ECF 8 Redacted

4:17-cv-01310-RBH-KDW Date Filed 05/23/17 Entry Number 8 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the District of South Carolina
Florence Division
M. SCHMALFELDT, SR )
,j Woodbridge Suites . )
: 220 Whitty Drive, Room 224 )
'!Myrtle Beach, SC 29579 )
429-0581 )
' Pro Se Plaintiff )
)
-v- )
)
PATRICK G. GRADY )
414 Gregory Ave, Apt. 1C )
GlendaleHeights, IL 60139 )
).
and
1
1 )
_)
r/ WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE III )
1 20 Ridge Rd. . )
1
;i Westminster, MD 21157 )
il )
:and
ri
)
) )
., )
;: ERIC P. JOHNSON )
'! 240 Boulton Ln. )
i1 Paris, TN 38242 )
'l
)
and )
II )
: SARAH PALMER )
! 501 Redd St. )'
Reidsville, NC 27320 )
Defendants )
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

::I. Parties to This Complaint
I. Plaintiff WilliamM. Schmalfeldt, Sr., (Schmalfeldt) is a 62-year old former GS-
.! 13 Writer-Editor with the National Institutes ofHealth, in Bethesda, MD. He retired in .2011 due
. . .
. to advancing Parkinson's disease: A widower, Schmalfeldtlived in MD, when his
., died in 2015. He moved to Wisconsin that summer. In January 201 7 he moved to Iowa. After
forming a relationship with' his fiance, he moved to Myrtle SC, in April20 17.
2. Defendant #1, Patrick G. Gra,dy.(Grady) is employed by a company known as
: Capgemini. Upon information and belief, he is in his early 30's, Hehas described-himself online
.;1 as a bipolar "functioning sociopath." Blogging and Tweeting under several different names, he
,.
i became an acolyte of Defendant -wn Hoge Ill and began doing the bidding of Hoge on
'i information and belief out of sorhe sense -of misplaced He now blogs under the
'!pseudonym "Paul Krendler" and his blog- which a daily hate screed devoted to Schmalfeldt
and his fiance (since she came into his-life)- is called The Thinking Man's Zombie.
'l
'! (http://thinkingmanszombie.com}He is divorced and estranged fromhis ex-wifeandson, a fact
'
:i he blames on Schmalfeldt.
3. Defendant #2; William John Joseph Hoge III is a 69-year.oldengineer employed
i as a contractor of some sort with the God<fard Space Center in Greenbelt, MD. He and his
! apparently. developmentally adult son, live in Westminster, MD. He is a widower, his

'
':wife dying on Valentine's Day 2017. Hoge spends most ofhis free time suing people. He is
cuiTently shepherding an unrelated lawsuit against Schmalfeldt and several other people in the
Carroll County Circuit Court. He runs a blog called Hogewash (http;//hogewash.com) which
: seems to be primarily devoted to bolstering his image as the leader of a personality cult by
r;
,i
writing daily insults directed at Schmalfeldt and the other defendants in his lawsuit. He has tried

2
' '
; nearly 400 times to get convicted of misdemeanor crimes and has failed every time.
He maintained a peace order against Schmalfeldt because Schmalfeldt did not remove the "@"
I
symbol before Hoge's namewhen tweeting about him. Hoge has immortalized this fact with a
. character on his blog, "Johnny Atsign."
4. Defendant #3, Eric P. Johnson (Johnson), on information and belief lives alone in
Paris. TN. His wife lives in Indonesia and he never writes about her. His daughters have all
joined the military at early ages. Another Hoge acolyte, Johnson not have his own blog but
,- .
, posts comments on several others, the blogs of three of the four defendants in this case.
; Johnson took it upon himself to declare Schmalfeldt a "child after listening to
comedy routines recorded by Schmalfeldt that involved no children and no sex. Instead of
keeping his opinion to himself, Johnson mounted a nearly successfulcampaign to have
,' Schmalfe'ldt kicked out of his Wisconsin apartment by contacting the apartment manager and
'
i
Cardinal Capital Management Board of Directors to warn them of the "child pornography" being
:i produced in Schmalfeldt's apartment. This led to a police visit to Schmalfeldt's residence so the
'police could check Schmalfeldt's computer. Schmalfeldt has several books and comedy albums
' available on Amazon. Most bear a one-star rating from Johnson, warning potential readers,
listeners about buying merchandise from a "child pornographer".
5. Defendant #4, Sarah Palmer(Palmer) is a middle-agedwoman who abandoned
her husband and daughter to move from California toN orth Carolina to live with an apparent
drug user. She operates a blog called Billy Sez (http://billvsez.wordpress.com) in which she
applies her own takes onthings Schmalfeldt has said and written. When Schmalfeldt
insisted that she cease and desist from this misuse of his name for her own commercial benefit,
she got a North Carolina no contact order against Schmalfeldt. She also obtained a no contact
3
order to protect her grandson as Schmalfeldtonce posted a blurred, unidentifiable picture of the
child on his blog.
''II. Basis for Jurisdiction and Venue
5. This case involves a diversity jurisdiction as Plaintiff and Defendants live in.
idifferent states. The plaintifilives in South Carolina, Grady lives in Illinois, Hoge lives in
Maryland,. Johnson lives in Tennessee and Palmer lives in North Carolina. The amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
7. Venue and subjedmatter jurisdiction are appropriate as demonstrated by the
.court in HAWKINS v. BLAIR I 780 S.E.2d 515 (20i5) The trial court explained that a tort
action is governed by the substantive law of the state where the tort was committed, i.e., where
.:the injury occurred or where the last event making the tortfeasor liable occurred. The court
,
.,
,:concluded that the alleged injury would have been suffered in South Carolina, and that the
1 appellee'S "last acts" to make them liable also would have occurred in South Carolina. Thus, the
"court concluded that it would need to apply South Carolina tort law, (See !d. at 1!3(e)) In each
case, the ''last acts" occurred after Schmalfeldt relocated to South Carolina.
COUNT I
Harassment and Cyberstalking
(All Defendants)
8. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above.
9. Harassment is generaJly defined as follows:
Harassment is governed by state laws,wllich vary by state, but is generally

defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms,
or puts a person :in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed
and uninvited behavior that demeans, or offends the victim and
results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may
include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and
lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive
touching or any physical interference with normal workor movement, and
4
visual insults, suchas derogatory posters or cartoons. (See

https://definitions.uslegaLcom/h/harassmentl)
10. "Cyberstalking" is generally defined as follows:
Online harassme.,nt, sometimes referred to as "cyberharassment," usually

pertains to or harassing emails, instant messages, or website
entries. It is often repeated attempts to target a specific by directly
contacting them, or indirectly using or disseminating their personal
information, causing them distress, fear, or anger. Cyberstalking involves
using the or other electronic means to stalk a victim, generally-
refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. To be considered
cyberstalking, the behavior must pose a credible threat of harm to the victim.
(See https://www.privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/online-harassment-
cyberstalking) - - -
11. The examples of Defendant Grady's harassment and cyberstalking are too
:numerous for a limited brief. Therefore, Plaintiff will remark on a few of the more prominent
;examples. Defendant Grady has-stalking down to a fine art. When Schmalfeldt left"Maryland to
i
>:move to Wisconsin, Grady informed his readers of Schmalfeldt's new location before
:schmalfeldt even arrived. (EXHIBIT A).

