You Published a Picture That I Asked Not Be Published As Part of a Court Filing That Has Undeniable Intrinsic News Value




But I didn’t email it for news value. There was no news value in it to me.  Certainly not like the news value in publishing Aaron Walker’s home address.  Certainly not anywhere near the news value in the story of Lee Stranahan’s loss of a child.

I sent the photo to Scumbag Hinckley and Scumbag Hoge. And Scumbag Carroll County, Maryland law enforcement.  And Mrs. Scumbag Hinckley at a public business mailbox where anybody could read it.  And Scumbag Shirley, Massachusetts law enforcement. ( I think.  Maybe.  I could be mis-remembering that.  I might have sent it my old unit HQ 32nd MAU aboard the USS Coronado.  Whatever.  I don’t care.)  And Scumbag Middlesex County, Massachusetts law enforcement. (I think.  Maybe.  I could be mis-remembering that too.  I might have sent it to sex club in Yokosuka, Japan where I earned an award for my forward deployment on stage, or something.  Whatever.)  Please don’t insult me by suggesting law enforcement sent you the picture.  There must be dozens, dare I say hundreds of other reasons and methods for insulting me.

So, either Hoge or Hinckley (or Hinckley’s wife, or someone in one of three law enforcement agencies, or anyone they might have forwarded the email to, or eight or ten or twenty layers of telephone that may or may not have been played) sent you the picture.  Which you never published until it showed up in a public domain court filing, because I’m about as stupid and transparently obvious as it’s possible to be while still barely managing to stand on two legs with a rolly walker.

I included the picture because I’m an idiot who thought I could convince people I’m not a monster by showing her grace, her perfectly described “frail, put-the-camera-down-you-sick-fucking-ghoul expression,” her beauty, even in grave illness, and that I could propagate such a transparent lie as “I hoped people would start seeing her as a real human being, not an abstract target for attack.”

I wanted to convince people that my real purpose was to move the better angels of human nature, but I’ve never been one, so I don’t understand why taking a photograph of my emaciated, dying wife and emailing it to the world isn’t a particularly good idea.  That tactic failed miserably.  You’d think I’d be used to that after 60 years, but nope!  It always comes as a surprise.

I wanted you to see the grace, the beauty, the frailty, the humanity of a human being taking leave of this world – that’s why I didn’t publish the photo for the world to see.  That’s why instead I emailed it to over a dozen people with no interest whatsoever in seeing it, as a lure to see if anyone would publish it.  But no one did.  I don’t know why.  Whatever. Never mind.

All you saw was the obvious trap.  And instead you tormented me with my own stupidity.  And it worked, by God!

Better than me in every way, are you Krendler?

Better than me in being a perfect example of a life spent accomplishing nothing?  [I have to admit, you’ve got me there.  I concede that this is one skill at which you are better than me.  Happy now?  – PK]

I am not a perfect man.  I am a perfect nut-shuffling walking penis.

But I would never wave around a picture of a dying wife to score points.  No, I would lay that picture out in the world and wait for you to do it, and then try to score points off of that.

Of all the things I’ve done, this is my lowest point. If you think this squares with my wifey for dying first and her stepson kicking me out of the showplace tincasa?  Guess what. My children still won’t speak to me, and I have grandchildren I will die having never seen as a result of those broken relationships.

You showed a picture I offered to Hoge and Hinckley as bait so I could claim this very butthurt that I have caused myself like a trapper caught in his own bear trap.

As I told Hoge in my email to him and the Carroll County Sheriff, “I have never publicized this photo, so if I see it on anyone’s blog I will know Hoge is responsible.

As I told Hinckley (actually his wife), “As your husband was one of the people suggesting that my wife’s death was a scam I was trying to pull on people, I feel you deserve to see this picture.  If it gets published anywhere I will know who did it as it hasn’t been published anywhere else.

See!?!?  My purpose in sending the picture to Scumbag Hoge and Scumbag Hinckley(‘s wife) is absolutely, incontrovertibly obvious.  I was tender!  I was loving!  I was sweet and motherfucking kind!  It was all about the fucking frailty of life, the godforsaken beauty of the most disgustingly peaceful and painless death I have ever been cursed to witness!!!  Can’t you see HOW OBVIOUS IT IS???  FOCUS!!!

And it was only a little tiny bit about setting a trap for anyone who saw the photo.  I knew that the moment you published it there could only be one person, or maybe two, possibly three, perhaps half a dozen (of almost two dozen to whom I sent the email – twice!) who forwarded it on to you!  HA!  GOTCHA!!! If only someone will rat themselves out instead of fighting back against my lawfare…

It was an obscenity the moment I took it.

