A Reckless Disregard for the Truth

Over the past year, Bill Schmalfeldt has published many false statements about me.

He has falsely accused me of stalking.RadioWMS201307121530Z

He has falsely accused me of trying to entrap him in violations of the peace order issued against him.P-O20131023He’s falsely accused me of misappropriating money from the Tetyana Kimberlin’s legal fund.wmsradio1942dotcom20131102

And he’s doubled down on that false story.WMS201311032001Z

He’s even had trouble keep the amount correct.P-O20131228

He’s falsely reported that I used the fund raised for Tetyana Kimberlin’s legal aid for the purpose of suborning perjury.db201401041234Zdb201401041705Z

He has spun a false tale about the complaints I’ve filed concerning his violations of the peace order.pupsoc201311131740Z

And he doubled down on that one too.P-O20131123b

He has falsely accused me of hating Muslims.WMSBroad201311202247Z

He has falsely claimed that I lied about him in a pleading filed in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness and has attempted to use that as an excuse for violating our mediation agreement—in spite of documented proof that my allegation about his behavior is true.PBT201403152048Z

He has falsely accused me of sending pornographic images to him.PBT201403171811Z

He has falsely accused me of asserting ownership of the copyright of one of his books.@PatO201404211906Z

He has falsely accused me of sending my “minions” to disrupt the publication of one of his books.KillTheBookThese are a representative selection of the documented defamatory remarks that Bill Schmalfeldt has published about me. It would be in his best interest either to publish evidence supporting each of the false statements he has made about me or to retract and apologize for those he cannot prove.

He would probably find it advantageous to do so soon.

Very soon.

26 thoughts on “A Reckless Disregard for the Truth

  1. I wonder based on all the above how Boxer Bill can get away with tweeting this:

    But then I realized that he doesn’t think he has to prove anything. In his fantasy world, only the accused must prove their innocence, and when they do, he just has to move his goal posts, or deflect, so that he can say that the questions were never answered.

    Sadly, Maryland does not seem to have any criminal libel laws. Perhaps a suggestion should be made to the MD legislators that that should be something to remedy, rather than figuring out how to let Boxer Bill attack anyone who annoys him with impunity while he hides behind his Parkinson’s, thereby disgracing the thousands who suffer with that disease and do so with grace and dignity.

    • Sadly, Maryland does not seem to have any criminal libel laws.

      Oh, yes they do! All you have to do it get in touch with the States Attorney PR Ofiice and tell them all the bad stuff mean old Hoge has been…

      Oh, wait. Nevermind.

  2. Aw c’mon! Were you legally obligated to warn him? I’m sure this will cause a brilliant online explosion, but that’s old hat. I’d rather see him served with a summons by a professional process server, not an unfrozen caveman process server who checks the restricted delivery box after the fact.

  3. The reality is that the number of proto-paralegals in Maryland willing to take his case on a pro bono basis could be lower in the immediate future than it might be in the intermediate future. That is because the only proto-paralegal I see who seems likely take his case pro bono is tied up in other cases. When those cases end, he just might have the necessary time to devote to helping Bill Schmalfeldt.

    The second-hand rantings I read emanating from Elkridge seem to have two distinct themes. The first is a wanna-be sadist who enters his “sweaty-palmed happy place in describing the degradation of others.” The second is that of a poor man dissatisfied with his lot in life wanting to improve his finances. [Oddly, the same is true for the rantings of Neal Raushauser and Brett Kimberlin.]

    I have to say that Schmalfeldt’s literary efforts aren’t exactly a labor of love. Any real writer, or real journalist, would be embarrassed by the book’s poor production values, and overall low quality. What he writes is more like Jim Wright’s cut-and-paste collections of quotes from the campaign trail. Wright’s book wasn’t intended to be read. It was intended to be purchases in bulk quantities by lobbyists having business before Congress. It was about the money. So is Schmalfeldt’s book. Schmalfeldt’s basic problem with sales is that he has no followers, no fans, no talent, and there isn’t anyone out there needing to curry his favor by buying his book in bulk quantities destined for the garbage bin.

    Schmalfeldt, if he were smart, would shut his mouth. He is oblivious to what he has to lose. While he might fancy himself judgment proof, he might just see any potential stream of royalties diverted to satisfy a judgment against him. I don’t see a lawsuit for harassment asking for the costs of pursuing the peace orders ending in anything other than immediate summary judgment in your favor, Res Judicata etc. Sure, Schmalfeldt could continue to write, and publish, but, ultimately, he would be doing so for your financial benefit. What he would lose is more that the miniscule royalties at stake. What he would lose is any hope of working his way out of his current situation. That might very well be a crushing realization. He should have thought about the consequences to himself before he lashed out at others.

