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.

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.

Doing What Is Right!

In a rambling, unapproved comment on this blog, Bill Schmalfeldt claims the following:

Do you think I deserve to be railroaded because Hoge can’t get Kimberlin? That’s what this is all about. He thinks taking me down will somehow harm Kimberlin, a man I haven’t spoken to in months. I’ve never MET Neal Rauhauser. I am a simple blogger, trying to do what is right.

Bill Schmalfeldt in an unapproved comment on this blog

rightTo anyone with a glancing view of this situation with Schmalfeldt, and the bigger situation with Kimberlin (whom I’ve never written about prior to this post), this claim to do what is right is so ripe for fisking.  I’m sure, ultimately, that I’m not the best one for the job.  After all, I’m the new kid on the block.  I don’t even have the complete history of the events, I can only go back for a few months.

That said, I don’t see where anything that has happened between Hoge and Schmalfeldt has anything at all to do with Kimberland, and instead everything to do with Schmalfeldt’s own actions.  It wasn’t Kimberland, as best that I know, who kept contacting Hoge after being told not to.  It wasn’t Kimberland who lied to the court about not getting the notice to stop contacting Hoge.  It wasn’t Kimberland who continued to contact Hoge via Twitter in direct defiance of the Judge’s order… no matter how stupid Schmalfeldt thinks the order may be, it was ordered and he should have followed it until he could get it lifted.  Which he never could, and instead got it extended because of his actions.  It wasn’t Kimberland who wrote books that included other people’s intellectual property.

I don’t even know who Neal Rauhauser is. I have some vague idea, but nothing really specific.

So exactly how did this simple blogger try to do what is right?

He fabricated excuses to hurt a photographer in Texas whom he disagreed with politically by falsely alleging accusations about the photographers children he had absolutely no way of knowing the veracity of, and claims he did it because it was the right thing to do.

He fabricated excuses based on his demand for information he was not entitled to receive and would have violated federal law if his victim had provided them and based on his victim not violating federal law, sent a report to police and cyber crime organizations about his victim.

He identified, often erroneously, individuals whom he disagreed with politically for the purpose of harassment, threat and an attempt to silence opponents.  Now that he has successfully done so, including calling employers, calling spouse’s employers, contacting various organizations and such to complain about his political opponents, he now uses the threat of exposure to blackmail people into silence.

He writes the most vile and disgusting satirical stories about his political opponents, then memory holes them and denies they exist.  To date, in all this kerfuffle over copyright, Schmalfeldt has done his best to avoid bringing up the fact that the parody written by Paul Krendler was a parody of a post Schmalfeldt wrote about Hoge.

He admittedly lied to obtain an emergency peace order against a fellow he quickly admitted he had no fear of, simply to kick a man while he was down.

He ridiculed a woman who chose a valid and legal method of delivery for her twins, a woman who had never spoken to or written about him in any way and was not in any way involved in any political arena that Schmalfeldt was involved in, simply because he wanted to hurt her husband.  Since one of the two twins was stillborn, he took it upon himself to accuse the grieving parents of lying about the dead child and perpetrating a scam on the internet for the purposes of getting money.  In this all, he had absolutely zero proof of that narrative, he did not witness the birth, did not attend the funeral, and did not have access to any information that would invalidate what was reported.  This may be the single vilest and repugnant thing I have discovered he has done.  He repeatedly and purposefully ignored the term En Utero, because it didn’t fit his false narrative, and accused the home birth for the death.  Even after medical reports refuted the claim.  God, just writing about that makes me shake in anger.

He is completely obsessed with other people’s anuses.  He lost a non-paying gig at citizen journalism website for his anal rape story and he routinely makes jokes about anal sexual activities among his various political opponents.  As of this writing, instead of relying on facts, he has a picture on one of his blogs of two dogs, one shoving his head up the other’s anus, with opponent’s names identified on the dogs.  Because, you know, every simple blogger trying to do what is right is anal fixated, right?

And what, exactly, is the right he is trying to do?  As best I can tell, he is trying to attack and deflect negative comments and stories about a convicted felon.  That’s his righteous cause.  All the anus joking, vile writing, misogynistic gloating, employer harassing, police contacting, vexatious suing, harassing actions have been for that righteous cause.  Children in Texas, whom he’s never met, must be in danger because someone wrote an unflattering story about a convicted felon.  Wives are baby killing, bathtub delivering, whores because their husbands don’t like someone he does.  That’s righteousness. That’s honor.  That’s glory.

That’s just sick.  And I might say, more than a little creepy.

I’m sure many of my readers have more of the righteous actions of the simple blogger who is trying to do right.  I encourage detailed examples.  Thanks in advance.


The complaints of Bill Schmalfeldt

It doesn’t end.

I awoke to the following from this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt:

Now Mike, due props and all that. But who put you in charge of interrogating me? If you have questions, you can follow me on Twitter, DM me, and ask me politely without this conspiratorial attitude. I have nothing to hide and will gladly answer any question you have, except for ones I am bound by journalistic ethics not to answer. But this blog of yours for the purpose of interrogation? Meh. We’re done.

Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog

In the same way no one approved you of investigating any story you’ve ever written in the blogosphere, I own this bandwidth.  This is my tiny, insignificant corner of the web.  I decide what is newsworthy and important.  You have absolutely zero control over what I type into the piece of crap editor.  I’ve worked in journalism, and you are not my Executive Producer, not my Show Producer and damn well not my News Director.  With all due respect to your condition, fuck you.  You don’t get to walk into my space and call me out.  You want to “meh” me, fine.  But I get to ask the questions here.  Answer them or not, but they will stand.

