CIRCUIT COURT OF ILLINOIS

16th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

KANE COUNTY
LYNN THOMAS,
Pro Se Petitioner
v.

Case # 15OP926

WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT
Pro Se Respondent
ANSWER TO PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR A STALKING NO CONTACT ORDER

As Respondent is physically disabled and not able to attend this hearing in person, now
comes respondent William Schmalfeldt to file his pro se ANSWER to Petitioners request for a
stalking no contact order.
I.

RESPONDENTS ALLEGED ACTIONS DO NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF

STALKING UNDER ILLINOIS STATUTES, THEREFORE THEY DO NOT
MERIT ISSUANCE OF A STALKING NO CONTACT ORDER
(740 ILCS 21/10)
1.

Sec. 10. Definitions. For the purposes of this Act: "Course of conduct" means 2 or

more acts, including but not limited to acts in which a respondent directly, indirectly, or through
third parties, by any action, method, device, or means follows, monitors, observes, surveils,
threatens, or communicates to or about, a person, engages in other contact, or interferes with or
damages a person's property or pet.
2.

The respondent has not, directly or indirectly, or through third parties or by any

action, method, means or device followed, monitored, observed, surveiled, threatened, or

threatened the petitioner, nor has he interfered with or damaged the petitioners personal property
or pets.
3.

According to the statute, "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering,

anxiety or alarm. Respondent alleges the petitioner has doled out plenty of significant mental
suffering anxiety and alarm through her own harassing contact with others. In fact, the
respondent and her father, Peter Malone, were recently defendants in a libel and defamation
lawsuit in Montgomery County, Maryland that settled out of court. (EXHIBIT 1)
4.

According to the statute, "Contact" includes any contact with the victim, that is

initiated or continued without the victim's consent, or that is in disregard of the victim's
expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued, including but not limited to being in
the physical presence of the victim; appearing within the sight of the victim; approaching or
confronting the victim in a public place or on private property; appearing at the workplace or
residence of the victim; entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by
the victim; or placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or
occupied by the victim.
5.

Petitioner claims Respondent has made a harassing phone call to her father. Without

respondents permission or prior knowledge, Petitioner recorded the message left on her fathers
answering machine and, without Respondents consent or prior knowledge, posted the message
online, without redacting Respondents home phone number. (EXHIBIT 2)
6.

A copy of this message is submitted to this court on CD as EXHIBIT 3.

7.

Petitioner cannot substantiate her claim of having ordered the respondent to cease

contact. A Tweet directed to no one in particular cannot serve as a C&D demand. (EXHIBIT
4) As a third party has apparently caused Microsoft to delete petitioners
bschmalfeldt@outlook.com e-mail, respondent cannot access his account to verify the accuracy
of any e-mails from that account that the petitioner claims to have received.
II.

PETITIONERS TYPICAL REACTION TO POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT

IS TO CALL HER OPPONENT A STALKER.

8.

Respondent submits into evidence EXHIBIT 5, which show many other instances

where Petitioner claims others are stalking or attacking her. It seems under the petitioners
definition of the word, nearly anyone who disagrees with her oft-times ugly and repellent
extreme right wing racism and homophobia is a stalker who is attacking her.
9.

Respondents sole reason for contacting petitioner was to ask her, adult to adult,

whether or not she was, in fact, the person behind the pseudonymous blog The Thinking Mans
Zombie, which certain indicators suggested she might be. Respondent is now of the belief that
impression was incorrect and he has no further reason or desire to contact Petitioner ever again.
III.

PETITIONER PORTRAYS HERSELF AS AN INNOCENT LITTLE OLD

LADY WHO IS BEING RELENTLESSLY ATTACKED BY HER LEFTIST
ENEMIES
10.

To take Lynn Thomas at her word, one would believe her to be a shy and tender

flower, shocked and appalled by the evil machinations of the Obama machine and his horde of
left wing radicals with her personal destruction as their goal. The truth of the matter is, Lynn
Thomas is a hardened political activist, an ultra-extreme right wing smear artist, a supporter of
the discredited Larry Sinclair who was shown to be a liar over his claims to have shared cocaine
and oral sex with President Obama, and her nearly religious fealty to the late Jonathan Jack
Idema, a rogue mercenary who did time in Afghanistan for running his own personal prison in
which he tortured prisoners. When released from prison, Idema eventually wound up in Mexico
were he died of HIV/AIDS in 2012.
11.

Ms. Thomas is well known in political circles for her ultra right wing viewpoints

and her zeal in attacking those who disagree with her. (EXHIBIT 6)
12.

Ms. Thomas has been blogging her extreme hatred of our President, homosexuals,

and liberals in general since 2004. Although her main pool of invective bile, http://caosblog.com,
is no longer on the active internet, but can be recovered on the Internet Archives,
http://archive.org.
13.

Anyone who spent more than a decade blogging hate should not be surprised

when she gets some blowback, from both sides of the aisle. (EXHIBIT 7)
IV.

OTHER RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST RESPONDENT ARE NOT

RELEVANT TO THE INSTANT CASE
14.

