Legal LULZ Du Jour

I presented a set of facts to Judge Hecker in my show cause petition, and the judge issued the show cause order for contempt against the Cabin Boy™ based on those facts and the judge’s understanding of the law. I look forward to watching Oliver Wendell Jones instructing Judge Hecker in the finer points of Rule 16-208.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

74 thoughts on “Legal LULZ Du Jour

  1. May he get what he asked for, along with a complimentary pair of shiny metal bracelets, three hots, and a cot.

  2. We have deliberately _not_ explained the applicable law to Cabin Boy, because his incompetent misrepresentation of the law so clearly displays his intentional bad faith. The more he explicates his excuse, the more evidence he produces of his guilt.

    • Exactly.
      A good reminder for everyone not to educate him. He does dry runs of his court arguments by posting them. He does modify them (or his oral explanations) based on our responses, short of canning the whole thing, to make things more plausible or confusing. So, don’t educate the monkey!

  3. Show him the law? Why? Can’t he look it up and make a good legal argument for himself? What has history taught us about his understanding of the law?

    I mean, the Judge read the petition, decided that it was sufficient to issue an order that includes a hearing and summons to appear.

    I noticed in your petition, you used the well understood legal doctrine that by testifying via skype, his hotel room became an extension of the courtroom, something most people with a scintilla of intelligence would understand.

    Instead, he went “SCHMALFELDT AM LAW” via twitter that the judge didn’t understand a hotel room was not part of a court facility. On it’s face, his statement is correct. However, a court facility is not the same as a “courtroom”. But, you know, when you’re a dumbfuck…

    • I guarantee, every rule, every precedent, every secret codicil regarding double secret probation (I’m looking at you, Brett…) is available in the law libraries.

    • Mr Hoge could have a million copies of every document. He still has the option to make YOU produce it. Not going to educate the Parkinson’s faker why.

      And if Mr fakinsons is SO SURE he is right about the law, why is he liquidating his assets and hiding like a little baby instead of being a man and showing up in court?
      Never mind… I answered my own question. He’d have to be a man.

      • He really, really doesn’t know how all of this works. Heh! Heh, heh, heh!

        If you wanna come play with the big dogs…. Shut the F up, buttercup and n*t up instead of yelling and shaking your rolly-walker from the porch. Or did he already get rid that along with the Scooty-Puff of doom as well? Hmmm.

      • Were it not for what a pain in ass the U.S border has become, I wouldn’t be able to resist seeing that hearing in person.

        • I’ll also note that the Yokohama Casanova has switched from the butt stuff to talk of “preening cock.”

          Maybe there’s something about his new relationship that he’s trying to tell us.

          • that he is a squishy bottom?
            we already knew that.

            I don’t know why Shakey thinks anyone is under any obligation to explain anything to him regarding the law, besides the Judge of course, who already told him to look up the rules and follow them.

    • Bill I have told you SC offers remedial reading courses go and take one. My suggestion to you is to pay a lawyer to explain MD rule 16-208(2)(B), 16-208(E)(i) and 16-208(E)(ii).

  4. If there is no “there” there, then why did the judge decide to have a hearing at all? Wouldn’t he simply have denied it?

    • Hasn’t Judge Hecker heard about what a ninja pro-se Bill Schmalfeldt is? After all, has he had other litigants before him who have misspelled their own name in legal actions?

      I’ll bet he hasn’t, so it’s easy to see who’s going to win this.

  5. I don’t think that’s how it works Billy, but I do believe Judge Hecker will be more than happy to fill your wish.

      • WADR, SPQR, I disagree; Bill is a grifter, he plays the angles. While he doesn’t respect the judge or the bench, he does respect the power that emanates therefrom. He will bow and scrape and preen for the judge, and make everyone want to puke; he’ll then explain how he sees things and the judge will have to appreciate his point of view… ;P

        • He was remarkably bratty at his last courtroom appearance. “Let me see if I can play this back” may now be seen for what it was …at the very least a tell, ans I suspect an indirect boast resulting from some corollary form of dupers’s delight and general contempt for others whom he is presently getting one over on, including the judge who has crossed him.

    • Wouldn’t this have been better with Bill as the Iraqi guy? There are no American troops in Iraq. There is no hearing. Everyone remain calm.

  6. Schmalfeldt should look up the difference between a summons and a warrant. One doesn’t require a valid address on file. I’m sure Rauhauser could tell him all about it.

    “You HIDE from a summons. You RUN from a warrant.”

    Either lifestyle is indicative of a cowardly loser.

    • Schmalballz will be devastated. He has a strange crush on Louise Mensch. What makes it strange is that she’s a woman, not that she is crazy as a loon.

      • Actually, and this shocks me more than it will you, I have to give him a bit of credit where she’s concerned. While he has been hopeful that her “reporting” is true, he has been very cautious about buying into it, and has asked for info that supports her stories, and cautioned about unjustified optimism.

    • Maybe Weiner can be cellies with Dennis Hastert.

      Instead of “shirts vs. skins” in the yard, they can go by “boys vs. girls.”

  7. I just asked an attorney whether what Bill argues about a hotel room not being considered part of the courtroom is true, and whether the same Maryland rules about recording proceedings apply if a person is appearing remotely. Their response:

    “wrong…..the same rules apply….and if true, the judge will be most annoyed….”

    • ^^ This ^^

      From what I’ve gathered (via Google) the presiding judge in this case is a man that’s been a huge proponent of skype and tech in courtrooms. It’s his baby and pet project. If Bill Schmalfeldt found a dumb&%$! technicality the judge never imagined when developing rules for tech in courtrooms he is going to be really, really, really pissed.

      Anytime an attorney objects to a skype hearing because 1) it’s not a courtroom facility and 2) it could be recorded … the judge will have to agree and not allow his pet project to work as he hoped.

      This judge is going to be pissed. The funny thing is regardless of what happens, Bill will lose the opportunity to use Skype in the future because he will have helped define courtroom facility as not including motel rooms and/or residences and allowing recordings.

      • I think I see what’s going to happen here. BS will pound the table that a motel room wasn’t explicitly stated to be part of the courtroom, so he can’t be punished. The judge will agree, and no longer allow him to attend any hearings remotely.

        Is that a Pyrrhic victory?

        • IF that had been the only thing he has done to earn the court’s ire, then you’d have a point.
          but it isn’t.

          and everything else PLUS that is going to result in stuff Shakey aint gonna like.

        • Judges have *ways* of dealing with difficult people in their courtrooms.

          If they didn’t, just denying everything, refusing to cooperate, and lying about everything would be a viable legal strategy…


        • Won’t fly after the repeated displays of bad faith, including missing the very obvious step of resolving ambiguity. he should have obtained permission to record anything …even for his own private refreshment of recollection, and should know better than to chance publishing a recording without permission. He knew that he was recording proceedings of a court in Maryland.

          He’ll lose not just skyping privilege, but he’s going to be fined, in particular for publishing the recording.

  8. Hey, Blob: you will be shown the law.

    In June

    In court.

    And it will be explained to to you.

    Want it sooner? Do your own GD homework.

    • Hey. I like to give credit where credit is due. That was a pretty amazing display of alliteration that seemed to make sense. (The two do not necessarily go together: read Swinburne). Of course it did not reflect any understanding of the law, but batting 500 is a VERY rare event for Wailing Willie. (What? You did not understand that alliteration is what wins legal cases?)

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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