LOLsuit III: The Search for Schlock was one of Bill Schmalfeldt’s silly attempts to sue me. The suit only lasted a couple weeks until the court dismissed it. You see, he filed only state law claims in a federal court, but because he and one of the defendants (me) were both residents of Maryland, the federal court had no jurisdiction over purely state law claims.
However, during the short time the case was alive, I was able to use it to engage in pointage, laughery, and mockification. This was the TKPOTD for seven years ago today.
* * * * *
Here’s another bit of nonsense from the Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt’s LOLsuit.Federal Rule of Civil Proceedure 11(b)(3) requires that
an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances …
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support …
The Cabin Boy™ flat out admits that he doesn’t know who mailed the allegedly forged letter. That means he can’t certify that the factual contentions he makes about authorship or who mailed the letter. And that’s not the only problem he has with Rule 11.
As TDPS alleges, the letter is in the hands of the Carroll County Circuit Court. That means that, in addition to my DNA and fingerprints on the letter and envelope, one might expect to find the fingerprints and/or DNA of my mailman, Judge Stansfield, several court clerks, and the Cabin Boy™.
After Bill Schmalfeldt fled Maryland after losing LOLsuits III, IV, and V in rapid succession, he spent a bit more than a year in Milwaukee where he lost LOLsuits VI. He then moved on to his hometown of Clinton, Iowa, where he was briefly employed as a disk jockey at a local FM station. That gig didn’t last long, and his failure to keep the job was the subject of some pointage, laughery, and mockification in the comments here at Hogewash!, and that, of course, prompted an outburst from the Cabin Boy™ which was chronicled in a post titled Hilarious? Hilarious How? which ran three years ago today.
* * * * *
What does he mean I’m hilarious? What does he mean, the way I talk? What? Hilarious how? What’s hilarious about it? Hilarious how? Let me understand this, because, ya’ know, maybe it’s me, but I’m hilarious how? Hilarious like a clown? I amuse him? I make him laugh? I’m here to amuse him? Hilarious how? How am I hilarious? What’s so hilarious about me? What’s hilarious?
* * * * *
Actually, what’s hilarious is the Cabin Boy’s™ poor reading comprehension. I haven’t written anything here at Hogewash! about his being fired from his most recent job, but I will now note that he no longer seems be working an afternoon announcing gig at KMCN. OTOH, the Cabin Boy™ has plenty of experience never being impeded by not knowing what he’s talking about.
Failing failures gotta fail.
* * * * *
That post parodied a scene from Goodfellas, a movie containing a putdown line that Schmalfeldt often used. Given the number of jobs that have slipped through the Cabin Boy’s™ fingers over the past three years, something like a shoe shine box might be a reasonable investment for him as a way to pickup a bit of cash.
For the moment, he’s employed again. There are still some dates left on the calendar in the break area.
Five years ago today, I posted an episode of Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign that triggered a Feltdown on Twitter by Bill Schmalfeldt about how he had filed paperwork in one of his LOLsuits. Later that evening, I posted this Prevarication Du Jour.
* * * * *
This is what The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt wants us to believe:
I don’t believe he’s telling the truth, and here’s why.
The metadata attached to the PACER file for his Answer to my Complaint in the copyright suit shows that the pdf was created by an Eastman scanning system of the sort use by the Clerks office at the U. S. District Courthouse in Baltimore. That is consistent with it having been scanned from the paper copy the Clerk received in the mail.
The metadata attached to the pdf file which the Cabin Boy™ posted to Scribd contains the following information.That is consistent the final pdf having been produced by the program LibreOffice using Version 1.4 of PDF. However, all of Scmalfeldt’s other final pdfs show this in their metadata.All these files were created using Apple’s Quartz and a different version of PDF. BTW, the amended version of his Answer also shows the Apple-based creation data.
That much information is available about the files by simply opening them in Adobe Acrobat and clicking on the Properties menu item. There are other tools that can ferret out more interesting data.
The evidence seems very clear that the first version of TDPS’s Answer and Counterclaims were not created on his Mac. Based on a review of the metadata in the file, it appears to have been created on a Windows machine using LibreOffice and a 28-line pleading paper template.
TDPS might want to review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Rule 102.1(a)(ii) before he files any further court papers.
UPDATE—One more thing … LibreOffice running on a Mac uses Quartz and Ver. 1.3 of PDF. I just verified that on my Mac.
UPDATE 2—When the Cabin Boy™ posted his Answer and Counterclaims on Scribd, I downloaded a copy in case he decided to send it down the memory hole.As you can see, the file he posted on 4 June was created using LibreOffice. BTW, I’m not the only person who downloaded the file just after he posted it, and I’m not the only person to have noticed that Bill probably didn’t create the file.
UPDATE 3—U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland Local Rule 102.1(a)(ii) states:
When a party is appearing without counsel, the Clerk will accept for filing only documents signed by that party. Attorneys who have prepared any documents which are submitted for filing by a self-represented litigant must be members of the Bar of this Court and must sign the document, state their name, address, telephone number and their bar number assigned by this Court.
