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.

Things Don’t Go Well For WJJHoge

Judge Hollander has released her motion to deny a preliminary injunction against Bill Schmalfeldt in the Copyright Infringment suit Hoge v Schmalfeldt.  In addition to denying the injunction, Judge Hollander significantly attacks the merits of Hoge’s case, and from reading the memorandum, Hoge is facing an uphill battle in continuing the case.  Hoge’s “Fine Print” is used more than once in the memorandum to show that the is currently not evidence that Hoge can win on the merits of the case.

This is not a case in which the defendant has sought to pass off a copyright holder’s materials as his own. Rather, where defendant has used materials from Hogewash!, he appears to have generally included attribution, in one form or another, to Hoge. Nevertheless, defendant did not include a hyperlink to plaintiff’s website, because—as defendant explained at the hearing—he did not want to increase visitor “traffic” to plaintiff’s website.

– Judge Hollander in the Memorandum to deny Hoge’s preliminary injunction

Additionally, Judge Hollander seems inclined to believe that Schmalfeldt’s use, at least most of the time, could be defended under Fair Use, and although not specifically state, seemed to imply the use might even be de minimus.  Even in the case of longer uses of Hoge’s intellectual property, the Judge seemed inclined to dismiss.

To be sure, the blog posts and associated comments that defendant published in books or ebooks, see Counts I through III, appear to be somewhat lengthier than the materials implicated in other counts. Of particular relevance to plaintiff’s Motion, however, no such book or ebook has been offered for sale after April 2014.

– Judge Hollander in the Memorandum to deny Hoge’s preliminary injunction

To be clear, this is a very early point in the lawsuit, and the first thing decided, but it does not look as if Judge Hollander is looking favorably on Hoge’s case at the moment.  In fact, Hoge may not have a case at all.  Judge Hollander seemed undecided at the moment on whether or not applying for registration is sufficient.  Of course, this memorandum was not the proper place to make the final ruling, but Judge Hollander did not seem impressed with Hoge’s evidence of filing for registration.

Even if an application for a copyright is sufficient to meet the registration requirement, it is not obvious that plaintiff has made an adequate showing. “A litigant may prove registration under th[e] Application Approach by showing ‘payment of the required fee, deposit of the work in question, and receipt by the Copyright Office of a registration application.’” Caner, 2014 WL 2002835, at *13 (quoting Apple Barrel Prods., Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386-87 (5th Cir. 1984)). In support of plaintiff’s claim that he has submitted copyright applications covering all the materials at issue, he introduced at the hearing an exhibit purporting to be a printout depicting a U.S. Copyright Office website. See Pla. Hrg. Exh. 1 at 1. It is not a self-authenticating document, however. See Fed. R. Evid. 902.

– Judge Hollander in the Memorandum to deny Hoge’s preliminary injunction

It looks as if it is time for Hoge to put in some extra hours on his copyright infringement case, perhaps by focusing on counts I through III and providing proper proof of applying for registration.

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 WordPress.com’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.

Questions of Bill Schmaldfeldt

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

So on with the questions….

On the issue of doxing…

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

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

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

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

On the issue of Pronography…

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

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

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

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

on the issue of hypocrisy…

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

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

Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog

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

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

On the issue of anonymity…

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

On the issue of anonymity part two…

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

On the issue of bragging…

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

On the issue of conspiracy

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

On the question of sealed documents

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

On the issue of scams

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

On the issue of 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1

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

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

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

On the issue of “Right to know.”

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


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

An Open Letter To Bill Schmalfeldt.

Bill,

Earlier today you accused me of something in a not very veiled threat of blackmail.  I’ve told you before how I feel about threats, and I will say right now that your actions today had a very chilling affect on me and my family.  That’s why I hate doxing assholes.  Doxing is all about instilling fear in the person exposed.  That’s what you tried to do to me today, and it is repugnant.  Now that I’m mostly over my anger, I’m going to try and write the rest of this letter peaceably.

