Let us consider the curious case of Bill Munko, also known as Bill Schmalfeldt.
Bill Schmalfeldt is known to be an adjudicated cyberstalker and cyberharasser. He has over the last several years, been served with NINE restraining orders from FIVE different states. He is currently under court orders to avoid contact with persons in Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts and North Carolina.
He claims that he has recently reported one of these persons to law enforcement for writing a letter that he has forgotten sending, likely due to Parkinson’s Dementia, a condition he has publicly admitted to having more than once, including in a letter to a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit which was none of his fucking business but he still stuck his shitcaked nose into because reasons.
He has made clear, several times and in no uncertain terms, that he believes I am that person, most recently yesterday.
Now, if any of you voracious Zombies had been ordered by a court in Illinois to avoid contact with a person, would you not avoid contact with that person? Would you not follow the text of the order, to wit:
The Respondent is prohibited from threatening to commit staking or committing stalking. “Stalking” means engaging in a “course of conduct” directed at a specific person, when you know or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of a third person or suffer emotional distress. A stalking “course of conduct” includes acts in which you directly, indirectly or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means follow monitor, observe, surveil, threaten or communicate to or about, a person; or engage in other contact; or interfere with or damage a person’s property or pet. Stalking can include contact via electronic communications. See 740 ILCS 21/10 for additional definitions.
Consider a few of the specific terms above.
Prohibited from…committing stalking. This seems pretty clear
Stalking means engaging in a “course of conduct” directed at a specific person when you know…that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for his safety…or suffer emotional distress.
Do you think being repeatedly and unsuccessfully sued for butthurt (which still is not a tort) would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress? Might it even cause a person to have years – YEARS!! – shaved off his lifespan as a result? That certainly seems like it would be emotionally distressing. It also seems like something Bill Schmalfeldt would or should know about, because he has used those EXACT words to describe the emotional distress he claims to have been caused by others in the past. (Just because he forgets a lot of the shit he says, doesn’t mean the rest of us do.)
A stalking “course of conduct” includes acts in which you DIRECTLY…by any ACTION, METHOD, DEVICE or MEANS, follow, MONITOR, OBSERVE, surveil, THREATEN or COMMUNICATE to or ABOUT A PERSON; or engage in OTHER CONTACT…Stalking can include CONTACT VIA ELECTRONIC MEANS. (caps are mine)
So if the respondent – Bill Schmalfeldt – DIRECTLY by any ACTION, METHOD, DEVICE or MEANS (such as a VPN like CyberGhost Premium),
MONITORS or OBSERVES a PERSON, COMMUNICATES to or ABOUT A PERSON, or engages in other CONTACT (such as attempting to leave comments – ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN OF THEM AT LAST COUNT – on a website he believes with 100% certainty belongs to that person)
…VIA ELECTRONIC MEANS, isn’t that Respondent – Bill Schmalfeldt – guilty of violating that Stalking No Contact Order?
And even more, after having been so blocked by me, if Bill Schmalfeldt PROACTIVELY AND WITHOUT PROVOCATION purchases a subscription service solely to overcome that block to view the website he believes with 100% certainty belongs to the person he is PROHIBITED FROM STALKING, isn’t adjudicated cyberstalker and cyberharasser Bill Schmalfeldt going to extreme (as well as extremely obvious) criminal lengths to violate that court order?
I wonder what a federal investigator would do with that information?