You can’t fix stupid


Schmalfeldt is throwing a tantrum of his defeat in North Carolina where Judge Brown found that he made unlawful contact to Sarah Palmer and was subsequently given a No Contact Order for Stalking.

In his latest ramblings about his legal failure, Schmalfeldt crows about how much the Judge was an advocate for Sarah Palmer. Schmalfeldt fails to realize that he gave the Judge everything she needed to find his actions unlawful. Yet, to hear him tell it, the sitting Judge was totally biased against him and didn’t seem to understand the law.



First though, the Zappa reference? Dude.. what the fuck?

Let’s begin.

Sarah Palmer, who continues to helpfully incriminate herself and provide substance to my allegation of “abuse of process” is unaware of this basic fact. But let’s look at what she presents as a transcript, and she would never lie about such a thing.

He keeps using the word “incriminate” a lot as if he’s some kind of district attorney. She’s not incriminating herself at all. She made her case to a sitting Judge who does this for a living. He had an opportunity to defend himself, but like clockwork, he did the exact opposite.

She has the right to not be harassed.  Her blog was not on trial.  The unlawful contact was the subject. Who was providing the “incriminating” evidence?


1. No, she did not want to hear “my side of this.” She wanted an answer to the question, “Did I contact Sarah Palmer?” Not “why,” not “did I have a legal reason to do so,” not an explanation of my reasoning for which I was attempting to lay the groundwork.

Except Judge Brown did hear your side. In fact, when she asked if you contacted Mrs. Palmer, you said you did, and then happily explained all instances and why, even if you didn’t realize you were sinking your own ship.

2. The Judge didn’t even look at the stack of papers, the evidence that Sarah Palmer had spent the past two years defaming me, which begs the question of why a woman so TEWWIBWY FWIGHTENED of the SIGHT OF MY NAME continues to write about me in a defamatory way day after day.

The Blog was not on trial here. It was your unlawful contact with Palmer. It’s clear you were upset about the blog. That, however, was irrelevant. Just because you couldn’t grasp that, doesn’t mean the Judge was wrong and you were in the right.

 We continue.

3. Actually, it was only 134 pages of excerpts. I was rattled at this point as the judge had already forbidden me to object to evidence, and had cut me off in the middle of trying to explain my reasons for contacting Palmer.

“She’s being mean to me on her blog! She lied on her previous No Contact Order! That alone means I can harass her!”

4. She’s not interested in my reasons for trying to contact Sarah, which were valid and legal. I needed her correct address so the US Marshals would have the correct address to serve the summons in my lawsuit. And as a person potentially wronged by Palmer if she had, in fact (and we never got an answer to the question) filed a restraining order against me in Rockingham County while living in Giulford County, I had a right to know the truth. Who the hell else was I supposed to ask, if not Sarah?

Except, when Palmer moved has no bearing on service, period. You stated you had Palmer’s address, but when she moved was not your right to know. Judge Brown didn’t seem to care either.

Besides, you had an opportunity to defend yourself back in January 2016 and chose not to appear. You waived your right. Relitigating the previous No Contact Order was immaterial and the Judge had admonished you several times to keep your testimony and questions on the current complaint.

5. An answer from Sarah to that simple question, we say thank you and we move on to sending her summons to the correct address.

Except that’s not what you did.  You wanted to call law enforcement on her because you decided she perjured herself. That was extortion, something you denied doing which was a lie.

You aren’t a prosecutor. Being a pro-se plaintiff confers no special legal authority on you. The only thing you get is to put “pro-se” next to your name on the complaint. That’s it. If anything, being a pro-se plaintiff on purpose in a federal lawsuit should never be attempted by people like you. You just don’t have what it takes.

Let’s take a look at the North Carolina stalking/harassment law upon which the restraining order is based.


Here’s your problem with that, Billy. You’re not citing the relevant statute when it comes to the No Contact Order. The statute that covers No Contact Orders is Chapter 50C. I’ve highlighted the relevant section as it applies to harassment and stalking:

Let’s look at the statute for harassment as defined in 14-277.3A(b)(2)

Actual text:

Harasses or harassment. – Knowing conduct, including written or printed communication or transmission, telephone, cellular, or other wireless telephonic communication, facsimile transmission, pager messages or transmissions, answering machine or voice mail messages or transmissions, and electronic mail messages or other computerized or electronic transmissions directed at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies that person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

All the actions you took fit within the definition of harassment. You were harassing her to get an answer to a question you had no right. If you already had her address, when she moved becomes irrelevant.

Just because you’ve filed a lawsuit, pro-se does not confer to you any authority to get any answer you want through harassment. Palmer exercised her legal right to relief and the Judge agreed she met the requirements of the statute for her petition to be granted in both instances. You helped her case the second time.

I HAD A LEGAL PURPOSE. As a pro se party in a lawsuit, it was my job to determine her correct address. As a potential crime victim, I wanted to know if she had, in fact, lied on her application for the previous restraining order.

Again, this is wrong.  You don’t have any special powers as a pro-se party.  You took the action to sue people in federal court and you have directives to bring your suit into proper form.  The court did not grant you special privileges to help you do that work. Yes you have to get her address, but that’s not all you wanted. The “when she moved” was immaterial to the service of your complaint.

