#BillSchmalfeldt, Ace Legal Scholar

WMSBroad201311091607ZU.S. v. Sullivan? I wonder which of the U.S. v. Sullivan cases the Cabin Boy thinks is applicable to his situation.

In U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the Supreme Court ruled that profits from the sale of illegal liquor were subject to income tax.

U.S. v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689 (68 S.Ct. 331, 92 L.Ed. 297), deals with provisions of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

I wonder if he’s going try to base his defense on being drunk or on drugs?

AFTERWORD—If the Cabin Boy meant New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), that deals with defamation, not harassment or failure to comply with a peace order. The appropriate Supreme Court case dealing with obeying court orders is most likely Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967).

16 thoughts on “#BillSchmalfeldt, Ace Legal Scholar

  1. it irritates me that he constantly seems to confuse talking/tweeting/blogging ABOUT someone as the same as talking/tweeting/emailing/contacting TO someone as if they are somehow interchangeable and there for both are protected free speech. *eyeroll*. Hoge, you are in my prayers that someone in the judiciary sees him for what he is, recognizes what he continues to do and punishes him accordingly.

    • Thing is, he provably knows better as demonstrated by his emails to the SA. Actions he once admitted were violations but claimed were accidental, he’s now undertaking quite deliberately. He’s been admonished directly by both the SA and the Court to cut the crap and he’s simply refusing to do so, as if he were a toddler testing parental boundaries.

      Methinks he’s going to find himself in the corner for an extended time out. And then it wouldn’t surprise me at all if one of the conditions of his liberty is staying off the internet altogether.

      Perhaps he can make a few phone calls and find someone who’ll put his “:journalism” in print.

  2. Bill is now back to claiming that everyone in the known universe agrees that an @mention is NOT contact. I guess he forgets about the judge that issues and upheld the PO, the Maryland Court of Appeals, and Twitter itself that says it’s contact with someone. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. In the Cabin Boys case, he keeps arguing the same points he has been repeatedly told by the courts are not correct but he seems to keep hoping for a different result. I wonder if deep down he finally realizes that he has run out of any valid argument and will just continue to harass and rage until his next court date?

  3. Of course it’s contact. It directs the message to the person “@”ed. If you want to see whose talking to you, you use the @mention button to view who is trying to talk to you or include you in a conversation. Hoge has a name and a twitter handle, which BS can use to his heart’s desire. He just can’t append the “at” command which sends messages to him.

  4. I don’t understand what is the matter with BS that he can’t just write about Mr. Hoge on Twitter without directing messages at him. Why isn’t that good enough? It doesn’t push a message into his followers threads, the way I once saw him argue. It doesn’t accomplish anything but directing a message to Mr. Hoge.

  5. It would be interesting to know what percentage of BS’s tweets are to WJJH. Virtually every tweet from both accounts has been to @wjjhoge. I think about 95%.

  6. “@thatMrGguy @PoopFlakedBeard You mention me, you get me. Now, about that donut.”

    Odd to see him claim that an @ is not contact yet all you need do is write his name to summon him into the pentacle. I suppose doublethink is easy for him as two separate can live on opposite sides of his huge cavernous noggin and never catch sight of each other.

    And did no one else notice “illuminaries”?

    • He plays this little mind game where he pretends that as long as he does not refer to WJJH in the first person, it’s not contact. Everybody knows it is contact; even so, he spoke to WJJH in the first person at least six times today. Will be interesting to hear him read those aloud in court. They were particularly egregious.

    • Oh, yes, I noticed. Interesting, the verbal prowess of this so-called journalist. And I can’t help but think “poop sock” every time he posts his new website.

    • Yeah, the tweet before that one came out of the blue from another one of his sock puppet accounts. I believe since he is banned from commenting at TOM, he was answering a rhetorical question I posited in the tweet.

      I replied to him to do something anatomically incorrect and not to contact me again, after which he used another sock and tweeted me again. Easy way to get blocked and reported for SPAM.

Leave a Reply