Respondent claims he first became embroiled in this controversy when, a

freelance writer, he wrote words of support for Brett Kimberlin in a lawsuit he was waging at the
time. Mr. Kimberlin was also the plaintiff in a defamation/libel lawsuit in which the respondent
and her father were defendants before they settled out of court. Respondents favorable words
about Kimberlin were, apparently, an unpardonable sin in the Petitioners circle of fellow right
wing extremistst. In ever-increasing numbers, right wing bloggers took up the online attack
against respondent. Even after respondents wife died in June 2015, there was no letup in the
attacks on respondent, and now, entire websites devoted to smearing the memory of respondents
late wife.
15.

Petitioner is using a technique employed by others in the hopes of securing an

uncontested restraining order. A) Claim Harassment, B) File for a Peace order or Restraining
order or stalking no contact order in such far-flung places as Arizona, Massachusetts and Illinois,
knowing that the respondents 16-year battle with Parkinsons disease has made travel even
the act of walking unassisted extremely difficult.
16.

In the instant case, respondent would have had to taken a train from Milwaukee to

Chicago, then take the Metra from Chicago to Kane County the night before the case is heard.
He would have to spend money for train and taxi fares, hotel accommodations and meals.

WHEREFORE, Respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner is a mentally unstable person
with anger management issues who holds resentment over the way she is perceived by the
normal world in which reality prevails, she confuses invective and name-calling for wit. She has
been doing online battle for more than a decade under a variety of different names, and anyone
who stands up to her bullying tactics is labeled a stalker,
CONCLUSION
The respondent prays that petitioners unfounded, ungrounded, unprovable and fanciful
claims of being stalked yet again by someone who would stand for himself without cowing to her
bullying tactics are seen for what they are: the actions of an angry, unstable person seeking
revenge against the world for imaginary wrongs done to her, taking out her inexplicable and
inexhaustible rage against the respondent. Petitioner has spent more than a decade as a hard core
ultra right wing agitator and blogger, earning the justifiable ire of liberals and conservatives
alike. She is neither being stalked or harassed. She is being responded to. As respondent has
done nothing that, by Illinois statute, merits the issuance of a stalking no contact order,
respondent prays that the Court deny her petition be denied and dismissed.
DATE DECEMBER 15, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

William M. Schmalfeldt
3209 S. Lake Dr., Apt. 108
Saint Francis, WI 53235
414-249-4379
bschmalfeldt@twc.com

EXHIBIT LIST
EXHIBIT 1 -- Petitioner and her father were defendants in a
defamation/harassment lawsuit filed in Montgomery
County, MD, by Brett C. Kimberlin of Bethesda, MD
EXHIBIT 2 Copy of Respondents message to Petitioners
father as posted, without Respondents consent or prior
knowledge, on the Internet site Soundcloud.com.
EXHIBIT 3 A compact disc recording of the phone
message referenced in Exhibit 2. In the recording, one can
hear the Petitioner telling someone, Shh! Im recording
this.
EXHIBIT 4 A tweet ordering Respondent to stop
contacting Petitioner. The tweet could not have been
received by Respondent as she did not send it to his Twitter
handle. It is, essentially, a Tweet to no one.
EXHIBIT 5 Other claims by Petitioner that her opponents
are stalking her.
EXHIBIT 6 Further examples of Petitioner personally
attacking people who disagree with her ultra right wing
viewpoint.
EXHIBIT 7 -- Blowback from a right wing blog expressing
disgust over Petitioners tactics.

EXHIBIT 8 Five transcribed soundbites from Petitioners

testimony in a lawsuit, January 24, 2011, saved at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QX7s5RlgI,
demonstrating Petitioners paranoia.

EXHIBIT 1 -- Petitioner and her father were defendants in a

defamation/harassment lawsuit filed in Montgomery
County, MD, by Brett C. Kimberlin of Bethesda, MD

EXHIBIT 2 Copy of Respondents message to Petitioners

father as posted, without Respondents consent or prior
knowledge, on the Internet site Soundcloud.com.

In the first phone call, Respondent had trouble remembering

a phone number, in the second phone call, Respondent
remembers the phone number. Both messages are
exceedingly polite and deferential.

EXHIBIT 3 Transcript of two telephone messages left on

the answering machine of Petitioners father by Respondent
on November 15, 2015, that Petitioner recorded and posted
online without Respondents prior knowledge and consent.
SCHMALFELDT: Hi there. I guess Im speaking to Mr.
Peter Malone right now. My name is Bill Schmalfeldt. Im
calling from St. Francis, Wisconsin and Im calling for your
daughter, Lynn. I have reason to believe that she is
responsible for blogging as a character named Paul
Krendler. Now, I emailed her yesterday to ask her permission
to use some of her old blog items on my blog, but she hasnt
returned the email. Could you ask her if she wouldnt mind
giving me a call back? I sure would appreciate that. As I dont
call myself very often, I have to check out what that phone
number is once again so, if you would hang on just a second
and I will let you know. I shouldve been more prepared, I
guess.
(At this point of the recording, one hears Petitioner ordering
someone, Im recording this. Be quiet!)
SCHMALFELDT: if you could have her call me at her
convenience, and theres no hurry for this, my phone number
is 262, hang on here just a second, 262, why wont that come
up? Ah, here we go. (Chuckle.) I am sorry about that.
Aaaaaaah, my phone number is 262 I cant seem to find it at
the moment. (Laughs) anyway, have her try this phone number
instead. 414-249-4379. OK? I appreciate it, thank you very
much. Best of luck to you, Mr. Malone, and I hope your
daughter is feeling well.