The potential crime victim is something you made up, but you waived your rights when you chose not to show up at the January 2016 hearing. You don’t get to decide there is a crime after the fact and use that as leverage to extort answers from anyone. Besides, you testified the DA said there wasn’t a crime. That means you admit you harassed Sarah Palmer for no legitimate reason.

I HAD NO INTENT TO STALK! My purpose was to get a simple answer to a simple question. My “intent” was never discussed because I was not allowed to bring it up.

 REASONABLE FEAR? Of WHAT? That this disabled 62-year old man would endure a painful 8 hour bus ride to strangle her with my mustache? Key word: REASONABLE!

You were asked to not contact her back in November 2015. Just because the January 2016 No Contact Order expired doesn’t mean you get to contact her again.

And reasonable fear is alleged when she presents facts.  Your past behaviors and those of your associates are facts. It doesn’t matter whether you are disabled or not. An action you may take, either directly or indirectly could cause her harm. She shared that harm. The Judge agreed it met the statutory requirements. You had no defense for that.

If Palmer was in “substantial emotional stress placing her in fear of death, bodily injury or continued harassment and that, in fact, caused her substantial emotional distress,” suppose what would happen if she had targeted an ACTUAL dangerous person for two years of harassment! She was putting on an act for the judge, and the judge was eating it with a spoon.

Except that’s not the standard at all.  You read the wrong statute so your statement is meaningless.

THREATENING OR MALICIOUS BEHAVIORS? Where are the threats? What was malicious in my asking, politely, if I had her correct address or if she lied on a form she signed under penalty of perjury? Did I threaten to damage property or injure anyone? Was my intent to abuse or harass, or was it to get information I need to assist preparing my case against her? Did I embarrass her? She does that to herself every time she writes a blog entry. Did I extort money or a “thing of value?”

Again, you read the wrong statute. You didn’t ask politely. You threatened to go to law enforcement if she didn’t give you the answers you wanted. That’s harassment. It doesn’t matter how much you downplayed your actions as innocent, they weren’t by the legal standard. You lied to the Judge about trying to extort her.

In other words, I met NONE of the requirements needed to secure a restraining order against her, a fact I will prove in court she KNEW. The blog will prove her malicious intent and ulterior motive in the initiation of a legal process with an aim of doing something that legal process was not meant to accomplish.

You read the statute incorrectly. Her blog was not the subject of the hearing. She didn’t file a petition until you harassed her.  You can attempt to relitigate that in Federal Court, but I’m quite certain that won’t happen.

But I do appreciate her providing the evidence I will use against her, and I hope she keeps it coming.


[Ed note: made a couple minor changes. Proofing department is a little slow this weekend.]

16 thoughts on “You can’t fix stupid

  1. “He keeps using the word “incriminate” a lot as if he’s some kind of district attorney.”

    Haven’t you heard SC? He’s a Prosecuting Pro-Se. I believe these out-rank district attorneys, perhaps even supreme court chief justices. Their powers are frightening.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Lovely little fisking. I did a fisking of his opening statement over at TMZ: it is a lot shorter because I ended at the point where he blew apart his own attempt at giving a legal purpose to his messages.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. DUMBFUCK, hear this now, hear it well and hear it for at least the 20th time. You have no case for “Abuse of Process.” First, this is because “Abuse of Process” is not a tort in South Carolina. What you’re looking for is Malicious Prosecution. The bad news: You don’t have a case for that either. in order to prevail on a Malicious Prosecution claim, you need TO WIN THE CASE YOU’RE SUING OVER. You lost that one, Dumbfuck. Twice. And I’m not even counting your loss to the toddler.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Going to be hard to win abuse of process when in his complaint at Paragraph 32 is the coupe de grace:

      “In On January 27, 2016, a hearing was held where Palmer was granted the restraining orders. Plaintiff did not attend the hearing since he believed there was no way a judge would grant the restraining orders.

      He chose not defend himself, and lost because he tried to be a lawyer in absentia. Then he chose to admit in his second no contact hearing that the DA said no crime was committed.

      Transcript will most certainly be attached to any Rule 11 sanctions or counterclaims.

      Talk about killing your own case.

      Neal is probably recovering in the ICU on that one.

      Liked by 5 people

      • “By suing me in the manner that he has, has Bill Schmalfeldt given me cause to sue him for Malicious Prosecution?”

        Heh. Heh. Heh.

        Oh. And, this appears to be a nice, little admission against interest:

        “But I do appreciate her providing the evidence I will use against her, AND I HOPE SHE KEEPS IT COMING.”

        Let me see if I have this straight… the Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt is, in part, suing you over “Billy Sez” butthurt. The Blob desires for you to stop sharing your alleged-defamatory commentary regarding the very things he has posted to the intertoobz himself.

        But… he clearly states that he hopes you continue to do as much.


        Liked by 2 people

        • I didn’t even get into counterclaims. Since more than one defendant easily meets the requirements for malicious prosecution under South Carolina’s standard, successful attachment of those counterclaims means that Willie’s ability to run away goes to zero.

          One thing of note: Ms Kelly is not out of the woods on this. In my case, she is a willing accomplice.

          Liked by 2 people

        • I couldn’t agree more with both of the points you raised, MJ.

          As I mentioned earlier on another blog… the Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt’s retarded roommate should strongly consider keeping xer fugly head down. The Blob is creating a world of hurt for the both of them.

          And, they are both too freaking stoopid to recognize as much.

          Liked by 1 person

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