UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MILWAUKEE DIVISION
WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01516-NJ
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC P. JOHNSON, SARAH PALMER,
and JOHN AND JANE DOES,
Defendants.
JOINT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS LETTER ASKING THIS COURT TO RELAX
THE MORATORIUM (DOCKET #45)
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 filing this Opposition to the
Plaintiffs letter asking this Court to relax its moratorium of March 24, 2016 (Motion to Relax
the Moratorium) (Docket #45), without waiving any rights of jurisdiction, notice, process,
service of process, joinder, or venue. In support of this opposition, they state as follows:
1.

In one page, Mr. Schmalfeldt has violated four rules at once. First, he has

violated the rule that requires a party to file its requests for relief in the form of a motion or other
appropriate legal document, not a letter. Second, Mr. Schmalfeldt has violated the moratorium
against new filings. Third, he has violated this Courts prohibition on ad hominem attacks on
counsel. Finally, he violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 by misstating this Courts own rulings. Indeed,
he didnt even sign it correctly, or include a certificate of service.
2.

When issuing its moratorium on March 24, 2016 (Docket #35), this Court wrote

that [a]bsent an emergency, neither side is to file anything with the court. Apparently, the

Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 4 Document 46

Plaintiff doesnt understand that anything includes letters asking this Court to lift the
moratorium.
3.

Furthermore, he doesnt cite any kind of emergency situation where, if it were not

addressed immediately, there would be a risk of prejudice to one side. Impatience is not an
emergency.
4.

Meanwhile, he includes fresh ad hominem attacks on Mr. Walker, in violation of

this Courts orders, claiming that Mr. Walker has been accused by another plaintiff of stalking
that plaintiffs teenage daughter.

What he doesnt mention is that the accuser is Brett

Kimberlin, who has already appeared and been discredited on this docket (see Docket #19), and
that Mr. Walker was not charged with (let alone convicted of) stalking any person, ever. It is
also true that Mr. Walker has filed suit in his personal capacity seeking a declaratory judgment
that would hold that Marylands harassment statutes are unconstitutional because he believes
they are vague and overbroad.1 He is not alone in this assessment. Professor Eugene Volokh of
the UCLA School of Law, author of over 40 law review articles on the First Amendment and
author of the casebook The First Amendment and Related Statutes (Foundation Press, 6th ed,
2016) agrees, having filed an amicus brief in the same case.2
5.

More basically, what does this have to do with lifting a moratorium on filings?

What does Mr. Walkers efforts to defend free speech have to do with this case? The answer is
that it is not relevant: instead, the Plaintiff thinks there is something unsavory about defending

Mr. Schmalfeldt is trivially wrong in claiming that the case is before the states highest court,
the Maryland Court of Appeals. It is actually before the second highest court, the Maryland
Court of Special Appeals.
2
A true and correct copy of this Amicus brief can be viewed at: https://www.washingtonpost.
com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/29/challenge-to-maryland-law-banning-speech-thatintentionally-seriously-distresses-minors/
2
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 4 Document 46

freedom of speech, and he hopes this Court agrees. It is nothing more than the kind of ad
hominem attack on counsel that this Court has forbidden.
6.

Additionally, the Plaintiff has misrepresented this Courts ruling of April 20, 2016

(Docket #42). Specifically, he asks this Court to allow [the Plaintiff] to file a second amended
complaint a motion you granted in your order of April 20, 2016 but that I withdrew before you
issued your order because my motion would have violated your moratorium.

The

characterization of this Courts order in that request is not the truth. This Court only granted his
motion to withdraw that motion. It did not grant the motion that was withdrawn. This statement,
therefore, represents a violation of Rule 11 by making a false statement to this Court.
7.

Finally, the Plaintiff has failed to sign this document properly, equally in violation

of Rule 11. He also did not include a certificate of service.

8.

It is apparent that the Plaintiff is not responding appropriately to this Courts

instruction.

Therefore, the Defendants believe that perhaps this Plaintiff will respond

appropriately to consequences, up to and including contempt and reimbursement of attorneys

fees in opposing this motion. However, the Defendants will not file a motion or petition for
contempt at this time because that would violate this Courts moratorium.3 Instead, they will
leave it to this Court to do so on its own, if it is inclined to do so.
9.

In any case, having presented no valid reason why the moratorium should be

lifted, the letter request should be denied. Indeed, this Court might consider expanding its
moratorium to include a flat prohibition on letters of any kind to this Court as suggested in the
proposed order.

The Defendants continue to believe that responding to the Plaintiffs violations of this Courts
moratorium is not a violation of the moratorium, because to fail to do so risks prejudicing them.
3
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 4 Document 46

WHEREFORE, these Defendants pray that this Court deny the Plaintiffs latest request to relax
the moratorium, and provide any other relief that is just and equitable.

Thursday, June 30, 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 Thursday, June 30, 2016.
s/ Aaron J. Walker

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 30, 2016, I served copies of this document on William Schmalfeldt
by email by his consent.

s/ Aaron J. Walker

4
Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 4 Document 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION
WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01516-NJ
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC P. JOHNSON, SARAH PALMER,
and JOHN AND JANE DOES,
Defendants.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs letter requesting that this Court to relax the
moratorium (Docket # 45), the Joint Opposition to the Plaintiffs Letter Asking this Court to
Relax the Moratorium (Docket #

), and any reply thereto,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion to relax the moratorium is

denied;
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that neither party is to send any additional
letters requesting relief of any kind.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this

day of

, 2016

BY THE COURT

NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01516-NJ Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 1 Document 46-1