Public Service Announcment

Since Mr. Schmalfeldt seems incapable of polite, honest communication and since Mr. Schmalfeldt continues to insult your host, and since Mr. Schmalfeldt has refused multiple request for retractions of errors, despite his professed belief in journalistic ethics, Mr. Schmalfeldt is no longer welcome to publish is filth on this blog until Mr. Schmalfeldt issues honest and sincere retraction to the inaccuracies he’s posted about this blog’s host.  After such retractions are posted, this host will consider a limited, probationary, return to the comments of this blog with certain specific guidelines.

Thanks for your time,
Running Wolf Blog


More Answers from Bill Schmalfeldt

Bill Schmaldfeldt returned to this blog and left a lengthy comment, as he is known to do, in an attempt to answer some of this blog’s “Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt.”  However, this is an answer to a comment and not any answer to any of this blog’s actually questions.  Since it is so lengthy, and a comment on a post that is now several days old, Running Wolf Blog decided it would be better presented in a post of it’s own.  Unless otherwise noted, anything in this post that is quoted is from Schmalfeldt’s comment.  Running Wolf Blog has decided to use the comment in it’s entirety.  If you’d rather read it without the commentary of Running Wolf Blog, you can find it here.

To start, here is the comment your host posted to Bill that he then answered.  Again, this is off topic of the “Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt” but since the answer was a mostly honest attempt at an answer to a question asked, we are going through this exercise.

Bill, no one is saying that no comment should end the investigation or the story. What people are complaining about isn’t that you wrote the story, it’s about how you behaved after you were told no comment. About the twitter attacks, the blatant insults and the demeaning things you said. By all means, continue to go after the story, but do so under the ethics of the profession.

From the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Do you honestly feel you behaved within these guidelines in the case of Stanahan’s daughter? Because if that’s what you honestly believe, that you used sensitivity, that your phone conversations were sensitive, that you actions when you didn’t get the information you wanted wasn’t arrogant and that Mrs. Stanahan had an expectation of privacy and respect and your continual comments on their decision to do a home birth was showing good taste… well then I don’t know what else to say. You’re the one with the problem, you’re blinded to your own actions.

– Your Host in an approved comment on this blog

Here now is the response.  Schmalfeldt’s words are in the quote boxes.  Running Wolf Blog’s commentary follows the quote boxes.  But before we begin, Running Wolf Blog hopes that Schmalfeldt will accept that this is not an attack, but a constructive criticism of his comment hoping to show him how he earned his current reputation.

I’ve already apologized for my conduct. Why is no one apologizing to me for what they said — and did — to me?

Running Wolf Blog has done nothing to you.  Schmalfeldt needs to take up his hurts elsewhere.

You are overlooking Stranahan’s past. You are overlooking his history and his penchant for using misfortune to raise money. If you are ever interested in the full story, how we “came to be”, how it started with a polite interview with his responses printed verbatim only to have him smear me as a liar online the next day, how he set the entire right wing blogoverse against me with his false rape-threat charge, you let me know. I’ll write you a story. You won’t believe it, of course, because I sense your mind is made up.

Schmalfeldt has absolutely no idea how your host feels about Stranahan.  Absolutely none.  It might surprise Schmalfeldt to learn that I have some serious problems with the politics and smear tactics of Stranahan, and am currently working on a piece that isn’t all that favorable to Stranahan.  I’m still getting background, and haven’t asked Stranahan any of my questions as of yet, so the story may yet change.  But your host’s disagreement on a topic with Stranahan doesn’t lessen the very real violations of the code of ethics of the organization Schmalfeldt claims to believe in.  Schmalfeldt is free to write his story on his blog, and your host might read it and look into it.  But Running Wolf Blog has its own Stranahan story to write.

But ask yourself. What did I do that compares to…

Profaning the memory of my mother?
Graphic depictions of sex with my dead twin brother?
Insulting comments about other deceased members of my family?
Threatening my LIFE?
Threatening to gut my dogs!
Insulting my wife! (Yeah, I know. I did it first. But I took it down because I was ashamed of it. Krendler’s is still there)
Calling my dead mother a whore?
Calling my dead father someone who gives blow jobs for the price of a drink?

Again, Running Wolf Blog did not participate in any of these alleged activities, so Running Wolf Blog feels no need to apologize for any of them.

However, as to what Schmalfeldt did that compares to each of these?  Here’s your host’s list.

