Gabbard v. Clinton


Folks, I have quite a bit of experience being a defendant in vexatious nuisance lawsuits alleging defamation (four LOLsuits each from Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt). Of course, I won all those suits. Seven were dismissed for various reasons. One went to trial, and my codefendants and I won when the judge stopped the trial after Kimberlin rested case because the plaintiff hadn’t shown that we had made any false statements about him and granted a directed verdict in our favor. I tend to have a bias in favor of defendants in defamation suits, but in this case … not so much.

IANAL, but my initial sense of Tulsi Gabbard’s suit against Hillary Clinton alleging defamation is that it’s interesting.

The complaint specifically quotes Clinton’s allegedly false and defamatory remarks, citing when and how they were published. As I understand it, the complaint claims that falsely stating that an Army National Guard officer is the asset of foreign power is defamatory per se because if that were true, the officer would be unfit for his or her professional duties as a soldier. Tulsi Gabbard is a major in the Hawaii National Guard. She’s also a member of the House Armed Services Committee, an assignment that requires access to classified defense information. Being a Russian asset should be similarly disqualifying in that professional role.

Congresswoman Gabbard’s case appears to be much stronger than anything her colleagues are presenting to the Senate. But being based on actual facts tends to make a case stronger. I don’t know how far her suit will go in court, but I’m ordering more popcorn.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


When Brett Kimberlin launched his campaign of lawfare as a means of brass knuckles reputation management, he set himself up for one of the biggest failures of his career. The rest of Team Kimberlin has been similarly unsuccessful, but none of them as spectacularly as Bill Schmalfeldt. Six years ago today, his ineptitude led me to ask What Does the Cabin Boy Have in Common with OJ?

* * * * *

OJ was acquitted at his murder trial. Bill Schmalfeldt had the first set of criminal charges relating to his harassment of me dropped. Both beat the rap as criminals.

OJ was found to be responsible for the death of his wife and was adjudicated a murderer in a civil trial. Bill Schmalfeldt was found to be responsible for my harassment and was adjudicated a harasser in a civil trial.

A civil adjudication does not bring the same penalties as a criminal conviction, but it is a finding by a court. Bill Schmalfeldt is an adjudicated harasser. His appeals related to that matter have been exhausted, and that finding has not been overturned. None of his whining will change the legal fact that he is an adjudicated harasser.

* * * * *

Of course, Brett Kimberlin went into his lawfare campaign having already been convicted of perjury, drug smuggling, bombings, and other crimes. His poor legal strategy of suing for defamation resulted in a court ruling that he was “defamation proof.” In other words, a court found that his reputation was already so bad when my codefendants and I wrote about him that it was impossible for us to damage it.

Some More Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


Brennan Gilmore was present at the Charlottesville riot in 2017. He recorded a car being driven into a crowd that resulted in the death of a women, and he posted that video online. He also made appearance in the news media discussing what he saw. As a result, Gilmore and his video became a topic of controversy, and Gilmore was upset with some of the commentary. He has sued Alex Jones and a host of others for defamation in federal court. When the judge in the case denied most of the motions to dismiss, two separate groups of defendants filed motions for reconsideration or for an interlocutory appeal of the dismissals to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge has granted a motion certifying an interlocutory appeal of the following question:

Where an online journalist or publisher with a national audience purposefully and primarily focuses their coverage underlying the suit-related conduct on forum-state events and persons, is such conduct sufficient for a forum court to assert specific personal jurisdiction over that journalist or publisher?

I found footnote 1 interesting.

However this question is limited, the Fourth Circuit may nevertheless review uncertified issues contained within the Court’s order on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. “[W]e would not necessarily be limited to only those questions expressly or implicitly identified as ‘controlling’ by the district court; under § 1292(b), appeal is from the order certified, not from particular rulings embodied within it.” Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, 1989 WL 42583, at *3 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished).

IANAL, but seems as if the judge in taking note that the defendants could raise other issues related to the motions to dismiss beside the certified question in their appeals.

This could be interesting.

NPR and Defamation


Politico reports that a U. S. District Court in Texas has ruled that a defamation suit filed against a group of defendants including National Public Radio can proceed to discovery. Judge Amos Mazzant found the $57 million suit filed by Ed Butowsky makes plausible claims that the network may be liable for defamation for a series of online stories about Butowsky’s role in publicizing assertions that Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered as part of a broader political plot.