And in this world, and the next, I will pay.

I am human scum, and everyone knows it.

A slow painful death is what I deserve, much slower and infinitely more painful than my wife, the last person I will ever find foolish enough to waste a lifetime dealing with me for free.  Dying alone, in excruciating pain, with only laughing nurses getting paid to take pictures of my writhing pain for the world to see, and no Angels of Mercy to speed me on my way; that would be a fitting end for a turd de la turd like me.

I was out of your life, except for that threat to sue you again.  Gone, except for the daily visits to your blog with my new Windows 10 computer… Now, by my own bad faith and misbehavior, I have manufactured a fresh excuse.  Every day, for the rest of my life, I will look for ways to punish you, to cyberstalk you,  to leagally (the GS-13 writer-editor really shines through, don’t it?) harm you, to harass you, and try in vain to make you suffer as you take advantage of the endless opportunities to turn my bad behavior against me and make me look like the idiot that I am.  And I will fail.  Like I always have.  Like I always will.  Because I’m a DUMBFUCK who telegraphs my every move, making world class buttmud pies and calling them lawsuits.

See what I did? You were never going to be rid of me.  Because I’m a masochist who will not stop until I am dead.  Just like the Crown Jewel Grace said.  And thank heavens I have nothing better to focus on, now that my doomed LOLSuit against Grady, Edgren and Hinckley will be dismissed because I just don’t have the energy to pursue it anymore (and I put that in a court filing too, which won’t be useful at all in having me declared vexatious next time I try this lame tactic).

I really didn’t think this through, did I?


Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man's Zombie

38 thoughts on “You Published a Picture That I Asked Not Be Published As Part of a Court Filing That Has Undeniable Intrinsic News Value”

  1. Ah, the old "I was going to forget all about you until (insert someone's name here) made me NOT do what I promised to do".

    Bill is nothing if not predictable. Well, predictable and stupid.

    1. "I was out of your life, at least I got to Milwaukee, where I threatened Lulzsuit the Sixth: Stolen Valor Edition! But that doesn't fit my current butthurt narrative (yes, that word again), so I'm pretending that it never happened. Besides, 72 hours was so very long ago and I'm utterly delusional. The Ripple doesn't help as much as I thought it would, either."

  2. Perhaps the most stunning part of this latest debacle is that the Lion of Lebanon, the Rear Admiral of the Vexatious Lulzsuit, expected that anyone would respect his wishes about anything, given his conduct toward them.

    But mental illness needs no reason.

    1. That's a fair point, but after reviewing his email to Mrs. AD, I see no express request in there that anyone refrain from publishing the photo. None. Zip. Nada.

      1. Even if it had, so what? It's evidence of harassment and only served a "legal purpose" in the Diminished Capacity Kid's dick-dents.

        Watching Paragraph 83 try to rescind his Motion to Dismiss over this is going to be the funniest thing ever. The judge may already think Schmalfeldt's a lunatic. Pretty soon, he's going to know.

      2. Another fair point is that no one has really published that photo. Because if they had, Blob would be bleating about how he's going to destroy them with a copyright claim, wouldn't he?.

      3. Furthermore, unless American law is even crazier than I already think it is, there is no requirement that unsolicited communications from a stranger remain confidential. And the idea that he's owed any consideration from those he's publicly vowed to destroy would be laughable if it probably weren't also grounds for an involuntary psychiatric assessment.

        Had William sent me his ghoulish representation of his beloved, I would have published it immediately. Although, watching tubby psychopaths dance is a hobby of mine. Some guys play golf.

        1. Sadly, yes. There have even been copyright infringement suits on this very topic. However, with sufficient alterations - such as reducing a color photograph to a monochrome silhouette - the standards of Fair Use can be met.

          But you didn't hear that from me.

      4. Only if you use a slogan other than "Love is in the air, but I can't breathe!"

        It's okay if it's funny. Check an online law journal!

        1. As long as there's no commercial interest being subverted, you should be okay. If you had one custom t-shirt made, and you aren't selling them, you aren't taking money out of someone else's pocket.

          But IANAL. So, take it for what it's worth.

      5. If you color it to look like a Shepherd Fairey painting and brand "HOPE" across the bottom, you should be fine.

        I really should have gone into marketing.

      6. Regarding T-shirts and publishing or not.

        I hear there's a website somewhere that will answer that question. something like that

  3. SammyD's comment from the previous post belongs here, too.

    "You Published a Picture of Gail That I Asked Not Be Published.

