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, June 27, 2013

BREAKING: Brett Kimberlin Associate Bill Schmalfeldt Plans to File An Abusive Ethics Complaint (Update: Unauthorized Practice by Schmalfeldt's Lawyer?)

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: Now as usual it turns comical.  Apparently the lawyer Schmalfeldt did consult with himself appears to be engaged in unauthorized practice of law—because his license is apparently suspended.  Jump to the end for details.

So sorry for the blog silence, but I have been very busy helping friends move out of their home.  They are frankly disabled and thus not able to do much of it themselves, and they didn’t have very much money so they got three burly guys to move all the really big things (couches, tables, beds, etc.) and then for the rest of it, I was the muscle.  Which if you have ever met me in real life you’d know that was a sign they were in trouble.  I do alright, but I am not exactly Schwarzenegger in his prime.  Heck, I probably not even as good as Ahnold today.

But in the meantime, Bill Schmalfeldt (who shall hereafter be called Señor Neckroll™) has gone off the deep end.  He has created not one, but two websites, dedicated to telling everyone how evil I am in terms that makes gives “ranting” a bad name.  The first is called (I kid you not) “@aaronworthing is a cowardly c*nt.”  And the second is a close mimic of the name of this site.  Neither will be linked, because I don’t want to risk exposure to viruses.  He is associated with criminal hackers, after all.

But the latest tirade is his claim that I have engaged in authorized practice of law in Maryland by 1) briefly giving Seth Allen legal advice on Maryland law while I was in physically in Virginia, and 2) appearing in Maryland on my own behalf to defend myself against Kimberlin’s various abusive filings in Kimberlin v. Allen.  Now, sharp-eyed readers might notice a certain familiarity with this.  This is because this is exactly the same complaint Kimberlin filed with the Virginia Bar which ultimately was dismissed out of hand.  I provided the Virginia Bar with all communications between myself and Seth Allen and all documents related to my appearances in Maryland fighting Kimberlin’s abusive motions and they found the following: 1) I didn’t engage in unauthorized practice of law in Maryland by giving Seth Allen legal advice, and 2) all of my appearances in Maryland courtrooms were on my own behalf and not on Mr. Allen’s.  Mind you, I said to you, dear reader, and the Virginia Bar Association that I hoped that what I filed might benefit Mr. Allen, but they were filed on my own behalf and were primarily designed to protect my own interests.

But as I demonstrated repeatedly, Señor Neckroll™ is not interested in the truth or anything like that.  The fact that I have already been cleared of the exact same charge based on the exact same evidence is no reason to deter him.  So he actually (allegedly, since he is a proven liar after all) spent $66 to an “Ask a Lawyer” site.  And this is the question he allegedly posed:

Screen Shot 2013-06-27 at 12.11.29 PM

And allegedly he gets this response from David Kennett, Esq. of Ohio.  Which is odd, because I attempted to call him to verify he had really done such a thing and all of his official listings give a false number.  But this is his alleged response:

Screen Shot 2013-06-27 at 12.29.35 PM

So Señor Neckroll™ declares “Aha! Now I got him!”  Apparently the Virginia State Bar didn’t know what it was talking about, so he pledged to file a new bar complaint against me before the same bar association.

Now, assuming that Señor Neckroll™ really did contact this David Kennett and all, does anyone start to see the problem, here?  Well, by Señor Neckroll™’s interpretation of the law, Mr. Kennett himself has engaged in authorized practice of law while discussing what constitutes unauthorized practice of law.  After all, he is not admitted in Maryland or Virginia (I checked) and yet he is giving advice on the application of Maryland law with an eye toward potential discipline in Virginia.  Which suggests that perhaps Señor Neckroll™ is making a mistake.

The answer is that Señor Neckroll™ has made the classic error of GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.  It is a computer acronym that is short for the idea that if your inputs are bad, your outputs will be bad, too.  Señor Neckroll™ asked a bad question and thus got a bad answer.

Can anyone see the crucial fact that Señor Neckroll™ forgot to mention?  The fact that all of this advice was given while I was in Virginia.

This is not just my opinion, either.  First, take a look at the Maryland Rule Against Unauthorized Practice of the Law, which you can read, here:

Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law

(a) A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.

(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:

(1) except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or

(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.

(c) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that:

(1) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter;

(2) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized;

(3) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or

(4) are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.

(d) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that:

(1) are provided to the lawyer's employer or its organizational affiliates and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or

(2) are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.

Now, what is crucial at all times is that the unauthorized practice must occur in that jurisdiction, in this case Maryland.  So (b)(1) talks about establishing a continued practice in Maryland.  I have never done that.  Subsection (b)(2) talks about claiming you are qualified to practice in Maryland.  I told Seth Allen from the beginning I was not a Maryland lawyer and couldn’t appear in a Maryland court (we lawyers say this sort of thing as almost a pavlovian reaction).  Subsection (c) talks about “provid[ing] legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction.”  But I was providing legal services in Virginia.  And subsection (d) doesn’t even look like it might have any applicability at all.

If you don’t believe me, perhaps you would believe the Illinois bar association.  Their rule on unauthorized practice of law is identical to Maryland’s (probably both based on the model rules), and on their own website makes it clear that what jurisdiction the lawyer is presently in is crucial:

[I]f the lawyer, located in Illinois, is retained by a Wisconsin client simply to give legal advice on Illinois, Wisconsin or federal law, the lawyer would not be considered engaged in the unauthorized practice of law simply because the client is situated in Wisconsin. In advising clients on Wisconsin or federal law, the question really is one of the lawyer's competence. If the lawyer met with the client in Wisconsin, the lawyer would have to determine whether Wisconsin considered the nature of his activities in Wisconsin to be the unauthorized practice of law in their state.

