Reiterating Demands

Defendant: Ahhhh, Mrs. Palmer, do you think maybe it might be unreasonable to fear comments from a man who you have written five pages online calling him a dumb F, calling him a child pornographer, calling him a fake, ah, ah, a person who is faking his Parkinson’s disease, calling him an alcoholic, would five pages of information published by you on your blog be enough to cause fear in your heart when you hear, or when the person you are writing about, the person you name your blog after tries to contact you?

Petitioner: Personal contact is something that I have requested that you not do. Yes, it does.

Defendant: You haven’t answered my question.

Petitioner: I don’t understand your question

Defendant: But, but, but I’ll…

Judge: Move on.

Defendant: How about 132 pages

Petitioner: Your honor!

Judge: Sir! I’m going to ask you to limit your questions to the complaint that she has filed. Your continued contact of her since on or about July the 4th

Defendant: Mrs. Palmer, since on or about July 4th, did you ask me to stop commenting, er contacting you?

Petitioner: I asked you in December 2015…

Defendant: That’s not the answer to the question.

Petitioner: I asked you in December…

*Crosstalk between Petitioner,  Defendant and the Judge*

Judge: Stop it! Both of you! You need to give her an opportunity to answer the question, sir. Please answer his question.

Petitioner: I did not feel that I needed to reiterate my December 2015 statement to never contact you again.

Judge: Next question

Defendant: Why did you feel you did not need to reiterate that demand to stop contacting you, when I had been at-mentioning you on Twitter for months in between. Why was all of a sudden when at fifty there was fear for your life that caused you to start taking Xanax.

Petitioner: When your volume of intensity ramps up, it is unacceptable.

Defendant: What do you mean by volume of intensity?

Petitioner: Fifty @-mentions at a minimum in four days’ time is quite a lot when I requested that you not contact me. Along with an email, phone calls, text messages, it adds up.

Defendant: But you admit that at no time since the beginning of this episode that you asked me to stop contacting you.

Petitioner: I should not have had to.

Defendant: Ma’am, I believe North Carolina…

Judge: She has answered the question. Move on, sir.

Defendant: *heavy sigh* I’m trying to think of a question that won’t irritate your honor. I maintain , and again, I thank you for answering these questions honestly, I maintain that I have a first amendment right to write about or to anybody that I care to unless they specifically ask me to stop. Asking me to stop…

Judge: Are you making a closing statement, sir?

Defendant: I am making a closing statement.

Judge: Then you need to stand up when you are addressing the court

Defendant: I’m sorry, your honor, I’m not familiar with the process.


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 Bill, No-Contact Order. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Reiterating Demands

  1. I’m trying to think of a question that won’t irritate your honor. — Classic.

    By the way, he’s wrong about his First Amendment rights and the hearing had nothing to do with writing ABOUT, but writing TO Sarah. He had weeks to prepare, lots of time at the beach to ask “Why do I keep ending up in this situation?”

    Liked by 6 people

  2. gb420 says:

    How to defend yourself in court, normal person’s version:

    1) Look up definition of complaint in relevant statutes with legal assistance if required.
    2) Gather evidence and formulate questions whose answers show thr legal definition doesn’t apply to you, again with legal assistance as required.
    3) ????
    4) PROFIT!

    How to defend yourself in court, Dumbfuck version:

    1) Decide ahead of time how you are going to justify your behavior.
    2) Bring documents, “evidence” and ask questions that work brilliantly in twitter court to justify your behavior.
    3) ????

    To me, the normal persons version doesn’t seem hard, but then again I’m not a valor stealing, Parkinson’s faking, cyberstalking DUMBFUCK, so who knows.

    Liked by 4 people

    • paralleldino says:

      Wouldn’t it be cheating to think about your questions in advance?

      Or are you saying that perhaps not all questions you fantasize asking–while reveling in your sweaty palmed happy place–would tend to support the outcome you ostensibly desire?