10

Respondent was trying to remember his new Skype phone

number. Once he located it, he tried calling again. As with
the previous call, Petitioner recorded the call and posted it
online without Respondents permission and prior
knowledge.
SCHMALFELDT: Hello there, I assume Im speaking to Mr.
Peter Malone. Im looking to speak to Lynn Thomas, if I may.
If you could have her give me a call at 262-672-2359. Thats
262-672-2359. This is in regard to some of her conservative
activism. I need to know whether or not she is the anonymous
blogger calling itself Paul Krendler. Again, the phone
number is 262-672-2359. Thank you very much Mr. Malone,
and I hope all is well.
These phone messages, posted online without Respondents
permission or prior knowledge, are online at
https://soundcloud.com/user58204841.

11

EXHIBIT 4 A tweet ordering Respondent to stop

contacting Petitioner. The tweet could not have been
received by Respondent as she did not send it to his Twitter
handle. It is, essentially, a Tweet to no one.

12

EXHIBIT 5 Other claims by Petitioner that her opponents

are stalking her.

13

EXHIBIT 6 Further examples of Petitioner personally

attacking people who disagree with her ultra right wing
viewpoint.

14

EXHIBIT 7 -- Blowback from a right wing blog expressing

disgust over Petitioners tactics.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

EXHIBIT 8 Five transcribed sound bites from Petitioners

testimony in a lawsuit, January 24, 2011, saved at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QX7s5RlgI,
demonstrating Petitioners paranoia.
#1
DEFENSE: After the property was returned to the plaintiffs, did you physically stay, live, or
sleep in the property?
THOMAS: Yes. Im hesitant to say any of that because everything I say these people use
against me. And they have stalked, harassed me and have done all kinds of things to me at that
building. So anything that comes out in court, I.. I It ends up (8 second pause) hurting me.
#2
DEFENSE: Can you tell us what was happening during your stay in the building with respect to
irregular activity?
THOMAS: Sure. (4 sec. pause) I need a tissue. (5 sec. pause) Um it seems to of happened
before there was going to be a uh court proceeding. (Voice trembling.) I did hear noises,
and people have been on the roof. At one point they, uh, Tour the cover off the heating and airconditioning unit, and, um, (sniffle, followed by 8 sec. pause) Last, uh, I dont even know what
day it was, they threw a rock through one of the windows and punched a hole in one of the plate
glass windows. Its just, um, its been a nightmare. (Clears throat)
#3
DEFENSE: Have you noticed individuals, um, stalking or surveying the premises
(unintelligible)?
THOMAS: Yes. Ive taken pictures of some of them to try to find out who they are. (9 sec
pause) they know everything, and theyre posting it on the Internet. They know who my visitors
are, theyve posted, uh, license plate numbers, types of vehicles. These people are relentless and
mean!
#4
DEFENSE: Did you also have to defend your self at some point by firing a flare gun?
THOMAS: Yes.
DEFENSE: Could you tell us about that incident?

22

THOMAS: Well, uh, people are obviously watching me. I know theyre watching me. One
evening I noticed there was a pick up truck in the park. I went out there and shined a flashlight
on them, and they shined a flashlight back on me. I said what are you doing here, and he said
what are YOU doing here? And I said, well, I live here. (giggle) And I said, I would like you to
leave. And he goes, well this is a public park. And I said, well, Im having trouble with
intruders, and if you dont leave, Im going to call the cops. And I shot off my flare gun. I ran
back inside, then I came back outside, and there was another vehicle there. I shot off the flare
gun again, and they both left. And then the police came to the door, apparently he called the
police first. And he claimed that I not only shot a flare gun, that I shot a gun, also.
DEFENSE: When you say he, who are you referring to?
THOMAS: The fellow in the pick up truck.(4 sec. pause) and I said to the police officer that they
had not been of help when I tried to get help from the magistrate from the police department
and the sheriff. No one has helped me, and this is a distress signal. The flare gun is a distress
signal.
#5
DEFENSE: Could you tell us more about that?
THOMAS: well, I have had trouble sleeping, so I, well, uh, was looking out the front window.
And, uh, a lady, uh, who seemed to be somewhat intoxicated, uh, happened to be there,
walking by, and saw me. And this is unusual, because its a tinted window, and it was dark, and
I had not let any of the lights. She should not have been able to see that I was there, but she saw
that I was there. She asked me if I would help her. She had her phone up to her ear. thought she
was on the phone, maybe she wasnt, but I didnt open the door, because I am afraid. (5 sec.
pause) And then she swore at me, and said, you bitch, Im not gonna, youre not gonna help me
anyway, and walked off.

23