July

5, 2016

Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Board on Professional Responsibility
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
515 5th Street NW
Building A, Suite 117
Washington, DC 20001

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find attached an official complaint to the District of Columbia Bar concerning attorney
Aaron J. Walker, DC Bar# 481688, VA Bar #48882.

I maintain that Attorney Walker is in violation of several of the American Bar Associations
Ethical Standards, as laid out in the attached documents. A similar complaint has been filed
with the Virginia Bar.

Mr. Walker was the pro bono attorney representing a pair of defendants in a recently
concluded case in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Case #15-CV-1516NJ). That case was dismissed by the Magistrate Judge on July 1, 2016 because I failed as a pro se
representative to prove a case for personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

On July 2, I wrote a brief note to Mr. Walker to congratulate him on his win, and he responded
with what I believe to be an extortionate note informing me that he would file for sanctions
against me in excess of $5,000 unless I agreed to the conditions set forth in the attached
complaint.

To satisfy myself that these demands are authored by Mr. Walker, I asked point blank if these
were his recommendations or if he was representing the wishes of his clients. His reply was:

Bill, the deliberative process of my clients is a matter of privilege. I am not free to
discuss it. I will therefore only say (the clients) are in agreement with what I offered.
(Emphasis added.)
The case has been dismissed without prejudice. I was not accused of any wrongdoing
by the judge. The case was a simple matter of my having filed in an incorrect
jurisdiction. I am confident that if I file in the correct jurisdictions, I will prevail in my
complaint.
This is a blatant shakedown on a pro se plaintiff by an attorney of ill repute in his home
area, an attorney who was discharged from his last position as a compliance counsel at
a Virginia home health care office for dereliction of his duties while engaging in a
personal legal battle with another client, and while working under a pseudonym to offer

legal assistance to a client in Maryland where he is not licensed, and while authoring
an infamous Everybody Draw Mohammed Day blog that existed for the sole purpose
of enraging and inflaming American Muslims.
This is not the sort of professional behavior one expects from an attorney licensed to
the DC Bar, and I sincerely hope this complaint will be thoroughly investigated and the
proper disciplinary measures meted out.
Included:
1.
The DC Bar Complaint
2.
Copies of the extortionate e-mails sent by Attorney Walker
3.
The Order of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
dismissing my suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.
4.
A complete copy of the agreement Attorney Walker expects me to sign to deter
him from seeking sanctions against me in a case where the judge cited no specific
wrongdoing, a case that was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, not on the
merits of my complaint.
5.
A proposed Consent Decree by which Mr. Walker expects me to surrender the
right to ever file a lawsuit without pre-clearance by a judge; a Permanent Restraining
Order to cover one of the two defendants in the case, including an unconstitutional
prohibition from contacting or speaking to this Defendants ex-husband who provided
valuable information in my case against her.
6.
Complaint Filed with the Virginia Bar.
If you need further information regarding any of these allegations, please feel free to
contact me at your convenience.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

3029 S. Lake Dr., Apt. 108
Saint Francis, WI 53235
414-249-4379
bschmalfeldttwc.com

Inquiry Form
V I R G I N I A S TA T E B A R
Mail to:

NOTE: Send in this form if you have concerns about a lawyers conduct. Your inquiry might result in
discipline to the lawyer. If you are seeking other remedies against the lawyer, you may need to seek legal
advice from a lawyer in private practice. Also, the bar may require your further involvement in an investigation by asking you to be interviewed by a bar investigator and/or to participate at a hearing.

VIRGINIA STATE BAR

INTAKE OFFICE
1111 East Main Street, Suite 700
Richmond, Virginia 23219-3565
Telephone: (804) 775-0570

YOUR
NAME:

_
x

Mr.

_ Mrs.

_ Miss

_ Ms.