- --
12. When Schmalfeldt moved from Wisconsin to Iowa, Grady was the first to publish
Schmalfeldt's new home address. (EXHIBIT B)
13.- As of Schmalfeldt's moving to South Carolina, Grady has been blogging
inaccurate, defamatory information about Schmalfeldt's fiance. (EXHIBIT C)
14. Grady has been stealing copyrighted photos from Schmalfeldtand posting them
on his blog with defamatory changes.
15. Defendant Hoge's blog is the central clearing house for all stalking and
,harassment of Schmalfeldt. He makes material misstatements about events in Schmalfeldt's life
(https:/ /hogewash .com/2017 /05/ 16/prevarication-du-iour-152/, for example) and then allows his
:mostly anonymous readership to post all manner of false and defamatory commentary.
5
16. Hoge claims he is not responsible for the things his commenters say. But he also .
has a heavy moderating hand on his comments. Those who do not agree with his POV are not
'
1
allowed through the gate. Therefore, one may assume comments that doappear are in line with
Hoge's vi:ew of events.
17. Defendant Johnson's stalking has been in the arena of trying to get Schmalfeldt
Jired from part time employment and apartment residences. For a brief period this past spring
.'Schmalfeldt took a part-time job at a radio station in Iowa. Johnson wrote to the station manager
':to "inform" him about Schmalfei<Jt's penchant for "child pornography" and his fondness for the
act of "urinating on cub scouts."
18. Johnson also shared this info with the management of the Juniper Courts
,,
Apartments and.the Board ofDirectors who manage the placeforthe Sisters of Saint Francis.
(EXHIBIT D)
19. Schmalfeldtwas hesitant to give his Iowa address to WJJ Hoge III for the reasons
above. After all, it was the harassment and stalking ofHoge et al that caused
Schmalfeldt to move from Maryland, to Wisconsin, then to Iowa. When Schmalfddt purchased a
1999 Ford Explorer in 2016, Grady illegally obtained Schmalfeldt's social security number, used
it to illegally access Schmalfeldt's Wisconsi11 DOT records, illegally ascertained the license plate
number of the vehicle, then - knowing the address - drove from the Chicago suburbs to the
southern Milwaukee suburbs to photograph Schmalfeldt's car in the apartment parking lot,
posting the photo on Grady's blog. (EXHIBITE) But when Grady published Schmalfeldt's
'address on his blog, Schmalfeldt relented and sent the change of address forin to the court via
mail and to Hoge via e-mail. This was March 30, 2017. Grady lives about a two-hour drive from
.rSchmalfeldt's Iowa address. Onthe morning ofMarch 31, Schmalfeldt awoke to find the two
6
'passenger-side tires on his car were stabbed in the sidewalls. Of the dozen or so cars parked on
, the street that night, Schmalfeldt was singled out for this vandalism.
COUNT II
Libel
(All Defendaf.1ts)
21. The tort of libel is generally defined as follows:
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs,

effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's
:reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her
i'business or profession. (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel)
22. Defendant Grady;s blog, written under the pseudonym Paul Krendler, is a three-
.:year exercise in defamation. (EXHIBIT F)
23. Hoge will occasionally delve into direct defamation, such as in November 2015
when he posted the following defamatory screed.
Bill Schmalfeldt is a deranged cyberstalker. He is a liar. He is someone who is

untrustworthy, who fails to live up to his commitments or by
agreements he has signed. He had the opportunity to make a clean start when
he fled from Maryland to Wisconsin. He appears to -have wasted that
opportunity.
https://hogewash.com/2015111116/reiterating-editorial-policvl
24. This is a false statement made with malicious intent. This plaintiff has never been
diagnosed as "deranged" or been convicted for "cyberstalking." The former is a mental diagnosis
,:would cast the Plaintiffin an unfavorable light. It is not true, therefore it is libelous.
25. Schmalfeldt has several books and CDs for sale on Amazon.com. Johnson, under
the name "Biuelake", has written 1-star reviews for most of them, labeling Schrrialfeldt a child
abuser, child pornographer and a dangerous, demented cyberstalker. (EXHIBIT G) He has also
7
made similar comments in the blogs of other defendants. (EXHIBIT H) These allegations are
,false statements made with malicious intent. This plaintiff has never been diagnosed as
"demente'd" or been convicted for "cyberstalking." The plaintiff has never been legaiJy accused
or convicted for child abuse and child pornography, Therefore, these statements fall squarely into
the category of libel.
26. Defendant Palmer has a stock in trade in the daily defamation of Schmalfeldt on
her Billy Set. blog. She has been admonished to stop using my name and images for commercial
purposes, but she continues to ignore the admonitions.
;BILLY SEZ- The William M. Schmalfeldt "All that ts necessary to discrcdit Bili
Schrnalfeldt. ;.; to quote JJiliSchm<J(fe!dt"
Feltdown Observer R. S. McCaiH
27. This blog consists entirely ofPalmer scouring Schmalfeldt's Twitter feed and
,blogs, stealing images, and applying her own defamatory spin on the things written.
28. Palmer excuses her actions by stating she is only commenting on things she can
prove Plaintiff said. The libel occurs, however, in her spin on Plaintiffs actual comments.
i(EXHIBIT I)
29. These blog postings amount to false statements made with malicious intent. The
defendant cannot say she is merely quoting the defendant while twisting his Words into meaning
something she has created in her imagination. These false impressions tend to cast the Plaintiff
8
into a false light and harm his reputation. It is not a defense to point to a ruined reputation that
you assisted in wrecking with malicious falsehoods and then declare, "See, he already has a bad
reputation." Plaintiff's reputation was just fine before he ran afoul of this gang of WJJ Hoge
cultists.
30. The actions of these defendants have caused Schmalfeldt to have to move three
.times. He lives in fear of his life and safety and damage to his property. His reputation is
damaged beyond repair. Due to the extensive harm caused to Schmalfeldt by the harassment and
stalking of these defendants he asks for $100,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive
damages from each of the five defendants.
COUNT III
Conspiracy
(All Defendants)
31. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above.
32. South Carolina defines conspiracy, in part:
The common law crime known as "conspiracy" is definedas a