Profaning the memory of Schmalfeldts Mother = Insulting the intelligence and love of a mother who just lost an infant.
graphic depictions of sex with my dead twin brother = content anus comments about commenters on Hogewash
Insults to deceased family member = dead baby again
threatening his life = veiled threats he made against others
Insulting my wife = Oh, he already answered that.
calling my dead mother a whore = him calling Ali’s live mother a whore
calling father blow job giver = did we mention the hickey’s Schmalfeldt claims was placed on Hoge’s ass?

Now your host is not forgiving either side of these equations.  Running Wolf Blog has maintained that family members are off limits and threats are wrong.  But ultimately, the thing that Schmalfeldt most misses is, when you are a reporter following a story, you shouldn’t become part of the story.  You shouldn’t be in the story, you should be observing it.  Asking questions.  Getting answers.  But always in an ethical manner.  How other people treat you, the reporter, is of no concern.  Their criticism should be water off a ducks back, not something to respond to.

How does aggressively pursuing an answer that I could have been given in ONE MINUTE stack up against all that? And who has apologized to ME?

There is nothing here to stack up against.  If Schmalfeldt is truly acting as a reporter, none of those comments should matter and are of absolutely no concern as for getting the story. A majority of those comments wouldn’t have happened, at least not repetitively, had Schmalfeldt not allowed himself to be drawn into and becoming a part of the story.  And it doesn’t matter that it would have only taken one minute to answer the question, no one, including reporters, have a right to private information of a private citizen.  Had Schmalfeldt done real investigative journalist instead of harassing, false reporting and engaging himself into the story, it is a story that would never have been written.  Because Schmalfeldt would have eventually found the death certificate, known it wasn’t a scam, and never published the story.  And that’s how reporting is supposed to work.  Not with the reporter jumping into the fray and becoming a part of the story.

I know my own actions. I’m not proud of them all. But you ask any ACTUAL reporter, you will be told that they aren’t proud of everything they’ve done to get to the bottom of a story. Stranahan was a story to me. Nothing more.

Your host is an actual reporter, having worked in newspapers, television and radio for over 2o years now.  Your host has worked with award winning journalists from around the country and on stories that were far more sordid than anything Schmalfeldt has reported on in his retirement.  But I know of no reporter who actually engaged the target of a story in the way Schmalfeldt did.  I don’t know of any reporter that openly insulted subjects of a story with the vileness that Schmalfeldt did.  Oh, dis your host ever regret anything done as a reporter?  Sure.  But your host can safely say nothing done to get to the bottom of a story approaches anything like what Schmalfeldt did, and your host knows of no other ethical reporter who did anything like it either.

Yes, my taunts were out of line. His sending the cops to my house was out of line.

This is the first in a series of “moral equivalencies” that are completely irrelevant.  Schmalfeldt’s taunts weren’t out of line, they were unprofessional, unethical, and would have gotten him fired from any respectable news outfit. By making the taunts, Schmalfeldt lost any credibility as a reporter, and he inserted himself into the story, breaking a cardinal rule of journalism.  There is no moral equivalency here.  Why Stranahan sent cops to Schmalfeldt house is directly related to the fact that Schmalfeldt did what he should not have done, and became part of the story.

My naughty words were naughty. His raising money off of a false rape threat was naughty.

I was crude, rude and vulgar. Stirring up the entire right wing internet, Google-bombing me as a “Deranged Cyberstalker”, distorting a photo taken of me three days after I did the ONE truly altruistic thing I’ve done in my life, dishonestly cropping it to make me look demented. That was crude, rude and vulgar.

Again, all these things happened because Schmaldfeldt didn’t remain in his role as a reporter, he crossed the line into unethical behavior.  One part of the code of ethics is that a journalist should never put themselves into the appearance of a conflict of interest.  By inserting himself as he did, Schmalfeldt crossed over that line and the rest, as they say, is history.  Schmalfeldt seems unable to view himself as anything but a reporter, but his actions in this story belie that fact.  He may view himself that way, but he did not act that way.

I apologized to Stranahan. And I meant it.

Running Wolf Blog has a copy of the public apology Schmalfeldt issued to Stranahan.  We believe that Schmalfeldt meant what he said.  However, we do not believe that it could be properly called an apology.  Schmalfeldt never too full credit for his actions.  Throughout the “apology,” Schmalfeldt kept returning to “if you’d only given me the answer to the first question” spiel.  That is neither apologetic, blaming the person you are apologizing to for causing the whole thing, nor is it something a reporter should do, since it further inserts them into the story.  An apology should be no strings attached and deal only with your own actions, not the other person’s.

Your Host must now warn our readers that the tone and direction of these answers now make a radical departure toward Hoge.

