Rebekah Jones, Criminal Docket 2019

Yesterday, we took a look at the Leon County, Florida, civil case involving Rebekah Jones. Today, we’ll delve into a still ongoing criminal case.

As we saw yesterday, Jones was subjected to a stalking injunction because of her harassment of a former student (Garrett Sweeterman) with whom she had a sexual relationship. In July, 2019, she was charged with three misdemeanors (2019 MM 10894): Stalking, Stalking—Sexually Cyber Harass Another Person, and Stalking—Follow Harass Cyberstalk Another Person. The case is still open and has been consolidated on the first charge of Stalking.

Here is the charging affidavit filed by the Tallahassee Police Department. The redactions are in the publicly available version on the court’s website—

We’ll take a look at her 2020 record tomorrow as part of Everybody Blog About Rebekah Jones Day.

Stay tuned.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

In the early days of Team Kimberlin’s attempts at online harassment, their tactics often involved Cybersquatting and Cyberstalking. This post from seven years ago described part of what they were up to.

* * * * *

Cybersquatting, according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), includes using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The sharp-eyed Gentle Reader will notice the ™ symbol next to the Hogewash! logo in the site banner. The Fine Print for this site provides this notice:

Hogewash! and hogewash.com are trademarks owned by W. J. J. Hoge.

The hogwash dot net website is an example of a cybersquatting. It isn’t a parody so much as an attempt to use the goodwill of the Hogewash! trademark to provide a benefit for someone not entitled to use the mark.

OK, so why haven’t I taken action against that site?

The principal reason is that the person creating the site is actually giving my lawyer information that is helpful to me in a legal matter. Another reason is that I believe the material on that site is so outlandish and offensive as to do more damage to the site’s operator than to me.

In any case, I reserve the right to file a complaint either via ICANN or the courts if I choose.

Let’s move on to cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass someone. Stalking is a crime in Maryland. Some people think that the Maryland law requires the act of following someone around and that a homebound invalid really couldn’t be a stalker.

They’re wrong.

In Hackley v. State, 866 A.2d 906 (2005), the Court of Appeals (Maryland’s highest court) ruled

… that the General Assembly did not intend the stalking statute’s requirement of a “malicious course of conduct that includes approaching or pursuing another person” to be limited to conduct that is done in the victim’s actual physical presence and with the victim’s concurrent awareness.

Md. Criminal Law § 3-802 defines stalking as

[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

—and this bit is often overlooked—

(2) that a third person likely will suffer any of the acts listed in item (1) of this subsection.

Yep. In Maryland, it is possible to stalk someone by stalking someone else, a provision intended to allow a parent or spouse to seek protection because someone is stalking a family member (for example.)

The Court interpreted “includes” to mean “this is an example that doesn’t rule out others.” It upheld Hackley’s conviction which was based on his delivering messages to where his victim might find them. The Legislature has since revised the statute without correcting the Court’s interpretation.

Given that precedent, it’s possible that a Maryland court could find a person who delivered threats of the sort listed in § 3-802 via the Internet to be guilty of stalking.

UPDATE—I see that Team Kimberlin has already been in touch with their legal advisor at Acme.TK20130723

They are entitled to their opinion, but I’ll stick with the fact that the U. S. Patent & Trademark Office says that federal registration of a trademark is not required. As the Harvard Law webpage cited in the attempted comment notes:

Assuming that a trademark qualifies for protection, rights to a trademark can be acquired in one of two ways: (1) by being the first to use the mark in commerce; or (2) by being the first to register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).

[My emphasis.] While registration does offer some legal advantages by providing a presumption that the mark is valid, prior use in the marketplace will usually defeat a registration. The Hogewash! trademark has been in continuous use by this website since 24 July, 2011.

UPDATE 2—At 11:57 am ET (15:57 GMT on the time stamp), Bill Schmalfeldt sent the following tweet:RadioWMS201307231601Z

I just reread my post, and I can’t find where I say I am suing anyone. In fact, I explain why I’m not suing anyone. Other than by accident or mistake, does Bill Schmalfeldt ever tell the truth?

* * * * *

My podcasting partner Stacy McCain has referred to Bill Schmalfeldt as a deranged cyberstalker. Ken White (aka Popehat) has called Schmalfeldt a demented freak. Rather that choose, I believe this is a case where I can embrace the power of AND.

Also, not only were Team Kimberlin inept at these and other forms of cyberbullying, they failed when they tried construct cases to frame Aaron Walker or me with cyberstalking charges.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Several years ago at the peak of Bill Schmalfeldt’s cyberstalking, it became useful to begin tracking his visits to Hogewash!, and for a while I began publishing a record of his logins to the site. He must not have liked being caught skulking about, and he began lying about how often he viewed this blog. He even got one of his buddies on Team Kimberlin to lie about being one of the “real” visitors. This post called Lying About Logins ran four years ago today.

* * * * *

One of the things that seems to bother Team Kimberlin is the fact that their Internet traffic isn’t a well concealed as they had hoped. Consider this load of bullshit that arrived in the Hogewash! comment stream.MO201606040707ZI can believe that Bunny Boy has been the author of some comments sent to Hogewash!, things such as this image—

4fffe08c18be29fc7a25ee921d789533That’s about the level of maturity we’ve seen from Team Kimberlin.

