So I found this little piece of trash today:

This is Bill Schmalfeldt’s Motion To Transfer due to forum non conveniens. I have made a copy for myself, so that it can be uploaded again when he realizes how much we are laughing at him and hides it from public view as he has in the past.

I like to be prepared.

Anyway, I thought I would take a brief look at the various case law citations he has included in the motion, and gauge their relative strength relative to his desire to have the case transferred from Maryland to Wisconsin.

For the record, he cites the following cases (which I have helpfully linked):

I reviewed each of these decisions for two pieces of information, and only two pieces of information: where the initial case was filed, and where the transferee venue was located.

In Lampros v Gelb & Gelb, a suit was filed in Montgomery County, Maryland, and the Appeals court found that the proper venue was Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

In Odenton Dev. Co v. Lamy, the venue conflict was between Baltimore City, Maryland, and Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

In Payton-Henderson v. Evans, the original complaint was filed in Baltimore City, Maryland and was then transferred on appeal to Baltimore County, Maryland.

In Cobrand v. Adventist Healthcare, the suit was filed in Prince George’s County, Maryland and transferred on motion to Montgomery County, Maryland.

In Urquhart v. Simmons, a case was transferred from Prince George’s County, Maryland to Montgomery County, Maryland.

Finally, Lennox v. Mull is a case where venue was contested between Allegany County, Maryland and Worcester County, Maryland.

Now maybe it’s just me, but I see a common thread linking all the venues listed in these cases.  Maybe it has something to do with state courts, handling STATE lawsuits, having some sort of imposed geographical limits on their power…

Could be something else, though…I suppose…

Maybe someone will enlighten us on how often a state court transfers a state case out of state.  I searched for such a precedent in Maryland and didn’t find a single one.  But I didn’t search all 57 states.

Even so, I feel confident that a state punting its judicial sovereignty across the river doesn’t happen too often ever.


Of Course Not, Defendant DUMBFUCK!

I absolutely agree, no judge would force you to travel.

But also, no judge would rule in your favor should you fail to appear to defend yourself.

Entirely your call.


Good Morning, Demented, Depends™ Dependent, Defendant DUMBFUCK!

So this seems to be happening a lot lately:

Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction?

Motion to dismiss for improper venue?

And without even waiting for the court to rule!

And now a motion to transfer the case to Wisconsin, just chock-full-o-<del>nuts</del> I mean, the usual measure of Scmalfeldtian leeguhl geenyusness…ZERO.

He’ll be running out of places to shoot himself soon…

All is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Cocked, locked and ready to rock, Doc!


A Totes Cereal Question

Listen folks – I’m hearing some faint rumblings around the Team Free Speech sites that some commenters are confused and befuddled as to how Defendant DUMBFUCK could believe that his motion to dismiss for improper venue is sufficiently meritorious to be granted.

It began on Tuesday (on the east coast, anyway), when he sent this email to John Hoge:

He simply determined that an argument John Hoge had defeated him with was sufficient to turn the tables.  After all,

The circumstances were EXACTLY THE SAME!  He didn’t make any mistakes…and well, if he did:

…Hoge made them first.


Everybody in the legal profession copypastas.  It’s a great time-saver. Especially when you have the first clue what you’re doing.

Some of us do.  Others don’t.

Ya gotta be careful throwing around hashtags like #unwarrantedhubris when you’re a DUMBFUCK.  Because with blinders like that, you say stuff like this while trying your case on Twitter:

“Humiliating.”  Yes.

“Humiliating to have been beaten on a venue motion.”  Who do we know that lost in such a humiliating fashion?  Has he been accusing anyone of #unwarrantedhubris lately?

.45 ACP is the way to go when you’ve been humiliated on a venue motion…twice.

Humiliation seems to be a VERY BIG DEAL.  I hope nothing humiliating happens to a DUMBFUCK to make him consider such a radical notion.  Has anyone heard anything about that?

Tell me, is this hubris?

Seems like hubris to me.

And since late last night, Defendant DUMBFUCK has been so awfully quiet. I wonder if he’s stepped in a metaphorical bear trap and is busy chewing his metaphorical leg off.

I could be wrong.

But hopefully, he will see this and favor us with a detailed explanation (140 characters at a time) of how his motion to dismiss for improper venue is correct, meritorious and destined to prevail.



Good Afternoon, Demented Depends™ Dependent Defendant DUMBFUCK!