Wow.  That’s going to be harder than I thought.  I had to pause for a second there Bill.  I really am angry, and I don’t want to say anything that would be misconstrued.  Also, when one writes in anger, one might say things that are better left unsaid.

I think the best place to start would be with your own words.  You left me another lengthy comment that I’m not going to approve.  I’ll save it, but won’t approve it.  For the record, I’m also closing all comments on this letter to anyone but you.  If you want to discuss anything after reading this letter, it will be in the comments of this post.  I will have no discussion with you outside of this channel.  I hope that is perfectly clear.  Now, here we go, starting with your own words.

Mike, I’ve just been looking at your Facebook page. Sent a friend request in fact. I must say, I find your obsession with me baffling. I have nothing to do with you, you have nothing to do with me, and yet you have devoted your blog and your Facebook toward furthering my defamation. Earlier today, someone suggested that you were someone else. But if you are, you have created one dandy second life. You seem like a nice enough guy, involved in theater (as was I) but this is not a theatrical production. I am a flesh and blood human being that people like Chris Heather up there and Hoge are trying to physically destroy. You really know nothing about me other than what’s been written in right wing blogs by people with a vested interest in trashing my reputation. I am not a monster. I am a journalist. I am a broadcaster. I am not able to practice either profession on a fulltime basis any more, but that’s nobody’s fault, just a bad draw of the cards. I would appreciate it ever so much if you would cease and desist in assisting these thugs in their continued defamation. I don’t have a huge PR machine cranked up and ready to go like Stacy McCain, whose every dirty thought is retweeted to thousands. But ask yourself this question. How do you know me. Is it based on what I’ve written? Or is it based on stuff you’ve read, written by people out to trash me?

Examine your motives in this, Mike. And I could do without the smartassey tone when you write to or about me.

Of course, it is your blog…

Bill Schmalfeldt in an unapproved comment on this blog

I got you friend request, and it is noted and ignored.  Do you have any idea how creepy you sound?  I’m assuming from this comment that you no longer think I’m this Lynn person you and some unknown twitter user seems to think I am.  Others have informed me that whoever this Lynn person is, her family name is the same as mine.  I don’t know that to be true, because I don’t know who Lynn is.  But on the tentative assumption that is true, I hope you realize that Malone is about as specific as Smith or Jones for those of us with Irish backgrounds.  At any rate, I’m going to continue this letter on the assumption you misidentified me and have dealt, hopefully sternly, with whoever the third party was that gave you the information that made you incorrectly believe that I was whoever it was you thought I was.

I hope you realize just how creepy you sound, bringing up my involvement in theatre.  Since I haven’t done anything with theatre since January, when I directed a most critically and financially successful play, you must have gone digging into my public profile.  Why did you do that Bill?  Why did you go looking for personal information about me?

Before you answer that, go back and read all my post concerning you.  Do I mention your hobbies?  Do I mention your home life?  Have I ever talked about anything about you that wasn’t focused on either what you have said or done?  I’ve focused on nothing but your actions.  I’ve left your hobbies, your home life and your friends alone.  I’ve redacted other people’s comments on my blog that put you in, according to my opinion, an unfair light.  I’ve not banned you, I’ve only ask that you follow my simple rules when posting here.

I’ve even called out other bloggers and commenters that use your medical condition against you.  I think that’s foul, and have stated as much.  And so you felt the need to go after my personal information, information that was hardly secret, and made a point of letting me know you had done so.  That is creepy and stalker like.  And you act surprised when people call you a cyberstalker?  (Note, I didn’t call you that.)  I haven’t gone after your personal information in any way, so really ask yourself why you did so with me.

