Someone has been hacking Topsy. If you go there and do a search for “derp brain radio,” you’ll get this (click to embiggen):The first five tweets are attributed to me. However, clicking on the Reply button for the first three shows these:None of those tweets from 16 June, 2013 are mine. Given that a bunch of @AaronWorthing tweets had been doctored to come up as mine on Topsy (they don’t on Twitter), I got to wondering if any other accounts had been similarly diddled with. And, sure enough …That’s a tweet from army_vet about a picture of Bill Schmalfeldt brandishing an AR15. The one thing in common among all the bogus tweets is that they relate to Schmalfeldt. I can understand why Team Kimberlin is desperate to pin the ID of Kimberlin Unmasked on someone, so it makes some sense to try to tag me, but I don’t understand the point of trying to equate me with Aaron Walker or army_vet. Both have attended court hearings and have been seen by Schmalfeldt as being a separate person from me.
After returning home from church and having lunch, I checked in on my Twitter timeline and found this:Curious, I took a look at @CabinBoyRadio and found this:Since I had no idea what Schmalfeldt was talking about, I checked out his blog. It seems that he is trying to pin a bunch of “spam” comments to his blog on me. Of course, none of them are written in anything like the style of my tweets or comments on other blogs. None of them come any IP address associated with me. The IPs appear to be spoofed rather than TOR IPs because at least one is from AT&T Wireless, an unlikely spot for a TOR node.
I also found this rant.There are several places where he may have seen that name before, but he never saw it in a post on this blog. I’m sure of that. I just ran a global search of all posts, this was the search return (Click the image to embiggen it.): I see three possible sources for the comments that Schmalfedt complains about. The first would be someone opposed to Team Kimberlin who is yanking Schmalfeldt’s chain. If that’s the case, I hope whoever it is stops. The second possibility is that a member of Team Kimberlin or a supporter/eneabler is doing it to stir up trouble. The third is that Schmalfeldt created the comments himself in an attempt to run the “accuse the accuser” play one more time.
Whatever. He didn’t see that name in a Hogewash! blog post.
UPDATE—After my Sunday afternoon nap, I checked my Twitterz again and found more tweets about Schmalfeldt and evidence. So I went over to @CabinBoyRadio again and found that he had posted some tweets allegedly from me. I was puzzled where he found them, because I couldn’t remember sending them. Then he tweeted this link to Very Ordinary Seaman Ferguson: http://topsy.com/s?q=schmuckfeldt%20from%3Awjjhoge&type=tweet. I clicked on it and found the tweets that he was claiming were mine. This one bothered me.I don’t cc myself on Twitter. What’s the point? So I clicked on the Reply button of the top tweet and got this.That’s not my tweet, is it? Indeed, it is tweet number 355754735903428608 which was sent by @AaronWorthing.
None of the other tweets are mine either.
This is not the first time that Bill Schmalfeldt has been caught trying to forge evidence. He would be well advised to stop. Very soon. As in now.
UPDATE 2—I notice he also tries to use postings at hogewash dot net as evidence. Oh, please! That site ran copies of the obscene images Schmalfeldt created of me last summer. It’s clearly not a site associated with or controlled by me.
UPDATE 3—If the Gentle Reader would like to see the original tweets on Twitter, click here and scroll down to last July.
UPDATE 4—Here’s what turns up when one does the same Topsy word search on @AaronWorthing:As you can see, the “Hitler is not happy …” tweet is Aaron Walker’s which proves absolutely nothing about the identity of Kimberlin Unmasked. It does, however, confirm that what Schmalfeldt has been trying to peddle is bogus.
I received a call this evening from a reader (my number’s in the phone book) about a post that Bill Schmalfeldt put up speculating on the identity of the person or person(s) behind Kimberlin Unmasked. I’m amused to find out that I am now a suspect. Apparently, Schmalfeldt goes on at some length about the IP addresses and locations from which tweets to the @Kimberlinumask Twitter account originated.
The Twitter API doesn’t make that information available. Law enforcement can get the information with a warrant, and it might be subpoenaed in a civil matter. Neither of those seem to be the source of Schmalfeldt’s information. Given that there are ways to hack that information, I suspect his “reliable” source obtained it illegally.
The reek of various bodily fluids is becoming quite strong as the panic sets in at Team Kimberlin.
UPDATE—I see from one of the comments that Schmalfeldt says that Twitter gives IP address information from its connection logs to anyone who asks.
