The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Friday, June 14, 2013

BREAKING: Bill Schmalfeldt is Officially Adjudicated a Harasser (Update: Schmalfeldt Reacts!) (Additional Updates)

Update (III): Late tonight (6/18/13), I learned that serial copyright violator Bill Schmalfeldt intended to claim copyright on a Scribd document I have linked to in this post and another document I used in another post.  Of course he knows the claim is bogus.  I have uploaded .pdf copies of the posts in order to facilitate my telling of the news of what he said to my readers and to criticize what he wrote, without forcing them to risk viruses and other malware, given his association with the criminal hacker Neal Rauhauser.  This is all covered under fair use.  Further, we also know that Bill will not actually sue to take them down as the statute requires.  He might threaten, but all of his threats are empty.  He once said “I don’t make threats, I make promises.”  Maybe so, but those promises have been repeatedly broken.  He just wants to get a few days of taking them down for annoyance sake.

So I have segregated those documents to a separate Scribd account, in case he tries to gulag that account.  So if you want to see what he desperately doesn’t want you to see, go to this account.  I have also appropriately updated the link in the post.

This is a busy week in my personal life, but soon we will discuss further how Bill Schmalfeldt repeatedly violates the copyrights of others.  Apparently it is “copyright for me but not for thee” when it comes to him.  And indeed he interprets his own copyrights in such a manner that would infringe on freedom of the press—a right he pretends to care about.

We now resume the original post as is.


This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over a year, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.  I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

Update: Bill Schmalfeldt is driven to talk to himself.  See below the fold.

Update (II): I went through and spiffed up the post in general to read better and look better, and to add a few details.  And I added a few more thoughts at the end.

So today was the latest hearing in the overall fight against Team Kimberlin.  As you might remember, John Hoge filed charges against Bill Schmalfeldt in February and sought a peace order based on harassment.  That peace order was denied, because Schmalfeldt lied about whether he received notice to stop, a crucial element in the offense of harassment.

Hoge filed a second peace order against Kimberlin and in that case, Judge Jones found that electronic harassment could not support a peace order as I reported, here.  By then, Hoge had filed for another peace order against Schmalfedt and Judge Green followed Jones' lead and dismissed the case without hearing evidence.

Zoa Barnes, Attorney
Today was the appeal of that first hearing, against Schmalfeldt, where the judge felt there wasn’t sufficient proof of notice.  This was a de novo appeal, so it meant that this was an entirely new hearing, although you could rely on admitted evidence from the prior hearing.  Mr. Hoge's attorney Zoa Barnes (pictured) used the prior admissions regarding Schmalfeldt's twitter accounts to help make her case.

In my February post, I accused Schmalfeldt of lying about receiving notice.  I said Schmalfeldt had tweeted out a link to the post on Hoge’s blog asking Schmalfeldt (and others) to cease all contact and Hoge just forgot to have that evidence with him.  Schmalfeldt, for his part, accused me of lying about him lying.

Well, today the evidence of his notice was submitted and not even objected to.  The court wasn’t asked to rule on whether he lied or not, but since previously Schmalfeldt claimed he hadn’t received notice and today the court found he did, you can draw your own conclusions.

Also, Tae Kim showed up as Schmalfeldt’s attorney again, and did present the argument that electronic harassment is not harassment.  The judge rejected that out of hand.

It is also worth noting that Schmalfeldt was also subpoenaed to produce documents related to his relationship with Brett Kimberlin and his relationship with Breitbart Unmasked.  But I repeat myself.  He refused to comply with that, a fact that Hoge’s able counsel exploited repeatedly to show that Schmalfeldt didn’t respect the law.

So the case was pretty straightforward from there.  Barnes established that Schmalfeldt had been told repeatedly to stop contacting Hoge and despite being told by numerous people (including a judge), he just kept going, even up until last night.  The judge found the conduct to be harassment, comparing it to junk mail, and granted the peace order.  For the next six months, Bill Schmalfeldt will be prohibited from contacting Hoge by any means.  He can talk about him—that is his First Amendment right—but he can’t actually contact him.

And time will tell if this will also lead to criminal charges.  It might be the case his troubles have just begun.  He really shouldn’t have tweeted to Hoge last night.  It was a dumb thing to do.

Of course sharp eyed readers will be wondering about Kimberlin.  Kimberlin did indeed show up today, this time dressed in regular street clothes.  He plainly understood he couldn’t fulfill any official role in the hearing, given that he is categorically excluded from testifying in Maryland (something I will talk about another time).  Also you might remember that we had the appeal of Hoge v. Kimberlin a few weeks ago and I haven’t reported on it yet.  That is because we have not had a decision yet.  So, strangely, even today we have no decision from the judge on the subject despite getting a ruling on Schmalfeldt.  I will let you know when I know.

Still the good guys won one today.  And from now until the day he dies, you can say that Bill Schmalfeldt is a man who was finally adjudicated to be a harasser.  As if you needed more proof than this.

And if you want to read the order itself, I direct you to Hoge’s blog.

Update: For pure schadenfreude, it is hard to beat Schmalfeldt’s self-reporting on the matter.  I would never link to his site for fear of viruses and the like (he is associated with the criminal hacker Neal Rauhauser, after all), but you can read the post, on scribd, here.

First, it is filled with all kinds of martyrdom hyperbole.  Oh noes!  This is the end of Twitter!  As the title to his "article" says: “Maryland Circuit Court Ruling Could Shut Down Twitter, End Online Journalism.”  Except the judge said nothing of the sort.  He simply said that under Maryland law, when a person asks you to stop contacting them, and you don’t, you run the risk of violating the harassment statute.  Schmalfeldt can write all day long about Hoge.  He just can’t communicate with him.

Nor is journalism dependent on contacting the subjects of a story.  Yes, of course, there is nothing wrong with a journalist trying to contact his subjects for a chance to defend themselves—within the limits of the law.  But, first, Schmalfeldt very often doesn’t do that.  For instance when he falsely accused Seth Allen of stalking Brett Kimberlin—and in turn falsely accused me of helping Seth Allen to do said stalking—he never contacted Seth or myself beforehand.  And even when I corrected Schmalfeldt’s errors after he had defamed me—indeed after it was clear that Brett Kimberlin was not even accusing Seth Allen of stalking him—he never corrected them.  His knowingly false accusations against myself and Seth Allen remained on his blog for months even though his own reporting showed they were untrue.  What do you call that folks?  Legal malice, as pure as you are ever likely to see it.  You can read about that, here.

Second, as I suggested above, his right to contact ends when the law forbids it.  How far does Schmalfeldt think he can go to get his comment?  Can he call someone repeatedly at four in the morning?  If you disconnect your phone, can he knock on your door?  If you don’t answer the door, can he break it down and accost you on the toilet demanding a comment?

Rational people recognize that his right to pursue the truth is limited by the law, which in turn is often designed to vindicate the right to privacy.  You are allowed to tell a person to leave you alone.  And if that person is a journalist, that journalist can simply say, “Mr. Hoge could not be reached for comment for legal reasons.”  If you feel the need to elaborate, do so, but by no stretch of the imagination is it absolutely necessary to contact the subject of a story.

And that is pre-supposing Schmalfeldt is a journalist.  Journalists search for the truth.  Schmalfeldt doesn’t even pretend very hard.

So contrary to this picture...

...he has not been “silenced.”  He has just been forbidden from contacting one guy.  He can write all he wants to about him (within the limits of free speech such as the rule against defamation, threats and so on).  He just can't contact him.

The article is also filled with inaccuracies.  For instance, he writes:

Judge Thomas F. Stansfield ruled that using the popular social media‘s “@ Reply” feature was the same thing as sending a direct message.

Except a “direct message” is a specific term in twitter, denoting a private message through their service.  Basically it is the same as an email, except it can only be 140 characters.  The judge did not equate a mention with a direct message.  Instead he merely said that mentions were a form of communication directed at a specific recipient.  That is, if I write “@wjjhoge is a meanie head!” that is a message sent directly to him.  Anyone who knows how twitter works knows this is true.

He also claims that he only made such “mentions” for a limited purpose: “I’ve only used it to respond to lies Hoge tells about me on his blog, because Hoge does not allow me to correct his lies in the comment section of his blog.”

This is provably untrue.  For instance, on February 22, he wrote “I wonder what @wjjhoge got by way of payment [to file charges against him].  Something to comb out the poop flakes from his beard? Hah. I kid.  I’m a kidder.  I kid that way.”

Indeed just last Wednesday, he wrote in a series of tweets addressed to Hoge: “I would just as soon forget [Hoge's] bulldog father fornicated with his billygoat mother and gave birth to this genetic mistake.”  Yeah, doesn't that sound like journalism?

And this is one of many tweets where his only purpose is to insult and there isn’t the slightest pretense of answering an accusation or any form of journalism involved.  In all frankness, he is not being even slightly honest about what he was actually saying in his article.

And notice the self-contradiction in this quote:

Flame wars have just been deemed illegal...  Any person who finds a journalist’s questions to be ‘annoying’ can now demand that the journalist stop all contact and then file criminal charges against the journalist if he or she continues to pursue a story.

No proper journalist would engage in a “flame war” about the subject of a story and then pretend to write objectively about it.

But I left for last the most hilarious part of his defense: the fact he wrote about himself in the third person.  I carefully edited all of those quotes so I didn’t show how they appeared in his piece.  He literally refers to himself as if he is a separate person, as follows:

“It’s not hard to imagine that once the word of this ruling gets out, anyone engaged in a ‘flame war’ with someone on Twitter could march down to the court house and take out criminal charges against the person who wrote the offending Tweet,” Schmalfeldt said. He said he believed this would have the effect of ending freedom of speech on Twitter.

It all reminds me of a line in the movie Braveheart when Stephen the Irishman came to their camp, openly speaking to the sky:

Stephen:          [laughs, speaking heavenward] Him? That can't be William Wallace. I'm prettier than this man. [Heavenward] All right Father, I'll ask him. [To William] If I risk my neck for you, will I get a chance to kill Englishmen?

Hamish:           Is your father a ghost, or do you converse with the Almighty?

Stephen:          In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

So like the heavily insane Irishman of Braveheart, Schmalfeldt is driven to talk to himself.  But I suspect it is because no one else will talk to him.

And of course all of this is incredibly hypocritical.  As regular readers know (and I detailed here) for almost a month I was forbidden by a peace order from writing about Brett Kimberlin.  I had never contacted Kimberlin—except by mail to serve process as required by law (and after being advised by the court that I was allowed to do so)—but Kimberlin had claimed that merely writing about him on the internet to a general audience was the same as writing to him, in part because he set up google alerts to tell him when someone wrote something about him and he found some idiot judge willing to go along with that.  The judge held that merely saying something bad about Kimberlin on the internet was tantamount to inciting violence against Kimberlin—even though I specifically and repeatedly stated that I  wanted Kimberlin to only face legal consequences for his actions and specifically and repeatedly made it clear I did not want to see any violence come to him.  But in the mind of the judge, merely reporting (truthfully) bad things about him was enough to constitute incitement.  And in doing so the judge ignored binding Supreme Court precedent by name with the now-famous line “forget Brandenburg.”

That, my dear friends, would have been a serious threat to freedom of speech—to say that you cannot write anything negative about anyone else without being charged with incitement.

Consider for instance a passage from Andew Hamilton’s closing argument in the Zenger trial.  This was one of the seminal cases regarding freedom of the press in colonial times.  In the Zenger trial, a newspaper man in colonial days named Peter Zenger wrote articles accusing the governor of wrongdoing.  He was then charged with seditious libel and wasn’t allowed to raise truth as a defense.  Hamilton brilliantly put his finger on the injustice of it all:

Men [in power] who injure and oppress the People under their Administration provoke them to cry out and complain; and then make that very Complaint the Foundation for new Oppressions and Prosecutions.

In other word, the tyrant oppresses the people.  The people cry out in complaint.  And then under this rule against seditious libel—where truth is not allowed as a defense—the very fact they complained becomes a new justification for additional oppression.  “How dare you complain about how I am crushing you under my boot?  For this, I shall crush you more.”

And that was precisely what Kimberlin was doing.  First he got my wife and I fired from our jobs and then he tried to frame me for a crime.  And then when I dared to complain about what he did to me, he used the machinery of the state of Maryland to use the fact I complained against him—true or not—as the basis of a new oppression, of even having me arrested on false charges.

That principle, applied broadly would be the death of journalism.  It means that Jeffrey Skilling could suppress journalists writing about his malfeasance.  Indeed, by that logic, Richard Nixon could have enjoined Woodward and Bernstein from their famous reporting on him and perhaps even arrested them as I had been.  And did Schmalfeldt raise a peep in criticism of that ruling?  No.  In fact, it was shortly after that, that Schmalfeldt joined Team Kimberlin.

Of course regular readers know that after I got that unconstitutional order lifted that the very same evening, I was SWATted.  Regular readers also know in the past that Bill Schmalfeldt has threatened to SWAT Mr. Hoge in the past, so that I have concluded that while Brett Kimberlin didn’t personally SWAT me, I am certain he ordered it done.  So the question is, will Brett Kimberlin put out the order this time and punish Mr. Hoge for his victory?  Will Hoge be SWATted?

Only time will tell.

Update (II): I am using Tae Kim's first name now for two reasons.  One of which is that he has apparently been hired by Shoq to intimidate an ex-girlfriend if I understand the story correctly.  By leaving out his first name, I realized, I was potentially impairing others from making connections that might be relevant.

Another point raised by friends on twitter is that Schmalfeldt's theory that we could just block him is defeated by his own behavior.  I told Zoa Barnes to bring this up and she did, but she made the simple point that Schmalfeldt has used so many different twitter identities there is no way to effectively block them all.  My metaphor is that its like whack-a-mole.

Meanwhile on Twitter today, Schmalfeldt first had a very hilarious meltdown.  And then he protected his account, meaning that the only people who can see his account are people he allows to see his account.  But that was not before I caught him in another lie and called him on it:

Seriously, lying about how Twitter works on Twitter.  Exactly who does he expect to fool?

And finally the account of @occupyrebellion has suddenly been removed from Twitter, under suspicion that s/he/it deleted the account.  So that is one less raving lunatic off the internet:

(Source.)  But there have been threats by people on the internet to unmask once and for all this account.  In which case, her troubles may already have begun.


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.



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.


  1. Scmalfeldt is forced to talk to himself?

    Man, you guys are merciless.

    1. It does seem to present an Eighth Amendment issue ...