Has Hoge apologized for lying to a judge to get a peace order? And if you maintain he did not lie, what part of “I can’t block him on Twitter because it would mean disabling a portion of my Internet functionality” strikes you as “true”? What part of “Blocking him on Twitter is the same as having to change my phone number to avoid telemarketers” sounds TRUE to you?

Your host has already answered this question elsewhere, but will gladly answer this again.  I do find it true that Hoge should not have to block someone on Twitter to get them to stop contacting him.  Hoge had done nothing wrong, at least under the peace order.  Having Hoge change his behavior in any way isn’t fair, the harasser should have to change their behavior.  Just like a person being harassed shouldn’t have to change their phone number to stop the harassment, Hoge shouldn’t have had to block a twitterer to stop the harassment.  Additionally, since your host has been aware of Schmalfeldt, your host can remember at least three if not four twitter accounts used by Schmalfeldt.  All a harasser would have to do to get around the block is change to another account.  Now you’re setting up a case where the harassed has to constantly take action to prevent the harassment, and that’s not the point of a peace order.  The point is for the harassment to stop.  Your host has no problem with Hoge asking the judge to prevent contact via twitter.

What part of the story about my commandeering a server in Kansas City the day of Super Storm Sandy and using it to send naughty messages to Hoge sounds true?

Running Wolf Blog has no idea what this is about, and will make no comment on it.

What part of claiming that HASHTAG mentions and PINGBACKS qualify as direct contact in violation of a peace order rings TRUE with you?

Running Wolf Blog would not think that hashtag mentions would be contact, but Pingbacks would.  It’s the nature of a Pingback, it alerts someone that another has linked to their website and that is a form of contact and I put it in the same as @mentions.  It isn’t the harassed responsibility to change, it is the responsibility of the harasser to change.

What part of dragging a person you know has increasing trouble even moving his body all the way to court in Westminster from Elkridge, and then SUING the man for fucking COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT for doing the SAME FUCKING THING HE DOES EVERY DAY sounds normal and decent and ordinary to you?

Again, Schmalfeldt assume to know the mind of Running Wolf Blog.  He doesn’t, and your host has maintained from the beginning that the copyright suit was a mistake, and one that your host wouldn’t have done.  In fact, the same thing has been said about the peace order.  But your host has not been the direct recipient of 30 @mentions an hour from anyone.  Your host has had  5 or 6 from a single person and it is annoying.  However, Schmalfeldt can not deny that he used the intellectual property of other people.  As such, he risked a lawsuit.  Schmalfeldt is not blameless in this issue.

I’m not going to charge you with harassment. I think you have your head so far up your hiney that all you can hear is your lunch digesting. You certainly do not seem to be interested in my side of the story. You certainly do not seem to care one whit about what actually happened.

It is Running Wolf Blog’s position that we have avoided personal insults against Bill Schmalfeldt, and we have taken notice of yet another one from him.  That said, we would wonder why we have maintained a list of questions for Schmalfeldt for over a month now, and have not, even though there have been repeated violations of the very simple rules for commenting, banned Mr. Schmalfeldt from the comment section and discussion on this blog.  The reason is Running Wolf Blog is interested in Schmalfeldt’s side of the story.  Being interested in it does not mean we will agree with or accept without challenging his version of event.

When you decide that you give two shits for the TRUTH, you just let me know, big boy. And we’ll chat.

Well, big boy, here’s your chance to prove that you give two shits about the TRUTH.  Digest all that has been said here.  Keep enough of an open mind to realize this post didn’t insult you, as a person, once.  Take a look back not on the behavior of others but just your own behavior, and really ask yourself did you act like a reporter, or did you act like part of the story?  Did you get involved, emotionally and personally, in the story itself instead of reporting passionately about the story.  Look at your actions in absence of others, just your own.  And try to see that what you’ve just been given is more than two shits about the TRUTH.

The Answers Of Bill Schmalfeldt, on the issue of pornography.

Bill Schmalfeldt has been asked on this blog a number of questions over the past month or so.  Until yesterday, he has refused to answer any of the questions Running Wolf Blog has put forth.  Yesterday, he finally answered all of Running Wolf Blog’s questions, however it wasn’t as forthcoming as you might think.  Schmalfeldt answered the dozen or so question this blog had with a single answer, and Running Wolf Blog quotes…

“None of your fucking business.”

– Bill Schmalfeldt in response to Running Wolf Blog’s “Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt” post on this blog.

