Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Three years ago, Karoli Kuns joined in Team Kimberlin’s effort to spin a false narrative about me and my interactions with Bill Schmalfeldt. That resulted in a chain of posts three years ago today that began with this one.

* * * * *

I see that Karoli Kuns has a long piece up at Crooks and Liars. Clearly, it was not subjected to fact checking. Consider this typical paragraph which I will fisk:

To a large extent, it succeeded. Hoge filed numerous requests for peace orders which were routinely rejected by the Court. [I filed two.] After they were denied, Hoge appealed. [Only the first one.] Finally, Hoge scored on appeal and found a sympathetic ear in Judge Thomas Stansfield of Carroll County, who had no experience with online social networks or blogs. Judge Stansfield granted Hoge his peace order under Maryland’s domestic violence laws. [No. The peace order was granted under a Courts & Judicial Procedures statute. Protective orders, which are not the same thing, are granted under a Family Law article.] Schmalfeldt was ordered not to contact Hoge at work [No. The order does not mention my workplace because I was retired at the time it was issued.] or contact him by phone. (None of these things had ever happened or could happen because Schmalfeldt does not have the physical ability or desire to visit Hoge anywhere at any time.) He was also barred from contacting Hoge via email. [He is prohibited from contacting (by any means), attempting to contact, or harassing me.]

I’ve been told that accuracy in reporting has never been Karoli’s strong suit. After reading stuff like this, I’m inclined to believe that characterization.

She is no more accurate in her description of the state of the law in Maryland.

But Maryland also needs to evaluate how they’ve structured their peace order process. A simple refinement to the law which limited peace order requests to those where there was an established domestic relationship or closer physical proximity would have eliminated this problem and ended a lot of stress and aggravation for Schmalfeldt. As it stands now, any Maryland citizen can invent the idea that a criminal act has been committed against them online, take that idea to the courthouse and turn it into a peace order. This entraps people in a litigation net who do not belong there while depriving them of the same protections other citizens receive.

In fact, Maryland has two different procedures for dealing with conflicts outside of the criminal justice system. The first, Protective Orders, deals conflicts between family members or domestic partners. This is what Brett Kimberlin sought to use against his wife, unsuccessfully in the end.

The second, Peace Orders, deals with conflict between non-related parties. To obtain a peace order, one must prove (to the “clear and convincing” standard) to a judge during an adversarial hearing that one is the victim of one or more of a specified list of crimes. In my case against Schmalfeldt that was harassment. Harassment via the Internet is harassment. There is not an exception because blogs or Twitter were used.

I am not amused by this either.

sir robin shieldUPDATE—Karoli has taken down comments to her post that relate to the actual facts of the situation with Bill Schmalfeldt, and she has announce that she will not permit any more such comments. She claims that her post is really about how screwed up Maryland’s laws are. If they were as she describes them, I would probably agree. However, she does not correctly describe Maryland’s Peace Order stature or how it works.

Not only does she have her facts wrong, she has her facts about the law wrong.

* * * * *

That post prompted Matt Osborne to butt in and me to post this in response to him.

* * * * *

Matt Osborne attempted to comment here at Hogewash!:MO201404271221ZI did and found these questions which I present with my answers.OsborneEmailWhy do I get the feeling that this is not a benign inquiry?

UPDATE—MO201404271300ZSome questions are so nonsensical that they do not deserve an answer, but I’ll make an exception for this one.

What Matt Osborne is lamely trying to do is appeal to everyone’s inherent sense of justice. Human beings are wired to favor fairness, and, of course, it would be unfair for me to engage in sadistic harassment. One of the problems with the question is its being based on the false premise that I am the harasser in the Hoge/Schmalfeldt interaction.

There is an important theological problem with Osborne’s question as well, and I intend to deal with it in a longer post later today.

Stay tuned.

* * * * *

And I wrote about that theological problem in this post called On Justice.

* * * * *

“No fair!”

Every one of us has said it beginning from the time we were small children. Human beings seem to be wired with a predisposition to fairness. Indeed, evolutionary psychologists like Jonathan Haidt believe that the moral sense of fairness is a universal human trait. Outrage is a normal, heathy response to unfair treatment. We want the world to be set to rights. We want justice in what seems to be an unjust world.

As a Christian, I believe that the source of justice is God. It says in Genesis that we were created in His image, so it makes sense to me that more we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit to be what God intends for us to be, the more we would desire justice. Sometimes Christians are called to deal with the grander problems of the world—think of William Wilberforce, Desmond Tutu, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King, Jr.—but, most of the the time, most of us deal with the seemingly smaller injustices of the world. Sometimes a Christian is called to stand up to a bully.

Bill Schmalfeldt is a such a bully. For years, he has harassed others on the Internet, and no one was able to bring him to justice. That task seems to have fallen to me.