UPDATE 2—I’ve heard all sorts of speculation about the identity of Kimberlin Unmasked. I don’t know who he/she/they is/are. I have no need to know, and it is to my advantage not to know. I can’t give up information that I don’t have. I am being willfully ignorant.
UPDATE 3—The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has had a subpoena issued against Twitter, but it is not for any IP address information. Twitter required to produce the following information by 27 December, 2013—As you can see, the subpoena demanded the name of the person who registered the Twitter account @Kimberlinunmask. The only name Twitter collects is the user name. And for that account the user name is … wait for it … Kimberlin Unmasked.
I hadn’t checked in for a while on Bill Schmalfeldt’s bleg where he’s trying raise $25,000 to sue the wingnuts who have stolen his good name. Apparently, not many other folks have stopped by. He’s still stuck at $75.
I’m not sure that Schmalfeldt has checked on his site either. If he had, surely he would have noticed this:
Copyright is the right of the author of the work or the author’s heirs or assignees, not of the one who only owns or possesses the physical work itself. Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. If you don’t believe me, you can look it up at the website of the U. S. Copyright Office.
Even if TDPK owned the copyrights, Kimberlin Unmasked’s “quoting” of the copyrighted works would be allowed under the Fair Use Doctrine as criticism, commentary, or parody.
TDPK isn’t the only copyright troll in Team Kimberlin. Bill Schmalfeldt has a go at trolling from time to time. Last summer, he filed DMCA takedown notices against this blog concerning images of which he was not the author and whose copyrights he probably did not own. More recently, he’s been trying to assert parody images of him are harassment. If the legal theory behind that idea held water, editorial cartoonists would be in a world of hurt.
It’s all part of Brett Kimberlin’s brass knuckles reputation management scheme—nuisance claims and vexatious lawsuits done solely as exercises in shutupery. To that end, Kimberlin has filed lawsuits in state and federal court attacking bloggers for writing truthful things about him, and I’m on the receiving end of a couple of those suits. You can help my four codefendants (Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Kimberlin Unmasked) and me fight TDPK’s attack our First Amendment rights in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. suit. Go to Bomber Sues Bloggers to find out how.
As a pilot, I can tell you that a spin is something to be avoided. It can be hard to recover from, and loss of control will result in a crash. Team Kimberlin and its fanboys and enablers seem to be spinning out of control in their reaction to the peace order extension issued last Monday against Bill Schmalfeldt.
The order simply requires Schmalfeldt to refrain from contacting, attempting to contact, or harassing me.
Most of the brouhaha is Team Kimberlin’s misrepresentation of Judge Stansfield’s findings with respect to Twitter and what constitutes contact under the terms of Maryland’s harassment statutes and the peace order he issued.
Notice that I wrote statutes. Plural. Maryland has two laws that are applicable. The first is the general harassment statute which deals with any intentional course of conduct that seriously annoys, alarms, or harasses the victim and that continues after the perpetrator has been told to stop. This is the statute that Schmalfeldt was found to have violated. The fact that his course of conduct involved tweets was incidental to that finding. It was his conduct and not the particular means of delivery that was the issue. In the context of Schmalfeldt’s behavior, the judge found that Schmalfeldt’s tweeting @mentions and @replies using @wjjhoge was a part of his method of harassing me. Harassing me. Not contacting me. But he was ordered to stop doing both.
Maryland also has a law aimed specifically at harassment via electronic communications. It allows for an enhanced criminal penalty when harassment is conducted by means of data (text, photos, whatever) sent to and received by a specific person. During the October hearing on Schmalfeldt’s motion to modify the order and during last Monday’s hearing on the extension, the judge found that using an @mention or @reply caused Twitter to deliver the tweet containing it to a particular account, the account of the user mentioned. That means that someone who was uses @mentions or @replies to engage in a course of harassing conduct could be charged under both laws, electronic harassment for a possible enhanced criminal penalty and harassment in general to enable a peace order to be issued. Specifically, Judge Stansfield found that Schmalfeldt’s 470 tweets containing @wjjhoge or @hogewash were contact that I should not have received under the terms of the peace order.
(I note that the three pornographic images entered into evidence were found to be harassment but not contact, and also good cause to extend the peace order. Although they were tweeted, the versions entered into evidence were from websites. Schmalfeldt’s harassment of me has not been limited just to Twitter.)
This doesn’t cause any real change in how the First Amendment relates to harassment. Harassment isn’t protected speech. What it does is to make it clear that Twitter is not a safe harbor for harassers under Maryland law. Twitter users will be held to the same standard in that forum that would they be writing in a newspaper or speaking on a street corner.
