You agiledog, You!


Here is Scott Hinckley’s (aka agiledog) opposition to Bill Schmalfeldt’s motion to dismiss LOLSuit:

You’re going to FORCE HIM to withdraw his motion and continue with the suit, you know…

UPDATE – Also recently added to the docket:

Answer & Counterclaim

There’s a sizable list of exhibits attached.  This is Exhibit C.

Page 6 is especially interesting.  And as part of a court filing, it’s in the public domain.

UPDATE – remaining exhibits are included after the jump.



















Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man's Zombie

62 thoughts on “You agiledog, You!”

  1. Ok Bill you Flaming Asshole I hope you are happy you got what you wanted. That G**dam picture published.

      1. You'd think that William would be a better photographer, what with his thirty years of journalistic experience. A better flash really would have made her eyes pop!

      2. Who in their right mind wants to remember a loved one like that? Having been in similar circumstances, the last thing in the would that could go through my mind was, "hey, let's snap a quick picture." But Bill isn't in his right mind. I'm proud to say that I will never understand some of his motivations.

      3. You know, for someone who copyrighted an image of his dying wife that he does not want published in the public domain, he sure emails it to the spouses of people he is suing a lot.

    1. What I recall most especially about those early days after he sent those terribly misconceived emails was his follow up emails to law enforcement when he said the email had fallen into the hands of "Patrick G Grady of Palatine, IL" (HA!) and that he (meaning me) had described the picture "perfectly."

      Here's that description:

      But anyway…now I’ve got this photo, taken in room 411B, the woman in the photo with such a frail, put-the-camera-down-you-sick-fucking-ghoul expression, the partial finger obscuring the left side of the lens…really, really sad on so many levels.

      He never did disagree with the perfect description of that expression, did he? He must have agreed with it...he said himself it was perfect.

      1. But he meant it in a really. romantic way.

        In any event, I think Howard has the perfect avatar!

  2. I believe that only a malignant narcissist and sociopath would invade anyone's privacy by taking a photo like that, much less someone they claim to love. It almost looks like it was surreptitiously taken - did she tell him, "no"? Did he do it anyway? And then to ghoulishly sent that to over a dozen people he didn't know, including an uninvolved woman, with the hope that she would exert pressure on her husband in some manner? Disgusting.

    1. You expected something better from Schmalfeldt? You really should know better by now, AR1.

    2. He Had A Plan.

      It was a cunning plan.

      Could only be foiled by anyone not insane.

      What are the odds anybody like that is in his enemy list?

      1. As far as cunning plans go... The Portly Pecker Checker makes Baldric look like a Mensa member.

  3. Technically, this doesn't qualify as an LOLsuit, but it sure did make me LOL! Except for the part where I had to wonder what sort of sick fuck takes a picture like that and then sends it to his adversaries and some complete strangers. That just made me extra sad that SGotCU is still stuck in that Godforsaken tincasa.

  4. Any chance at getting the other exhibits posted? I am particularly interested in the transcripts of the phone messages fat fuck left. I know how the Mewling Vagoo characterized them... would be interested in seeing what was REALLY said.

  5. It was bound to happen. Sooner or later, someone was going to get angry enough to make a full force effort to respond to Blustering Bill. Fortunately, that person decided to do so through the courts.

    What makes the irony delicious is the relevant element in the complaint that the unwelcome contact came from someone associated with a convicted serial bomber. A weird twist on the Streisand Effect for Team Kimberlin. I suspect that Witless Willie's intended role was to deflect attention from the criminal past of Brett Kimberlin. And now those bombings are once again about to be exposed in open court.

    Even more delectably ironic is that Witless Willie's dragging a completely uninvolved wife into his inept machinations, an act that Blubbering Bill has done before while claiming it to be beyond the pale, seems to be what has motivated a long overdue reckoning.

    There is one bright spot though. By the time that this counter-suit is resolved, Witless Willie may have to change his name to Bankrupt Bill so that in the future he will be able to sue in forma pauperis with perfect legitimacy.

    1. Wow, $1.24 million plus what the jurors think should be added.

      If you melt down the Tincasa for scrap, that leaves, what, only another $1,239,990 to go!

    2. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long. Not that William will take it seriously until it's too late. Because he's not very bright, he'll rage like a retard about the stupid picture instead.

      I'll also be surprised if agiledog hasn't already started getting "legal purpose" emails and calls from Schmalfeldt, simply because knowing when to quit hasn't been in the Diminished Capacity Kid's wheelhouse before.

  6. How could anyone SANE think even taking a picture like that is a good idea?

    Does that help? - PK

  7. I fucking love that motion to deny the motion to dismiss. Jesus H Christ on a crutch. You know, I could practically hear Nill's skull squeaking under the pressure all the way out here in. Time to follow Glenn Beck's advice, Nill. Grab that duct tape!

  8. And looking through the updates.

    Wow. You managed to make Bill look worse than Bill's court filings make Bill look. Granted, you did it by quoting Bill Schmalfeldt, but usually he still wins. Of course, in this case he has not (yet) explained in loving detail why this graphic visual or audio description of events is true art, noble and pure, and not kiddie porn. You just can't trump those...

    And Exhibit "N" should go over wonderfully at Hoge's next peace order hearing.

    Not to mention conflicting with Exhibit "M" where Bill says AD and ONLY AD could have sent PK that pic.