between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing an unlawful
object or lawful object by unlawful means.
33. The comment section on Hoge's blog contain hundreds of such conspiratorial
messages designed to cause trouble for Schmalfeldt. The same is true with Palmer's blog and
Grady's blog. (EXHIBIT J)
34, This cooperation between named and unnamed conspirators to do harm to
Schmalfeldt prove the allegation of conspiracy. Due to the extensive harm caused to Plaintiff by
the conspiratorial efforts ofthese defendants he asks for $100,000 in actual damages and
$500,000 in punitive damages from each of the four named defendants.
COUNT IV
RECKLESS CONDUCT/WANTON AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT
9
(All Defendants)
35. Plaintiff h-ereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above.
36. Defendants Hoge, Grady and Palmer use their respective blogs to incite their
:readers' passion and hatred against Plaintiff. They do this by writing incendiary posts, knowing
these posts will cause their comments to rant, rave, suggest and plan violent acts against Plaintiff.
37. In a ruling that has direct implications on this case, a Federal Judge David Hale in
Louisville ruled on March 31, 2017 that President Donald Trump could be sued for inciting
violence by ordering his supporters to remove protesters from a rally. The Judge ruled that
Trump should have been aware that this order to the crowd would be taken as a command and
that "every person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury."
38. Hoge and Grady and Palmer surely had to be aware that sharing Schmalfeldt's
'address and telephone number wouldlead their more unstable readers to take actions against
Schmalfeldt, as such actions have been attempted in the past- the attempt to forge the
Schmalfeldt's signature, the theft of Schmalfeldt's identity, the stalking of the Schmalfeldt's
:parking lot, the photograph of-Defendant's car posted on Grady's blog, and many other
.examples.
39. The Defendants were certainly aware of the passions being provoked by their blog
postings and inflammatory comments. However, they disavow responsibility by asserting that
they are merely engaging in First Amendment activity. Although the defendants have complete
control over the comment section of their blogs - evidenced by the fact that only commenters
who agree with the bloggers are allowed to post - they refuse to moderate even the most
disgusting, heinous attacks against Plaintiff, leading their readers to call for actions to be taken
against him, including physical harm and death. When people use the Internet to harm another
10
person, they cannot hi?e behind the First Amendment. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, a man was
arrested after sending a direct message to national reporter Kurt Eichenwald which, when
.opened, contained an animated strobe light which caused the reporter to suffer a seizure because
he was epileptic and sensitive to' strobe lights. See
https://www.nytiines.com/2017/0311 7/technology/social-media-attack-that-set-off-a-seizure-
:leads-to-an-arrest.html The defertdantknew that Mr. Eichenwald was epileptic. In fact, the
message included with the attachment read, in effect, "You deserve a seizure." The defendant _in
that case believed he was protected by the First Amendment, but law enforcement officials and
!:
the courts determined thatsorrieone cannot use the Internet to cause harm to another person.
40. Because this reckless conduct and wanton/willful misconduct has caused physical
damage to Schmalfeldt's property, caused Schmalfeldt to move from Maryland to Wisconsin to
Iowa then to South Carolina in the hopes of shaking these domestic terrorists and their terror
,tactics, because they have showed utter disregard for the health, welfare, safety of this plaintiff
and little to no care for the damage and expense they have caused, Plaintiff asks for $500,000
>from each defendant in actual damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages from each
defendant.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
41. The actions or omissions of Defendants as set forth in this Complaint demonstrate
:malice, egregious insult, and a perverse gratification from the harm caused to Plaintiffs.
Such actions or omissions by Defendants were undertaken with either ( 1) maliciousness, spite, ill
will, vengeance or deliberate intent to hann Plaintiff, or (2) reckless disregard of the profound
wrongfulness of their actions or omissions, and their harmful effects on Plaintiff.. Accordingly,
;Plaintiff request an award for punitive damages beyond and in excess of those damages
11
. necessary to compensate Plaintiff for injuries resulting from Defendants' conduct and to serve as
a deterrent for anyone else contemplating the same sort of activity in the future.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE: Plaintiff prays for judgment against all defendants as follows:
1. Nominal and general damages as asked for in each count;
2. Punitive damages as asked for in each count;
3. A permanent no contact order to be issued to each defendant;
4. . A permanent injunction against defendants against further defamation, retaliation,
and from using Plaintiff's name, image or likeness without his permission;
5. For the recovery of Plaintiff's full costs and expenses in bringing this suit as
,provided in 17 USC 505;
6. In the event this court deems this matter not suitable for determination or
judgment, an order that these charges be referred to the proper state or federal law enforcement
agencies for criminal prosecution; and
7. For such additional and further relief, in law and equity, as the court may deem
just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby requests a jury trial on all issues raised in this complaint.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd

{_
broadwav bill94 7l'a1outlook. com
12
4:17-cv-01310-RBH-KDW Date Filed 05/23/17 Entry Number 8-1 Page 1 of 1
May 22,2017
Clerk of Courts
US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Florence Division
McMillan Federal Building;
401 West Evans Street; Florence, SC 29501
RE: Case #4:17-cv-01310-RBH-KD
Please accept the enclosed First Amended Complaint and redlined version of the _original
complaint for docketing in this case.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me,
Sincerely,
jv--/ f fJL-_ '!
William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. ProSe

Woodspring Suites
220 Whitty Drive, Room 224
Myrtle Beach, SC 29579
United States District Court

For the District of South Carolina
Florence Division
.:
... ."i1
WILLIAM M. SCHMALFELDT, SR_ _) "
......... L .....................
220 Whitty Drive, Room 224 )
Myrtle Beach, SC 29579 )
(843) 429-0581 )
Pro Se Plaintiff )
)
-v- ) 4:17-cv-01310-RBH-KDW ...
PATRICK G. GRADY
414 Gregory Ave, Apt. IC
Glendale Heights, IL 60139
and :
I
,1
WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE Ill

20 Ridge Rd.
Westminster, MD 21157
and
ERIC P. JOHNSON
240 Bbulton Ln.
Paris, 'TN 38242
and
SARAH PALMER
501 Redd St.
Reidsville, NC 27320
Defendants
;} .
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

,
i
I. ; Parties to This Complaint
13 Wr}ter-Editor with the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, MD. He retired in 2011 ...... <'<dLn:.:.e:.:.Je:.:.te:..:d.:..:
':!,
to advancing Parkinson's disease. A widower, Schmalfeldt lived in .. ...... ,,_,.. JLDC,.e=-le:..:.te:.:.d_:,_----,---,------,-...,---------'

