There’s a trap that many lawyers who haven’t been off the potato truck all that long fall into when they do legal research. They find a case, read it until they find something that they like, then stop because they believe that they’ve found the answer.
Our Oaf has apparently found the South Carolina case Hainer v. American Medical International Inc. and he likes what he sees. Sarah Palmer obviously had an ulterior purpose in seeking her recent North Carolina restraining order and she committed an act in filing for and pursuing it, which was either a malicious misuse or perversion of the process for a result that’s not legitimate for its purpose.
In other words, as Bill Schmalfeldt had done absolutely nothing wrong in that his conduct was neither harassment or stalking, her petition for a restraining order was bogus from the get-go and she only compounded her wrongdoing by having the nerve to actually take the matter before a judge.
Because if the Lurching Litigant was in the real world, he’d understand that, regardless of what of what motivated Palmer, both sides had their day in court in front of an impartial judge. Neither had any advantage in that process. The court listened to each tell her and his side of the story, assessed respective credibility 1,
and drew appropriate conclusions. The bottom line: Bill lost, and he doesn’t like it2.
But, circling back to the topic we started out this post with, if The Oaf had only read the next line in Hainer, perhaps he’d understand why a little better3.
We’ve highlighted the pertinent line in the color of fear pee in the hopes that The Oaf might relate to it more readily. In short, Sarah Palmer filed her petition, went to court and took her chances. The process did the rest uninfluenced by her in any improper manner4.
Another day has now gone by as the doom clock started by the South Carolina defendants’ omnibus motion ticks away. If cases like Hainer are the best Bill Schmalfeldt can do, his “A” game, he might as well give up right now and concede. It would be the way a gentleman would resolve the situation. Will that happen?
1 Surprisingly, we are not aware of any state’s court system or any of the federal district courts that has installed one of these easy to use meters in a courtroom where litigation involving Bill Schmalfeldt is being heard. While the meters are marvels of modern Internet technology, apparently over the years in a number of different jurisdictions more than a dozen different judges have somehow been able to almost universally duplicate the meter’s accuracy. And we were hoping we’d found a niche market…
2 And really, Hainer doesn’t even matter. Does anyone other than Bill Schmalfeldt believe he will be allowed to, in sum, collaterally attack in a court in South Carolina a judgment rendered by a North Carolina court that he did not seek to appeal, even after he was informed how to do that?
3 Or not. In fact, as we think about it a bit, let’s just say certainly not, as the Pretendyland Plaintiff has shown himself remarkably proof against the influence of incontrovertible fact and black letter law.
4 Isn’t what Bill Schmalfeldt really is saying here is that when he feels wronged and puts the matter in front of a court truth and justice are being served but if someone else feels injured or threatened in some way by him they are merely acting in accordance with The Forces of Evil Handbook and should have no right to avail themselves of the legal system? Just sayin’.