William

Matthew

first

YOUR
ADDRESS:

Schmalfeldt

initial

last

3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108

Daytime Telephone No.:

x home ( 414) 595-2542

work (
)

street

Saint Francis
city

WI

53235

state

zip code

bschmalfeldt@twc.com
e-mail

LAWYERS
NAME:

Aaron

LAWYERS
ADDRESS:

No firm

first

Other Telephone No. and times you

can be reached:
(
)

(
)

Walker

initial

last

Lawyers Telephone No.:

( 703) 216-0455

lawyers law firm, if known

P.O. Box 3075

street address or P.O. Box

Manassas

VA

city

state

20108
zip code

LAWYERS ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF:

Mr. Walker (Va Bar# 48882 DC Bar #481668) provided pro bono services to
two defendants I sued in the US District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin. Case #2:15-cv-01516-NJ. The judge dismissed my case on July 1,
2016 against both defendants on jurisdictional grounds. I sent Mr. Walker
an e-mail to congratulate him. His response was, in my opinion, an
YOUR
SIGNATURE:

(Continue on the back or a separate page if you need more space. Also, attach copies of any documents that help explain
your inquiry.)

William M. Schmalfeldt

DATE:

7/2/2016

FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND DATED

Turn this form over for more information we need from you to analyze your inquiry.


This Settlement Agreement (hereinafter Agreement) is made by and between William
Schmalfeldt, Eric Johnson, and Sarah Palmer.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, William Schmalfeldt has filed a suit against Eric Johnson and Sarah Palmer,
currently styled as Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01516-NJ (E.D. Wisc. 2015)
(hereinafter Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al.), that suit having been dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction and other grounds on July 1, 2016;

WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement wish to end this dispute amicably and without
admission of fault or wrongdoing by any party; and

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and releases contained herein
and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:

1.
Confidentiality and no admission of wrongdoing or fault. This agreement does not
constitute an admission of wrongdoing or fault by any of the parties. All of the parties (and
their counsel as applicable) shall keep this agreement confidential, providing, however,
that confidentiality can be breached as needed to enforce its provisions.
2.

Payment in Settlement of Sanctions Claim. William Schmalfeldt agrees to pay Eric

Johnson and Sarah Palmer together the amount of $1,000.00 total. Such payment is to be
made in a single $1,000.00 check made payable to Sarah Palmer at 501 Redd St.,
Reidsville, North Carolina, 27320. How this amount will be distributed among Sarah
Palmer and Eric Johnson or any third party is a matter of their discretion. Such payment
is made in consideration of the releases Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson provided in
paragraph 3, including but not limited to the release of any claim for sanctions arising from
Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al.

3.

End of current litigation. William Schmalfeldt agrees he will not pursue any appeal in
relation to Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al. He will not pursue any further litigation arising
from the same factual nexus as that described in the complaints filed in Schmalfeldt v.
Johnson, et al. Eric Johnson and Sarah Palmer also agree that they will not pursue any
appeal in relation to Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al. Eric Johnson and Sarah Palmer will not
pursue any further litigation arising from the same factual nexus as that described in the
complaints filed in Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al. The parties to this agreement shall not
seek sanctions, attorneys fees, or any other kind of damages, sanctions, penalties, or costs,
except for the payment established in paragraph 2. They will walk away bearing their own
costs, except for the payment established in paragraph 2.

4.

Consent decree. The parties agree that the parties shall submit the attached Consent
Decree in the case of Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al. The parties shall take every reasonable
action necessary to ensure that the decree is adopted by that court and is binding upon the

parties, and, conversely, shall take no action to oppose the entry of that Consent Decree.
Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson will submit the attached Consent Motion to Enter a
Consent Decree Settling This Matter and Preventing Future Litigation to the court in
Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al., and this agreement constitutes William Schmalfeldts
consent to that motion.
5.

Pre-clearance requirements for future litigation. Regardless of whether the consent

decree is adopted by the court in the case of Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al., William
Schmalfeldt shall comply with the following procedures:
a.

Any pro se complaint filed in any court in the United States or any state in which
William Schmalfeldt is a named plaintiff or purports to act as a party representative
shall be subjected to review by the court in which it is filed prior to the issuance of
any summons or service of process. In such case the following provisions apply:
1.