::!(::-: :-:: :
.,.
died in 2015. He moved to Wisconsin that summer. In January 2017 he moved to Iowa. After
formirig a relationship with his fiance, he moved to Myrtle Beach, SC, in April 2017..... >:'.:(Deleted:. J
Capgemini. Upon information and belief, he is in his early 30's. He has described himself online
!
as a bipolar "functioning sociopath." Slogging and Tweeting under several different he
becall1e an acolyte of Defendant W.1.1 Hoge 111 and began doing the bidding of Hoge on
information and belief out of some sense of misplaced fealty. He now blogs under the
..
pseudonym "Paul. Krendler" and his blog- which is a daily hate screed devoted to Schmalfeldt
and .. .. ................. .
(http://thinkingmanszombie.com) He is divorced and estranged from his ex-wife and son, a fact
he ,, on Schmalfeldt.
as a contractor of some sort with the Goddard Space Center in Greenbelt, MD. He and his
apparently developmentally disabled adult son, live in Westminster, MD. He is a widower, his
wife dying on Valentine's Day 2017. Hoge spends most of his free time suing people. He is
Carrol,! County Circuit Court. He runs a blog called Hogewash (http://hogewash.com) which .:
il
see ins' to be primarily devoted to bolstering his image as the leader of a personality cult by
writinp daily insults directed at Schmalfeldt and the other defendants in his lawsuit. He has tried
2
:1
nearly 400 times to get Schmalfeldt convicted of misdemeanor crimes and has failed every time.
1
He maintained a peace order against Schmalfeldt because Schmalfeldt did not remove the"@"
symbolI before Hoge's name when tweeting about him. Hoge has immortalized
.
this fact with a
I
character on his blog, "Johnny Atsign."
I
. .......... ..lf},__ f:.r_ic;__ .. .. i.J1.f()[IJ.l:'ltig.J1..ill1cJ.. Qt:lie.f.l_i:-'t:.s.. <l.l().J1.t:..ill.... ... L:.,-'-'-:_----,-:
Paris. ,;rN. His w(fe lives in Indonesia and he never writes about her. His daughters have all ..:_: . : r
joined the military at early ages. Another Hoge acolyte, Johnson does not have his own blog but
:j
'
posts comments on several others, including the blogs of three of the four defendants in this case.
. .
took it upon himself to declare Schmalfeldt a "child pornographer" after listening to
comedy routines recorded by Schmalfeldt that involved no children and no sex. Instead of
!I
his opinion to himselt: Johnson mounted a nearly successful campaign to have
Schmalfeldt kicked out of his Wisconsin apartment by contacting the apartment manager and
Cardil1al Capital Management Board of Directors to warn them of the "child pornography" being
I
produfed in Schmalfeldt's apartment. This led to a police visit to Schmalfeldt's residence so the
police: could check Schmalfeldt's computer. Sch!11alfeldt has several books and comedy albums
available on Amazon. Most bear a one-star rating from Johnson, warning potential readers,
Ii __ . .. ...............:...........................................
i
: ........ .. P<t]fll t:r..Cf'.<tli.J1er) ..<l.r.TJ \\f.()r.TJ.<lll.. <l:lJ.<lll.cl()Tie d
:]
her husband and daughter to move from California to North Carolina to live with an apparent
..
drug dser. She operates a blog called Billy Sez (h!!R:I/billysez.wcirdpress.com) in which she
!
her own defamatory takes on things Schmalfeldt has said and written. When Schmalfeldt
insisted that she cease and desist from this misuse of his name for her own commercial benefit,
'
she a North Carolina no contact order against Schmalfeldt. She also obtained a no contact
J .
).,.- .. ....;
order }o protect her grandson as Schmalfeldt once posted a blurred, unidentifiable picture of the
il
child ()n his blog.
II. Basis for Jurisdiction and Venue
il nm and Defendants lh'<:.i.I:In ....

1 --. Deleted: a1l pmties
Deleted: s
::.-,:-<..::....:_:_:_:_'-'-'---,---,----.,,.,...,--------__)
"'( ,.
. nnmm:_ ..;.:;:-::j Deleted: Walker .liveS,, in Virginia I

;T
controversy exceeds $75,000.
:i ; '::_:::. . . . '> .(::.:,
! ],_ ......... .. . ....... --'.'1 Deleted: 7
n. ;.:-};) Deleted: personal
court in HAWKINS v. BLAIR I 780 S.E.2d 515 (2015) The trial court explained that a lort
action is governed by the substantive law of the state where the tort was committed, i.e.,. where
the injury occurred or where the last event making the tortfeasor liable occurred. The court
,,
concluded that the alleged injury would have been suffered in South Carolina, and that the
appell:ee's "last acts" to make them liable also would have occurred in South Carolina. Thus, the
j .
court concluded that it would need to apply South Carolina tort Jaw, (See !d. at f3(e)) In each
case, "last acts" occurred after Schmalfeldt relocated to South Carolina.

.... ...
:
COUNT I . . . . .: Deleted: S
Harassment and . nnnnnmnmm ........ u.nonu ..-t',:/r-D_el_et_e_d_:_:_(S_C_C_o_de_o_f__L_a_w_s_,:._1_6_-3_-_17_0_0:_)_-
nnnnnnn -'/. Deleted: 8
":.i_ />-D_el_et_e_d:_9_____c__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--i
B.-... . / Deleted: South Carolina, defines
./ Deleted: and Stalking
.... Deleted: in the same statute
Deleted: ( .. <"
J-Jatassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally
Formatted: Font:Bold
.defined as a comse of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms.
Formatted: Font:Bold
.or !lUts a person in fear of their safetv. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed_ ..''"''.c_}-.:..::.:.===.:..::.:==:.....------------'---i
;md uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and ; Formatted: Font:Bold ,i
,results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior mar Formatted: Font:Bold
_ _ _ _ _ _Lj ... Formatted: Font:Bold
Jewd popositions 1 assault, impeding ot blocldng movement. offensive .. <:....... F:.0: .:".: t:.: B.: ol: .: d______---..---------1
.touching or any physical interference with normal wotk ot movement. and Formatted: Font:Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold.
4
1.: ........ __ .. .. .. __ .. ........ -:,.)'j'-D-e_le_t_ed_:_s_ _ _ _

:::;:;: ....
has a heavy moderating hand on his comments. Those .who do not agree with his POV are not : .
through the gate. Therefore, one may assume comments that do appear are in line with
Hoge':s view of events.

.:'-,..
fired from part time employment and apartment residences. For a brief period this past spring
i
i
took.a part-time job at a radio station in Iowa. Johnson wrote to the station manager
to ":inform" him about Schmalfeldt's penchant for "child pornography" arid his fondness for the
act of:'urinating on cub scouts."
: I 8.-......... ll_(lipe.r_<:::()urts .................... _,.

