Bill Schmalfeldt has been advised by his attorney to NOT comment on a lawsuit. This must feel a bit like being told not to itch that scratch… You know, the one right there between the shoulder blades.
Bill Schmalfeldt’s latest:
I just deleted a 1,000-word post in which I refuted some remarkably stupid allegations made by a person I am suing in Federal Court.
While proofing the post I had to ask myself, “What’s the point I’m trying to make here? If this incredibly stupid person being sued for making incredibly stupid and defamatory remarks wishes to dig in deeper by accusing me of faking my Parkinson’s disease, thereby throwing gasoline on an already raging fire, why would I interfere?”
If this person wishes to ignore even the most basic advice any lawyer would give to someone being sued, that being “don’t give the Plaintiff any more ammunition to use against you,” why in the world would I refuse to accept delivery of the pallets of ordnance being delivered free of cost?
If someone is that dim, that bereft of common sense, that deluded about the nature of the allegations in my complaint that he or she would voluntarily hand the metaphorical baseball bat wrapped in metaphorical barbed wire to my attorney to be used to bash his or her metaphorical head until it is a pulpy mass of metaphorical bone and brain tissue, who am I to tell this person that he or she overdid it with the barbed wire?
I took nearly the entire post, as Bill Schmalfeldt cares very much about context. If I quote just a tiny bit, we might miss the nuancy contextual threat thread of the post. If Bill figures I have violated his copyright on the post, I’ll consider editing. Frankly, it’s worth the potential legal trouble to simply document in complete detail what just got published. The art was in his original post.
What is he talking about in the post? Here’s the funny thing:
…
Sarah Palmer at BillySez has apparently NOT been advised to stop writing about Bill. She quotes his online material, including the stuff he spoliated.
Mommy. I spoliated another diaper.
Spoliation is the destruction of evidence. Bill Schmalfeldt has destroyed much of his online writing over the past few years — to the point that he probably doesn’t know what he really has said.
…
Sarah does. And as she publishes and comments on the psychology and pathology of Bill Schmalfeldt, he stews in his own juices. Just like our little fellow on the right.
And so, he publishes a post with violent imagery, in response to someone he is suing, who has already convinced a judge that he is a threat to her, after his lawyer has advised him to avoid commenting at all about the case.
When will Bill Schmalfeldt’s original post be spoliated, and the heartfelt but inappropriate venom hidden from view? I’m not a betting guy, but probably it will disappear sometime around the time Bill’s attorney reads his morning email on Tuesday.
The Artisan Craft Blog -- Dave Alexander & Company with David Edgren and Gus Bailey 
Please allow a minor correction. I have not been advised to “not comment on A lawsuit.” I was advised to “not comment on MY lawsuit.” Despite the near record time in stalking/posting, Dave, we must strive for accuracy. I did not comment on MY lawsuit. A correction on your part seems to be in order.
LikeLike
My use of the word “a” was to specify a single one. There is a lawsuit you have been advised not to comment on…
LikeLiked by 10 people
Dave
As a believer in free speech, I am always pleased to see that Witless Willie continues to have posting privileges here. Although his comments seldom make ANY sense, their absurdity is hysterically though inadvertently funny.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Do you think a GS-14 editor would have realized that, Dave?
LikeLiked by 6 people
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
Keep deleting your verbal diarrhea in the vain hope you can cleanse your Internet footprint, Bill. It’s all archived. It’s all documented. The Internet is forever.
But look on the bright side! You’ve achieved a kind of immortality! Granted, it’s in the sense of ‘Don’t do what this guy did’, but hey….beggars can’t be choosers.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Bill when you lie as constantly as you do and refuse to make corrections when asked, how do you have the balls to ask anyone else for a correction? Especially about something as insignificant as your lack of reading comprehension? Oh right, I forgot what a crybully you are.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Its quite amazing isn’t it, his idea of retraction is to frantically erase it before the nuns, or the cops see it. What he doesn’t realize is that at least three persons at the apt complex are now watching most likely as seniors are huge on social media and so are their relatives. Bill keeps on mentioning that he lives there and being the total asshole with child rape fantasies and with that goofy ass last name is one of the easiest to google anywhere in the world.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Three? I know of five…
I wonder how much overlap there is…
One of mine is on staff, one is retired military (USMC), one is a retired teacher, one was born overseas, and the last one makes killer chocolate chip cookies. (Don’t worry, Cousin Bill can’t associate these facts with these people, and won’t be able to dox them.)
All of them regard Cousin Bill as a dangerous, low class pervert. They’ve warned most of the other residents, and written complaints to the management.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“low class pervert”. I think most would agree that there would be grounds to argue that this term as applied to Bill is extremely appropriate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hope the oldsters enjoy the Encyclopedia Dramatica memes, lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am cross posting this from billy sez.
From Dave’s point of view using “a” is correct, Dave does not have a law suite so he can not say “my” when talking about it. Any editor should know about when to use and not use first person.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I would suggest further that you look up the legal definition of “spoliation.” It is not what you and your friends seem to think it is.
LikeLike
Follow your attorney’s advice.
LikeLiked by 9 people
I rather enjoy Lolcow Billy’s iron determination in not commenting publicly. His captive lawyer is going to LOVE this.
