Questions of Bill Schmaldfeldt

questionsWe are adding a new question to Bill Schmaldfeldt, that arose over at Thinking Man’s Zombie.  I’m sure if Bill were to answer the question here, I could get Paul to accept it on his blog.

So on with the questions….

On the issue of doxing…

On Thinking Man’s Zombie Bill has been challenged to answer one question, how many examples of failed doxings does it take for him to accept that he isn’t very good at doxing.  This is a dangerous road for Bill, since he really needs to examine his failed doxings to his successful ones.  And he really needs to be sure that his successful ones are correct.  Accurate.  Complete.

For example, I’ve been in contact, as a sort of support group, to several of Bill’s doxing victims.  Bill thinks he has successfully doxed several of them. I know, in one case, it is an incomplete doxing.  Bill got most of the facts right, but instead of doxing his target he has doxed his target’s 81 year old Alzheimer suffering father.  In some ways, that’s even more frightening than this new friend being doxed.  After all, if Bill suddenly goes on another None of his Business attacks on the misplaced doxed father…  why that would be stressful and confusing to the poor fellow and his caring wife.  Out of nowhere, they start getting calls from some moron in Maryland demanding all sorts of things.  So I know at least one of Bill’s “successful” doxings is not as successful as he thinks and is, in fact, quite dangerously wrong.

That’s not the only time Bill has gotten key information wrong about one of his victims.  In the case of a certain photographer he doxed, he got the photographers studio mistaken for his home address.  And without verifying his information, Bill filed a complaint against the photographer with child services.  Even though he had the rest of the photographer’s information correct, the fact that he had this key bit wrong led him to some really invalid conclusions.  Conclusions that were none of his business, even if they were correct.

Since all my comments are moderated, if you’re reading this and are a victim of a Bill doxing and want to get in touch with me about it, feel free.  Just make it clear you don’t want me to approve the comment when you write it.  I’d love to hear from more.

On the issue of Pronography…

Bill Schmalfeldt once called the cops contacted the Dallas Police Department, which turned the information over to an investigative unit, the FBI Cyber Crimes unit, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the American Sites Associated with Child Protection and accused a photographer of using underage models in the production of pornography.  He did so because the photographer didn’t provide Schmalfeldt with age verification information on his models, something that the photographer couldn’t give Schmalfeldt under penalty of federal law.  Schmalfeldt incorrectly argued that he was required to give him the information.

It turns out that Schmalfeldt is also a producer of pornography.  Specifically, he produced, not take but digitally enhanced, a photograph of two men in either simulated or actual anal sex.  The picture had four models in it, since the faces of the body models where replaced by other faces.  Schmalfeldt then disseminated the pictures via Twitter and possibly other means.  By doing so, he came under the same record keeping requirements that he attempted to claim gave him the right to look at the records of the aforementioned photographer.  Specifically, under the law, Bill was either the First or Second Producer of the photograph.

At first, Bill has claimed he did not produce any pornography.  Once it was pointed out that there were sealed files in a courtroom that said otherwise, Bill went on a rant about hypocrisy, since he’s been accused of publishing sealed files… even though I’ve not published the picture from the sealed files, and I didn’t get them from the sealed files.  But that’s another issue.  It is quite clear that Bill has either made and disseminated (first producer) or disseminated (second producer) pornography.  Either way, the proper record keeping is required.

That said, Schmalfeldt was asked if he had the proper record keeping files of the four people in his pornography production.  Schmalfeldt has yet to answer this question.

on the issue of hypocrisy…

In a comment on this blog, Bill Schmaldfeldt accused me of hypocrisy.

Any time you’d care to explain the hypocrisy of condemning me for having “sealed documents” while you just claimed to have a document that was sealed in the Peace Order hearings, please share. Think of it as a “teaching moment” for all of us.

Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog

I then went on to explain to him exactly how it wasn’t hypocrisy.  How first off I consider the question of him having and PUBLISHING sealed documents are not that important to me, because real journalists do it all the time.  But I didn’t PUBLISH what was potentially the content of a sealed file, but it wouldn’t matter because I had gotten the file from a source who had captured the post in the wild.  In fact, I have copies of several posts that contain several different images, because apparently the original copyright holders (see a trend?) took down at least one of them, and Bill produced a second version using a new stolen photograph.

