Wielding a Double-Edged Sword

Can be hazardous to your legal health. You have to make sure that it can’t be turned around on you. This is the opening sentence in a recent query to the rent-a-lawyer website:

Is it an ethical violation for an opposing attorney to reveal a pro-se plaintiff’s medical condition in a court filing?

I think the question that should be asked is “does the plaintiff not remember the very condition he himself says he has in his own complaint, that he himself made pertinent facts in the case at hand?”

From the original complaint:

Screenshot 2016-03-10 07.23.53

From the amended, but not yet accepted by the court complaint:

Screenshot 2016-03-10 07.24.25

The takeaway:

If you want to bring your allegedly debilitating condition that is one of your main identifying factors of who you are as a person into a complaint where you are suing people for over a MILLION DOLLARS, then be prepared to answer to it. You can’t expect to try and chop people’s heads off with your disease through sympathy garnering (because really, that’s all it is) and then get all upset and calling for the smelling salts when opposing counsel snatches the sword from your hands and rests the blade on your neck, metaphorically speaking.



About The Dread Pirate Zombie

Member of the Zombie Horde and Lickspittle Minion. Out to eat your brainnnsssss. And a few other sweetbreads because they are so nomm-y. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Wielding a Double-Edged Sword

  1. I remember Bill trying to reveal someone’s HIV status on Twitter. As a former NIH employee, he should have known better.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Jane says:

    hahahaha No sane person with an IQ that reaches double or triple digits could read self-described HappyMyWifeDied TheMerryWidower‘s pleadings and not be convinced the fat freak has dementia or something equally mentally incapacitating.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. slp says:

    Request for Physical and Mental Examination, Rule 35, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. wjjhoge says:

    The Cabin Boy’s™ letter to Judge Grimm was used as Exhibit C to my reply to his opposition to my motion to dismiss Schmalfeldt v. Hoge, et al. in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland. The Cabin Boy™ raised no objection to it during the hearing on the motion. He didn’t deny it either.

    BTW, that lawsuit was dismissed.

    Liked by 9 people

  5. one handle and stick to it says:

    Oh, I see now…
    1) When Billy wants publicity or sympathy or wants to evade responsibility, he’s “brain damaged” or “has Stage X Parkinson’s” or “PD Dementia” or…

    2) When it cuts against him, it’s a “low blow” or “violation of privacy” to mention his alleged ‘condition’…

    Typical sociopathic reasoning.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Kyle Kiernan says:

      Also applies to travel activities: disables you when the deputies serve you on your front porch, disappears when you go to visit your Mom (supposedly).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jane says:

        Nope, it doesn’t disappear:

        Something My Mom Asked Me Today…
        We’re in Milwaukee and having a wonderful time… even though I had an embarrassing moment. … Had a great brekky with Becki, then over to Mom’s.
        Where I — uh — had a repeat of a previous gastrointestinal incident that I wrote about yesterday. This time, it soaked through the pants and into the chair I was sitting on… something every adult child dreams of. Poopin’ on one of Mom’s chairs.

        Later in the page self-described HappyMyWifeDied TheMerryWidowerself-described HappyMyWifeDied TheMerryWidower describes other times the loathsome loser filled its diaper.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Neal N. Bob says:

    Whereupon Oliver Wendell Jones finishes shooting himself in the foot, only to realize that he has a foot that remains unshot.

    This promises to be fantastic!

    Liked by 2 people

    • As if there’s pertinent publicly discussed items which he will use against others. The point of the post is that Bill shouldn’t bring up his medical condition IF he then intends to keep it a secret.

      By the way, I know a guy who crafted a blog post about the possible use of PD dementia as a legal strategy the other day. It may be Bill’s best chance.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Neal N. Bob says:

        I’m not aware of Parkinson’s having a causal relationship with stupidity. William is an idiot who happens to also have Parkinson’s. He was a jabbering fool long before he was a demented one.

        You know how I know that? Because, even now, he’s telegraphing that he’s going to respond to a motion for sanctions by doubling down on the behavior that made the motion necessary in the first place, and he’s doing it eight months after he learned how well it worked with David Edgren. .

        Pretty much everybody but Schmalfeldt knows how that’ll end, but it doesn’t make it less funny.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Precisely. If he’s going to bring up his own medical condition, he needs to be prepared to deal with the slings and arrows that he opened up the door to.

        As to other publicly discussed items that he will use against people, well, he’s already tried to do that. There are multiple examples of scurrilous information in his complaint that have no bearing at all upon what he alleges went down. I guess he can keep banging his head against the wall. It’s his keyboard after all.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Neal N. Bob says:

          It seems to me that the Diminished Capacity Kid’s biggest problem right now is that he’s TWICE enabled contempt of court in publishing sealed documents, both in situations involving Aaron Walker.

