ECF 20 Redacted

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MILWAUKEE DIVISION
WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01516-NJ
Plaintiff,
v.
SARAH PALMER, ET AL.,
Defendants.
JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN IMMEDIATE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
UNDER RULE 11
NOW COME Defendants Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson, by their counsel Aaron J.
Walker, Esq., in the above-styled case for the sole purpose of challenging personal and subject
matter jurisdiction and service of process, without waiving any rights of jurisdiction, notice,
process, service of process, joinder, or venue. They hereby file this Joint Motion for Leave to
File an Immediate Motion for Sanctions Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) and state the following:
1.
On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Defendants [sic]
Attorney, Aaron Justin Walker, for Alleged Violations of the DC Bar Association Rules of
Proffesional [sic] Conduct, as Well as the Fact He is Likely to be Called as a Witness by the
Plaintiff, or Joined as a Defendant (Docket #18) (hereinafter MTDQ).
2.
The MTDQ contained numerous provable falsehoods in violation of Rule 11(b)(3)
and (4) as demonstrated in the Joint Opposition to the Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Counsel
(Docket #18) and Motion to Strike the Same (hereinafter the Opposition) filed simultaneous
with this motion.
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 5 Document 20
3.
It also contained unwarranted legal claims in violation of Rule 11(b)(2) citing
rules that had no application to the facts at hand or citing rules that were not rules at all, as
demonstrated in the Opposition.
4.
The manifest intent behind filing the MTDQ does not appear to be to win the
motion. Rather, it appears to be to prejudice this Court against the Defendants by irrelevant ad
hominem attacks against counsel, an improper purpose under Rule 11(b)(1). Moreover, the
Plaintiffs threat to belatedly add the undersigned counsel as a defendant appears to be an
attempt to intimidate the undersigned counsel from providing legal representation to Defendants
Palmer and Johnson.
5.
Further, the Plaintiff has become increasingly abusive and unhinged in his
communications with counsel, and, upon information and belief, in the Plaintiffs public writings
about undersigned counsel. Those communications are reluctantly attached as Exhibits to this
motion,1 even as the Defendants understand that exposing the Plaintiffs behavior to this Court is
likely to enrage the Plaintiff further and lead to more inappropriate behavior. In the most
extreme example the Plaintiff warns undersigned counsel that [t]his is [a] fight you want no part
of. Set down the arrogance and walk away2another apparent attempt to intimidate.
6.
Rule 11(c)(2) reads in relevant part that
[t]he motion [for sanctions under Rule 11] must be served under Rule 5, but it
must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim,
defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21
days after service or within another time the court sets.
Ordinarily, this means that these Defendants would have to wait a minimum of twenty-one days
to file a motion for sanctions and that this Court might not be able to rule for another sixty-three
1
2
Those Exhibits are A-1 through A-9, as attached Exhibit A, the Declaration of Aaron Walker.
Exhibit A-8.
2
days. These Defendants believe that if this Court does not intervene quickly, the docket might be
filled with additional intemperate pleadings by the Plaintiff. However, this language plainly
gives this Court discretion to allow filings within another time the court sets.
These
Defendants respectfully ask this Court to exercise that discretion and allow these Defendants to
file a Rule 11 motion immediately and, otherwise, to allow for an expedited process so that this
Court can address the Plaintiffs conduct expeditiously.
7.
Further, as demonstrated by the accompanying Declaration of Aaron Walker and
the attached exhibits, the Plaintiff has already been asked to withdraw the motion and he has
refused.
8.
Undersigned counsel apologizes for asking for this Court to intervene and
recognizes that the Plaintiffs conduct might be affected to an unknown degree by the Plaintiffs
early Parkinsons disease dementia. See Exhibit B to the Joint Opposition to the Plaintiffs
Motion to Disqualify Counsel and Motion to Strike the Same (filed simultaneously with this
motion), p. 2. However, regardless of any maladies the Plaintiff might have, these Defendants
are being asked to defend their reputations, their finances and their freedom of expression. The
Defendants should not be prejudicedand their counsel should not be vexedby the unruly
conduct of the Plaintiff.
9.
Even if the only result of this sanctions process is a formal admonition to the
Plaintiff to stop engaging in this kind of conduct, that might have a useful salutary effect. A
modest monetary sanction to compensate the undersigned counsel for the trouble the Plaintiff has
created would send an even stronger message. In either case, it can be hoped that further
unruliness can be stopped before it becomes much worse.
3
WHEREFORE, this Court should allow the Defendants to file a Rule 11 motion for sanctions,
without the ordinary twenty-one day safe harbor allowed in Rule 11(c)(2) and provide all other
relief that is just and equitable.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Aaron J. Walker
Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants Johnson and Palmer
Va Bar# 48882
DC Bar #481668
P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
(703) 216-0455
(No fax)
AaronJW1972@gmail.com
VERIFICATION
I, Aaron Walker, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct and that all exhibits are true and correct copies of
the originals.
Executed on Tuesday, March 8, 2016.
s/ Aaron J. Walker
CIVIL L. R. 7(A)(2) CERTIFICATION