Over at Hogewash! this morning, John has posted a copy of his reply to the Kimberlin’s Opposition to Default.  I found this bit near the end particularly interesting:

Among the immaterial matter in the Kimberlins’ Opposition is their discussion of venue. The issue of venue has nothing to do with whether a proper answer was timely filed. In any event, the Kimberlins are wrong in asserting that this Court in an improper forum for the instant lawsuit. Because there are multiple defendants with no single venue applicable, Cts. & Jud. § 6-201(b) allows this suit to be brought in a county where any one of the defendants may be sued. Because Defendant Schmalfeldt, whose motion to dismiss has been denied (Docket Items 53and 54), lives in Wisconsin, Cts. & Jud. P. § 6-202(11) allows suit to be brought in any county in the State. Mr. Hoge can sue Schmalfeldt in Carroll County, so venue is proper for all the Defendants in Carroll County.

Except for this one basic fact – DUMBFUCK LIVES OUT OF STATE – all the basic facts are the same! So Schmalfeldt’s latest motion to dismiss is worth, oh…a handful of wet toilet paper. (Maybe less.)

And trust me, when you have an


as big as the one Schmalfeldt dropped, a handful of wet toilet paper is the last thing you want.

Didn’t we tell him? We told him, right? He just didn’t listen to the smart people…AGAIN

So…maybe a DUMBFUCK will listen to the smart people this time, and get right to work amending that motion on that next motion to dismiss!  Because this one, as he was told, is Dead On Arrival.

Didn’t Daddy ever tell you to listen to your betters?  There’s a lad.


Cargo Cult Litigation

In the last couple of days, I’ve seen the term “cargo cult litigation” come up.  In the context where it was used it was perfectly referenced.

I am confident that most of my audience knows what it means.  For those among us who do not, let me explain.

The term originated as “cargo cult science” in a commencement address at Cal Tech given by renowned bongo player and Nobel physicist Richard Feynman.  Feynman was a character of the highest order, humorous, energetic, curious about everything.  His autobiography Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! is a terrific place to get to know him.  But at the Cal Tech commencement in 1974, he spoke about “science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself.

In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people.  During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now.  So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land.  They’re doing everything right.  The form is perfect.  It looks exactly the way it looked before.  But it doesn’t work.  No airplanes land.  So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing.  But it would he just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system.  It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones.  But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science.  That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation.  It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly.  It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards.  For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.  You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.  If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.  There is also a more subtle problem.  When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

Now, the practice of science and the practice of law are not equivalent.  In science, you theorize, you test, you analyze, and eventually you come to some sort of conclusion to publish. With the law, you have rules, precedent and facts which you combine in an argument.  Science is much more fixed than law. There’s more wiggle room in the law.

We can apply the “Cargo Cult” label to the law when we see a pro se litigant aping the argument of some other party in some other case, simply because it worked before.  Like the Cargo Cult islanders in the South Pacific, he sets up the same framework, goes through the same motions, and expects the same results.  But the planes still don’t land.

What the islanders observed and interpreted was not everything that was happening.  Some of what was happening could not be observed, and some of what they observed was beyond their understanding.

My better angels are telling me that this is a perfect place to stop, that to go further risks educating the monkey. But as the engineers are wont to say, “I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.”

This is how things must be done in the Schoolhouse of Pain.  Answers are not given because then the students have only been told.  In the Schoolhouse of Pain, knowledge comes through suffering, like writing lines for Professor Umbridge. 

The reason “cargo cult litigation” is such an appropriate term is not only because we see a DUMBFUCK completely aping what he has observed.  It’s also fitting because he’s missing something.  Many somethings, actually.  Because we do not educate the monkey here, I won’t go into detail about that.  You’ll have to take a leap of faith.

In this instance, DUMBFUCK cannot see all the turnings of the machine he is trying to duplicate.  The planes aren’t going to land.  Also, DUMBFUCK cannot understand everything he has observed.  The planes aren’t going to land.

I see, and I understand, because I am on the side with the smart people (and zombies).  When the time is right, all will be made clear.

The PLM will be weapons-grade.  Stretch those LULZ muscles early and often.


Good Morning, Demented Depends™ Dependent Defendant DUMBFUCK!

If visiting my blog on his daily butthurt safari is what he calls ignoring me, I’d be very interested to see what he thinks “paying attention” looks like.

I’m not surprised to see that a lying DUMBFUCK doesn’t know how many days make a week. (Hint: more than six.)

The simple question applies:

“How can I miss you if you won’t go away?”

I hear equal parts Johnnie Walker Red and Liquid Plum’r is pretty tasty. Maybe he could try it and report back.