The reality is what I did for Seth Allen (for free!) is what happens all the time in the large firms.  Lawyers in D.C. take on clients in L.A. to work out a deal in Houston.  I have personally been witness to hundreds of such transactions.  For instance, I once represented an online gaming site.  As you might imagine, such websites have to ensure compliance with each state’s laws and the relevant federal laws (including any relevant federal territories).  I was one of a team of lawyers who divided up the country and collectively learned the relevant laws of every jurisdiction.  I don’t even remember which specific jurisdictions I was assigned to learn about, except for New York State because at one time their courts banned coin-op video games (like Pac-man) based on the claim it was gambling and thus it stuck in my mind.  There was about five of us and virtually none of us were researching where we were admitted.  Indeed, how could an internet company such as Amazon or Ebay or this gaming site obtain this needed advice under Señor Neckroll™'s interpretation?  Would they have to hire close to fifty lawyers to get the jurisdictional coverage they need?  Of course not.

And it happens all the time.  For instance, just to pick a guy at random, let me introduce you to Laurent Alpert.  This is his picture on the right.  He is a partner in the firm Cleary Gottleib a fairly large and famous firm.  I never heard of him before, but given his background and current career achievement he is almost certainly a great attorney.  According to the firm’s site, he is a member of the New York State bar in good standing, and that is the only jurisdiction he is admitted in.

And yet his webpage brags that

Major recent assignments in which Mr. Alpert represented U.S. and foreign corporations include ... Lafarge North America in the sale of its cement and concrete assets in the United States to Eagle Materials[.]

Lafarge is a French company.  Eagle Materials is a Texas company.  Any competent lawyer would have to know something about both French and Texas law in order to negotiate such a deal.  Even if the contract designated that New York law would apply and jurisdiction was granted exclusively in New York State, one would have to know whether the courts in Texas and France are likely to accept that assignment of choice of law and jurisdiction.  And yet this partner in a firm not only purported to represent this foreign client, he bragged about it on his website.

And the reason why he did is because there is nothing even slightly unusual about it.  Yes, most of the lawyers I have known would flatly refuse to speak about French law but it is not because we are not admitted to the French bar, but because we don’t know anything about French law.  And many lawyers admitted in America will not give advice on the laws of other states but again the reason why is because they are concerned they do not know that state’s laws well enough.  But the bar associations have made it clear that if you do the work to make oneself competent in a given jurisdiction (which includes learning another language in France’s case), you can give people advice about the law in that jurisdiction even if you are not admitted there as long as you are not in the forbidden jurisdiction when you give such advice.

Indeed Señor Neckroll™ might consult with his Maryland lawyer Tae Kim about the application of Virginia’s stalking laws to some of his online activities, specifically including telling the world at large that if anyone would like to do me harm—including Islamic terrorists—he will gladly provide my home address.  Kim probably won’t know the answer off the top of his head, but with a little research he can give him the answer.

And in fact, I bet he wouldn’t even need to crack open a law book to know that what Señor Neckroll™ was doing was begging for legal trouble even if he wasn't sure if it would violate a specific statute.  Lawyers learn when activity raises a red flag, too, and this would be more like a flashing red siren than a mere "flag" to any rational person.

Update: Well, thanks to “Army Vet” on twitter, I learned that David Kennett doesn’t appear to be in good standing in Ohio.  If you search Ohio’s attorney directory, and follow the link on “Attorney Discipline and Sanction History” you get the following:

Disciplinary Action                                         Effective Date
Attorney Registration Suspension                  12/03/2007
Attorney Registration Reinstatement             03/31/2009
CLE Suspension                                             11/13/2012

I can’t link to that directly, but if you go here and do what I described, you will see the same thing.  CLE stands for “continuing legal education.”  Every attorney in every state is required to remain competent in the law and thus up-to-date on changes, but some states require you to affirmatively prove you have remained up to date by imposing CLE requirements.

Also if you click on the button that says “CLE Enforcement” it indicates that he was suspended in November of 2012, that he had a $750 sanction put upon him, and that he has never paid it off.

Of course these are computer records.  They can be wrong.  For instance, they oddly stated that he is “active” but sometimes jurisdictions distinguish between a membership being “active” and in “good standing” requiring you to actually be in good standing.  So I tried a simple experiment.  I used google to find a name of a lawyer who was suspended.  I found the name of William J. Detweiler, who was found to have solicited a client for sex.  His license was suspended for a year on May 2, 2013, all according to this source.  It is backed up by this court case.  And if you search for his name in the state directory you see he is listed also as “active” and the disciplinary history indicates he is suspended.

Still, I will call the Ohio bar people and verify tomorrow.  Computer mistakes might have been made.  Unlike Señor Neckroll™ I will give Mr. Kennett the benefit of the doubt.

But if he is currently suspended, he has plainly violated the rule on unauthorized practice of law.  Ohio’s rules of professional conduct are nearly identical to Maryland’s in this respect.  And I have searched in vain for any evidence that he is admitted anywhere else.

The sad thing about all of this is that Kennett probably isn’t a bad guy and I hate going after people’s attorneys.  But Schmalfeldt’s behavior has forced my hand.  When a lawyer sees evidence that another lawyer behaving unethically, he can’t not report it.  Failure to report the unethical behavior of another lawyer can cause that non-reporting lawyer to be disciplined himself.  So now I will have to call the Ohio bar and if his suspension is verified, I will have explain the situation to them.



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.

No comments:

Post a Comment