I’m thinking the magistrate liked my gifs…


But the magistrate did visit the site!

From the Magistrate’s recommendation:

In an effort to address these considerations, Plaintiff cites to seven posts that he argues show that this court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants. ECF No. 46 at 4-6. The post relied on by Plaintiff that comes closest to a South Carolina connection is the one post allegedly by Defendant Grady wherein he claims to have “e-mailed-blasted every landlord in the entire state of South Carolina . . . and reminded them the Step 1 of any background check is run a credit report on any prospective tenant . . . .” However, a close examination of that post discloses no direct reference to Plaintiff in the alleged “e-mail blast” to “every landlord,” nor does Plaintiff provide any evidence showing that any landlord even received such an e-mail or that Plaintiff was denied housing in South Carolina based on that post or on any other posts by any Defendant. As a result, this court can only speculate as to whether Defendant Grady even sent the alleged e-mail or whether any person or entity in South Carolina even read the blog posts on which Plaintiff relies.

This was in reference to a comment made by Paul Krendler the magistrate believed would come the closest to meeting the barest of minimum possible jurisdiction and then possibly consider other technical issues.  Alas, his efforts fell flat on its face in front of the Constitution.

The result:   No homes, children, wives, or other property will be changing hands this year.


24 thoughts on “LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

  1. “Not because defendants were innocent?”

    Shit, son, you’re too much of a DUMBFUCK to get to the point that liability (not guilty or innocence, stupid) even begin to become relevant questions. And this was your eighth try. That’s how hysterically bad at this you are.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. When Bill Schmalfeldt fails, he fails epically. And crying that he’s just too frustrated to sue us in the correct venue didn’t go over very well with Kaymani, now did it? lol

    What a lovely deconstruction (yet again) of Bill’s idea of personal jurisdiction.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Case Dismissed. Not because defendants were innocent. It was dismissed because I failed to prove their actions had any affect on anyone in SC other than myself.

    Actually, you failed to state a case, DUMBFUCK. But it was dismissed because even this far down the line, you still don’t begin to understand personal jurisdiction, stupid.

    Liked by 8 people

  4. “Case Dismissed. Not because defendants were innocent. ”

    Yes because the defendants were innocent, shitbag. No matter how much you wail and cry the first amendment will never waver.

    Now fuck off and die already.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. “However, a close examination of that post…”

    *dying dying dead* 😂 MJ! BOOM, brutha! 😂

    Congratulations to the LOLSUIT 8 co-defendants! The Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt has FAILED… AGAIN! #ADayEndingInY

    Liked by 3 people

    • Crazy innit?

      I thought this statement pretty much sealed it:

      “The other posts proposed by Plaintiff as support for personal jurisdiction even less clearly identify Plaintiff as the person discussed and contain no indication that the posters made any effort to avail themselves of conducting activities in South Carolina.”

      In other words: “Butthurt is not enough to establish jurisdiction. Be good.”

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: One year ago today.. | Sonoran Conservative

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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