At the soonest moment practicable after a complaint is filed by William

Schmalfeldt, William Schmalfeldt shall file a motion seeking review of the
suit under this Agreement (or the attached Consent Decree if executed by a
court). A copy of this Settlement Agreement (or the attached Consent
Decree if executed by a court) shall be attached to such motion. The court
in which the complaint is filed will review the complaint to determine
whether good cause exists to permit the action to proceed in light of the
claims raised therein and William Schmalfeldts past litigation. The
complaint shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) or with any state equivalent
and provide a clear statement of the factual and legal basis for each claim
asserted, specifically identifying each Defendant against whom the claim is
asserted. The complaint shall be accompanied by a signed statement
explaining, on a claim-by-claim basis, (a) whether each claim was raised in
any prior action (with an appropriate citation) and (b) why each claim is not
barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, and/or an applicable immunity.

2.

Good cause requires a prima facie showing for each element of each cause
of action asserted. Good faith also requires a prima facie showing that
personal and subject matter jurisdiction is present for each defendant and
that venue is appropriate. Such prima facie showing must be supported by
competent and admissible evidence.

3.

If the court determines that good cause has not been shown, the action will
be dismissed sua sponte without further notice.

4.

6.

If William Schmalfeldt files any suit without complying with the procedures
outlined in this Agreement as soon as practicable, that shall be immediate
grounds for dismissal.

Permanent restraining order. Without admitting that William Schmalfeldt has done any
of the following acts, William Schmalfeldt agrees to a permanent injunction prohibiting
him from committing any of the following acts and William Schmalfeldt agrees, separate
from any injunction, not to commit the following acts:
a.

William Schmalfeldt will not do the following to Sarah Palmer, Briana Palmer, T.L.
Palmer, or Nicholas Palmer-Beck (hereinafter the Protected Persons):

b.

1.

William Schmalfeldt shall not visit, assault, molest, or otherwise interfere

with the Protected Persons.

2.

William Schmalfeldt shall not stalk the Protected Persons.

3.

William Schmalfeldt shall not harass the Protected Persons.

4.

William Schmalfeldt shall not abuse or injure the Protected Persons.

5.

William Schmalfeldt shall not contact the Protected Persons by telephone,

written communication, or electronic means.

6.

William Schmalfeldt shall not enter or remain present at the Protected

Persons residence or place of employment.

William Schmalfeldt also shall not contact Michael W. Palmer or any person acting
on his behalf. If Michael W. Palmer or any person acting on his behalf should
contact William Schmalfeldt, William Schmalfeldt shall explain that he is not to
have contact with that person and end that contact as soon as practicable.

7.

Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts (including

by facsimile or portable document format (pdf)) for the convenience of the parties hereto,
each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and
the same instrument. No signature page to this Agreement evidencing a partys execution
hereof will be deemed to be delivered by such party to any other party hereto until such
delivering party has received signature pages from all parties signatory to this Agreement.

8.

Miscellaneous. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be

effective unless in writing and executed by each of the parties. This Agreement shall not

be terminated unless done so in writing and executed by each of the parties. In the event
that any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable
any other provision of the Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the
successors and assigns of the parties. This Agreement and its terms shall be governed by
and interpreted in light of Wisconsin law. This Agreement supersedes all other prior
agreements, both written and oral, between the parties. If a civil suit is instituted based on
an alleged violation of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such a suit will be entitled
to attorneys fees. Sarah Palmer and Eric Johnson acknowledge that they have consulted
with their attorney prior to executing this agreement and William Schmalfeldt
acknowledges that he was given the opportunity to consult with an attorney prior to
executing this agreement. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience
only and shall not be used to define, limit, or describe the scope of this Agreement or any
of the obligations herein.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this
__________ day of _____________, 2016.



_________________________________
_________________________________
William Schmalfeldt
Date



_________________________________
_________________________________
Sarah Palmer
Date



_________________________________
_________________________________
Eric Johnson
Date

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.















CONSENT MOTION TO ENTER A CONSENT DECREE SETTLING THIS MATTER AND PREVENTING
FUTURE LITIGATION















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 Consent Motion to Enter a Consent
Decree Settling this Matter, without waiving any rights of jurisdiction, notice, process, service of
process, joinder, or venue. In support of this motion, they state the following:
1.

The parties to this caseMr. Schmalfeldt, Mr. Johnson, and Ms. Palmerhave

entered into a settlement agreement (hereinafter the Agreement).

2.

As part of the Agreement, neither party admits wrongdoing or fault.

