This is one of those cases where
I have known of something happening, dear reader, but I was holding it
back. On Tuesday evening, as the President
was giving us the SOTU and the Chris Dorner story was coming to its fiery
conclusion, I met with John Hoge and Lee Stranahan for dinner. Lee had flown into the area for the purpose of filing
charges against Liberal Grouch, a.k.a. Bill Schmalfeldt for ordinary harassment
and internet harassment and he did file those charges when we were done eating. I was there to observe and because I had
never met Stranahan in real life before.
Of course regular readers are
aware of the kind of ugliness that Schmalfeldt has publicly spewed about Lee
Stranahan and my friends. Here is where I
showed how Occupy Rebellion threatened to reveal where Lee Stranahan lived so
his wife could be raped while he was at a political convention, and how Schmalfeldt
then carried through on that threat to reveal where Stranahan lived. Here is where Schmalfeldt
threatened to sue me for truthfully reporting about his conduct and then
offering a negative opinion about it, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that
he is an anti-speech thug. Here is where
his harassment of Lee Stranahan drove Lee to abandon his home. Here is where
he tries to threaten Patterico’s job based on statements he claimed was
libelous… after previously admitting they were not. And most recently, here
is Schmalfeldt going after Stranahan and his wife, regarding the death of their
daughter in childbirth.
So Lee had just about enough at
this point and he had made a discovery.
There as a very specific law in Maryland that deals with harassment by
electronic means. As regular readers
know I
have written extensively about the law of harassment in Maryland given
Brett Kimberlin’s abuse of these laws when obtaining peace orders against me,
often using perjured testimony. This
statute is virtually the same thing, only with two differences: 1) it is limited
to electronic communications directed at another individual and 2) it has a
much stiffer sentence.
(a) Prohibited. -- A
person may not follow another in or about a public place or maliciously engage
in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys the other:
(1) with the intent
to harass, alarm, or annoy the other;
(2) after receiving
a reasonable warning or request to stop by or on behalf of the other; and
(3) without a legal
purpose.
(b) Exception. --
This section does not apply to a peaceable activity intended to express a
political view or provide information to others.
(c) Penalty. -- A
person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction
is subject to:
(1) for a first
offense, imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or a fine not exceeding $ 500 or
both; and
(2) for a second or
subsequent offense, imprisonment not exceeding 180 days or a fine not exceeding
$ 1,000 or both.
In my previous piece discussing
the law of harassment in Maryland, I noted that one specific kind of conduct
that could be prohibited under the statute is directed communications: phone
call, letters, emails, etc. When
discussing the seminal case on harassment in Maryland, Galloway
v. State, I wrote:
Galloway is indeed instructive of the kinds of things that count as
harassment. In that case, the defendant
was a man who had previously stalked and kidnapped a woman. After that, and while he was still in prison,
he sent her over 122 letters, and they stipulated that they were threatening. The court seemed to think this was harassment
in two ways. The first was because it
was a threat, which is an inoffensive interpretation of the law. Threats are not protected speech, period, so
if they want to interpret a threat as a form of harassment, I have little
objection.
Second, the court
found that merely sending letters—or indeed any form of directed
communication—was harassment. And the
Court of Appeals indicated that it was harassment regardless of content. For instance the court approvingly quoted
from Connecticut
v. Snyder, 49 Conn.App. 617, 717 A.2d 240 (1998), where the Connecticut
Supreme Court examined a statute that considered such directed communications
as a phone call to be harassment:
The over breadth
principle is not violated by the unrestricted scope of the messages which the
statute may ban because it is the manner and means employed to communicate them
which is the subject of the prohibition rather than their content. The statute
is not flawed because a recital on the telephone of the most sublime prayer
with the intention and effect of harassing the listener would fall within its
ban as readily as the most scurrilous epithet. The prohibition is against
purposeful harassment by means of a device readily susceptible to abuse as a
constant trespasser upon our privacy.
So in fact it was
not the fact that Galloway sent 122 threats.
