Stupid and Crazy — I May Have Hit On a Crazy Stupid Idea


I’ll take crazy over stupid any day. — Joss Whedon
Embrace the power of “and.” — Paul  Krendler

In theory, doing the same thing over and over again is crazy, like a repeating decimal.  Ten divided by three has an answer, I’m told, but it involves infinite digits, and my calculator only goes up and down so far. — Dave Alexander


No, it’s not a trap. It’s just an opportunity for Master Skywalker and his father to bond.

This is a short post, since real life has been a lot of fun this weekend.  I have figured out sme things: Bill Schmalfeldt won’t change, and the Lickspittles and Zombies (two excellent hair bands, but don’t bother with their later albums) are not going to change either.
As I said in previous posts, you can only change your own behavior, so I’m changing mine:
In the future I will encourage Bill Schmalfeldt to post here — not just comment, but post.   If he agrees, he can send me stuff at dgalexander1963 (at) gmail DOT com.   I’ll look it over and post as long as it meets standards which are pretty simple: No name calling. No poo-poo stuff.
So, now I have to be fair, and say that any comments TO Bill, must also meet these standards.

Yeah.  This seems like a pile of mess, and I’m wading into it with both feet.  Why?
Because what we have now, doesn’t work.  The Lickpittles and Zombies can’t actually visit Bill’s pages for fear of malware and viruses.  Bill says that there are no viruses.  But of course, lots of people don’t trust Bill, so there’s that.
If anybody sees any virus here, let me know.  I wash my hands often, use Purell, and avoid contact with mucous membranes (who opened for “The Troggs in 1967.)

The Troggs: “Always be caeful to dress well on picture day”

Oh, one more thing.  I never delete.  Anything here better be pretty well thought out from the lawsuit perspective.  That goes for everybody.  I think I’m on solid ground on saying you are responsible for your own stuff.  I’m not driving you to he courthouse because of something you said here.  I’m talking to you Krendler.  I’d have to find you first, anyway.
Have fun.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to Stupid and Crazy — I May Have Hit On a Crazy Stupid Idea

  1. Charles Hudson says:

    Excellent idea. Bill Schmalfeldt can tell us what he thinks about setting a bomb to go off at a high school football game.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Grace says:

      Maybe Widower Bill Schmalfeldt could, as well, share what he thinks of his “excellent friend” (Brett “The Speedway Bomber” Kimberlin) avoiding paying a judgment to a widow who only became a widow due to Widower Bill Schmalfeldt’s “excellent friend” (Brett “The Speedway Bomber” Kimberlin) setting off bombs — one of which (the one set off at the high school football game you mentioned, Charles) violently and brutally maimed the widow’s husband causing unbearable pain and mental distress he could no longer suffer.

      One would think a widower would have some compassion for a widow, and some very strong opinions concerning the terrorist bomber who robbed the widow of her “beloved soulmate.” Or, does only a widower who is “excellent friends” with a terrorist bomber and his “beloved soulmate” deserve compassion?

      Liked by 5 people

  2. Never work. He has zip self control, so everything he sends will be unpostable.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. JeffM says:

    David,

    I have to commend you. Quite frankly, I suspect that if Willie does sue staff and owner at Billy Sez , they may find it advisable for legal reasons to shut down his privileges to comment over there.

    I will not visit any site that he or one of his associates runs. It is not just that he has a history of trying to dox people and then trying to make severe trouble for those doxxed, but also that he is associated with someone who demonstrably maimed an innocent person and just as demonstrably had no qualms about potentially murdering others. But I do feel more comfortable mocking Willie after I have read his nonsense first hand and in full context. And of course there is always the possibility that he may someday say something that is not mock worthy. However remote that possibility, it is good that you are providing him with a forum to make it a reality.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Dianna says:

    I think you are going to end up exasperated and weary, Dave.

    Liked by 7 people

    • JeffM says:

      I agree. In which case, Witless Willie will have lost himself still yet another forum. Nevertheless, I commend Dave for making the effort, even if it proves so fruitless as to be temporary.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Dr_Mike says:

        I commend Dave for making the effort, even when it once again proves not so much fruitless as to be evidentiary.

        Sorry, I followed Malone in real time, been there done that bought the T-shirt.

        Best wishes, best hopes, low expectations. Please Bill, feel free to prove me wrong.

        Liked by 7 people

  5. Pablo says:

    Call me intrigued, though pessimistic. It’s certainly a novel idea.

    Liked by 1 person

    • JeffM says:

      Actually, it is not that novel. It was tried by Krendler for a while, by Malone, and so far by Billy Sez. What may be novel is the explicit explanation of the rules of the game up front.

      The question is whether any good may possibly come from it. One good thing that may come from it is that it will further expose that Willie is not stupid: he does not have stupidity as an excuse. (Yes, I know he does incredibly stupid things, mostly I think because he does not realize how many people are considerably smarter than himself. His self-esteem seems so bound up with his having some intelligence that I suspect he never has spent much of his time dealing with his intellectual peers and superiors.)

      Liked by 5 people

  6. Onlooker says:

    I don’t think he deserves the platform, in fact I think it’s not only bad for other people to waste time on his prevarications and obsessions or to seek his attention, but very bad for him. Of course you will collect a new anthology of admissions against interest and other displays that can be used against him, so there’s that, but I think it feeds his illness. I’m not interested in bill schmalfeldt except as a specimen of mental pathologies, and I’ve seen enough.

    He isn’t a good writer, he isn’t funny, he isn’t good natured or useful, he has vicious propensities and is sick. IMO one shouldn’t indulge him exploit the illness.

    Liked by 7 people

  7. Onlooker says:

    Embrace the power of “or”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Rob Crawford says:

    Don’t see the benefit in indulging his insanity. He SHOULD be under a regime of constant supervision and zero Internet access, not being given another forum.

    Liked by 5 people

  9. D. Edgren says:

    KInky!!

    Liked by 4 people

  10. I’m reading all this, rereading and taking it all in. Just so Pablo and others know, he will not hold the keys to ukuleledave the blog. I’ll look over what he sends me — make sure it doesn’t make a mess of the blog, and post it pretty much verbatim. If he steps over a legal or ethical line, then I can stop the experiment. Under those circumstances i’m not sure he’d be interested.

    As far as being futile and that it will leave me weary and exasperated, yeah. I thought of that. The alternative is to run a series of blog posts on the greatest crimes alleged against Bill, and let him respond in the comments. Of course y’all comment also. I think there’s value in keeping him talking. I would understand if some folks won’t want to read it. I’m volunteering to read, referee and close down the experiment if need be.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dr_Mike says:

      Good, because while this is in no way, shape, or form meant as a threat, “handing Bill the keys” would likely expose you to all the loopholes and dead zones in DMCA 230 that he complains about in real life. Because he would be posting, not commenting. Not that the Zombie Horde are drooling to sue, but…

      Please make sure that (a) Bill cannot gain the access logs to the site, and (b) you are not liable for what Bill posts on your site. If I were you, I would take (b) much, much, more seriously. I mean, just think of the headaches if Bill has authority here next week, when he decides Krendler is Melinda Gates!

      Liked by 3 people

      • Tao says:

        Handing Bill the access logs to this site would be the ultimate betrayal of those who want you to succeed!

        I hope you will comment about this at length.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. D. Edgren says:

    Oops, meant “Kinky,” a la Hedy Hedley Lamarr. No secret meaning intended.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. monitor2112 says:

    Good luck Dave. I think you are going to need it dealing with the Cabin Boy™. I’ll even stop calling him Cabin Boy™ EVERYWHERE as long as you are posting his column.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Paul Krendler says:

    It’s a noble idea, but it won’t work.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Nobody gets the keys to the store. Anybody else want to write a guest blog? gmail is dgalexander1963(at) you know the rest.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Bill Schmalfeldt says:

    Dave, I appreciate the offer. I really do. But other than what I say in this comment, I will save what I have to say for the courtroom.

    First of all, why do I have to answer for Brett Kimberlin? I am not Brett Kimberlin. Whatever he did or did not do is a matter between him, the law, and God. It’s not my business, and it’s certainly not yours. (I speak in generic terms, of course, addressing all who read this.) All these years, you’ve all been hounding me to get me to explain why BK did this or why BK did that, or why didn’t BK do this or that, and the answer is always — I DON’T KNOW!

    You know how many times I’ve answered the same questions? And you’re never satisfied. You claim I am BK’s mouthpiece. Someone post the last story I ever wrote that supported BK or defended anything he did or did not do.

    You keep invoking Stranahan as if he was Mahatma Gandhi. Have you looked at his verifiable record? I’m not the first person to call DFS on him. I didn’t invent his porn websites. I didn’t create his reputation as being someone who raises money by promising things he doesn’t deliver. There are tons of folks all over the Internet who told the story long before I ever did. Did I create the website in which he offers his wife’s “print delivery services” for $650 for a two hour session? No. That’s all real, it’s all verifiable, it’s all on the net.

    If someone is tweeting your name and you don’t want to see what he’s writing, what do you do? Block him, right? Not Hoge. First he says I hijacked a server in Brazil and used it to harass him, then he started crying about the horrible inconvenience of blocking someone on Twitter. He told a judge, who knows as much about computers as I do about the workings of water sanitation and how they can make sewage clean enough to drink. (There can’t be THAT good a filter in the WORLD!) Then, he lied to me saying he wasn’t going to follow through on his last appeal. I told him how much I appreciated that because the ride to and from Westminster and sitting on hard courtroom benches all day takes me a few days to get over. If he intended to go through with the appeal, the RIGHT thing to do would have been to make some sort of mention about how I was not living up to his demands and he would appeal, in which case I would be there. He did not WANT me there. He wanted an uncontested peace order.

    But that wasn’t good enough. I intend to produce evidence that Hoge coordinated with Grady and GM Howell to frame me for a letter that I did not write. The good thing about being me is that I know what I did and did not write. And we have the paper trail to show that the order went from Hoge to Grady, to Howell, then the letter showed up at Hoge’s home.

    Be that as it may. Hoge is no victim. Stranahan made a buttload of money off of me. And it doesn’t really matter what I say, you are all going to believe the “narrative” because you enjoy yanking my chain and you hope you can make me so angry that I will do something you can charge me with.

    But then, something happened. My wife died. And I don’t care about you people any more. There is nothing any of you can do or say that will hurt me more than sitting here in my living room watching my wife struggle for her last breath and there was nothing I could do to help her.

    I tried to impress on you people that I was done with the whole thing. I didn’t want to hear from you, and I asked you to stop publishing defamatory things about me online. Only a very small number of you, Mr. Alexander included, treated me like I was a human being who had just suffered a horrible loss. The rest of you mocked me, mocked my wife, mocked the urn I chose to store her ashes when I get them. The “BillySez” website is nothing more than a very transparent effort by Sarah A. and Dave Edgren to get me to rise to the bait for their entertainment.

    Well, I rose to the bait, but I didn’t bite the hook. All they succeeded in doing was push me into doing something I did not want to do. I had planned to let my lawsuit against Grady die on the vine. Instead, I’ve added six defendants and you will see tomorrow on PACER. And there will be more coming. I hereby put Edgren and Sarah A. that any further attempts to rile up the readership against me will be reported as criminal harassment. Grady is going to either have to prove he’s not Krendler (and how can he do that? Give up the actual Krendler.) or face the charges in court.

    So, David? Thank you for the opportunity and I appreciate the offer. But any attempt at being reasonable will be a wasted effort because people like “Howard Earl” and “Roy Schmalfeldt” and “Grace” and the other creeps who think they’re being cute and funny are, instead, engaging in criminal harassment and that’s the end of the story.

    Other than that, I repeat what I’ve been saying all along. If you write defamatory things about me on your blogs, if you post defamatory comments, if you write things that are not true, you are guilty of defamation. If your reason for posting pictures of my wife as a corpse is meant to upset me, that’s intentional infliction of emotional distress. I have never been convicted of harassment or stalking, cyber or otherwise. If you call me a deranged cyberstalker and adjudicated harasser, that rises to false light invasion of privacy.

    My life is none of your business. I have an absolute right to privacy. I am not a public persona. I am not Brett Kimberlin. I am not Neal Rauhauser. I am Bill Schmalfeldt, a 60-year old disabled man, mourning the death of his wife and coping to the best of his ability.

    I owe you nothing.

    Now, let’s use this comment as a cease and desist. Anything written about me that is not a matter of public concern, anything that is not provably true, any further attempt to rabble rouse or incited discussion about me will be treated as harassment. And it will be charged as such.

    Go about your lives. Certainly there are more interesting things for you to write about than me.

    Go write about them.

    Bill Schmalfeldt

    Like

    • Tao says:

      Talk about the Fox from Aesop’s Fables!

      Mr. Schmalfeldt, I would again urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to seek legal counsel as soon as humanly possible. You are hopelessly outclassed in any court environment and your legal skills in a word are, at best, archaic.

      I would urge you to follow your own advice. Couple that with a thorough reading of the First Amendment as well as Paul’s First and Second Letters to the Corinthians.

      God Bless You,

      Be Well

      *Enjoy Your Grapes*

      Liked by 4 people

    • JeffM says:

      Ahh Witless Willie. Lawsuits ARE public issues. Truth and opinion are not defamatory; vindicating constitutional rights is not a tort even if such vindication annoys you. Nothing I have ever said about you has been sent to you, and it can cause you distress only if you voluntarily seek to be distressed.

      In short, you do not get to say whether or not anyone can write about you.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Bill Schmalfeldt says:

        Are you a journalist? Being a commenter on a hate blog does not make you a journalist. But if you keep what you write verified and true, no problem.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        This has nothing to do with Journalism. You really are that stupid, aren’t you? Why do you need to prove it so convincingly?

        Liked by 1 person

      • viewfromnl says:

        Popcorn, he’s just indulging his sociopathy… pathetic attempts to insult and annoy his betters. Certainly the fiction of Bill Schmalfeldt being a journalist has been put to rest.

        I don’t think Schmalfeldt will enjoy a walk down memory lane on the topic of journalistic ethics and his “investigations.” Remember, THE INTERNET IS FOREVER!

        Liked by 2 people

    • I know you’re not mouthpiece, your investigator.

      Liked by 7 people

    • viewfromnl says:

      Bullshit.

      Utter bullshit.

      Typical Schmalfeldtian bullshit.

      “First of all, why do I have to answer for Brett Kimberlin?”

      You don’t have to answer for him. You don’t have to answer us at all. We are free to ask questions, like, “Why the fuck is are you being driven to court by the FUCKING SPEEDWAY BOMBER?”

      “I am not Brett Kimberlin.”

      Nah, you’re just the guy who “investigates” those that bring up his criminal history.

      “Whatever he did or did not do is a matter between him, the law, and God. It’s not my business, and it’s certainly not yours. ”

      Fuck you. If Brett Kimberlin didn’t want to be known and reviled as the Speedway Bomber, Maimer of Innocent Vietnam Veterans, HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT THAT FUCKING TOVEX IN HIS TRUNK.

      “All these years, you’ve all been hounding me to get me to explain why BK did this or why BK did that, or why didn’t BK do this or that, and the answer is always — I DON’T KNOW!”