“Knowing what the outcome would be …” My, my, my … that’s almost an admission by Bill Schmalfeldt that the charges filed were knowingly false. Still, you have to admire the chutzpah of Team Kimberlin that allowed them to so brazenly attempt to put one of the defendants in The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s vexatious Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. under the same disability to offer testimony as TDPK.
(For those of you just beginning to follow the Saga of The Dread Pirate Kimberlin, Brett Kimberlin is a convicted perjurer, and Maryland has a law that prohibits convicted perjurers from testifying in any court proceeding.)
Brett Kimberlin is suing four other bloggers and me for writing truthful things about him. You can help us defend ourselves and the First Amendment from his lawfare. Go to Bomber Sues Bloggers to find out how.
I’m told that Bill Schmalfeldt has been whining about my “dirty victory” in court yesterday.
It’s true that my lawyer had a secret strategy that she used against him, and it worked: She let him talk.
Schmalfeldt repeated arguments that previously had been shot down. He asked irrelevant questions. He ranted. He yelled. He pounded the table. He convinced the judge that he intended to continue to disobey the peace order. In short, he made my case for me.
Bill Schmalfeldt can think that was a dirty trick if he wishes. I call it good lawyering.
Now, if Schmalfeldt will simply obey the peace order, I will have no reason to take any particular notice of him. We’ll see how that goes.
When asked to cite a case where the Supremes had so ruled, the response was …
The reason is quite simple. There is no such ruling; the question hasn’t been considered by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the applicable case law says the opposite, including Hoge v. Schmalfeldt (Md. Cir.Ct. Carr.Co. 2013) Case No. 06-C-063359 (cert. denied). Schmalfeldt raised the “@mention isn’t contact” argument in paragraph 2 of his Supplement to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari during his appeal in that case. The Court of Appeals didn’t buy it, finding “there is no showing that review by certiorari is desirable or in the public interest.”
A large part of the hopeful confusion among the pro-harassment crowd relied on their focusing on the fact that Internet harassment is specifically covered by a Maryland statute, but the missed the fact that it violates another Maryland law as well, one that can be a trigger for a peace order. That law, the statute dealing with harassment generally, is the one which the Circuit Court found Schmalfeldt transgressed.
There is no safe harbor in Maryland law for harassment via the Internet.
UPDATE—After referring to those questioning his legal scholarship as “lickspittles,” @LibtardMedia has taken his account private. Now, who would call his opponents “lickspittles”?
I was called to the stand by my lawyer Zoa Barnes, and we presented evidence of Bill Schmalfedlt’s violations of the existing peace order. The peace order requires that Schmalfeldt not contact, attempt to contact, or harass me. We presented evidence of over 470 times that he contacted me after the order was issued. We presented evidence of at least one attempt to contact me through third parties. We presented evidence of harassment in the form of three pornographic images Schmalfeldt created using my likeness. Even dealing with lots of objections, that only took about 20 minutes.
I spent the next hour on the stand being cross examined by Schmalfeldt. Most of that hour was taken up by his ranting rather than actually asking me questions. He tried to get the court to consider many of the legal theories he had offered before. The result is best summed up with the word res judicata. At one point Schmalfeldt asked me what I thought would happen if the the peace order were extended. I replied that I expected that he would continue to violate it until it was enforced.
When Schmalfeldt tried to bring up the Attorney General’s opinion letter, Judge Stansfield quoted a Court of Appeals decision back to him that said that the Attorney General’s opinion is just one lawyer’s opinion.
After my grilling on the stand, we rested my case, and the court took a brief recess. When we were called back, Schmalfeldt tried to make his case. He was sworn and offered some testimony.
During her closing argument, Zoa Barnes made the point that if the order were extended and Schmalfeldt were to violate it, we would be back with a motion for contempt seeking jail time.
Judge Stansfield granted the six-month extension of the peace order. In doing so, he found that the 470 tweets that I had received between noon on 16 October and last night were contact that I should not have received under the existing peace order. He also found that the pornographic images were harassment sufficient to permit the order to be extended.
That’s what happened today.
Oh, one more thing …
Brett Kimberlin drove Bill Schmalfeldt to the courthouse today. What appeared to be the same silver Toyota Highlander photographed at BlogBash was parked at the courthouse.