3.

Further, as part of the Agreement, the parties wish this Court to enter the proposed

order as a Consent Decree regulating the conduct among the parties going forward.
4.

All three partiesMr. Schmalfeldt, Mr. Johnson, and Ms. Palmerhave consented

to this motion and to the entry of this Consent Decree.

WHEREFORE, these parties pray that this Court grant the consent decree attached to this motion,
and provide any other relief that is just and equitable.

Monday, July 04, 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

Seen and consented to:

s/ William Schmalfeldt

William Schmalfeldt
3209 S. Lake Dr., Apt. 108
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235
(414) 249-4379
(No fax)
bschmalfeldt@twc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 4, 2016, I served copies of this document on William Schmalfeldt by
email by his consent.


s/ Aaron J. Walker




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MILWAUKEE DIVISION

WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT,









Plaintiff,


v.

ERIC P. JOHNSON, SARAH PALMER,
and JOHN AND JANE DOES,




Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-01516-NJ

CONSENT DECREE














Upon consideration of the Defendants Consent Motion to Enter a Consent Decree

Settling this Matter (Docket #

),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in order to facilitate the amicable resolution of the abovecaptioned litigation and without a finding or admission of fault or wrongdoing, the court orders
the following:
1.

Pre-filing requirement. William Schmalfeldt shall comply with the following

procedures:

a.

Any pro se complaint filed in any court in the United States or any state in
which William Schmalfeldt is a named plaintiff or purports to act as a party
representative shall be subjected to review by the court in which it is filed
prior to the issuance of any summons or service of process. In such case
the following provisions apply:

i.

At the soonest moment practicable after a complaint is filed by

William Schmalfeldt, William Schmalfeldt shall file a motion seeking
review of the suit under this Consent Decree. A copy of this
Consent Decree shall be attached to such motion. The court in
which the complaint is filed will review the complaint to determine
whether good cause exists to permit the action to proceed in light
of the claims raised therein and William Schmalfeldts past
litigation. The complaint shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) or
with any state equivalent and provide a clear statement of the
factual and legal basis for each claim asserted, specifically
identifying each Defendant against whom the claim is asserted. The
complaint shall be accompanied by a signed statement explaining,
on a claim-by-claim basis, (a) whether each claim was raised in any
prior action (with an appropriate citation) and (b) why each claim
is not barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, and/or an
applicable immunity.

ii.

Good cause requires a prima facie showing for each element of

each cause of action asserted. Good faith also requires a prima
facie showing that personal and subject matter jurisdiction is
present for each defendant and that venue is appropriate. Such

prima facie showing must be supported by competent and

admissible evidence.

iii.

If the court determines that good cause has not been shown, the
action will be dismissed sua sponte without further notice.

iv.

If William Schmalfeldt files any suit without complying with the

procedures outlined in this Consent Decree as soon as practicable,
that shall be immediate grounds for dismissal.

2.

Permanent restraining order. Without admitting that William Schmalfeldt has

done any of the following acts, William Schmalfeldt shall not commit the following
acts:

a.

William Schmalfeldt will not do the following to Sarah Palmer, Briana

Palmer, T.L. Palmer, or Nicholas Palmer-Beck (hereinafter the Protected
Persons):
i.

William Schmalfeldt shall not visit, assault, molest, or otherwise

interfere with the Protected Persons.

ii.

William Schmalfeldt shall not stalk the Protected Persons.

iii.

William Schmalfeldt shall not harass the Protected Persons.

iv.

William Schmalfeldt shall not abuse or injure the Protected

Persons.

v.

William Schmalfeldt shall not contact the Protected Persons by

telephone, written communication, or electronic means.

vi.

William Schmalfeldt shall not enter or remain present at the

Protected Persons residence or place of employment.

b.

William Schmalfeldt also shall not contact Michael W. Palmer or any

person acting on his behalf. If Michael W. Palmer or any person acting on
his behalf should contact William Schmalfeldt, William Schmalfeldt shall
explain that he is not to have contact with that person and end that contact
as soon as practicable.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that such consent decree shall constitute a permanent
injunction.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this day of

, 2016







BY THE COURT

NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge