That moment when you’re trying to make a point and it fails miserably.
I found this statement in Schmalfeldt’s Opposition to Defendants Motions rather interesting:
Defendants mention a convict named Brett Kimberlin in the Memorandum of Law supporting their motion to dismiss. This is a crass move on the Defendants’ part to prejudice the Judge and Jury against the Plaintiff. Kimberlin served his time in a Federal Prison for his crimes. He is now a free man and should be allowed to live his life as such. He is not connected to the Plaintiff in this suit in any other way than friendship and the fact they are both Defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Carroll County, Maryland, Circuit Court by Defendant Hoge. He has nothing to do with the instant suit and should not have his name thrown into the discussion in a blatant attempt to smear the Plaintiff by association.
Let me see if I understand this:
Kimberlin is a convict and he is your friend. Although he has nothing to do with your case, the defendants making mention of him is an attempt to smear you? Your friend Brett, is a liability to you by association?
In the Memorandum of Law to support defendants’ motions, Mr. Nettles framed Kimberlin’s involvement using Schmalfeldt’s Wisconsin complaint.
The dispute of which this lawsuit arises has generated much litigation and this suit is but a tiny fraction of the litigation. The plaintiff and two of the defendants were involved in a claim arising out of the same transactions and occurrences in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. That suit captioned William M. Schmalfeldt v. Eric P. Johnson, Sarah Palmer and John and Jane Does, 15-CV-1516 was dismissed for lack personal jurisdiction on July 1, 2016. The order of dismissal in attached as Exhibit 1. The complaint in that action (Exhibit 2) gives clues about Plaintiff’s motivation. Paragraph 7 reads as follows:
Plaintiff is involved in a long-standing dispute with several members of what he believes to be a cult of right wing bloggers. This cult first took notice of Plaintiff when he wrote a series of freelance stories about how the cult was working day and night to put a man who had done his time for serious crimes more than 30 years ago back in jail by inventing reasons, debunked by law enforcement, to interfere with his post-prison career choice as founder of a group dedicated to social justice and voter education
This can be parsed to mean that the Plaintiff i[s] involved in a[n] online political debate he joined in support of Brett Kimberlin. Mr. Kimberlin is known as the Speedway Bomber due to his conviction for series of bombing in Speedway Indiana in 1978. Kimberlin is also infamous for his accusations he made in 1989 (while in Federal Prison) that he sold marijuana to Dan Quayle. Mr. Kimberlin was released from Federal custody in 2001. Mr. Kimberlin was the subject of “Everyone Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” on May 25, 2012, and it would seem that Plaintiff was incensed by the exposure Mr. Kimberlin’s criminal history and Mr. Kimberlin’s post release activities received.
In other words, Mr. Nettles was sharing Schmalfeldt’s past associations as motivation for filing lawsuits, using Schmalfeldt’s own words.
I am not sure why Schmalfeldt doesn’t see Kimberlin as an asset. In fact, in the same Wisconsin case referenced by Nettles, Schmalfeldt filed a motion to have defendants’ lawyer Aaron Walker dismissed from the case using an affidavit from..
Ready for it?