How Do We Know These Things So Fast?

The problem with asking a legal question in public, is that everybody sees your questions.  I guess we know how that meeting turned out:

From Just Answer Personal Injury Law:

What civil remedy does a person have if he has been victimized by a criminal act that the local police refuse to investigate and the local district attorney is too busy to even consider? Individual #1 in State A wants to beef up a perceived violation of a no contact order. Realizing his evidence is weak, he asks a friend to forge a letter to be sent to Individual #1 as if it were mailed by subject of no contact order. Individual #2 in State B does as asked, traces respondent’s signature from another document, mails it to Individual #3 who also lives in State A, who carries it to home county of respondent to be mailed to Individual #1, who introduces it into evidence at a show cause contempt of court hearing. Respondent would happily just leave things alone, but Individual #1 and #2 continue to harass him over the internet. Admittedly small potatoes for cops/prosecutors in big cities with high crime rates. But is there a civil remedy for the Respondent to hold these people responsible?
For brevity, I am not posting the answer.  It wasn’t helpful.


I started to think it might not be Bill Schmalfeldt.  Maybe this happens all the time. Then this:

When someone shoots at you and misses, they still have to answer for attempted murder even though the intended victim was not harmed. This is all part of a four-year pattern of activity from these people and others to hang a conviction — any conviction — on me. As law enforcement has bigger fish to fry than a small-time mob of bloggers trying to frame someone, am I to just let the crime committed against me go? Or is there a civil remedy? Let’s discuss harm. For months — and up to this date — my name has been smeared on the web as a “deranged cyberstalker” because Individual #1 was able to convince a judge that it’s harder to block a person on Twitter than it is to change your phone number to block telemarketers. My family doctor said there is no way to prove this in court, but the stress caused by the threat of having 367 (you read that correctly) criminal charges hanging over my head may have caused a dormant medical condition to go fulminant leading to her death last year. This group has created an “Encyclopedia Dramatica” page to smear me and mock the memory of my late wife. They have e-mailed me images of a woman being violated post autopsy, indicating that is what I hoped would happen to my wife. They have been brutal, filthy, merciless, and it continues. I am a 61-year old suffering from a progressive neurological disorder that is being made worse by the constant harassment. But if you are saying there is no civil remedy for fraud, mail fraud, perjury, forgery, tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice, then I guess I have to rely on the hope of getting a judgment for harassment, libel per se, etc. Thank you.’

No, it’s Bill.

Raising two simple questions:

  1. How can anyone develop a legal strategy when their lawyer posts his answers in public?
  2. How do the Lickspittles and Zombies find Twitter accounts, new websites and lawyer questions so quickly?  I really don’t know how, but please remember not to open pictures sent to you by email, or any attachments.
This entry was posted in Shutuppery, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to How Do We Know These Things So Fast?

  1. JeffM says:

    Answering your second question first, there are a number of public service blogs that cover news about the world’s funniest (unintentionally) man. I think their brag is all the news that fits Witless. (And finding something that fits Willie requires a lot of work.)

    As for your first question, when the facts are as simple as they are in Willie’s LOLsuits your strategy is obvious and hiding it is unnecessary.

    Let me give a hypothetical. Suppose a woman lives in Florida and is in the middle of a contentious divorce. You happen to learn from her husband that she is dead broke, cannot even afford new pattens. So you sue her in Alaska for consorting with zombies. Obviously, the woman has no money to hale herself back and forth to Alaska or to hire a lawyer. So you will win by default. Everyone can see the inevitable result from the start so there is no need to keep quiet about it.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Minemyown says:

    The answer was very good, very helpful if the actor will just follow it.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Paul Krendler says:

    Speaking only for myself, I have a lot of disposable income, and among other fun things, I spend some of it on many varieties of bird seed. I have a shed full of the stuff.

    As a result, the little birdies love me, and occasionally they come and whisper fun things in my ear. I rarely have to seek out the information I share. It’s all the little birdies.

    And the occasional unsolicited email that lands in my inbox.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Paul Krendler says:

      …and maybe some spyware.

      Or not.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Simo Häyhä says:

      A slight mangling of the relevant IRC quote #117002

      So you hacking me then, huh.
      Well, I got news for you, mister. I got more firewall powers now so I’m really secure from hackers like you so you better just give up because you got no hope, mister.
      * SchmalFFie Quit (Quit: Owned.)
      * SchmalFFie has joined
      Help, my mouse is moving by itself.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. Paul Krendler says:

    And I have to say I LOVE-LOVE-LOVE the way the (wink,wink) unidentified questioner quickly pivoted from the question “can you prove damages?” over to “if someone shoots you and misses, they still have to answer for attempted murder even if you were not harmed.”

    That’s not a violation of civil code, though. It’s CRIMINAL. And it’s not a matter to between the victim and the shooter. It’s a matter between the shooter and THE STATE.

    The unidentified questioner cannot seek a remedy in court by filing charges. Only THE STATE can do that.

    This unidentified questioner sounds like a real DUMBF*CK.

    Liked by 6 people

  5. Russ says:

    He’s so invested in the Fantastical Forgery Fiction… it’s as if he thinks by repeating it often enough, maybe someone will eventually believe it.

    Occam’s Razor, however, thinks different. I mean, really, who does he think he’s fooling? What is the simplest explanation that fits the facts?

    a) BS violates a restraining order 300+ times, but it takes an intricately crafted forgery and conspiracy in order to get charges filed for the aforementioned violations. Or,

    b) BS violates a restraining order 300+ times, and ALSO sends a letter.

    Occam nods.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Russ says:

      TL;DR – no one believes Bill’s bullshit theory.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Just as invested in the idea that Hoge convinced a judge that blocking on twitter is more difficult, etc.
      The actual argument, as I [and the judge, and the law, and logic itself] understand it, is that no one is required to change their phone number to block harassing calls: it is the caller’s responsibility not to make the calls. Therefore it is not Hoge’s responsibility to block the Milwaukee Maggot, it is the Maggot’s responsibility to stop making contact.

      Only DUMFUCKs fail to get this.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ashterah says:

        But, but, but, he has a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!!!! YOU CANNOT TELL HIM NOT TO TALK!!11!!1!!!!Eleventy!!

        Guess he didn’t remember that that right stops when it infringes on somebody’s right to be left alone in the privacy of their own home or phone.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Paul Krendler says:

    The (wink, wink) unknown questioner said:

    ” As law enforcement has bigger fish to fry than a small-time mob of bloggers trying to frame someone, am I to just let the crime committed against me go? Or is there a civil remedy? “

    Unless you want to get your wide ass on a big ol’ bird and fly around the country trying to whoop up on these people with a stick, you’re shit outta luck, Chumlee!

    Unless you want to file for restraining orders against them. That’s worked out well in the past, hasn’t it?

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Dr_Mike says:

    I’m sure that hot stove has cooled off by now!

    Liked by 4 people

  8. The 13th Duke of Wymbourne says:

    Here’s the link for any zombies who wish to give Bill legal advice, assuming they aren’t already.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Toastrider says:

    He keeps making these predictions, and they keep not happening…


  10. one handle and stick to it says:

    Billy whines: “They have been brutal, filthy, merciless, and it continues.”
    Reply: Have you tried NOT acting like a drunken, stalking, harassing, threatening psycho-obsessive DUMBF5CK for a year or two? That might work wonders!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Minemyown says:

    This is for Bill Schmalfeldt, you need to forget about that letter. You have already given up all claims you may have had against anyone about it, see *http ://ia600508. It is called res judicata.

    Here I will make it easy for:

    the claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action.

    *remove the extra spaces.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s