In compliance with Civil L. R. 7(a)(2), I certify that no separate supporting memorandum
or other supporting papers except those already attached to this motion will be filed in relation to
this motion.
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 8th day of March, 2016, I served copies of this document on William
Schmalfeldt by email by consent.
s/ Aaron J. Walker
5
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 19 Document 20-1

MILWAUKEE DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF AARON J. WALKER, ESQ.
1.
My name is Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and I make these statements based upon my
own personal knowledge unless otherwise indicated. I am a resident of Virginia, admitted to

practice law and a member of the bar in good standing in Virginia and District of Columbia, and
I am admitted to practice before this Court, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals. I am over 18 years of age, and if called to do so, I am competent to
testify that the contents of this declaration are accurate and true.
2.
I represent Defendants Palmer and Johnson in the above-captioned case.
3.
Attached as Exhibits A-1 through A-9 are email exchanges. For the most part, the
emails speak for themselves, and the purpose of this Declaration is to supply any needed context,
and to put the messages in order (to avoid the necessity of having to read the exchanges from the
bottom-up).
4.
In Exhibit A-1, the first email was sent by the Plaintiff1 just after I made my first
appearance in this case. It is entitled Introduction and reads as follows:

Good morning, Mr. Walker.
I see on PACER that you have signed on to represent Ms. Sarah Parker and Mr.
Eric Johnson regarding my lawsuit against them in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division.
I send this e-mail by way of a brief introduction and to see if you wish to discuss
any sort of settlement before this case proceeds.
Also, I wish to know if you prefer service of documents via e-mail or if were
going to kill trees and rely on snail mail. I would opt for e-mail, but as you know
it takes two to tango in that regard.
I will look forward to the answers and/or motions you intend to file in this case
unless, as I said, you would care to negotiate a settlement beforehand.
Have a delightful day.
William M. Schmalfeldt, pro se
5.
My response later that day (which was also sent by blind carbon copy to my long-
time paralegal, William John Hoge III) is as follows:

Mr. Schmalfeldt,
I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I was too busy today filing what I needed
to prevent default and performing other tasks to even look at my email. I hope
you dont think I was intentionally ignoring you.
And I appreciate you being courteous in your correspondence.
First, I am willing to accept service of process by email so long as you do the
same. If you have not yet seen all that I filed today, let me know and I will send it
to you. I have already mailed service to you as well, but if you want the
electronic copies I dont mind sending it to by email as a courtesy. Unless you
say otherwise, I will assume we have agreed to serve each other going forward
electronically.
For purposes of this declaration I am assuming that every email sent from
bschmalfeldt@twc.com is actually sent by the Plaintiff.
2
Second, I will say I anticipated your request to discuss a settlement. When I

