Rule 11 Sanctions

UPDATE BELOW — 11:00 Friday night

I’m looking for some information about Aaron Walker’s latest filing in the Schmalfeldt vs. Sarah Palmer, Eric Johnson and whomever I can add when I get ’round to it.  Bill Schmalfeldt is suing two people by name, and might eventually add another person who he figures in the mysterious Paul Krendler.  They said bad things about him online.


I think he’s talking about this, from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (blogspot site)

(b) Representations to Court.

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,–
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

In short, I’m pretty sure Bill is claiming that there were misrepresentations of fact in Aaron’s filing, which is available on Hogewash!, and will be released as a two-album concert LP as well as an 8-track through CBS Music Club.  Andrew Lloyd Webber has right of first refusal on the musical, but Elton John seriously wants to write the score.

It is my opinion that Aaron represented the perspective of his clients very effectively.  He of course takes positions which match those of many Lickspittles and Zombies.  He states for example that certain comments about Bill Parvocampus are in fact, comments about a fictional character.  One might rightly assume that Parvocampus is a thinly veiled representation of Bill Schmalfeldt.

Here at the Artisinal Craft Blog™ we might have done the same with the name Lester Klemper.

Hooge: How long were you under Admiral Speedway?

Klemper:  Well, not long at first.  But then I started enjoying myself and…

Hooge: Nevermind that now.  Klemper, I noticed you’re wearing extra medals on your uniform.  According to this medal, you served with Sherman in Atlanta.  This one says “World’s Fair 1939.”

Klemper: Sorry sir.  Got carried away.  I sometimes dress up my uniform for shore leave. Dames dig the medals.

Hooge: Good heavens man, that’s an Eagle Scout badge!  You’re a Stolen Valor Eagle Scout!

Klemper: No Sir.  I earned it stateside,  Before I joined up.

Hooge: I didn’t know you were into Scouts?

Klemper:HMCS Arrowhead



So, where does Aaron’s argument fail?  I’m pretty sure this document shreds Bill Schmalfeldt’s case.

I encourage Bill to explain his objections, and for anyone to share their opinions.  Try to be somewhat nicer when and if Bill shows up, in part because we just simply continuously use the same tactics (calling someone a DUMBF-CK) and expecting a different outcome.  Partly because he already knows what you think of him.

I hope he does comment here. I also fully expect Brett Kimberlin to comment shortly. 

Update: Bill has responded to some of Aaron’s arguments, and here is a taste:

What does an attorney do when faced with the daunting task of defending two scumbags who have blatantly and frequently libeled and caused extreme emotional distress to the plaintiff who is suing them?

Well, a good attorney investigates the case, determines the facts, and advises his clients on the best course of action to take.

When you’re The Worst Attorney Teabagger®, you send a motion to dismiss that is chock full of provable lies.

For instance, a plaintiff alleges that Defendant Penelope Pudenda has appropriated the Plaintiff’s name as the title of her blog without his permission. How does TWAT® defend that?

The Plaintiff has failed to allege that non-incidental uses have occurred. Thus, the Plaintiff is attempting to do in this case what the incidental use exception is designed   to prevent: the use of the misappropriation tort to suppress news, commentary, and criticism of the Plaintiff that he doesn’t like.

Third, the Plaintiff’s most basic error is that there is no cause of action for such  appropriation unless someone is using the Plaintiff’s “good” reputation for his or her economic benefit:

Can you count the lies in TWAT®’s line of defense? I see three.

  1. I have alleged that Penelope runs a daily blog that includes my name in the title. “Incidental’ means “every now and then. Not every second of every day, like Penelope’s use of my name in the title of her blog.
  2. I have not alleged misappropriation because I don’t like what Penelope writes about me. I alleged it because she FUCKING USES MY NAME IN THE TITLE OF HER BLOG WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!
  3. TWAT® is lying when he says there’s no cause for action unless someone is stealing my “good” reputation.

Set aside for a moment that TWAT® is one of the cult of right wing bloggers who
attempted to ruin my name, the LAW says nothing about the NATURE of the reputation being appropriated.

There’s much more, but unlike John Hoge, I have a limited supply of pixels.