      Asshole, this is yet another instance where you become conveniently obtuse. The gist of all those questions is how YOU continue to defend and associate with a FUCKING BOMBER.

      “You claim I am BK’s mouthpiece. Someone post the last story I ever wrote that supported BK or defended anything he did or did not do.”

      Well, the last statement you made defending Brett Kimberlin WAS THE PREVIOUS FUCKING PARAGRAPH YOU MOTHERFUCKING PSYCHOPATH!

      “But then, something happened. My wife died.”

      Really? You keep playing that sad sad violin, but the SONG NEVER CHANGES. Every milestone, every court appearance, document filed, feces delivered, corpse of the love of your life carted away for scientific experimentation… and what do we get from Bill Schmalfeldt? THE SAME FUCKING SHIT.

      “And I don’t care about you people any more.”

      WOW. NEVER FUCKING HEARD *THAT* BEFORE!

      Why don’t you tell us again how much you don’t care? Do another podcast, nothing but “I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU PEOPLE!”, with the charming audio effect of your spittle raining on the mic! Maybe somebody didn’t get the word!

      “I tried to impress on you people that I was done with the whole thing.”

      Did you try to impress it upon Bill Schmafeldt? Because he didn’t seem to get the fucking memo.

      “Only a very small number of you, Mr. Alexander included, treated me like I was a human being who had just suffered a horrible loss.”

      And, like every other person on the planet who was ever foolish enough to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure HE REGRETS IT NOW.

      “All they succeeded in doing was push me into doing something I did not want to do.”

      More bullshit. You think your pretexts and intentional mis-comprehension of the law will shield you from your obvious harassment? Well, you are in the festering shithole called Maryland, so perhaps it will. Or you’ll roll snake-eyes, and get your dick-dented skull hammered flat by a pissed-off judge. Keep playing legal Russian Roulette… What could possibly go wrong?

      “…engaging in criminal harassment and that’s the end of the story.”

      Yeah. Like continuing to harass someone despite being told to stop, in violation of Maryland law? Like sending e-mails directly to someone with a valid peace order against you, and then asserting a RIGHT to continue to directly contact someone despite the plain letter of the law?

      “If your reason for posting pictures of my wife as a corpse is meant to upset me, that’s intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

      Why don’t you cite those four element of of IIED, ALL of which must be met in order to have a valid claim. You’ve already tried to deflect from that inconvenient truth by “misunderstanding” my rhetorical question as MY ignorance. YOU are the ignorant one, asshole, and your stupidity exists regardless the topic at hand is one that you’re merely feigning ignorance, or the far greater universe of shit sane people know yet you’ve nary a clue of.

      “My life is none of your business.”

      You’re a creepy stalking asshole. When you harass innocent people, you become our business.

      “I have an absolute right to privacy.”

      No. You don’t. Nor do you have an absolute right to be an asshole.

      “I am not a public persona.”

      Bullshit. You claim to be an author, published worldwide… Blah blah blah. You may or may not be a public figure for the purposes of libel, but even if by some miracle you managed to prove someone did libel you your reputation is WORTHLESS. You’d be lucky to be awarded $100 as a token after your STERLING history online is documented. Lets not even mention that even if you win, you have to COLLECT. You can’t even manage to serve someone who won’t do you the favor of going to the post office to pick up the papers! Ask Sandra DeLong about how easy it is to collect a judgement.

      “Now, let’s use this comment as a cease and desist.”

      I assure you that we’ll all take your cease and desist demand as seriously as you take those placed upon you.

      “Go about your lives.”

      Go fuck yourself.

      “Certainly there are more interesting things for you to write about than me.”

      You don’t take much effort. We can multi-task. The topic of Brett Kimberlin, the Speedway Bomber, Maimer of a Vietnam Vet, for instance.

      “Go write about them.”

      Shakey, you still think you’re in a position to tell anyone to do anything? Once again, I remind you: You’re just another asshole on the Internet.

      We’ve heard your “I just want to be left alone” bullshit a dozen times and more. You want to be left alone? Take our advice: FUCK OFF AND DIE.

      Liked by 10 people

    • You DO realize that you will have your absolute right to privacy when you, oh, I don’t know, KEEP THINGS PRIVATE!

      SMDH

      Oh, and fuck you. Good luck serving me, asshole. See you in court.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Bill Schmalfeldt says:

        Negative. You do not have the right to publish my life. I DO have the right to publish my life. And you shall be served.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Anything you put on Twitter is public domain. Look up their TOS. Anything you published on your “memory wiped” blogs is no longer private.

        One of the internet’s best purposes is to serve as a news aggregator. That gives EVERYONE the right to publish ANYTHING you have already SHARED on the internet. All that is left is to give credit to the source. Quoting you verbatim and listing its source does that.

        Legally, you have nothing. You’re just too DUMB and IGNORANT to understand this. Your LOLSUIT will fail. A blind man can see this.

        What do you call someone who is blinder than a blind man?

        Answer: A DUMBFUCK!!

        Liked by 2 people

      • viewfromnl says:

        Funny how Schmalfeldt has no rebuttal to my comments. By SCHMALFELDT AM LAW rules, that means everything I said is confirmed as the gospel truth.

        Meanwhile, this is yet another data point supporting my assertion that he’s not interested in anything besides feeding his sociopathic urges to try to threaten and control his betters.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Pablo says:

      Jornalisms wants what it wants. Think of yourself as an anti-Kardashian, Blob. The world wants to know what the hell is up with you! And your little terrorist friend.

      But if you would forget that HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGE!!!, et al even exist and go about your life, you would be happier and no one would be investigating

      Liked by 3 people

      • Bill Schmalfeldt says:

        My life is not newsworthy. If you want to write verifiable true things, go for it. If not, give me your name and we’ll test the courage of your convictions.

        Like

    • viewfromnl says:

      “I don’t answer for Brett Kinberlin.”

      Nobody’s asking you to do so, you fucking moron.

      It’s not like there’s really anything for Brett Kimberlin to explain. He’s a fucking criminal scumbag who maimed an innocent Vietnam vet, ran drugs, was suspected of having a woman murdered when she objected to his relationship with a teenage child, etc. etc. etc.

      People with a shred of morality and sanity might question why you associate yourself with the FUCKING SPEEDWAY BOMBER… but it’s not like you’ve any obligation to answer. The facts speak for themselves.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. kmbuchanan says:

    It begs you to go away, but it craves your attention. Sheesh.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Bill Schmalfeldt says:

    You wanna write about the lawsuit? Write about the lawsuit. I’ve explained a dozen times about how calling something opinion doesn’t save you from a libel suit. “In my opinion, Schmalfeldt is a fat loudmouth”? Protected opinion. “Schmalfeldt raped someone.” NOT protected opinion. The law says if you publish a defamatory comment about someone that contains information of the truthfulness or untruthfulness can be proven, and it is false = libel. “Vindicating constitutional rights”? Where in the constitution does it say you can cause me distress by publishing images of my recently deceased wife as a corpse? Where in the constitution does it say you get to incite hatred of my by publishing falsehoods? Where in the constitution does it say you get to claim I’m guilty of something I haven’t even been charged with, let alone convicted? Where in the constitution are you specifically allowed to forge evidence against me?

    Sure. You can write about me all you like. But if I can prove ONE INSTANCE of defamation, ONE INSTANCE of IIED, ONE INSTANCE of False Light Invasion of Privacy, I win.

    If you write about me, the rules are these:
    1. I have the unalienable right to not be publicly misrepresented. So don’t do it.
    2. I have the right to be free of harassment. The fact that you wrote it is what makes it harassment. The “don’t look at it” defense will not fly. It’s the law. It’s published. It’s harassment.
    3. I have the right to be free of defamation and libel. You do not get to write false, defamatory things about me and claim that they are opinions if they can be proven true or false.
    4. You do not have the right to inflict emotional distress on me.

    If you can write truthfully about me, make sure that what you write is PROVABLY true, doesn’t invade my right to privacy, and is not intended to cause me distress? Go right on with your bad selves.

    If you can’t abide by these common sense rules, rules I did not write, rules that are codified in US Law, then the answer is simple. Don’t write about me, and delete what you’ve already written, or be prepared to defend yourself in court.

    I don’t know how many times I’ve laid out this scenario. That was the last time. From now on, I’ll do my writing about you folks on court documents. You know where the line is. Cross it at your own risk.

    Like

    • viewfromnl says:

      Same stupid shit, different day.

      “If you write about me, the rules are these:”

      1. Fuck you, Shakey
      2. Fuck you, Shakey
      3. Fuck you, Shakey
      4. Fuck you, Shakey

      Humpty Dumpty had a better comprehension of the law than you do. I don’t honestly know if you really are so delusional you actually believe the shit you’re peddling, or if you you think we’re stupid enough to believe it.

      “When I cite the law,” Humpty Schmalpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

      “That was the last time.”

      Promises, promises, asshole.

      Liked by 5 people

    • SammyD says:

      The countersuits will be epic.

      Seriously, talk to an attorney. You are wrong on so many levels.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Jeanette Victoria says:

      Bill it might be a good idea of NOT to falsely accuse people of sending death threats to their local law enforcement. Also I’m NOT Grace and you have as yet shown any thing remotely credible that I am.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Pablo says:

      How many suits have you filed recently? How many have survived MTD’s? You suck at this, dumbass.

      Liked by 3 people

    • This Other Latin F*cker says:

      Bill, you accused me of being a cum eating gay man. Can you PROVE that is true? If not, it’s libel and defamation and YOU owe me a shit load of money. Care to explain why you can say untrue things about people but it’s ok?

      Liked by 5 people

      • Pablo says:

        I still have screenshots from his now banned twitter feed in which he told the world that I had fellated him to climax. Most of us know that this is an impossibility, but the world at large does not. The general public probably figures he could get it up for a Cub Scout troop, but alas…

        Seems to me that Blob owes me ONE BEEEEEEELLION DOLLARS!, a quart of battery acid flavor Listerine and a gallon of brain bleach.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Bill Schmalfeldt says:

        When did I do that?

        Like

      • Dr_Mike says:

        Just search your blogs and Twitter feeds, Bill. Since you say you never delete anything this should be easy, right?

        Liked by 3 people

      • This Other Latin F*cker says:

        You’ve done it several times and to multiple people Bill. Maybe if you didn’t keep scrubbing Twitter accounts and blogs you actually remember what you have said to others. Now please answer the question that you so conveniently ducked.

        Liked by 2 people

    • viewfromnl says:

      “I didn’t write the rules. The law did. Blame the law.”

      I don’t have a problem with the laws, as written.

      I blame YOU for using your feigned (or actual, God knows you’re a dumbshit!) ignorance of the law as a pretext for continuing to harass people.

      When a layperson can read your filings and clearly see where you fail to show the basic elements of the torts you’re claiming have been committed against you, it’s hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that your objective is harass people by naming them and forcing them to waste time responding.

      You’re a liar. You have acted in bad faith, time and time again. Those are FACTS, documented on many sites by many people.

      YOU are responsible for your actions. If you don’t like people calling you a creepy stalking asshole… Maybe you should stop being a creepy stalking asshole.

      Liked by 3 people

      • popcornseller says:

        So true. However, if he can conveniently forget what he said to Pablo – see comment above – he will deny the lying and bad faith and ask you to give examples. And when you do, he will ignore it. And the sun also rises in the east.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Bill Schmalfeldt says:

        And since I am not a creepy stalking asshole, calling me that borders on libel. Are you sure you live in the Netherlands? Are you an American citizen?

        Like

    • MJ says:

      How many court cases have you won using this interpretation of the law? I’ll hang up and listen offline.

      Liked by 2 people

  18. If BS has the “unalienable right to not be publicly misrepresented”, he better take down that damn book of his because it sure as heck misrepresents me far more than anything those he is suing have ever done him, along with publishing my full street address which can only be because he’d love to see someone take his falsehoods and run with them causing me and my family harm.

    Liked by 7 people

  19. Paul Krendler says:

    I like to think of it as something like a 200m hurdles event.

    Someone is so tightly focused on how easily he’s going to clear the very last hurdle that he can’t see the 19 other hurdles between here and there, including 4 that are currently wrapped around his legs, and the 6 more that he just told the officials to put in his lane.

    But it’s FUN to watch!

    Liked by 8 people

  20. JeffM says:

    My goodness, Willie is still on that shtick that the defendant must prove truth. Did he not see Kimberlin get his ass handed to him last year for getting that wrong? And he forgets that he has made himself a public figure by repeatedly and strenuously thrusting himself upon the public, a writer of books, a producer of radio shows, a serial litigant.

    And he has this delusion that a writing about him that causes him an emotional disturbance represents a tort, perhaps even a crime. We recently saw how that kind of theory played out against Hoge.

    And if Willie himself distributed pictures of his late wife to people who owed him no duty of confidentiality, then he was the one to make them available to the public eye.

    Liked by 8 people

  21. Avenger Watcher says:

    Great Googly Moogly, talk about snoozing…

    Dave: Again, very admirable with your tone, and attempts to bring sanity to the situation.
    But you’re dealing with the opposite of that here. (As can be seen by the self-contradictory comments posted here.)

    Oh, one more thing. I never delete.

    Gamebreaker right there.

    Liked by 6 people

  22. Neal N. Bob says:

    I believe that I’ve uncovered a pattern developing. It proceeds as follows.

    1) William declares that he was THIS CLOSE to letting a lulzsuit “wither on the vine” before some new outrage forced him to double down and “make everyone pay.”
    2) The lulzsuit in question is dismissed within 14 days of that proclamation of imminent doom.

    Liked by 5 people

  23. Well, I think we all had an open and honest group tonight. Remember next week is the potluck, so please bring a dish to pass. Two weeks from now this room is being used for voting, so we are cancelled. I have forgotten whose turn it is to make the coffee, so could someone show up 15 minutes early next week and put on a pot? Thanks everybody and remember to journal about your goals. Can we fold up the chairs and stow them in the closet? Thanks.

    Liked by 7 people

  24. Monkeytoe says:

    “If you write about me, the rules are these:
    1. I have the unalienable right to not be publicly misrepresented. So don’t do it.
    2. I have the right to be free of harassment. The fact that you wrote it is what makes it harassment. The “don’t look at it” defense will not fly. It’s the law. It’s published. It’s harassment.
    3. I have the right to be free of defamation and libel. You do not get to write false, defamatory things about me and claim that they are opinions if they can be proven true or false.
    4. You do not have the right to inflict emotional distress on me.”

    #1 is not true. There is no law against “misrepresentation”.

    #2, while technically correct, is not true in the way that Bill Schmalfeldt sets it out. The key issue is the legal definition of harassment. Someone writing things about you that you don’t like on the internet is not considered “harassment” in any state law or federal law.

    #3 is again technically true – but again the legal definitions of libel or slander come into play. The only thing I have seen written in a post or comments that might pass the test of being libel is the person who wrote that Bill Schmalfeldt “raped someone [he] loved”. However, even if that statement meets the definition of libel (I’m not sure it would as I seems to me to be obvious hyperbole), the fact that such comment appeared in comments on a blog does not make the blog liable for the statement nor does it make any of the other commenters liable for the statement, so the lawsuit against all those individuals will be merit less and dismissed pretty quickly.