mailed service of process, I included a cover letter discussing the matter and I
now include an unsigned Word copy of that exactly as I sent it (minus the
signature. I will note that the letter included a request to be courteous in
discussing a settlement and it turns out you have been courteous before you
received that request. In other words, I didnt have to ask, which is a good sign.
The letter includes a non-binding offer to enter into settlement negotiations and
the proposed terms I was considering. Read it over and tell me if what I write is
agreeable to you.
I will add to that letter that if you are willing to discuss settlement in the manner
outlined in the attached letter, that I will agree to a commensurate extension on
your deadlines to respond. That is, if we go back and forth for a week on it, and
settlement negotiations break down, I will agree to a reasonable extension so you
are not prejudiced by your willingness to negotiate.
Mr. Schmalfeldt, your case will inevitably be dismissed. There is no subject
matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. If we pretend for the moment that
there was substantive merit in your complaints, you would have to come to each
Defendants home state to sue them. On the merits you simply dont have a case.
Most of what you have asserted is not a tort at all. And to the extent that your
complaints discuss real torts, you havent properly alleged that any of the
defendants committed those torts. On the other hand, my clients have a strong
case for obtaining attorneys fees and other costs related to this suit.
Now, while I am a lawyer, I am obviously not your lawyer. You should not
mistake what I say or have said for impartial legal advice. You should consult
with a lawyer, making sure they know all the pertinent facts. But if you do
consult with an independent lawyer and they know all of the pertinent facts I
believe they will tell you this. Even if you dont want to settle the suit, the wisest
thing you can do is file a motion voluntarily dismissing it as soon as possible.
Every moment I spend on this matter means that when you lose, the judgment
against you will grow larger. Joan Rivers won over $70,000 in legal fees when
she successfully defended herself from a frivolous suit in Wisconsin. Fortunately
for you, you are nowhere near that risk, yet, but every day this case goes on, the
amount of money you will potentially owe my clients grows. It is best for you,
one way or the other, for you end this case quicklyby settlement or voluntary
dismissal. Whether you see things that way, however, is another matter.
Finally, to my knowledge you have not retained counsel in this. Please let me
know immediately if that changes and give me the name of any attorney you
retain, because at that time I will be required to speak with him or her.
I thank you for your time and courtesy.
3
Aaron J. Walker
P.S.: Please continue to use this email in relation to this case.
That email mentions an attachment. That attachment is reproduced as Exhibit A-2.
6.
The Plaintiffs response is contained at the bottom of Exhibit A-3 which reads as
follows:
Thanks for your letter. I agree with the need to be reasonable and cordial. But let
me explain my situation to you.
Aaron, you and I have spoken briefly in the past. It was a congenial conversation
as I recall. You and your friends have come up with this idea that I am somehow
a part of some grand scheme to promote Brett Kimberlins interests. As I
explained to John Hoge after the copyright suit, I am just a schlep who wrote a
story that supported Bretts right to live his life unharassed by anyone.
Now, here I am. A widower, living in a former nunnery in Wisconsin. I dont
want Sarah Palmers money. I dont want Eric Johnsons money. I just want all
the nonsense to stop. There is really only one person Id like to sock-it-to as we
kids in the 60s used to say. And that is the creep running the Thinking Mans
Zombie blog. And even there, I could just drop my sword and walk away as long
as he stopped adding to the defamation every day.
Aaron, have you ever seen the former turdsrfood.wordpress.com website? It
was a horrible defamation of my late wife, calling me an abuser who caused her
death. I know you love your wife, which is why I have declined to join in on the
latest photoshopping barrage you may have noticed. For Gods sake, Aaron. The
only time John got past the states attorney when I lived in Maryland was when he
filed a charge against me for daring to offer assistance to his wife in the form of
helping cut red tape at the NIH if she wanted to go that avenue. I was found not
guilty. But John seems to have this driving need to punish me for something.
I want this all to be over with. So, I promise to you from the git-go that I will
refrain from insulting you further if you can manage to knock off the
Schmalfeldt so fat jokes on Twitter. That should be easy enough right there,
dont you think?
That being said, here is all I want to make this thing go away.
I want Sarah Palmer to admit that I did not harass her grandson. That is a
reprehensible lie, and I am in the process of obtaining the transcripts to that
hearing. She can use whatever rationale she likes, but I never published a picture
of her grandson that was not altered to obscure the childs face. She can leave the
4
RO in place, I do not care. But I just want her on the record as saying she now
understands that I did nothing to harass or endanger her grandson.
I want Sarah to cease publication of the BillySez website. For one thing, she
uses my name in the title of the blog against my wishes and that is a violation of
my right to publicity. I am not a celebrity. I am not a public person. I am a
widower with Parkinsons disease, sitting in my little apartment taking each day
as it comes. I want to blog my blogs, I want to podcast my podcasts, and I would
be much happier if I could just leave all of this nonsense behind.
My reputation is already ruined beyond repair, so henceforth I will blog and
podcast under a pseudonym. But it would help considerably if people like you and
John would get off my back and realize I am a human being, capable of human
feelings, and that I miss my wife more than a person who hasnt lost his best
friend of 27 years could ever know. It moves me to incredible anger when I see
her name and image being profaned by such monsters as this Paul Krendler and
his pack of knuckleheads.
If you know who Paul Krendler is, or you know someone who knows who he is, I
would ask you to exert whatever influence you have to get him to just leave me
alone and start blogging about other things. Whoever he is, he is a fairly
entertaining writer and could probably do something with his talent other than
making my life miserable.
Eric Johnson has to realize that there is no such thing in American law called
Audio Child Pornography. My comedy is not his cup of tea. I get it. But Louis
CK and South Park are far more obscene and with depictions of adults
performing as children than I have ever been. He needs to publicly state that he
misunderstood my intentions with my comedy and that while its not something
he enjoys, he was over the line in calling it child pornography. He needs to stop
bothering my apartment manager and let me live my life in peace.
And thats it! Thats all I want. I am within my rights to ask Sarah to stop using
my name, using my tweets out of context, to stop lying about me to defame me. I
am within my rights to insist that I am not a child pornographer, that I find that
allegation more horrific than anything else anyone has said about me. I am within
my rights to ask that Paul Krendler stop with the daily defamation that has gone
on for almost two years that I cannot do anything about because I do not know for
sure what his actual name is.
My life is not public grist for the rumor mill. I am not a horrible person. I have
done many good things in my life. I am not guilty of stolen valor or allowing
my wife to die or child pornography or any of the other horrible things your
clients and others have been saying about me since you and I first crossed swords
when Lee Stranahan made the false rape charge against me, which you blogged
5
about as if it were true, despite the official police report that stated no such threat
existed.
All I want is peace, Aaron.
Now, if I may suggest, please contact your clients. Find out what they want from
me. I will consider it.
Then, you can draw up a memorandum of understanding between us that the war