The very first question Running Wolf Blog had for Mr. Schmalfeldt dealt with his record keeping habits for the pornography he produced.  Several years ago, Mr. Schmalfeldt harassed a photographer in Texas, insisting he provide the legal paperwork required in the production of pornography.  Since the paperwork would reveal personally identifiable information, under federal law the photographer could not provide what Mr. Schmalfeldt was asking for.  Based on the photographer’s lack of response, Mr. Schmalfeldt filed a report with various Texas authorities.  In the end, once the properly authorized individuals could review the photographers records, no charges were filed against the photographer.

Shortly after Mr. Schmalfeldt made the complaints against the photographer in Texas, Schmalfeldt produced his own version of pornography.  He produced an image of two men engaged in either simulated or actual anal intercourse, and replaced the faces of the actual models hired with the faces of at least one other person. (Side note: for the purposes of this article, Running Wolf Blog is using the term “producer” as indicated in Section 2257 of Federal Code, which governs the record keeping requirements of producers of pornography.) Running Wolf Blog is in possession of multiple versions of the image, since original copyright holders apparently objected to the use of their intellectual property for Mr. Schmalfeldt’s use, this blog is not 100% sure which image is the final product.

However, a final product that used a fellow blogger’s image was used, replacing the face of a model in the original image.  Running Wolf Blog has it on faith and belief that the blogger who’s facial image used in the final product did not sign a waiver or an age release form with the producer of the image, Mr Schmalfeldt.

Running Wolf Blog asked Mr. Schmalfeldt if he maintained the same record keeping protocols he demanded the Texas photographer turn over to him.  Mr. Schmalfeldt, for over a month, has refused to answer the question until yesterday.  His answer, “none of your fucking business.”

Since receiving that answer, Running Wolf Blog contacted the Baltimore office of the FBI to see what the FBI’s interest in illegal online pornography.  The agent we spoke to, on the condition of anonymity, indicated that the FBI’s primary interest in online pornography has been child pornography.  Generally, the FBI does not handle other types of pornography, even though the record keeping law is a federal law.  When provided with the details at issue with Schmalfeldt’s production of pronogrophy, the agent wondered if this couldn’t be a case of revenge porn, since it is believed that at least one face model was unwillingly included.  The agent indicated that recently the FBI arrested several Revenge Porn Kingpins, including Hunter Moore, and as a revenge porn case there could be interest.

Running Wolf Blog is under no illusion that the very busy office of the Baltimore FBI, which is one of the main offices outside of Washington DC handling the investigation of terrorism in and around the nation’s capitol, will be overly interested in the production of pornography in the shadow of the Nation’s capitol.  Nevertheless, the question was asked, the answer (as insulting as it was) was given, and if the FBI is ever willing to focus on this problem, Running Wolf Blog ensures our readers that the FBI has the full cooperation of our resources on this issue.

Running Wolf Blog wishes to thank Mr. Schmalfeldt for his honest answer to our question on the production of pornography. Running Wolf blog will cover the answers to other questions of Mr. Schmalfeldt at a later date.  This blog is thankful to all our readers for their continuing support and the plethora of information and screen captures that readers have provided.  Since receiving a definitive answer from Mr. Schmalfeldt, we can finally proceed with our investigation into the various issues raised.  Running Wolf Blog promises our readership to fully investigate Mr. Schmalfeldt’s answer(s) as fully as possible.  More Answers of Bill Schmalfeldt stories are in the pipeline.

Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt

questionsSince I’m obsessed with Bill, I thought it would be a good time to bring up my semi-regular Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt feature.  These are questions I’ve collected from around the net that Bill Schmalfeldt has refused to answer.  Since he’s banned on almost every blog, except this one, and this one holds him to the highest standard when it comes to rules, it has gotten harder to find questions because he just doesn’t post much anymore.  Although he still runs his twitter and blogs.  Sometimes.  When they are up.  

Your host.

UPDATE:  Bill pointed out in his twitter feed that perhaps I didn’t ask a question in the proper way.  In retrospect I agree with him.  I have updated the question to better reflect what I meant to ask, with less snark and bias.  Your host.

New question this week, asked by one of my anonymous sources, and verified by Bill’s own words.  (No, not Ghost.  Ghost hasn’t set up the ultra-secure line of communication yet.)

On the Issue of child abuse…

Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was abusing children and look the other way? If you would, you disgust me.

– Bill Schmaldfeldt in an unapproved comment on this blog

So you had “strong suspicions” about someone abusing children.  How much time did you spend with those kids?  Did you talk with them somehow?  Did you actually ever see them interact with their parents?  Did you ever witness anything you might be able to call abuse?  What physical evidence did you have that abuse may be occurring?  Or did you invent your suspicions as an excuse to harass your target?

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.

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.

I have, however, received this.  It is unclear if this has to do with the Hypocrisy issue or not.  Either way, it is neither an apology or a retraction.

