I think you know what this is. It’s something normal people just don’t do.
Remember, boys and girls: FOUR. Covering SIX. Across THREE. In just FIVE. I mean, what sort of a person gives people THAT MUCH evidence to use against them in court to get that sort of thing?
It’s gotta be a record.
BILLY SEZ - Adventures in Bill Schmalfeldt's Pretendy Land Internet Courtroom. All Rise! 
http://imgur.com/a/AjoMo
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good thing nobody has come and done to him what he thinks is “normal” in these situations. Then again, the zombie horde actually seems more human than what he thinks is normal. Who are the monsters again?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahem.
https://twitter.com/hotcheeseshot/status/696169995714359297
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, Gail’s Former Abuser sure likes to stick his massive beak into other people’s business all the time.
but then again, if he didnt have double standards he’d have no standards at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is he really Gail’s ‘former’ abuser? The way he treats her ashes and memory could be interpreted as abusive. Perhaps bill is the “former Gail’s abuser” or simply “Gail’s eternal abuser”.
LikeLike
I feel that once we shuffle off this mortal coil, the soul is unbothered by what happens to the earthly remains, or in this incidence, the “cremains”
so it’s still former, as her soul has (thankfully) passed beyond his reach for good.
how he treats her ashes/memory is just further proof of what a huge rolly walking pile of shit he is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, being an ‘abuser’ means that the object of abuse notices and/or cares? If so, Bill would be “Gail’s former abuser”. If the defining characteristic of an ‘abuser’ is ‘attempted abusive behavior’, I think we gotta go with “Gail’s eternal abuser”.
Is there a legal or normally accepted differentiator? Until then, the true nature of Bill’s abuse of Gail is probably (provably?) in the eye of the beholder.
Reportedly being a rapist, OTOH…
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:08 PM, BILLY SEZ – Accurate Quotes That Flow Like Fear Pee From the Keyboard of Wm Schmalfeldt wrote:
> Techno Jinxx commented: “I feel that once we shuffle off this mortal coil, > the soul is unbothered by what happens to the earthly remains, or in this > incidence, the “cremains” so it’s still former, as her soul has > (thankfully) passed beyond his reach for good. how he treats ” >
LikeLike
None of Mr. Hoge’s concern? Not even when it is so obviously his name that was in the original accusation? Hmmm.
LikeLike
What’s the Name of His Game Again?
Hippo-crasy! The fun new board game from Milton-Bradley! Collect all the Restraining Orders! Go to Jail! Do not collect $EleventyMeeeelion! Ride the red scooter down the chute to the bottom!
LikeLiked by 3 people
bwahahahahaha ^5 – nicely done!
LikeLike
It’s red – VROOM VROOM.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This post has earned the Billy Sez SEAL of APPROVAL
LikeLiked by 1 person
The record of restraining orders has AT LEAST three potential legal implications for Witless Willie’s current LOLsuit.
First, that record provides, at least for those seeking or enjoying the protection of a restraining order against Willie, a strong argument for having good cause to refuse a package sent by him. (Whether or not this educates any literate simians is irrelevant because no amendment to his pleadings can eliminate that record.) Oopsie poopsie.
Second, as I read Wisconsin case law, the restraining orders are directly relevant to providing the necessary threshold for quashing a subpoena for the identity of any John Doe or Jane Roe. If my reading is correct, that record will be raised right behind the jurisdictional objection in any motion to quash. I imagine that the judge on the case will find that record to be both relevant and illuminating. (No. In public, I am not going to give citations to the relevant case law: such a gift might be overly helpful to a monkey or two.)
Third, Willie’s record of restraining orders does not of course privilege any utterance defaming him (not that I am asserting there are any such defamatory utterances), but it does provides a basis for asserting that, as a matter of law, Willie is a public figure, at least for a limited purpose.
And Willie’s record includes a restraining order to protect a toddler. Personally, I strongly endeavor to avoid putting myself in a position where a judge might find me to be annoying a toddler, particularly if I believed the toddler to be possibly brain damaged. Of course, that is just my approach: I am not being judgmental about others who march to the beat of a different drum. But such a record is perhaps unusual enough to be a matter of public interest. It may ultimately be up to the jury demanded by Willie to judge whether, as a matter of fact, being subject to a restraining order from a toddler, even one with not an iota of brain damage, makes him a public figure. Many potential members of a jury may have protective feelings for toddlers. Perhaps during voir dire Willie can get the judge to exclude for cause any who admit to such feelings.
LikeLiked by 5 people
You do have to wonder what the jury would make of a guy who has a protective order on him from a toddler and writes the filth he does.
BTW, DF — a “jury of your peers” means people from the population at large, not people who think like you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nor does it mean a “jury of fear pee-ers,” even if they qualify as your peers.
LikeLiked by 2 people