is over, that the parties will cease and desist lobbing bombs back and forth, and
that these terms that we decide upon are in place permanently. Then I can move
on with my life, your clients can move on with theirs, John can find something
else to obsess about, and all will be well in the world. I will bear my own costs,
the clients will bear theirs.
Thank YOU for your considerate and very polite letter. I am not surprised,
because my first impression of you was that you are a gentleman.
Please respond with your thoughts at your earliest convenience.
Bill
7.
Before I could respond to that email, the Plaintiff sent three more emails. The
first of these is contained in Exhibit A-4. It is entitled Comment and reads as follows:
Good morning,
Now that you have filed the consent to have the case heard by a magistrate judge
that was part of the original parcel that Sarah Palmer ignored, I just wanted to
inform you that I will file a non-opposition to your opposition to the request for a
show cause hearing.
I would ask you to speak to your friend John Hoge and suggest that what hes
doing in regards to this case is not helpful. If he wishes to report on the facts as
they develop, no problem. If he wishes to advocate for your side, thats his right.
If he styles himself as a journalist, however, he is negligent in not getting both
sides of the story before posting. (Remember way back in the early days of this
conflict when I said I WANTED to interview you and Hoge and Stranahan, but
you all forbade?)
I might suggest that he shut down the comments when he posts about the case
because thats where all the hooting and hectoring and defamatory nonsense boils
up. I want this thing over with, but it angers me to see myself portrayed as a child
abusing alcoholic by nitwits who dont even have the courage of their convictions
to use their own names.
6
Seriously, Aaron. Its like a 4th Grader locker room. These are supposedly adults
talking about someone they do not know.
I will keep my powder dry until I hear from you with a counter-suggestion on
how we can end this thing with no casualties so to speak.
Oh, just so you know, I do not assume you are ignoring me if it takes you a bit of
time to respond. It goes without saying that these things take time.
Good luck.
As suggested above, John Hoge refers to William Hoge III. The next email is contained in
Exhibit A-5. It is entitled BillySez (referring to the alleged blog of Defendant Palmer which
appears to be dedicated to reporting on, commenting on, and mocking the Plaintiff) and reads as
follows:
I see Ms. Palmers defamation blog is back online. I was encouraged to see that it
had been changed to a private membership blog.
We cannot settle this as far as Ms. Palmer is concerned while the blog still exists
in this form, while she still continues to use my name in the title without my
permission, while she still presumes to diagnose my personality type in
defamatory ways.
Aaron, I went to bed last night feeling hopeful about avoiding any further
nonsense. But it seems as if your client wants to fight.
Bill
The next email from the Plaintiff is contained in Exhibit A-6. It includes several images of blog
postingsonly one of which is allegedly written by Defendants Palmer or Johnson. The email is
entitled The longer this goes on..., and it reads as follows:
,,,the more inclined I am to continue the fight. I thought what I offered yesterday
was more than fair and it is subject to negotiation. One point that is nonnegotiable. This online daily sliming HAS TO STOP.
I am probably safe in assuming that you care little for my opinion about you
personally, Aaron. And Im sure that you dont really care that my opinion of
your lawyering skills will skyrocket if you are able to get this deal done.
7
We can make this all go away. The problem seems to be that your side doesnt
want the war to end with anything less than my metaphorical broken, bleeding
body and head on a spike.
I will file my responses soon. I am grateful that you have agreed to accept service
of filings via e-mail.
Talk to you soon.
Bill
Thus, the email at the top of Exhibit A-3 is my response to all four of these emails:
Mr. Schmalfeldt,
Before we get into the nitty grits, lets talk clerical stuff. This is replying to the
four emails you sent since my last long, substantive email.
First, you mentioned that you would be filing a non-opposition to my opposition
to the motion to show cause. If you continue to feel that way, the appropriate
stance is just withdrawing your motion to show cause.
(And to reiterate, I am a lawyer but not your lawyer. In all of this, I am telling
you my position as opposing counsel, not giving you impartial legal advice. I
always recommend consulting with a lawyer and giving him or her all the facts, to
decide what to do. Sorry to keep saying that, but I have ethical duties.)
Now lets get down to brass tacks, as my father would say.
Let me start with something basic. My interests are not on the table in this
discussion. I cant make my interests part of this, because if I do I create an
immediate potential conflict of interest. So talking about what you might be
willing to refrain from saying about my wife and I, or what I might refrain from
talking about is not part of this discussion, or asking me personally to do
something for you or you to do something for me? That cant be part of this
discussion.
That being said, I doubt that I will be publicly making fun of you for the duration
of this litigation or really saying much of anything. When you represent a client,
you must act in their interests and so I am less free to speak than usual as a result.
Of course, the future cannot be seen, but that is my anticipation.
You seem to want to deal with all your disputes with everyone, not just your
disputes with Sarah and Eric. And the things you want to stop are not things that
any court can stop.
8
You make reference to your claim that the No Contact Order puts you in a false
light. There are two problems with that. First, false light is not recognized in the
state of Wisconsin. Second, you cant collaterally attack a case in North Carolina
this way. Bluntly, you knew of the hearing and you defaulted. Its like when
Seth Allen defaulted against Brett Kimberlinthere really wasnt very much he
could do after that.
Instead, what will attach is the concept of collateral estoppel. The Court will say
that it is now true as a matter of law that you did something to earn that order, and
the only question is what it was. Combined with her petition for the order, the
court will find that it was stalking. Thats what the Court will say about it.
As for asking her to disavow the basis of that, she is deeply opposed to that (and
that is an extremely polite way of relaying her response). The stalking statute can
be triggered just by reasonable fear for her own safety or her grandchilds and I
can see how any judge would be very concerned by your conduct. Maybe you
feel you have been misunderstood, that if she could see in your heart she has no
basis in fear. But if you try to look at it from her perspective, or what she could
honestly say to the judge, you can see why she would interpret your conduct as
threatening. In any case, you are also asking Sarah to admit she misled the court
which is a non-starter for that reason, too.
Second, you continue to assert that Sarah has committed the tort of
misappropriation of name or likeness. I will remind you that this is what
Kimberlin sued me for in Maryland,2 and I won in that case on a motion to
dismiss basis. So I can claim a little mastery of the law in Maryland on that
subject, and I have researched Wisconsin law on the subject. Bluntly, if anything,
Wisconsins law is more hostile than Marylands to the claim. The bottom line is
that you cant win that claim as a matter of law.
And, bluntly, you know that you cant shut down reporting, satire and criticism by
claiming it is misappropriation of name or likeness. It would be the end of the
First Amendment, if the subject of a story could demand that no one use his name
or picture. Seriously, if Tom Cruise could stop the gay rumors by forbidding
people to talk about him, wouldnt he? Certainly Donald Trump (or Drumpf)
would love to shut critics up about him. And no, you arent a movie star or a
politician, but that doesnt alter the principle.
You also complained that her attempt to psychoanalyze you is defamatory. That
would not be read as anything except as pure opinion, which is protected speech.
