Where does one even begin?


The Oaf was busy this afternoon fouling the air in Pretendyland with a new blog post and in that post said perhaps the most risible thing that has ever been excreted from his keyboard.

Send to two individuals

“Grady had posted a picture I took of my wife, at her request, to send to two individuals with the instructions that it was not to be published.”

This sort of thing is why Bill Schmalfeldt will never get anywhere as a plaintiff in a legal action while meanwhile the restraining orders continue to rack up.  Whatever else he is, he’s truly deranged.

Star Trek He's Nuts Jim

Assume that it’s just poor sentence structure that makes it sound like his wife asked him to send the photo.  He’s stated otherwise in any event.  He doesn’t bother to tell us to whom he sent the photo, but he’s admitted that elsewhere as well.  Let’s assume that these two people weren’t his friends.  Let’s assume he knew that too.

Hutt and your point

My point, Mr. Oaf, is that you sent the photo with instructions that it was not to be published and, when it was, you were shocked, shocked1.

“…instructions that it was not to be published…”

Wut

So, let’s see, Bill. You sent an unsolicited personal and very graphic photo taken during Gail Schmalfeldt’s last days to people you have acknowledged hate you and expected that, because you had directed them not to do anything with it, they would comply2?  Seems to me, if that was entirely true, you at best have a claim for copyright infringement against the two people.  Better hurry up, though, because you only have around a year left under the statute of limitations3.

But your beef here appears to be against Patrick Grady, who I gather is not one of the people to whom you sent the photo.  Oh, I see- it’s because you’re currently suing Patrick Grady, claiming he’s Paul Krendler.  But didn’t you try that before?

pen name Paul Krendler

And didn’t you voluntarily dismiss that lawsuit with prejudice?  It’s res judicata once again, Bill.  That fact you alleged: that Krendler=Grady?  Decided against you.  Laughon v. O’Braitis, remember?

Obraitis holding

You squarely raised your contention that Krendler=Grady in that lawsuit.  That question is treated as adjudicated on the merits.  It is finally settled.

And you didn’t even have to stumble into the courtroom4.

Billy Sez You clever boys had 614x900

David Edgren


1 Don’t for a minute mistake any of this for an acknowledgement on my part that The Oaf has told the truth about sending out the photos. Oh yeah, the situation has all the elements of the usual classic Acme trap.

Acme trap

Whatever malignant purpose Bill Schmalfeldt had in mind when he distributed that photo, he had full control at that moment over how many were sent out and where they went. He seems to think that this is some sort of classic res ipsa loquitor situation where, because he says he did a particular thing, everything that happened subsequently must by necessity flow from that assertion. Well, he should think again, as the proof problems inherent in the situation aren’t resolved near that easily.

2 Again, I don’t believe for a minute that either of the two people The Oaf claimed to have sent the photos to did anything improper with them. But what could he have thinking they would do?

Even if it didn't happen

3 Not saying that such a copyright suit would be anything even remotely winnable. But oh my God would it be fun to watch.

4 This sort of blog post by The Oaf when he has only about two weeks to prepare for not one but two huge litigation challenges: John Hoge’s Maryland suit in front of a judge who is clearly pissed off at Bill and the lawsuit-killer Nuke from Nettles.

where's the big ka-bo

I don’t think the Poopy Party is taking those things seriously if he’s spending time blogging about piddly stuff. Just sayin’.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Being Ready, Law, Loser, Pretendyland, Stupid and Evil, The Oaf. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Where does one even begin?

  1. Paul Krendler says:

    I was planning on being much less gentlemanly than you have been here, David. But now I see that’s unnecessary.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Accipe remedium, Tremule! says:

    He sent it to a lot more than two people. By his own admission, as well as by virtue of the email addresses to which he sent it.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Paul Krendler says:

      As I said just after the DUMBF**K sprayed the photo all over the internet:

      I think only a sadistic sociopath would want to even TAKE that picture, much less keep it. If someone over the age of 7 gave me this picture as a gift for me to cherish, I would have to question their sincerity and they would probably spend the next several weeks eating through a straw.

      But anyway…now I’ve got this photo, taken in room 411B, the woman in the photo with such a frail, put-the-camera-down-you-sick-f**king-ghoul expression, the partial finger obscuring the left side of the lens…really, really sad on so many levels. What should I do about it?

      I could post it right here and now. That would be fun, watching it try to spin that “THIS IS NOT MY FAULT!!” will be hilarious. Especially since I know even more about this photo than I am saying here.

      Instead, let’s do this: as far as I know, there has been no obituary published, and every obituary needs a photo.

      So, if DUMBF**K would care to continue its madness, I may visit several regional newspapers, money orders in hand, and buy big, flowery obits in its name. And oh, the charitable organizations I could name in lieu of flowers!

      On the other hand, if it stops…I won’t have any FUN.