    No. No. No. Krendler did not publish a picture. He linked to public documents in a court case.

    The only reason anyone has seen that disgusting picture, a picture BILL took which violated the dignity of a terminally ill woman who was in no shape to give consent, is because BILL sent it to people, including complete strangers.

    Bill is a disgusting scumbag."


    BILL sent it to numerous individuals in order to harass and to intimidate and to threaten them. And, then he proceeded to sue one of them!

    THIS is why "the picture" is now publicly available as EXHIBIT C PAGE 6.

    Bill IS a disgusting scumbag... and, without question the dumbest sumbitch drawing air.

    1. He has an uncanny ability to detach himself from responsibility for his actions and project consequences onto others.

      Is asshole a diagnosis?

  4. The man is an unmitigated monster for even taking that photo let alone emailing to people. People should be warned just what kind of monster he is. I'm betting no one from Gail family is speaking to him. What a vile vile narcissists that sad excuse for a man

    1. When Cabin Boy responds we have to realize that all his actions and reactions relate to his narcissistic interest in, Cabin Boy. After that there is nothing more to say.

  5. There is a comment near the top mentioning "what Bill has done today" (I'm guessing more threats) and I have been busy. What did The Lion of Lebanon (that cracks me up!!) do while I was gainfully employed?

  6. A lawyer who specializes in non-disclosure law would be needed to determine whether, under US law, A can send unsolicited information to B and simultaneously impose a legally enforceable ban against B's further transmission of that unsolicited information. Clearly B had no contractual duty not to transmit it. And just as clearly, A's transmission to an unrelated party, let alone multiple unrelated parties, entails that the transmitted information was thereafter not private information. Indeed, if A takes a photograph of C, is A's privacy abridged in any way by publication of the photo, and can publication of a photo taken and voluntarily released by A reasonably be considered to cause A any emotional distress. A "reasoned opinion" letter on the issues involved would likely be lengthy and certainly expensive.

    Of course, for quite a while, no one did publish the photo, probably due to a combination of simple common sense and good taste. But then Witless Willie decided to sue one of the many recipients of his transmission. Goodness, gracious, the photo unexpectedly ended up in a privileged and public exhibit in said suit. And, of course, there is no bar whatsoever to reproducing or linking to publicly available documents.

    When the "Book of Bumptious but Blubbering Bill" is finally published by Krendler, he will have his work cut out to persuade the general reading public that it is not a work of fiction.

  7. Hey Paul, I have been informed by someone that those of us who comment on your site are abysmally stupid. So no wonder I need your help in deciphering this puzzle. If a photo was taken and distributed to demonstrate peace and beauty, how does linking to it turn that SAME photo into an obscenity. You eat lots of brains so I'm sure you can explain it to me.

    I am guessing that it has to do with state of mind. You know: a story about anal sex with scouts is not pornographic if if it has a political (at least ostensibly) purpose. So if A shows a picture of a dying woman to B that is admirable because A only wanted to brighten B's day, but B is not allowed to improve C's day. I am pretty sure Howard Earl fell on the floor with gaiety when he got that photo; is it right to deny Howard some happiness?

    1. Well, if we are, we can only have been made so by prolonged exposure to the multimedia artistic (or is it autistic?) stylings of this website current 2nd favorite photographer. For the record, he ranks distantly behind David Edgren, who coincidentally happens to be, by acclamation of the 2nd favorite photographer, the 2nd worst lawyer in the world!

      Confused yet?

  8. It is amusing to me that folks here have a better understanding of what was said in that email to my wife than by the person who wrote it.

      1. Huh...

        So BS can't remember the contents of emails or tweets sent in the past week or so... but:

        1. He can remember what military unit he was in 39 years ago... after several wrong tries and only after being shown his own military records

        2. Can point out in a 39 year old picture taken from several hundred feet away his exact position standing on a ship in a mixed crowd of civilians, marines and sailors (makes you wonder how he knew there would be a photographer taking pictures?)

        3. Oh... and conveniently forgot in more than a dozen tellings over the years of his military adventures in Beirut that he actually had to be choppered to another ship (whose name was unknown to him until confronted with the evidence this month) in order to take a landing craft to shore.



      2. And he can remember exactly why he earned those three extra medals that the out-processing agent forgot to write down on his DD-214.

  9. I doubt the monkey spanker is going to drop this because he's invested so much into harassing people and he will continue to do it until he's 8 feet below. We'll read about his demise where he passes away due to autoerotic asphyxiation in front of Hoge and Krendler's pictures.


Comments are closed.