And thinking that I’m someone I’m not is not a valid excuse, Bill.  I’ve stayed focused on your writings and actions.  I’ve been overly polite to you, and given you the benefit of the doubt far more than a reasonable person would.  And your actions have now made my ability to earn a living more difficult.  You’ve forced me to realize that my naive view of the world is unsafe, and I’ve had to shut down my Facebook page.  That hurts me, Bill.  That was how I connected with new clients, Bill.  And now, I can’t use that as effectively because you creeped me out like that.  Even if you had looked at all my stuff, all you had to say was that you no longer believed I was this Lynn person.  You didn’t have to bring up visiting my page, and you sure didn’t have to bring up my involvement in theatre.  That’s why other people call you a cyberstalker, because you behave like one.  Dropping hints that you’ve explored their lives online.

You keep claiming to be a journalist.  Then act like one.  Be a responsible journalist instead of a raging commenter.  Stick with the facts, offer your insights, report on the issues but don’t act like a creeper.  Don’t use fear as a weapon to get what you want.  That’s not journalism, that’s creepy.  Don’t be creepy.

I’m truly sorry for your medical condition.  I think it’s great that you participated in a groundbreaking study into treatments for you condition.  But that doesn’t change you for being responsible for your own actions and words.

You asked me how I know you.  That’s pretty simple.  I posted it in a comment over on Hogewash! but it won’t hurt to repeat it here.  You first came to my attention because some writer friends of mine were alarmed at the use of legal proceedings to silence a reporter/author.  I don’t remember if this was a DCMA issue or the peace order.  At any rate, the author that they were concerned with was you.  This upset me and I wanted to find out more.  So I found your blog, or at least one of them, and I read it.  I thought you were an overly biased writer with an anger I didn’t fully understand, and so I was a bit confused over why someone would attempt to stop the publication of your books.  I don’t know where it went next, but I eventually stumbled on Hogewash! and thought I’d found the ass that was doing you wrong.  Till I heard his side of things.  Of course other things trickled in, and since I hate doxers, and you can’t avoid the fact that you are one, my attitude about you changed fairly dramatically.  They changed because of the things YOU wrote.  They changed because of the things YOU did.  Not because of what was written about you elsewhere, but because of the way you acted.

I’ve tried to explain this to you before, but you didn’t listen.  I’ll try one more time.  Stop being creepy.  Stop assuming that what you know is the ultimate truth in the universe and must therefore be shared.  You brought up Chris Heather.  I understand your desire to know who he is.  But once you knew, there was no purpose but fear in exposing him.  None.  Outside of your lawsuit, the person you were dealing with wasn’t Chris Heather.  It was Howard.  He was exercising his first amendment right to be anonymous.  You want to call him a coward for that, and that’s your right.  I’ll remind you that some of the most important political literature of our country was originally written anonymously.  I’m not saying that Howard is destined to be one of them, just that this country has a long history of supporting anonymous speech.  I don’t blame you for trying to figure out who Howard is, since you were contemplating a lawsuit.  I do find it repulsive that you published the information that had no bearing on the issues at hand.

That’s your problem, Bill.  You don’t know when to publish and went to shut up.  You publish stuff as quickly as you can, and as a former journalist myself I can understand the desire.  But this isn’t breaking news, there is no one else out there trying to steal your exclusive coverage.  Take the time to think about what you’re doing before you do it.  And if you’re doing it out of revenge, then perhaps you should take even more time.  Because revenge writing, something you do all to often, is not helping your credibility.

I wrote in another post about the other Alabama blogger that posted something that made me stop and think on your medical condition.  I asked you for a link, since I embarrassingly lost it.  I’ll point out that the writer made a good case of why your condition shouldn’t be used against you.  He called the actions of some bloggers as abuse.  But I can’t help but notice that this person couldn’t make his case with specifics about what you have said and what you have done.  That’s telling.  A strong supporter of you couldn’t cite examples of your behavior to support his case.  Why is that Bill?  Could it be because a reasonable person would look at your action and your writings and consider them unreasonable?

Lets use a more current situation.  I’ve already told you that, in my opinion, your defense against Hoge for failing to register copyright is strong. It’s abundantly clear that you think the defense is strong.  So why do you feel the need to rant about it over and over and over again?  How many twits have you sent out about it?  How many blog post has it been now?  That’s not reasonable.  That’s not even newsworthy.  That’s obsessive.

