Schmalfeldt Assists Alex Jones


Not directly, but quite ironically.

Let me explain.

I’ve been remiss in keeping up with my reporting on the Gilmore v. Jones, et al. defamation LOLsuit filed in the U. S. District Court in Charlottesville, Virginia. Brennan Gilmore took the cell phone video of a car ramming into a crowd of protestors in Charlottesville that was posted on Twitter. He is suing Alex Jones and others, claiming that their comments about him and his connection to the event he recorded were defamatory.

IANAL, but it seemed to me that the existing case law would lead the judge to dismiss the case. However, he denied most of the motions to dismiss, allowing the suit to go forward against most of the defendants. Because the judge’s ruling appears to be at odds with case law, the lawyers representing a group of defendants which includes Alex Jones have filed a motion seeking either reconsideration of the ruling or permission to file what is called an interlocutory appeal of that ruling. An appeal would allow the Fourth Circuit to rule on the matter before any significant time and resources are spent on discovery and, perhaps, a trial. Aaron Walker, the lawyer representing a second group of defendants, has filed brief supporting the Jones, et al. motion. (Disclosure: I work with Aaron as a paralegal on First-Amendment-related cases.) Two of the cases he cites in his brief are Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al., No. 4:17-cv-01310 (D.S.C. 2017) and Schmalfeldt v. Johnson, et al., No. 15-CV-1516 (E.D. WI. 2016).

So it may be that Bill Schmalfeldt’s ineptly conducted pro se lawfare will provide support for the dismissal of a suit against Alex Jones.

Heh.

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others


House Democrats introduced their so-called Equality Act in March. If it became law, it would strike down religious freedom protections for private citizens if they ran their own businesses on the basis of their beliefs. In post titled Mayor Pete Will Make You Bake the Cake over at The Washington Free Beacon, Bill Morris discusses Pete Buttigieg’s support for the proposed legislation.

Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg’s public calls for pluralism do not apply to religious small business owners.

South Bend Mayor Buttigieg has made his Episcopalian faith and tolerance a centerpiece of his campaign, but the policies he champions would force religious small business owners to participate in ceremonies they find objectionable under penalty of law. Buttigieg, who is married to a man, will keynote the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner. The nation’s largest LGBT lobbying group credited his support for the Equality Act for the invitation.

So let me get this straight (pun intended). Because this guy has been petitioning for redress of what he sees as grievance based on his personal religious beliefs, he’s been invited to peaceably assemble with likeminded individuals. Uh, huh. I suppose that’s fine to a certain extent, but would he do if the law he advocates passes—and a Muslim demanded he bake (or pay for) a cake advocating the firm application of Sharia to homosexuals?

I’ll bet he’d expect that his beliefs should prevail and be protected by the First Amendment because protected class.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Sergeant Friday’s job involves fact finding. Here’s an episode of Blognet that first ran four years ago today.

* * * * *

BlognetTitleCardMUSIC: Theme. Intro and fade under.

NARRATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

MUSIC: Up, then under …

NARRATOR: You’re a Detective Sergeant. You’re assigned to Internet Detail. Bloggers are being harassed by a convicted terrorist who is suing them for writing about his past. Nothing they’ve written appears to be false, but there is a gap in the terrorists bio. Your job … investigate.

MUSIC: Up then under …

ANNOUNCER: Blognet … the documented drama of an actual case. For the next few minutes, in cooperation with the Twitter Town Sheriff’s Department, you will travel step by step on the side of the good guys through an actual case transcribed from official files. From beginning to end, from crime to punishment, Blognet is the story of the good guys in action.

MUSIC: Up and out. Continue reading

Good News for the First Amendment


Colorado lost its first attempt to crush Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in a 7-to-2 Supreme Court decision affirming the baker’s First Amendment right to practice his religion and not bake a cake dedicated to promoting something contrary to his beliefs. In response, the Colorado (so-called) Civil Rights Commission filed a second case against Phillips. In response, Phillips sued the Commission in federal court alleging violation of his civil rights.

The Daily Signal reports that both the Commission and Phillips have dropped their cases.

The members of the state’s commission could have been held “personally liable” for harassment if the matter continued, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“It’s probably because they may have finally gotten scared that they were going to get hit with sanctions for, in essence, directly thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court and the court’s decision in this issue,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “It could make them personally liable for damages if they abuse their positions to try to harass an individual.”

In the 7-2 majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Phillips’] objection[.]”

It’s amazing how the possibility of being held personally responsible for one’s virtue signaling can change someone’s perspective. Actual accountability and the possibility of real consequences usually moderates behavior.