    Hitting the road in a couple of days.

  4. A note to the Elkridge Horror:
    (Apologies to H.P. Lovecraft)

    (I know you peruse this blog many times during your waking hours, so I write to you here)

    “It would be in his best interest either to publish evidence supporting each of the false statements he has made about me or to retract and apologize for those he cannot prove.”

    Why does a U.S. Navy warship Captain fire a warning shot across the bow of another vessel? You often portray yourself as a seasoned old salt with vast knowledge about things “Navy”. After the first volley of “warning shots”, something else with a lot more ‘firepower’ is coming down the stack, isn’t it? Are you financially and mentally prepared for those consequences? Don’t begin your “vast” legal effort with a “half-vast” dossier.

    Pause and focus here for just a minute as you personally encounter what I like to term as “one of the really important decision diamonds of life”. Your next actions will, in all probability, determine your future and that of those who depend upon you. No US Senator, US Representative, Governor, no any other political or public figure is going to champion your cause because, in fact, you have no cause. Reflect on that for just a moment….You have NO cause here. Instead, you have in all probability lost almost all of your support within the community of people with whom you are associated. No one, but a psychologically disturbed minority, is going to support your particular brand of character assassination. Your alligator mouth has really overloaded your hummingbird ass!

    You cutely portrayed your residence as “The Ranch” when you wrote about your visit from the HoCo Sheriff’s Office about a week or two ago. I chuckled when I read that because it was a clever attempt at subterfuge from the harsh reality that you currently face. It is one of the ways that you erroneously use to avoid facing real, actual truth! That truth is that you are indeed a crude practitioner of what is loosely termed “yellow journalism” – a distasteful and illegal way of libeling someone with whom you disagree or dislike. You are a seasoned practitioner of it only because your seemingly seething unmitigated hatred towards all with whom you disagree reinforces it. Your continued stress on the “bona fides” of membership in various professional journalism activities belies your real practice of ‘fantasy’ writing. You constantly twist the real truth to more adequately fit the deeply dark disturbed world that you see, in my opinion.

    Mr. Hoge has been remarkably restrained in the face of your unwarranted and undeserved libel, in my opinion, and has finally given you a “red line” to consider. Fortunately, our society provides effective remedies to correct in damages from untruth! You can either immediately correct all of your libel and immediately cease all your pernicious behavior toward Mr. Hoge or you can choose to face the consequences of your unwarranted and false comments about him before a suitable tribunal, the costs of which will be most burdensome for you. I remind you again of the absolute lack of financial support from your community of “friends” – even those close friends that “snicker” or “titter” behind your back when you expose the lack of your legal knowledge in court. You alone must make this decision; the paths ahead are clearly defined and open to you. Unlike those that you have egregiously tormented over the years with your cruelty, you are graciously being given a chance to pull yourself back from the brink. I would not give you this opportunity; I would simply haul you into the real arena of a “friendly” Federal Court and let ordinary citizens pass judgment on you. You would lose.

    “It would be in his best interest either to publish evidence supporting each of the false statements he has made about me or to retract and apologize for those he cannot prove.”

    As one of Mr. Hoge’s newest readers, I believe he has been remarkably restrained in his reaction to your libelous behavior. I have read about your extremely cruel behavior towards innocent and vulnerable others in ways that I have never before encountered; behavior that in my opinion appears to be the direct result of a seething unrestrained hatred often encountered in the most violent criminal behavior of the institutionalized. Your bizarre sexual predilections and fantasies have no place in society.

    I could write my own book about you and your extremely cruel treatment of others, but frankly I find you distasteful and rather boring. You indeed have reached a fork in the road that is determinative for you. Mr. Hoge has been far braver than myself because he faces you openly, not behind a veneer of electronic haze. Personally, I would never trust you with anything because you are an individual who delights in betraying trusts. For that reason, I believe that you should forever forfeit your access to the Internet because of your cruel abuses of others. Mr. Hoge has generously offered you a way back from the precipice you now face.

    “It would be in his best interest either to publish evidence supporting each of the false statements he has made about me or to retract and apologize for those he cannot prove.”

    Just sayin’

  5. It is almost like there has been an organized effort by a group of people over a period of time to spread false information about you intentionally and maliciously.

    This sounds oddly familiar….

  6. Oh Schmalfeldt’s not the only guy who refuses to stop smearing – in fact more smears against two well known conservatives by a very disgruntled conservative pundit just started up again….. this has gone on for years and one day he’s going to end up in jail….

