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.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Liberal Grouch Charged With Electronic Harassment

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.

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.

For review purposes, this is what the general Maryland Harassment statute says (Md. Code Crim. Law §3-803):

(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:

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.



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. 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.

  2. Suppose 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.

    On 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.