    Frankly, my money is still on someone from TK sending it to Paul to wind Bill up, but I could be wrong. But BK did think a great way to distract the cops from a murder investigation was to set off a string of bombs around town.

    1. Did Paul ever prove head that photo with a post, or just by a description made by guessing what kind of sick fuck thing Bill would photograph?

      1. I proved it to Bill's satisfaction. I got the photo via an anonymous email.

        I noted the hospital room number, the fact that his fat finger partially obscured the left side of the lens, and that lovely, inviting expression.

      2. Just a description, that Bill agreed with, and a snippet from a corner or such, that strongly implied he had the whole thing.

        But no, he never published it. Until today, when he linked to a public domain court filing which included the picture in an exhibit of an email Bill sent, unsolicited, to the wife of a man he (was? not sure, certainly is now) suing in Federal court for Half a MEEELLION DOLLARS!!!!

        All I know is, Bill emailed Hoge + 7 others, then emailed AgileDog's wife, and also emailed AD's local LEO. So, we have many many people emailed.

        Bill then proceeded to tell Hoge, and his local LEO, that since it got out Hoge dunnit.

        We now see he also proceeded to tell Agiledog and his local LEO, that since it got out Agiledog dunnit.

        All we know for certain, about who sent it to Krendler, is that Bill is a liar.

        Oh, and for a guy who doesn't want a picture of his dying wife placed on the internet in the public domain, he sure photographs his dying wife a lot. He also sure emails people he is or soon will be in legal entanglements with, pictures of his dying wife, a lot. He also sends the same email to lots of unrelated third parties. And then he wastes money copyrighting the image. How's that working out for ya, Bill?

  9. I'll act like this is the first time seeing this horrid picture of someone so close to death that there are buzzards circling, and not like someone who is fixing to put 1000 silk screen t-shirts on goes.


  10. Once more I must express tremendous gratitude to the Zombie Horde!

    Your generosity humbles me.

    I shudder (in a good way) to think of what would happen if I were ever to ask for help in a moment of true distress.

    Many thanks to all.

  11. that picture of Gail greatly upset me, I hope she is in a better place and am sad that she suffered so.

    1. Whatever dignity Gail had left, he managed to take it away with that one single photograph and used it as a weapon against others. He claims he is a good person. As a famous person once said, "People who are evil don't think they are evil."

      Sorry Bill, but why the fuck would you do such a thing? And more importantly, why do you think its OK to copyright that? What do you think would happen if Gail's family were to see what you were doing and read the emails you sent? Let's hope that where you are going, if there are loved ones, especially from her side, they get to see what you did. You might be moving again.

      1. William very helpfully told Gail's kin all about Billy Sez on June 19th.

        It'd be a real shame if agiledog's opposition motion and counterclaim found its way to being posted there, wouldn't it?

        And could I be alone in wondering if the reclusive Thomas J has had an opportunity to review and admire his dear step-dad's photography skills?

  12. I am -- by no means -- a fan of Schmalfeldt, Kimberlin, or their ilk.

    But this is idiotic, frivolous lawfare of the same vein as Schmalfeldt's abuses. A motion to prevent him from terminating his own case *with prejudice*? A counterclaim that alleges defamation for what is plainly protected speech?

    Regardless of whether we like or dislike Schmalfeldt (or any other target of lawfare), cheering it on when we don't like the target only makes it harder to condemn when it's done to people whose speech we like.

    1. While I appreciate your opinion, I simply disagree with it. I think you are making a pacifist’s argument, or maybe a better way of wording it would be “If we ignore him, he’ll just go away.”

      It’s a rare circumstance when a bully just gives up and moves on to another target out of boredom. He escalates instead.

      It’s a rare victim who will stand there getting smacked in the mouth over and over again, continuously turning the other cheek. There always comes a breaking point when the invading army must be opposed, when the bully must be hit in the head with the heaviest practical object, body slammed face first into the gravel and beaten to a bloody pulp.

      Those who say “war never solved anything” have never been punched twice in the face.

      This is most especially necessary when the victim has said, in fact or in effect: “If you don’t stop now, I will rip your eye out and piss on your brain.”

      If the aggressor doesn’t heed that warning, and the victim doesn’t back it up, the bullying will never end.

      AD gave that warning. DUMBFUCK failed to heed it. AD is backing up his words with actions. It is his right to do so, and I say without fear of contradiction that he would also say that it is his OBLIGATION.

      Plus, it’s a lot more civilized than driving to the tincasa with hefty softball bat in the trunk. Or a tire iron.

      That's a lot of purposeful hyperbole, but I hope it helps make the point.

    2. For you to state "A counterclaim that alleges defamation for what is plainly protected speech" means you didn't read the counterclaim. He falsely accused me of crimes to the police, and falsely accused me of tormenting a disabled widower. Those are not "protected speech" - that is defamation.

      1. I read it, and I wouldn't be criticizing it if I hadn't. I won't help Schmalfeldt by describing why you're wrong -- as I'm sure he's reading this. But I do think there are persuasive arguments as to why both of the statements at issue are protected, if distasteful, speech.

      2. Protected from a claim sounding in defamation, yes. A knowingly and materially false statement of fact to the police wouldn't be protected from prosecution, and there might be other causes of action that result, but defamation probably isn't one of them. While I'm not entirely sure about Maryland, the majority of states I've looked at on this issue reach the same conclusion.


Comments are closed.