NPR argued that the reports by media correspondent David Folkenflik accurately described a prior lawsuit filed against Fox News and Butowsky for defamation, accusing Fox of fabricating quotations in a story about Rich’s murder. The judge did not agree.

“The statements made by Folkenflik were made as verifiable statements of fact,” the judge wrote. “The statements at issue were not merely expressing a subjective view. Looking at the context of the verifiable facts, nothing shows the statements expressed Folkenflik’s opinion or merely offer Folkenflik’s personal perspective on disputed facts.”

Butowsky has several other defamation suits pending against other news outfits, including CNN, Vox, and The New York Times.

Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt


The judge in the Gibson’s Bakery case has ordered Oberlin College to post a $36 million dollar bond if it appeals the $31.5 judgment against it. An appeal could require several years, and interest on the judgment is piling up at the rate of several thousand dollars a day. It seems that the judge believes Oberlin’s claims of financial distress and wants to make sure that the plaintiffs can collect their judgment after the college’s appeals are exhausted.

Bad First Amendment News


TechDirt reports that a state court judge in Rhode Island has issued a restraining order requiring a Massachusetts blogger to take down allegedly defamatory posts. The order was issued without a hearing, creating due process issues in addition to being clearly at odds with the First Amendment.

There’s more about the case over at The Volokh Conspiracy where Eugene Volokh points out that the First Circuit Court of Appeals (Rhode Island in in the First Circuit) has ruled that even permanent anti-libel injunctions barring the repetition of statements found to be libelous at trial are unconstitutional.

The ACLU is representing the blogger and has removed the case to federal court.

Stay tuned.

First Amendment News


Congratulations to Project Veritas on its victory in court yesterday. They were being sued for defamation in a federal court in North Carolina, and Judge Martin K. Reidinger granted them a directed verdict when the plaintiff failed to produce enough evidence for the case to go to the jury. The judge said this in his ruling (beginning at the bottom of page 14 of the transcript below):

The law requires, and the Supreme Court has made clear under the Liberty Lobby case, that I not only have to look at this from the standpoint of whether or not there is the thinnest of thin reeds, that scintilla of evidence, but rather whether a jury could find by clear and convincing evidence that there was actual malice. And these very thin reeds, which I believe as to several of these are really no evidence of malice at all, are insufficient to meet that standard. Therefore, for that reason, the defendant’s motion — defendant’s motions pursuant to Rule 50 will be granted.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 deals with ruling on matters of law during a jury trial. Judge Reidinger continued:

Whenever I have something that is of particular difficulty, such as this case, it is my ordinary, knee-jerk reaction to tell the party that I’ve ruled against that I urge you to have the court of appeals go grade my paper. To that end, I will say that I will follow this up with a written order before I enter a judgment in this matter that will further elucidate what I’m talking about.

And I do have an inclination to say exactly that. I think that if I got this wrong I’d certainly like for somebody to tell me that I got it wrong. I have a little bit of hesitation in saying that this time. Because if I’ve gotten this wrong, and the Fourth Circuit says that this is not what the law is, I hesitate to think where the First Amendment is going in this country.

It’s always good First Amendment news when a frivolous defamation LOLsuit fails, and I have to admit that seeing one fail because the plaintiff couldn’t come up with a “scintilla” of evidence at trial has a certain resonance for me.

Unintended Victims


Women who were listed without their permission as victims of domestic abuse in a political ad by Senator Heitkamp have said that they are looking for a lawyer. Good. That sort of irresponsible behavior isn’t protected by the First Amendment, and someone publishing such a statement should be held accountable. Heitkamp should be on the hook for invasion of privacy against anyone who didn’t consent to be publicly named and for libel in cases where the women weren’t victims of domestic violence at all. Indeed, the husbands of the non-victim women might also have grounds to sue for defamation because of being falsely painted as abusers.

A politician’s false narrative may have created some unintended victims.

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.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


As part of Team Kimberlin’s full court press against me three years ago, officials at NASA received emails and other communications describing me as unfit for employment as contractor for the agency. While the Cabin Boy™ was not stupid enough to admit to being the source of some of those communications, he did engage in some rather pathetic online concern trolling over what he imagined was my predicament. As this Bonus Prevarication Du Jour shows, he proceeded with his usual level of incompetence.