This is in reference to Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), Case No. 403868V (Md.
Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2013), another case Mr. Kimberlin has filed against me and lost.
9
As for the claims against Eric Johnson, you can call things porn that are not
criminal, even child porn. For instance, Luc Bessons Leon: the Professional
was panned by many critics as child porn even you can buy and possess it
freely to this day in every jurisdiction in America. Mr. Besson didnt sue anyone
for calling it child porn. He recognized it for what it was: criticism, which is a
kind of opinion protected by the First Amendment.
And I notice you dont address the arguments I have made in my motion to
dismiss yesterday. There is no subject matter jurisdiction. There is [no] personal
jurisdiction. They have not subjected themselves to Wisconsins jurisdiction. So,
bluntly, if you want to sue Sarah Palmer, you need to go to North Carolina and if
you want to sue Eric Johnson, you need to go to Tennessee. And lets be honest:
you dont have the money to carry on a suit that far from home.
You also just said in your last email that your reputation was ruined beyond
repair. That suggests to me that even if Eric Johnson took back his child porn
comments and Sarah Palmer said you never stalked her or her baby, that your
reputation would not improve. Which means that your reputation was already
ruined before this suit even started, right? So what do you think this suit will get
you?
On the other hand, you stand to lose a great deal. This lawsuit will be dismissed.
Judge Nancy Joseph seems to have been on the bench long enough to know she
should dismiss it for both jurisdictional problems. So then you will have to go to
their home states, and even if you can afford to spend the money, you are still
going to lose based on the merits. Erics and Sarahs expression is protected
opinion. Sarahs use of your name is legal. And you cant challenge her No
Contact Orders this way.
And then you will still face the real prospect of having to pay attorneys fees.
What will happen to the quality of your life when you lose what few luxuries you
have to satisfy the judgment?
You seem mainly to want to stop people from making fun of you. The law cant
help you do this. Its an old saying that to a hammer every problem is a nail, and
lawyers are accused of thinking the answer to every problem is a lawsuit. I try to
resist that tendency. I recognize what law can do and it cant do, and law cant
stop people from making fun of you.
But I also pride myself in trying to find solutions that arent necessarily lawbased. So what I am about to say isnt legal advice, it is just life advice based on
my observation of human nature. If you dont want people to write about you,
stop giving them something to write about. Stop writing about how much you
hate them and theyll stop writing about how much they hate you. Thats not a
deal or an offer thats an observation of human nature. Try going for a whole
month without talking about Krendler, Hoge, Lee Stranahan, and so on. If you
10
see someone insult you or the ones you love, pretend you didnt see it. If they are
tweeting at you, block them. Or better yet, mute them so they wont even know
you are ignoring them. Stop giving them grist, and the mill will stop turning. Go
talk about other things. We are in one of the bloodiest primary seasons in my
lifetime. Im sure you have some biting opinions about some of these yahoos.
Talk about that. Or how much you loved your wife. Or getting on with your life.
Maybe you could be a positive example to other men who find themselves
widowers so late in life. Or whatever. But stop talking about them.
And if you really do this for a month, I wont say it will stop. But I bet you will
notice a massive tapering off. They wont write about you as much because you
will stop being interesting to them. Right now you keep making yourself
interesting to them. You make them angry for doxxing someone, or for attacking
someones family, or they think something you said was funny at your expense,
or whatever. You stop giving them reasons to find you interesting to talk about
and they will not be very interested in talking about you. And if you do it for six
months, I bet the insults will be a trickle by then. I dont even think you would
have to hide your presence online: I think they just wont care anymore.
Really, what I am talking about is a principle similar to out of sight, out of
mind. You keep capturing their attention. But if you stopped doing things that
get their attention, they will eventually stop paying attention and after a while
they will pretty much forget you exist.
Anyway, you can take that (non-legal) advice or leave it. If I considered you my
friend, I would literally say the same thing. That might solve the problem of
people making fun of you and end this endless litigation. I mean, seriously, you
talk about saying awful things about my wife, but it never hurt my feelings
because I never let you have the ability to harm me. When someone would tell
me something awful you said about me, I would say, Someone who hates me
said something mean about me. So what?
I mean, I believe you have said you are a Catholic, or at least a Christian, right?
So you believe that God knows the truth about you, dont you? And I doubt too
many people in your new community follow the internet very closely. So whose
opinion are you worried about? And Gail?3 Well, I dont know her, but Ill bet
you believe she is heaven, right? You think she cares what anyone says about her
on Earth? I think to the extent she is paying attention to anything happening on
earth, she wants you to be happy. And is what you are doing right now making
you happy? I suspect it is making you miserable.
So consider my non-legal (meaning it is not about law but about human nature)
advice on how to get them to slow it all to a trickle. Try it for a month and see if I
am not right. Its my opinion that you will never get people to stop making fun of
3
The Plaintiff has stated publicly that Gail is the name of his late wife.
11
you or saying hurtful things about your wife to hurt you by suing people or raging
at them. But ignoring them completely for a month will probably do it. Not
because they will be consciously following a truce but because they will no longer
care.
But I am not your psychologist, I am opposing counsel and my job here is to deal
with the legal issues. I have suggested the outline of a deal that I think is more
than fair. You have no case, and you can only lose money in this. Once again, no
agreement is valid until signed (I have to say this sort of thing to protect
everyone), but I suggest you shift to getting out of this with the least amount of
pain on your part.
You said you believed Sarah wanted a fight. Neither of my clients want a fight,
but they are ready, willing and able to have one. Consult with a lawyer if you
have to and s/he will tell you what I am telling you. It is not a matter of whether
you lose, it is a matter of how much you will lose. And if you want to control that
and make sure you walk away without losing money, you need to be willing to do
what I suggested in the letter: a consent decree dropping the suit and consenting to
a pre-clearance requirement for future suits, and, in exchange, we dont pursue
attorneys fees and so on. Both sides walk away with their own expenses. That is
a very reasonable offer considering how angry my clients are with you.
Aaron
8.
The Plaintiffs response is at the top of Exhibit A-7 and reads as follows:
Thank you for your thorough and well-considered letter, Aaron. All I want, all I
have ever wanted, is for people to just leave me alone. You seem to be saying that
the only way I can do that is shut down and stand there while handfuls of mud are
thrown at me. Then theyll stop when their arms get tired. That is not an
acceptable solution. If I am going to drop my lawsuit, I am going to get something
in return for it other than the hopes that someday the mud will stop.
I remain open to any suggestions you may have in the future to resolve this thing,
so please feel free to contact me at any time.
I will endeavor to be a worthy opponent, as I know you will be.
Thanks again,
Bill
9.
Exhibit A-8 is a long string of emails back and forth. It begins with an email from
the Plaintiff entitled Nothing Personal and it reads as follows:
12
Greetings, Mr. Walker.

