EXCLUSIVE: Bill Schmalfeldt’s Newest Crime Against Me

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.

As of today, Bill Schmalfeldt’s (hereafter Señor Neckroll™) quest to get me disbarred (surely on behalf of his buddy Brett Kimberlin) has been upped to get me imprisoned on the charge of unauthorized practice of law.  He claims he has written to the Howard County States’ attorney (you know, the same office that told my teary-eyed wife that if we were afraid for our safety to stay out of Maryland) in a lie-filled email claiming I engaged in unauthorized practice.  And as you will see in a moment that is a problem... for Señor Neckroll™.  He claims he wrote the following:

In my own case, I can’t help but notice that Mr. Walker assisted Mr. Stranahan in the filling out of his Application for Statement of Charges. Comparing Mr. Walker’s application and his handwriting to Mr. Stranahan’s application, it is easy to see Mr. Walker’s handwriting on Mr. Stranahan’s application.

I honestly didn’t remember for certain if I gave any help at all to Stranahan.  This is what I do remember.  I saw Lee had one of their applications for charges filled out.  I remember asking him how he got that and he told me that he made a call to the commissioner’s office, and they sent it to him by mail.  I also remember when we were there noticing he didn’t have vital information like Señor Neckroll™’s age, approximate weight etc. filled out.  I remember offering to write that kind of information in, but I honestly don’t remember if he said he wanted me to do that.  If he asked, I surely would have done so to accommodate Mr. Stranahan.  But I don’t think he wanted me to.  I know I didn’t write a word of the substance: what Señor Neckroll™ did and when, and what crimes might have been committed as a result.  And that is not unauthorized practice of law.

How much is it not?  Well, for instance, when I filed my charges against Schmalfeldt, I had my own disability to accommodate.  I can write by hand in small amounts, but a large multi-page complaint requires accommodation due to my dysgraphia.  Sometimes the officials in question have let me simply write it on the computer and attach it to their official forms, but in Howard County, that day, they insisted on using their forms.  So the commissioner’s assistant offered to write it herself, by hand.  So I probably filled out the top parts at most—Señor Neckroll™ address, age, etc.—and she filed out the rest.  This woman was not herself a lawyer, so if filling out the form is unauthorized practice, the commissioner’s office will have to indict one of their own!

And indeed while I was writing this, I reached out Lee and he was adamant that I didn’t write a word of it.  I asked Lee to scan a copy of the criminal complaint to me, and when he does I will know instantly if he is right—my handwriting is distinctive in its badness.

Alas, Señor Neckroll™ goes on:

Also, I have questions about the reasons Mr. Stranahan traveled all the way from Dallas, Texas, to file these charges...

Really, Señor Neckroll™ wonder why Lee flew all the way up here to get him to stop tweeting to his wife and him about the death of their daughter?  Señor Neckroll™ can’t puzzle that one out?  I can tell you that the woman on duty in the Commissioner's office visibly flinched reading some of the things Señor Neckroll™ wrote about Stranahan.

Alas, he goes on:

...which were ludicrous on their face...

Actually, which was substantially identical to the claim of harassment that the Carroll County Circuit Court found to be true.  To the extent that they were different, his behavior in Lee’s case was actually much, much worse.

...and which were ultimately thrown out. I suspect that he did so [filed his criminal complaint] at the urging of Mr. Walker.

Actually, Lee initiated the idea all on his lonesome.  Or perhaps at the urging of his wife.  But urging a person to file charges by itself is not legal practice.  Seriously, does Señor Neckroll™ think a person can go to prison if someone robs their friend and they tell them to file charges?

Now, if I go and explain to Lee Stranahan how Maryland law might apply to his situation—including potential criminal sanctions—then that would be practice of law.  But I never did that—although I would be allowed to while standing in Virginia or D.C.  If I had to guess, Lee probably read all the posts I have written about Maryland harassment law to a general audience and realized that Señor Neckroll™’s conduct plainly qualifies as harassment.

Alas, he goes on:

Mr. Walker has also been joined at the hip to Mr. WJJ Hoge in his various Carroll County cases against me, appearing at all those hearings.

Notice the subtly false use of the word “appearing” trying to imply that I made an “appearance” as a lawyer would, representing a client, when in fact I sat there as an observer and occasional potential witness.

He goes on a bit, finally admitting in a roundabout way that he has in fact been adjudicated as a harasser:

The Carroll County SA threw out the criminal charges, but Hoge did manage to get a Circuit Court to reverse the District Court’s denial of a peace order against me.

Notice he calls it reversing a denial, which actually isn’t correct.  The judge granted the petition.  You can read it for yourself, here.  The word “reversed” never appears on it.

He goes on:

Walker sat right at Hoge’s side through all of this.

As Hoge pointed out, this is also false and plainly designed to make the State’s attorney believe I sat at the petitioner’s table during these hearings, to imply I appeared in court on his behalf.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then he gets to the meat of it (and the lies start really flowing) when he talks about Kimberlin v. Allen:

But the real blatant violation of 10-601 seems to be found in the case of Kimberlin v. Allen.

Walker, a compliance lawyer at a health care provider in Virginia sees that a political adversary is suing Seth Allen for a peace order. Walker does not know Allen, but he hates Kimberlin for ideological reasons. He is not licensed to practice in Maryland, but he offers his pro-bono services to give advice to Allen.

First, Brett Kimberlin was not my adversary prior to his attempt to subpoena me.  I barely gave him any thought.  In fact the only time I even wrote a post touching on Kimberlin’s story before then was in responding to one of Ron Brynaert’s crazy accusations, here, which was months after I helped Seth Allen.  This is the bulk of what I wrote about him:

Brynaert is almost certainly referring to this case, involving the alleged defamation of Brett Kimberlin, the convicted terrorist known as the Speedway Bomber.  I suppose next he will assert that I have defamed bin Laden.  Seriously, defamation is a cause of action for damage to reputation; does Kimberlin even have a public reputation capable of being damaged?

And notice of course my dislike of Kimberlin at that point can only be called ideological in the sense that I ideologically don’t like terrorists and anti-Free-Speech thugs.  Most people don’t call that ideology but normal morality.  It’s like pretending I am ideologically opposed to OJ Simpson because he beat and murdered his wife, as well as an equally innocent bystander, because I don’t like spouse abuse and murder.  Again, most people don't call that ideology.

And the bigger lie is that Señor Neckroll™ is saying I was involved in the peace order hearing between Kimberlin and Allen.  Not in the slightest.  As suggested by the above passage, I was actually helping Seth Allen in his defamation suit.  You know, the one where Kimberlin claimed it was defamation to be called a terrorist, even though he was a convicted terrorist?

It also suggests that I got involved right away.  In fact the case had been going on for around ten months by the time Seth Allen reached out to me.

Also Señor Neckroll™ goes on:

Kimberlin becomes aware that Allen is receiving advice from Walker operating under the pseudonym “Aaron Worthing”. Kimberlin not know Worthing/Walker. He files a subpoena to Internet providers to disclose Walker’s actual name so he can know the identity of the person providing advice to Allen.

First, notice the self-contradiction.  Just a few moments ago, I was Brett Kimberlin’s “political adversary.”  Now Kimberlin doesn’t even know me.  How can you be someone’s adversary without even knowing them?

But more importantly, there is lie of omission.  He leaves out the crucial fact that Kimberlin’s purpose in doing so was not merely to identify but to subpoeana me to testify against Mr. Allen.  This lie of omission distorts much of the rest of his email:

Walker files a motion in the Montgomery County, Maryland court to quash the subpoena. In this motion, he refers to Allen several times as “his client” and asserts “attorney-client privilege.”

The deception here is that he is implying that I went in there to represent Mr. Allen.  What I was actually doing was protecting my own right to anonymous speech.  So I was not there to vindicate Seth Allen’s rights, but to protect my own.  As I have always said, I did also hope that as a side effect I would help Seth Allen as well, but I was there to represent myself.

He goes on:

In his motion to quash, he “respectfully asks the court to dismiss the underlying injunction against Seth Allen”. As for his reasons for maintaining anonymity in the court, Walker writes in his motion to quash, “With respect and no malice to his client, Mr. Allen is a poor advocate for his own cause and (my) right to anonymous speech should not be breached simply because Mr. Allen was unable to stand up properly for himself. Indeed, he allowed a default judgment to be entered against him and could not find affordable counsel in Maryland to stand up for him. (I, anonymously) therefore should be granted standing to challenge the underlying injunction” [sic]

This is another lie.  I didn’t ask to maintain anonymity because Allen was a poor advocate for himself.  I asserted the right to maintain anonymity because 1) people have a right to anonymous speech that should not be breached without good cause shown, 2) there was no good cause because every non-privileged communication I had with Mr. Allen was witnessed my multiple persons who could be called to the stand instead rendering any testimony unnecessary, and 3) because the underlying injunction should be dismissed because it was obtained by Kimberlin’s perjury.  The passage he just quoted talked about whether I had a right to ask for that injunction to be lifted; it was not the reason why my anonymity should be preserved.