Instead he could have sent 122 apologies for his prior stalking and
kidnapping, or 122 letters extolling the virtues of a politician, or 122
quotations from Shakespeare and that could be harassment[.]
Of course it still has to meet
the other requirements of the act, such as asking the person to stop, etc. But directed communications like this—as opposed
to communications to the public at large—is covered.
With that in mind, the electronic
harassment statute can be more easily understood (Md. Code Crim. Law §3-805):
(a) "Electronic
communication" defined. -- In this section, "electronic
communication" means the transmission of information, data, or a
communication by the use of a computer or any other electronic means that is
sent to a person and that is received by the person.
(b) Prohibited. -- A
person may not maliciously engage in a course of conduct, through the use of
electronic communication, that alarms or seriously annoys another:
(1) with the intent
to harass, alarm, or annoy the other;
(2) after receiving
a reasonable warning or request to stop by or on behalf of the other; and
(3) without a legal
purpose.
(c) Construction of
section. -- It is not a violation of this section for any of the following
persons to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to another
who is authorized by federal or State law to intercept or provide electronic
communication or to conduct surveillance of electronic communication, if a
court order directs the person to provide the information, facilities, or
technical assistance:
(1) a provider of
electronic communication;
(2) an officer,
employee, agent, landlord, or custodian of a provider of electronic
communication; or
(3) a person
specified in a court order directing the provision of information, facilities,
or technical assistance to another who is authorized by federal or State law to
intercept or provide electronic communication or to conduct surveillance of
electronic communication.
(d) Exception. --
This section does not apply to a peaceable activity intended to express a
political view or provide information to others.
(e) Penalty. -- A
person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction
is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $ 500
or both.
So unlike the general harassment
statute, this law only applies to electronic communications and as you can see
carries with it a more significant sentence of up to a year in prison.
So here’s a thought question, although
it is not entirely academic. Would it
cover a mention in Twitter? Now for
those not familiar with twitter terminology, a “mention” is when you include a
person’s specific twitter handle in a Tweet and it causes that message to be
sent directly to that twitter user. In other
words if I write on twitter: “Lee Stranahan is a schmuck,” Lee will not know I wrote
that unless he chooses to read in my twitter feed. By comparison, if I write “Lee @Stranahan is
a schmuck” it gets sent directly to him.
So the first example is protected speech, but the second is speech plus the conduct of directing the
communications to Lee, and thus can be prohibited. And when you understand it like that, then a twitter "mention" would appear to be a communication “sent to a person” as that term is understood in the
statute.
And that solves any First
Amendment concerns here. This statute
ultimately is not very different from the national “do not call” registry instituted
by Congress. The law can grant you, consistent with the First Amendment, a right to say to
someone: “do not call me, do not send me letters, do not email me, do not Facebook
message me, send me tweets... just do not contact me by any means!” This still leaves Schmalfeldt free to speak
to the world at large and say many awful things about Stranahan. But when he continually and intentionally
contacts Stranahan without legal purpose he gets in trouble.
Which is not to say that every
communication to the world at large is left out of the harassment statutes. As I said before, true threats are probably included, as might be true incitement (which goes beyond merely saying bad
things about other people, but actually advocating imminent lawless behavior). And there might be other examples. I wouldn’t be surprised, for instance, if the
courts find that doxxing a person (putting personal information about them onto
the internet) might count. But simply
going on the internet and posting on your blog, “Lee Stranahan is a schmuck!”
without any effort to direct that communication to him? That doesn’t count.
(And of course it can’t be one
comment in any case, but instead the statute requires a “course of conduct”
requiring many emails.)
But I read Lee’s Application for
the Statement of Charges just before he filed it and all it concerns itself is
a string of harassing emails that Schmalfeldt allegedly sent to Lee and others
close to him. He didn’t even bring up twitter
exchanges like this
one, even though it would qualify—although the prosecutor might be
interested in including that kind of conduct in the final trial.
