Prevarication Du Jour

Here’s a doozie …DERPSEC201312101221Z

When asked to cite a case where the Supremes had so ruled, the response was …

[crickets].

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”?

17 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour


  1. Bill just can’t stop arguing the case. How many accounts can this guy come up with? Maybe he should just accept defeat and move on.


  2. Yes, the pro-harassment crowd wants to put the burden of behavior modification on their victims. Then again, that’s the whole point isn’t it?


  3. LibtardMedia is now arguing with Aaron Worthing over this and claims to be a “legal scholar” . When I asked what his qualifications where, he exploded in NERDRAGE.

    “We R talking about butthurt assrage over a TWEET, a TWEET, setting new legal precedents over a TWEET ”

    I am assuming another Acme Law graduate.


    • You assume correctly. He tweeted this: “I am a journalist and copy writer/editor & I have plenty of formal legal training. Hence my interest.”

      Pro tip: Legal scholars, i.e., actual lawyers, have worked too damn hard to refer to an actual law degree as “plenty of formal legal training.” This guy/gal is NOT a lawyer, and not a “legal scholar.”


      • I see a familiar pattern here. Leftists like Libtard are so used to living in an echo chamber and having their asses kissed that when they are subject to actual cross examination they cry and call you “hostile.”


    • Nope, the account is still there, but the tweet linked to above appears to have been deleted. Anyone know what it said?


      • I think you made the point brilliantly. I see he has now protected his account. Typical behavior from these folks. Go full bore with a really stupid argument, get caught, hide like a coward.


  4. Its an astonishingly stupid claim – that it is obviously false just goes to it being a lie – as its not the kind of topic the US Supreme Court were ever rule upon.

Leave a Reply