Forget about the writing to obsession part, think about your own legal road.  Stop giving the other side so much information.  It’s not in your best interest to act this way.

Now I’d like to revisit our hypothetical reasonable person.  They see you getting asked direct questions, based on what you’ve written or done.  Would a reasonable person walk away thinking you’ve given reasonable answers?  Or reasonable reasons to refuse to answer?  Or would a reasonable person see, instead, ad hominem attacks on the person asking the question?  Or would a reasonable person see you ignore them?  Or would it be threats of lawsuits?  Look back on your own response to people who asked you questions.  Have you really been the best proponent of your cause?

You’ve show in your writings a tendency to group people together and make a judgement on them all.  That hasn’t helped your cause much.  You did it to me today.  And because you assumed that I was just like all those “Hogeist” people you complain about, you made a massive dox fail.  You seemed to have realized your error, and even then you can’t help but be creepy about it.  Time and place, Bill.  Content matters.  Relevancy matters. Context is important.

If you want other people to stop calling you a cyberstalker, you need to stop acting like a cyberstalker.  If you want other people to stop calling you vile names, you must stop the vileness in your own writings.  It’s all about what you do, Bill.  It really is.  And if you aren’t acting like a cyberstalker and you aren’t acting vile and others continue, then and only then will it be a detriment to their causes.  Whatever they may be.

Me, I write about what I find interesting.  At the moment, your antics are interesting to me.  The way you thrash around on Twitter, the way you lash out to attempt to avoid direct questions, and the way you insult people of imagined slights is amusing.  So stop acting that way, and I’d go on to another topic.  If I could give you anything, Bill, it would be the hope that you could walk away from it all and look back on it through an unbiased lens.  I think you’ve become so embroiled in the battle you can’t see what you’re doing.  I’d offer a good place to start is right here on my blog.  No, I’m not claiming to be unbiased.  You’re a doxer, so I’m biased against you.  But my writing about you is not from a place of hate, it’s not to an agenda, and it’s not to harass you.  It is to point out the wrongness of your actions and your words.  I may not always be right, but at least pause long enough to see when I am.

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 WordPress.com 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.

On the question of pornography…

In a lengthy comment in another post, this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt attempts to answer some of the questions I have asked of him.  I asked them with no conditions and no requirements.  In another post, I told him that I didn’t think that the comment could be handled fairly in the comments and instead I would break them down into smaller chunks and deal with them as posts instead of as comments.  He is free to return to the comment section of the posts and, remembering my rule that comments should be marginally topical, my respond.  If, after commenting and such, I feel that the question has been answered, I will included it in one more edition of Questions for Bill Schmalfeldt, with his answer.  Then the question will be dropped from the series.  I am the arbitrator of what gets dropped.

Now with the rules of the game established, and by reference all of the I Haz Rulz still apply, I’m happy to go with the first of my chosen questions that Bill attempted to answer.

On the question of Pornography:

This is perhaps the question that is most closely associated to me personally.  I am a photographer, and I find it chilling that someone completely uninvolved in a work of photography would attempt to use law enforcement to harass a photographer.  I’ll admit that my interest in photography and law enforcement harassment is more geared toward true First Amendment issues and involve police claiming the illegal authority to keep you from photographing them on duty.  For more information on that, visit PINAC.

What follows is the first part of the question that I asked:

Bill Schmalfeldt one called the cops 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 argued that he was required to give him the information.

Me from my blog

Bill had an issue with this.

I did not call the cops on (name redacted because I Haz Rulz). Let’s be straight on that. I filed a report detailing my suspicions. That was the extent of my involvement.

Bill Schmalfeldt in his unapproved comment

While I would argue that I was using the term “call the cops” colloquially to mean “contact the authorities” and not literally picking up the phone, failing 911 and making a claim, I’ll concede that the language of the question was less than precise.  I have learned elsewhere, from a long since memory holed website of Bill’s that what he did was…

I asked (redacted) to produce just the one model release form. Then I found the four other suspect photos. Since (redacted) refused to answer my legitimate question about the model release forms, and being the father of daughters, I then turned to the only other resources available to me. 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. (Redacted) will HAVE to show the model release forms to THEM.