    #4 is again technically true, but the torts of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress are typically pretty well defined in most states and are high hurdles to pass to prove. Comments on blogs are highly unlikely to meet the test and be actionable.

    This is one of those what comes first kind of problems. Schmalfeldt won’t drop his efforts at suing people until everyone stops commenting about him, and everyone won’t stop commenting about him until he stops his lawsuits. Neither side is going to give in first, so we are going to have the constant new lawsuits/new defendants (which will go nowhere and all be dismissed at some point or another as they have no legal basis), which will result in renewed comment activity, which will result in new lawsuits (or additional defendants in old lawsuits).

    It’s like the Hoge/Schmalfeldt saga. Schmalfeldt won’t drop his lawsuits against Hoge and won’t stop contacting Hoge, and Hoge won’t drop his Peace Order appeals, and neither side will agree to drop anything until the other side drops theirs first (if even that would work). And neither side will agree to drop theirs first. But, ultimately, I don’t think either side is going to get anything out of their lawsuits – I doubt Maryland will give Hoge a Peace Order based on Schmalfeldt’s conduct and Schmalfeldt’s lawsuits against Hoge have no legal merit and will end up dismissed. So, a lot of time and effort by both sides to no real purpose other than vexating the other side. Of course, I could be wrong – I have been before and I’m not an expert on Maryland law – just my 2 cents from about 20 years as a litigator.

    So, we have a round-robin of activity that cannot seem to be stopped. My own personal belief is that everyone is enjoying all this far too much – it gives many of their lives meaning. And, I have to admit, the saga (and microscope into human nature and interaction) is fascinating to watch, which is why I come to these sites to see what is going on almost every morning before work (I forget how I originally found out about this saga – I think it started with Ace being sued, which led me to Aaron’s site, which led me to both Hoge’s site and Breitebart Unmasked, and I’ve been sucked in from there to some extent).

    My own take after reading various sources is that Schmalfeldt/Kimberlin started all this by attempting to bully into silence various blogsters writing about Kimberlin, making Schmalfeldt/Kimberlin the original bad guys, but that the whole thing has blossomed so far from there both sides have some dirt on them. Nobody can claim to be entirely on the side of the angels at this point. Sure, people can argue that “x” did more bad things or said worse things, making “x” the worse guy, but in the end 2 wrongs don’t make a right. At some point, a reasonable adult would have walked away from all this nonsense, which would have deprived many of us of serious entertainment.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Father Paul Lemmen says:

      Hi Bunny-Boy … did you think we would forget your attempt to concern-troll Hogewash?

      Liked by 7 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        No, when I determined that many at Hoge’s site were incapable of rationale conversation, I decided not to bother anymore. I have nothing to hide – why don’t you link to that conversation there? I have no problem with that.

        I love that you have to put that silly picture up of you in costume to try and convince people that you are a priest. Can’t find you listed as an ordained priest anywhere – but that is because you are not one. If you truly are a priest, how about naming the diocese and bishop and let us look it up and call and check on you?

        regardless, 2 years as a “priest” hardly atones for 30 years of fleecing people out of their money, stealing valor by pretending to be a war veteran, and generally evil actions.

        Call me a sock all you like Lemmen. You are as evil as Schmalfeldt, which is why you spent time in prison for some of your crimes. Your new schtick pretending to be a “true christian” is belied by the nasty comments you write. Yes, you follow it up by cut-and-pasting a prayer here or there in the comments, but a real priest would never engage in the kind of comments you do.

        You are a nasty human being much like Schmalfeldt. Trying to run a long-con on the commenters here and at Hoge and other places. I will keep pointing this out at various sites so that hopefully nobody falls for it when you start trying to take them for money.

        Like

      • First, why are you bothering to pretend? We know who you are, and that you’re not an attorney, much less one with 20 years experience litigating.

        Second, we know who Father Paul is, too. We know his record…and he isn’t pretending to be anyone else. If he ever does ask us for anything other than to participate in the conversation, we’ll still know who he is, and make our own decisions accordingly.

        Third, it’s fun to see one of Schmalfeldt’s ‘friends’ concede that he’s evil, and a vexatious litigant. So thanks for that.

        Liked by 7 people

      • popcornseller says:

        Fourth, why is it so hard for you to be honest? You have nothing to hide? REALLY? Everyone knows your sock puppet Monkeytoe is you, Matt Osborne, now. The ruse is over. You have another login with your real name, but you insist on not using it here. That says a lot about your position. Are you afraid people will not accept your arguments? Do you have any arguments that have merit? Could we please see some?

        Fifth, why is it so hard for you to keep your cover? All this talk about being a lawyer, trying to sound reasonable, goes down the tubes in seconds when tell your lies about Father Paul. Why does he irk you so? Hmmmm….

        Sixth, you love to speak about prison, serving time and paying for your crimes when it comes to Father Paul. But you don’t ever talk about Brett Kimberlin failing to do those things or to mention Kimberlin is still on parole. Are you blind in one eye? Asking for a friend…

        Seventh, the money trope, again. What is it with you and Schmalfeldt that you must accuse people of crimes without any proof? Father Paul has not asked anyone for any money. Period. You seem awfully concerned with money. Is Kimberlin paying you? Is that why money matters to you so much? Or is it because you’re living in your parent’s basement? I guess we must embrace the power of AND.

        Eighth, I see you’ve entered numerous comments here. This blog post was about Bill Schmalfeldt. Apparently you see a need to defend him. Again, that says a lot about your position and now it says a lot about you personally.

        Ninth, you always love to take us off topic. That’s your true purpose here, right? Misdirection? Obfuscation? We started on Fourth discussing you hiding your identity, which everybody already knows. We end with you attempting to hide our discussion behind your misdirection. ON BOTH PARTS, FAILURE!

        Tenth, YOU, MATT OSBORNE, ARE NOW TRULY COMPETING FOR BILL SCHMALFELDT’S TITLE OF DUMBFUCK.

        WATCH OUT BILL, HE’S COMING FOR YA!

        Liked by 3 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “popcornseller says:
        July 6, 2015 at 3:01 pm

        Please cite me where I defend Schmalfeldt.

        Your irrational screed really does not do whatever it is you think you are accomplishing.

        Next, I emailed the blog owner from my work address to prove that I am a) not Osborn or any other sock puppet and b) a lawyer.

        I’m hoping he is honest and ethical enough that he will verify to everyone that I am who/what I say I am (without doxing me) – i.e., just an independent person with an opinion not connected to anyone involved in the saga. If the blog owner doesn’t do that I have no interest in giving people here – and over the rest of the internet – my identity.

        but really, just because I disagree with you about a few things – I am evil incarnate in your mind? that is truly sad.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        I didn’t say you were evil incarnate. I said you were DUMB. The FACT that you could not understand that proves my point. Proof Matt Osborne. Evidence. You should try it sometime.

        And send whatever credentials you want – they can be faked. I submitted comments below that seriously call into question any of your claims of being a lawyer. Read on.

        Oh, I notice you did not even attempt to answer any of the points I made after the one listed as Four. Could it be that you don’t have an answer? Sure looks like it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Fourth, why is it so hard for you to be honest? You have nothing to hide? REALLY? Everyone knows your sock puppet Monkeytoe is you, Matt Osborne, now. The ruse is over. You have another login with your real name, but you insist on not using it here. That says a lot about your position. Are you afraid people will not accept your arguments? Do you have any arguments that have merit? Could we please see some?”

        I am not Matt Osborne. I traded emails with the blog host, but he apparently doesn’t want to verify that I am not Matt Osborne, which calls into question for me the honesty of everyone here. None of you seem able to be bothered to act rationally or reasonably and instead act just like Schmalfeldt – losing your minds when someone disagrees with you, claiming they are your enemy in disguise, etc. You are engaging in the exact same tactics as Schmalfeldt. It is sad.

        “Fifth, why is it so hard for you to keep your cover? All this talk about being a lawyer, trying to sound reasonable, goes down the tubes in seconds when tell your lies about Father Paul. Why does he irk you so? Hmmmm….”

        See answer above. More of the same paranoia claiming I am someone I’m not in order to appease your own little mind that someone who is not actually your enemy can see things differently than you.

        “Sixth, you love to speak about prison, serving time and paying for your crimes when it comes to Father Paul. But you don’t ever talk about Brett Kimberlin failing to do those things or to mention Kimberlin is still on parole. Are you blind in one eye? Asking for a friend…”

        I think Brett should be sent back to prision. this comment is a non-sequitor. This post was about Schmalfeldt and Hoge – not Kimberlin. Nobody asked me about Kimerlin. I have repeatedly said Schmalfeldt and Kimberlin are bad, nasty people. Kimberlin is likely a sociopath and I would have no problem seeing him go back to prison. What he did was horrible.

        “Seventh, the money trope, again. What is it with you and Schmalfeldt that you must accuse people of crimes without any proof? Father Paul has not asked anyone for any money. Period. You seem awfully concerned with money. Is Kimberlin paying you? Is that why money matters to you so much? Or is it because you’re living in your parent’s basement? I guess we must embrace the power of AND.”

        Con-man paul is a con man. In this thread he claims he did not get ordained within the last 2 years. That means it happened (if at all) during his admitted time as a con-man. Most people take 4 years in seminary to be ordained – when did he do it? Where? What parish/diocese is he with now? he isn’t posting under an alias, so he is not worried about doxing. Thus, he should be able to provide that info no problem. I can’t find a record of him being a priest anywhere. the “I have reformed and am now a true Christian” is one of the oldest cons in the book. that is why I have a problem with him. Add to that his commenting under his own name, with a picture of him in vestments, calling himself “father paul” while not acting remotely like a man of the cloth – I don’t believe for a second that he is a priest and believe he is working a con. It could be a long con – he might wait years to gain trust and start getting money. Or, perhaps he won’t seek money at all but gets off on fooling everyone into believing he’s a priest. Either way, I don’t like con men. that is why I don’t like Lemmen the con man. A true repentant devout christian would act far, far different than Lemmen in response to my points. Indeed, considering that he fleeced many people over a 30 year career – he would show more repentance toward his victims rather than making nasty comments about other sinners (schmalfeldt and kimberlin) and throwing nastiest toward me. He would instead realize that I was right to be leery of him, understand my points, and show some kind of humility. Pauly boy does the opposite of all that. Again – knowing he was an admitted con man for many, many years, why aren’t you a little leery? Don’t forget – con men are very, very, very good at engendering trust. Which apparently is what he has done with you.

        “Eighth, I see you’ve entered numerous comments here. This blog post was about Bill Schmalfeldt. Apparently you see a need to defend him. Again, that says a lot about your position and now it says a lot about you personally.”

        How has a single thing I said defended Schmalfeldt this time or the time I posted at Hoge’s – please give a direct cite to the comment. that you have no reading comprehension says a lot about you personally.

        “Ninth, you always love to take us off topic. That’s your true purpose here, right? Misdirection? Obfuscation? We started on Fourth discussing you hiding your identity, which everybody already knows. We end with you attempting to hide our discussion behind your misdirection. ON BOTH PARTS, FAILURE!”

        How did I take you off topic. This post was about doing something different to end the feud between Schmalfeldt and Hoge. I merely offered an opinion on that and then responded to comments directed to me. What – is the entire post and comments just meant to be people throwing insults at Schmalfeldt with no deeper discussion about anything? Is that the sum total of what you are looking for?

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        You will not accept Father Paul Lemmen as a priest and want proof, but then you turn around and say “trust me” with your own identity? In what reality does that make sense. Monkeytoe, seriously, step back and stop your furious typing for just a minute and think about it.

        If “This post was about Schmalfeldt and Hoge – not Kimberlin” and that made my question a “non-sequitor,” why did you, Monkeytoe, also say in another comment, “Regardless, we had moved off Hoge/Schmalfeldt specifically in our discussion and were just talking about the constitutionality of the law in general.” Oh, I see now. You can move the discussion topic to whatever you wish, but no one else can? Kind of one-sided, don’t you think?

        You have no proof and offer no evidence that Father Paul Lemmen will ask for money. You say he is playing a long con. If so, why do you care? Why do you keep repeating your accusations about him over and over and over again – and always without proof. (Isn’t that what all good lawyers do? Make accusations without proof. /sarc off) It’s truly tiresome. Your obsession is showing Monkeytoe, I mean Matt Osborne.

        And here we go AGAIN with you asking for proof but FAILING to provide any yourself. You want proof of your defense of Bill Schmalfeldt? Go here, where you belittle Bill Schmalfeldt’s action of sending UNWANTED pornographic material in order to defend him.

        “How did I take you off topic.” — Note to self: stop laughing at the missing question mark.

        Really? Do I have to summarize what happened in this comment thread?

        We were talking about Bill Schmalfeldt. Then Monkeytoe changed the conversation to POs submitted by Mr. Hoge and harassment. Now Monkeytoe wants to talk about “Someone emailing you once a week or so…” and “someone saying “don’t contact me…””

        Do you not see how the topic has changed? You don’t, do you? You really are competing with Bill Schmalfeldt for the title of DUMBFUCK, aren’t you? Why do you have to go to such lengths to prove you are competing with him, when you don’t bother to prove anything else? 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    • Monkeytoe says:

      “First, why are you bothering to pretend? We know who you are, and that you’re not an attorney, much less one with 20 years experience litigating.”

      Oh. You know who I am? Who am I? So silly. In an effort to stop the silly claim that a) I’m not an attorney and b) not a sock puppet I sent the blog owner an email with my real name and work address. It’s up to him to decide to admit that a) I”m not a sock puppet and b) am in fact an attorney practicing for many years (he can look me up in Martindale and see the date of my graduation from law school and the date of my admission to bar in the state I currently practice in (that year is 2000 I was admitted 3 years prior [1997] in another state, but because I no longer practice there, I don’t bother paying the yearly fee and let it lapse).

      but, it’s really irrelevant whether or not I’m an attorney, my argument stands either way. I state I was an attorney for the point that I was using my own experience as a gauge as to whether the PO would be worth anything, that’s it. My other arguments stand regardless.

      I care about the con-man because I don’t like con-men and I’d hate to see anyone taken by him. the idea that he can erase an admitted 30-year or so run hurting people by claiming “conversion” to Christianity is one of the oldest cons in the book.

      As for Schmalfeldt and Kimberlin – they both appear to be nasty people. So what? I didn’t think that was ever at issue.

      Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Why do you bother with this deception?, We already know who you are. Matt, you FAILED…AGAIN.

        Concern trolling doesn’t suit you much. Please, if you continue, stay on topic. But I will understand if you don’t. Apparently a post that starts out with the title “Stupid and Crazy….” is a powerful attractant.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Why do you bother with this deception?, We already know who you are. Matt, you FAILED…AGAIN.”

        What did I fail at? I’m not sure calling me a concern troll refutes or responds to a single pint I have made. It, instead, seems to indicate you are unable to respond with any sort of argument and instead go to the childish “concern troll” taunt.

        By the way – my name is in fact Matt – I’m just not the Matt you think I am.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        You are the Matt we think you are. It was proven previously and your tells make it clear you are now.

