Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt is lying.CBPR201411121734Z

There is no question that TDPS has posted pictures that meet the definition of pornography under the Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15) standard.

He posted a picture of two men engaging in anal sex with my face photoshopped onto the body of the the one being penetrated. The picture was originally posted at [dead link]. The page disappeared when the copyright holder of the video from which my face had been lifted asked that the picture be removed.

Schmalfeldt posted another picture into which my face had been photoshopped. It showed my face surrounded by naked men with erect penises. Again, the link is dead—this time because the web host took the site down for violation of its policy against porn. The original URL was This is the picture which may use a photo of me taken while I was underage.

Even if I could, I wouldn’t post either of those pictures here, but I can’t. Judge Stansfield placed them under seal during the peace order extension hearing last year. However, the pictures are part of the record of the hearing as is Schmalfeldt’s admission of having made and posted them. That record can be used as evidence in any further proceeding.

The Cabin Boy™ is correct in saying that I want no part of anything that is about to happen about, to, or because of him. If he thinks things through with the least bit of clarity, he should realize that he doesn’t want me involved either.

24 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. It’s not well known, but I (after others) have found that it was about 10 years ago that Brett first recruited the deranged cyberstalker to help with his dirty work.

    I believe it is important to make sure Brett feels the heat for his integral and seminal role in winding up the Cabin Boy to carry on these disgusting attacks. Yes, criticize the deranged cyberstalker if you must, but don’t absolve his master of responsibility while you’re at it. Brett Kimberlin must be held to account for any and all involvement or encouragement of all these attacks against Kimberlin critics. No matter how long it takes.

  2. All I can say is, someone out there in lala land was offended by a remark that wasn’t directed at them and didn’t mention them and was clearly opinion.

    If someone graphically describes a sex scene between grade school kids, even as a joke, or as a silly cartoon, and then markets to a worldwide distribution and markets it as explicit and homosexual I would personally be worried about Maryland 11-207 (3) (5). Marketing something worldwide could expose someone (who was dumb enough to make an explicit audio tape of a hypothetical scenario of grade school boys having gay sex) to every jurisdiction in the country, every county, and I would not want to be considered for charges overseas.

    I can only imagine that every single person arrested for these offenses has used the argument it wasn’t really porn or it wasn’t explicit etc – a careful reread of the 11-207 addresses it in the manner that all you have to do is suggest it or describe it and or encourage others or just market it.

    In a stretch such activity might in the most favorable of environments be protected opinion, just like someone else thinking it was child porn, but the act of marketing it for profit, WORLDWIDE, I think a reasonable Judge or jury could return a max sentence of 10 years.

    • Someone with a previously sterling reputation might want to avoid doing things to end up on the sex offender registry. That of course is a natural result of publicly fantasizing about preteen abuse. Even as parody.

      • Doesn’t a “parody” have to have something it’s based off of?

        So far it seems that he refuses to understand or even admit the existence of the “describe” portion of the statute, which to those with normal reading comprehension includes writing said private fantasy up and publishing it. It does not require pictures of real children, or for the child/children in said description of the sex act to even be recognizable living child/children.

        So a “parody” or “satire” about a 9 year old, fictional boy being anally raped would fall under said statute, no?

      • If said person with a formerly sterling reputation had perused a site where they write about sexual things/fantasies, including a section that deals in “non consent/reluctance”, he would have noticed that every time someone could be referred to as “young” there is ALWAYS a disclaimer that “all persons depicted in this work are over the age of 18.” A “non consent/reluctance” fantasy that SPECIFICALLY includes an underage person whose age is MENTIONED PROMINENTLY would NEVER, EVER be allowed for falling afoul of the law regarding pornography with minors. Said site featuring erotic literature might even ban such a person who did such a thing so as not to taint the site and cause it to be shut down as a consequence of running afoul of the law.

        This makes me wonder if the publishers should be notified of the pornographic content because by providing it for publishing makes THEM liable as well. Oh what a pickle indeed!

  3. Like Mike Malone, may he rest in peace, I saw those photos, and some of Ali, when BS posted them and before he took them down.

  4. Cartoon depictions of this are a somewhat ambiguous area. The first amendment restrictions on child pornography are based on the fact that it is harming the vulnerable minor individuals involved (which is why its proponents are trying so hard to claim that it doesn’t harm the children being exploited). A completely computer generated or drawn depiction is where it gets iffy, since no children are actually being abused. It’s why so much of that weird Hentai stuff is out there. This, though – pasting the face of an underage person onto a graphic sex act? This may very well be actionable, since a real person is being exploited.

    -Note: this is not legal advice, merely an opinion based on possibly outdated knowledge from years-ago law school. I am not currently a practicing attorney and this is in no way legal advice.

    • not in Maryland, all you have to do is actually describe and as far as I know the simple advocacy In any media of child sex is a crime under most states statutes

      That’s why even erotica story websites DO NOT allow stories concerning ANYONE a day under 18

      There were more and more cases coming and since someone brags about worldwide distribution…

      • Hah! I’m glad to hear that. Like I said, it’s been awhile since I was in law school and this was one of the hot-button issues at the time, with people arguing the state laws were a violation of first amendment rights. I’m glad to hear that the cases are being decided the sane way.

    • Slightly off the immediate topic, but within the broader spectrum of it’s ignorance of basic legal concepts and more specifically the plain language of the law; reading the MD code on the publication of private conversations does not limit the recording to electronic media. No where is the restriction limited to audio or video recordation. As I read it, I can’t find anywhere that allows for even transcription and re-publication without dual consent. It seems to me prima fascia that the publication of a “verbatim” accounting of a private conversation would be contrary to the letter and intent of the code. It could only be compounding and aggravating that the publisher of the conversation did in fact initiate and direct the conversation. As always, INAL, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express one time; and the code does speak for itself (for a change).

  5. Some one is saying that they will not be in court tomorrow. re Time to End It All at that schmalfeldt dot tar pit.

Leave a Reply