Screenshot 2014-06-28 17.57.34Screenshot 2014-06-28 17.57.55

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 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?

I has been chastised by Bill Schmalfeldt, poor fellow.

I have been chastised by Bill Schmalfeldt, because the only thing that matters in the world is what is going on with Bill Schmalfeldt.  I guess he bothered to read the Questions to Bill Schmalfeldt again, and here’s what he had to say:

Screenshot 2014-06-28 17.56.47

Only thing is, he tried to answer them once.  And he was thoroughly discredited for trying to lie his way out of them.  Now he tries to ignore them, hoping they will go away, but they won’t.  They will keep getting reposted and added too.  A constant reminder to Bill that he doesn’t answer question, he just demands answers to his own.  A constant reminder to new comers that Bill has a shady past that he refuses to answer questions about, but heaven forbid he asks you a question, you damn well better answer it… or the consequences may be DOOM!

He never has figured out that he’s not in control of other people’s actions.  And if they don’t behave in the way he wants them to behave, he punishes them through any means he can.  It’s like his current countersuit that includes Paul Krendler.  He is constantly going on and on about how he doesn’t want Paul involved, but Paul won’t give him what he wants, even though he has absolutely no right to ask it, and therefore he has to keep going with the suit.  Even though he doesn’t.  Even though what he wants can be obtained from Hoge during discovery.  It’s all a big fat lie to cover up his own inadequacies.

As for my requested retraction, I’m not sure this is what the Society of Professional Journalists meant in their code of Ethics when they said…

Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

– Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, Section Accountability

But this is probably the closest I’ll get, and it’s more than Hoge got for being called a liar, when it was Bill that was quickly shown to be the one lying.

Screenshot 2014-06-28 17.57.04Screenshot 2014-06-28 17.57.34Screenshot 2014-06-28 17.57.55

Unfortunately, Bill just seems to compound mistake upon mistake.  With the exception of a couple of comment replies, I’ve never once spoken to WJJ Hoge in my life.  I haven’t emailed him.  I haven’t sent him a postcard.  Bill has spent far more time with Hoge and knows him far better than I do.  So Hoge isn’t even an acquaintance to me, much less a friend.  Oh, and maybe if you hadn’t used his intellectual property without permission, you wouldn’t be getting sued.  Just a thought.

As for the rest, that’s not really correcting your mistakes is it?  Or is this you tacitly admitting you no longer believe yourself to be a journalist and will no longer be following the code of ethics of your most valued Society of Professional Journalists.  I can’t help but notice, Bill, that ever since I first brought up the code of ethics, your claim of being a journalist and a member of the society has all but disappeared.  Why is that?  Afraid I’ll throw the code of ethics in your face anytime you do?  Because you’re right.  I will.

And do you want to know why I’ll do that Bill?  That’s because the code of ethics TELLS me to.  That’s right, it is the job of ethical journalists to point out the unethical behavior of fellow journalists.  So the fact that your little cabal of buddies enables you to be unethical doesn’t make you ethical.  It means you hang out with unethical people.  Just to be sure you understand what I’m saying, here is the entire Accountability section of the Code of Ethics.

Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

-Code of Ethics, Society of Professional Journalists, Accountability Section

As for the “now shoo” statement, is that the magic phrase?  Had Lee Stranahan nearly said “Now shoo” would you have gone away?  Had all of your other victims just known that “now shoo” was the catch all way to get rid of an harassing journalist, I’m sure they would have gladly said “now shoo.”

However, Bill, you and I both know that isn’t how journalist work.  Some of us, you know the ethical ones, ask questions and report on both the answers and non answers that we get.  But we don’t give up because someone says “Now shoo.”  Others, the less ethical ones, act like harassing assholes.  You’ve picked you camp, I’ve picked mine.  And I’ll be reporting on you more in the future.

Hello Matt Osborne. Got some questions for ya.

I don’t know much about Matt Osborne, except that in the Hoge vs Schmalfeldt debacle, he’s safely in the Schmalfeldt camp.  I’ve asked Schmalfeldt for a link to a certain website that was Pro-Schmalfeldt and talking about his illness being used against him (Bill commented on it) but he never could give it to me.  I know that at about the same time I read that blog post, which greatly influenced my decision to leave Bill’s illness out of the discussion here, I read this post from Matt Osborn.   The post has helped me stay focused on Bill’s actions instead of Bill the person.

Bill Schmalfeldt was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease in 2000. Soon after, he was forced to retire from his job due to physical limitations. As his world began to shrink, he became an advocate for people suffering with Parkinson’s. He eventually underwent experimental deep brain surgery as part of a research project to study ways to slow the progress of the disease. His own disease continued to progress until his physical impairment became so great he was no longer able to function in the role of advocate.