        “What did you fail at?” Besides ending a sentence with a preposition? You failed at hiding your identity.

        Calling you a concern troll is not a taunt. It is a statement of fact, As you read this comment thread, it becomes apparent to all that YOU shift the topic (successfully I might add) from Bill Schmalfeldt to POs submitted by Mr. Hoge and harassment, to a frivolous discussion about “Someone emailing you once a week or so…” and “someone saying “don’t contact me…”” The latter trivializes the actions of Bill Schmalfeldt, which of course was your goal all along.

        Congratulations on being a fantastic concern troll. A true roll model for Team Kimberlin to look up to. Now why don’t you brag about on Breitbart Unmasked like you did last time Monkeytoe, I mean bunny boy, I mean Matt Osborne.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “You are the Matt we think you are. It was proven previously and your tells make it clear you are now.”

        I am not Matt Osborne, so it is impossible for you to prove that I am. But please cite me to where you believe it was “proven”?

        YOu know, Schmalfeldt constantly believes people he interacts with on the internet are other people. He claims Grace is Jeanette and everyone is Krendler. How is you claiming I am Osborne different than Schmalfeldt’s paranoia?

        Like

      • aposemet says:

        I am curious as to why Paul Lemmon evokes such a strong response from you. Following the Schmalfeldt saga for some time provides a context that explains the strong responses of those involved with him. You provide no such context, which causes me to wonder about the vehemence of your reaction. Your comments seem to reveal a personal interest in Paul Lemmon himself rather than a philosophical interest in con-men in general.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “I am curious as to why Paul Lemmon evokes such a strong response from you. Following the Schmalfeldt saga for some time provides a context that explains the strong responses of those involved with him. You provide no such context, which causes me to wonder about the vehemence of your reaction. Your comments seem to reveal a personal interest in Paul Lemmon himself rather than a philosophical interest in con-men in general.”

        He is the only known former and allegedly reformed con-man. I don’t believe his current incarnation and don’t believe he is a priest. In a previous flame-war, he got involved fairly nastily himself.

        And when I see him commenting and egging on others to comment insultingly about Schmalfedlt and Kimberrlin, considering Mr. Lemmen’s own criminal past -I can’t understand how anyone buys that he is a priest. Not to say that being a con-man is “as bad” as being a bomber (although, I’d like to talk to some of Lemmen’s victims to see how they feel about it), but you would think Lemmen – claiming the mantle of man-of-the-cloth would not be engaging in the kind of gang-up, insult wars that take place on the various Lickspittle sites. Not remotely the type of conduct one sees in priests – particularly when they are explicitly posting as a priest (calling himself Father, cut-pasting prayers, including a picture of himself in vestments).

        Nothing he says remotely jibes with being a priest, or in my mind, being reformed from the life of a con-man. And, as I have repeatedly said – the con of saying “I’ll be honest about my past as a con-man, because I am reformed and now a devout Christian” is a very old form of the con. And cons can be long games. He doesn’t have to ask for money for a long time, but at some point, maybe he will. Not for himself personally, but for some charity he directs others to or something like that.

        Just as I generally don’t trust prison-conversions to Christianity when someone is asking for a reprieve from death row, or parole, I don’t trust a con-man’s conversion AND suddenly becoming a priest (something that usually takes years of seminary to accomplish before being ordained).

        It does frustrate me that others are what I consider gullible in buying his claim of priesthood without verification and call him “father”, etc. Particularly when none of his actions remotely jibe with being a priest.

        that is all opinion on my part and I’ll admit that. but I think I raise valid points that the leery would do well to consider. As long as he isn’t asking for money or other valuables, I guess there is no harm in him claiming to be a priest – but as I said, cons can run a long time before the mark is actually fleeced, so I would just ask that everyone be very leery.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        “Your comments seem to reveal a personal interest in Paul Lemmon himself rather than a philosophical interest in con-men in general.”

        Again, Monkeytoe, could you please repeat your comment and lengthen your response to give a more detailed answer. I’m not quite sure why you feel this way.

        Your obsession is showing Monkeytoe, I mean Matt Osborne.

        Like

  25. Onlooker says:

    The only real harasser is the very sick Schmalfeldt. Hoge should get a peace order, and have it enforced. Schmalfeldt should be restrained by the law, and only an easy obedience to it is required of him, not jail or fines.

    There is no confusion about who is in the wrong.

    Schmalfeldt might consider also that industriously circulating the details of his private life or unsolicited pictures of private events among the public, invite what he claims not to desire, especially when he hasn’t earned a lot of karma coupons for his good works.

    Liked by 5 people

  26. Rick Buchanan says:

    Schmalfeldt’s last two comments here called one site visitor a liar and threatened another with vexatious legal harassment.

    Just curious if this is considered acceptable behavior from a guest on this blog.

    Liked by 6 people

  27. Monkeytoe says:

    “The only real harasser is the very sick Schmalfeldt. Hoge should get a peace order, and have it enforced. Schmalfeldt should be restrained by the law, and only an easy obedience to it is required of him, not jail or fines.”

    Whether or not Hoge “should” be awarded a peace order, I doubt he will obtain one. I’m talking about reality, not wishes and dreams. that’s just my opinion. As I said – I have been wrong before. But I simply cannot see a court looking at 2 senior citizen males calling each other names over the internet and deciding that a peace order is necessary. And even if Hoge did get a peace order, it appears that experience tells us two things: (1) that Schmalfeldt won’t obey it and (2) the Courts are unlikely to do anything if Schmalfeldt violates it – no Court is going to send Schmalfeldt to prison for sending emails (unless containing an explicit threat). So, the actual satisfaction obtained from a peace order is illusory at best. In practical terms, it is a lot of effort to obtain a peace of paper without much value.

    “There is no confusion about who is in the wrong”

    If you read through the comments at various sites, you will see that many people take Schmalfeldt’s actions as license to be just as vicious in comments back. that is what I am ;talking about when I say 2 wrongs don’t make a right. I know that everyone who comments believes themselves pure as the driven snow and that it is fine to be as nasty, childish, and vicious as possible because Schmalfeldt is “bad”, but that is exactly the attitude and behavior I was pointing at. As I said, my opinion is that Schmalfeldt started all this with his bully tactics and antics, but at this point, a lot of people have gotten down in the mud and rolled around with Schamlfeldt.

    Trying to follow what has occurred to date, it appears that Schmalfeldt contacted Hoge, said mean things about Hoge and his wife, there were lawsuits between the two, Hoge told Schmalfeldt to stop contacting him, Schalfeldt didn’t. Not sure that is up there with domestic violence or other kinds of threats that typically result in peace orders (called restraining orders in most states).

    “Schmalfeldt’s last two comments here called one site visitor a liar and threatened another with vexatious legal harassment.”

    And, how many times a day do commenters here call Schmalfeldt a liar or worse? Really, the name calling back-and-forth is exactly the “both sides are immature” activity I am talking about. Sure, one can point to things Schmalfeldt has said and done (doxxing) that are beyond the pale, but doxxing isn’t illegal. Having your anonymity stripped away is a risk when engaging on the internet. I wouldn’t like it, but I know it may happen. And saying nasty things about people is nasty, but at the end of the day is still just name calling, no matter how much it hurts.

    As far as threatening vexatious lawsuits – threatening is not a crime. And, for the most part, unfortunately, bringing vexatious lawsuits is not a crime. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to get a judge to award sanctions based on “vexatious” litigation. Schmalfeldt may very well be approaching that point, but it depends almost entirely on the judge.

    “Just curious if this is considered acceptable behavior from a guest on this blog.”

    What is “acceptable behavior” is, of course, up to the blog owner. They can ban a commenter or do whatever.

    Like

    • A Reader #1 says:

      1. If you want to see how this started, see http://hogewash.com/2015/04/18/team-kimberlin-post-of-the-day-769/
      2. Mr. Hoge has successfully obtained two peace orders against BS, plus an extension of the first one.
      3. Maryland has two different types of restraining orders; one is for domestic abuse type cases, the other includes electronic harassment.
      4. Maryland law requires that if party A asks Party B to stop all contact, party B is required to do so or risk being subject to a peace order. BS has availed himself of that law and requested that certain individuals cease all contact with him.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        And in all the time this has been going on – where has this gotten Hoge in terms of a real conclusion? See my point regarding practical outcomes. Hoge got his PO, and from what I read, Schmalfeldt violated it, and the Court did nothing. How does this disprove my point regarding the ultimate value of the PO.

        And, my guess is that a law making it a crime for person a to speak to person b just because person b doesn’t want to be spoken to is likely unconstitutional. My guess is that to pass constitutional muster, much more than person a asking person b not to talk to them would be required before a crime can be said to be committed, otherwise, it violates the first amendment.

        Not sure you are getting the point. I’m pointing out that this circle of attacks and counter-attacks is never going to end until one or the other decides to stop engaging. And, it looks like neither will. So, we’ll have 2 old men suing and countersuing and blogging about it until one dies.

        All the while the various sites egg them both on and cheer. I’m entertained by it too.

        Like

      • Father Paul Lemmen says:

        Just a FYI: “Monkeytoe is Bunny-Boy wearing a sock. Don’t play into his concern-trolling.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        conman Pauly-boy,

        what have I written here that is “sock puppet” material? You are an admitted con-man, who was kicked off other conservative sites less than two years ago for your attempts at fund raising under your new scheme as an alleged ordained minister. (Imagine that, going from active con-man to ordained orthodox minister in less than 2 years of time – must be some kind of record). Your writings are not the writings of an ordained priest in any type of christian religion. that anyone believes your schtick is testament to your skill as a con-man I suppose.

        Why don’t you list your diocese, your bishop’s name, and phone number and let us call to see if you are truly an ordained priest? Certainly no amount of online research can find any church where you are listed as an ordained priest. I find it interesting that one can find no evidence of you being what you say you are.

        regardless, I love that instead of being able to engage in any kind of debate – much like Schmalfeldt and Kimberlin – your first instinct is to try and shut down any conversation through bully tactics. “Don’t talk to him, he is a sock puppet”. Why don’t you just dox me while you are at it?

        too funny. Remember all – never give any money or information to Lemmen. He may be what he says he is, but he was a con-man. No sense taking unnecessary risks with someone of such ill repute.

        I have never fleeced anyone. I have never stolen. I have never been imprisoned. Lemmen can’t say any of those things. Even if what he says is true and he has turned his life around, 2 years cannot atone for more than 30 years of evildoing. I’m sure there are a lot of Lemmen victims out there who would love the chance to talk to other commenters here and express their feelings about Lemmens “conversion”.

        Like

      • Father Paul Lemmen says:

        You betray yourself Matt by your lies that I have ever asked for funds from anyone. That is your signature lie as is the lie that you have invested more than 5 minutes trying to find me listed as a priest in any organization. Name those you have contacted (other than the OCA). Show your work and the basis of you false accusation. Never did I say I was ordained in the past two years nor even the past decade.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “You betray yourself Matt by your lies that I have ever asked for funds from anyone. That is your signature lie as is the lie that you have invested more than 5 minutes trying to find me listed as a priest in any organization. Name those you have contacted (other than the OCA). Show your work and the basis of you false accusation. Never did I say I was ordained in the past two years nor even the past decade.”

        So, you maintained your priesthood through your admitted thirty years or so of conning people and imprisonment? You were an orthodox priest during that same time-frame. but were to believe you are being honest now? Because you say so.

        And, that’s a great church. Interesting that you won’t give out the info about the diocese or bishop for anyone to verify your claims.

        You make my point for me. If you were truly a “priest” in an orthodox church, giving such info shouldn’t be a problem. After all – you are commenting under your own real identity, so it is not fear of “doxing” that would stop you.

        Simply saying “show your work” is inane. I can’t show a negative. I can find nothing about you being a priest anywhere. If you have proof, let it fly. You are using your real name and trading on your alleged status – you even call yourself “father” in your comments and have a picture of yourself in alleged vestments. You should have no problem offering proof.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Oh my. Father Paul should show all his credentials to you because you demand it? Really? It’s not “HEAR SHMAWFELT RAWR.” It’s now “HEAR BUNNY BOY RAWR.” Compete much, do you?

        And from your reaction here Father Paul should expect you to do nothing with that information? Really?

        Your obsession is showing Matt.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Oh my. Father Paul should show all his credentials to you because you demand it? Really? It’s not “HEAR SHMAWFELT RAWR.” It’s now “HEAR BUNNY BOY RAWR.” Compete much, do you?”

        the con-man Lemmen admits to being a con-man, served time for being a con man, and now is running one of the oldest cons in the book – the claim of “conversion” to Christianity while admitting his sordid past – wouldn’t any rational person want to check out his story before accepting it at face value?

        And what “priest” comments on blogs as “father so and so” and uses their priesthood as both sword and shield? and posts pictures of themselves in priestly garb? All while engaging in flame wars? Seriously>? that is priestly behavior?

        Fine – believe I am a troll or sock puppet because I disagree with you. but, use some commons sense when dealing with self-admitted con-men.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Monkeytoe, I mean bunny boy, I mean Matt Osborne, every time you comment at a Team Good Guys blog, you bring up this bit about Father Paul. And you repeat it over and over again on the thread.

        Don’t you think we’ve heard this by now? Sprinkled with your lies and distortions?

        Aren’t you the one who wants “adult” discourse?

        Can’t you stay on topic?

        — Sorry about that. That last one slipped out. We already know you are unable to do so.

        BTW, you are not a troll or sock puppet because we disagree with you. You need to accept who you are and not blame others.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Father Paul Lemmen says:

        As any thinking person knows, I do not publicly give out information that will be used to harass my superior nor brother priests. Ask Bill about contacting the Seminary where I was taking refresher courses and the calumny he attempted. They already knew all of my acts and crimes. I have not atoned for my years as a criminal (much less than the 30 you claim) and my years of prison … a whole 36 months in minimum security club fed because I am such a threat to society … even worse, apparently, that a convicted serial bomber that blew off a man’s leg at a high school football game. We are all sinners and only through the grace of God and the sacrifice of His Son Jesus upon the cross of Calvary are we saved. That is the atonement, the very blood of Christ. Disbelieve all you want. I encourage that, never trust, verify, watch, never give money.
        I would like to know who and where I am supposed to have solicited money from. How about coughing up some proof? If you can provide proof I have asked people to send me money, please go ahead.
        in 2012, unlike what you claim, I was silenced on some conservative blogs and websites for publicly withdrawing my support for the National Bloggers Club. That engendered a dispute with Ali Akbar and other supporters. I have since recanted that position, apologized to Mr. Akbar and am a supporter of his activities. I am but a sinner as are we all. However, you post calumny against me without valid proof of your accusations. As you claim to be an attorney, provide proof of your allegations or retract your accusations.
        Else, you prove to be the cowardly character assassin I think you to be. Name one person who donated so much as a nickel to me.
        History is replete with priests that have burned out at a young age and have walked away from the church only to return years later as resumed their roles. Christ works miracles in people’s lives if we will but pick up the cross of redemption and follow Him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • popcornseller says:

        Please be advised that Wikipedia will not be accepted as a valid source due to the ability to manipulate the text at its site. You will need to do some real work (for a change), some real research and spend more than 5 minutes on the internet to obtain actual source documents – you know, stuff called evidence, proof. I’ll be shocked if you actually make the effort.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “As any thinking person knows, I do not publicly give out information that will be used to harass my superior nor brother priests.”

