Defendant: Your honor, I came all the way up here from Florence to be here today because I believe these to be frivolous charges. I believe this to be malicious prosecution, I believe this to be misuse of, or, abuse of process. Mrs. Palmer knows that she is the defendant in a civil suit that I have filed, and I believe this is a cynical ploy on her part to try to get out of that. Now, I believe that if you want somebody to stop contacting you, you don’t rely on a restraining order that expired in January 2017 to inform an individual that he’s not allowed to ask you a simple question such as when did you move. At no time did I make any threats. She has not demonstrated I made any threats. At no time was I less than civil. She has not demonstrated that I was less than civil. My questions were respectful, my questions were as a pro se actor in this upcoming federal lawsuit, and I maintain, your honor, that I have a First Amendment right unless enjoined by a court, to get information from a pro se defendant. Now, if the court grants this application from Mrs. Palmer, I will not be able to contact her with motions, with other servings, ah, because that would be direct contact in violation of the restraining order. I believe that is her ultimate end here. Mrs. Palmer knows I am no threat to her. The fact that she’s got 234 pages of daily uhhhh, defamation against me shows she is not afraid of me. And I, I, I guess your honor I really have nothing else to say and I rely on your judgment and your common sense and your judicial experience to see this for what it is. I have no intention of bothering this woman. I would just like to get answers to questions that I think are germane to the federal prosecution that I am pursuing pro se without being hauled up from Florence, South Carolina to Greensboro South, er, uh, uh, uh, North Carolina in a packed Greyhound bus that causes me physical pain. And with that, your honor, I leave the decision to you and I thank you for your time.
Judge: Thank you. Would you like to make a closing statement, please.
Petitioner: Yes your honor, I would. Ah, I did not file this so that he could not contact me in a lawsuit. I had a restraining order against him the last time that he sued me and he was perfectly able to serve me with anything that he needed to because it was for a legal intent. I have absolutely no problem with that. What I have a problem with is his demanding information that is not his business. He had no right, no need. He already had the address to serve me at. He did not need to know WHEN I moved. Thank you very much your honor.
Defendant: May I add one thing?
Judge: NO
Defendant: Okay. Thank you.
BILLY SEZ - Adventures in Bill Schmalfeldt's Pretendy Land Internet Courtroom. All Rise! 
Curious how he doesn’t have shit to say about the PLM surrounding this transcript.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I’m sure that he’s convinced he can use it to prove that I’m “lying” or something. Whatever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As far as I can tell, unless one subscribes to “The World According to Unca Biwwy” and say only things that agree with that strange take on reality, one is automatically considered to be lying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a restraining order against him THE LAST TIME he sued me.
That definitely left a mark.
Ummm, I know I already did my closing remarks, but now that she did her closing remarks, I want to say some more stuff.
That’s not how this works, fat Pedoketeer. That’s not how any of this works.
LikeLiked by 7 people
In Twitter Court, he always gets the last word.
LikeLiked by 8 people
He’s usually talking to himself, so I wonder which one of him gets the last word and if that’s some kind of conundrum.
LikeLiked by 5 people
By the way, the First Amendment doesn’t COMPEL anyone to speak. It just gives them the RIGHT to speak. There are no Amendments, zero, that compel any individual to actively do anything. That’s slavery or involuntary servitude, something one of the Amendments forbade.
LikeLiked by 6 people
It’s Cabin Boy. Empty head.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Defendant: May I add one thing?
Judge: NO.
I like this judge. Let’s let her decide everything.
LikeLiked by 3 people
and I maintain, your honor, that I have a First Amendment right unless enjoined by a court, to get information from a pro se defendant.
OK. This just may be the dumbest thing Willy has ever said.
It’s stupidity is endless.
I just showed it to my dog, and spit on the screen and started crying.
Some pixels on my computer screen are refusing to show it.
James Madison’s ghost just appeared to me and said. “Somebody kick that guy in the balls.”
OOOOH, Bill. FFS. Why?
LikeLiked by 7 people
I just reproduced your results. Boy, does James Madison have a temper!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I have a First Amendment right to get information from people I’m trying to use the government to silence.”
That one is epic, DUMBFUCK! Don’t ever change, unless it’s a .45 ACP face piercing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, that sense of entitlement. That all must bend to his will and his will alone. That it is his victims that are solely responsible for his actions. That he has “rights” and no one else does.
If only we had a word for that ….
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have two:
Malignant Narcissist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As my grandmother used to say, “That boy’s brain rattles around in his head like a dried pea in a boxcar.”