Here is my latest motion. I will send Exhibit 4 in a following e-mail.
William M. Schmalfeldt
Attached to that email was a true and correct copy of his motion to disqualify and every exhibit
except Exhibit 4. That exhibit was provided for in a second email. My response is further up the
chain and reads as follows:
First, Bill, dont piss on my leg and call it raining. Of course you have made this
personal. You personally hate me for accurately reporting on your misconduct.
And you personally hate me for accurately reporting on Brett Kimberlins
misconduct. So you send this personal, ad hominem attack on me in court and
you write "nothing personal" in the subject header? Who exactly do you think
you are fooling?
And you evidently personally fear facing me in court. For all your bluster, you
know that my clients will win this and you know what little chance you had of
winning went out the door when I filed my appearance. But if you worry that I
will be angry, you simply dont know me. I dont care enough about you to get
angry when you defame me.
Now, on to business. Did you actually file that? Yes, or no?
If the answer is yes, customary procedure is to give you an opportunity to
withdraw it before I move to strike it and sanction you for having filed it. There
is no lawful basis for it, and the transparent purpose of the filing is improper: to
attempt to prejudice the court. It will be removed from the docket, and you are
likely to pay for my time in getting it removed.
You and I both know I am right. You know I know what I am talking about
because you know in your heart I am a good lawyer. That's why you are so afraid
of facing me in court.
If you agree to withdraw it, I'll draft a consent motion to strike. Let me know.
Aaron
The Plaintiffs response is further up the chain and reads as follows:
Mr. Walker:
1. Intend to share your attempt at intimidation with the court.
13
2. I am not afraid of you.

