I found it very… interesting… to note the words used in the dismissal of the most recent LOL Suit filed by Bill Schmalfeldt against myself and another person. Because there is always what the words literally say and the hidden meaning underlying it all. Let’s look and see what we find.
There were, of course, a couple of things that jumped off the page to me. The initial reason for the dismissal is under the Federal Rules of Procedure, and I’m going to come back to that in a little bit. But it also refers to the dismissal as being under an interesting local rule – rule 83.38. The rule reads:
So this local rule is applied in five different situations. I don’t think there was a conflict of interest, since Bill Schmalfeldt had never dealt with this particular law firm and or any of its agents before it seems; I highly doubt that the counsel was not competent to represent this type of case; there could have been incompatibility or substantial disagreement on litigation strategy, but since there was only this one motion there isn’t much to judge that on; I also doubt that there could have been a lack of time necessary to properly take on the case.
That leaves only one thing. It’s the one thing my lawyer from the PREVIOUS time Bill Schmalfeldt sued me tried to tell him. It’s the one thing David Edgren tried to tell Bill Schmalfeldt both when he sued David (and myself and others, including the other person he was suing this time).
It’s the one thing that EVERYONE on this side of the fence has tried to tell him. That suing for butthurt is “proceeding for the purposes of harassment or malicious injury, or the party’s claims or defenses are not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Oxford Comma included.
So, because, boiled down to its essence, butthurt is NOT a tort and you cannot get away this kind of lawfare and expect a lawyer to willingly risk their licence to practice with what amounts to harassment.
And so, since Barrister Sorich did his due diligence, like a conscientious lawyer, he wanted his law firm OUT of this mess Bill Schmalfeldt had made.
Now, I said that I would get back to the FRPC rule that was mentioned. There’s a little codicil that I noticed when I read Rule 41. I’ve included it here and highlighted it for your reference.
I’m thinking somebody can’t claim something any longer as it relates to certain people.
Heh, heh, heh.