Dear Cavanagh Law Group Attorneys

An open letter to Timothy John Cavanagh of Cavanagh Law Group and his associate Michael J. Sorich.


This is a fascinating case to which you’ve been assigned.  It has so many twists and turns.  I admire you both for taking it on.  Imagine the excitement of fighting tooth and claw against the First Amendment, and in favor of breach of a copyright agreement!

There’s just so much here, I thought I’d give a short primer.  That’s a Brett Kimberlin allusion, by the way.  You’ll catch up.


I suggest you read up on you client, starting with the commentary of Lee Stranahan.  He’s not a part of the instant case, but you really should start there.  You should know enough about Mr. Schmalfeldt that things don’t blow up in your face. (Bret

There are a few facts which might be important to learn:


  • Your client wishes to be left alone.  He also won’t leave others alone. He is either a disabled Vietnam War-era veteran who wishes to be left alone in his quiet monastic abode, or an author of fiction and first-person fiction books, who records podcasts and comedy albums and who has spent most of his life trying to become famous. (Your client is at the forefront of the first-person fiction genre, publishing books about his heroic struggle against right-wing nutjobs which are both delusional and heartfelt.)

  • Your client believes that the 367 or so times he contacted someone who he was told by a judge not to contact…he thinks those incidents prove that he is being harassed.  Because the man he was contacting tried to have Mr. Schmalfeldt respect the Peace Order issued by a Maryland court.

  • Your client believes in propriety.  Except when he doesn’t.  He wants everybody to be respectful of his late wife, but takes every opportunity to be disrespectful to women who criticize him online.

  • On that subject, your client believes that women who might have been unfaithful to their husbands deserve the harshest words.  Your client admits to being unfaithful to one of his wives, and to sleeping with another on their first date, but other women are whores. If it gets to a jury trial, you may want to make sure no women are on the jury, or men with wives, or former cub scouts.  More on that later.

  • Your client is dying from Parkinson ’s disease.  He reported years ago that he was rapidly losing the ability to walk.  He also could not talk easily or well.  He had visual hallucinations.  The stress of the conflict online has caused these symptoms to become worse.

  • Your client walks well enough that he was unable to convince his insurance company to buy him a mobility scooter.  He regularly writes nearly coherent arguments on complex legal issues. His speech problems have improved to the point that he has hosted dozens of recorded podcasts.  He is unable to travel easily, but moved from Maryland to Wisconsin alone.  He figures going out in Maryland in February is potentially hazardous, but moved to Wisconsin.

  • If you ever end up taking your client out for lunch, remember that he occasionally takes too much salad.  Ask the Navy.

  • Your client is a pauper, and can’t pay you.  If a challenge to the pauper status is successful, you will probably need to collect from him directly. Depending on who you ask, he either owns or does not own a trailer in Maryland and also a car.  They might have been sold, or given away.  Again, pauper status. He has a nearly new scooter, a few dollars left over from an insurance settlement and at one point he was planning to own our houses, wives and all other possessions.  I don’t remember how that turned out.

  • He will try to convince you to help him identify Paul Krendler. According to his own writings, and the U.S. copyright office, your client IS Paul Krendler.  Be careful with this subject.  The Paul Krendler personality is sometimes in control, in which case your client does odd things like email pictures of elderly women on their deathbeds. At other times the Paul Krendler personality is NOT in control, and your client will appear very normal, except for recording admissible comedy sketches involving cub scouts, anal sex and urine.

  • All of this really could be just exaggeration and my opinion.  I’ve had several email exchanges with your client in which he seemed rather benign.  He also put a picture of my house on Twitter, tried to get me fired and photoshopped my face on a dog’s ass, so I have a right to an opinion.

Good luck.  You’re really going to need it.


This entry was posted in Free Speech, freedom, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Dear Cavanagh Law Group Attorneys

  1. gmhowell says:

    Everything posted ABOUT Bill was first posted BY Bill.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. MJ says:

    Bill is also nuttier than a fruitcake.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Bill came “this close” (think Get Smart voice) to having 10 RO/POs against him from 6 states. I was not at the hearing, it seems to be done here by the Victim Advocate, but what I was given to understand was that the judge really wanted to give me one, but since Bill was out of state, he didn’t believe that even our new state statute which coveres cyber harassment would allow him too. It only seems to address online harassment by non-family members or current/former “intimate partners”. (Let’s say it in unison: “EEEWWWWW!)

    This is an issue which I hope to have raised by our next General Assembly (by the time we found out, the then current session was over, and in the even years, they are only allowed to deal with tax and budget issues).

    I haven’t written books using photos of Bill to which he owns the copyright and copyrighted material from his local paper while describing him in such a way that it was obvious that I was hoping that someone would read the book, and then use the street address published therein to go and harass (or worse) Bill. He’s done that to me. (And the Stranahans, and I’m sure there are others we haven’t heard about.)