3. If you were a good lawyer, you would be working as a lawyer instead of
tweeting and playing video games all day.
4. If you want to say that you are not lying about Brett Kimberlin being a
terrorist, If you wish to claim that the explosion cost a man his life, when he
was a suicide five years after the fact, if you want to prove that your three years of
nasty tweeting are in keeping with the highest tradition of the legal profession?
More power to you. You will lose.
Your Adversary,
Bill Schmalfeldt
My response is further up the chain and is as follows:
Mr. Schmalfeldt,
1. I notice you didnt answer my question. Did you file it or not?
2. Telling you to cease unlawful conduct and pointing out the perfectly legal
consequences you will face if you dont is not unlawful intimidation.
3. In any case, I will be sharing this email exchange with the court to demonstrate
your recalcitrance. This should make it easier for me to obtain sanctions. That is,
assuming you continue to be recalcitrant.
4. My private, off the clock speech is my business and not the Courts. The judge
will agree. Nor will the judge think that I was incorrect about Brett Kimberlin.
Hes a serial bomber, not a terrorist! is not a winning argument.
Keep going down this road Bill, and you will end up owing my clients thousands
of dollars.
Aaron
The Plaintiffs response read as follows:
Aaron, this is pointless, You are trying your case on the blogs by feeding my briefs to
Hoge. No reputable lawyer would do that.
Yes, I filed the brief. Of course I did.
14
You dont get to decide whats unlawful and whats not. I think thats Hoges job. (A
brief moment of levity.)
The Court will have my copy of your attempt at intimidation Monday.
You are welcome to your private, off the clock speech. You are not entitled to your own
version of the truth. When you say I have associated with a convicted terrorist, that is a
lie.
I think if would be a good idea if you spoke to your clients and told them how your own
recalcitrance is putting their case in severe jeopardy. They would be much better served
to have an attorney who has not demonstrated a desire to nail my hide to his lodge wall
and wear my scalp on his belt. (Yeah, I know. Im bald. I am also fat. Hah. Its that sense
of humor that will endear you to the court.)
Again, sir, these attempts at scaring me with your big lawyer law and stuff, it aint gonna
cut it. Certainly you know me well enough to know I am a fighter.
This is fight you want no part of. Set down the arrogance and walk away.
I have eaten more than enough heaping bowlfuls of crap from you folks, and Im done.
Three years. Enough.
Bill
10.
The Plaintiffs allegation that You are trying your case on the blogs by feeding
my briefs to Hoge deserves explanation. As demonstrated by Exhibit A-8, the Plaintiff served a
copy of his motion to disqualify on late Friday Afternoon. Then, shortly after that, someone
posted the briefs on the Plaintiffs Scribd account and tweeted out a link to the main document
using the Plaintiffs Twitter account. Scribd is a document sharing website often used to post
documents in litigation. If necessary, I can submit the declarations of several persons who
witnessed this fact. It was only after these documents were posted on Scribd that Mr. Hoge
published copies of them.
11.
Since then, the Plaintiffor a person writing under his name and on his
websitehas stated publicly that the Scribd documents were uploaded privately and, thus, not
available to the public at large. The Scribd service does allow a person to make a document
15
private, and, therefore, only available to those who have permission to view it. However, that is
not what happened. At first, the motion and exhibits were publicly available documents. Later,
someone changed their status to private, but it was available to the public for several hours.
12.
In the end, the Plaintiffs objection voiced in the email is ridiculous anyway. He
is upset that Mr. Hoge, who has been reporting on this story, posted documents that the Plaintiff,
by his own admission, had submitted to this Court. He did not purport to file them under seal, so
they were public documents. The Plaintiff doesnt get to suppress all discussion about his
litigation.
13.
The final email I sent to him is the second from the top of Exhibit A-8 and reads
as follows:
Bill,
Your accusation that I fed John documents that he published on the internet is
false. Your scribd documents were open for all the world to see. I have multiple
witnesses to that fact.
You will start to see the results of your conduct next week.
Aaron
The Plaintiff responded as follows:
Aaron, please cease your attempts to intimidate me. It wont work. I am not afraid
of you. That much should be crystal clear.
If you want to turn this into a discussion of YOUR character and YOUR lies and
YOUR past and present misconduct, that is on you sir. I just want Palmer and
Johnson to pay for their tortious conduct. Hiring an attorney with a personal bone
to pick against their opponent was a blunder.
You would be best served if you returned any money Johnson and Palmer paid
you and let this case proceed without your threats and hamfisted
stumblebummery.
Bill
16
14.
While I ceased communications with the Plaintiff, he continued to communicate
with me and about me. For instance, on Saturday, March 5, 2016, I received my certificate of
admission to this Court. With some professional pride at the expansion of my practice, I sent a
picture of it out by Twitter with the message In the mail today The Plaintiff was apparently
watching my Twitter feed and felt my Tweet was somehow unbecoming of a lawyer, because
sent a mocking email attached as Exhibit A-9.
15.
Since then, two articles have appeared on the Plaintiffs website The Pontificator
under the Plaintiffs current byline The Equalizer. The first is attached as Exhibit A-10 and is
entitled, Oh, Lawzy! Ah Has Put Mah Foot in It Now! The image at the top takes an image of
my face and places it on two other peoples bodies. The second article that has appeared on the
Plaintiffs website under his byline is attached as Exhibit A-11 and is entitled, AARON
WALKER SHOULD STEP DOWN!!!4 While I do not believe that what he writes about me on
the Internet to a general audience is necessarily a direct concern of this Court, it is evidence of
the increasingly manic state of the Plaintiffs thinking.
Capitalization in original.
17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on March 8, 2016 in
Manassas
(city)
Virginia
.
(state/territory)
s/ Aaron J. Walker
(signature)
18