Parkinson’s is a particularly debilitating illness because it degrades motor skills, emotional responses and cognitive skills all at the same time. Bill has been fortunate enough to retain his intellect, but he struggles with depression and a lack of impulse control. He cannot stand on his own for any length of time. His particular type of Parkinson’s causes his body to go completely rigid without warning. He is, therefore, confined to his home for the most part, with his wife serving as caregiver.

Faced with limited options, Schmalfeldt turned to the Internet, social networks, and online outlets, but was unfortunate enough to attract vicious adversaries in the process.

– Matt Osborne in a post on his website.

These three paragraphs made me change the way I thought about Bill.  No, I think I’ve made it clear that his actions are independent of his condition, but I will call out his actions and not call out him.  That’s why I don’t call him anything other than Bill, Schmaldfeldt or jokingly as This Blogs Best Buddy.  (BTW, if you missed why I call him TBBBBS, it’s because after his first meltdown, my stats when through the roof.)

So I thank Matt for that insight into Bill’s life, and motivating me to not let myself stoop down to the crass level of insulting his personhood and staying focused on his actions and words.

That is a very short segment of a very long post, and it may be the only part of the post I agree with.  Even then, there is something I disagree with in those important (at least to me) three paragraphs.  And that’s the very last phrase, “but was unfortunate enough to attract vicious adversaries in the process.”

Bill didn’t attract adversaries, he entered the discussion as one. Whatever else might be said, it is clear from every source I can find that Bill engaged these people after they went after one Brett Kimberlin, and Bill entered the fray directly opposed to them.  Please, Matt, if that’s not true explain it to me, because whatever thoughtful and insightful thing Bill posted to engage in the Kimberlin Kerfuffle (that’s my name for it, no one else can have it) has long since been deleted from the internet.

Now, as to the rest of Matt’s piece, I’ve some serious issues which I’m about to cover.  One of the ones I find most telling is that Matt half heartedly admits that Bill has acted badly.  What I find funny is that Matt mostly  avoids direct examples of how others have “mistreated” Bill because, and this is conjecture on my part, want to have to defend the actions Bill took just prior to the mistreatment.  In fact, this is how Matt describes Bill’s behavior.

Sometimes you react, and sometimes you react badly.

Matt Osborne in a post on his website.

Yes, I think it is fair to say Bill has reacted badly, more than once.

Now most of the post all this comes from is a denouncement of WJJ Hoge for filing a peace order against Bill.  Matt attempts to defuse it as an abuse of a loophole in the domestic violence laws of Maryland.  It isn’t.  Maryland specifically understood that people not in a domestic situation could have the same issues of harassment and none permissive contact.  So they offered a second, not part of the domestic violence laws, method of getting what is known elsewhere as a restraining order.  I wish more states did the same thing.  Hoge didn’t “drive a truck” through a loophole in Maryland law, he used the peace order laws to do exactly what they are intended to do.  Make Bill stop contacting Hoge.

Of  course Matt has to bring up that the peace order “permitted Hoge to self-file nearly 400 criminal charges.”  Only he didn’t self file, he showed a court official every instant where Bill violated the order and the court official filed the charges.  This wasn’t a “He said, She said” situation, Hoge showed the court official what Bill did.

And call it whatever you want, it doesn’t matter that you find it repugnant, the Judge ordered Bill not to use Hoge’s twitter account name in tweets.  If that was as egregious as you say, then Bill should have asked for an emergency appeal.  But really, it isn’t egregious, it’s common sense.  Bill found it insulting and continued to @mention Hoge nearly 400 times, each of those times a direct violation of the Judge’s orders.  It resulted in an extension of the court order, and had it not been for mediation, Bill would have been found in contempt.  I know you and Bill are friendly, Matt.  Did you ever advise him to stop using @mentions of Hoge?

But that’s not even the most outrageous thing, in my mind, is the following.

Any bystander who comments on their activity can expect to receive messages like the one I did. Paul Krendler, a frequent commenter and co-conspirator with Hoge, suggested I “visit the deraged lunatic cyberstalker at his run-down mobile home” to stop Schmalfeldt “by any means necessary.”

Krendler also authored a “parody” of Schmalfeldt on the same day describing him as “old and crazy, fat and demented,” before launching into another seven or eight paragraphs of similar derision.

– Matt Osborne in a post on his website.