We were called in to the courtroom at around 10 am, and after a few preliminary matters, Bill Schmalfeldt called me as his witness. I was on the stand for about 25 minutes and answered fewer than 10 questions. Most of the time was spent either by my lawyer objecting (and the judge sustaining her objection) on matters of relevance or Judge Stansfield correcting Schmalfeldt’s misunderstandings of legal concepts. In particular, the judge repeatedly had to explain that a hearing on a motion to modify deals with what has happened since a court order has been issued, not the evidence that led to the court order. The judge explained that there would be no new trial unless the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court ordering one.
The judge explained to Schmalfeldt that there is no exception to Maryland’s harassment statute for “journalism.” He also explained why the U.S. v. Cassidy case did not bear on the facts or the law in Hoge v. Schmalfeldt.
None of Schmalfeldt’s exhibits were received into evidence.
When Schmalfeldt rested his case, the judge dismissed the petition on his own motion. My lawyer did not have to present my side of the case.
UPDATE—Schmalfledt never got around to making his argument based on the wild idea that the peace order violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
army_vet For those keeping score at home…no one is trying to kill Schmalfeldt. The State of Maryland has charged him. So again, he is just lying.
6:12 PM – 11 Aug 13 GMT
The Liberal Grouch @antvq16 Right. “The State of Maryland.” Are you actually stupid, or are you just pretending to get Hoge to like you?
7:22 PM – 11 Aug 13 GMT
The Gentle Reader may wish to look at how the case is captioned on this subpoena in order to see which tweet is nearer to the truth.
This relates to the probable cause hearing for the first five counts of violating the current peace order. I have received another subpoena for a similarly captioned case for the three additional counts of violating the peace order.
army_vet I dare Bill Schmalfeldt to post a scan of the summons he was served showing it is NOT from the State of Maryland.
6:40 PM – 11 Aug 13 GMT
The Liberal Grouch @antvq16 Right. The “State of Maryland” woke up that morning and decided I was a criminal.” [redacted] you, idiot.
7:47 PM – 11 Aug 13 GMT
Gentle Reader, do you think that the Cabin Boy’s summonses have different case names from the what’s on my subpoenas?
The Sore Loserman has brought back his Patriot-Ombudsman website (No, I won’t link to it.), and he has republished a homoerotic picture that has my face photoshopped into it—the same image that he promised Peter Ingemi, the copyright holder of the video from which the image of my face was lifted, that he would take down.
Sore Loserman Bill Schmalfeldt has gone on a rampage of flaky DMCA takedown notices over the last few days. The Other McCain has been one of his targets. Stacy McCain offers his thoughts on the situation here.
[Y]ou are back to the status I first described on Sept. 4 of last year when, at the end of a 954-word post, I called you an “obscure assclown.”
This I intended not as a mere insult, but as a statement of fact: You are obscure — an insignificant and unpopular nobody, which is why I hadn’t paid any attention to you prior to September 2012 — and you are quite nearly the textbook definition of an assclown. This is a compound word combining the meaning of “ass” — stupid and/or obnoxious –– and “clown,” a laughably incompetent person. If there were an Encyclopedia of Internet Pests, the entry defining “assclown” would end with a notation: “See also, Bill Schmalfeldt.”
Read the whole thing. It’s 5000 words long and worth every syllable.
I’m informed that the DCMA counternotice for The Other McCain shows an address outside of Maryland and consents to the jurisdiction of the U. S. District Court for that non-Maryland district as required by 17 USC § 512(g)(3)(D). The Cabin Boy has a couple of weeks to respond. Who knows? He may think racking up all those frequent flier miles is worth the cost of engaging in frivolous litigation.
Bill Schmalfeldt can dish out, but he can’t take it. He whines about being the subject of a parody. Poor Bill. He’s kinda like Barney. When the owners of the rights to the purple dinosaur found out about a parody video that featured a Barney lookalike, they sued. And they lost.
The case is called Lyons Partnership v. Giannoulas, et al., 14 F.Supp.2d 947 (1998). In finding for the defendant the court wrote:
A good-faith intent to parody is not an intent to confuse. Elvis Presley, 141 F.3d at 203. Although plaintiff does not appreciate defendants’ intent, there is no doubt that parody is intended. Defendants’ act is not an effort to confuse consumers, but rather to amuse. Hormel, 73 F.3d at 505. And, the parody does not simply “use the original [Barney] in a humorous fashion.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 597, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Rather, it targets Barney himself and not just the general style, the genre of art to which he belongs, or society as a whole. Id. Contrary to what plaintiff urges again and again, any other character, such as Mickey Mouse, could not be substituted in defendants’ act to achieve the same effect.