    There is something about the first amendment and the internet that people think:

    1. They can say anything they want
    2. Can act anyway they want
    3. Anyone who disagrees with them is wrong
    4. Unless proven wrong, they are automatically right
    5. When in Libel, claim its opinion or satire
    6. Google bombing isn’t an actionable offense
    7. That they are not subject to the laws of other states

    I would seek justice in Virginia and surrounding states any place that you receive any business inquiries from or have any clients that even have an office there.

    Bring the pain……

  7. Given WJJH’s past behavioral patterns, I suggest that the examples he has provided in this blog post are among the more benign statements by BS. I suggest that what WJJH chose not to reprint may involve more obscene repetitions of the same accusations. In other words, those are not one-time statements.

  8. Pro tips: when some accuses you of libel or slander, and asks you to provide clear proof of or retract those statements, that is called “notice” not “extortion.”

    • Heh. Extortion requires a demand for something of value or for the extortee to perform an illegal act.
      Notice requires factual substantiation of public accusations prior to the commencement of legal (civil or criminal) actions. It is a gentleman’s final act of restraint in the face of illegalities.

    • Whoa. What an amazing coincidence that you were in this situation, and you resolved it in the way you did.

      I’ve learned that we usually can’t fix damage we do to other people. Some things are unfixable. But there’s still some way to make good, even if it’s bitter medicine at first. Kudos for writing that post. I think people dismiss doing the right thing since it doesn’t undo the past. But nothing undoes the past. The right thing won’t undo it, the wrong thing won’t undo it…

      I wasn’t too aware of many (any?) of the bloggers you apologize to during the time you were attacking them, but I have read some after-the-fact references to the attacks. I think they consisted of accusations of some kind of scam. Which is quite a problem if (as it seems) there’s no truth to it, even if the idea was developed by other attackers first. What I don’t think you did was to phone up the accusee’s wives, call their employers, call CPD on them, post pictures of their private residences, make personal scatalogical and anatomical comments about their immediate families… Which makes it all the more important for Bill to stop the road he’s on and get on the right one (not holding my breath on that one). I imagine his harassment victims might not all want to hear from him again even if it’s only an apology, but the right thing is still the right thing even if it doesn’t undo all the consequences.

      • Thank you for your kindness. P’rhaps now you will understand some of Bill’s attacks on me as well as reference to my being a pariah (and hoping over time to become a lesser pariah, perhaps even a marginally accepted former pariah, only time will tell) …

  9. Typically I’m leery of defamation suits- but you’re already 10 steps ahead of virtually every other defamation suit filed because you’ve identified actual statements he’s made, rather than being vague about it like the thugs who abuse them are. You’ve also identified him accusing you of some pretty serious crimes that probably would fall under the category of defamation per se.

    The only remaining problems might be the other requirements: it has to be a credible statement of fact, and you have to be not a public figure or this be an issue of public interest. The latter, the existence of your blog and having blogged about a lot of these issues might create some issues there. But even that can be overcome if you can demonstrate malice, which I think a number of these statements (combined with his other statements about you, and the existence of the peace order) can demonstrate.

    The former issue is going to be a lot more difficult. Twitter is going to be difficult, because it’s a source people are a lot less likely to take seriously, so it’s going to be more difficult for anything said on there to be a credible statement of fact. Might actually be useful to snag a copy of his books, if you can. Bet you dimes to dollars that he’s republished a lot of the accusations in there, which would be a lot more credible as statements of fact.

    But yeah. Any way you slice it, I think this is definitely worthy of being litigated in the courts, and Schmalfeldt needs to learn that specious accusations are not valid means of debate or rhetorical tactics.

    • In response to “Schmalfeldt needs to learn that specious accusations are not valid means of debate or rhetorical tactics.”

      Remember, he thinks what he’s doing is journalism. To him, that’s what journalism consists of. It’s fair to say Karoli Kuns and Matt Osborne think the same way. If the activities literally rise to harassment, that’s still very much what they consider journalism. After all, they’re RIGHT! and the people who disagree with them must be EVIL! and – just like the Church of Scientology would argue – they have become FAIR GAME and you can say and do whatever the hell you want concerning them.

      Speaking of which, I was trying to keep my eyes off Twitter since this whole thing erupted, but I noticed Suzanne Munshower chiming in. She seems to have a similar definition of journalism. Figures she’d be attracted to all this, and approve.

  10. Bill is in for a world of trouble. Judging from what I’ve observed over the past year or so, he’s not going to stop, and he’s not going to print any retractions. #notsmart

Leave a Reply