Brett Kimberlin’s campaign of pro se lawfare was not the only way Team Kimberlin went after their perceived enemies. Many of us were subjected to various forms of online harassment, and one of the principal agents of that harassment was Bill Schmalfeldt. I was the first person to bring some consequences his way when I sought a peace order against him. After it was granted, he tried to get it modified. Nine years ago today, I reported on what happened at the hearing on his motion to modify. In Summary …

* * * * *

… what Judge Stansfield told Bill Schmalfeldt in court yesterday was this:

1. The Misuse of Electronic Communication statute has no bearing on the Hoge v. Schmalfeldt peace order because none of the court’s findings were based on it. The court found Schmalfeldt to have violated the Harassment statute.

2. @mentions per se are not at issue in the case. While the direct contact involved in the finding of harassment came via @mentions, the order prohibits all further contact, attempts to contact, or harassment.

3. There is no “journalism” exception to Maryland’s Harassment law.

4. U.S. v. Cassidy deals with publications about someone. Hoge v. Schmalfeldt deals with communication directed to someone.

5. All the questions above were settled at trial and will not be retried unless the Court of Appeals remands the case for retrial.

Now, what new circumstance require that the order be modified?

* * * * *

Of course, the new circumstances resulting from Schmalfeldt’s misbehavior under the terms of the peace order did not lead to it being modified.

However, they were the bases for extension of the order a few months later.

Schmalfeldt has been a slow learner.