Bill Schmalfeldt, Plagiarist

For a long time now, it has been an established truth that Bill Schmalfeldt engages in plagiarism.

Is that defamatory? Not if truth is a defense, as we shall see in a moment.

If I were so inclined, I could track down half a dozen examples, and perhaps more, of Bill Schmalfeldt’s rank perfidy.  But I’m not so inclined.  Instead, I will mention one known example and leave it to the archivists to reproduce if they wish. In addition I am going to provide two more concrete examples to prove that – for the Google bomb –


…not to mention really fucking stupid. Continue reading “Bill Schmalfeldt, Plagiarist”


O RLY, DUMBFUCK? You Say That Like It’s A BAD Thing!

Does this ring a bell?


And as to vexatious litigant… 7 lawsuits in under three years, none of which survived motions to dismiss.

‘Nuff said on that.

Remember, class: All that is required to discredit Bill Schmalfeldt, is to quote Bill Schmalfeldt.


Don’t They Teach About Plagiarism in GS-13 Writer/Editor School?

In a recent, soon-to-be-deleted post archived here, a DUMBFUCK tries to sound intelligent when writing:

To establish a negligent spoliation claim in Illinois, a plaintiff needs to prove that: 1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to preserve the evidence; 2) the defendant breached its duty; 3) the loss of the evidence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s inability to prove claims in an underlying lawsuit; and 4) as a result, the plaintiff suffered actual damages. As is set forth in Martin, the general rule in Illinois is that there is no duty to preserve evidence. Thus, in order to pursue a spoliation claim, the plaintiff needs to establish an exception to the general rule. To establish an exception to the “no duty” rule, a plaintiff must meet a two-part test. The first part, the “relationship” part, requires that the plaintiff show an agreement, contract, statute, special circumstance, or voluntary undertaking that imposed a duty on the defendant to preserve the evidence at issue. The second part, the “foreseeability” part, requires a plaintiff to show that the duty extends to the specific evidence at issue by showing that a “reasonable person in the defendant’s position should have foreseen that the evidence was material to the potential civil action.”

And DUMBFUCK succeeds.

At sounding intelligent.  But not at BEING intelligent.

Because DUMBFUCK.  And Google.

That same paragraph, WORD FOR FUCKING WORD, appears in this 2012 article at White and Williams.

No credit. No attribution.  No nothing.  Just straight theft of copyrighted content.

Oopsie Poopsie!

The same tort this DUMBFUCK has defaulted on in a Maryland lawsuit.

Poor Mr. Sorich…I hope he has a really good psychiatrist. Or a well-stocked bar in his office.