We need to see more of this.

Quote of the Day


The right to criticize;
The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
The right to protest;
The right of independent thought.
The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

—Margaret Chase Smith

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Here’s the TKPOTD from five years ago today. I’ve got some further comments about The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s absurd stalking claim further below.

* * * * *

This is from paragraph 30 of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s frivolous Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit that he’s filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.BK v AW AmendCompl 30

Brett Kimberlin is a public figure, and any court case involving him is a legitimate news story. A blogger’s attendance at an open court hearing in order to cover such a story is protected by the freedom of the press clause of First Amendment. Furthermore, in order to stalk someone in Maryland … oh, I’ll let the statute explain itself …

Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 3-802

(a) “Stalking” defined. — In this section, “stalking” means a malicious course of conduct that includes approaching or pursuing another where the person intends to place or knows or reasonably should have known the conduct would place another in reasonable fear:
(1) (i) of serious bodily injury;
(ii) of an assault in any degree;
(iii) of rape or sexual offense as defined by §§ 3-303 through 3-308 of this title or attempted rape or sexual offense in any degree;
(iv) of false imprisonment; or
(v) of death; or
(2) that a third person likely will suffer any of the acts listed in item (1) of this subsection.

(b) Applicability. — The provisions of this section do not apply to conduct that is:(1) performed to ensure compliance with a court order;
(2) performed to carry out a specific lawful commercial purpose; or
(3) authorized, required, or protected by local, State, or federal law.

So what TDPK is alleging is that my being in the same courthouse as he was, surrounded by bailiffs, deputy sheriffs, county police, and state troopers, put him in fear of serious bodily injury, assault, rape, false imprisonment, or death—or made him fear for some third party’s safety. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that only a compulsive liar could say that with a straight face.

But let’s pretend that he really was frightened by my being at the courthouse. As the judges have told him, I had a right under state law to be present at open court hearings. There is also the protection offered by First Amendment, but Brett Kimberlin has shown over and over again that his is no friend of the freedoms of speech or of the press.

* * * * *

For some reason, the judge who presided at the hearing on motions to dismiss the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. LOLsuit failed to dismiss the stalking count. She should have because stalking isn’t a cause of action for a civil suit in Maryland. Indeed, stalking not being a tort was the ground that the judge who presided at the hearing on motions for summary judgment threw out the claim at that point.

Shining the light on certain vermin will usually make them scurry away into hiding. Not all of them can make to cover, and some of the ones who can’t will try to extraordinary means to punish those who tell the truth.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


About a month-and-a-half after The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin filed his Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance LOLsuit against Aaron Walker, Ali Akbar, Stacy McCain, Kimberlin Unmasked, and me, he filed the his federal LOLsuit that I mockingly referred to as Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness LOLsuit. By the time he finished adding parties, there were two dozen defendants in that case. The RICO Madness LOLsuit was dismissed except for one count against one defendant. A civil rights complaint against Patrick Frey (who blogs as Patterico) was allowed to go forward into discovery. I renamed that part of the case the RICO Remnant LOLsuit.

Although I was a non-party in Kimberlin v. Frey, TDPK sent me a subpoena for emails and other communication I had had with Patterico. The service on the subpoena was defective, so I didn’t have to comply. However, I voluntarily gave Kimberlin the emails I had which were not subject to joint defense privilege. I did so because there was nothing in the emails that was related to his LOLsuit, and I hoped to avoid any further involvement in the case,

I was wrong.

Kimberlin asked the court to sanction me because I didn’t give him what he wanted.

Three years ago today, I ran a Kimberlin v. Frey News post that contained my opposition to his motions for sanctions. As you can see, I had to file part of my opposition under seal.

* * * * *

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin filed a motion for contempt or sanctions against me in the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit. Last week, he finally got around to serving a copy of the motion on me. I have now filed a response. Because I had to discuss confidential discovery material from the case in my filing, I have filed it partially under seal.

Here is the redacted version that is publicly available on PACER.

The motions speak for themselves. I do not wish to make any further comment on the matter until the court has ruled.

* * * * *

The court never actually ruled on Kimberlin’s motion to sanction me. However, it became moot when summary judgment was granted in Patterico’s favor and the case was terminated.

I’m still bound by the protective order, so I can’t talk about the contents of the emails, except to say the really weren’t helpful to Kimberlin’s case. In fact, if I hadn’t been bound by the protective order, I might have used them in my suit against Kimberlin.

Whatever.