However, I don’t believe that 57F Osborne has been responsible for any of the connections I’ve been tracking for the Logins feature here at Hogewash!.

Of course, I could be wrong, and here’s how he could convince me. I not only gather the IP address used by Team Kimberlin entities, I also collect other information, including the type of device connected, the OS it’s running, the version of the OS, the browser it’s running, and the version and build number of the browser. All Bunny Boy has to do to convince me that he’s responsible for one of the logins is to post a comment while he’s logged in with all of the info I’ve listed for his current connection.

Well?

* * * * *

<sarc> Should I give up waiting, Matt? </sarc>

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Back in March, 2013, The Dread Deadbeat Protestor Kimberlin called up the venue hosting BlogBash and threatened that a “fiery imam” would lead a massive protest of the event if it was not cancelled. Kimberlin’s protest fizzled, and he was reduced to publishing a few pictures taken across the street from the event in Breitbart Unmasked Bunny Billy Boy Brett Unread. The TKPOTD from five years ago today deals with one of the sock puppet comment that appeared on BU.

* * * * *

I’ve been blessed to have a great deal of forensic help in reviewing physical and other evidence for my upcoming court cases. One of the analysts noticed the following claim in a comment to a post about the recent BlogBash made by someone calling himself “Texas Tim”:

First, thanks to the terrific staff at the Prince George’s Police Department who worked closely with me and my wife regarding security and protests. We came to an agreement on Wednesday not to protest in exchange for a promise of a large police presence at the scene.

Now, let me see if I have this straight. Some guy from Texas was organizing the protest for an event in Maryland. And he worked out a deal about protest vs. police presence. Really? I haven’t found anyone with the PG County Police who was aware of such an arrangement. Perhaps Tim can provide a name and/or badge number.

Tim says that he’s from Texas. Originally? Or did he just live there for a while—say, in the Corpus Christi area for a year or so in the 1979/80 time frame?

* * * * *

The 2013 posts about BlogBash are still up at BU. Considering how some other posts that have gone down the memory hole, it’s surprising that The Dread Deadbeat Publisher Kimberlin hasn’t removed them. He really should.

Perhaps his mind is on other things.

Did I mention that I’m not through with him yet?

Cybersquatting and Cyberstalking

Cybersquatting, according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), includes using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The sharp-eyed Gentle Reader will notice the ™ symbol next to the Hogewash! logo in the site banner. The Fine Print for this site provides this notice:

Hogewash! and hogewash.com are trademarks owned by W. J. J. Hoge.

The hogwash dot net website is an example of a cybersquatting. It isn’t a parody so much as an attempt to use the goodwill of the Hogewash! trademark to provide a benefit for someone not entitled to use the mark.

OK, so why haven’t I taken action against that site?

The principal reason is that the person creating the site is actually giving my lawyer information that is helpful to me in a legal matter. Another reason is that I believe the material on that site is so outlandish and offensive as to do more damage to the site’s operator than to me.

In any case, I reserve the right to file a complaint either via ICANN or the courts if I choose.

Let’s move on to cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass someone. Stalking is a crime in Maryland. Some people think that the Maryland law requires the act of following someone around and that a homebound invalid really couldn’t be a stalker.

They’re wrong.

In Hackley v. State, 866 A.2d 906 (2005), the Court of Appeals (Maryland’s highest court) ruled

… that the General Assembly did not intend the stalking statute’s requirement of a “malicious course of conduct that includes approaching or pursuing another person” to be limited to conduct that is done in the victim’s actual physical presence and with the victim’s concurrent awareness.

Md. Criminal Law § 3-802 defines stalking as

[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

—and this bit is often overlooked—

(2) that a third person likely will suffer any of the acts listed in item (1) of this subsection.

Yep. In Maryland, it is possible to stalk someone by stalking someone else, a provision intended to allow a parent or spouse to seek protection because someone is stalking a family member (for example.)

The Court interpreted “includes” to mean “this is an example that doesn’t rule out others.” It upheld Hackley’s conviction which was based on his delivering messages to where his victim might find them. The Legislature has since revised the statute without correcting the Court’s interpretation.

Given that precedent, it’s possible that a Maryland court could find a person who delivered threats of the sort listed in § 3-802 via the Internet to be guilty of stalking.

UPDATE—I see that Team Kimberlin has already been in touch with their legal advisor at Acme.TK20130723

They are entitled to their opinion, but I’ll stick with the fact that the U. S. Patent & Trademark Office says that federal registration of a trademark is not required. As the Harvard Law webpage cited in the attempted comment notes:

Assuming that a trademark qualifies for protection, rights to a trademark can be acquired in one of two ways: (1) by being the first to use the mark in commerce; or (2) by being the first to register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).

[My emphasis.] While registration does offer some legal advantages by providing a presumption that the mark is valid, prior use in the marketplace will usually defeat a registration. The Hogewash! trademark has been in continuous use by this website since 24 July, 2011.

UPDATE 2—At 11:57 am ET (15:57 GMT on the time stamp), Bill Schmalfeldt sent the following tweet:RadioWMS201307231601Z

I just reread my post, and I can’t find where I say I am suing anyone. In fact, I explain why I’m not suing anyone. Other than by accident or mistake, does Bill Schmalfeldt ever tell the truth?