Because friends, he’s An Oaf in his happy place- Pretendyland.
Team Free Speech, that rowdy bunch of co-conspirators, has had a day of fun at the usual suspect places with Acme Law’s latest- a Second Amended Complaint filing in certain doomed from the outset federal litigation pending in South Carolina. This sack of shit- SAC for short- may well be the most incompetent pleading ever filed by our favorite Low-functioning Litigant ever. It’s hard to remember that he started the case the case with a complaint that was merely stupid and futile. With every amendment he’s only made it worse.
Among the treasures contained in the SAC is the naming of six new “fictitious” defendants, three men and three women, all with last names that rhyme but do not scan.
Who, decent folks everywhere are asking, are these miscreants? These malefacting malefactors who have maleficently and malevolently sought to make one William M. Schmalfeldt’s life a living hell on earth? Who…
…well, erm… okay. But if the SAC is really that bad, why is the guy smiling?
To keep this from becoming overlong, I’ll for once cut to the chase. Because Bill Schmalfeldt thinks he’s found the one jurisdiction in the land that goes against the prevailing law in all the rest and will allow him to hail a gaggle of unrelated folks living spread out across the country who’ve caused him butthurt into court there and, because he has mistaken success in hurdling the utterly low bar of pro per IFP lawsuit review for that court’s approval and encouragement, proceed to pound them into the ground with his devastating legal arguments and courtroom acumen.
This magic convergence of happy events fits right into The Oaf’s long-term strategy, which is a simple one. Sue everyone he doesn’t like and win. For him, the rest is all pesky details- something I note that in my observation he has never been very good at. He’ll probably call it yet more libel, but in my opinion whatever else you can justifiably call Bill Schmalfeldt: a liar, a homophobe, a misogynist, a classy dresser…
…it’s just not in the cards to call him a detail-oriented person.
A fer’ instance is highlighted in the SAC. Like so many other legal concepts Our Oaf has parroted in his filings over the course of, what?… seven or eight failed lawsuits, he has absolutely no idea as to the purpose or or mechanics of naming fictitious defendants. Wikipedia, bless its dark-hearted little soul, actually could tell him a lot about this without his having to lift up any of those heavy law books all full of big words and stuff.
A “John Doe” party, then, is not merely, as Bill so clearly1 believes, a placeholder. The Oaf would seem to believe that, by the device of coming up with six rhyming names he has reserved for himself the luxury of simply inserting anyone of his choosing down the road whenever he might feel like it and in his sole discretion. “I don’t like David Edgren today, well, okay you big Alaskan pain in the ass- Peter Poe is now… YOU!” Sorry, that’s just not the way it works. The example Wikipedia gives is a pretty good one, and the probably about the most common scenario. You wake up after surgery to have a tattoo removed from your nether regions and find yourself oddly enough missing a kidney that was working just fine before you went into the hospital.
Who ‘ya gonna sue? Well, everybody in the OR was wearing funny masks and gloves and stuff while you were enjoying the nice drugs in la-la land and none of them signed the “speedy recovery” card that was waiting for you in your room when you returned to it, so you sue “Dr. Jane Doe” and “Nurse Randy Roe”2 Those names are ultimately grudgingly given up by the hospital in discovery and, once you have them, you ask the court by motion to substitute them in. But that presumes, of course, that you’ve complied with the basic pleading requirements and alleged enough specifics about the fictitious defendant and what thing he or she did to you that was wrong and when for your complaint to pass muster. Does Bill do this? Why, no. Instead of pleading something like “On the “XYZ” blog on August 4, 7, and 12, 2016 the pseudonymous commenter ‘Mr. Mxyzpltk,’ who is named as Defendant ‘John Doe’ herein, posted [statements that gave me severe butthurt and damaged me to the tune of one meelion dollars3]”
he simply pleads
Now, there is a bunch of other general to the point of meaningless gibberish accusations made in the SAC, but they pretty much evaporate into nothing that is properly pled even under the generous latitude the courts afford statements of claims in pro per pleadings. When it comes down to it, Bill Schmalfeldt is saying that the standard for liability is for someone to write something that he doesn’t like on one or another of a couple of different blogs, but he doesn’t have to tell you anything else. Under that standard, he could pretty much name anyone he feels like once he forces various ISPs to bend to his will4.
An interesting offshoot of this is that his Doe, Roe and Poe defendants serve to actually limit the people Our Oaf can ultimately bring into the lawsuit. I, for example, and my partner in crime5 here Dave Alexander cannot be brought in later and inserted in place of a Doe, Roe or Poe. Why? Because Bill knows our identities now. He doesn’t need discovery to find out that David Edgren is David Edgren.
He knows what we’ve done in the form of making comments on the blogs he complains about. He knows the content of those comments. If he wanted to sue Dave, me or a couple of other folks I’ll leave unnamed in this lawsuit, that ship has pretty much sailed. There are also interesting considerations raised by Bill’s long track record of accusing various people of being various other people. I’ll say no more.
A final classic Acme Law error6 is made in the SAC here.
Uh, actually no, Bill. There’s law on that out there that’s not too hard to find. Obviously you didn’t7.
So, instead of kicking back with the rest of the world at his feet
Bill has simply set himself up to get his tail soundly kicked… again. Not that the case will ever make it into the discovery phase, but just sayin’, y’ know8.
2 You also, of course, sue everyone else even remotely connected with hospital that day, your best friend for suggesting that particular hospital in the first place and the ex-girlfriend whose name was the subject of the tattoo. Ahh, American tort litigation- ain’t it a wonderful thing?
3 That’s all the help Our Oaf gets, and he should be grateful for that.
4 Good luck with that.
5 As in, “It’s a crime that we haven’t figured out have to retire off writing this blog.”
6 That’s probably redundant. Is there anything else that Acme Law does other than make errors?”
7 And The Oaf shouldn’t dare to presume that the court will listen to him any better than the one just did in North Carolina when he explains that, “Why, do you take me for a fool? Of course I wouldn’t destroy diversity by picking a defendant to substitute in from South Carolina.” But how could he know that now? What happens when he finds out in discovery that the person who has given him the worst case of butthurt ever lives just down the road from him (in a much nicer residence though, goes without saying)? This just goes to demonstrate how calculated Bill’s move in filing the SAC truly is. The problem for him is that the legal system simply doesn’t operate the way he thinks it does.
8 Retired lawyer, not licensed anywhere. Just my opinion, NOT legal advice, not to be relied upon for any reason as I’m almost certainly wrong, etc., etc.