schmalfeldt answer to lynn thomas

8/20/2019 Schmalfeldt Answer to Lynn Thomas

1/23

"

CIRCUIT COURT OF ILLINOIS

16th

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

KANE COUNTY

LYNN THOMAS,Pro Se Petitioner

v. Case # 15OP926

WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT

Pro Se Respondent

ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S 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 Petitioner’s request for a

stalking no contact order.

I. RESPONDENT’S 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 petitioner’s personal property

or pets.

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


2/23

#

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

respondent’s permission or prior knowledge, Petitioner recorded the message left on her father’s

answering machine and, without Respondent’s consent or prior knowledge, posted the message

online, without redacting Respondent’s 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 petitioner’s

[email protected] 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. PETITIONER’S TYPICAL REACTION TO POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT

IS TO CALL HER OPPONENT A “STALKER”.


3/23

$

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 petitioner’s

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. Respondent’s 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 Man’s

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,


4/23

%

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. Respondent’s favorable words

about Kimberlin were, apparently, an unpardonable sin in the Petitioner’s circle of fellow right

wing extremistst. In ever-increasing numbers, right wing bloggers took up the online attack

against respondent. Even after respondent’s wife died in June 2015, there was no letup in the

attacks on respondent, and now, entire websites devoted to smearing the memory of respondent’s

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 respondent’s 16-year battle with Parkinson’s 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.


5/23

&

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. 108Saint Francis, WI 53235

414-249-4379 [email protected]


6/23

'

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 Respondent’s message to Petitioner’s

father as posted, without Respondent’s consent or prior

knowledge, on the Internet site Soundcloud.com.

EXHIBIT 3 – A compact disc recording of the phonemessage referenced in Exhibit 2. In the recording, one can

hear the Petitioner telling someone, “Shh! I’m 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 Petitioner’s tactics.


7/23

(

EXHIBIT 8 – Five transcribed soundbites from Petitioner’s

testimony in a lawsuit, January 24, 2011, saved at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QX7s5RlgI,

demonstrating Petitioner’s paranoia.


8/23

)

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


9/23

*

EXHIBIT 2 – Copy of Respondent’s message to Petitioner’s

father as posted, without Respondent’s 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.


10/23

"+

EXHIBIT 3 – Transcript of two telephone messages left on

the answering machine of Petitioner’s father by Respondent

on November 15, 2015, that Petitioner recorded and posted

online without Respondent’s prior knowledge and consent.

SCHMALFELDT: Hi there. I guess I’m speaking to Mr.

Peter Malone right now. My name is Bill Schmalfeldt. I’m

calling from St. Francis, Wisconsin and I’m 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 hasn’treturned the email. Could you ask her if she wouldn’t mind

giving me a call back? I sure would appreciate that. As I don’t

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 should’ve been more prepared, I

guess.

(At this point of the recording, one hears Petitioner ordering

someone, “I’m recording this. Be quiet!”)

SCHMALFELDT: if you could have her call me at her

convenience, and there’s no hurry for this, my phone number

is 262, hang on here just a second, 262, why won’t that come

up? Ah, here we go. (Chuckle.) I am sorry about that.

Aaaaaaah, my phone number is 262… I can’t 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.


11/23

""

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 Respondent’s permission and priorknowledge.

SCHMALFELDT: Hello there, I assume I’m speaking to Mr.

Peter Malone. I’m looking to speak to Lynn Thomas, if I may.

If you could have her give me a call at 262-672-2359. That’s

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 phonenumber is 262-672-2359. Thank you very much Mr. Malone,

and I hope all is well.

These phone messages, posted online without Respondent’s

permission or prior knowledge, are online at

https://soundcloud.com/user58204841.


12/23

"#

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.


13/23

"$

EXHIBIT 5 – Other claims by Petitioner that her opponents

are “stalking” her.


14/23

"%

EXHIBIT 6 – Further examples of Petitioner personally

attacking people who disagree with her ultra right wing

viewpoint.


15/23

"&

EXHIBIT 7 -- Blowback from a right wing blog expressing

disgust over Petitioner’s tactics.


16/23

"'


17/23

"(


18/23

")


19/23

"*


20/23

#+


21/23

#"


22/23

##

EXHIBIT 8 – Five transcribed sound bites from Petitioner’s

testimony in a lawsuit, January 24, 2011, saved at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QX7s5RlgI,

demonstrating Petitioner’s paranoia.#1

DEFENSE: After the property was returned to the plaintiffs, did you physically stay, live, or

sleep in the property?

THOMAS: Yes. I’m hesitant to say any of that because everything I say these people useagainst 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 air-conditioning unit, and, um, (sniffle, followed by 8 sec. pause) Last, uh, I don’t even know what

day it was, they threw a rock through one of the windows and punched a hole in one of the plateglass windows. It’s just, um, it’s been a nightmare. (Clears throat)

#3

DEFENSE: Have you noticed individuals, um, stalking or surveying the premises

(unintelligible)?

THOMAS: Yes. I’ve taken pictures of some of them to try to find out who they are. (9 sec pause) they know everything, and they’re posting it on the Internet. They know who my visitors

are, they’ve posted, uh, license plate numbers, types of vehicles. These people are relentless andmean!

#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?


23/23

THOMAS: Well, uh, people are obviously watching me. I know they’re watching me. One

evening I noticed there was a pick up truck in the park. I went out there and shined a flashlighton 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, I’m having trouble withintruders, and if you don’t leave, I’m 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 departmentand 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 it’s a tinted window, and it was dark, andI 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 shewas on the phone, maybe she wasn’t, but I didn’t open the door, because I am afraid. (5 sec.

pause) And then she swore at me, and said, you bitch, I’m not gonna, you’re not gonna help meanyway, and walked off.

schmalfeldt answer to lynn thomas

Documents