        Nonsense on stilts. You don’t provide it because it does not exist. You are posting publicly under your own name, so anyone with time and effort can call around to various diocese in your area and try and find you. Of course, they never will because you don’t belong to any. And you can’t prove a negative. I can’t prove you “don’t” belong to any because all I have is failed attempts to find one you belong to. Only you can prove you do belong to one. And, you say Schmalfeldt already has the info – so the one person who would “harass” you isn’t the issue.

        “I have not atoned for my years as a criminal (much less than the 30 you claim) and my years of prison … a whole 36 months in minimum security club fed because I am such a threat to society …”

        what difference does the time you spent or where you spent it make? You are an admitted con man. I’m sure you had far more victims than you were caught for. Unless you want to claim you only engaged in criminal wrongdoing once and that was the time you were caught? So silly.

        “even worse, apparently, that a convicted serial bomber that blew off a man’s leg at a high school football game.

        How is that relevant? I think Kimberlin is an awful human being who likely should be back in jail. How does that have anything to do with your crimes or whether or not you are a con man currently? this is exactly the kind of non-man-of-the-cloth “look he’s worse than I was” type of garbage that proves you are no priest. Instead of repenting, showing compassion for someone who is leery that you are truly reformed, talking about your victims and their hurt – you try to change the topic and say “that guy is worse so don’t look at me”.

        “We are all sinners and only through the grace of God and the sacrifice of His Son Jesus upon the cross of Calvary are we saved. That is the atonement, the very blood of Christ.”

        convenient – you don’t have to atone for anything on this earth or make up to your victims because you believe. that is true Christianity right there.

        “I would like to know who and where I am supposed to have solicited money from.”

        I never said you had taken money – I said you were likely to. I don’t know how long of a con you are running here. Or even what the end game is for you.

        “However, you post calumny against me without valid proof of your accusations. As you claim to be an attorney, provide proof of your allegations or retract your accusations.”

        What does my being attorney have to do with whether I have proof? My accusations stand. Every comment you make shows you are not a man-of-the-cloth and not a Christian. You use the language, but not the context or the substance. No priest would act like you in comments. No true priest would post as “father so and so” while insulting other sinners and egging on nasty insults the way you do. I don’t kneed proof – you have an admitted history and have not demonstrated any way to verify your current claims of preisthood. You claim you were ordained – where did you go to seminary, when did you graduate? We won’t be able to use that info to “harass” your alleged brothers, but can use it to check if you actually attended or graduated from seminary to enable you to be ordained. You claim you weren’t ordained in the last 2 years. So, it was while you admit you were actively conning people? How are we to trust that process was real then?

        “Else, you prove to be the cowardly character assassin I think you to be. Name one person who donated so much as a nickel to me.”

        Again, you admit you fleeced people in the past. thus, your admission is my proof. I never said you had taken any money yet on this con, i merely said to watch out for it because it would come eventually.

        “History is replete with priests that have burned out at a young age and have walked away from the church only to return years later as resumed their roles.”

        Ahh, so you were a priest, then a con man, and now a priest again. Convenient. Where were you a priest in the past? Surely, as you aren’t there now, you wouldn’t mind letting us in on it so we can check?

        Like

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Please be advised that Wikipedia will not be accepted as a valid source due to the ability to manipulate the text at its site. You will need to do some real work (for a change), some real research and spend more than 5 minutes on the internet to obtain actual source documents – you know, stuff called evidence, proof. I’ll be shocked if you actually make the effort.”

        Provide me proof that the admitted con-man Lemmen is truly a priest. I’ll be shocked if you actually make the effort. I have proof, in the form of his own admission, that he is a con-man. The question is whether he is truly a priest. I can’t prove a negative. I can’t “prove” that I called every single possible church and they all confirmed he is not a priest here. Only he can prove that he is a priest by providing the information of where he is allegedly stationed and an address/number for us to check the veracity of his claims.

        He posts here openly, trying to use his alleged status as a priest as a sword and shield, having you call him “father”, having a picture of him in his fake costume vestments, surely someone who wants so badly to be known as a priest can prove they are what they claim. It seems very important to him that you all believe he is a priest. Why not prove it?

        Like

      • Unless Father Lemmen is trying to con money out of someone, I’m not sure why it should matter to MT whether he is an ordained priest of not.

        Assuming solely for the sake of argument that MT is correct, (not a small assumption) there is plenty of literature showing that those who pretend to be something often become it. It’s one of the problems with method acting when the actor tries to get into the mind of the character and “become” them; it’s what killed Heath Ledger after too long trying to be the Joker. The lead actress in 50 Shades talked about going home and taking long scrubbing showers to try to cleanse herself of the role.

        I can think of far, far worse robes for a man to don than that of priest; with a bit of grace from the Lord, I believe that any man who tried it as a con would stand an excellent chance of becoming that which he started out by only pretending to be.

        Also, if a man “pretends” to be a priest and brings the Word to his fellow men, and even one benefits, perhaps it is God working through the alleged “pretender” for the souls of both said “pretender” and his fellow men.

        May the Lord continue to walk with Paul Lemmen in his current path and draw him ever closer.

        Yet grace, if thou repent, thou canst not lacke;
        But who shall give thee that grace to beginne?
        Oh make thy selfe with holy mourning blacke;
        And red with blushing, as thou art with sinne;
        Or wash thee in Christ’s blood, which hath this might
        That being red, it dyes red soules to white.
        —— John Donne

        Liked by 3 people

      • popcornseller says:

        Even if you did identify his diocese, you wouldn’t believe him anyway. So really, what’s the point, Matt Osborne, other than to harass?

        “What difference does the time you spent or where you spent it make?
        Convenient – you don’t have to atone for anything on this earth or make up to your victims because you believe.”

        * BLINK *
        Did you really just say it makes no difference to be punished and atone for sins and then turn around and say “convenient” meaning you should? There’s more to say here, but why bother? Let’s just add that you continue to prove you are a DUMBFUCK.

        “I never said you had taken money – I said you were likely to.”
        Liar. You modified your original position when you were called out on it previously at the Hogewash! blog.

        “What does my being attorney have to do with whether I have proof? My accusations stand.”
        WOW. JUST WOW. An admission against interest that you are too lazy to do any research and provide evidence. You know, something called PROOF of your accusations. Something they teach you in law school 101. Heh, and you claim you are a lawyer. Indeed. Pathetic. Making mistakes like that. WOW.

        “Provide me proof that the admitted con-man Lemmen is truly a priest. I’ll be shocked if you actually make the effort.”
        Again, too lazy to do the work yourself, you attempt to reverse the call for proof. And you choose only one accusation and disregard ALL of YOUR other accusations. Must be nice to spread accusations like fertilizer on a lawn and not have to provide proof for any of them. Your attempted reversal FAILS. Nice try though. Keep working on it and you might almost get as good at it as your concern trolling.

        “It seems very important to him that you all believe he is a priest. Why not prove it?”
        Excuse me for noticing that it seems more important to you.

        Your obsession is showing Matt Osborne.

        Like

    • Paul Krendler says:

      Blow it out your ass, Mattonkeytoe. Go clean the basement,

      Liked by 4 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        Nice – Krendler goes right for the doxing. And he is unlike Schmalfeldt in what way?

        In all reality – what have I said that makes you so angry?

        too funny. Yes, you are the “good guys” who have ethics and morals. First comment by Krendler uses my name. Dox’s me. And this is your associate of good morals?

        LOL.

        Like

      • Monkeytoe says:

        I take it from another commenter that “Matt” probably referred to “Matt Osborn” from BU. It so happens my name is “Matt” as well. Which is why I thought you were doxing me. that was what Schmalfeldt did on BU – started referring to me as “matt” instead of Monkeytoe. So, I guess I take back what I said about you doxing me assuming you were thinking I was “Matt Osborn” rather than somehow looking up my name otherwise.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Admission against interest Matt. You insisted in an earlier comment your sock Monkeytoe was not bunny boy, Matt Osborne. Yet here you admit Krendler doxed you in his first comment.

        The mask isn’t slipping, Matt. It’s been completely removed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Admission against interest Matt. You insisted in an earlier comment your sock Monkeytoe was not bunny boy, Matt Osborne. Yet here you admit Krendler doxed you in his first comment.”

        Read my second comment idiot. I point out that my name is also Matt and that I though he was referring to me because he knew my name. Then realized, later, that he thought I was “Matt Osborne”.

        Again, if this blog host is an honest, ethical person, he will verify what I am saying. We’ll see.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        You mad Bro? Why are you so angry?

        Can’t someone have an opinion that does not agree 100% with yours?

        Like

  28. Onlooker says:

    Monkey toe, If schmalfeldt limited himself to “mean thing” commentary said about his selected enemies you might have a point. That is not what he does.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Monkeytoe says:

      What else does he do? I know he has “doxxed” individuals. He even attempted to do it to me when I posted at BU arguing with them there (they banned me and deleted all my comments when I called them on it and pointed out it violated their very own terms of use).

      And, the funny things was, I was only arguing about 2 things – I pointed out that the Court’s order finding that Kimberlin stated a claim against Frey was not a finding of guilt against Frey – only a finding that the allegations, if true, might state a claim. That drove them nuts. They wanted to claim it was a finding of guilt. then I asked them why they liked Kimberlin so much considering his past. They tried to deny that past. Very odd.

      Then, Schmalfeldt got on in the comments (although I’m convinced that he is part of running the site with Kimberlin because who else besides themselves really care enough about either to cover them as “news”) and started talking about Hoge trying to get “300 Peace Orders” against him. I looked up what he was talking about and saw it was something like 10 attempts with around 300 charges supporting the application – not 300 different attempts to obtain peace orders – which Schmalfeldt was implying.

      I pointed that out and that seemed to send them over the edge. After that, they used my email to find my very limited public facebook page and started calling me by name in the comments (in what I suppose was meant to frighten me). I had a picture of my son on my facebook that they could see – so they started mentioning my son as well. They really thought that would scare me away – obviously they aren’t capable of rational debate and argument and had to resort instantly to trying to frighten me to shut me up. When that didn’t work, they banned me and deleted all of my comments.

      So, I realize these are not good people, or rationale people, or smart people. they are what they are. Kimberlin appears to be a sociopath based on his history and Schmalfeldt appears to be a Kimberlin hanger-on for some reason. And they are both nasty, bruthish, and illogical. So what? Getting a peace order won’t change it nor will it result in them changing their behavior.

      Like I said, I doubt very much a court will ever actually fine or jail Schmalfeldt for sending emails, even if a PO is in place. Thus, you are left with fighting for the sake of fighting. Which is fine. But that is all it is. It isn’t aimed at accomplishing anything. I know – people say it is “standing up to a bully”. But, in reality, the bully was already stood up to. He failed to silence his critics, his lawsuits were/are defended against, he is being made fun of, etc. A PO won’t really add to that much, if at all.

      Like

      • Monkeytoe says:

        As a follow-up to that – the other telltale sign that Schmalfeldt is deeply involved in BU is that – if memory serves -he was the one to “dox” me – meaning he had access to the email I put in to comment at the site. Your average, run of the mill commenter would not have that access. FWIW.

        So, yes, they appear to be dishonest, creepy people at best.

        Like

      • Concern troll is concern trolling. Begone, Bunny-boy!

        Liked by 5 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “So the fuck what? He wants one, and he’s entitled to one under the law, and he’s not spending your money to get one.

        Why would you care one way or another? Especially, enough to belabor this same ‘argument’ all over again?

        Because you’re not real.”

        Wow. As I said, I’m just giving my opinion. Why do you care so much that you have to respond? Why do you care so much whether or not Hoge gets a PO? How is you wanting him to get one different from me pointing out that it is kinda pointless?

        I’m pointing out that this is a viscious cycle. Hoge pursue the PO’s, Schmalfeld pursues the nonsense litigation. Everyone comments (many very nastily). Nobody actually gets any satisfaction from the PO or lawsuits, and the cycle is started once again. That’s all. that is my entire point.

        My whole point was that this won’t ever end because nobody is going to get any real satisfaction and neither will drop it. that was the entirety of my point that seems to make people so angry. Not sure why. Why does that make you mad? Seriously?

        Hoge is a grown man. He can do what he wants. All I”m doing is offering an opinion about it. I’m not condemning him or saying “he must stop” or anything of the like. So, why does it engender such anger by so many commenters (who then go on to try and argue that I’m the bad guy because I get snippy in return).

        I find the saga interesting and wanted to join the conversation.l Apparently, because I’m not 100% in lock-step with popular opinion here – that makes me an enemy that is either “not real”, a “concern troll” a “sock puppet” or something else.

        And yet, what have I said that is really that bad (except, admittedly, toward the con-man, but that is a different issue that has nothing to do with Hoge/Schmalrfeldt but instead his see-through fake priesthood)?

        My comments make it clear that I”m of the opinion that Schmalfeldt and Kimberlin are bad people. Just because I don’t see the efficacy of a PO the same as you guys apparently makes me some kind of monster. Not sure why that is.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        I see you attempting the following Monkeytoe, bunny boy, Matt Osborne:

        1. Revising history – probably your true purpose here, I suppose. For proof (Matt, proof is where you provide evidence to support your position, something you fail to do with Father Paul) see this comment by A Reader #1.

        2. Concern trolling, meaning you are attempting to take us off topic because of your false “concern” that Mr. Hoge is wasting his time obtaining Peace Orders.

        3. Wasting time/making the thread unreadable by writing long diatribes and constantly repeating your “concerns.” By the way Matt, don’t forget, another tell is your writing style.

        4. Competing with Bill Schmalfeldt for the title DUMBFUCK. Why do you want this title so much Matt?

        Liked by 2 people

  29. JeffM says:

    Monkeytoe is right about one thing: Lickspittles and Zombies are not going to stop mocking Witless Willie at least until he stops trying to get the courts to shut people up. What got me interested in the first place was the attacks on free speech going on; I am not a social conservative like many of the L’s and Z’s. And Monkeytoe is very likely right that Willie has nothing better to do with his time than beclown himself with initiating silly law suits until he is declared a vexatious litigant. And so the cycle will continue.

    Where Monkeytoe is wrong is that Hoge has no hope of getting a peace order. Without having done any research on the statutes or case law, I have been given to understand that in Maryland if A puts B on notice that contact to A from B is to cease, the court can enforce that request. That seems like perfectly reasonable law that would pass constitutional muster. Hoge has succeeded in getting such orders before, which indicates that, quite conceivably, he could again. And I certainly, and Monkeytoe probably, have no clue about what evidence Hoge has on the number or contents of what messages Willie has sent him since the last order expired. MT does not seem to focus on what I believe to be a key distinction: Hoge is only asking that Willie not communicate with him whereas Willie is essentially demanding that no one communicate about him.

