The Butthurt Conspiracy

giphy4

In Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al, the Plaintiff says in Count II that all the defendants are part of a larger conspiracy because.. well..

Read it for yourself:

COUNT II
Conspiracy
(All Defendants)

21. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above.

22. South Carolina defines conspiracy, in part:

The common law crime known as “conspiracy” is defined as a combination between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing an unlawful object or lawful object by unlawful means.

23. The comment section on Hoge’ s blog contain hundreds of such conspiratorial messages designed to cause trouble for Schmalfeldt.The same is true with Palmer’s blog and Grady’s blog. (Original EXHIBIT L)

24. This cooperation between named and unnamed conspirators to do harm to Schmalfeldt prove the allegation of conspiracy. Due to the extensive harm caused to Plaintiff by the conspiratorial efforts of these defendants he asks for $100,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages from each of the named defendants.

In paragraph 22, he just quotes something from.. I don’t know,  somewhere and doesn’t share the citation. As far as anyone knows, he’s just making it up. And even if it wasn’t made up, conspiracy in this context is related to a crime and not civil conspiracy. He’s still Kimberlin short there as well.

Paragraph 23 is the smoking gun.. well smoking brain cells, anyway..  that explains the nature and actions of the conspiracy – commenting on blogs that have a common interest. Apparently, all the defendants, including the Final Five.. I mean six (who were all later dismissed because he couldn’t name them).. are congregating on Hoge’s wide open blog, and Grady’s (he doesn’t have one) and Palmer’s (she just documents the plaintiffs words and deeds for PLM) and conspiring to .. to.. “cause trouble for Schmalfeldt.”

Paragraph 24 is him just asking for reparations for butthurt.

Notice what is missing:  He never explains how this wide open public conspiracy has harmed him. He never explains the particulars of any harm. He cites no specific instances of which butthurt boil popped and caused him monetary damages aside from the burning sensation.

In other words, he’s suffering from people commenting on posts at the defendants’ blogs and that pain is worth hundreds of thousands of bucks.

Also, there is no Exhibit L.

giphy4

So in response, defendants seek to have the complaint dismissed on Count II because he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted:

IV. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

b. Count II Each of these Defendants move to dismiss Count II because the Complaint does not allege any damages from the conspiracy.

So what does the Chief Justice Pro-Se Prosecutor respond with?

V. The Defendants Err In Stating the Plaintiff Has Not Alleged Damages for Conspiracy

To the contrary. In Paragraph 24 of the SAC, Plaintiff is quite specific about the damages he seeks. The daily, over the back fence-style gossiping and idea exchanging between the Defendants and anonymous commenters discussing ways to further wreck the Plaintiff’s life is the very definition of conspiracy. These are. the things third party readers see when they do a Google Search on Plaintiff’s name, and they are taken as truth: They have caused irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s reputation that is difficult to quantify with a monetary value. But Plaintiff asks $100,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages from each Defendant.

On the contrary, while Paragraph 24 is specific about the amount of damages he seeks, there is not a scintilla of evidence presented that shows actual monetary damages, which the Motion to Dismiss points out.

His explanation goes even further: He says that all that gossipy free speech stuff about him between the defendants has caused the Google search engine, for those searching his name, to place the defendants blogs at the top and readers will accept the gossipy open commentary as the truth! Oh the huge manatee!

However, because he can’t quantify how this might affect others, and shows no specifics as to actual damages, he’s figured all this trouble is worth a nice round six hundred grand a piece.  Yep that should cover it.

Except, he has a problem.  To claim civil conspiracy, he lacks all three elements in South Carolina.  He has no evidence that all three are conspiring to cause him trouble. And even if the blogs were evidence, South Carolina is a comparative negligence State. Wonder how those no contact/peace order thingies might play into this?

 

As has been said before – Butthurt is not a tort, and certainly not a conspiracy.

good_luck_morgan_freeman

10 thoughts on “The Butthurt Conspiracy

  1. My favorite part will be when Mr. Fakinsons is on the other end of the damages claim and is shown why he is not as judgement proof as he thinks.

    (Yes, Mr. Fakinsons, I did the same google search you did. The difference is I actually asked an attorney if something I noticed was right)

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s