Legal LULZ Du Jour


RD201603160135Z

IIRC, it was the Cabin Boy™ who used a declaration from Brett Kimberlin as an exhibit supporting a motion.

One does not simply lie in a declaration to the court and expect not to get burned.

63 thoughts on “Legal LULZ Du Jour

  1. I have been told that, at its bottom, this is a very simple case alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and misappropriation of another’s name. However, plaintiff: (1) screwed up service, (2) screwed up amending his initial complaint, (3) has attempted to have one defendant held in contempt of court, and (4) has moved to disqualify defendants’ counsel for reasons totally unrelated to this case. Plaintiff is now complaining that defendants’ counsel has diverted attention from the underlying issues.

  2. LOLOLOL.. EVERYONE LIES BUT BILL!

      • Yes. If I remember correctly, it was very brief, essentially saying that she needed pro bono counsel and had found no one but Aaron.

      • I have made two declarations to the court. The first involved the emails to and contacts I have personally made with Wisconsin and/or its residents since Schmalfeldt moved there, as well as what was received in the packet and by whom it was received that he improperly served on me. The second one involved legal and financial business between myself and counsel.

        Make of that what you will.

        • I bet it’s that your name isn’t actually Sarah Palmer, you’re just saying it is in order to protect the REAL Sarah Palmer from Schmalfeldt’s wrath.

    • Let’s create a little table, shall we?
      Sarah: # of criminal convictions for forgery………………….0
      Eric: # of criminal convictions for forgery……………………..0
      Aaron: # of criminal convictions for forgery………………….0
      Billy+Kimberlin: # of criminal convictions for forgery…..NOT 0

      Any questions?

  3. In honor of our lovely host’s chosen profession:

    We can be thankful that the laws of physics make it so there is only one Bill Schmalfeldt. He’s so dense, he’s a singularity.

  4. Your Honor, defense counsel is addressing all of the issues I introduced and not just the ones I want him to. Disqualify him!

  5. 1. Bill sues
    2. Aaron enters an appearance for his clients, files documents that do not mention BK.
    3. Bill moves to disqualify Aaron, and introduces a declaration from Kimberlin to support it.
    4. Aaron responds to the allegations.
    5. Bill accuses Aaron of bringing up BK.
    ??????????????????????????
    HIC!

  6. ORLY???

    26. Statements made about Kimberlin in Walker’s Opposition, paragraphs 26-32, and seven of the exhibits attached to Walker’s opposition are not germaine to this case and by right should be ignored by the Court.
    27. Statements made about Kimberlin in Walker’s Opposition, paragraphs 26-32, and seven of the exhibits attached to Walker’s opposition are not germaine to this case and by right should be ignored by the Court.
    28. Statements made about Kimberlin in Walker’s Opposition, paragraphs 26-32, and seven of the exhibits attached to Walker’s opposition are not germaine to this case and by right should be ignored by the Court.
    29. Statements made about Kimberlin in Walker’s Opposition, paragraphs 26-32, and seven of the exhibits attached to Walker’s opposition are not germaine to this case and by right should be ignored by the Court.
    30. Statements made about Kimberlin in Walker’s Opposition, paragraphs 26-32, and seven of the exhibits attached to Walker’s opposition are not germaine to this case and by right should be ignored by the Court.
    31. Statements made about Kimberlin in Walker’s Opposition, paragraphs 26-32, and seven of the exhibits attached to Walker’s opposition are not germaine to this case and by right should be ignored by the Court.
    32. Statements made about Kimberlin in Walker’s Opposition, paragraphs 26-32, and seven of the exhibits attached to Walker’s opposition are not germaine to this case and by right should be ignored by the Court.

    Only you did it in a COURT DOCUMENT.

    Don’t worry Willy, the judge will be impressed!

  7. You have to remember who we are talking about here. World’s Stupidest Man™

    It’s only a lie if you don’t agree with what HE believes is the truth. And we all know how fungible that concept is to him. Hell, this is the guy who thought it would be a good idea to stalk and harass a 3 year old.

      • Well, the unemployed journalist admits to an impaired “executive function”. I’d hazard to say that’s why he’s making such a mess of this case, trying to fight old lost cases rather than deal with the issues with this one.

        He really needs to consult with a lawyer — in person, with ALL the documents for this case — to see if he can get out of this gracefully. If he’s lucky he’ll only have to pay the defendants’ costs.

        If WE are lucky, he’ll stay on course, and only be allowed to file pro se with court approval. And have to pay the defendants’ much, much higher costs.

        • Actually, Billy confesses a lot more brain-impairment in his self-published vanity “book” No Doorway Wide Enough. Given all the over-sharing in his other PD “books,” Schmalfeldt really doesn’t want to (ahem) open the door to the question of his mental f*ckedupedness.

          • And, let’s not forget he tried to plead diminished capacity in a hearing. There is a court record of that. Not sure how he plans on fighting his own sworn testing, one and what he’s written in books and online.

          • “You have the right to consult an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you….”

          • A criminal court, maybe. A civil court will just dismiss the case on grounds that the plaintiff is a stumblebum.

    • Your honor, I’m just a humble pro se. Your law frightens and confuses me, I just use words as they are in the common lexicon. Opposing counsel is a Yale educated lawyer and *he* must be required to adhere to the strict and exact legal language set forth in statute and must not call a rapist a rapist if the strict legal definition is “Sexual Assault in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.225”.

      That is, unless opposing counsel is referring to Brett Kimberlin having been found by the Indiana Supreme Court to (in strict and exact legal language) be responsible for Carl DeLong’s death, or having been found by another court (in strict and exact legal language) that it is not a lie to state he is a terrorist. Then he must use the definition as I use it, which is correct because RAWR.

  8. And he’s now threatening to add even more extraneous issues to his suit.

    “I am also going to have declarations from other people as well. Are you going to call them liars because you say so? @wjjhoge the paralegal”

    I’m guessing addressing those items will also be evidence of Walker clogging the docket with irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with the simple case before the court.

  9. I wonder what a judge is going to think of a plaintiff that didn’t bother to get an affidavit from critical witnesses before making statements under penalty of perjury in a court pleading

    Saw it on Law and Order or something like that

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s