The court also said:
In assessing fair use, courts consider: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577, 114 S.Ct. 1164.
Putting all the factors together, no conclusion can be reached except that defendants have fairly used elements of plaintiff’s copyrighted works.
This was a case of a Barney lookalike appearing in a video and being booed. But Barney took his loss in court like a man.
Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t seem to handle losing in court as well. One wonders why he would want to sign up for more.
The following is quoted to provide context for criticism of the remarks:
RadioWMS Courts have said 30 sec. of audio constitutes fair use. But they also say if permission is available, one should at least ask.
7:27 PM – 26 Jul 13 GMT
Bill Schmalfeldt really should stop getting his legal advice from Acme. He should give Google Scholar a try. If he did, he would find cases like Higgins v. Detroit Educational Television Foundation, 4 F.Supp.2d 701 (1998). Reading it, he would find this:
Nor does a quantitative approach aid Plaintiff. Defendants used 35 seconds of Plaintiff’s 3-minute-and-35-second musical composition in “Stop the Violence II”. This amounts to 16% of the copyrighted work. As indicated above, in some instances, copying entire works have, nonetheless, been permitted under the fair use doctrine. See e.g., Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 626 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1980) (upholding a finding of fair use when the defendants used the entire cover of the plaintiff’s publication, TV Guide.) Cf., Schumann v. Albuquerque Corp., 664 F.Supp. 473 (D.N.M.1987) (broadcast of performance of entire copyrighted song by a commercial radio station without copyright holder’s permission where the broadcast was not a news show, held not to constitute fair use.)
Guided by the foregoing authorities, the Court finds that, on a quantitative level, the use of 16% of Plaintiff’s musical composition is not so substantial to tip this factor so as to tip this factor in favor of Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants’ use of “Under the Gun” is both quantitatively and qualitatively insubstantial.
“… copying entire works have … been permitted under the fair use doctrine.” And in this case 35 seconds of audio is OK. “… the entire cover of … TV Guide.” Not just a clip from a photograph, huh?
I’ve received several questions about the status of the Hoge v. Schmalfeldt peace order case. Here are the facts as I understand them:
On 14 June, 2013, Judge Stansfield of the Circuit Court of Maryland for Carroll County issued a Final Peace Order against Bill Scmalfeldt requiring that he not contact, attempt to contact, or harass me for six months. There are details of the case here.
On 8 July, 2013, I presented evidence to a District Court Commissioner detailing some of Schmalfeldt’s behavior from 14 June through 7 July. The Commissioner found that there was probable cause that Schmalfeldt had violated the terms of the Peace Order. She charged Schmalfeldt with five counts of violating the Order. That means that in the narrative I provided she found five instances of Bill Schmalfeldt either contacting me or attempting to contact me or harassing me. Any of those things violates the Peace Order.
Note: Bill Schmalfeldt either doesn’t understand or is trying to mislead folks about the contents of the Order. It can be read here. The Order says nothing about @ mentions on Twitter. Including @wjjhoge in a tweet is one way to contact me. It isn’t the only way. There are lots of ways to attempt to contact me that have nothing to do with Twitter. There are plenty of other ways to harass me without an @mention on Twitter. The @ mentions are only important if the State’s Attorney’s Office decides to refile the criminal charges that were originally associated with the Peace Order. The @ mentions might help support an enhanced penalty under the Misuse of Electronic Communication statute.
Since then, my lawyer has received a Notice of Appeal from Schmalfeldt and a frivolous Motion to Modify Peace Order. He appears to be proceeding pro se (that is, without a lawyer) with both. The appeal will drag on for quite a while, and the Order may expire before the appeal is heard. The Motion to Modify has been source of bemused amusement for most of the lawyers who have seen it. Their consensus is that it is poorly drafted, full of non-germane material, and actually helps me make my case. My lawyer will deal with it.
Meanwhile, the Peace Order continues in effect. The criminal charges for violating the Order are in the hands of the Carroll County State’s Attorney’s Office.
And I have nothing further to say about the matter for now.
RadioWMS @aaronworthing doesn’t know any terrorists. As a lawyer, he understands that is a legal definition. One must be accused and convicted of…
8:37 PM – 20 Jul 13
RadioWMS …terrorism to be accurately referred to as a “terrorist.” You would think an actual lawyer would understand that distinction.
