NOW COMES Plaintiff William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., pro se plaintiff in the above captioned case for the purpose of filing this reply to Defendants’ Joint Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel ND Motion to Strike the Same.
- On March 8, 2016, Aaron Walker, attorney for defendants Sarah Palme and Eric Johnson brought a sharply focused opposition in response to each and every reason Plaintiff has made up for requesting that this honorable Court disqualify him from exacerbating my butthurt – which is not a tort – by acting as attorney for the defendants in the instant case. I can’t find an attorney stupid enough to take this case without a prohibitive front end retainer, and it’s not fair that the defendants should have an attorney so dedicated to combating Plaintiff’s transparent efforts at shutuppery that he would represent them for only costs. Plaintiff has had the opportunity to observe Walker’s behavior in other cases (usually through the bottom of a bottle of Johnnie Walker, coincidentally), and it is clear from his recent filings that he intends to follow the strategy of every other person I have ever vexatiously and frivolously sued, and not simply sit back and LET ME SUE THEM LIKE I WANT THEM TO, MOMMY!! He seems determined to behave in an adversarial manner in this adversarial system, and flood the court with motions, briefs and responses that directly address and respond to the irrelevant points I have raised, bringing facts, evidence and legal findings of law to bear against the irrelevant and falsehood-saturated declarations I have provided from a non-party with old grievances against Walker (Aaron, not Johnnie)in an attempt to obfuscate the very simple fact before this court: My Butt Hurts And Someone Needs To Give Me Money For Ointment. Once one looks at my Motion to Disqualify and picks oneself off the floor when the laughter subsides, it is clear that the reason Walker took this case is because the defendants preferred professional representation to make sure Plaintiff is thoroughly and permanently embarrassed in public, and perhaps even found so deeply in contempt of this honorably African-tinged Court that it might permanently enjoin Plaintiff from ever again filing an action without first engaging competent counsel or seeking the approval of the Court. He has no intention of giving a thorough and rigorous defense of his clients; he just wants to kick my ass! He inserted himself into this case to re-litigate a years-long courtroom battle with non-party Brett Kimberlin, whom I brought into this case with a false declaration to get him disqualified and is anybody else getting REALLY DIZZY right now?
PLAINTIFF MAINTAINS THAT MR. WALKER’S (AARON, NOT ROLLY) RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROVIDES THE COURT WITH ALL THE JUSTIFICATION IT NEEDS TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN SANCTIONS, BE FOREVER BRANDED AS A FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BE REQUIRED TO ROLL AN EMPTY BEER BOTTLE FROM MILLER PARK TO THE LAKEFRONT OVER BROKEN GLASS WITH HIS NOSE AND BE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM COMING WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WORKING COMPUTER FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE
- Despite Walker’s (Aaron, not Johnnie) facts, evidence, case citations and findings of law to the contrary. Plaintiff provided plenty of justification for his motion to disqualify (MTDQ). He just didn’t put any of it in the motion. This honorable Court will simply have to take Plaintiff’s word for it. And the word of a convicted forger, drug dealer, perjurer and domestic terrorist, even though there was no legal definition of terrorist at the time of his conviction, so he isn’t really a terrorist except in the common language sense that he, you know, actually TERRORIZED PEOPLE to distract from the investigation into the murder of the grandmother of his underage girlfriend, which isn’t even a little bit creepy. Walker’s (again, Aaron not Johnnie – he’s the red one, vroom, VROOM!) lies to this court, which I say are lies even if I didn’t provide any actual evidence you can totally believe me – are a mockery – no, a sham, a sham of a mock—a travesty, Your Honor, a travesty of a mockery of a sham – this is a TRAVISHAMOCKERY, Your Honor! You’re out of order, this court is out of order, the whole DAMN SYSTEM IS OUT OF ORDER according to Rule 8-4(c) of the DC Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct, which if you pay attention, aren’t even binding in the District of Columbia, let alone the Eastern District of Wisconsin. If saying that a Federal Court has held that Brett Kimberlin is legally responsible for the carbon-monoxide suicide of Carl DeLong isn’t to be taken as uttering a falsehood, then my argument that Brett Kimberlin had nothing to do with the carbon monoxide suicide is most certainly a lie before this court and I should probably spend a few days in lockup for it because what kind of fucking idiot would do such a thing, and use the word “fucking” in a legal pleading without so much as an apology to the court, which I ain’t gonna do because I never did nothing in my life that wasn’t someone else’s fault that they FORCED ME TO DO IT ON ACCOUNT OF MY PD DEMENTIA AND DAIN BRAMAGE.
- Plaintiff is Willing to Stipulate that Mr. Walker (Aaron, not Rolly) Will Likely Not Be Called as a Witness in the Instant Case.
- Plaintiff has every delusion that this honorable Court will find in his favor where no other Court ever has and see that Mr. Walker’s (Aaron, not Johnnie) appearance as pro bono attorney for the Defendants will be stricken in violation of their rights to seek and retain counsel of their choice even if it increases the butthurt of the Plaintiff. That being said, at the moment and in anticipation of a ruling in favor of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff will stipulate that his earlier assertion that Walker (Johnnie) is not likely to be called as a witness or named as a defendant in the instant case was a craven lie which Plaintiff cannot possibly defend, so he withdraws it here before he gets spanked again and possibly charged with perjury, rendering the arguments Walker (Aaron) makes in paragraphs 3-9 in his Reply to the MTDQ poot, I mean moot.
- The argument made in Paragraph 4 of Walker’s (Rolly) reply to the MTDQ is a pile of moot because Plaintiff is a liar and a bad one to boot.
- The argument made in Paragraph 5 of Walker’s (Johnnie) reply to the MTDQ is a pile of moot because Plaintiff is a liar who will soon hug a root.
- The argument made in Paragraph 6 of Walker’s (Rolly) reply to the MTDQ is a pile of moot because Plaintiff is a liar and his attempts to cover his own ass are a hoot.
- The argument made in Paragraph 7 of Walker’s (Aaron) reply to the MTDQ is a pile of moot because Plaintiff is a liar who only wants some filthy loot.
- The argument made in Paragraph 8 of Walker’s (Rolly) reply to the MTDQ is a pile of moot because Plaintiff is a liar with a heart full of soot.
- The argument made in Paragraph 9 of Walker’s (Johnnie) reply to the MTDQ is a pile of moot because Plaintiff is a liar who single-handedly liberated Beirut.
- As Mr. Walker (Aaron) Makes Statements of “Fact” That Are Backed Up By Legal Findings, Plaintiff Has Made Statements of Supposed “Fact” That Are Probably Provably Untrue.
- OH FUCK I GIVE UP THE CRAZY IS STARTING TO STICK!
Oh, and just as a note for the interested folks in the audience…the import of old data is slowly proceeding. Check the archives for the new arrival of old stuff.