You Shall Cease

Judge: Alright, if you would please stand up, sir. Alright, sir, based on the evidence and the testimony that I have heard this morning, I find that you have, ah, committed acts of unlawful conduct against the plaintiff in this matter. I am going to order number one that you not visit, assault, molest or otherwise interfere with the plaintiff. Number two, that you shall cease stalking the plaintiff. Number three, you shall cease harassment of the plaintiff. Number four, you shall not abuse or injure the plaintiff. Number five, you shall not contact the plaintiff by telephone, written communication, or electronic means. You are not to enter or remain present at the plaintiff’s residence, place of employment or her school. The terms of this order shall be effective for one year from the date of this order. That is the judgment of the court. The bailiff will instruct the two of you on leaving the courtroom. Please follow his orders.

Defendant: Yes your honor. And to whom do I appeal this decision?

Judge: I’m sorry, what?

Defendant: Do I have to…

Judge: You give notice to the clerk’s office.

Posted in Bill, No-Contact Order | 61 Comments

Asking a Simple Question

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.

Posted in Bill, No-Contact Order | 37 Comments

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.

Posted in Bill, No-Contact Order | 29 Comments

Proving the Point

Bill Schmalfeldt thinks that he can punch back twice as hard at people for saying mean things on the internet. He believes that the proper response to being called bad names and being called out on your own behavior is to reach into someone’s private life and do things to them.

Our latest example can be found HERE.

(Bill Schmalfeldt explaining the nuances that went into his post doxing SPQR)

Bill Schmalfeldt really doesn’t like SPQR because for YEARS SPQR has been saying mean things about Bill. Saying that Bill’s behavior is reprehensible (agreed). That Bill is an idiot (proven). That Bill doesn’t know his way around the courts and courtrooms (true) or even how to properly behave in court (VERY true). That Bill is a sociopath (I don’t necessarily disagree as a layperson), possibly even a psychopath (the same) based on his behavior both online and in the court system.

So what is Bill going to do? Well, initially he WAS going to try to add SPQR to his lawsuit in South Carolina. But that didn’t work out so well as he overplayed his hand and completely FUBAR’d everything up and just dropped his attempt. So instead Bill is going to attempt in another way to reach into SPQR’s life. His real, every day life. For saying mean things on the Internet.

Bill has now doxed him – then again, I don’t think SPQR was actually attempting to stay anonymous, but whatever. Bill intends to file a complaint against SPQR with the Colorado Bar Association – and that worked SO WELL for him the last times he tried to do that to my lawyer, you would think he would know when to quit. Bill also intends to send a copy of his post to a reporter in the city where SPQR lives and every major Colorado newspaper and Colorado blogger who will print it.

These are the actions of a frustrated sociopath, possibly psychopath, who really doesn’t understand how human interaction works. Unfortunately for Bill Schmalfeldt, all of these people that he sends this information to will more than likely do their due diligence on him. And guess what they will find, right up near the top of their search? An account of how he, under the guise of JOURMINALISM, harassed a family over their stillborn daughter.



By purposefully targeting the Colorado Bar, Colorado newspapers, bloggers and readers, Bill Schmalfeldt will have possibly set himself up for personal jurisdiction in Colorado. While attempting to take down a lawyer. Because of mean words on the internet. Oopsie Poopsie!



Our friend SonoranConservative has his take on this hot mess HERE. Enjoy!

Posted in Bill, Butthurt, FAIL Raaaage!, FAILDoxx, Jourminalism, Laughing at Losers, PLM | 16 Comments

If/Then Statements

Whenever Bill Schmalfeldt tries to explain why he’s done something, he never takes personal responsibility. It’s quite strange.

To wit:

If Lee would have answered me, Then I would not have harassed him. (See HERE.)

If Sarah would have answered me, Then I would not have harassed her. (See HERE.)