MILWAUKEE DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Leave to File an Immediate Motion for
Sanctions Under Rule 11 filed by Defendants Palmer and Johnson, and any other document filed
in opposition or support thereto,
IT IS HERBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Leave to File an Immediate Motion
for Sanctions Under Rule 11 filed by Defendants Palmer and Johnson is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Palmer and Johnson are given leave to
file a sanctions motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) in relation to the Plaintiffs Motion to
Disqualify Defendants Attorney, Aaron Justin Walker, for Alleged Violations of the DC Bar
Association Rules of Professional Conduct, as Well as the Fact He is Likely to be Called as a
Witness by the Plaintiff, or Joined as a Defendant (Docket #18) immediately.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall have seven days to respond to any
such motion filed by Defendants Palmer and Johnson.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this
day of
, 2016
BY THE COURT
NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge
2

ECF 20 Redacted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECF 20 Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Defendants [sic]

The MTDQ contained numerous provable falsehoods in violation of Rule 11(b)(3)

Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 5 Document 20

It also contained unwarranted legal claims in violation of Rule 11(b)(2) citing

Rule 11(c)(2) reads in relevant part that

Further, as demonstrated by the accompanying Declaration of Aaron Walker and

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

CIVIL L. R. 7(A)(2) CERTIFICATION

Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 19 Document 20-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

own personal knowledge unless otherwise indicated. I am a resident of Virginia, admitted to

I represent Defendants Palmer and Johnson in the above-captioned case.

Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 19 Document 20-1

appearance in this case. It is entitled Introduction and reads as follows:

time paralegal, William John Hoge III) is as follows:

Second, I will say I anticipated your request to discuss a settlement. When I

the Plaintiff entitled Nothing Personal and it reads as follows:

Greetings, Mr. Walker.

2. I am not afraid of you.

While I ceased communications with the Plaintiff, he continued to communicate

Executed on March 8, 2016 in

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 2 Document 20-13

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this

You might also like