      Bah, that’s just crazy talk.

      Liked by 6 people

    • If there was profit to be had in all of this, I would have liked for it to have been cold hard cash. Because even though this has produced a bumper crop of lulz, I’m still left with the mental, physical and emotional damage his behavior engenders, you know? Because you don’t just get a restraining order for shits and giggles. Ever.

      Sorry. Just a bit bitter about some things and can’t be flippant at the moment. Bill has no clue what he does. None! His First Amendment rights? Is he fucking SERIOUS? There is NO right to personal contact which is not wanted. NONE! I am not the damn government for fuck’s sake. He does not get to petition me for a redress of grievances personally if I do not want to hear from him – because THAT is what he was trying to do and what I was trying to tell him he could not do by getting the RO. This was NOT about free speech. His logic? EPIC FAIL!

      This is why I can’t just shut this blog down. Others need to know that this is who he is and what he does. And what THEY can do about HIM.

      Liked by 12 people

      • gb420 says:

        I’m sorry if my glib take on this upset you. The whole 1), 2), 3) ????, 4) PROFIT is a meme. No disrespect intended.

        Liked by 3 people

      • DeplorableRican says:

        People who have NO INSIGHT into their behavior will never get it. Sadly when I was worked as a forensic psych nurse for the State of California I saw a lot of patients like him. The folks who has insight got better and were discharged. Bill is the most clueless person I have ever seen who is still walking among the sane

        Liked by 6 people

  3. This Other Latin F*cker says:

    I’m at a loss as to how he does not understand that saying don’t ever contact me again and following that up with restraining order somehow grants him the right to contact you again. The whole don’t contact me again thing never expires.

    Liked by 6 people

  4. You are a fucking MORON, Schmalfeldt.
    A bumbling idiot the needs to eat a nice .45 sandwich.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. JeffM says:

    I love it when Witless tries to play lawyer. Remember his reaction when he did not like the answer Ash started to give about why she removed his commenting privileges on her blog?

    Facts not in evidence?

    REALLY! She is in a position to know why she did something. Perhaps he could have tried to object to his own question as asking for a conclusion. It would have made just as little sense, but might have prevented any answer at all. Of course there was no need for the judge to educate Willy about what are “facts” when a witness is asked about his or her own motives. There was no need because the judge had ALREADY properly decided that whatever alleged wrongs Ash had committed on her blog did not justify the barrage of contacts. No legal purpose. The fact that Willy may have believed that he had a legal purpose was irrelevant.

    I went to college a long time ago. My particular college back then made what was effectively a bet with students. All absences from class were excused provided that you got a B or better in the course. If you had too many absences and did not get a B or better, you got no credit for having taken the course. The law works the same way. Your belief, no matter how sincere, that you have a legal right works only if your belief is correct as a matter of law. Hard as it may be for the Willies of the world to grasp, the most useful advice a lawyer often gives a client is “Don’t.”

    Liked by 4 people

    • The Shoveler says:

      He pipes up with “Offers facts not in evidence” which is the point of testimony.

      What’s striking about these transcripts is that Schmalfeldt sounds just like The Dread Pedo. Almost a word for word imitation of the certainty that the world revolves around them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • bystander says:

      Ahhhh, Mrs. Palmer, do you think maybe it might be unreasonable to fear comments from a man who you have written five pages online

      Geez. Bill is unhappy that someone, esp. a woman, would have the temerity to continue to write about him after he tried to put the fear of God into her. It’s utterly amazing he actually said that in open court.

      Liked by 5 people

  6. Mr Minority says:

    I know it has been stated numerous times by everyone, but I TRULY BELIEVE that there is something mentally wrong with a person that believes that they have a RIGHT to contact a person even when that said person tells them not to contact them.

    Those are the symptoms of a CYBERSTALKER!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. WWFD says:

    I found this wonderful article while googling DF from a South Carolina IP address

    Liked by 6 people

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 )

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