Now keep in mind, that Bill denied having published the pornographic photograph to me.  When I pointed out the sealed files, he flipped out on the whole “hypocrisy” charge that has absolutely no basis in reality.  So I asked for a retraction.  The explanation as to why there is no retraction has not been forthcoming.

On the issue of anonymity…

Is it true that while you’ve been calling other people anonymous cowards for hiding behind their various pen names, you’ve used false identities of your own to return to writing for websites, where you’ve actually written articles about yourself in the third person?  I might point you back to the issue of hypocrisy for that one.

On the issue of anonymity part two…

Is it true, Bill, that you are currently picking up domains under the false identity of “Matt Lillefiet” or some other similar name?  I’ve seen several references to this, and again have to ask why you call anyone else who behaves anonymously a coward and yet you get to do it and expect not to receive the same treatment.

On the issue of bragging…

Schmalfeldt has repeatedly claimed that people bragged about getting him fired from various “jobs” at online publishing places.  A specific claim is that people brag about getting him fired from the Examiner, but other sites are implied in his writings.  Schmalfeldt has been asked, repeatedly, about who these braggarts are and what they said.  He has yet to provide that information.  UPDATE: At least one commenter has pointed to screen caps of Bill saying he couldn’t have been fired since they were non-paying gigs, and you can’t get fired from non-paying gigs.  While that’s just plain wrong, it seems Bill is talking out of both sides of his mouth yet again on this issue.

On the issue of conspiracy

Over at Blubber Sues Bloggers, Schmalfeldt accused the host, Flynn, of conspiracy to do all sorts of nefarious things not specified.  It was enough for Flynn to write an entire blog post about it.  Schmalfeldt has commented on that post, as of this writing, eight times.  Not once has he addressed the post itself, explaining exactly what Flynn has done that was anything like what Schmalfeldt claimed it was.  Of course, he can no longer address it over at Blubber Sues Bloggers, since he has been banned from posting there.  He may feel free to answer it here, and I’ll pass it on to Flynn.  (Wait, is that two blogs he’s been banned from posting at, just in one post?  Trend anyone?)

On the question of sealed documents

More important to several readers than to me is the issue of sealed documents you’ve freely printed on your various blogs in the past.  They would like to know who revealed sealed court documents to you.  I, however, have worked in “real journalism” and have no issue with this.  For one, it is obvious who shared them with you, and two, as a journalist you should never name your anonymous source.  But it does show a specific bias in your alleged reporting.  YMMV.  I find this question irrelevant to almost everything and am dropping this.  There is no question that Bill did publish sealed documents, and no question who provided him with those sealed documents, and that neither the party targeted by the publishing nor the court did anything about it, I’m less inclined to include this any longer.

On the issue of scams

Please detail the scams you have already claimed exist by several bloggers as to you telling various untruths.  Already at question is your claim that Flynn of Blubber Sues Bloggers of conspiracy.  Please explicitly explain your accusation of  Robert Stacy McCain running a scam over his leaving Maryland.  Or is it still your intention to claim that Robert Stacy McCain did not move out of the state of Maryland?

On the issue of 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1

Have you actually read this?  Can you sum it up? You put it forth as if it is law, but have you really even bothered to look up this specific source that you site?  Is that law?  What law?  What is 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1?  And asking if Hoge has read it is not answering the question. I’m frankly so sick of his spewing forth half educated guesses about copyright, that I don’t want him to answer this on principle.

On the issue of Libel, Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

In your recent counterclaims you have pointed to a post by one anonymous blogger Paul Krendler as being vile and disgusting.  You fail, in your permissive counterclaims to point out that the anonymous blogger Paul Krendler wrote the post as a parody of a post you made, that was also vile and disgusting.  Or do you deny writing a vile and disgusting post about WJJ Hoge’s home life?  Or does the concept of Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress only apply to you, and not to Hoge?

On the issue of “Right to know.”

I’ve now gone back literally years and years of blog posts about you.  I can’t read blog posts from you because of your habit of memory holing things. However, I’ve noticed a trend in other’s writing about you.  It seems you repeatedly and often demand some piece of information from other people. You response to them not giving you that piece of information varies from insults to doxing, and you’ve been accused but admittedly not conclusively proven to have done worse.  However, what is clear is that you do assume to have a right to know that does not exist.  So the question before you today is simple.  Do you realize that what goes on in private between other people is not your right to know, and real journalist, which you repeatedly claim to be, do not respond to the answer, in the words of Robert Stacy McCain, to “fuck off” in the way that you have?


