16 thoughts on “Poor DUMBFUCK!”

    1. why is he sooo concerned about "our" attorney? Why does he care, he already had the case won right? Improper service?

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
      1. Mostly to show him or her some old-fashioned doxxing and down-home stalking before motions are filed. Also, something about leopards and spots.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
      2. I'm not sure what else this could mean.

        https://twitter.com/hotcheeseshot/status/702955415865335812

        Granted, i'm not weaponized stupid.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
        1. That tranny is probably still in a Yokohama shower, desperately hoping to feel clean again.

          Like(0)Dislike(0)
      3. He cares because he's a cross between Smeagol and the Pillsbury Doughboy.

        I'll wish you luck, but you won't need any.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
      4. Same reason a 3-year-old keeps shrieking "ARE WE THERE YET?! ARE WE THERE YET?!" Schmalfeldt has zero patience and zero impulse-control.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
  1. Proving yet again that the fat freak really is too stoooooooopid to understand what causes restraining orders (and why self-described HappyMyWifeDied TheMerryWidower is all alone in the world); ineducable; and determined to stay on the path to collecting all 57, and that has led to nothing but FAILure throughout the loathsome loser's miserable, wasted existence.

    Seriously - has anyone ever heard of anyone with nine restraining orders against them? How about five - anyone heard of a single individual with four - less than half of dementia addled doofus' total? smh

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
    1. Deb Frisch wound up with four or five, IIRC, over about 9 years.

      Jail time, losing her house and car, and being banned from Oregon seems to have slowed her up a bit...

      Crystal Cox has collected a few, too, I think, but Cousin Bill has the most I've heard of...

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
      1. In that case Bill wouldn't be interested. But Deb Frisch looks sorta like a man so there is hope for Bill there.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
  2. Please help me out here. I take it we are once again in Wonderful Willie's land of weird law. The trips there have been quite frequent lately.

    I am still bemused by the theory that if A received from B a message left on C's answering machine by D, A or B or both have invaded D's privacy. I'm hardly ready to contemplate a new one.

    I am inferring that the latest visit involves this theory, but please correct me if I am wrong. New theory: if X sues Y, (a) Y is under a duty to inform X of the name and cv of each and every attorney engaged by Y, whether or not an attorney has been engaged to defend against X's suit against Y, and (b) such duty must be satisfied before Y can file anything in response to the suit. If someone intended to file a suit and not pursue it if it was defended vigorously, I can see how such a theory would be helpful. Every helpful theory, however, is not necessarily a valid theory as I am sure that AVVO will confirm. Indeed, I'm speculating that the Cowardly Lion of Lebanon will have fled court well before the name of the opposing lawyer becomes public. The fact is that lions are quite incompetent in federal court, and I do mean that literally rather than figuratively.

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
      1. I get your point, and, as it is your blog, you certainly should feel free to correct the post. However, it all depends on whether you interpret the adverbs as referencing the entire clause or merely the adjectival phrase "quite incompetent." I believe that, under the last interpretation, "figuratively" would not apply.

        I apologize for submitting a post so ambiguous. Although zombies are quite used to ambiguity (being undead but not living is existentially ambiguous), we know that semi-literate simians are also part of the audience, and we certainly do not want them to be unsure of what is meant.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)

Comments are closed.