Let’s say you do something for the seven times and fail. On the eighth try, while attempting to convince the authority you’ve “learned from your mistakes”, you still make the same mistake.
Some might call that a pattern.
Most would probably say, “Yeah, about that learning thing, you should probably just quit.”
Schmalfeldt’s makes the following statement in his Memorandum of Law in support of his Opposition to Defendants Motions:
III. Previous Dismissals Have Nothing to Do with The Instant Case
Again, the Defendants go back to their allegation that this is a SLAPP suit. Since there is no such creature in the South Carolina menagerie of legal oddities, this cannot be a SLAPP suit and the Court should ignore all attempts to turn this simple, easily proven libel case into something that, by law, does not exist in this state. It is true that Plaintiff has tried to get justice against some of these defendants in the past and has stumbled over the hurdle of Personal Jurisdiction. Having learned from his past, pro se mistakes, Plaintiff feels confident the Court will see that due process is served, the South Carolina Long Arm Statute is satisfied, and that the harm caused to Plaintiff in South Carolina and potential landlords in this state merits a finding of Specific Personal Jurisdiction in this case.
His previous lawsuits made similar claims and each complaint suffered from the same set of technical defects. Three of them were dismissed before the judge could throw them out:
LOLSuit I – he dropped after one day.
LOLSuit V – he dismissed on his own before running away to Wisconsin.
LOLSuit VII – never made it past his court appointed lawyer. To this day, Schmalfeldt has never shared the reasons the lawyers gave him for abandoning his suit.
In the Wisconsin case, despite Schmalfeldt’s attempt to have his good friend Brett Kimberlin have defendants lawyer Aaron Walker dismissed from the case, the judge ruled in favor of the defendants because Schmalfeldt never established that any of the defendants actions satisfied the long arm statute.
Schmalfeldt’s complaint in LOLSuit VIII suffers from the exact same defect. He makes several citations, but none of them support his theory because of one fatal flaw: He doesn’t provide exactly “how” the defendants harmed in South Carolina and that their actions occurred on South Carolina soil.
Even though Schmalfeldt makes reference to defendants actions have prevented his ability to acquire living arrangements, at no time does he make a specific claim as to how that happened.
He also alleges that just because defendants made reference to the hotels he stayed in, that is enough to establish minimum contacts with the state, and therefore satisfies jurisdiction.
No really, if you make reference to where he stays or lives, that means you are now subject to a state’s long arm statute.
Finally, the defendants should have known that writing all that stuff about him, which is really stuff he says that is used for PLM, has caused potential landlords to deny him the place he wants to live. And again, he doesn’t share the details. I wonder why?
The court has certainly taken its time, but it’s clear where this is headed: 0 for 8. A perfect .000 complete failure.