Just Keep Reading, Bill

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.

Hainer tweet

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.

Hutt Book her Danno

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.

Carrey Yeah in Pretendyland

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,

Schmalfeldt Credibility Meter 02

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.

Hainer no liability

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?


David Edgren

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?

Sure is quiet out there

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’.

This entry was posted in Law, North Carolina, Pretendyland, Stupid and Evil, The Oaf. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Just Keep Reading, Bill

  1. The Shoveler says:

    Collateral attack on a state court judgment in Federal court? If only we had a doctrine about that, that was taught in the fourth week of law schools ……

    Liked by 3 people

  2. BusPassOffice says:

    Soon, the ADA card….

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pablo says:

    Butthurt; STILL not a tort.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. JorgXMcKie says:

    I dunno about using “gentleman” and “resolving” and any reference to PotatoHead [or PototahoHead, as you desire] in the same paragraph without being very, very careful. For instance, implying or suggesting that PotatoHead is in any way, shape, or form a gentleman and therefore could possibly resolve any manner of dispute as a true gentleman would would be an insane fantasy and therefore should never be used.
    A proper use would be something like “At long last, despairing of any rational act getting through the extra thick noggin of PotatoHead, the gentleman attempted to resolve the conflict by giving PotahtoHead the legal equivalent of repeated kicks to his nether regions, including the groinage and fat, blubbery analage areas. The onlooking crowd pointed, laughed and mocked in an uproarious fashion in an effort to help PotatoHead gain a true understanding of the situation.”

    Staff commentJorg, hi. We’re speech guys here, not violence guys. While I understand that your post in no way meant that violence of any sort was urged or encouraged against The Oaf, we’d prefer that we kept any imagery of the sort you described to a complete minimum. That kind of thing is and should properly remain Bill Schmalfeldt’s exclusive turf. -de


  5. Ashterah says:

    Footnote number four is very on point. The crux of the biscuit indeed. HE is allowed certain types of relief that others are not. And if they DARE win? Well, obviously it was not true justice but was just horribly bad and no good.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s