Alas, he goes on:

He goes on to discuss Kimberlin’s demand to know his identity and says he can not reveal it without Allen’s say so, as “attorney-client privilege” is attached.

That is flatly false.  My real name was never a matter of Allen’s right to attorney-client privilege and I never said it was.

Instead the argument was actually reversed as suggested above.  You see, in the time relevant to Kimberlin’s hearing for contempt, I had only communicated with Allen by email.  Those emails fell into two categories: 1) emails between me and him only, which were privileged and 2) emails between him, myself and several other people, which were not.  In the first case, his ability to assert privilege made me unable to testify.  In the second, the fact that there were numerous other recipients made my testimony unnecessary; Kimberlin could get the same information from someone else.  So effectively the only emails that don’t have multiple recipients, are ones I can’t testify to because of attorney-client privilege.  So since Kimberlin wanted my right pierced in order to obtain testimony I couldn’t give, I argued that there was no need to call me to the stand, and therefore no need to reveal my identity in order to enable him to call me to the stand.

He goes on, asking them to investigate, but the biggest falsehood is he never makes it clear what is clear from all available information.  There is simply no evidence that I have ever practiced law while standing in Maryland, except to represent myself.

And all of those lies, big and small, is a problem... for Bill Schmalfeldt.  Surely he thought that by sending it to the State’s Attorney’s office directly, he was avoiding any penalty for false statements in an application for charges.  But in fact, it turns out he managed to violate at least one other statute and possibly two.  You see, it is also illegal under Maryland law to make (or cause to be made) a false statement to a public official, or to make a false statement to a law enforcement official.  Now there is no question that the people working in the state’s attorney’s office are public officials.  But are they also law enforcement officials?  In most states such officers are, but I suppose I will leave it to others to make that determination.

By the way, he also pretty hilariously made a second attempt to ask his question about unauthorized practice.  Once again, he failed to make it clear that the advice I gave to Seth Allen was made while in Virginia and this time he also falsely implied that I went to court representing Allen’s interests, when in fact I only represented my own, so the principle of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) applied.  You can read his whole exchange with this attorney, here, but you can see that at all times, the attorney apparently thought I went to court to represent Seth Allen and not myself.  For instance the attorney responding writes:

Is there ANY indication that this is a case of pro hac vice (him requesting admission for one time for this issue)?

Pro hac vice refers to admitting an out of state attorney for the purpose of a single hearing.  For instance, my lawyer Dan Backer was not admitted in Maryland, which meant he could not ordinarily appear in even a Maryland Federal court.  But he found a kind Maryland lawyer named Bruce Godfrey to appear with him and moved for admission pro hac vice.  It is done all the time.

And it is irrelevant when you are appearing in court to represent oneself.  For instance, in my peace order hearing against Señor Neckroll™ I represented myself.  It is a simple principle of law that any person can appear in any court, lawyer or not, an assert their own interests.  And surely this “PSimmons” knows that—he is simply confused by Señor Neckroll™’s deceptive question giving the impression that I was there to represent Allen’s interests, when in fact I was only there to represent my own.

This fundamental confusion is solidified when the lawyer started citing case law.

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v.Jude AMBE. 38 A.3d 390 425 Md. 98 (2011)

NY attorney sets up practice in MD. Claims it is limited to federal immigration (which under federal law would be legal). But there is evidence he is representing clients on state law matters (on tort claims)

Link here

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/6a11ag.pdf

This case really covers your fact pattern on several points. It does a great analysis of the MRPC (the Maryland rules of professional conduct for lawyers) and how in this case the NY lawyer was clearly representing MD clients on MD law matters (personal injury law issues). It shows that any person (attorney not licensed in MD or non attorney not licensed in MD) who claims to be a MD lawyer and represents it to a party, that is a violation of the law.

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. BARNEYS 805 A.2d 1040 370 Md. 566 (2002)

Link here

http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2002/2a01ag.pdf

Another case of a NY lawyer opening up shop in MD.

Similar fact pattern is similar. It started with a grievance and led to a criminal case. Like the AMBE case, it does a good job of going over the MRPC implications of practice in MD without a license. IN this case, the individual represented clients and, in at least one case, file pleadings to a MD state court on behalf of a client.

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v ALSAFTY 838 A.2d 1213
379 Md. 1 (2003)

Link here

http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2003/93a02ag.pdf

Another case of a NY lawyer. He took the MD bar exam but had not been admitted

In this case, he had represented multiple clients to the MD Courts. This case does talk at length about the “legitimate” clients (federal immigration clients) but also about the numerous clients he represented on state law issues.

So there you have 3 cases that are similar. Lawyers licensed in a separate state, representing individuals to MD state courts, acting as a lawyer.

The language of his answer should have raised red flags in Señor Neckroll™’s mind.  For instance he writes:

It shows that any person (attorney not licensed in MD or non attorney not licensed in MD) who claims to be a MD lawyer and represents it to a party, that is a violation of the law.

Well, in fact in my first communication with Seth Allen I pointed out I was not a Maryland lawyer.

And notice that last line: “representing individuals to [Maryland] state courts, acting as a laywer.”  I never represented or purported to represent Seth Allen (or anyone else) in a Maryland court.  And the cases he cites also involved presence in Maryland.

For instance, let’s start with the Barneys case.  You can read it here and right off the bat, it says 

From the evidentiary record below, the hearing judge, in a memorandum dated 5 September 2001, found that Respondent, a member of the Bars of New York, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, held himself out as a Maryland attorney beginning in August of 1996, when he opened an office at 7505 New Hampshire Avenue, Suite 301, Langley Park, Maryland. Without noting any jurisdictional limitation on the practice, Respondent used the name "Law Offices of Bradford J. Barneys, P.C." on his letterhead and business cards. The hearing court also found as a fact that, without being admitted to the Maryland Bar, Respondent engaged in the practice of law in Maryland during 1997 and 1998. The hearing court further determined that, despite the known pendency of Respondent's Maryland bar admission application (see supra note 11), he nonetheless entered his appearance as counsel and otherwise represented clients in at least five cases in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Prince George's County, and the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. In none of these cases had Respondent been either admitted to the Maryland Bar or admitted specially by the court.

So this attorney was not admitted in Maryland, but set up a law office and even went into court representing clients.  I have only represented myself in Maryland court and have never done legal work while in Maryland.

Same problem in the Alsafty case.  From the opinion:

The respondent's practice consisted of domestic, civil, bankruptcy and immigration cases.[12] He maintained a law office at 1600 South Hanover Street [in Baltimore]. In three of the windows of that office, in large gold letters, were the words, "Law Offices of Alsafty and Alsafty." The respondent's office stationary contained the letterhead, "Law Offices of Alsafty and Alsafty." In addition, he maintained possession and use of business cards, on which appeared, "Mahmoud Alsafty, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 1600 South Hanover Street, Baltimore, MD 21230 USA; (410) 385-8333, (410) 385-1233, Fax (410) 385-8333; Alsafty@aol.com." There was no indication on the stationary or the business cards that the respondent's practice was limited to federal courts.

I saved the Ambe case for last, because the facts don’t have a single easily quotable paragraph that jumps out at me.  The short version is this.  Lawyers not admitted to the Maryland bar apparently can operate in Maryland if they limit their practice to immigration matters in federal court.  But it turned out that she was practicing non-immigration law in Maryland as well.  And it is equally clear that the court believed that all of the conduct actually was committed in Maryland, writing:

During times relevant to this matter, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Montgomery County, Maryland.

So the actual acts in question in this case—negotiating with insurance companies and so on—were done in Maryland, making this case identical to the last two and different from my own.

I don’t think this PSimmons guy is necessarily bad, but in a real attorney consultation, you would have not simply taken the client’s word for it, but asked to see what was filed.  Why doesn’t Señor Neckroll™ simply link to my actual motion?  Or perhaps these linking to these posts making this simple point: I never practiced law in Maryland except to represent myself?

Because plainly he is deceiving these people who are not doing a thorough job because they are only receiving a cut of a $66 payout.  This is precisely why the site he links to says specifically:

Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.

So in this context I suppose PSimmons can be let off the hook for bad advice based on incomplete information by pointing at that disclaimer.  But Bill Schmalfeldt cannot.

---------------------------------------

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.