    Where Monkeytoe may be correct is that the courts in Maryland systematically discriminate against elderly white males. I do not have enough knowledge to form an informed opinion about such discrimination, but it would not surprise me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • JeffM says:

      While I was writing the above, there was more dialogue with MT. I too doubt that Witless Willie will or should be jailed for communicating with Hoge: Willie is pretty obviously no physical threat to anyone (with the possible exception of his dogs). But he could be fined enough to sting.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Monkeytoe says:

      “Hoge is only asking that Willie not communicate with him whereas Willie is essentially demanding that no one communicate about him.”

      I think Schmalfeldt’s “commands” that nobody comment on him are silly and futile. I’m not comparing the two.

      I’m saying as a practical matter I don’t see what good a PO ultimately does. My comment below discusses the constitutionality – I doubt it passes constitutional muster to make it a crime to talk to someone who doesn’t want you to talk to them. How does that work? Can a public figure tell all the media not to speak with him and then get POs against them when they do? and then get them arrested when they violate the PO? It’s a silly law and I would not be surprised if it were found unconstitutional.

      PO’s should really be reserved for physical threats and the like, not for “I don’t like you, don’t talk to me” issues.

      You are correct that I don’t know every message that Schmalfeldt sent to Hoge, but I have read Hoge and Schmalfeldt’s court filings that are shared online and don’t see anything of the threats of imminent harm type of communication.

      My whole point was that there is nobody squeaky clean left involved. The good guys – the lickspittles – have gotten down into the mud with Schmalfeldt saying nasty things about him. I agree that Schmalfeldt started it. but, the question is how does it end. I appears that it won’t. the PO won’t end it. Schmalfeldt’s lawsuits will go on and again – I doubt a court will actually fine or jail Schmalfeldt for sending an email to Hoge. Again, I could be wrong – that is just my opinion based on my experience dealing with courts, albeit in another state.

      Like

      • Concern troll is concern trolling.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Okay, let’s pretend you’re real for a second.

        You’re right, getting a PO vs BS is of no particular, much less practical use to WJJH.

        So the fuck what? He wants one, and he’s entitled to one under the law, and he’s not spending your money to get one.

        Why would you care one way or another? Especially, enough to belabor this same ‘argument’ all over again?

        Because you’re not real.

        Liked by 3 people

      • popcornseller says:

        Hey Matt Osborne, I didn’t quite get that. Could you please repeat that argument and this time, do it with gusto! Your points get so much better after hearing it for the 1000th time. I think I can almost remember them now.

        Liked by 2 people

  30. a Reader #1 says:

    Monkeytoe-

    1. I have no idea what WJJH’s goals are, either in the short or long term, other than simply being left alone, i.e., no contact from BS.
    2. “I looked up what he was talking about and saw it was something like 10 attempts with around 300 charges supporting the application – not 300 different attempts to obtain peace orders – which Schmalfeldt was implying.” This is not quite accurate. The basis for PO #1 was not those events. They were charges for violations of the existing PO. After mediation, WJJH asked the state’s attorney to drop the charges, in exchange for BS abiding by the PO. In contemporaneous writings, which someone else can post (Army Vet?), BS admitted that the charges were dropped for that reason, although he later denied it.
    3. “And, my guess is that a law making it a crime for person a to speak to person b just because person b doesn’t want to be spoken to is likely unconstitutional. My guess is that to pass constitutional muster, much more than person a asking person b not to talk to them would be required before a crime can be said to be committed, otherwise, it violates the first amendment.” Yes, a peace order is required. POs and restraining orders are Constitutional under our system.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Monkeytoe says:

      as to 2 – I’m not sure what that responds to.

      As to ” POs and restraining orders are Constitutional under our system.”

      PO’s and restraining orders are constitutional when based on threats/physical safety. I’m not so sure they will pass constitutional muster when the only basis for the PO was “I told him not to talk to me and he did” thus creating a court order ordering you to not talk to someone (i.e., censoring your speech) and making it a crime for you to talk to that someone.

      Sure, when you have a domestic violence situation and you order the perpetrator to stay away from the victim – that passes constitutional muster. The “I don’t like him talking to me” order estopping speech seems, to me, to violate the first amendment. I haven’t researched if anyone has actually challenged the MD law on this ground – I doubt it. But if it were, I can see it being overturned as unconstitutional. Unless you can cite me to a case?

      but again, as I have pointed out, from what I read, Hoge had a PO, Schmalfeldt violated it, and the MD court shrugged its shoulders. I don’t see that dynamic changing. We are talking about someone emailing someone else.

      Like

      • Concern troll is concern trolling.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Concern troll is concern trolling”

        Once again – you aren’t capable of having a discussion? Really? What have I said that is factually wrong or so beyond the pale that you immediately must go to saying I am “concern trolling”? Are you that shut off to the idea that someone generally on your side can not 100% agree with you? Is that impossible to fathom?

        Like

      • So if someone contacts you multiple times a day for days on end, but doesn’t threaten you, you just have to put up with it?

        Based on that argument, the “Do Not Contact” phone list should be done away with because it is unconstitutional. Who doesn’t want multiple phone calls every day trying to sell them siding, or refinancing, or whatever?

        Liked by 5 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Based on that argument, the “Do Not Contact” phone list should be done away with because it is unconstitutional. Who doesn’t want multiple phone calls every day trying to sell them siding, or refinancing, or whatever?”

        SCOTUS has repeatedly found less protection for commerical speech than non-commerical speech. And, the no-contact list doesn’t make it a CRIME to contact the person, but imposes civil liability. Those 2 things make the siutation different.

        I’m just giving my opinion of what the law is, how a court will treat it, and whether or not the law is constitutional. Do you really think it is appropriate to make it a crime for John to talk to mary just because mary says “don’t talk to me”? Yes, in this instance we have the extra step of obtaining a PO, but the PO is based solely on mary’s “don’t talk to me”.

        It is my opinion that such would not stand up to constitutional muster.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Do we really need to cover this yet again? Mr. Hoge had pornographic material sent to him by Bill Schmalfeldt with Mr. Hoge’s face photoshopped on it. There are many more reasons why Mr. Hoge pursued a Peace Order other than “I told him not to talk to me and he did.”

        Stop trying to revise history and stop your concern trolling. If you wish to comment, please do us a favor and return to the topic of the post.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Do we really need to cover this yet again? Mr. Hoge had pornographic material sent to him by Bill Schmalfeldt with Mr. Hoge’s face photoshopped on it. There are many more reasons why Mr. Hoge pursued a Peace Order other than “I told him not to talk to me and he did.””

        A pornographic picture? My word, get the fainting couch. Regardless, we had moved off Hoge/Schmalfeldt specifically in our discussion and were just talking about the constitutionality of the law in general – so I wasn’t saying that as regard to Hoge, but in general. You need to work on reading comprehension quite a bit.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        “A pornographic picture? My word, get the fainting couch.”

        I’m sure everyone reading this now knows your low standards. You are not exactly convincing people of your good heart and good nature. let alone your position. Sending unwanted pornographic material is harassment. Oh, and nice try on your attempt to belittle the act. BTW, you wanted proof of your defense of Bill Schmalfeldt? Look no further.

        “Regardless, we had moved off Hoge/Schmalfeldt specifically in our discussion…”

        That is a tactic of your Concern Trolling, isn’t it? Move the discussion off the topic so we can discuss frivolous general “concerns” that do not apply to the specific situation. The purpose, of course, is to sow dissension among the team arguing over something of a general nature that really does not matter. Oh yes, it’s purpose is also to provide you entertainment, isn’t it?

        From your comment below:

        All, thanks for the entertainment. I had a hard time concentrating at work today because I’m leaving on vacation this week, so you helped pass the day more quickly.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Monkeytoe, kind of hard to have a moral standing after my comment above, no?

        Like

  31. a Reader #1 says:

    – #2 responds to your comment, which I quoted.
    – “We are talking about someone emailing someone else.” No, we’re not, no matter how much some would like to spin things that way.

    I have responded to you politely, because you posted politely, but I do believe that you are a sock for Matt Osborne, who is an apologist for BS, and I also believe that you are concern trolling.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Monkeytoe says:

      #2 doesn’t respond to my comment. You do quote my comment, but go off on a tangent. I never said what caused the POs.

      My name is “Matt” but not “Matt osborn”. And how exactly am I “concern trolling”? I’m just voicing an opinion.

      Is every opinion you disagree with automatically an enemy? Can’t you have a debate about issues without immediately “hating” the other person and believing in a conspiracy?

      Seriously? That is pretty ridiculous. What have I said that in any way can be seen as supporting Kimberlin or Schmalfeldt? I admit I haven’t been 100% supportive of everything the lickspittles do – but that is nto the same as supporting Kimberline or Schmalfeldt.

      Is the world really just us/them? Everyone either supports Schmalfeldt or wholeheartedly agrees with everything you say?

      Like

    • Monkeytoe says:

      ““We are talking about someone emailing someone else.” No, we’re not, no matter how much some would like to spin things that way.”

      As between Hoge and Schmalfeldt – what else are we talking about? Yes, there are the meritless lawsuits, but you can’t get a PO for that, and a PO can’t stop someone from filing a lawsuit. I’m open to hear about what else Schmalfledt did to Hoge outside of meritless lawsuits, calling him names, and sending him emails?

      Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Do we really need to cover this yet again? Mr. Hoge had pornographic material sent to him by Bill Schmalfeldt with Mr. Hoge’s face photoshopped on it. There are many more reasons why Mr. Hoge pursued a Peace Order other than “I told him not to talk to me and he did.”

        Stop trying to revise history and stop your concern trolling. If you wish to comment, please do us a favor and return to the topic of the post.

        Liked by 3 people

  32. Onlooker says:

    Monkey tie, you seem determined to have false comparisons made, perhaps to muddy up up something crystal clear. If all he did was write protected criticism of others, that would be one thing….the thing you say. If you don’t know what else he does, and you do, you would have to be trying very hard not to know. I think you are just trying to compare apples and oranges for your own reasons.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Monkeytoe says:

      “you seem determined to have false comparisons made, ”

      what false comparison have I made? Please elaborate.

      As far as “what Schamlfeldt does”, I only know from cites like this and Hoge’s and Walkers. What does he do? Everything I have read is that he writes nasty stuff about people and dox’s people. And writes to people who don’t want to hear from him. And, I gather, one time tried to appear intimidating to Walker and his wife.

      Is there more?

      Like

    • popcornseller says:

      Too lazy to find out? Too lazy to do some research and read the history on the blogs? That’s another characteristic of Matt Osborne, Monkeytoe.

      The mask isn’t slipping, Matt. It’s been completely removed.

      Liked by 3 people

      • popcornseller says:

        Matt, I mean Monkeytoe, you have the time to write these long comments and to do so repeatedly, but no time to read the history on the blogs? Hmmm…..

        Liked by 2 people

  33. SammyD says:

    “WordPress sends me a notice when you respond to comments about me on these blogs. I consider that harassment, and demand that such comments cease immediately.”

    No.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. D. Edgren says:

    I think Monkeytoe makes some valid points. Sorry, but folks will just have to agree to disagree with me about that. In other news…

    Oooooh, the feces are in the propeller blades today over at Billy Sez.

    Don’t get any on ‘ya!

    Like

  35. a Reader #1 says:

    I’ll try again.
    1. #2 – Your comment, in context, suggested that the 300 contacts were the basis for the PO application. They were not.
    2. “Is every opinion you disagree with automatically an enemy?” No.
    3. “Can’t you have a debate about issues without immediately “hating” the other person and believing in a conspiracy?” Yes, and I think I did. I would really appreciate knowing which specific comments, which did not include name calling, ridicule, and actually acknowledged the politeness with which you posted, are “hateful.”
    4. For the record, when Monkeytoe was accused of concern trolling at Hogwash, his tone changed dramatically as it just did, with accusations of people being “ridiculous,” etc.
    I have continued to be polite. Monkeytoe has resorted to name calling.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Monkeytoe says:

      “1. #2 – Your comment, in context, suggested that the 300 contacts were the basis for the PO application. They were not.”

      I suggested that Schmalfeldt implied that Hoge had made 300 separate applications for peace orders, which the MD database made clear wasn’t the case. I never argued one way or another as to what the basis for the peace orders was. I have no idea what the basis is and never argued one way or another. Which is why your response is a tangent that makes no sense. You are correcting something I never said, implied or argued.

      I think that calling someone a concern troll or sock puppet just because they disagree with you – accusing me, for instance, of being Matt Osborne of BU – is the kind of nonsense I am talking about.

      My tone changes because people never respond to the things I say, instead they simply rant and call me a “concern troll”, which can be amusing but also infuriating.

      I admit to getting nasty with the con man. Because he is a con man and gets quickly nasty himself. He is a con man. He admits so, but pretends he is “reformed” and became an ordained priest in less time than is usual for such things. I would think a 30 year career as an admitted con man would require much more than a couple of years to become ordained in any priesthood – but especially an orthodox one. that nobody finds it even slightly odd is amusing to me.

      Like

      • a Reader #1 says:

        1. I think we can agree to disagree about that point.
        2. “My tone changes because people never respond to the things I say, instead they simply rant and call me a “concern troll”, which can be amusing but also infuriating.” Never? Many of us did directly respond to the points you made, despite the belief that you are a sock puppet. I think that says a lot for the fairness and level-headedness of many of the commenters here.
        3. It is clear you despise Paul Lemmen. In fact, your most heated comments and insults are reserved for him. What you should understand is that everyone is very much aware of his history, and that he has relationships with many people here OUTSIDE of public blogs. In certain cases, he has answered questions posed to him by individuals, but it has been his choice to do so. In other words, people may not be discussing some of these issues PUBLICLY to your satisfaction, but it doesn’t mean that it has never been done.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Many of us did directly respond to the points you made, despite the belief that you are a sock puppet. I think that says a lot for the fairness and level-headedness of many of the commenters here.
        3. It is clear you despise Paul Lemmen. In fact, your most heated comments and insults are reserved for him. What you should understand is that everyone is very much aware of his history, and that he has relationships with many people here OUTSIDE of public blogs. In certain cases, he has answered questions posed to him by individuals, but it has been his choice to do so. In other words, people may not be discussing some of these issues PUBLICLY to your satisfaction, but it doesn’t mean that it has never been done.”

        A few did response to points – but most went right to the “sock puppet” you are evil type of responses. I’ll admit you have been polite and responsive. Not sure what you have to disagree about point 1 though – here is my exact statement:

        “Then, Schmalfeldt got on in the comments. . . and started talking about Hoge trying to get “300 Peace Orders” against him. I looked up what he was talking about and saw it was something like 10 attempts with around 300 charges supporting the application – not 300 different attempts to obtain peace orders – which Schmalfeldt was implying.”

        How does that not say what I say it says, i.e., that Schmalfeldt implied Hoge attempted to get “300 Peace Orders” but that my research showed there were only about 10 PO applications?

        this isn’t a big point – I’m not sure why you believe it is – but I’m curious as to why you think this is me arguing about the BASIS for the PO’s and why my interpretation of what I myself wrote is wrong?