So in fairness…  Shall I continue, or is this a request, demand or otherwise threat for me to stop with your overly long, unrelated response to my questions?  Or will I see you respond on your own blog?  Or does mostly competent and always polite (except for FUCK YOU) questions and simple rules confuse you too much to respond?  I’ve NEVER abused Twitter’s terms of service to demand an answer to any question I’ve asked of you.  I’ve never harassed or bugged you in any way.  You responded to me here.  So either go through with your threat of leaving my bandwidth, or pony up and play ball.  I don’t care.

But in the end, this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt.  I decide what to post here.  You don’t.  You may participate or not.  It is your decision.  And the next time you call me out, either expect the same level of ridicule… or me ignoring you.  Because you seriously need to learn, this is MY bandwidth.  The End.

Liars gotta lie.

20140531-204325-74605752.jpgBill Schmalfeldt is at it again, my friends.  Only much worse, this time.

Back in February he doxed a fellow in Illinois.  In March, he cowardly called his employers to complain about alleged online harassment.  Well, last week this fellow lost his job.  I don’t know this fellow at all, but apparently he worked in IT.  I’ve worked around IT for years, and at quite a few places if I’d have so much as gone to Facebook, I’d have been fired.  So I don’t really have a comment on what this fellow did or didn’t do on company time, because I don’t know.  If he did read blogs and send tweets on company computers on company times, shame on him.  He knew better.

But that’s beside the point.  Back in March this fellow wrote a verbose but otherwise harmless “Why poke the bear” comment on a website.  Now Bill, along with a picture he posted of an old Mr. Bill sketch, toddled off to the Court Commisioner and filed a “peace order” (Most of us would know of it as a restraining order) against this fellow.  Why?  Because BS thought this fellow (who’s name is apparently Grady, according to the peace order) was going to travel several states and cut off his head?  Because he wanted to look for a job in Maryland?

No.  We get the real reason on a comment to a blog post at BlubberSuesBloggers.  Here is BS’s own words:

I do not believe Grady is going to come to Maryland to kill me. I got the Interim Peace order (which you can see for yourselves at ch**s*skr* and it is in effect until 1:15pm ET tomorrow.

Side note: I took out the spelling and linkage to his blog.  The asterisks are all the letter “e” so you can feel free to type them in yourself, I just won’t refer you to his collection of lies.

There is more to his comment, which you can read here, but that sums up his reason just perfectly.  Bloggers and Commenters had been tearing apart his reasoning behind his peace order all weekend.  Heck, I went for my (truly lovely) motorcycle ride yesterday and came back to the whole situation exploding all around the interwebs.  By yesterday evening, everyone had pretty much completely destroyed his jacked up rational for even obtaining a peace order.

So you can be clear, he didn’t get a peace order from a judge.  No, that would have involved him explaining himself to much.  By going to the court commissioner, he had to convince a non-judge, by himself with no counter arguments, that he was in fear of his life.  Since BS is in a walker, and had a little Boo-Boo on the way in to see the commissioner when he “accidentally” fell, I’m sure a crippled old elderly man who is currently bleeding didn’t have to try to hard to convince one person he might be in danger.

But that peace order is only good until 1:15 on Monday, that’s when BS would have to explain this to a judge.  A judge who will be far more dispassionate about it.  And if at 1:15 on Monday, the judge passes it on, about a week later he has to argue it again, in front of a judge, but this time, and for the first time in the entire process, Grady will be able to respond.  And BS can’t have that.  So BS is changing his tune suddenly, after everyone has shown him and told Grady just what to do, BS is now afraid of that meeting where the two minds must meet and go before a judge.  And now, BS has shot himself in the foot and admitted that he didn’t believe what he told the commissioner.  He doesn’t believe Grady is going to kill him.

So why did BS get this peace order against Grady?  I believe it was to kick a man while he was down.  The man lost his job this week.  He has a disabled son that is counting on his father to bring home the bucks to keep him happy and healthy.  He didn’t have issues with that back in March when he called his employer, but now that he realizes that he’s screwed up and is going to probably lose at the adversarial level of the process, if not just when he comes in front of a judge, that’s when, again in his own words:

For God’s sake, the man has a son with spina bifida and it’s going to be hard enough to find a job without a Peace Order on his record.

Unlike Hoge, who filed a peace order and got it extended because I TWEETED at him, I am not going to use the law as a weapon against someone who is gonna have enough trouble in his life as it is without my making it worse.

In other words, if I may be so bold, what BS is really saying is “Oh shit, this fellow has as many issues that will draw him sympathy as I do.  I shouldn’t have tried to use the law as a weapon, but I did.  And now, I’m gonna just drop it.  Just like I dropped my lawsuit against 10 bloggers.” Because really, when it comes down to standing in front of an impartial judge and being forced to answer questions he really has tried to dodge for months now, he realizes it just isn’t going to go the way he thought it might.  The cold harsh light of the Maryland sunshine seems to drain all the confidence BS has in his legal acumen.

I don’t know Grady.  I don’t believe that BS’s March contact with his employers is the reason he got fired.  It may have been A reason, but it wasn’t THE reason.  And I really don’t think that Grady, who seems to be a nice enough fellow that really loves his son, is going to travel several states to so much as lay eyes, much less fingers, on BS.  BS clearly thinks the same thing.  And now that the harsh light of truth is shining, BS is “willing” to let the whole matter drop.

What a bully.


A quick look at BS’s twitter account shows that since he filed the peace order against him, BS contacted Grady 8 times via twitter @mentions.  That’s the same activity that had WJJ Hoge’s peace order against BS extended by 6 months.  I looked at Grady’s twitter for quite a while back, and couldn’t find any @mentions of BS.  So, who’s harassing whom?