And I agree with James Madison. That assumes the guy in question has balls.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know it was painful for Sarah, but the only problem I have here is that Bill’s stupid rambling didn’t go on longer. OTOH, that might have literally caused me to die from laughter. “What a maroon.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think it was rambling. I think the first 13 sentences (up to “afraid of me”) were carefully prepared beforehand, because BS is all about careful deception. One of the reasons he is so fond of tweeting, IMO, is that he can choose his wording for maximum spin. When he has to interact with people, or even talk into a microphone, he is unable to control the conversation (because: D*mbf5ck), and allowing people to see what he is really like is what he hates most.
LikeLike
And allowing HIMSELF to see what he is really like is what he FEARS the most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I have a First Amendment right”. No you don’t, Dumbfuck, when you harass other people for information you’re not entitled to. The first amendment PROHIBITS Congress as well as the Executive Branch by extension from making laws that infringes on speech. Only the courts can modify speech. That’s it. But we’re talking to a Dumbfuck here so that won’t get through the layers of shit in his head.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You don’t have a right to make personal contact with someone who has asked you not to, particularly post-restraining order (which should have taught the limits of acceptable conduct already;) a wish to satisfy curiosity about the target’s personal life is not a legal purpose even if you have named them defendant in new lawsuit.
Bill admitted a current correct address for service and that’s all he needed for the present. In discovery he can ask questions pertaining to his case or are likely to lead to discover-able evidence (though, again, there are limits, and he may not through discovery compel answers merely to satisfy curiosity about irrelevant matters.) The date she moved doesn’t advance the object of getting service, since he already had that address, and in any case she is not obligated to comply with any demand of his that she provide her current address either, if he didn’t have it, which he did.
If there is some claim of his he thinks he can prove by establishing the date she moved, he can ask for it in discovery, should his suit gets to that point, which I presume Bill understands will not happen. She could still then object to providing that info. I presume the anticipation of having his curiosity officially thwarted explains his choice to pretend he has some right to ask now.
LikeLiked by 8 people
FRCP 26(d) Timing and Sequence of Discovery.
(1) Timing. A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Now, I believe that if you want somebody to stop contacting you, you don’t rely on a restraining order that expired in January 2017 to inform an individual that he’s not allowed to ask you a simple question such as when did you move.”
No one gives a shit what the Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt believes!
The Blob ALREADY HAD Ash’s address… as he ADMITTED. The Blob was HARASSING Ash for no other reason than he wanted to intimidate her and put her in fear. Through the escalation of his contacts, the numerous avenues of contact, and his threatening and extortionate rhetoric… MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
The ADJUDICATED Cyberstalker (x 12) Bill Schmalfeldt should thank his lucky stars that he has (thus far!) only stalked, harassed, threatened, and abused good-and-decent folks who actually believe in the rule of law.
His luck may one day run out.
LikeLiked by 9 people
How I would approach the Fat, Racist, Stalker sussing out my identity and trying his passive aggressive extortion bullshit with me….
LikeLiked by 3 people
All he had to do is flash his pro se prosecutor badge at the judge and this all would have just went away…
LikeLiked by 6 people
No, this is a state judge, so it wouldn’t have been Fed to well Fed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ISWYDT
LikeLike
Captain Obvious remark coming up.
I presume that when Ash told Whimpering Willy not to contact her again, she did not put an expiration date on that demand. So we can conclude that Witless does not know the meaning of “stop.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
According to his Cousin Roy Bill does NOT know the meaning of Stop
LikeLiked by 4 people
No. There was no expiration date. I have yet to rescind it. And I never, EVER will.
LikeLiked by 5 people
NO!
Now shut the fuck up, Shakes.
LikeLiked by 7 people
You fucking sociopath.
LikeLiked by 4 people
bill:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Milady, inasmuch as there are various and sundry threads in an interesting tapestry; ;P
LikeLike
I suspect he thinks he gets as many closing statements as he has “my town”s.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Bill Schmalfeldt sputtered: “… and I maintain, your honor, that I have a First Amendment right unless enjoined by a court, to get information from a pro se defendant. ”
I would LOVE to see him try to point out what part of the First Amendment grants him that “right”. As others have pointed out above, this is complete bullshit, and
probablyprovably the most asinine thing Bill has ever said. It is clear that if they offered any civics classes anytime Bill was in school, that he wasn’t just absent that day, he was at home faking being sick (with Parkinson’s, maybe).LikeLiked by 2 people
“It is clear that if they offered any civics classes anytime Bill was in school, that he wasn’t just absent that day, he was at home faking being sick (with Parkinson’s, maybe).”
Heh.
Can you imagine what kind of whiny bitch the Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt was as a kid and a teenager considering the way he behaves as an adult (age wise)?
UGH.
LikeLike
Pingback: Digging Through My Tax Forms | The Artisan Craft Blog — Dave Alexander & Company with David Edgren and Gus Bailey