at 6. (I suppose the reason the Cabin Boy™ missed this one is that it was issued the same day as the hearing in which Judge Hecker denied all of TDPS’s motions to dismiss in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit.)

As I said in today’s TKPOTD, I don’t expect to need my motion to dismiss after the Magistrate Judge reviews Schmalfeldt’s complaint.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

UPDATE—The Gentle Reader may wish to note that the last time the U. S. District had to rule on a case in which a pro se litigant was stupid enough to try to use the South Carolina’s criminal defamation statute as the basis for a civil claim was for a case filed in 2015. (The first two digits of the case number correspond to the year the case was filed.) So it’s been almost two years since a pro se litigant has filed such an inept defamation case in that court.

* * * * *

After a bit of bluster, the Cabin Boy™ wound up burning his one free complaint amendment in LOLsuit VIII in a failed attempt to remedy that and other errors. As usual, he failed miserably, but that was to be expected. Indeed, everything proceeded as I had foreseen.

9 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. Former Clinton Pollster Mark Penn has a very interesting piece over at the Hill. Give it a read:

    Very few Democrats have expressed any kind of support for the Trump Administration over the Russia Collusion story. They have all remained loyal to the Dems & Deep State actors no matter how much evidence has been uncovered showing the FBI & Obama Justice Dept. acted illegally. I hope this is the beginning of the end.

    • That piece seems awfully light on details. All hearsay, second and third hand stuff, and arguments unjustified by the claims put forward in the article.

      There’s some basic questions that should be asked, and not answered with meaningless statements like ‘Trump admistration’ or ‘deep state actors’ or, for that matter, ‘clinton pollster.’ Need some names, dates, and actual facts.

      The basic question is, “What exactly has Mueller done so far in this investigation? And who has been indicted, and what has actually been done because of this.”

      Specifics. Who, what where, when, and how.

      Most of this article is meaningless unsupported gibberish, like the statement that this is supposed to investigate Trump personally. I don’t know what Mueller is actually looking at, and the important part to remember, is that you don’t know either. Not for a fact. People make guesses, and it’s generally heavily leavened with the standard us versus them mindset.

      What I’d like to see is more facts, and not more wild speculation.. from either side.

      • Mueller is supposed to be looking at Russian interference in the election. His indictments have been uninteresting, save the Russian company which was one of a dozen or so that no one (including Mueller) ever expected to set foot in an American courtroom making an appearance and demanding swift proceedings. Mueller has also been kicked sharply in the testes by a couple of judges which has been entertaining and leaves us with some unsolved mysteries.

        What Mueller hasn’t been able to do, from any of the available evidence, is find that the Trump team got in bed with the Russian government in any way at all, let alone in the way the Clinton campaign/DNC did with Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie and Christopher Steele as middlemen.

        Mueller is the last gasp of the “Trump just can’t be POTUS” mob. Horowitz and Huber right behind him promise to rock the American political landscape like a hurricane no one saw coming.

        • Well, no, not exactly. This is what I mean. “Mueller is the last gasp of the ‘Trump just can’t be POTUS’ mob” is a statement that isn’t useful. There is nothing that anyone can do to disprove it. Someone being charged in one way or another? Just another fake move by a bunch of liars who don’t care who they trample. Nobody being charged? Clearly, Mueller has no evidence.

          IOW, You’re starting from a position that has no usefulness for determining if there was Russian interferance in the election, or what, if any, there was.

          Personally, I’d expect any Russian interferance to be promoting Putin’s actual goals, which is promoting discord between americans, and deepening the rifts in society. There was some evidence for support of pro-Clinton protests.. after the election, as well as support for pro-Trump causes before it. That’s not due to supporting Trump, but thinking that Trump was more useful to cause discord in american society.

          If anyone specific was in bed with the Russians? Well.. maybe. Maybe not. Some actions wouldn’t need an insider, but one or more would be useful. In the end, though, I don’t think Putin gave a damn who won the election, only desiring a weaker America. This means I would expect contacts with both sides, not just one.

          In any case, I want the truth to come out. Saying that this is a fake investigation that has goals that fit the us versus them narrative of your choice isn’t much good. Same with saying that it is the herald of something that will free us from the odious, lying, corrupt President Trump. That’s not any better.

          What I do know is that paid foreign blog trolls, Russian-funded protests, and secret actions promoting internal discords and divisions within American society aren’t good things, and I want them to come into the light, and expose some of the dirty business behind a power that is perfectly happy to launch invasions and assassinations while lying about them.

          • The anthrax mailing attacks are a real thing, that deserved to be investigated. But, with Mueller in charge of those investigations, two innocent people had their lives ruined and the original offense was left unpunished.

            The difference this time is that, unlike the anthrax attacks, Trump-Russia collusion isn’t real. Mueller knows this. He also knows he can use his “investigation” to ruin peoples’ lives, and is actively doing so. Meanwhile, him and his teammates in the mainstream media are hinting at hysterical conspiracy theories that are corrosive to our social and political fabric.

            The fact that this piece of garbage hasn’t been ridden out of town on a rail is evidence of how far gone we are as a nation. It’s also infuriating that a few people in DC (Clapper, Brennan, McCabe,…) abused our extremely powerful and extremely dangerous intelligence & law enforcement apparatus in an attempt to overrule the election. If there aren’t commensurate and proportional punishment for these extremely dangerous abuses, I expect such abuses to just get worse in the future.

            And if that happens, there will be LOTS of “investigations” into arguably legitimate allegations, selectively ruining people over political alignments.

            Or maybe that’s exactly where we are already… I’ll have to ask Lois Lerner what she thinks.

  2. So, . . . you’re trying to tell me that Butthurt in the First Degree isn’t a recognized cause for action? SRSLY???? Are you sure? ‘Cause I know of a guy who claims to know as much as good lawyers (despite having no legal education) about the law that sure thinks it is. Now you’re trying to tell me he’s wrong?

Leave a Reply