Let me introduce the entire question in full, as the above seems truncated.
This might just be the most important question I've asked yet.
I am a pro se plaintiff in a federal lawsuit in the US District Court
of Eastern Wisconsin. The defendants are represented by an attorney who is licensed in DC and VA, although he has not worked in the legal field since 2012 since being fired from his job as compliance attorney for a health care firm. He has taken the case of two fellow right wing bloggers from NC and TN (where he is not licensed) on a pro bono basis. He claims that a man from Westminster, Maryland is his "Paralegal." The man is a retired NASA engineer with no legal training. To my understanding, Maryland has no licensing regulations for paralegals. But my understanding is that the attorney is responsible for the conduct of his paralegal. This paralegal blogs about this ongoing case every day in derogatory terns regarding me, the plaintiff. Examples...
"Last week, the Cabin Boy™ (His term of endearment for the plaintiff) tried to paint the defendants’ response to his introduction of Brett Kimberlin’s declaration and other non-germane filings associated with his attempt to have their defense counsel removed from his LOLsuit VI: The Undiscovered Krenlfer as an attempt by the defense to turn the case into Walker v. Kimberlin. I doubt that he will be successful in convincing the judge.
There’s still time to stock up on popcorn or other suitable refreshments. Popcorn, Jujubes, Raisinettes, Junior Mints, and Twizzlers are all available from Amazon.
It seems that the Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt’s muse for this bit of legal tomfoolery was Tom Lehrer’s song Lobachevsky. Paragraph 15 (which begins, “Thornwood v. Jenner & Block, 344 N.E.2d 15 (Ill.App. 2003) provides a classic example of an in-concert liability claim against a lawyer …”) is lifted word-for-word from the eighth paragraph in a copyrighted article by Daniel E. Tranen, The Risks Lawyers Face from Aiding and Abetting and Civil Conspiracy Claims, which was published online. The fact that this ripped off quote doesn’t deal with any of the issues raised in his motion doesn’t change the fact that the Cabin Boy has clearly plagiarized Mr. Tranen’s work (and probably engaged in what he likes to call “copyright theft” as well).
He’s also filed a motion for summary judgment
, and it appears that he submitted the exhibits for the motion above as part of the summary judgment motion. The exhibits contain sealed material. I will publish them after I have had a chance to redact them."
"All of this is a further demonstration that The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt doesn’t understand how civil lawsuits proceed. I’ll leave it to the defendants’ lawyer and the judge to educate him.
The defendants’ have already submitted their responses to this round of BS’s BS, and I will be posting their filings shortly."
"Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar, and some of the biggest whoppers he’s told are his claims to have found “provable lies” that others have told about him. The Cabin Boy™ would have the world believe that every hearing or trial that has gone against him has been the result of lying by his adversaries.
Most recently, he’s put out a podcast asserting that he’s found nine such lies that were told by[redacted] during the North Carolina hearing that resulted in restraining orders number 8 and 9 against the Cabin Boy™. I listened to the audio he posted. I’ve also seen the documentary evidence that Mrs. [redacted] used during the hearing. That evidence backs up what she said. She didn’t lie. Rather, Schmalfeldt appears to be lying about her.
When Schmalfeldt claimed that I had lied during the hearing for the extension of the first peace order and tried the file a perjury charge against me, the Commissioner found there was no probable cause and denied his Application for Statement of Charges.
When Schmalfedt claimed that he had found twenty-four lies in my answer to his motion to modify the first peace order that would result in my being led away from the courthouse “in irons,” he failed to raise a single one of them during the hearing on his motion."
My question. Are paralegals, licensed or not, subject to any code of ethics? The attorney is obviously allowing his paralegal to blog these things. Do I have any recourse against this behavior in the Federal Court