Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Cabin Boy™ says that he’s going to file an amended complaint in LOLsuit VIII: Avoiding Contact. I’m pleased to see him wasting his time on that turkey instead of putting effort into his coming hearing in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit.

Speaking of Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al.—

T-minus 4 days and counting.

UPDATE—I’ve had some questions about the current countdown. I filed a motions for discovery sanctions against the Cabin Boy™ last week. Judge Hecker’s scheduling order allows only 10 days to respond to a discovery motion.

Hypertechnicality Du Jour


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.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


One of the things we have been asking the courts to do is to enjoin Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt from filing any more pro se lawsuits without prior clearance by a judge. We haven’t been successful. Yet.

OTOH, the Cabin Boy™ has filed LOLsuit VIII: Avoiding Contact pro se in the U. S. District Court for the District of South Carolina—one of the few districts that require all pro se lawsuits to be reviewed by a Magistrate Judge before they are allowed to proceed and have summonses issued. I have a motion to dismiss on several grounds all tooled up ready to use, but I’ll hold on to it for now. The odds are that I won’t need it.

Meanwhile, in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit—

T-minus 5 days and counting.

Legal LULZ Du Jour


This is beginning to resemble a beached fish thrashing about on the sand. The Cabin Boy™ has finally done some research on the status of the South Carolina criminal defamation statute, and he’s now got things even more wrong than before. He looked to see how many cases are going forward in the U. S. District Court for the District of South Carolina that allege slander or libel. He found 184 and assumed that they all cite the criminal defamation statue as a basis.It’s clear that he didn’t actually check any of those case. I did. Well, I checked the first two, and neither of them mentions the criminal defamation statute at all, let alone cites it as a basis for a cause of action.

The Cabin Boy™ did discover that the law was amended in 2003, …… but he must not have read the old and new versions of the law and compared them with the Fitts v. Kolb decision by the U. S. District Court. If had done so, he would have seen that the portion of the law that caused the old version to be struck down by the federal court is still in the current version. The law may still be on the books as far as the state is concerned, but the federal court won’t enforce it. In fact, it will act to prevent enforcement. BTW, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has favorably cited the Fitts ruling as good law in one of its opinions.

I look forward to watching the Cabin Boy™ explaining the finer points of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to a U. S. District Judge or, maybe, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Now that LOLsuit VIII: Avoiding Contact is out in the wild, I’m going to make some general comments over the next few days about how mind-bogglingly stupid the Cabin Boy’s™ Complaint is.

It’s clear that he didn’t bother to do much research while he slapped his suit together. For example, Count II is based on the South Carolina criminal defamation statute S.C. Code Ann. § 16-7-150. The U. S. District Court for the District of South Carolina has ruled that law unconstitutional. Fitts v. Kolb, 779 F.Supp. 1502 (D.S.C. 1991).

The Cabin Boy™ is suing my codefendants and me in the U. S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

I’m Not Making This Up, You Know


LOLsuit VIII: Avoiding Contact

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

UPDATE—And, yes, the Cabin Boy™ has filed for in forma pauperis status. However, IFP filings are automatically sealed in the District of South Carolina, but may be unsealed after review.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin managed to get some sort of memorandum filed before time ran out in the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit, and he actually wrote more than Judge Hazel asked for.

The memorandum was filed unde seal.

The ball is in Judge Hazels court now to deal with the pending motions for summary judgment.

Meanwhile, in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit—

T-minus 7 days and counting.