Why I Blog


Because I want to.

More specifically, I took up blogging as a hobby when I was in my mid 60s and approaching retirement. I thought it would be an interesting way to use some of the time that would not be taken up by a day job. I decided to write about stuff that interested me, and if some folks wanted to read it, then the blog would pick up followers. I didn’t expect to monetize the blog.

One of the things that interests me is the First Amendment issues, and writing about one incident wound up changing the nature of Hogewash!. That incident was the patently unconstitutional gag order that Brett Kimberlin received against Aaron Walker. It was a local story, so I covered it. And kept covering The Dread Deadbeat (Pirate) (Performer) (Pedo) Pro-Se Kimberlin as he waged lawfare against various bloggers and mainline media people and organizations who wrote about him. That, in turn, made me a target of Kimberlin and his fanboys, especially Bill Schmalfeldt, and their targeting of me made me part of the story I was covering.

Things haven’t worked out as I expected when I stated Hogewash! in 2011. For the past five years, the bulk of the blog has dealt with Team Kimberlin. That coverage has caused multiple lawsuits, false criminal charges, and a bogus peace order petition to be filed against me, and I’ve monetized the blog to help defray the legal expenses incurred. (BTW, thank you to those who have supported that effort.) While that lawfare is mostly over and settled in my favor, there’s still some to go. Eventually, TDPK and his band of cyberthug wannabes will have lost their final bit of lawfare and will have poisoned their own online reputations via a version of the Streisand Effect on steroids that should be renamed for Brett Kimberlin. Then, I’ll be able to get back to spending more time on other things that interest me.

Oh, two more things …First, it looks as if enough Reality has sunk into the vacuum between the Cabin Boy’s™ ears that he is starting to understand that is more likely that LOLsuit VIII will be dismissed than survive.

Second, the only online use anyone has for Bill Schmalfelt now is as an object of pointage, laughery, and mockification. I will continue to write about him to the extent I find it useful as coverage of Team Kimberlin winds down, but there are now blogs that specialize in keeping track of him, and they are welcome to him.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


I’m not making this up, you know.

After spending years trying to use the courts to suppress the First Amendment rights of people who have written truthful things about him, Brett Kimberlin included this sentence in his failed motion to unseal his informal opening brief in his appeal of the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit—

Appellant has a right under the First Amendment to appeal in public.

No. He doesn’t. His right to a public trial and, by extension, a public appeal is not secured under the First Amendment. IANAL, but the last time I checked the Bill of Rights, due process rights are secured by the Fifth Amendment.

Patrick Frey’s due process rights are also protected by the Fifth Amendment. His lawyers were able to convince a federal judge that certain information given to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin during discovery in the RICO Remnant LOLsuit should have been sealed in order to protect Frey’s rights (and possibly the rights of third parties). TDPK repeatedly asked the District Court to unseal that information, and he was never able to provide a reason why Patterico’s rights should not have been protected.

TDPK’s motion to unseal is timestamped as being received by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals at 10:06 Monday morning. The order denying his motion was docketed at 12:01:59 Tuesday afternoon. It didn’t take the court long to see through his frivolous argument.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Mean Words


Dystopic has an essay over at Declination about mean words and fake jokes in the context of “the First Amendment and … boobs” and the faux rage of SJWs.

Such Leftists want us to assume that they are acting in good faith, and then treat us as if we are acting in bad faith. This gives them a sort of social arbitrage in open debate, a sort of home field advantage, if you will, that the Rightist must overcome. And given the reach of the modern media, that advantage has become quite substantial. It’s time to deprive them of it. Assume no good faith. If you believe a Leftist is truly acting in good faith; if you don’t get the sense that he is lying and attempting to reframe everything to his advantage, then all is good. But be on your guard. The Leftist who avoids this tactic is becoming an endangered breed.

Read the whole thing.

I’ll add that its not unusual for people on opposing sides to wind up hating one another. As it says in Proverbs 29:27,

A dishonest man detests the righteous,
and the upright in their ways detest the wicked.

Which side are you on? Are you sure?

First Amendment 9, EEOC 0


The Supreme Court today unanimously upheld a church’s ministerial exemption from meddling by the federal government with employee actions related to one of its “ministers.”

Justice Alito was joined by Justice Kagan in a concurring opinion that stressed the view that the exemption doesn’t apply just to “ordained” personnel but to all church workers who are involved in work related to the church’s doctrinal identity.

What matters in the present case is that Hosanna-Tabor believes that the religious function that respondent performed made it essential that she abide by the doctrine of internal dispute resolution; and the civil courts are in no position to second-guess that assessment. This conclusion rests not on respondent’s ordination status or her formal title, but rather on her functional status as the type of employee that a church must be free to appoint or dismiss in order to exercise the religious liberty that the First Amendment guarantees.

This is a major rebuff to the EEOC who argued that  there is no need—and no basis—for a special rule for ministers grounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Good commentary on the decision can be found at Hot Air, The Volokh Conspiracy, and Cato.

What Part of the Bill of Rights Do You Not Understand? (Part 2)


It seems that the OWS gang doesn’t fully grasp the First Amendment. It has clauses about being able to speak and publish freely. That implies that one can publicly speak out in favor of political candidates and give money to pay for publishing one’s views. One of the OWS-related websites has a demand that private contributions to political candidates be prohibited.

Down twinkles!

Hans A. von Spakovsky has an excellent commentary here. Read the whole thing.