I will say that Paul can be kinda blunt.  And I don’t often talk about Bill’s home, since I grew up in a run-down trailer.  People do what they gotta do to survive, and I hope Bill is living as comfortable a life as he can.  But the second paragraph, well that’s only telling half the truth, Matt.  It’s a favorite tactic of Bill, so since you’re friendly and all maybe you only know half the truth.  So let me fill you in on the other half.

“Are you talking about me, Daddy?” And Hoge realizes he spoke those last words out loud.

“Go back to your room and masturbate, son. Daddy’s thinking.”

“Yay! Pretend girl time,” his son blurts and the house shakes again as he lumbers down the stairs. Again, Hoge worries about the plates on the wall.

The Hoge legacy. The proud Hoge lineage will end with IV. III has long since understood that. His bride won’t touch him. Murdering her is out of the question since she makes the real money.

Bill Schmalfeldt in a now memory holed post on one of his now memory holed blogs.

Paul Krendler did write a parody.  A parody about Bill’s home life.  It was vile and disgusting.  But it wasn’t from out of no where.  Bill wrote a piece of satire.  That above is but a brief segment of it.  Anytime Bill talks about Krendler, it’s about how vile and disgusting Krendler’s parody is, without once every bringing up what it is a parody of.  Bill want’s everyone to believe it is a parody of him, but it isn’t.  It’s a parody of something vile and disgusting that Bill wrote.  Where you aware of the original writing, Matt?  Did you gloss over it because it didn’t fit your narrative?

At any rate, I think I’ve made my point.  Matt goes into great lengths to describe the humiliating things done to Bill, while overlooking the truly vile things Bill has done.  And he focuses in on Hoge in particular, despite the fact that while Hogewash may be a source of great turmoil for Bill, Hoge himself has been relatively benign writer about Bill.  You’d be hard pressed to find where Hoge himself has written anything particularly nasty about Bill.  Not so much with Bill about Hoge.

Hey @wmsbroadcasting! Still waiting!

I had hoped after his moment of clarity yesterday, following the complete humiliation he suffered on Hogewash over the contacting copyright holders issue… up to calling Hoge a liar (something he hasn’t apologized for or retracted)… that perhaps I could finally get my retraction from Bill Schmalfeldt for calling me a hypocrite for having documents I never said I had over things he did that I never said was bad.

To date, that hasn’t happened.  Today he seems all butthurt over the comments on Hogewash.  If he’d just stop reading Hogewash, he wouldn’t get all caught up in such an elaborate lie like he did and have to correct himself.  But hey, that’s not his style.  Apparently it’s not his style to offer retractions when he’s wrong, either.

A Reasonable Request Extended

Since Bill Schmalfeldt was in such a corrective mode today, at least according to these twits:

Screenshot 2014-06-27 15.33.19Screenshot 2014-06-27 15.33.52

I decided to remind him of my retraction request.

Screenshot 2014-06-27 15.35.26

This is about the reasonable request I made of him yesterday.

I still await his reply.

And just in case anyone thinks a day isn’t enough time, I clarified this in comments on this blog long before I made the request.  The request was made because he didn’t have the journalistic integrity to do the retraction on his own.  Now, I’ve specifically asked for a retraction.  I will continue to wait and see what becomes of my request.

Since Bill likes to brag about being a real journalist, and he loves to talk about being a member of the Society of Professional Journalist, I’ll remind him of a very important part of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Conduct.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

-Code of Ethics, Society of Professional Journalists.  Emphasis is from your host.

I shall await Bill to abide by his professed code of ethics.

Want to know what’s really odd?

So This Blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt posted an odd twit yesterday.  Take a look.

Screenshot 2014-06-25 14.58.56

Taken at face value, Schmalfeldt is right.  It is an odd response.

So I reached out to Paul Lemmen, who readily admits that he is a convicted felon currently living under the intense scrutiny of probation.  I asked him if he’d ever, prior to this communication, asked Schmalfeldt to not contact him.  He emphatically informed me that he does it at least once a month.  Lemmen told me he routinely blocks Schmalfeldt on Twitter, but since he changes his twitter account so often, blocking doesn’t always work.  (Next time you hear Schmalfeldt claim Hoge should have blocked him over the peace order issue, remember that.)

I asked Lemmen if he had any screen caps of the insulting and harassing communication that Schmalfeldt sent him, and unfortunately he didn’t.  I asked if he had any recollection of the harassing names he was called, and I appreciate his response…

His names mean nothing to me as they relate to my criminal past, that I have admitted, been in prison for and have repented.