Bill Schmalfeldt on a memory holed blog I was provided a screen capture

So while I don’t think my use of “called the cops” was unclear, in future versions of Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt I will instead use the phrase “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.” I hope that alleviates any confusion in the future.  Since with the corrections provide by Bill’s own words conclusively prove that the set up to the question is no longer in doubt, it shall stand until the actual final question of the is decided.

The next part of the question was about Bill producing pornography.

It turns out that Schmalfeldt is also a producer of pornography.  Specifically, he produced 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.  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.

Me from my blog

Before getting into this too deeply, I will say that I may have been mistaken about the number of people involved in the actual photograph.  It may have been just three people involved.  I’m not sure, but have attempted contact with my primary source and will correct this as information comes in or Bill can correct the number of models involved in the production himself.  Although, it seems, that this is is response to this part of the question.

I didn’t produce any pornography.

Bill Schmalfeldt in his unapproved comment

With that said, it would seem to put an end to the question.  Perhaps.  Or Perhaps not.

The next part of the question is the actual guts of the question at hand.

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.

Me on my blog

Bill responded.

I didn’t photograph any pornography, so records are not needed.

Bill Schmalfeldt in his unapproved comment

Here is where things start to go south for Bill.  Either he is flat out calling other people liars and there is not currently sealed evidence in a courtroom of him tweeting a picture of pornagraphy and/or putting it on a blog somewhere that has since been memory holed, or he did post the picture.

If his stance is that he never posted that picture, then I’ll be forced to come close to closing this question.  His answer is that he didn’t produce pornography.  I am not ready to close this question.  At this point in the discussion I am not willing, yet, to reveal my source although anyone familiar with the case will know who I’m talking about.  But I’ll allow him a chance to enter the discussion in comments freely.  Alternatively, if anyone else who reads this has a screen capture of the alleged pornography, the comments are open.  Be forewarned, I’ll edit comments as needed, and the actual pornography will be blurred.

Now in interest of getting to the comments and the truth, I’m not going to go into details about the law that requires the keeping of records.  I can do that either in a separate blog post or perhaps in the comments.  But what is important here is what a producer is.

The law recognizes two types of producers.  From Bill’s statement that he “didn’t photograph any pornography” I am assuming that Bill doesn’t understand what the two types are, so I’m offering this as a clarification.  There are “First Producers” and “Second Producers.”  A First Producer is the person or company responsible for the creation of the pornography.  The studio, artist or whomever caused the pornography to be made and holds the copyright on that pornography.  The photographer may well be doing the work “for hire” and is not the producer, so you can be (and often is the case in the Adult Video Industry) the photographer but not the First Producer.  If Bill photoshopped an existing pornographic photograph with new face creating a derivative work under fair use of copyright, then he is the First Producer.

If Bill was given the work of someone else to disseminate, in other words he was licensed, hired, or asked to disseminate the work via his blog or twitter account, then he is what is known as the “Second Producer.” This happens all the time in the AVI.  Smaller firms license older pornography from larger firms and distribute them.

The thing is, in either situation, both the first producer and the second producer are under the same legal requirements to maintain the records.  The only difference is that a second producer can be absolved of the need to have the complete records if he has a signed certificate of records from the first producer, with the identifying information required.  If the second producer has such, even if the files of the first producer are insufficient, the second producer as an absolute defense against the law.

I also will say that what Bill was asking for isn’t the proper records that he needed to ask.  Model Release Forms are not required to be kept at this level under the law.  So since I have plenty of reasons from Bill’s own words that he doesn’t understand the record keeping requirements as well as he thought he did, that I do not find his answer sufficient to the question and ask Bill to clarify his answer with regards to this new information.