:1
Apartr'nents and the Board of Directors who manage the place for the Sisters ofSaint Francis.
.
(EXHIBIT D)
"il
:; 12......... __ .. __t()__ .. __
outlined above. After all, it was the harassment and stalking ofHoge et al that caused
Schml,llfeldt to move from Maryland, to Wisconsin, then to Iowa. When Schmalfeldt purchased a
199.9 Ford Explorer in 2016, Grady illegally obtained Schmalfeldt's social security number, used
::
it to iqegally access Schmalfeldt's Wisconsin DOT records, illegally ascertained the license plate
numb9r of the vehicle, then- knowing the address- drove from the Chicago suburbs to the
southJrn Milwaukee suburbs to photograph Schmalfeldt's car in the apartment parking lot,.
,,
posting the photo on Grady's blog. (EXHIBIT E) But when Grady published Schmalfeldt's
1
address on his blog, Schmalfeldt relented and sent the change of address form to the court via
mail ahd to Hoge'via e-mail. This was March 30, 2017. Grady lives about a two-hour drive from
Iowa address. On the morning of March 31, Schmalfeldt awoke to find the two
6
passenger-side tires on his car were stabbed in the sidewalls. Of the dozen or so cars parked on
the that night, Schmalfeldt was singled out for this vandalism.
COUNT II
\
.............................. .
.. ............................................
:1 W........... __ ..
!! 21,. ........ .. .. ..................... .
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs,

effigies, or any communication embodied in phvsical form that is injurious to a person's
reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her
business or profession. (See https:l/www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel)
Deleted: Any person who shall with malicious intent
originate, utter, circula'te or . publish any false
statement or matter corlcerning.another the effect of
which __ _ shall tend to injure such person in his
character or reputation' shall be guilty . - -of a
misdemeanor and, conviction therefor, be subject to
year exercise in defamation. (EXHIBIT F)
punishment .. - -by fine not to exceed five thousand
dollars or by imprisontllent for a term not - _exceeding
,1 Hoge will occasionally delve into direct defamation, such as in November 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------\
one year, or by both and imprisonment, in the
\=' . discretion of . . the churt; provided, that nothing
'\<' herein shall be to abridge any " ... right any
when he posted the following defamatory screed. person may have by of an action for damages for
,!
\,., \}-li.:.be.:.l.:.o.:.r_._
Bill Schmalfeldt is a deranged cyberstalker. He is a liar. He is someone who is .\ Deleted: 21
untrustworthy, who fails to live up to his commitments or abide by Deleted: 2
agreements he has signed. He had the opportunity to make a clean start when
:
he fled from Maryland to Wisconsin. He appears to have wasted that ..
,.';_,.,
opportunity.
. ::
ltttps:/!lwg'W11Sit. com/2015111116/reiterating-etlitorial-policFI . }
f
diagm'lsed as "deranged" or been convicted for "cyberstalking." The former is a mental diagnosis
intended to cast a,person as a crazed lunatic, and the latter is a d"signation of law which, if true,
would"cast the Plaintiff in an unfavorable light. It is not true, therefore it is libelous.

-
Schmalfeldt has several books and COs on ....:..
the naine "Bluelake", has written !-star reviews for most of them, labeling Schmalfeldt a child
abuser, child pornographer and a dangerous, demented cyberstalker. (EXHIBIT G) He has also
7
...
;.:
made comments in the blogs of other defendants.(EXHIBIT H) These allegations are
,I "
false statements made with malicious intent. This plaintiff has never been diagnosed as
"demented" or been convicted for "cyberstalking." The plaintiff has never been legally accused
or convicted for child abuse and child pornography, Therefore, these statements fall sqJJ.arely into
il
the of I ibel.
I her Billy
I
Sez blog. She has been admonished to stop using my name and images for commercial
purposes, but she continues to ignore the admonitions.
BILLY SEZ- The William M. Schmalfeldt :4U tii>H iJ; lfN"ei>"Mir!f I) dit.c:redii Bill
is to Di!{ S<'..hma{Jhlr/t,
Feltdown Observer ..
21. uum ,. ' ':1 Deleted: 6

1
blogs, stealing images, and applying her own defamatory spin on the things written.
'
2.& ........ f'.<t1_111t:.r..eJ<.(; ..<l<:.tig_t_l s.. ..i.s..c>f1IY. (;_() .. J
prove':Piaintiff said. The libel occurs, however, in her spin on Plaintiffs actual comments.
(EXHIBIT I)
I!
j lJ.......... l}_l1_1()ll.l1.t ..
'i
defen?ant cannot say she is merely quoting the defendant while twisting his words into meaning
something she has created in her imagination. These false impressions tend to cast the Plaintiff
8
i/
I
into a ,false light and harm his reputation. It is not a defense to point to a ruined reputation that
1
you. in with malicious falsehoods and then declare, "See, he already has a bad
il
reputation." Plaintiff's reputation was just fine before he ran afoul of this gang of WJJ Hoge
cultists.
II
.... .....JN. .... ..<t<.:ti (;!J:Lt_s.;:c,t __ .. .. t.Cll11_'?.\l.<: .. ..>1 Deleted: .
":j.-- Deleted: 29
times. ;He lives in fear of his life and safety and damage to his property. His reputation is
,I
damaged beyond repair. Due to the extensive harm caused to Schmalfeldt by the harassment and
;i
stalking of these defendants he asks for $100,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive
damages from each of the five defendants .
... ----------------------------------------------------------------------""'::.-
Conspiracy
.......................................................
Pla.intiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above .............................................
The common law crime known as "conspiracy" is defined as a combination

between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing an unlawful
object or lawful object by unlawful means.
... ..
)1,_\ ....... .. ..
"
messages designed to cause trouble for Schmalfeldt. The same istrue with Palmer's blog and
Grady':s blog. (EXHIBIT J) :::,:c:. . . - -

i ,.. .. ."::: : ... ":
34 ....... ... . . .. ...).O;,,::j Deleted: .4 . ., .