          That he does so in a motion to remove Walker as counsel of record – the second time without JOURNALISM as a defense – is astoundingly funny to anyone who has any idea about how life works.

          I don’t pretend to know what’s going on behind the scenes, but if I were you, I’d move for a competency hearing, if only to prevent Justice Jones from appealing a dismissal the grounds of inadequate representation.

          Liked by 2 people

      • Dianna says:

        Yes, but it’s Bill.

        Train, phone.


  7. Jeanette Victoria says:

    ROTFLOL What Mr. Over-Share upset that his medial condition is mentioned…. Bwahahaha!

    Um, is there anyone one on the entire planet that doesn’t already know?

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Techno Jinxx says:

    Stinky seems to think having Parkinsons stage LCMXX111!!!! that alternately keeps him from being able to travel/ able to travel depending on who is getting sued, is a defense against mockery….
    Guess what Stinky, it’s NOT.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Grace says:

      The PD ELEVENTY cripple cannot travel VERSUS the stalking sociopath can and will GLADLY travel.

      The poor, widdle widower cannot travel without assistance VERSUS the Merry Widower flees his showplace tincasa in Maryland (It’s cold! BRRR!) for a nunnery in balmy Wisconsin UNASSISTED.

      The Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt has claimed in other court filings that he is “completely disabled with Parkinson’s Disease” VERSUS the Lying Liar Who Lies is now simply “hobbled to a degree by his 16-years with Parkinson’s Disease.”

      Some of these things are not like the others. KOOKY!

      Courtesy of the plaintiff, his medical condition (“that HE HIMSELF made pertinent facts in the case at hand”) has, and will continue, to play a role in his “sterling reputation” LOLsuit whether he likes it or not.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. JeffM says:


    You could have written so many questions that provided context to the poor lawyers asked for an answer. And we all know how important context is. In fact, at least one legal scholar believes that absence of context constitutes a tort. So here is another hypothetical question that could have been asked (but was not).

    I am a pro se plaintiff and have filed a motion to disqualify defendants’ pro bono counsel. As part of of my motion to disqualify, I provided an exhibit listing what I believe to be defamatory and untrue statements made by opposing counsel about me. Among those statements was an unprivileged one accusing me of being demented. I forgot to include in my motion to disqualify that I was not implying that particular statement was defamatory. In the opposition to my motion to disqualify, the opposing counsel introduced as an exhibit a paper that I filed in an unrelated case in which I asserted that I had the mere beginnings of dementia due to my suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Was this unethical on the part of opposing counsel?

    Now remember that the above question was never posed. We are dealing with a counter-factual world. But in my imagination, I can see the answer that would have been forthcoming in that world.

    Of course it is not unethical. Once you “forgot” to exclude that statement, your mental health became relevant as even a DUMBFUCK like you should comprehend. So there is no ethical issue involved. But all is not lost. I suggest as a Hail-Mary gesture filing a reply in which you admit that you are completely bonkers and that opposing counsel is blatantly violating the Americans with Disabilities Acts by acting logically. It may not work, but it may so please check the box that makes sure I get paid for giving what I have already said is not a legal opinion.

    Liked by 6 people

  10. Just A Thought says:

    I am pursuing a lawsuit by alleging that it is legally actionable to refer to me as suffering from an embarrassing medical condition. Is it sanctionable for opposing counsel to reveal a court filing where I admit to suffering from said medical condition?

    Liked by 3 people

  11. crawford421 says:

    Wait. Bill has Parkinson’s?

    Liked by 5 people

  12. Minemyown says:

    He grabbed a double edged sword by the blade and pulled back a hand-full of nubs.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Up late. Looks like someone put a bullet in hotcheesesnot.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. MJ says:

    Looks like a certain DUMBFUCK is about to REALLY DOUBLE DOWN on the DOUBLE DOWN of stupid in his next legal writings. If his latest craptastic ramblings are any indication, I’d say the butthurt sores have really run deep, and most assuredly, they will be on full display in black and white print.

    Brace yourselves! For the lulz muscles are about to be stretched farther than ever before!

    Liked by 3 people

    • theman9876 says:

      “Oh sure, Like I’m really going to go into court and screw myself.”
      –Twitter Attorney at Law William D. F. Schmalfeldt –2013

      Liked by 2 people

    • one handle and stick to it says:

      So Billy protests his getting asskicked in his lolsuit about “a simple case of libel, misappropriation of a persons name and likeness, and false light invasion of privacy” by publishing a blog-post which engages in (say it with me) “libel, misappropriation of a persons name and likeness, and false light invasion of privacy”?

      Bill Schmalfeldt: never NOT acting like a psychotic drunken fuckwad.


  15. Kyle Kiernan says:

    The Daily Truth is neither.

    And does anyone else notice that his banner picture shows him with a huge divot in the back of his head?


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s