    I haven’t published poorly “obscured” (I don’t that word means what he thinks it does) photos of his children accusing him of abusing them along with his full legal name and address. Bill has done that to me.

    I haven’t sent him extortionate emails trying to get information I have no right to demand from him while threatening him with public oprobrium and federal jail time. Bill has done that to me.

    I haven’t sued him twice, dropping him from both suits before I could even get around to serving papers on him. He’s done that, once dropping the entire suit within two days of filing it, because, supposedly, his doctor and wife had convinced him it was going to kill him. (And then filed a new suit only a few months later announcing that the fight was making him stronger.) The second suit involved dropping me with prejudice before having to fork over money to get the papers served. No, there is no requirement that I accept the package he tried to send and sign a paper waiving service. I might end up reimbursing the other party later on, but if waiving service by a defendant is a requirement of a lawsuit than why bother with service at all?

    I still have the emails, with the headers. The FBI may have them, since I was told to file a report with them over the attempted extortion (apparently in this state there is no crime of attempted extortion/blackmail). The book is still on sale at Amazon, since they demanded a court order to remove it, even though it is a serious invasion of my privacy.

    Gee, do you get the idea that I don’t hold Bill in high regard?

    Liked by 9 people

    • Paul Krendler says:

      How high is ZERO on the Regard Scale?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Arrgghh. This weather is screwing up my ability to sleep, and therefore type coherent screeds. The first paragraph about the online harassment law should have read : “It only seems to address online harassment by in-state non-family members or current/former “intimate partners”

      Time for bed I think. At least it’s below 90 now. Yay.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Can you have negatives in there? If so, a lot higher than it sounds.


  5. Ashterah says:

    Let’s see here….

    YOU get a subpoena. And You! YOU get a subpoena. And YOU! EVERYBODY gets a subpoena! SUBPOENAS FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!

    Liked by 7 people

      • If (actually when) his IFP status is revoked, he’s on the hook for the cost of service of all these subpoenas, correct?

        Also his lawyers fees, correct?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dr_Mike says:

        SF – and, if I’m not mistaken, LOLsuit VI showed he can either pay IL state marshalls to serve Grady, or Grady can just refuse service from a man he has a no contact order on.

        No idea why Bill is attacking Grady, since the only person I know who has sworn, in legal documents, to be Paul Krendler is, well, William Schmalfeldt. And I am firmly of the belief that the whole turdsrfood website was Bill. Nobody here could write like thatl… Whoever wrote that went full Schmalfeldt. You never go full Schmalfeldt.

        Liked by 8 people

      • one handle and stick to it says:

        @Dr_Mike: I asked the same thing. Then I remembered that this lolsuit isn’t about the merits. It’s about shutuppery. Billy is under the delusion that if he can knock the defendants out of the box–(putative) overseers of the most prominent “Google Bill Schmalfeldt” sites–then this will silence his critics. It won’t work, obviously. But that’s DUMBF5CK’s delusion.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. agiledog says:

    I would also like to point out to Bill’s lawyers that he has falsely reported me to my local police for stalking (considering we’ve never been in the same state at the same time, that would be very hard to do). He has also stated as fact that I lied in court proceedings – also a crime. As he was not there, and never obtained a transcript, this was willful malice – clearly another case of defamation. Oh, and did I mention that I have a Harassment Prevention Order (a restraining order to us laymen) in place against him, for his phone calls and direct email to me, most of which happened after I specifically told him to cease and desist? He didn’t tell you that? Strange….

    Liked by 7 people

  7. w says:

    Your client has a AR-15 rifle. Or he may not have a AR-15 rifle. All we (lickspittles and RWNJ members of the VRWC-) have is a photograph.

    You lawyer dudes may want to be careful how you cut this LOSER loose; er, disengage with your forced-upon-you client. You guys are closer to Bill, geographically, than the folks he’s pursuing.

    Viva la revolucion!! Viva Che! Viva Hillary!!! Muerte des Norte!!! And free college too!!!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. one handle and stick to it says:

    After reading all the torts Billy has committed against innocent victims in this thread, I wonder whether a Countersuit against DUMBF5CK might be in order.

    Liked by 1 person

    • agiledog says:

      I filed one against him in LOLSuit V, but the Judge ignored it when granting Bill’s motion to dismiss with prejudice – I don’t blame the judge for wanting that pile of hot mess off his desk. And Bill hasn’t given me a legal opening to file another since then. (I wonder why?) Now that he has involved his landlord in his lawfare, and there can be a defendant with actual assets worth going after, don’t be surprised if one of the current defendants files a countersuit.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. monitor2112 says:

    Wait-a-sec. His landlord is involved somehow now? When/where did this happen?


  10. samk says:

    Do you remember that time Bill Schmalfeldt filed a false DMCA claim against William Hoge because Hoge posted NASA images on his blog? What about the time he said he fell over petting his dogs, then sent a letter to LEO explaining that he fell down because he opened a box of poop that someone sent him, and then had to walk that lie back when he got called on it?

    Liked by 1 person

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