If Hoge would have shut up, Then I would not have added Doe defendants to my court case without a shred of allegation against them, then named them on my blog, still with nary a shred of allegations against them but promises that DOOM is coming. (See HERE.)

How about this instead.

Bill Schmalfeldt thinks that he has the right to ask people questions that they have no obligation to answer. He thinks that he has the right to sue over butthurt. That’s all fine and dandy. (I mean, not really, but, you know. Work with me here!)

The problem is that it is BILL SCHMALFELDT who is doing these things.

Not Lee. He wasn’t doing anything. He just wasn’t answering Bill’s questions.

Not myself. I wasn’t answering questions either.

Not Hoge. He was just… well, commenting on the pickle Bill had gotten himself into naming Does in a Federal Lawsuit and being told by the Magistrate Judge that no, he had to have real names and addresses. Hoge didn’t walk over to Bill Schmalfeldt and say, “YOU MUST NAME NAMES NOW, MISTER!”

Bill Schmalfeldt does these things. And then he blames them on everybody else.

It’s the same problem happening over and over again. And he wonders why things just don’t get better for him. Perhaps if he took personal stock of himself, they would.

Here’s hoping!

Posted in Bill, Butthurt, FAIL Raaaage!, Hypocrisy, Jourminalism, Look Deep in the Mirror | 4 Comments

Slow in the Thinking Department

Defendant: Mrs. Palmer, how much fear did these emails inspire in you. These contacts inspire in you.

Judge: Please answer the question, ma’am. What exactly did those emails have on you.

Petitioner: They began the minute I saw his name pop up. Instant tremors, cold sweat, umm, thinking Oh my GOD, he’s contacting me AGAIN. What on earth did he think that he has the right to do this.

Judge: Okay. Next question?

Defendant: Mrs. Palmer, do you see my name pop up on your internet screen every day?

Petitioner: Not as personal contact, No.

Defendant: Mrs. Palmer, do you believe that writing what I consider a hate blog directed at a person, a private citizen, a person whose life is of no concern to you, as being something that the person has no right to respond to?

Petitioner: I do not believe you have the right to personal contact, especially when *I* have not made personal contact.

Defendant: Mrs. Palmer, your blog has a comment section. I have tried contacting you through the comments

Judge: Was there a question here, sir?

Defendant: There’s going to be at the end. How is contacting you in your comments section any different than contacting you in any other way where you refuse to answer a simple question.

Petitioner: It is personal contact and I have requested before that you not contact myself or my family members personally. It is my blog. You are not allowed to comment on it due to circumstances where you were abusive to my other posters and where you attempted to post personal information…

Defendant: Entering facts not in evidence.

Judge: Is there another question, sir?

Defendant: Ah, um, ah, your honor, please give me a moment, I’ve, I don’t want to use this as a crutch, but I’m a little bit slow in the thinking department after almost 20 years of Parkinson’s Disease, Ahhh, which is a topic of discussion on Mrs. Palmers blog, whether or not I actually have it.

Posted in Bill, No-Contact Order | 40 Comments

You Need to Move On

Defendant: Alright. Ahhhhh, (paper shuffle) Mrs. Palmer, the thing that mystifies me is this blog of yours…

Judge: No, no!

Defendant: Ma’am!

Judge: No, that’s an improper question. You may question her about her complaint.

Defendant: The complaint is tied directly to the blog, Your Honor.

Judge: No, the complaint is that you have contacted her on several occasions since on or about July the 4th. Now

*Crosstalk between Bill and the Judge*

Judge: Now you can ask her questions about that only.

Defendant: Let me put it this way, then. Mrs. Palmer, as a pro se prosecutor I suppose of this lawsuit do I not have the right to contact a defendant…

Judge: That’s an improper question.

Defendant: Ma’am, I’m asking for…

Judge: That’s an improper question, sir.

Defendant: Could you explain for…

Judge: No. I’m not. I’m telling you that’s an improper question. You need to move on.

Posted in Bill, No-Contact Order | 21 Comments