LikeLiked by 9 people
The people telling you you’re wrong are lawyers or have received lawyer-approved training on what spoliation means. Your assumption that you’re the only one who has it right depends on your delusion that a plaintiff has no responsibility towards the evidence.
Follow your lawyer’s advice.
LikeLiked by 11 people
My response would be:
If you didn’t need a lawyer because you knew the law, why did you ask for one?
LikeLiked by 11 people
Leeches gotta leech.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I do hope that your press ganged lawyer delegated a par-legal to daily monitor your on-line posting so he does not get blind sideed by all of these admissions.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Shut up moron.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As Bill posted above
Quote
I would suggest further that you look up the legal definition of “spoliation.” It is not what you and your friends seem to think it is.
End Quote
I decided to do what Bill asked
Rule 37 part E of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(e) Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information. If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:
(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or
(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may:
(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37
Seems self explanatory.
LikeLiked by 10 people
“…and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery…”
The BLOB will argue that it can be restored or replaced with the vault. Unfortunately for him, he does not understand what “restored or replaced” means. It does not mean substituted with archived data/documents. It means brought back to its original condition. Just in case The BLOB reads this, I’ll stop here and let it ponder this.
LikeLiked by 3 people
During research, I paid more attention to the possible remedies — and it seems that judges are able to decide based upon the damage to the case, intent and many other factors. All of which work against Bill Schmalfeldt.
LikeLiked by 4 people
He doesn’t seriously believe that anything his victims choose to pull out of the vault will turn out favorably for him, does he?
Heh.
No doubt they appreciate him preemtively authenticating those items though. How can you help but to point and laugh.
LikeLiked by 4 people
In Klupt, we indicated that a circuit court has inherent authority to sanction conduct that occurred prior to the commencement of the litigation. In that case, we determined that the circuit court had inherent authority to sanction a defendant who had destroyed evidence that was the subject of a request for production. We recognized four prerequisites to a trial court’s sanctioning spoliation of discoverable evidence and suggested that prelitigation spoliation could be subject to sanction:
“(1) An act of destruction;
(2) Discoverability of the evidence;
(3) An intent to destroy the evidence;
(4) Occurrence of the act at a time after suit has been filed, or, if before, at a time when the filing is fairly perceived as imminent.“
—Weaver v. Zenimax Media, Inc., 17 Md.App. 16, 923 A.2d 1032, 1047-48 (2007) (citations omitted, emphasis in original).
LikeLiked by 7 people
Typo: 17 Md.App. should be 175 Md.App.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A certain party will claim that because other parties in all likelihood saved the item, his removal of it was not spoliation. However … he does not know for sure what items have been saved and what haven’t. If the item has indeed been saved, but offline, by a party not involved in the current litigation, there would be no way for either of the litigants to acquire a copy.
Not that saving by another party prevents the charge of spoliation. Note that nowhere in the four tests above is there even the slightest suggestion that the spoliator might be saved by the fact that someone else might have saved it. E.g., someone spoliates emails. It doesn’t matter if the other party involved in the email saved their copy, the one who removed the item with intent to destroy evidence is guilty of spoliation if the email is needed for litigation, or could possible be foreseen to be needed for future, likely, litigation.
I hope that someone will contact his lawyer and/or his local LEOs to let them know that he is making violent threats against a party who already has a restraining order against him. (I’ve been given to understand that the legal system frowns on physical threats by one party in a lawsuit against the opposing party.) Given that we now know that he can travel away from the magical forcefield of his little safety alert button (what? I thought he told a judge doing that would put him at risk of death?) those threats aren’t as empty as he’s tried to make them sound. Just because he’s indulging in apophasis (“the raising of an issue by claiming not to mention it” – Mirriam-Webster) while making those threats does NOT negate them. I suppose he could try to get ahead of things by contacting his lawyer this morning and trying to explain how it’s just a little good fun. But I’m sure his lawyer isn’t stupid enough to buy that.
LikeLiked by 13 people
Dratted English pronouns.
The last paragraph should start “I hope that someone will contact Bill’s lawyer…”
LikeLiked by 4 people
I freaking hate typo’s John, don’t do it again, really. geez
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bill the skid,
was just a kid,
when he first doxxed daisy.
Then he grew up
and then he grew out,
but not out of his habit of doxxing,
But now there’s a lawyer
who was given a drawer
of printouts, charts and labels
showing the hurt
that made him squirt
in his adult XXXL Diaper
So he came by train
to the refrain
that travel was fatal to him
but to his chagrin
that the free lawyers grin
was plastered all over the staff
he shuffled
and he huffled
and he puffed
and he spewed
but no one listened
to his threaten
or admissions
and then he just smelt away
LikeLiked by 10 people
Pingback: Control and Contretemps | BILLY SEZ – The Failed Plaintiff Bill Schmalfeldt Feldtdown Observer
Bill scolding anyone about journalistic standards is always a hoot.
A guy that never held a real journalism job , or even a job over 18 months, lectures someone that actually knows how to write a factual, checked article.
Too funny.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Bill Clinton said, “Depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Bill Schmalfeldt said, “Commenting on ‘a’ lawsuit not ‘my’ lawsuit.”
Enjoyed good cigar.
Wanted caulk.
Ruined Monica’s dress.
Terrible driver, blown tranny.
LikeLiked by 3 people