        As far as Lemmen, I’m sure he managed to convince people in face-to-face meetings and has developed off-line relationships. that is what con-men do. That is the entire purpose of the con. that people believe him doesn’t change what he is. How anyone can look at his comments and see “man of god” is a mystery. Imagine any other Preist from any other church coming on writing as “father ____” and engaging in flame wars – using their office as a priest as a sword and a shield. I’ve never seen such a thing and can’t imagine it. But we have it here from Lemmen. And yet you all seem to buy into it.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        “…and saw it was something like 10 attempts with around 300 charges supporting the application.”

        The 300 charges were never used to support any application. They were used to prove violations of the Peace Order, not to set them up.

        WOW. You really are competing with Bill Schmalfeldt for the title of DUMBFUCK!

        Liked by 2 people

  36. Father Paul Lemmen says:

    I’m just happy Bill derives some solace and peace fro the prayer I crafted for him. Of course, I asked nothing from him, nor would I ask for anything of monetary value (as has been repeatedly alleged by those who hate me and doubt Christ’s redemption). The plain truth is I would write and give a prayer for anyone, friend or enemy for that is what I am called to do in Christ. I pray for those who have enmity towards me, those who spread calumny against me and engender doubt and hatred against me. I pray daily that the Lord will soften their hearts and forgive them their sins as well as mine, for I am a sinner as are all, in need of His salvation and mercy as anyone else.
    Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner.

    Liked by 4 people

  37. Pingback: The law is a ass, Bill Schmalfeldt | Billy Sez – Adventures in the Billogicalness of being Bill Schmalfeldt

  38. Charles Hudson says:

    Comparisons?

    Schmalfeldt:
    – “Now, do you wanna play dumb and lose your kids?”
    – Produced fake pornographic images of Hoge and family.
    – Doxed multiple people.
    – Faildoxed multiple people.
    – Collected multiple court orders from multiple states for stalking and harassment.
    – Multiple attempts at lawfare to punish his “enemies”.

    Hoge:
    – Obtained peace order against Schmalfeldt.
    – Attempted to have peace order against Schmalfeldt enforced.

    Liked by 6 people

  39. JeffM says:

    MT

    This idea that a person must submit to being talked to, that person A has a constitutional right to communicate with person B at any time or any place on any subject despite A’s being on notice that such communication is unwanted by B is just absurd. Would you care to cite some pertinent case law?

    You may have a right to speak to the public generally without prior restraint, but that does not give you a right to speak to me personally outside a public space.

    Your hypothetical about can a Senator refuse to accept communications from a “reporter” should be answered with an affirmative. There is no obligation to talk to a reporter.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Monkeytoe says:

    “This idea that a person must submit to being talked to, that person A has a constitutional right to communicate with person B at any time or any place on any subject despite A’s being on notice that such communication is unwanted by B is just absurd.”

    You are missing the important distinction. The PO makes talking to someone a crime. That makes speech a crime. that is what violates the first amendment. You are making speech a crime (regardless of where it occurs) simply because person “x” doesn’t want to hear from person “y”.

    You are correct that I don’t have to submit to listen to your speech – I can keep walking, ignore you, refuse to open your mail, refuse to stay where you are speaking – but making it a CRIME to email me, or send me a letter, or call my phone number is what would violate the first amendment.

    There is no requirement that you read the mail, read the email, answer the phone or stay on the phone once you discover who called. You don’t have to read my twitters or my facebook posts, or anything else I write.

    Now, if I come on to your property without permission and try to speak with you – that is trespassing. You don’t have to put up with that. But, that is not making speech a crime, it is making entering property without permission a crime.

    but if you are walking down the street and I see you and start taking to you – you really think it does not violate the first amendment to make that a crime? Me speaking to you on a public street – just because you don’t want to hear what I am saying?

    If there were more than simply “I don’t like this person” behind it – say threats of violence, then I think a PO restraining contact would pass constitutional muster. But, a PO based on nothing more than “I told him not to talk to me” seems flimsy at best in terms of the first amendment.

    Like

    • a Reader #1 says:

      It is 100% Constitutional to place what are known as “time, place & manner” restrictions on speech. One of the reasons that peace orders and restraining orders exist is to avoid the need for self-help – you don’t want people who are being harassed to run around taking care of these things on their own. Calling someone, emailing them, tweeting them is not the same as writing ABOUT them, and WJJH has acknowledged that from the beginning.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        this isn’t a “time, place, and manner” restriction. It is an order to not speak or it will be a crime.

        Harassment is something that would be able to get a constitutionally valid PO. We aren’t talking about harassment, we are talking about making speech a crime simply because “x” said “I don’t want Y to talk to me”.

        If there is harassment, make that the basis of a PO/restraining order. What you are arguing for is for someone to walk into a court and say “I told sally not to talk to me and she did” and the Court issuing an order making it a CRIME for sally to talk to the person.

        Again – significant distinction.

        You continue to talk about harassment, but that is not the standard you are relying on. You are relying on a statute that simply allows one person to make another person’s speech illegal based on nothing more than saying “please don’t talk to me”.

        If there is harassment – show the harassment. that would result in a constitutionally valid PO. I have no objection to a PO based on demonstrated harassment.

        Like

      • Pablo says:

        You should explain your objection to the MD Legislature, monkeytoe. Good luck with that.

        Like

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “You should explain your objection to the MD Legislature, monkeytoe. Good luck with that.”

        I’m offering an opinion about a law. I’m sure there are laws you have an opinion about. Obamacare? Various gun control laws? Why is my opinion about this law so threatening to some?

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        WoW. Matt Osborne, I mean bunny boy, I mean Monkeytoe has succeeded in taking this blog post off topic. The whole discussion is about him now.

        “The PO makes talking to someone a crime. That makes speech a crime.”

        WRONG. Prohibiting person A from talking TO person B, not about person B, does not make speech a crime. Person A can still talk about person B all they want wherever they want and to whoever they want. Speech is still allowed. All that is prohibited is CONTACT with person B.

        – A real lawyer, of 20 years, would know this already. They would not be concern trolling a web site as you are. Proof you are not who you say you are. (Matt, proof is where you provide evidence to support your position, something you fail to do with Father Paul)

        I also see you failed to address the points brought up in the comment above by Charles Hudson concerning comparisons. Cat got your tongue? Or maybe I say “bunny” got your tongue?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Pablo says:

        Why is my opinion about this law so threatening to some?

        It’s not threatening, just tiresome. Why are you so threatened by a statement regarding the current status of Maryland law?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “I also see you failed to address the points brought up in the comment above by Charles Hudson concerning comparisons. Cat got your tongue? Or maybe I say “bunny” got your tongue?”

        I did not know that was directed at me. Looking at it – it makes no point that needs responding to. What point do you think it makes?

        Like

    • JeffM says:

      I asked you for a cite from a court of competent jurisdiction that prohibitions on communicating with a specific person (with particular reference to private spaces such as phone, email, etc) violate the federal constitution. Your opinion is not a citation.

      And you almost get the point when you mention trespass. Nothing is being said here about restricting the content of speech. What is being talked about are restrictions on time, place, and manner of speech. You have a right call me a fool, but you do not have a right to call me on my phone when I have asked you not to call me. There is nothing in that restricting your ability to say anything you want, neither prior restraint nor posterior restraint. No restriction on content.

      I might entertain your position if it was in respect to a public space and there was no stalking involved or intent to harass, but that is not what is under consideration.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        Jeffm,

        We again are arguing 2 different things. If harassment can be proven – I have no issue with a PO.

        I’m instead talking about what someone above quoted as being allegedly the state of MD law, which is that you can get a PO against anyone if you say “don’t talk to me” and they do.

        In that case – if you are on a street and I talk to you – is it a crime? Merely because you don’t want me to? Assuming no harassment (and a few emails or tweets wouldn’t count as harassment).

        I might entertain you position if in every case we were talking about demonstrated harassment and not simply someone getting a PO just because – which is essentially what was claimed by someone above as the state of MD law.

        And, your opinion is likewise not a citation to anything. You have offered nothing showing that it does not violate the First Amendment to simply make my speech illegal because you don’t want me to contact you. Please provide cites to cases.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Could you please rehash that argument again. You left off about 5 paragraphs and I really don’t want to miss a thing. Oh, and nice try on attempting to reverse the lack of citation. I know you’re lazy and don’t like to find proof of anything you say, so it was kind of expected, if rather lame.

        Liked by 2 people

  41. So you are saying that it shouldn’t be a crime to constantly harass someone by refusing to take their “don’t talk to me, email me, phone me” seriously, and to continue to contact them? There is only so long and so far you can walk away from someone or ignore them, especially if they are insistant. If someone won’t leave me alone, no matter how much I’ve told them to, and no matter how long I’ve tried to ignore them, if there isn’t a legal remedy for me, what option do I have? Are you saying that I have to move, change my name, perhaps change my careeer, and cut ties with anyone who might know both of us? Is that not victimizing the victim?

    It sounds like you hope that after enough harassment, the victim will snap and do something illegal. That’s awfully similar to what is happening to kids in school who are bullied, and after they finally can’t take it any more, having been shoved or tripped once too often, and punch back, they are the only ones who are punished.

    If you really are a lawyer, you are the kind who gives the species a bad name.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Monkeytoe says:

      “So you are saying that it shouldn’t be a crime to constantly harass someone by refusing to take their “don’t talk to me, email me, phone me” seriously, and to continue to contact them?”

      I have no problems with a PO based on demonstrated harassment. However, simply speaking to someone who doesn’t want to be spoken to is not harassment (obviously, the number of times/places this happens makes a difference, at some point it does become harassment).

      But what people keep arguing to me is that there is a MD statute that allows a PO based solely on asking someone not to speak to you and them doing it anyway,. That is what I am arguing about. I have no idea how many times Schmalfeld contacted Hoge.

      If he contacted him 10 times a day every day for weeks – that would likely be harassment. If he contacted him once in a blue moon – that wouldn’t be harassment – no matter how unwelcome the contact. that is the point I am trying to make.

      And, if it is not harassment, I don’t think a PO making the speech illegal would pass constitutional muster.

      Don’t try and place evil motive on me – that is the kind of nonsense I am talking about in my other comments – that I hope someone snaps, etc. that is childish and stupid. I am merely arguing over the interpretation of a law. You have a different opinion of it – that is fine, note that despite my believe that allowing people to make other people’s speech illegal simply by saying “please don’t talk to me”, I am not calling you a fascist for supporting such a law? that is because I am capable of disagreeing with you without thinking you are evil. I don’t think you are a fascist because you believe the MD statute at issue is constitutional. I merely disagree with you.

      Like

      • a Reader #1 says:

        To get a peace order, you have to show a pattern of unwanted contact. That is a brief summary. That means (1) there has to be contact, be it physical or otherwise, (2) you let the person know the contact is unwanted and you asked them to stop, and (3) they refused, usually many times. Then you take your evidence, and you get a temporary PO from the court commissioner. It is good for one week, after which there is a proceeding in front of a judge in the district court to determine if it is warranted. If it is not, the case is dismissed. If it is, a PO is issued for 6 months, with the possibility of being extended for another 6 months if the facts warrant it. If the PO is denied, the alleged victim can appeal the denial to the circuit court, a higher court than the district court, and what occurs is a new trial on the facts.

        These orders are constitutional, as I’ve said repeatedly. They prevent self-help, i.e., vigilantism, and they preserve a victim’s First Amendment right of freedom of association. The convoluted procedure protects an alleged harassers rights, as well. I will also note that in order to issue a PO, a judge has to find the accused guilty of harassment. That box is marked on the court order.

        Liked by 2 people

      • That wasn’t how what you were initially saying came across. It sounded like you were saying that someone could contact you as often as they wanted and as long as each contact wasn’t a threat or otherwise illegal in and of itself, contact should always be allowed.

        The problem is that once someone has been harassing you, even when they scale back, you cannever, ever trust them to behave themselves. And you don’t want to have to go through the whole mess again.

        Ideally there would be a way to have the state step in and say “X told you to leave him/her alone. X has given you plenty of warning. This it to let you know that you must behave yourself, or there will be real world penalties.” And that would be the PO. It’s not as if the MD PO is permanent.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “These orders are constitutional, as I’ve said repeatedly. They prevent self-help, i.e., vigilantism, and they preserve a victim’s First Amendment right of freedom of association. The convoluted procedure protects an alleged harassers rights, as well. I will also note that in order to issue a PO, a judge has to find the accused guilty of harassment. That box is marked on the court order.”

        I don’t think you read what I write. We are arguing 2 different things. I am talking about what was quoted to me as MD law that says you can get a PO simply because you asked someone not to contact you and they do. there was no mention of harassment of any sort in that context – simply a single contact was allegedly enough to get a PO.

        As I EXPLICITLY state in my comment, where the contacts become actionable harassment (again, this is more than a few unwanted contacts), that is a different story. Not sure what part of that explicit statement from me you think says that “harassment” is OK.

        Perhaps read what I actually write instead of what you think I am going to write?

        I am arguing against the concept of getting a PO based on a single or just a few unwanted contacts. You keep going back to HARASSMENT.

        those are two distinct concepts. As, again, I EXPLICITLY stated, if harassment can be shown, I think a PO is constitutionally proper.

        It is the situation where someone simply doesn’t want to be contacted and seeks a PO without the harassment that I find troubling (and again, a few contacts over an extended period is not harassment – and I doubt twitter contacts would constitute harassment).

        so, again, I ask that you read what I actually write and respond to that, because you appear to be responding to something else.

        Like

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “The problem is that once someone has been harassing you, even when they scale back, you cannever, ever trust them to behave themselves. And you don’t want to have to go through the whole mess again.

        Ideally there would be a way to have the state step in and say “X told you to leave him/her alone. X has given you plenty of warning. This it to let you know that you must behave yourself, or there will be real world penalties.” And that would be the PO. It’s not as if the MD PO is permanent.”

        I don’t necessarily disagree with any of this.

        Like

      • viewfromnl says:

        Blah Blah Blah Concern Troll Is Concerned Blah Blah Blah.

        Retard, your Monkeytoe alias was burned, remember? You stupid, or just lazy?

        Liked by 2 people

      • popcornseller says:

        Do I need to say it? Embrace the power of AND.

        Liked by 1 person

  42. So, what does MT think you should do if someone won’t leave you alone? Just because it’s electronic contact and not physical doesn’t make it less annoying or disturbing. And I want a valid solution, not “Just learn to ignore it”, because that is hard, and if it’s your email box that’s being cluttered up, you can miss really, really important emails, and dealing with it is time you should have for your own pursuits, not dealing with some deranged nutcase.

    Liked by 2 people

    • a Reader #1 says:

      Exactly. Victims are not under any obligation not to open their mail, answer their phones, etc. That’s like saying someone shouldn’t wear a short skirt.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Exactly. Victims are not under any obligation not to open their mail, answer their phones, etc.”

        Again, this goes to the distinction between simply not wanting to be contacted by someone versus someone harassing you. Just because you don’t like someone and don’t want to be contacted by them doesn’t make every contact “harassment”.

        If someone is truly harassing you, then yes, a PO would be appropriate.

        Like

    • Monkeytoe says:

      there is a wide gulf between “unwanted contact” and harassment. As I said a number of times in previous comments, when it become harassment then a PO is constitutionally valid. But, someone responding to your tweet is unlikely to constitute harassment. Someone emailing you once a week or so is unlikely to constitute harassment (granted, the content of the messages may make a difference).