* * * * *

The Cabin Boy™ isn’t even a good concern troll.SRN201503112246ZAs Team Kimberlin has been pointing out, I am 67 years old. I’ve been enrolled in Medicare for over two years.MedicareI use one of the low end insurance plans available at work as a “Medigap” policy. However, because Mrs. Hoge is several years younger than I am, she has been separately insured since I turned 65. My employment (including the income stream it provides) has no effect on her health insurance.

* * * * *

I wasn’t the least bit stressed by Team Kimberlin’s contacts with NASA or their later emails to the Maryland Forestry Board Foundation and Department of Natural Resources. In fact, I rather enjoyed cooperating with law enforcement in determining who was the source of those bogus “warnings” about me. Contractor to Fed, as it were.

Oh, one more thing … I had retired in 2013, but was asked to come back to Goddard at the beginning of 2014. I retired a second time in late 2015, and was asked to come back again 2016. For now, I’m having fun at work, so I think I’ll stick with it for awhile longer.

Hate and Defamation


The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken upon itself the role of defining what it is to be a “hate group” and to publicly identify such organizations. As best as I can tell, opposition to the SPLC extreme left-wing agenda will qualify a group for listing. Some otherwise responsible organizations have begun using the SPLC determination of hate group status to filter business decisions.

Amazon has a program called Amazon Smile which allows customers to designate 0.5 percent of the purchase price of qualified items as a donation to a charity registered with the Amazon Smile program. When the D. James Kennedy Ministries tried to register to receive donations, it was turned away because it has been designated as a “hate group” by the SPLC. More info here. The reason that ministry has been designated as a “hate group” is that it opposes same-sex marriage. That opposition is based on the ministry’s religious belief stemming from it’s interpretation of the Bible. The ministry claims that it teaches love, even for one’s enemies, and not hate.

The ministry is suing the SPLC and another organization that collects and reports information on charities called GuideStar for defamation. It is also suing Amazon and Amazon Smile under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the theory that it has been blocked from the benefit of a public accommodation based on religion. The suit claims that Amazon’s business of providing entertainment such as movies online qualifies the company as a public accommodation just like a brick-and-mortar theater.

This could get interesting.

UPDATE—Corrected the name of the SPLC in the first sentence. I HATE autocorrupt!

Legal LULZ Du Jour


LG16_201608160451ZaIs that so?Complaint_43

UPDATE—The obvious syllogism one can derive from the above is—

Schmalfeldt accused Hoge of the crime of stalking.

Hoge has never been convicted of a crime.

Therefore, Schmalfeldt is a moron.

However, the conclusion may be faulty, at least under the original definition of a moron as an adult with a mental age of 8 to 12. Is the Cabin Boy™ that mature?

Legal LULZ Du Jour


Thus tweeteth the Cabin Boy™—RD201603221551ZIf the Cabin Boy™ is discussing defamation, then, no, that’s not my understanding of the law in Maryland. A defendant has no obligation to prove what he said or wrote was true. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that any allegedly defamatory statement is false. If the plaintiff can’t do that, he has no cause of action. The Dreadful Pro-Se Kimberlin’s lost on a directed verdict in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. because he never showed that the statements that we defendants admitted to making were false.

The Gentle Reader may assume that if I am suing someone for defamation, then I believe that I have evidence that someone made a false statement about me that also meets all the other elements of defamation.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Bill Schmalfeldt has a post up at the St. Francis edition of правда in which he states that I have lied under oath. Since that is a public accusation of perjury and since I have not lied under oath, his statement is defamatory. I’m already suing him for defamation, so I suppose this means that he’s decided to double down. Still, a professional journalist would want to correct such an error and would certainly issue a retraction and an apology.

Yes, I Have 582 Documents on Scribd


So what? I share a lot of stuff, but that seems to bother the Cabin Boy™,Cheddar201603052115Z

The blog post linked to in that tweet falsely implies that it was not possible for me to have downloaded the Cabin Boy’s™ motion to disqualify Aaron Walker as defense counsel in his LOLsuit VI: The Undiscovered Krendler. Based on that false claim, he spins up a story that tries to show that I was engaged in improper activity in publishing the documents.

He’s lying.

1. The Cabin Boy sent this tweet.Cheddar201603042251ZSince it includes what appears to be the image of a motion in his LOLsuit, I clicked on the link and found a pdf file of his Motion to Disqualify. The tweet was sent at 5:51 pm ET while I was on the road commuting from work. I saw it after I arrived home. I spoke with Aaron Walker to verify that he had been served with the motion and then I published it at 7:39 pm ET.