.
Schmalfeldt prove the allegation of conspiracy. Due to the extensive harm caused to ........... =.D.:::el.:::et:.::.ed.::::.. :S:.::.c:.::.hm.:.:.a:.::.l:..:fe.:.::ld:.:.t
:1 ....... . . if,.
the cortspiratoria] efforts of these defendantsJle asks fo_r:_$J.. .:;.;:,'!
----------------- --
$500,obo in punitive damages from each of the four named defendants.
COlJNT!V
RECKLESS CONDl!CT/W ANTON AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT
9
(All __________________________ __
'i....,
1: ____ __ __ ______________ _ ______ Deleted: 44
Deleted: s
3_{},._______ __9_r.<tc:JY.<t_f1_c:l_f:'<tii!J(:r__ __ __t()__ i_f1_(;it(:__ _______ -------;:---: _
passion and hatred __ __ __\\'!i_ti_f1g__ __ ___________ ,.:1 Deleted: Schmalfeldt .
these will cause their comments to rant, rave, suggest and plan violent acts _____ ::>--::-l Deleted: Schmalfeldt
' .. . '---------,--------,;:---,----,--------,-----
:17..: ______ I_f1 a __ (;<I_S_(:_,_<I_ _ __ i_f1_____ _ _ _--,___,,_ ]
Louisville ruled on March 3 I, 2017 that President Donald Trump could be sued for inciting
j
violen?e by ordering his supporters to remove protesters from a rally. The Judge ruled that
Trump should have been aware that this order to the crowd would be taken as a command and
-
that person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury."
LiS.,.__________tl ()g(:_ <tllc:l_9_!<tc:IY._<1f1_c:l_ __ <tc:J_t()___ __ __ ___ _

i
addre4 and telephone number would lead their more unstable readers to take actions against
Schmalfeldt, as such actions have been attempted in the past- the attempt to forge the
Schma'lfeldt's signature, the theft ofSchmalfeldt's identity, the stalking of the Schmalfeldt's
parking lot, the photograph ofDetendant's-car posted on Grady's blog, and many other
:.:.:..'..':;
;
examples.
1;
i]
l9.:-- ____ _ __ __l:l_ll:)g_ __
postings and inflammatory comments. However, they disavow responsibility by asserting that
they merely engaging in First Amendment activity. Although the defendants have complete
[,
control! over the comment section of their blogs- evidenced by the fact that only
who agree with the bloggers are allowed to post- they refuse to moderate even the most
disgusting, heinoL;s attacks __ __ t_()__(;_!:tll_fl:)r__ a.c;t_ii:)J1S__ t()__
agai h st J.llin, __ __ __ __t()_J:l<t!!l1_ ___________ _
10
person,, they cannot hide behind the First Amendment. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, a man was
,,
after sending a direct message to national reporter Kurt Eichenwald which, when
contained an animated strobe light which caused the reporter to suffer a 'seizure because :>,""
he epileptic and sensitive to strobe lights. See
https:/(www.nytimes.com/20 17/03/17/technology/social-media-attack-that-set-off-a-seizure-
leads-tp-an-arrest.html The defendant knew that Mr. Eichenwald.was epileptic. In fact,- the
message included.with the attachment read, in effect, "You deserve a seizure." The defendant in
'
that ca'se believed he was protected by the First Amendment, but law enforcement officials and
::
:1
the Col!lrts determined that someone cannot use the Internet to cause harm to another person.
':
II
i ancl _.
damage to Schmalteldt's property, caused Schmalfeldt to move from Maryland to Wisconsin to
Iowa t,!1en to South Carolina in the hopes of shaking these domestic terrorists and their terror
il
tactics'; because they have showed utter disregard for the health, welfare, safety of this plaintiff
..
and littie to no care for the damage and expense they have-caused, Plaintiff
i'i j Deleted: asks
from each defendant in actual damages and $I ,000,000 in punitive damages from each
>. ' :.ij
'I
='.=.>' :.:=:
I .
defendant.
=<t
'i .....
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
malice, egregious conduct, insult, and a perverse gratification from the harm caused to
Such actions or omissions by Defendants were undertaken with either (I) maliciousness, spite, ill
:
will, v'engeance or deliberate intent to harm Plaintin: or (2) reckless disregard of the profound
J
.
of their actions or omissions, and their harmful effects on Plaintiff. Accordi?gly, :; '.. :. ;:. :' ., . : .'l
Deleted: Schmalfeldt
._.,;:,.Deleted: s
II
,I
necessary to compensate Plaintiff for injuries resulting from Defendants' conduct and to serve as
. -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I
11
WHEREFORE: Plaintiff 1111 ..
' I. Nominal and general damages as asked for in each count;
2. Punitive damages as asked for in each count;
:i,; .). A permanent no contact order to be issued to each.defendant;
4. A permanent injunction against defendants against further defamation, retaliation;
and. using,Eiaintiff's
I
i 5.
provided in 17 USC 505;
6. In the event this court deems this matter not suitable for determination or
i
j udgrri'ent, an order that these charges be referred to the proper state or federal Jaw enforcement
agencies for criminal prosecution; and
'1 7. For such additional and further relief, in law and equity, as the court may deem
just arid proper.

i!
JlJRY .DEMAND
hereby requests a jury trial on all issues raised in this complaint.
Respeptfully submitted this 22nd .

'1 William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., Pro Se
Woodspring Suites
843-429-0581
12 . :-:;-.
.broadwa):'bi1194 7@J,outlook.com
... ___ _
13
.A) "Harassment in the first degree" means a pattern of intentional,

substantial, and unreasonable intrusion into the private life of a targeted
person that serves no legitimate purpose and causes the person and would
cause a reasonable person in his position to suffer mental or emotional
distress. Harassment in the first degree may include, but is not limited to:
(3) surveillance of or the maintenance of a presence near the targeted
person's:
(a) residence;
(B) "Harassment in the second degree" means a pattern of intentional,
substantial, and unreasonable intrusion into the private life of a targeted
person that serves no legitimate purpose and causes the person and would
cause a reasonable person in his position to suffer mental or emotional
distress. Harassment in the second degree may include, but is not li.Pited to,
verbal, written, or electronic contact that is.initiated, maintained, or
repeated.
(C) "Stalking" means a pattern of words, whether verbal, written, or

electronic, or a pattern of conduct that serves no legitimate purpose and is
intended to cause and does cause a targeted person and would cause'a
reasonable person in the targeted person's position to fear:
(3) bodily injury to the person or a member of his family; ,
i
(6) damage to the property of the person or a member of his family. I
.!
COUNT III
Communicating Obscene Messages to Other Persons Without Consent
(South Carolina Code of Laws, 16-15-250)
(Defendants Grady, Palmer)
3L South Carolina defines this statute as follows:
It is unlawful for a person to anonymously write, print, telephone, a

digital electronic file, or by other manner or means communicate, se p.d, or
1
deliver to another person within this State, without that person's cofl.sent,
any obscene, profane, indecent, vulgar, suggestive, or immoral message.
32. Both defendants Grady and Palmer continue to hide behind their "pen names"
afthough their true identities have become known to Plaintiff.
33. The two above-mentioned defendants seem to be unable to write about
without resorting to the most vulgar obscenities. By posting their blog entries for
:1 ; .
others to see all over the world, including this state, defendants have violated this statute.
34. All one need do is look at any post or comment from any of these two defendants
to see their violations in action. Schmalfeldt will share two from each.
35. A mild example from Grady.
Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

:es:
.. .<troom >'!.t.r:'N1 , . jt>
oftbe presid1ng J
4
11'$udifl1$J:jJt2;,.1ut<l,I'I'J?/fflrflljhrmrtl")'l. ; . . ' .
"'" or .16-603, all .e.lle.ctrol