      But we already know that’s not an incentive. Neither is the notion that it wants to keep that photo private. It sent THE SAME PHOTO in separate emails to separate destinations. Do you think it knew that by doing that it was robbing itself of the ability to identify which of its harassment targets passed it on to me through back channels?

      I’ll bet a year’s pay it didn’t think of that, because DUMBF**K!!!

      Liked by 7 people

  3. Pablo says:

    Nobody knows a man like his wife.

    Janina on line one for Mr. Krendler.

    Liked by 8 people

  4. agiledog says:

    Nobody knows a man like his wife.

    Which is why Bill’s first two wives dumped him like a load of gravel in a dump truck, and his third kicked him out of the house at least once.

    As for the lies in that paragraph, here is what I said at Hogewash about them:

    I hope he puts these lies in a court filing. First, as the picture was taken in a hospital when she was near death, he better have a signed document that she consented, or it is clearly a violation of HIPAA. Second, he sent that picture to a LOT more than two individuals (and I was NOT one of the people he sent it to – he has no proof that I was ever in possession of that photo). And finally, there were no such instructions in the emails he sent with that photo. As one of those emails has been submitted as evidence in two different court proceedings, it is easy to prove that.

    Liked by 8 people

    • onlooker says:

      I believe the photo was taken without her consent, as not only is she plainly not in a way to stop him, but it is not something anyone would assent to, but the angle of the photo suggests he hid what he was doing, the finger in the corner an indication he got off no more than one or two sly shots of that helpless person he claimed to care for.

      Liked by 8 people

    • onlooker says:

      That said HIPAA is not necessarily violated, there probably were forms signed granting him access to her health condition. The violation of privacy is extreme, but probably not a HIPAA breach. He probably knew he was doing wrong though.

      Liked by 4 people

  5. Email is the internet. The person who put them on the internet is Bill Schmalfeldt. The best way to keep a photo off the internet is to NOT send it to strangers.

    Liked by 6 people

  6. This Other Latin F*cker says:

    I love his assertion that “and yes, we have proven Grady to be the author of the blog”. Really? Proven? To who? Yourself? Seems that you have sued him on more then one occasion about this and lost every time. So how did you “prove” it? William Schmalfeldt, unemployed, unemployable transient, is an idiot with absolutely no clue how badly he has screwed himself. And while there is something somewhat pathetic about him, his evilness makes it easy to feel zero sympathy for him.

    Staff Note: And it’s “proved,” not “proven.” Apparently The Oaf missed that in The GS-13 Editor’s Handbook as well. -de

    Liked by 7 people

    • Instead of transient, I believe a more accurat word is >b>vagrant
      va·grant
      ˈvāɡrənt/Submit
      noun
      1.
      a person without a settled home or regular work who wanders from place to place and lives by begging.
      synonyms: street person, homeless person, tramp, hobo, drifter, down-and-out, derelict, beggar; More
      adjective
      1.
      characteristic relating to or living the life of a vagrant.
      “vagrant beggars”
      synonyms: homeless, drifting, transient, roving, roaming, itinerant, wandering, nomadic, traveling, vagabond, rootless, of no fixed address/abode; archaicerrant
      “vagrant beggars”

      Liked by 5 people

      • Damnit Kyle! aplease relent for this semi-blind old man and cease stealing my <'s!

        Liked by 3 people

      • Kyle Kiernan says:

        Perhaps he is not a vagrant or a transient. Perhaps he is the first of the noble editor nomads who roam the vast wastelands of this nation seeking out stories to break, documents to edit, blogs to rebrand, podcasts to pod, defamations to sue. They are a lonely and curmudegeonly people known as the GsLEen, a name who’s origin is lost in the mists of time from the days when people spoke FedToFed. They may be recognized by their habitual shaking and accompanying inflatable companions.

        Liked by 9 people

    • Paul Krendler says:

      Well, I guess he’s proved it in the same way it’s been proved that the world is flat and the Sun rotates around it. The same way it’s been proved that no one will ever run a mile in under four minutes. The same way it’s been proved that it is impossible for bumblebees to fly.

      Like

  7. John “Minemyown” Doe says:

    Entrapment is not the way to get on the good side of a judge.

    Liked by 7 people

  8. Pingback: Prevarication Du Jour | hogewash

  9. You obviously do not have a copy of the first e-mail I sent to Ms. Hinckley. I, however, do.

    The one where I wrote, “As your husband was one of the people suggesting my wife’s death was a scam I was trying to pull on people, I feel you deserve to see this picture. If it gets published anywhere, I will know who did it as it hasn’t been published anywhere else.” A normal person would read that as an instruction to NOT publish the picture. But look at who spread the picture around…

    Oh, wait… the COPS sent it to Grady!
    No, it was the authorities in Carroll County! THOSE bastards sent the photo to Grady.

    Grady was the first one to publish it. Now, because karma, Grady no longer has a wife. The only difference? Mine did not choose to leave me.

    Shame on you all.

