Oh, Well, I Guess That Explains It As Well As A DUMBFUCK Could


BEING a child pornographer isn’t a crime…but calling Bill Schmalfeldt, child pornographer, a child pornographer is?

I suppose that makes sense…if you’re a DUMBFUCK.

I’ll just have to be satisfied with saying

BILL SCHMALFELDT IS A CYBERSTALKER, WHICH IS A CRIME.

And

BILL SCHMALFELDT IS A CYBERHARASSER, WHICH IS A CRIME.

And 

BILL SCHMALFELDT IS A TODDLERSTALKER. WHICH IS A CRIME.

So you see it would seem that saying 

BILL SCHMALFELDT IS A CHILD PORNOGRAPHER, WHICH IS FUCKING DISGUSTING EVEN IF IT IS NOT NECESSARILY A CRIME.

is among the least of your worries, huh?

But when I call Cindy, whose number you have already so helpfully provided, idiot, it won’t matter if I tell them you are something that’s criminal, such as a documented stalker of children, or something that’s not, like a child pornographer.

Maybe I will EMBRACE THE POWER OF ‘AND!’

I loves me some burner phone!

Like(0)Dislike(0)

Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man’s Zombie

18 thoughts on “Oh, Well, I Guess That Explains It As Well As A DUMBFUCK Could”

  1. https://twitter.com/RadioDrumpf/status/713889326485123073

    Wisconsin, Maryland and now Illinois? Someone clearly isn't spending enough time in court.

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
      1. Well, he doesn't seem as "completely disabled" anymore. There's always that. I've been evangelizing about the medicinal power of bargain booze for decades. Maybe now people will listen.

        I do wonder how he plans to schedule three cases in three states in two time zones, but where there's a profound mental illness, there's a way!

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
      1. My guess? DUMBFUCK realizes he's about to get raped in the Federal LOLSUIT. So to save face, he has to hurry up and put another frivolous lolsuit in the hopper.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
  2. Frankly, every taxpayer within 100 miles of him ought to know what they're supporting, don't you think?

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
    1. Perhaps also the people who donate to the Church that provides him with a home?

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
  3. http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/21300000/Happy-Easter-Everybody-yorkshire_rose-21355009-427-435.gif

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
  4. On Witless Willie's own standards, "tattling" to the management of his residence that he is subject to a restraining order from a three year old is proper. Moreover, it is certainly not defamatory because it is true, and it is certainly not an invasion of privacy because it involves public documents not under seal.

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
  5. I've written three letters to Bill's landlord at Juniper and Canticle Courts. In the first, I informed them that I had obtained a temporary Harassment Prevention Order. This was not illegal, and is considered a proper service to a landlord, informing them of legal actions against their tenant. In the second letter, I informed them that the Harass Prevention Order had been made "permanent". Still not illegal. In my third letter, I asked them for their legal agent for service, and to notify them of a Litigation Hold Notice since Bill was threatening to include me in LULZsuit 6. I also informed them that someone on their staff was sharing my correspondence with them with Bill Schmalfeldt, who was posting this private mail (to which he was not a party) on the Internet. It is a logical conclusion that it was this "Cindy", since she has direct contact with Bill. So Cindy was violating my private communications with her employer - I think that may not have put her in the best position with her employer.

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
    1. Someone really needs to get Cindy Lopez up to speed on her legal requirements in this situation...which I bet she's never had to wrangle with before, because most infants with Billy's level of retardation are usually weeded out, Darwinian-style.

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
    2. Like agile, I have been threatened with suit by Witless Willie. If that threat materializes in anything like the form that the current suit takes, you can bet that Willie's old-age home and its management will be named as defendants in my counter-suit. Willie may have little or nothing in the way of attachable assets, but the residence itself may well have substantial market value.

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
      1. Jeff, don't forget to include nuns. They actually own the building - Cardinal Capital just manages it for them. But I'm sure Cardinal Capital, being an asset management firm, has lots of assets (i.e. cash) themselves.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
        1. Actually, I have not researched who owns the building. If the church or one of its instrumentalities owns the building, I have no reason to believe and greatly doubt that the owner authorized the management company to commit torts. (Again, I have not yet done any research, but I doubt the plaintiff in a tort claim could claim apparent authority except in some very odd factual situation.)

          So it probably makes more sense initially (absent some revelation during discovery) to join just the management company and those of its agents responsible for dealing with tenants. Although those agents undoubtedly lack explicit authority to commit torts, they undoubtedly have implicit authority to communicate with tenants (else how could they do their jobs).

          Like(0)Dislike(0)

Comments are closed.