And he’s not finished.
In the US District Court of Florence, South Carolina, Magistrate Judge Kaymani West wrote the following:
.. Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing that any of the Defendants intentionally directed any of their allegedly defamatory statements to residents of South Carolina or purposely availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in South Carolina.
Additionally, Plaintiff fails to show that his alleged injuries directly arose from Defendants’ activities in South Carolina because it is just as likely that his asserted damages arose from disparaging statements made about him when he lived in Iowa, Wisconsin, or Maryland, not only because of statements made after he relocated to South Carolina in April of 2017, shortly before he filed this case.
In sum, even though Plaintiff would prefer to proceed in this court instead of in the states where each Defendant resides, Defendants’ conduct and relationship with South Carolina are not so deliberate and substantial that Defendants should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in South Carolina. Defendants have just as strong an interest in litigating in their home state as Plaintiff has in this state. Also, this court’s interest in hearing Plaintiff’s claims is no stronger than is the interest of the courts in the states where Defendants reside in hearing claims against their citizens. The Due Process Clause protects a defendant against being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which the defendant “has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.’ ” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 471-72 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. at 319). Accordingly, it would be constitutionally unreasonable for this court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and this case should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In other words, Schmalfeldt’s reason for using South Carolina was not enough to have defendants haled into the state to defend themselves against his claims (of butthurt).
And thus, the recommendation and subsequent dismissal will have ended any chance that the hallucinated visions of each defendant having to sit on the witness chair and be duly grilled for their malicious sins against the plaintiff.
Not that there was ever a chance that this case would have ever gone to trial. Even if a judge had decided to ignore centuries of court precedent and accepted Schmalfeldt’s (extremely weak and novel) argument that defendants availed themselves to the state’s long arm statute simply because he states he was denied housing (which he wasn’t), there are many other technical defects Schmalfeldt could never get past.
In response (on Twitter) to the Magistrate’s recommendation, Schmalfeldt said this:
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. https://t.co/saYoOpc2rs Not unexpected. @BreitbartUnmask @turkresisting @OsborneInk
— Bye-Bye, Hoggy! (@ByeByeHoggy) December 5, 2017
No, the reason it was dismissed is because the Plaintiff, as usual, failed to:
- Understand Jurisdiction.
- Understand basic principles of law.
- Understand the Constitution.
- Learn from his past mistakes.
His failure is certainly not over, but at this point, the only thing he can achieve is complete failure. Don’t be surprised if he returns in the next few weeks after he rebrands. There is a reason it’s called liquid courage.