Posted on | October 4, 2013 | 96 Comments
A few weeks ago, Bill Schmalfeldt and his digital associates (“Xenophon,” and other sock puppets) were doing their Happy Dance, claiming that Brett Kimberlin had served me with notice of a lawsuit in Maryland. Except that I don’t live in Maryland and haven’t since mid-2012, and I have not been served. Schmalfeldt went silent about that claim after it was suggested that he and his sockpuppet pals provide proof that I have been served, which of course they can’t, because I haven’t.
Here’s a question: Who told Bill Schmalfeldt that I had been served?
Who told Bill Schmalfeldt that I still live in Maryland? Why would Bill Schmalfeldt publish hearsay that he had no means of verifying?
Ethics! Bill Schmalfeldt has Journalism Ethics, you see, and nobody else has any ethics at all, especially not me. All I did was attend a court hearing in Maryland so that I could witness first-hand the courtroom proceedings between Brett Kimberlin and his estranged wife.
Because of that, Brett Kimberlin has accused me of “malicious prosecution, conspiracy to abuse process, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and stalking.” (Also, perhaps, “Mopery With Intent to Lurk.”)
Brett Kimberlin has accused me of these things, I say, although I haven’t been legally served, neither in Maryland (where I don’t live) nor anywhere else, and I would very much like Ethical Journalist Bill Schmalfeldt to explain who told him that I had been served.
Of course, my whereabouts are no more Bill Schmalfeldt’s business than the legal proceedings in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., but from Bill Schmalfeldt’s occasional eruptions, you might get the impression that he believes that he will be vindicated by the success of Kimberlin’s pro se litigation against myself, Aaron Walker, John Hoge, Ali Akbar and the pseudonymous blogger “Kimberlin Unmasked.”
This lawsuit will fail, however, and perhaps Bill Schmalfeldt should contemplate the consequences of that failure.
Nevertheless, rather than provide Bill Schmalfeldt further clues to the truth (lest he should repent his sins, and escape the fires of Hell), let me remind you of the First Lesson in the Bill Schmalfeldt School of Journalism Ethics, i.e., threatening people named “Doug”:
Doug was someone who, Schmalfeldt evidently believed, knew the identity of someone named “Jerry Fletcher,” who was associated with the conservative blog Knot My Wisconsin. Doug didn’t tell Bill what he wanted to know, and instead forwarded Bill’s threat to Jerry, and that made Bill Schmalfeldt very, very angry:
Very, Very Bad, Doug! VERY Bad
That was a private message for YOU, Doug. But you gave it to your little palsy-walsies at the Knothead group. You violated my trust, Dougie, and posted information that was meant for your eyes. I guess that gives ME permission to post personal information about YOU now … doesn’t it?
I think so.
Yes. I think so.
So, who is “Doug”? Where is all this “personal information” about Doug that Bill Schmalfeldt published in retaliation for having “violated my trust”? On what planet, in what alternative universe, is it “ethical” for a journalist (or anyone else) to threaten people this way? What kind of story is so important that “ethics” excuses such behavior?
Of course, it doesn’t, and Bill Schmalfeldt can’t explain or justify any of this, and if you try to hold him accountable for his behavior it’s “STALKING AND HARASSMENT,” and Bill’s a victim.
By the way, thanks to “Jerry Fletcher” for the tip.
It’s all a vast conspiracy, see?