2. Coincidentally, Schmalfeldt logged in to Hogewash! just after I posted his motion.

3. At around 10 pm the following links were live on Scribd and were not private:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/302259155/Exhibit-1
https://www.scribd.com/doc/302259154/Exhibit-2
https://www.scribd.com/doc/302259159/Exhibit-3
https://www.scribd.com/doc/302259158/Exhibit-4-Defamatory-Tweets-From-Defendant-s-Counsel-Aaron-Walker-About-Plaintiff-Going-Back-to-2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/302259157/EXHIBIT-5
https://www.scribd.com/doc/302259156/Exhibit-6-Proof-That-Brett-Kimberlin-is-Not-A

4. The exhibits were available for download, and those links remained public until the middle of the morning today, just after Schmalfeldt again visited this site.

As I said, Schmalfeldt is a liar and not a very good one at that. After concocting his tale of private posting, he forgot to memory hole his earlier tweets pointing to his public Scribd post.

Bill Schmalfeldt has dug himself a rather deep hole, and he is ignoring the First Rule of Holes—to stop digging. Publishing yet another defamatory blog post about me will not help him. Indeed, he may find that it will cost him dearly. A wiser man might consider a retraction and an apology, but we’re dealing with the Cabin Boy™.

UPDATE—I’m told that the Cabin Boy™ has tweeted that I’m not fat. Really? Then I guess I must be undertall because the chart at the doctor’s office says I’m six inches too short for my weight.

UPDATE 2—The Cabin Boy™ has made a career recently of coming up with a half-baked/assed scheme to put something over on one of his enemies and of getting caught every time. The Gentle Reader may remember how he forged a Society of Professional Journalists membership record for me. That was a couple of years ago. Since he’s moved to Wisconsin, he’s been caught engaging in copyright fraud by claiming the work of Paul Krendler. If that was a plan to force Krendler to sue him, it didn’t work. I got the book taken down because he had infringed one of my blog posts as well. Krendler didn’t have to do a thing. Schmalfeldt got caught forging emails that he claimed were sent by Lynn Thomas. He got nailed two different ways. One related to message content and the other related to sloppy pixel editing.

I could go on with other examples, but a recurring theme seems to be that Bill Schmalfeldt grabs at an idea before he fully understands it. He cooks up what he believes is a brilliant scheme which quickly blows up in his face when confronted by people who know how things really work. This theme keeps recurring in his lawfare, and his loco motion du jour is just the latest example of his special way of failing.

Prevarication Du Jour


Matt Osborne has published a blatantly false and defamatory article over at Breitbart Unmasked (safe link) titled William Hoge Stalking A Teenager For His Conspiracy Theory. This paragraph is among the most egregious.BU20150304

Mrs. Kimberlin’s Application for Statement of Charges (available here) does not allege anything about a bomb factory or BDSM. Osborne’s assertions are utter rubbish. More important, they are lies.

The list of additional false statement in the post includes, but is not limited to—

That I have stalked Kelsie Kimberlin.
That I have taken any action with respect to Ms. Kimberlin’s music career.
That the process server employed by my lawyer was sent to photograph Brett Kimberlin.

Matt Osborne owes the truth to what few readers he has. He needs to back up the assertions in William Hoge Stalking A Teenager For His Conspiracy Theory with documentary evidence or he must retract them and apologize. He should do so not later than midnight Saturday Eastern Time.

Finally, because Breitbart Unmasked does not publish a snail mail address, I hereby notify Breitbart Unmasked and Matt Osborne that they should preserve all documents, records, files, etc., relating to me personally, the Hogewash! blog, Brett Kimberlin, and/or Kelsie Kimberlin that may be in their possession or under their control.

On the Cover of the Rolling Stone


When Dr. Hook recorded the song by Shel Silverstein, he probably didn’t have a wanted poster in mind.

All I have to say about the Rolling Stone rape fiasco is to note that fact checking is important. I’ve recently successfully defended myself in a defamation case because the facts were on my side and the plaintiff could not show that anything I had published was false.

I doubt that the Rolling Stone will be able to mount a similar defense if sued by some of the persons mentioned in their story.

In Re Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.


According to the docket posted on the Maryland Judiciary website, the trial judge for the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit will be Hon. Eric M. Johnson. The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has appeared before Judge Johnson in a case styled Kimberlin v. Walker before, the first peace order case that TDPK brought back in 2012.