Local Rule 101.1(a) says:
Except as otherwise provided in this Rule and in L.R. 112.3 and 28 U.S.C. § 515, only members of the Bar of this Court may appear as counsel in civil cases. Individuals who are parties in civil cases may only represent themselves. Individuals representing themselves are responsible for performing all duties imposed upon counsel by these Rules and all other applicable federal rules of procedure. All parties other than individuals must be represented by counsel.
What all that means is that a pro se litigant can only represent himself and that anyone who represents another person in the court must be a lawyer admitted to practice before the court. It’s OK for a pro se litigant to get a lawyer to write a court paper, but that lawyer has to be a member of the court’s bar and must properly sign the paper. It’s not OK for someone who his not a lawyer to draw up court papers for a third party.
UPDATE 4—One last bit of clarification for those with poor reading comprehension. The likely scenario goes like this: Mr. (or Ms.) X creates the Answer and Counterclaims using LibreOffice and gives the pdf and probably a .docx file to the Cabin Boy™. The Cabin Boy™ prints the file, and the hard copy goes to the court where it is scanned in. The Cabin Boy then uploads the LibreOffice pdf to Scribd. The Scribd file is downloaded by several individuals who find the LibreOffice metadata. I drop a hint on a blog post. The Cabin Boy™ then prepares his amended Answer and Counterclaims using Microsoft Word and tries to BS his way out of being caught.
* * * * *
The calendar for the latest pool is posted in the break area.
One the obvious purposes of Team Kimberlin’s lawfare has been to try to use the discovery process in civil suits to dig up dirt to use against their perceived enemies. This Acme Legal Citation Du Jour ran five years ago today.
* * * * *
The Cabin Boy™ will not get any IP information from Hogewash! without either a valid subpoena or discovery interrogatory.
In order to get a subpoena prior to discovery, he will have to comply with the requirements in Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415 (2009). He will have to make a prima facie case of defamation for each individual about whom he seeks information. Because he is suing in a federal court with tighter pleading standards than a Maryland state court, he will have to plead with particularity, and I will only provide information that the court specifically orders given. He won’t get thousands of IP address unless he specifically asks for that many one by one.
Of course, that presumes that his case survives. If the court takes note of the fact that he has admitted in his Application for pauper status that he has more income (almost 2X the federal poverty level for a family of two) than is allowed, the case will be kicked out. If he’s allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, the LOLsuit must then be screened for frivolousness, maliciousness, and failure to state a claim. Let’s pretend that it gets past that screening; there will still be motions to dismiss. If the LOLsuit makes it over that hurdle, the Cabin Boy™ can then file a discovery interrogatory. He will then find that discovery may not be as open-ended as he thinks. He will also find that it’s a two-way street.
BTW, if the LOLsuit makes it past the motions to dismiss, no one should be surprised if one or more defendants make counterclaims and/or adds counterclaim defendants.
The Gentle Reader should not worry about any of this. I only log the IP addresses of the Insightful Commenters who contribute to Hogewash!—and the Ill-mannered Harassers who attempt to troll the blog.
* * * * *
That post was written in the context of LOLsuit III: The Search for Schlock, and that particular bit of nonsense was killed off after only two weeks when the presiding judge realized that the court had no jurisdiction over the case. Schmalfeldt has never been successful using discovery.
The Dread Deadbeat Pro-se Kimberlin did manage to get his hands on a large number of emails during discovery in the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit, but he never was able to use any of them effectively. He did try to use some of them in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. case, but when he tried during the trial, the state court judge said that he wouldn’t prevent TDPK from introducing them, but that Kimberlin would be on his own explaining to the federal judge why the protective order was violated. Kimberlin chickened out, which is a shame because I would have introduced the same emails myself if I hadn’t been bound by the protective order as well.
It’s safe to say that Neal Rauhauser’s theory of pro se lawfare has been a spectacular failure—at least as far as implemented by Team Kimberlin.
He has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
I do not plan to make any substantive comment on this suit until I have thoroughly reviewed the complaint.
* * * * *
Now that the suit is long dead, I’ll offer this comment: Bwahahahahahahahahahah!
Although the suit could have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the judge didn’t have to get that far into the complaint. TDPS had filed in the wrong court, so the case was kicked for lack of jurisdiction. That led the Cabin Boy™ to file LOLsuit IV: The Voyage to Oblivion in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland. Although that suit could have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the judge didn’t have to get that far into the complaint. Schmalfeldt had filed his state complaint in the wrong county, so the suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Cabin Boy™ left me out of his lawfare attempts until he got around to filing LOLsuit VIII: Avoiding Contact in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Although the suit could have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the judge didn’t have to get that far into the complaint. The judge found that … wait for it … the court lacked personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants, so the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.