Paul Lemmen in a Direct Message to me on Twitter

Now I can’t prove that Schmalfeldt harassed Lemmen online, since I don’t have any screen caps.  And Lemmen is a convicted felon.  So why am I picking to trust the felon over the adjudicated harasser?  Because it fits the trend and the truth of Schmalfeldt.  As a commenter over at Hogewash put it…

The way he attacked Stranahan and his family, and told anybody who asked how horrible he was, only to become his “buddy” when circumstances changed and he could get a sliver of info, then change back to his worst nightmare, was one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen.

Perry Mason in a comment at Hogewash.

And that’s something I’ve witnessed with Schmalfeldt on my own.  When he thinks you’ve no value to him, he will make the most vile and disgusting comments about you.  The minute you seem to have something he needs, you are his best friend, up to or until you give him what he needs or you refuse outright to cooperate.  Then, it is back to vile and disgusting.

So really, it isn’t all that odd of a response.  If Schmalfeldt had a little more human dignity, perhaps it would be odd.  But that’s not the case.

The Elephant In The Twitterverse

Earlier this week I had the privilege of being taken to lunch by a very dear friend.  It just so happened this friend is a well respected Intellectual Property lawyer here in town.  Now, I happen to live in a very tech savvy area, so IP law is kinda a big deal.  My friend is considered top notch, locally.

We had a nice lunch, got caught up since we hadn’t seen each other in a while, and because he was done for the day, decided to have a beer or two at a nearby bar.  After the first, I decided that I’d bring up the whole Hoge v Schmalfeldt mess.

I gave my friend no background except that he should watch because the entertainment value is probably worth it.  First, I’d printed off Hoge’s Terms of Service (ToS).  He quickly read through it and said “Looks like a lawyer wrote it, but not an IP lawyer.”  So, if you are reading this, Mr. Hoge, my IP lawyer suggests that you have a true IP lawyer look over your ToS.

However, after explaining a bit about the lawsuit and such, my friend could barely contain his laughter.  He gave me the subtle details that I’m sure Hoge is already aware of, but the short story is that Schmalfeldt is wrong as to his understanding of the protection that the Hogewash ToS provides him.

Again, I’m talking nuance.  Little things.  But, according to my friend, there is an even bigger, glaring, elephant sized problem with Schmalfeldt’s understanding of ToS.

Interestingly enough, in Federal Court, if you have a written policy, the judge will view that policy as if it is law, unless it violates federal statute.  So if Schmalfeldt is right, and the Hogewash ToS reads the way he is reading it (its not), then this case is done.  It’s over, and Hoge loses.

There are several nuanced points that makes Schmalfeldt wrong, and I will leave Hoge to shred Schmalfeldt’s case with those subtle points.  But there is one big, elephant sized mistake that Schmalfeldt is ignoring.  There can be no doubt that he is ignoring it, since he has blasted it out to the Twitterverse nonstop for days.

This is Schmalfeldt’s big “proof” that he’s right and Hoge’s goose is cooked.  Except….

See, once you violate a ToS, you no longer can count on the protections of the ToS.   That’s the whole point of the ToS after all.  Now look at this image again, and pay particular interest to the following, which I quote…

As I am not suing Hoge, this part does not apply to me.

Oh how quickly one forgets.  See, back in May, Schmalfeldt did, in fact, sue Hoge.  A good portion of the lawsuit Schmalfeldt filed dealt with the blog Hogewash.  So by filing that lawsuit, regardless of his dropping it mere days later, Schmalfeldt violated the Hogewash ToS.  Shortly after the filing of his lawsuit, Hoge filed his Copyright Infringement lawsuit.  That timing is important, since if Schmalfeldt is right (and he’s not), then prior to the lawsuit, Hoge would have no claim.  But he did file a lawsuit, and that did violate the ToS, and now Schmalfeldt can expect no protection under the ToS.  To make it worse, Schmalfeldt has filed a counterclaim to the copyright lawsuit that alleges various claims against Hogewash.  So Schmalfeldt basically doubled down on the ToS violation, voiding any protection he may have been able to claim.

(I’d also like to point out that it is quite clear that Schmalfeldt skims instead of reads.  If you go to’s terms of service, he is right that the ToS is covered under Creative Commons.  Not that everything posted on WordPress is Creative Commons.  But what’s a little detail like that, when you’re The Schmalfeldt?)

So there’s the elephant in the room.  Schmalfeldt did sue Hogewash.  In so doing, whatever permission may be granted in the ToS is no longer Schmalfeldt’s to enjoy.  So under the most favorable (to Schmalfeldt) reading of the Hogewash ToS, Schmalfeldt is, well, shit out of luck.

Of course, my lawyer friend may be wrong.  Schmalfeldt may be right.  I guess we will find out this afternoon.