    Staff Note: First, thank you for posting in a civil tone, even though your explanation is plainly calculated to further serve your ends. Snark doesn’t bother us here- in fact I regard snark as a close friend and constant companion. I appreciate good snark, which your post does not rise to the level of. It does strike me as odd, though, that you have hung onto this particular document but strangely enough claim to have retained nothing that John Hoge sought in discovery. Just sayin, Bill. Oh, and I am ashamed of nothing that Dave has let me post, here. I have never accused anyone, say, of abusing his mentally challenged child. You have- are you ashamed of that?. -de

    Liked by 5 people

    • And Scott Hinkley’s wife didn’t publish the photograph. But how it ended up in Krendler’s hands is mere speculation. There is no evidence whatsoever that it ended up in Patrick Grady’s hands, considering that Krendler’s identity has never been established.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Milkshakesphere says:

        Of course it has been established. Dumbfuck stated under oath that he is Krendler!

        Liked by 10 people

      • Pablo says:

        No, MJ, no speculation is required. Anyone and everyone who have a copy of that photo got it from William J. Schmalfeldt. Maybe not directly, but that’s irrelevant. Every instance of that picture came from him. He also offered corpse photos. Thank God, no one took him up on that.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Tao says:

      For those of us, and the list is legion, who have followed your sick, twisted and perverted posts since your days in the Elkridge trailer park, let me state unequivocally that your legal skills are beyond abysmal. You would be disbarred in a New York second!

      Your unique bullying skills, especially against those who cannot defend themselves, are equally as legendary. No wonder you hide behind a skirt! You can’t even defend yourself on your own legal blog, choosing instead to run away and hide.

      You have brought all this karma upon yourself. Who took the picture? Who published the picture? Do you have an authenticated valid model release?

      Mr. Schmalfeldt, you have reaped the whirlwind.

      Karma is a bitch!

      Liked by 8 people

    • John “Minemyown” Doe says:

      You are on record under oath that you do not have all of your old writings, so did you commit perjury or are you lying now?

      Liked by 10 people

    • crawford421 says:

      Grady isn’t Krendler, Bill.

      I know this because, one, it’s something you apparently believe with all your heart to have “proven”, and, two, because you told me you were Krendler.

      Liked by 11 people

    • bystander says:

      No Bill, “If it gets published anywhere” does not mean “do not publish” in any manifestation of the language, other than “bat-shit crazytalk”.

      Liked by 8 people

    • JeffM says:

      Note that Witless failed to give a clear instruction not to show the picture to anyone. (I am not saying that such an instruction would have had any legal effect had it been clear.)

      He was saying that he would know who had disseminated the picture were it published because he sent it to only one person (which was untrue).

      In reasonable charity, perhaps we should assume that Witless meant “Don’t show this picture to anyone.” But that is a difficult sentence, SIX words strung together using proper English syntax. Way beyond a GS-13 level. Should we be charitable enough to assume that is what Witless intended, we must also be charitable enough to grant that a reader might not comprehend what he actually wrote as a legally binding prohibition on showing his unsolicited gift to others.

      Liked by 3 people

      • crawford421 says:

        Only a world-class moron would send a photo to dozens of people — including complete strangers and someone you’ve said horribly vile things about — a photo and say “don’t show this to anyone”.

        Liked by 4 people

      • JeffM says:

        Yes, but if you don’t include that message but expect it to be inferred, what class moron does that make you?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Dianna says:

      As I recall, quite clearly, AD submitted that foul missive as part of his evidence for his restraining order against BS.

      So, we’ve already reviewed it.

      Phone, train.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Gus Bailey says:

      Bill has absolutely no moral authority to cast shame on anyone. He is beneath reproach; it is his lot here on earth to be the lesson. His only hope when that is done is divine salvation.

      As for me, he is an icon; a reminder that Jesus loved physically disgusting people (lepers, sheep herds, etc.) and socially disgusting people (prostitutes, and tax-collectors); on the other hand he really didn’t care much for puffed up blowhards who considered themselves superior even to GOD (Pharisees and Sadducees).

      Liked by 3 people

  10. onlooker says:

    By the way, a normal person would NOT interpret that as an instruction not to publish, because it is not one. And you often perversely seek what you claim to not want.

    Liked by 7 people

  11. John “Minemyown” Doe says:

    Just for shits and giggles this is an exhibit filed by bill, case is Schmalfeldt v. Grady et al.

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mdd.315389/gov.uscourts.mdd.315389.13.4.pdf

    Liked by 4 people

  12. agiledog says:

    I think John Hoge will owe you (Dave A.) a beer for that admission from Bill that he lied in his response to Discovery when he said he had a clean hard drive and didn’t have any of his old writings. Bill’s quoting from that email he sent to a business with the photo attached proves he lied AGAIN. He has gone so far as to lie to a Judge in his email to the court regarding the Harassment Prevention hearing held here in MA – he couldn’t even tell the truth about WHERE he sent emails with that photo attached.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Pingback: Let’s Fisk Again, Like We Did Last Summer – The Thinking Man's Zombie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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