Comments are now open to all interested parties.

UPDATE: I missed a redaction. It has been fixed.

Questions for Bill Schmalfeldt

Frankly, I don’t know how to pronounce it.  But I know how to spell it.  Which is a sad.  But this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt still hasn’t answered his list of questions asked last week.  So, I’ll have to repost and re-ask again this week.  With additions.

As always, this is not a threat or a demand.  Real journalist neither threaten or demand answers to questions.  They ask the questions, and either get an answer or don’t.  They then point out that the subject either answered the question or didn’t.  They don’t go hyper and do mean things to the subject.

On the issue of Pornography

Bill Schmalfeldt one called the cops 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 argued that he was required to give him the information.

It turns out that Schmalfeldt is also a producer of pornography.  Specifically, he produced 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.  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.

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 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.

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, five times.  Not once has he addressed the post itself, explaining exactly what Flynn has done that was anything like what Schmalfeldt claimed it was.

On the question of theft

I offered to give Schmalfeldt an apology and a retraction if he’d answer this question.  Simply put, to answer why calling him a thief over the sheer amount of copyrighted material he has used without permission should be considered anything other than theft.  I offered the apology and retraction if he simply answered the question, my agreeing with the answer wasn’t material.  He refused.

I herby rescind my offer of a retraction for answering the question and return to the caveat of convincingly answer the question.  Bill Schmalfeldt, why do you think it unreasonable to call you a copyright thief, considering the sheer amount of posts you’ve stolen, in total, without permission.  I do remind you that in 2012, you accused Robert Stacy McCain of theft for using your picture without permission, so please, in light of your history of calling other people thieves for using intellectual property without permission, explain how it is suddenly libel to accuse you of the same.

On the question of sealed documents

More important to several readers than to me is the issue of sealed documents you’ve freely printed on your various blogs in the past.  They would like to know who revealed sealed court documents to you.  I, however, have worked in “real journalism” and have no issue with this.  For one, it is obvious who shared them with you, and two, as a journalist you should never name your anonymous source.  But it does show a specific bias in your alleged reporting.  YMMV.

On the issue of scams

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

On the issue of 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1

Have you actually read this?  Can you sum it up? You put it forth as if it is law, but have you really even bothered to look up this specific source that you site?  Is that law?  What law?  What is 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1?  And asking if Hoge has read it is not answering the question.

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

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

On the issue of “Right to know.”

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


 

As always, I’d love to have specific examples of questions this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt has avoided. You may leave them in the comments.

Doom Clock Journalism

So I discovered a vicious and vile scam that was perpetrated on me.  Following in the footsteps of the great Investigative Journalist and this blogs Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt, I used aggressive journalism to get to the truth.

First I contacted the two people responsible for the scam and gave them a Doom Clock of 15 minutes to answer my questions, or else.  Only one of the two, I hate to admit that I didn’t have much hope of convincing since the or else was a complete doxing of his arse and he’d already been doxed.  But the other has tried to hide his identity for far too long.  So I figured he’d fold first.  I was wrong.

It seems that @PalatinePundit was the weak link in the scam.  He folded to my doom clock like a wet tee shirt contest and I quickly saw everything.  After leaving my sweaty palm happy place, the other scammer, Paul Krendel, just mocked me.

So I did the research. I have the story.  And I will follow through with my doom clock.  So here is the scam and the doxing, in that order.

The Scam

Here’s how the scam went down.  Paul and PP pulled a complete and total falsity on the internet.  It started when PP posted the following on twitter:

Screenshot 2014-06-03 16.38.10Paul then kicked into action and started posting and convincing others to post on their blogs that PP lost his job and to speculate that it was because of this blog’s Best Buddy, Bill Schmalfeldt. That’s when I noticed it. Clearly this blog’s Best Buddy saw it too and, in a now memory holed post on his blog, detailed the horrific experience he had getting a well justified peace order against the scammer, PP.