8:38 PM – 20 Jul 13
Osama bin Ladin was never convicted of anything. Thus, by the ace legal analysis of Sore Loserman Bill Schmalfeldt, he was not a terrorist.
Someone better recall the SEALs.
UPDATE—It’s possible that the Cabin Boy is mistaken in his understanding of the meaning of terrorism.
18 USC § 2331—Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
I think most folks would agree that Osama bin Ladin met this definition of an “international terrorist.” And the Brett Kimberlin meets the this definition of a “domestic terrorist.”
Wow! I was drafting this post for Sunday morning Team Kimberlin Post of the Day and went to check on the status of the threatened Team Kimberlin “parody” sites, and theothermccain dot net was live. I decided to post this early.
Breitbart Unmasked was registered on 13 February, 2012, the same day as unmaskedhosting dot com which was the name server for BU until recently.
unmaskedhosting dot com was registered at 18:37:00. Breitbart Unmasked was registered at 20:06:00. The name server was registered about an hour and a half before the website.
A few days after Brett Kimberlin lost the Circuit Court appeal of his first peace order petition against Aaron Walker, the two domains used to host hate sites aimed at Mr. Walker were created. They remained dormant until late last June. More about that in a bit.
During the second half of 2012, Bill Schmalfeldt began to be overtly associated with Team Kimberlin. He was responsible for the publication of sealed court documents that had been provided to Brett Kimberlin during discovery in the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et. al. lawsuit. The only persons with legitimate access to those documents were court personnel, Mr. Walker, and his lawyers, none of whom are likely sources, and Brett Kimberlin. Around the time of that breach of the court’s seal, Schmalfeldt began writing for Breitbart Unmasked; he became the site’s Editor using one of his many aliases, The Liberal Grouch.
During the first part of this year, Schmalfeldt created four domains that used unmaskedhosting dot com as their name server. BTW, these websites are hosted on the same server as large number of Kimberlin-affiliated sites. Then, in late June, he activated the two Aaron Walker hate sites. Aaron Walker responded by filing an Application for Statement of Charges, and a District Court Commissioner has charged Schmalfeldt with harassment. That brought on one of the Cabin Boy’s meltdowns, and another member of Team Kimberlin who I call “Coleman” took over allergic2bull dot com.
During the first half of July, a couple of events occurred. One was my filing of an Application for Statement of Charges against Bill Schmalfeldt for violating the peace order I have against him. (Although I was expecting a single charge, the District Court Commissioner charged five counts.) The second was the Kimberlin v. Elliott, Elliott v. Kimberlin, and T. Kimberlin v. B. Kimberlin peace order petitions. Two days after the related peace order hearings, the six sites list at the bottom of the table were registered.
Gentle Reader, Bill Schmalfeldt wants us to believe that Brett Kimberlin is just his friend and not a business associate. Do you believe him?
And isn’t this tweet from Saturday morning interesting?
OK, I can understand that these jerks are upset with my shining light in their actions. And I expect some pushback. But the real The Other McCain and ViralRead sites are associated with Stacy McCain. I know Stacy McCain. Picking a fight with him is doubling (or maybe quadrupling) down on stupid.
Here is the post Stacy’s referring to in his tweet.
I can hardly wait to see what those site look like. Will they be as shoddy as the slapdash things that Bill Schmalfeldt has been throwing up (Hey, Schmalfeldt and throwing up in the same phrase—that works!), or will someone with a bit of graphic design talent create them? Because I have other things to do with my life on a Saturday evening, I’m writing this post late in afternoon; it will autopost at 12:02 am ET on Sunday. So I haven’t seen those sites yet, but if the go live, I’ll do an update. Meanwhile, I’ll just have to wait to see how Team Kimberlin makes fools of themselves this time.
UPDATE—The server that hosts theothermccain dot net is in The Netherlands. Of course, using an off-shore ISP allows Team Kimberlin to avoid having the actual identity of the person or organization responsible for the domain being identified through a subpoena to the ISP.
Bill Schmalfeldt keeps up with his nonsense about being threatened by a picture of my son cleaning a gun. If that’s a real threat, shouldn’t a picture of someone with his finger on the trigger brandishing an AR15 with a magazine inserted in the magazine well and the safety off be considered a threat as well? Suppose, Gentle Reader, that picture was in a blog post addressed to you and that the picture had the caption “Lookee! I’ms got gun, TOO!” Suppose the person in the picture had a crazed expression that could be interpreted a rage. If Maryland had a law about making threats (and it doesn’t), do you think such a person should be charged?