Numbers one and two are simple enough.  BillySez is the title of the blog.  Above the artwork is the phrase “The Bill Schmalfeldt Feldtdown Observer.  Regular readers know a Bill Schmalfeldt meltdown is a feldtdown.  That’s not in the title in my opinion.  Check out the blog here.  Incidental does not mean “every now and then.”

accompanying but not a major part of something.
“for the fieldworker who deals with real problems, paperwork is incidental”
synonyms: less important, secondary, subsidiary; More
liable to happen as a consequence of (an activity).
“the ordinary risks incidental to a fireman’s job”
synonyms: connected with, related to, associated with, accompanying, attending, attendant on, concomitant to/with
“the risks incidental to the job”

I assume Bill’s grasp of the legal implications of the word are just as shaky.

I’m not a qualified lawyer, but I have heard that lawyers are giggling behind the scenes about these basic misunderstandings of law.

Perhaps they’re just faking it, and are actually scared to death to face Bill Schmalfeldt in court.  These things I know for sure:

  • Calling opposing council the The Worst Attorney Teabagger® seems to be an ad hominem attack. It forms the acronym TWAT.   I know that the judge barred ad hominem attacks from court documents.  I’m not sure why Bill thinks these pronouncements won’t one day find their way into some court or another.
  •  Other less subtle words have been used in a recent tweet by Bill: The phrase “flapping cow labia” seems a bit harsh to describe a female defendant’s mouth, don’t you think?

If Bill Schmalfeldt wants to make his case even more difficult by being mean and misogynist, he should go right ahead.  We warned him several times about his impulsiveness.

This entry was posted in Stupid and Evil, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Rule 11 Sanctions

  1. D. Edgren says:

    With this filing, Bill Schmalfeldt has unwittingly entered the post-endgame of his lawsuit. He has shat himself good.

    There’ll be a lot more to say about his motion. Stay tuned.

    Liked by 10 people

  2. Charles Hudson says:

    It would be interesting to know what part of Walker’s filing Schmalfeldt thinks is false and deserving of sanctions.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I’m sure BS will claim the entire thing, what with him being an idiot and all.

      And even if they aren’t ad hominems in court filings, I’m sure the judge will totally appreciate the use of terms such as “flapping cow labia”, “cystic cow labia”, “cystic sow twat”, and “Penelope Pudenda”. Unca Biwwy’s mind isn’t in the gutter or even the sewer, but someplace much lower, darker, danker, and infinitely more foetid.

      Liked by 3 people

    • one handle and stick to it says:

      Yeah, that’s pretty much a pattern of Billy’s: make wild generalizations, then pitch ad hominem shit-fits when smarter people start pwning him over the specifics and the details.

      As for Billy trying for a Rule 11 motion, all I can say is: Poo-flinging monkey see, poo-flinging monkey do. Aaron hit Billy with a (valid) Rule 11 motion. But Billy doesn’t have the brains to grasp what makes such a motion valid. So he “goes through the motions” of making a Rule 11 motion himself…And he’ll be dumbfounded when his efforts FAIL spectacularly.

      Bottom Line: Bill Schmalfeldt is a one-man Cargo Cult. He apes the motions of his intellectual betters, then rages at the gods when the planes won’t land for him. (Ironically, the reason Billy fails and flails when he tries to ape smarter people comes down to one word Billy’s mouth farts often, but his brain fails to truly understand: CONTEXT.)

      Liked by 5 people

  3. JeffM says:

    It will be funny to see how Witless Willie deals with the Bill Parvocampus imbroglio. The name was used in several contexts. In the specific context of the blog post cited, it referred to an obviously FICTITIOUS character who was joining the writers at TMZ. It clearly did not purport to be about Witless Willie himself, who was CERTAINLY not being added to the writers at TMZ.

    Witless claims to believe that context is important. It is demonstrable that the post itself was rhetorical and made no pretense of being factual. It is further demonstrable that many comments to that post were consistent with that spirit of pretend. What in Willie’s complaint demonstrates that BPO’s comment was unlike so many others that were clearly fictional and what demonstrates that it would be interpreted as referring to the real Witless Willie himself, who was not even named.

    Willie is just mad that the idiocies in his already amended complaint are being exposed by the purportedly incompetent counsel for the defendants. Think of how mad he would be if a competent attorney took apart Willie’s absurd complaint.

    Liked by 4 people

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