I think so, Brain … but in a few million years won’t Barney be in a can of 10W-30.
“Knowing what the outcome would be …” My, my, my … that’s almost an admission by Bill Schmalfeldt that the charges filed were knowingly false. Still, you have to admire the chutzpah of Team Kimberlin that allowed them to so brazenly attempt to put one of the defendants in The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s vexatious Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. under the same disability to offer testimony as TDPK.
(For those of you just beginning to follow the Saga of The Dread Pirate Kimberlin, Brett Kimberlin is a convicted perjurer, and Maryland has a law that prohibits convicted perjurers from testifying in any court proceeding.)
Brett Kimberlin is suing four other bloggers and me for writing truthful things about him. You can help us defend ourselves and the First Amendment from his lawfare. Go to Bomber Sues Bloggers to find out how.
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see.
I’m told that Bill Schmalfeldt has been whining about my “dirty victory” in court yesterday.
It’s true that my lawyer had a secret strategy that she used against him, and it worked: She let him talk.
Schmalfeldt repeated arguments that previously had been shot down. He asked irrelevant questions. He ranted. He yelled. He pounded the table. He convinced the judge that he intended to continue to disobey the peace order. In short, he made my case for me.
Bill Schmalfeldt can think that was a dirty trick if he wishes. I call it good lawyering.
Now, if Schmalfeldt will simply obey the peace order, I will have no reason to take any particular notice of him. We’ll see how that goes.
When asked to cite a case where the Supremes had so ruled, the response was …
The reason is quite simple. There is no such ruling; the question hasn’t been considered by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the applicable case law says the opposite, including Hoge v. Schmalfeldt (Md. Cir.Ct. Carr.Co. 2013) Case No. 06-C-063359 (cert. denied). Schmalfeldt raised the “@mention isn’t contact” argument in paragraph 2 of his Supplement to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari during his appeal in that case. The Court of Appeals didn’t buy it, finding “there is no showing that review by certiorari is desirable or in the public interest.”
A large part of the hopeful confusion among the pro-harassment crowd relied on their focusing on the fact that Internet harassment is specifically covered by a Maryland statute, but the missed the fact that it violates another Maryland law as well, one that can be a trigger for a peace order. That law, the statute dealing with harassment generally, is the one which the Circuit Court found Schmalfeldt transgressed.
There is no safe harbor in Maryland law for harassment via the Internet.
UPDATE—After referring to those questioning his legal scholarship as “lickspittles,” @LibtardMedia has taken his account private. Now, who would call his opponents “lickspittles”?
Troz! Brain … well, speaking scientifically, it seems that for every action there is an equal but opposite government program.