Allilldil.-'id!ll1llchf>w1{{ufty!lhtfat!.>sthi>;Rti]>'!I.W0!1!Jf'l<aS<):'>ahk may be ueed o
; . A tJ.
J'"j\l......"'.,
_iwlgc. ma!J bef{)Unrl in <Xmt'tmptQ-teoun mrf MmctiOMd{n
ation.. (Emphasis
Carolina Iconoclasts
@ PodcastPair
Remember when @wjjhoge said he would have nothing more to

say about his dimwitted contempt request? He lied about too.
9:13AM 10 May 2017
t.'l "
36. Another mild example from Grady,

I guess not EVERYTHING is proceeding as @wjjhoge has

foreseen.
4:16 PM-19 Apr 2017
!If
3 7. Defendant Palmer taking something out of context, with profanity.
Makes Sense to Bill

Posted on May 16, 2017 by Paul Krend!er
In which a DUMBFUCK admits he'd rather see his wife killed than part with adollar:
Carolina Iconoclasts
@ PodcastPair
To a cyberthug like @wjjhoge, "proper response11 means you give

him your wallet so he doesn't shoot your wife @BreitbartUnmask
@ Redheadturkey
7:44PM- 16 May 2017
+. t.."l v
38. Here, Palmeraccuses Schmalfeldt of faking his Parkinson's disease. With
profanity.:
The Dumbfuck Playbook
1.Bill Schmalft-ldt feels humiliated because he screws something up/somebody says

something he doesn't like.
2. Bill Schmalfeldt starts REEEEEEEEEEEE-ing about the indignities he suffers on the
blog of the week with epic TL/DR diatribes.
3 Bill Schmalfeldt starts tweeting out multi-tvteet screeds where he proves how much of a
dumbfuck he is and everybody points and laughs at him. Because TL/DR and
Dumbfuck.
4. Goto1
Today's best beelowning tweet so far:
Clinton Iconoclast
,,yCinllconcc!asl
Accusing me of faking Parkinson's disease is

defamation per se, which we shall discuss at
my next @wjjhoge-inspired hearing.
923 PM 19 Mar 201T
Pro-tip: It's not defamation per se to notice that someone's very public behavior is in direct
opposition to the self-stated level of illness one supposedly has. Based on that, no. Bill
Schmalfeldt does not have Parkinson's disease and has been using it as a prop and
sob-story for ass-pats and potential sympathy.
Plus the bar for proving any such claim as defamation in court just got, oh, just that much
harder for Bill. But l won't tell him why. *snort*
Dumbfnck has got to
39. As the use of profanity directed at a person without his/her permission is a state
I .
that is routinely ignored by these two, I ask $10 in actu.al damages and $1,000 in punitive
from each.
I
i
...J
.i
,j
perSOf1, they cannot hide behind the First Amendment. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, a man was
' after sending a direct message to national reporter Kurt Eichenwald which, when
arrested
opene?, contained an animated strobe light which caused the reporter to suffer a seizure because
he waS epileptic and sensitive to strobe lights. See
https:/{www.nytimes.com/20 17/03/17/technology/social-media-attack-that-set-offa-seizme-
The defendant knew that Mr. Eichenwaldwas epileptic. In fact, the
included.with the attachment read, in effect, "You deserve a seizure." The defendant in
that case believed he was protected by the First Amendment, but law enforcement officials and
' .
the determined that someone cannot use the Internet tocause harm to another person.
; 4Q.. ........ .. ..C:ll.llfi(;.cl.PI1YsiciJ,l.....
damaJe to Schmalteldt's property, caused Schmalfeldt to move from Maryland to Wisconsin to
Iowa then to South Carolina in the hopes of shaking these domestic terrorists and their terror
tactics; because they have showed utter disregard for the health, welfare, safety of this plaintiff
and little to no care for the damage and expense they have caused, Plaintiff asks,..f().r..$.5..Q<.\QQ9............"" )
.!
from e.ach defendant in actual damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages from each
defendant.
PlJNITIVE DAMAGES
Such actions or omissions by Defendants were undertaken with either (1) maliciousness, spite, ill
,i
will, or deliberate intent to harm Plaintiff, or (2) reckless disregard of the profound
of their actions or omissions, and their harmful effects on Plaintiff. Accordingly,

., .
,Elaintiff .. .. ..if1.(;)((;.t:fifi..().f.t.h.Qfi(;.c:ill.fll.ilg(;.
II
necess,ary to compensate Plaintiff for injuries resulting from Defendants' conduct and to serve as
'I
.:
1: PRAYER FOR RELJEF
:; WHEREFORE: Plaintiff pray!)..f()rjuggn1(!11t __i!I_I
, I. Nominal and general damages as asked for in each count;

;
, 2. Punitive damages as asked for in each count;
3. A permanent no contact order to be issued to each defendant;
A permanent injunction against defendants against further defamation, retaliation, -

I
and from using,Eiaintiffs 11ili11<0!..JI11i(g(!

j .
. .-,<:--D.:..el.:..et_ed_:_a_n_d_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----------i
; 5. For the recovery ofJ'Iaintiffs Deleted: his
providfd in 17 USC *505;

'! 6. In the event this court deems this matter not suitable for determination or
judgment, an order that these charges be referred to the proper state or federal law enforcement
"
for criminal prosecution; and
, 7. For such additional and further relief, in law and equity, as the cotlrt may deem
just proper.
. :\
JlJRY DEMAND
hereby requests a jury trial on all issues raised in this complaint.

'!
Respeytfully submitted this 22nd

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., Pro Se
Woodspring Suites
843-429-0581
12
4:17-cv-01310-RBH-KDW Date Filed 05/23/17 Entry Number 8-3 Page 1 of 4 .....
_ ..-
. ..:..
r US!Du CL&RK.ftti'ifHeE. SC
"
;:;,
U.\ rrgsTA<lll''
sc- . Ji
"
\ \o
i/6 M-'fJAtiJ.Jt _.._
I
-"'
ZIJI1HAY Ill
$23.75 ....
1t
r
291101 R2305H12772706
\.'\
< 'I
4 I
1
\-'
f/
_.,.t::
n
l'.r":'"
):
t.l
t;'f '
i
l
i
'
-
\
I i
\
'
1\WHEN-USED
' l
1
-'- ' '

..: - EL688578SD9UX
l
f)'1 l!.f
_, \
\
1 A CUSTOMS DECLARATION l FROM:/'!""'"""' 1>' .1..J,.-1/'t"
jPI"'NE< _
h
'I
u
-l !J. I''" r>, 5c ( ' \
;,l
1 LABEL MAY BE REQUIRED.
1 j
J-2CIJ.-h.1..,.'f Dr. t1o 1 ,_., '22'1 EL688578509US
/ F
J-r.;.-r1le _&,,n.,:f., )c 24'"; ?1 Q UN/TEosrnTES \ il
J -; /
't EXPRESS"'
ie
t
! t i PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT (if
u
u
0 0 0 0
_....,:;.,....... 1-0ay 2-0ay Mihtary DPO
\1 Ji '
co DELIVERY OPTIONS (Customer Usc Only)
.-:-1
'"') ' ;
;
(..1 I c) _/
Pustage l
$ (:;;.-/" .:)
? 1<
.:.--""
Reqlire&themlnlslee'll$1gnatu111:
ICODfea I
n. 'f s Jc;;J- {MMIDO!YY) Schedut..dOelverylune
Oto30AM 03:00PM
lnsurancaFIHI
$ "i
lm
rif
D No Saturday Q.a!M!ry (0811Yal9d next business day) D 12 NOON
G. D. Sundayniollday DaiM!ryRequiRKI (addltlonalfetl, wl\e111 available')
I

)0
I;'-'"';-,_,;;;.,.;;:;;;-,- - j
'l..
Oto:30AMOe!lwryAequll9d(addltlonalfea,wtlo111ovallable') D,AM T"'nsporta!lonfea
i DPM
\ .. .. PHONE( ' $ $ $
t -:1:
;<:;:.;!:-.. .'- - TotaiPO!Otaljll&Faer.' ,--="" 1
......
"-"
r.::,m-
I
1 O.c
- v;. (}, 71ricf 7 p
j::;; ' :
$ $ )-
,- 5.c Weigh! 0Fia!Aata c:) H
i:: ; r,I"'<"N _.P "'r. 1
L, tJ( v. vv;?,_.,- 57. !:'-/;:>_..-,...,..,."': ;:ic_ ,

. :, .
/' $
'OJ
2 q s-
ZIP+ If' (U.S. ADORESSES,>wLY)
i? .,
DeiMiry Allarnpl (MIND[ll'('() Time EmpiQY9& Signature
1'0
d
DAM
DeM
I
L For pickup or USPS Tracking, vllt USPS.com or can 800-2221811.
s -
OoliNe!y All8mpl IMMJOMY!Illnia
LABEL 11.S.OCTOBEA2018
DAM
DeM
PSN789CHl2.000.&11118
3ADOR:EE COPY
-l!o
fll
\ -\ ,.,_
..._,
tl . )
I
II
\ \-,1 '" Money BacJt Guarantee to u.s., select APO/FPO/I)PG, ana select International
destinations. see DMM and IMM at pe.usps.com for complete detail-
\ +Money Back Guarantee for u.s. destinations only_
\I
-
11
I
\J llllmllllllllllllllllllllllllllll \IIC'IT IIC' AT I ftfta81> I t::."':'\ I .;;:s UNITmSTJJTES
il
Jl1
s:
--r-
>
z
Ci)
I'TI
:z
<
I'TI
r-
0
-c
I'TI
.I

ECF 8 Redacted

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ECF 8 Redacted

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

4:17-cv-01310-RBH-KDW Date Filed 05/23/17 Entry Number 8 Page 1 of 12

United States District Court

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

::I. Parties to This Complaint

I. Plaintiff WilliamM. Schmalfeldt, Sr., (Schmalfeldt) is a 62-year old former GS-

. to advancing Parkinson's disease: A widower, Schmalfeldtlived in MD, when his

2. Defendant #1, Patrick G. Gra,dy.(Grady) is employed by a company known as

3. Defendant #2; William John Joseph Hoge III is a 69-year.oldengineer employed

! apparently. developmentally adult son, live in Westminster, MD. He is a widower, his

. character on his blog, "Johnny Atsign."

; Johnson took it upon himself to declare Schmalfeldt a "child after listening to

keeping his opinion to himself, Johnson mounted a nearly successfulcampaign to have

listeners about buying merchandise from a "child pornographer".

5. Defendant #4, Sarah Palmer(Palmer) is a middle-agedwoman who abandoned

child on his blog.

''II. Basis for Jurisdiction and Venue

controversy exceeds $75,000.

7. Venue and subjedmatter jurisdiction are appropriate as demonstrated by the

8. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above.

9. Harassment is generaJly defined as follows:

Harassment is governed by state laws,wllich vary by state, but is generally

visual insults, suchas derogatory posters or cartoons. (See

10. "Cyberstalking" is generally defined as follows:

Online harassme.,nt, sometimes referred to as "cyberharassment," usually

:schmalfeldt even arrived. (EXHIBIT A).

Schmalfeldt's new home address. (EXHIBIT B)

13.- As of Schmalfeldt's moving to South Carolina, Grady has been blogging

inaccurate, defamatory information about Schmalfeldt's fiance. (EXHIBIT C)

on his blog with defamatory changes.

,harassment of Schmalfeldt. He makes material misstatements about events in Schmalfeldt's life

Hoge's vi:ew of events.

act of "urinating on cub scouts."

20. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above.

21. The tort of libel is generally defined as follows:

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs,

.:year exercise in defamation. (EXHIBIT F)

when he posted the following defamatory screed.

Bill Schmalfeldt is a deranged cyberstalker. He is a liar. He is someone who is

the category of libel.

purposes, but she continues to ignore the admonitions.

damages from each of the five defendants.

31. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above.

32. South Carolina defines conspiracy, in part:

The common law crime known as "conspiracy" is definedas a

Grady's blog. (EXHIBIT J)

34, This cooperation between named and unnamed conspirators to do harm to

$500,000 in punitive damages from each of the four named defendants.

35. Plaintiff h-ereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs above.

he was epileptic and sensitive to' strobe lights. See

damage to Schmalfeldt's property, caused Schmalfeldt to move from Maryland to Wisconsin to

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE: Plaintiff prays for judgment against all defendants as follows:

1. Nominal and general damages as asked for in each count;

2. Punitive damages as asked for in each count;

3. A permanent no contact order to be issued to each defendant;

4. . A permanent injunction against defendants against further defamation, retaliation,

,provided in 17 USC 505;

agencies for criminal prosecution; and

just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd

RE: Case #4:17-cv-01310-RBH-KD

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me,

jv--/ f fJL-_ '!

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. ProSe

1.: ........ .. .. .. .. ........ -:,.)'j'-D-e_le_t_ed_:_s_ _ _ _

passion and hatred __\\'!i_ti_f1g ___________ ,.:1 Deleted: Schmalfeldt .

LiS.,.__________tl ()g(:_ <tllc:l_9_!<tc:IY._<1f1_c:l_ __ <tc:J_t()_ _ _

disgusting, heinoL;s attacks t_()__(;_!:tll_fl:)r__ a.c;t_ii:)J1S t()

agai h st J.llin, t()_J:l<t!!l1_ ___________ _