THE COURT: I’m not suggesting that they do, but the law cannot prohibit all annoying conduct. We’ve reached a point in this society where people think they have a right not to be offended. Where did that come from? You read about it everyday in the paper. Somebody is offended by something and wants somebody to apologize. Where did that come from? Where is the right not to be offended?

You say that things have been written about you that are not right. It is a dangerous, dangerous argument to make that a sanction should be entered against people when they choose to exercise their First Amendment constitutional rights just because it’s annoying.

Now let me say, parenthetically, there are civil remedies available if someone defames someone, however, truth is a defense.

So if a person says somebody has a record and, in fact, they do have a record, you’ll have a hard time getting a judgment in a libel or slander case.

That’s from the transcript of the de novo appeal trial of first peace order TDPK sought.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin first defamation suit was against a left-wing blogger named Seth Allen. TDPK won that case, but not on the merits. Allen didn’t respond to the suit in a timely manner, so he lost on default. At the hearing to set the amount of damages, TDPK explained the case to Judge Jordan like this—339254-p10So the judge had to look at the evidence TDPK presented and TDPK’s reputation and determine what damages to award. Kimberlin was seeking a total of $2,250,000. Here’s what the judge awarded.339254-p109res_judicata_drinking_glassSo we have a judicial finding that the value of Brett Kimberlin’s reputation is a hundred bucks (marked down from $2,250,000!). With that in place, it may be quite interesting to see how he will try to convince a court that he deserves a million bucks this time. If he should win. The Gentle Reader may want to get a Res Judicata drinking glass to hold a favorite beverage. Eating all that popcorn can leave one very thirsty.

A Reckless Disregard for the Truth


Over the past year, Bill Schmalfeldt has published many false statements about me.

He has falsely accused me of stalking.RadioWMS201307121530Z

He has falsely accused me of trying to entrap him in violations of the peace order issued against him.P-O20131023He’s falsely accused me of misappropriating money from the Tetyana Kimberlin’s legal fund.wmsradio1942dotcom20131102

And he’s doubled down on that false story.WMS201311032001Z

He’s even had trouble keep the amount correct.P-O20131228

He’s falsely reported that I used the fund raised for Tetyana Kimberlin’s legal aid for the purpose of suborning perjury.db201401041234Zdb201401041705Z

He has spun a false tale about the complaints I’ve filed concerning his violations of the peace order.pupsoc201311131740Z

And he doubled down on that one too.P-O20131123b

He has falsely accused me of hating Muslims.WMSBroad201311202247Z

He has falsely claimed that I lied about him in a pleading filed in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness and has attempted to use that as an excuse for violating our mediation agreement—in spite of documented proof that my allegation about his behavior is true.PBT201403152048Z

He has falsely accused me of sending pornographic images to him.PBT201403171811Z

He has falsely accused me of asserting ownership of the copyright of one of his books.@PatO201404211906Z

He has falsely accused me of sending my “minions” to disrupt the publication of one of his books.KillTheBookThese are a representative selection of the documented defamatory remarks that Bill Schmalfeldt has published about me. It would be in his best interest either to publish evidence supporting each of the false statements he has made about me or to retract and apologize for those he cannot prove.

He would probably find it advantageous to do so soon.

Very soon.

Prevarication Du Jour


I don’t know whether Bill Schmalfeldt is relying his own notorious legal acumen or parroting a line from Acme Legal when he writes this stuff:PFB201311051156Z

The judge did not find that Kimberlin Unmasked had, in fact, defamed The Dread Pirate Kimberlin. His ruling only went to the whether or not TDPK has a sufficiently strong case that he should be allowed to serve his complaint on Kimberlin Unmasked. In order for Kimberlin Unmasked to be adjudicated a defamer, Brett Kimberlin will have to win his lawsuit.

The Cabin Boy, OTOH, has been adjudged to be a harasser. That was part of the process for the peace order issued against him. That had to be proved to a “clear and convincing evidence” standard which is a higher standard than the “preponderance of the evidence” required in a civil suit.

Hold it. Schmalfeldt’s harassment of me has already been proved to a higher standard that required for a civil suit. IANAL, but I think that means if I were to sue him for harassing me, he’d probably be estopped from any defense, I’d get a summary judgment, and the only thing to be tried would be the amount of damages.

Hmmmmm.