As always, feel free to add any additional questions in the comment section.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Questions of Bill Schmaldfeldt

  1. Regarding incorrect doxing. I believe you are raising the issue that he wishes the dox to be correct, but is careless about innocent bystanders and therefore doesn’t take proper measures to make sure he doesn’t accidentally harass innocent people.

    There is another type of possibility.

    The doxer KNOWS he’s identifying his enemy incorrectly. The person he’s identifying him as is a different harassment victim. Now the harasser gets to smear two people at once: the still-anonymous enemy, and the person you claim he is. It’s mainly the second person who stands to be harmed from this.

    There are multiple possible motivations for why someone might do this. I won’t list them here. I hope you’ll keep in mind that this might be one of the intentional tactics harassers use, at least in certain cases.

    • That is a good point. In the faildox that earned him a Restraining order from Arizona he was told repeatedly by his target that he had the wrong people. His response was that if his target did not wish innocent people to be harmed then he better just send Bill his information to confirm he had the wrong people. If the target did not send Bill his personal info, well then Bill just HAD to believe he was correct and if he wasn’t, hey, that was on his target for not stopping him by self doxing himself to Bill.

      Takes kind of a sick and evil person to target and harass innocent folks and then blame his failure on his target.

      • Do you have screenshots of all this? Because one of the problems with doxing is that the information is often public. Even so, revealing overtly personally identifying information could be a threat if the person who reveals it intends to do harm. I think having those screen caps could be very useful.

  2. (redacted for unrelated HOGE! rant. Seriously Bill, Hoge is mentioned only 3 times in this post, one time his name is crossed out, the other two concern a specific post you wrote. Be topical for a change.)

    • Ooh! Did you save the Krendler rant?

      Can I read it? Huh? Huh? Can I?

      Pleeeeeeeeease? I’ll clean my room for a year. I’ll take out the garbage! I promise I won’t complain about eating my vegetables EVER AGAIN!

      C’mon, c’mon, c’mon…pretty please?

      • It was a short rant, and no I didn’t save it. Basically it was something along the lines of “Doom is upon he who calls himself Krendler.” I might have taken a little bit a dramatic license in the recreation. But you get the gist.

      • yes this is OT, but just wanted to point out how quickly he went from Paul being DOOMED!!1!11! to having no real interest in who Paul was other than to verify whether or not he has an actual agreement with Hoge concerning the blog rights he sold to him, back to Paul being DOOMED!111!! in the space of 3 weeks…
        O.o

      • Oh that’s completely on topic for you. Just not Bill. There is no, pardon the pun, Bill of Rights here. This is my bandwidth, so I am the sole determination of what is and what is not on topic.

        As for the change, I’ll be honest, I didn’t know he’d switched back until he threatened on this thread to force Paul to reveal he is, in fact, Chuck Norris. I suppose I’ll have to take an antacid and head over to his bandwidth and see what’s up. Probably a good candidate for another “What they really meant to say…”

      • (Redacted for being off topic and a threat to Krendler that is unclear as of this writing that he will be able to manage, and less sure that it is a threat he will be happy of accomplishing if he does manage to make it happen. Think Chuck Norris. And this is much longer than the redacted off topic comment because, it’s my blog and I can do that. Focus, Bill. Here’s a hint, on any installment of Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt, the only on topic comment I will allow from you will be an answer to one of the questions. Everything else is deemed off topic, coming from you. You will not be hijacking this post.)

  3. Clearly, Snitch knows that he creates unintended casualties, but attributes them to casualties of war. In my opinion, it takes a psychopathic mind-set to do this. Given the way he outed his issue as not legitimate was an exceptionally cruel act indeed from a mind most likely warped by similar experiences as a child. My concern is what will happen when he interfaces with people in a real setting rather than from his fantasy-land internet. I believe he is a real and present danger to society.

  4. I have a question for Bill: You have said numerous times over quite a long period that the stress of dealing with us is expediting your demise. Well its really been quite a long time you’ve used that tale and nothing seems to be happening, what are we doing wrong?

Comments are closed.