Then yesterday, PP posts this on his twitter feed:Screenshot 2014-06-03 16.49.51

Now I’m starting to smell a rat.  And by rat, I mean a scam.  So I doom clocked both Paul and PP to admit to the scam and Paul refused.  But my doom clock demands worked with PP and he told me everything.  And by doom clock, I mean I politely asked and he politely answered.

So here’s the scam.  PP knew on Friday that when he made that twit about losing his job, he would also be starting a new job on Monday.  In other words, PP never missed a single day of work, he just changed employers!  The dastardly scam!  Paul was in the know as well, and he made his post for the sole purpose of poking the bear, which by bear I mean this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt.

This blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt even tried to argue that he wasn’t involved with PP losing his job. But no one would listen because the scam was already in place and in full swing.

And I was harmed by this scam!  How, you ask?  Simple.  I made a post about the questionable seeking of a peace order by this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt. That blog post started a horrible upward spiral of page views and visitors that CONTINUES TO THIS DAY!  I mean, I’m actually starting to make money off this blog for the first time ever, and it’s all because of this scam.  And it is supposed to just be a hobby!  I’m ANGRY! Plus, this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt got a boo boo and an atomic wedgie, all because of THIS SCAM!  Where is the justice in that?

Now since PP gave up the goods to my Doom Clock Demand, by which I mean I asked nicely and he answered nicely, I have forgiven PP for his involvement in this scam.  Because I’m human and don’t have to stoop to the level of WJJ Hoge and his evil band of Pink Skittles.  No, I am human, so I will forgive PP for his role.  But PP better not bring me into any more of discontinued fuckery.

But Paul I do not forgive.  I gave him the Doom Clock Demand and he mocked me, by which I mean I didn’t contact him at all and he has no idea what’s coming next. And that’s why I went to the trouble to Dox him.

The Doxing

Yes, I did it.  You better believe I did.  I took a page right out of this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt playbook and I doxed the scammer.  Now follow along close, it gets involved.

PP posted his twit on Friday.  On Saturday I went and got lost, by which I mean I took my motorcycle for an epic ride with other bikers.  But all day I felt I was being pulled back into this mess.  Now I know why.  First, take a look at this picture: slenderbike
That’s a picture I took at one of the first stops of the day.  Since I’m an Aggressive Investigative Journalist, I’ll disclose that my bike is not in that picture.  But that doesn’t matter, we have a doxing going on.  Do you see anything wrong with that picture?  I didn’t at first either. But through my Aggressive Investigative Journalist skills, I managed to figure out the truth!  Look at this close up of the very far bike in this picture:slenderbikecropSee it now?  Creepy.  But what’s even creepier is that it shows up in every picture I took on the ride!  See!Slenderharbor Slenderbike2

That’s just creepy.  I mean, what is that thing?  As a true Investigative Journalist I must admit my bike IS in that last picture.  But it doesn’t matter, on with the doxing!  I did a little research by first tracing Paul’s various IP addresses, since he’s commented on this blog several times.  And that’s when I noticed that on that Saturday, several of his IP addresses were just a single digit off of MY IP addresses.  In other words, Paul was following me and his cell phone was on the SAME NETWORK AS MINE!

Looking at the rest of the IP addresses, and they jump around ALL OVER THE PLACE.  He once posted to my blog from Singapore!  Then just minutes later from London.  The man GETS THE FUCK AROUND!

So let’s do the math.

  1. Paul was near me on the ride and posted to my blog from the SAME CELL TOWER I was using.
  2. These pictures show the same “thing” following me around on the same day
  3. Paul moves as if he can transport ALL OVER THE WORLD

The math is simple.  1+2+3= PAUL KRENDLER IS SLENDERMAN!

God, I bet this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt is happy he dropped that lawsuit!  And it’s something he should think about in his response to the WJJ Hoge Copyright Infringment lawsuit.  I mean, if Hoge is willing to get into a contractual agreement with Slenderman, Hoge is capable of just about anything.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how you do Doom Clock Journalism RIGHT!!!!11!!!!