Schmalfeldt’s surprised reaction has been to whine, “No fair! You hit me back.” However, even that’s not strictly true. I haven’t taken personal revenge on him. I’ve reported him to the proper authorities and left any action taken to them.

The real question I face is not what Jesus thinks of my allegedly sadistic treatment of Bill Schmalfeldt. That question is based in the false premise that I am the sadist in the interactions between us. No, the real question is what Jesus would think of my failure to stand up a thug like Schmalffeldt who is bullying others.

Has my response to Schmalfeldt been perfect? Probably not. But my conscience is clear. It would not be if I had failed to step in between him and some of his victims.

* * * * *

I’m not done with him yet.

16 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • The Amazon review on Mr. William M. Schmalfeldt’s “Trump & The Seven Deadly Sins: (With Selected Retellings of the Bible to Suit the #MAGA Crowd)” was written by me. And William, the main purpose of this post is to have some written verification that it was not Eric who wrote the review. I suggest you quit blaming Eric for something I and others have done. Here is another suggestion. If you don’t my reviews, get a subpoena, take me to court and make me stop writing reviews. Or you can can quit lying, plagiarizing other people’s work, and actually attempt to produce your own work. And here is one more suggestion, go and reread my my review on Shock Doctor Men’s Ultra Shockskin Hockey Shorts.

  1. Karoli Kuns humiliated herself with her loony conspiracy theories about Anthony Weiner being “hacked” when he got caught sharing sexual pictures with underaged girls. The conspiracy theory Kuns was hawking actually came via Neal Rauhauser and Brett Kimberlin; she just tried to bring the lie to a bigger audience.

    Today, Kuns is doing almost the exact same thing again, claiming posts Joy Ann Reid wrote over 10 years ago are “hacked.” See

    The first time around, it seemed possible Karoli Kuns was just stupid, in a “fool me once” kind of way. Now that she’s doing the exact same thing again, it’s more likely she is evil. Thus, it now looks more like Kuns intentionally ran a bad-faith smear campaign on behalf of pedophile bomber Brett Kimberlin, knowing she was spreading lies. It wasn’t an honest (if stupid) error. She’s just a liar and she doesn’t care if she’s doing the lying on behalf of a killer who molests children.

    Kuns is a disgrace. She’s much worse than she first looked. I no longer think she’s just stupid and addled by partisan politics. Please help ensure her gross behavior followers her around unless and until she atones to her innocent victims, whom she targetted in retaliation for their valuable work to stop Brett Kimberlin’s crime sprees.

    • A little more on how dumb Karoli Kuns’ excuse-making is (click through to see the thread:

      Karoli Kuns’ defense of child predator Anthony Weiner can no longer be seen as an honest error made by someone blinded by politics. Her collaboration with wife-beater and deadbeat dad Neal Rauhauser wasn’t a mere lapse in judgment. And her decision to help serial bomber and pedophile Brett Kimberlin’s harassment campaign was no accident. She intentionally and knowingly lied. She’s still doing this sort of thing. What a disgusting person. Neal Rauhauser and Brett Kimberlin obviously judged her correctly when they assumed she’d slime people for them.

  2. It would be interesting which churches these bullies attend. If they can ask you, Mr. Hoge and expect an answer, why shouldn’t we expect such an answer from them? And if they do not answer or do not attend any church, why do they think they know what Jesus said or meant? They are certainly not clergyfolk in any of the several hundred Christian denominations of which I am aware.

  3. Bill Schmalfeldt
    Two words for @KDSNRadio. “Detrimental reliance.” Then, if they wish to reimburse themselves out of the hides of people who fed them false information, I will be happy to assist.

    Hooboy here we go, he’s suing KDSN? Why no, Iowa is an at will state

    Iowa is commonly referred to as an “at-will state,” which means that unless an employment contract details the duration of the employment relationship and/or under what circumstances an employee can be fired (for example, “good cause”), an employer can pretty much come up with any reason it wants to terminate an employee — even if the reason is for a bad cause or no cause at all.

    Consider this example: An employer can terminate an employee because it doesn’t agree with the employee’s taste in music or, perhaps more realistically, an employer can terminate an employee the first time the employee shows up late for work, even if it only happened once. Furthermore, an employer generally doesn’t even have to tell an employee why he or she is being terminated or provide any set notice of termination.

  4. Oh, baloney. Maybe someone on Twitter should let the radio station know that there is no “detrimental reliance” because BS is receiving full disability payments. That’s an interesting little fact that they might like to know about.

    • it never occurs to him that he might have to prove that some spread “false information” does it??

      it also never occurs to him that his own words/actions are the direct cause of everything that has, is and will befall him till he goes toes up….

      Dumbf5ck is right.

  5. Karoli has always made herself look like a hateful fool. Osborn, Billy, and Willy the Cat Lady have all followed suit. Pretty much all failures in life, that crew. Billy just happens to excel in the failure arena.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s