Update: In my original post, I stated that Lee Stranahan’s criminal
complaint against Bill Schmalfeldt didn’t including any tweets he allegedly
sent. Lee has let me know I was wrong on
this point, but his criminal complaint was limited to mentions. So this question is even less academic than
before and I stand corrected.
And indeed, would it shock you to
find out that he is continuing this conduct right now as we speak? Some tweets from his @OldUncleBastard account:
Something tells me @stranahan did not consider the ramifications of this. tobtr.com/s/4391749 . #BlogTalkRadio
— Old Uncle Bastard (@OldUncleBastard) February 14, 2013
Taking legal advice from @aaronworthing, are you, @stranahan? Good. Good. See you soon! tobtr.com/s/4391749 . #BlogTalkRadio
— Old Uncle Bastard (@OldUncleBastard) February 14, 2013
This will be forever known as "@stranahan's Blunder." tobtr.com/s/4391749 . #BlogTalkRadio
— Old Uncle Bastard (@OldUncleBastard) February 14, 2013
@stranahan files criminal charges against @oldunclebastard, tobtr.com/s/4391749 . #BlogTalkRadio
— Old Uncle Bastard (@OldUncleBastard) February 14, 2013
@breitbartunmask@xcitizen10@brooksbayne @stranahan casts his dragnet! leestranahan.com/please-help-ha…
— Old Uncle Bastard (@OldUncleBastard) February 14, 2013
Looks like Lee stepped into a big pile of @stranahan this time! tobtr.com/s/4391749. #BlogTalkRadio
— Old Uncle Bastard (@OldUncleBastard) February 14, 2013
...TO FACE MY ACCUSER, and ASK him -- UNDER OATH -- all the questions that I jhave been asking! tobtr.com/s/4391749. #BlogTalkRadio
— Old Uncle Bastard (@OldUncleBastard) February 14, 2013
And so on. And by the way, he is simply wrong about
having the opportunity to pick through all of Lee’s life on cross examination. Lawyers know why but I won’t say here,
because I don’t want there to be any chance for Schmalfeldt receive free help
from me.
So, to wrap things up, Lee charged Schmalfeldt under this electronic harassment statute. And since the statute is significantly
redundant with the general harassment statute, he filed charges based on that,
too. But in each case the conduct is the
same: allegedly sending him harassing emails even after he told him to stop—indeed
even after the police allegedly told him to stop and he allegedly agreed to
stop. And it is equally important to
note what the case is not about: his general writing about Stranahan on the internet. This is about emails to him only.
I will add that if Schmalfeldt
does happen to read this post, this post
is not legal advice. This is true
for anyone, but particularly Schmalfeldt.
This is a discussion of the law so that the public can understand the
law, because we the people ultimately decide what the law is. But still he would be wise to speak to a
lawyer (and Brett Kimberlin doesn’t count) immediately, before he does another
thing. He could be making things worse
for himself in real time as I write this.
Oh, and for bonus points, there
is also a Federal Law that applies to this situation and it doesn’t require the
victim to tell the harasser to stop and the penalties are much, much more
severe... I will be curious to see if
that is the next shoe to drop.
And I will be curious to see if
anyone else files against him.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds
fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
History here.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
First of all, I am sorry Lee Stranahan and his family have had to endure the malicious treatment of this disgusting creep. That being said, this case will be extra fun to observe because Liberal Grouch is not only richly deserving of prosecution and penalty, but is so stupid as to have left himself so wide open to it.
ReplyDeleteSuppose Grouchy goes to jail. In that case, Brett Kimberlin has mananged to manipulate a marginally stable person to take a fall for him. Nothing much is going to change. The talent pool of marginally stable people for Kimberlin to manipulate is quite deep, and, the very traits that lead to Grouchy's self-selecting himself for incarceration will keep similiar-minded people from learning from his example.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, suppose Grouchy's relationship to Kimberlin, ultimately, has a financial aspect. Who is paying for bbu to operate? This might very well be an actionable question.