      Again, as I consistently state, I was responding to the claim that MD has a statute that allows a PO based on nothing more than someone saying “don’t contact me” and the person contacting them. I never said that PO’s could not or should not be obtained for valid harassment. My entire argument is based on the simple “no contact” test – not the idea of someone harassing someone else (and again, I don’t think a few emails or tweets is likely to rise to the level of harassment – and I don’t know how many times Schmalfeldt contacted Hoge, I was responding solely to what someone else said the law was).

      Like

      • popcornseller says:

        We were talking about Bill Schmalfeldt. Then Monkeytoe changed the conversation to POs submitted by Mr. Hoge and harassment. Now Monkeytoe wants to talk about “Someone emailing you once a week or so…” and “someone saying “don’t contact me…””

        Anyone notice a progression here? For me, the goal posts seem to be moving and a concern troll seems to be accomplishing his mission.

        Liked by 3 people

      • viewfromnl says:

        The law in MD is clear. You are obligated to cease contact with someone who demands you do so.

        End of discussion. Fuck off, Concern Troll.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “We were talking about Bill Schmalfeldt. Then Monkeytoe changed the conversation to POs submitted by Mr. Hoge and harassment. Now Monkeytoe wants to talk about “Someone emailing you once a week or so…” and “someone saying “don’t contact me…””

        Anyone notice a progression here? For me, the goal posts seem to be moving and a concern troll seems to be accomplishing his mission.”

        How much more is there to say about Schmalfeldt in this comment section? How many comments would there have been on this blog had I not commented? Not many.

        But, the reality is I was having a discussion with someone about my thoughts on the law and I was trying to explain to them where I was coming from. I’m sorry if my discussion with someone else somehow distracted from your precious time in talking about Schmalfeldt.

        Again, why does the fact that I have a slightly different opinion than you engender so much anger?

        Like

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “The law in MD is clear. You are obligated to cease contact with someone who demands you do so.

        End of discussion. Fuck off, Concern Troll.”

        Wow – that is convincing. Of course – Hoge did have a PO, did tell Schmalfeldt to cease contact, and Schmalfeldt violates it with seeming impunity, so I’m not sure the law is so clear-cut as you believe. But hey – you have spoken, so I’m sure you must be right.

        If you are so sure about the law, why does my offering an opinion that is different than yours make you so angry?

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        “How much more is there to say about Schmalfeldt in this comment section? How many comments would there have been on this blog had I not commented? Not many.”

        Oh great and powerful Concern Troll who dropped out of nowhere from the sky. Thank you for providing us minions (sorry for mixing metaphors) with grist for the mill. /sarc off

        What would we do without the Great and Powerful Concern Troll leading us in a discussion? (Sorry, that one slipped out. That happens once in a while.)

        So, let’s see. We had “above it all” Monkeytoe somewhere in this discussion. Now we have “comment thread saviour” Monkeytoe. Nice of you to prove that you do indeed go through Shmycles like Bill Shmalfeldt. And that means you really are competing for his title of DUMBFUCK.

        WATCH OUT BILL, HE’S COMING FOR YA! 🙂

        Like

  43. Monkeytoe says:

    there’s an old saying in the geographic area where I practice (I know, I know, I’m not really a lawyer, etc., etc.) that if both sides hate a settlement, it’s a good settlement. the idea being that if both sides think they got the short end of the stick in a settlement, then it must be pretty fair and in the middle of potential outcomes (i.e., both sides believe they paid/gave up more than they should have).

    I’m not exactly sure how this applies, but I find it amusing that I was banned and my comments deleted at BU by Schmalfeldt and his minions because I challenged their perceptions of this saga, and that everyone on the Lickspittle side appear to hate me because of my opinions regarding the PO.

    To me, it means I’m being to impartial in my opinions and that both sides can only accept opinions from those who unwaveringly agree with them.

    I might have been too quick a few times to get snippy – I’ll admit that. But I am genuinely perplexed why my opinion regarding the PO evokes such animus. I haven’t called Hoge a bad guy or said he did anything wrong. I just question the practicality of it and pointed out that unless one of them is willing to be the first to walk away, this saga is likely going to continue to one of their deaths.

    I’m not sure that such opinions are worthy of the animus shown.

    Like

    • popcornseller says:

      I see we finally have the appearance of “above it all” Monkeytoe. Do you go through Shmycles like Bill Shmalfeldt? Are you really competing for his title of DUMBFUCK?

      Liked by 3 people

      • Monkeytoe says:

        Again, why does my slightly different opinion about the value of a PO engender such rage in you? Seriously? Why should the fact that I think a PO is not worth the time or effort make you so angry?

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        You really are so stupid. A “normal, reasonable” person can easily see there was no anger in my comment. I was just asking some questions.

        Let me now act like you and do a reversal (something you are so fond of doing): Why are you so angry that I’m just asking questions? And why can’t you answer them?

        Like

    • viewfromnl says:

      “But I am genuinely perplexed”

      Yes, yes. You’re so GENUINE. And PERPLEXED.

      And so very CONCERNED.

      Fuck off, Concern Troll.

      Liked by 1 person

  44. Onlooker says:

    You protest too much.

    Liked by 4 people

  45. JeffM says:

    Look. You have not been banned here. Several have responded reasonably and civilly, and some have done so despite being convinced that you are someone whom they dislike.

    I have not seen hatred, except perhaps from you toward one commenter. I have seen from some disdain, which I do not think your words necessarily justify, but if their belief as to who you are is correct, may be justified. For my part, I have addressed your words and don’t care whether or not you are a concern troll or a sock puppet. I disagree with your view that it is unconstitutional for the state to prohibit communications from A to B through the private facilities of B after B has notified A that communications from A are unwelcome and intrusive. I would not find it to be unconstitutional even if all the procedural protections outlined by reader1 were absent. It is enough for me that someone does not wish to be intruded upon in a private space. However, our personal opinions are irrelevant. Do you have citations showing that given the procedural protections actually provided such peace orders have been found unconstitutional.

    Finally, I find it odd that you are discussing this specific case apparently without any knowledge of what behavior induced a judge to grant a peace order in the first place. One reason people may believe you to be a sock is that you are repeating arguments made by Witless Willie at the time, namely that Hoge should rearrange his life to try avoiding Willie’s communications.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Monkeytoe says:

      I never said I was banned here. Why do you insist on arguing things I don’t say?

      Hate might be too rich a word – the inability to accept someone might have a different opinion is truly bizarre. the entire “concern troll” thing is inane and childish. and again – based solely on the fact that I have a slightly different opinion. The emotional investment and need for everyone to 100% agree is almost cultish.

      Saying – they think you are Matt Osborne does not make it ok. What – I said I think the PO is a silly waste of time. that makes me Matt Osborne? Please. That is irrational.

      “It is enough for me that someone does not wish to be intruded upon in a private space.”

      so emailing or mailing someone can be a crime – even absent harassment? And you think that is reasonable under the 1st Amendment? I find that very odd.

      “Finally, I find it odd that you are discussing this specific case apparently without any knowledge of what behavior induced a judge to grant a peace order in the first place. One reason people may believe you to be a sock is that you are repeating arguments made by Witless Willie at the time, namely that Hoge should rearrange his life to try avoiding Willie’s communications.”

      I have read Hoge’s accounts and walker’s accounts. Neither indicate anything that I believe is “harassment”. but, I may have missed something. Instead, what I have seen mentioned as the basis is that Hoge told Schmalfeldt not to contact him, and Schmalfeldt contacted him. A few emails and some twitters.

      And, not opening emails or mail is hardly “rearraning one’s life”. I do it all the time with spam mail and email. Let’s not be silly here. Let’s try and talk about rational things like rational people.

      You seem to believe that you can make it a crime for me to call you, or email you or send you snail mail just because. that is nonsense. Find me a single case where the same has been found to be a crime and any fine or prison time awarded based on simply writing a letter or calling someone. You likely cannot, because making the same a crime – absent actual harassment – is ridiculous in almost every level and very likely runs afoul of the first amendment.

      Like

      • JeffM says:

        You are the one who is making nonsensical arguments. You tried to draw an analogy between how you were treated here and how you were treated at another site. I pointed out that the two treatments were quite different. I certainly did not say that you said you were banned here, but you certainly tried to point out a parallel, and I pointed out that it is not a parallel in at least one very obvious respect.

        Nor did I say that it could or should be a crime to communicate with someone who has not explicitly said they do not want to be communicated with. I have been careful to say that notice is required. Do not call lists are an example of such restrictions. It is true that such restrictions have been placed only on commercial speech, but, given that they are neither restrictions on content nor public expression, you have provided nothing but your ipse dixit to show that they cannot pass constitutional muster. As has been pointed out now several times, restrictions on time, place, and manner have been found constitutional.

        You have found nothing harassing in what was communicated to Hoge, but a judge who actually looked at the evidence did find harassment. I wonder whose judgment is more credible. I wonder whose judgment counts.

        “Saying they think you are Matt Osborne does not make it ok.” What “it” refers to is totally vague. Anyone is perfectly free to disdain him and does not need your imprimatur to do so. They are as well perfectly free to disdain you no matter who you are.

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Does anyone notice Monkeytoe is too lazy to provide proof or evidence?
        Does anyone notice Monkeytoe is too lazy to review blog history?
        Does anyone notice Monkeytoe fails to understand, having reviewed “accounts,” that Bill Schmalfeldt has had more than one email account? And more than one twitter account?

        Does anyone notice Monkeytoe is not acting like a lawyer at all????

        Liked by 5 people

      • viewfromnl says:

        “Let’s not be silly here.”

        Wow, a concern troll that wants to be taken seriously.

        “Let’s try and talk about rational things like rational people.”

        Rational people give someone who appears to be concern trolling the benefit of the doubt.. ONCE OR TWICE.

        If it walks like a concern troll, quacks like a concern troll… It’s a concern troll.

        Fuck off.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Monkeytoe says:

        “Does anyone notice Monkeytoe is too lazy to provide proof or evidence?”

        Proof or evidence of what exactly? What is it you want me to provide proof of? I made some arguments based on my opinion. How exactly do I provide proof of my opinion?

        “Does anyone notice Monkeytoe fails to understand, having reviewed “accounts,” that Bill Schmalfeldt has had more than one email account? And more than one twitter account?

        Does anyone notice Monkeytoe is not acting like a lawyer at all????”

        I understand Schmalfeldt had more than one twitter account and email account. What is your point? How is that relevant to anything I have said?

        Do, pray tell, let us know what “acting like a lawyer” in blog comments means – or means anywhere? there are literally millions of lawyers in the U.S. – do they all act the same all the time in your mind? And in which way is that?

        Again I ask – why is someone having a slightly different opinion than you so threatening to you? Why does it make you so angry? How does my believing that a PO is not really worth that much effort really affect anyone’s life that you have to get this angry and convince yourself that I am your enemy?

        Like

      • popcornseller says:

        Please don’t play stupid. It is unbecoming.

        You made statements you were banned from BU. Prove it.
        You say you read Mr. Hoge’s and Mr. Walkers accounts. Prove it.
        You made accusations against Father Paul Lemmen. Prove it.

        You never link to anything you discuss to back up and “PROVE” your points. It leads us to believe you have not done your homework and have only skimmed over the material. You want “proof” of what I just said, don’t you? Read on; it’s just below.

        “I understand Schmalfeldt had more than one twitter account and email account. What is your point? How is that relevant to anything I have said?”

        Really? You keep talking about one or two emails, one or two tweets. Bill Schamlfeldt has had over 120 twitter accounts. Je repete, over 120 twitter accounts. Let’s pause for a moment and let that sink in a bit. Lord only knows how many email accounts he has had. You ask how hard is it to block one account. If he keeps making new accounts and continues his harassment, when will you ever stop blocking him? Now it is clearly obvious you did not know how many accounts he has had. But you say you “have read Hoge’s accounts and walker’s accounts. Neither indicate anything that I believe is “harassment.”” You don’t do your homework, do you?

        “Do, pray tell, let us know what “acting like a lawyer” in blog comments means…”

        Acting like a lawyer means providing evidence for your charges, Matt Osborne. Any layman can tell you that. Are you saying you are not a layman either?

        “Again I ask – why is someone having a slightly different opinion than you so threatening to you?”

        Why do you keep going back to the threatening accusation (again, with no evidence)? We are not threatened. Do you have a problem with someone responding to YOUR opinions? Are you that thin-skinned? Or are you just that stupid (and not just playing stupid as I suggested at the beginning of this comment).

        Like

    • Monkeytoe says:

      “JeffM says:
      July 6, 2015 at 5:12 pm”

      I never said I was banned here. You are again arguing things I never said or implied. Nor did I say the treatment at both sites was “exactly equal” – but they are similar – at both sites I was called a troll and people went crazy simply because I did not tout the party line.

      that you cannot see the similarity there is funny.

      As far as time, place and manner – you don’t know what you are talking about. You are saying that telling someone “you are NEVER allowed to speak to “x”” is a “time, place and manner restriction”. It is not. It is a complete prohibition on speech. Thus, you are being foolish in pushing that invalid argument.

      Next, the idea that simply saying “don’t talk to me” can turn speech into crime is foolish. You have cited nothing to demonstrate it is not foolish. the rules of proof you seem to want to lay down apply equally to you. You want to claim victory, prove it with a citation. Otherwise, you are pissing in the wind. In your own words, “you have provided nothing but your ipse dixit to show that they can[ ][ pass constitutional muster”. Speech cannot be made criminal simply because you dislike the speaker. claiming that it can be made criminal in that way is simply idiotic.

      regardless, I’m merely expressing an opinion on a blog. I’m not attempting to win a case before a court. I have no problem with you disagreeing. I’m not trying to put forth legal precedent for your review, just putting forth a logical argument (i.e., you can’t make speech “illegal” simply by providing notice “don’t speak to me”). Your attempts to refute the point I posit lack an logic or reason ability. The crux of your point is that you can make my speech illegal simply by “putting me on notice” that you don’t want to hear it. that is ridiculous and you will find no authority for such proposition. Indeed, if I looked, there is likely no case law on this point at all because your argument is so ridiculous I doubt it has ever been raised to a court of any jurisdiction. But you are free to prove me wrong with something other than your opinion.

      “You have found nothing harassing in what was communicated to Hoge, but a judge who actually looked at the evidence did find harassment. I wonder whose judgment is more credible. I wonder whose judgment counts.”

      I said I found nothing harassing in what Hoge and others have written about. I conceded that I likely haven’t seen everything. Not sure why you continue to argue against things I never said or explicitly conceded. It’s like you cannot create an argument except to refute a straw man of your own imagination.

      As far as what judge found – lately Hoge hasn’t been able to obtain a Peace Order. And, when he had his much sought after and highly valued peace order, he was entirely able to get it enforced when Schmalfeldt violated it. So, not sure your point is as wonderful as you think it is.

      As far as others not liking me here – I have discovered that any opinion outside of the herd is hated and must be stopped at all counts by the cult-like group here. Which does make me sad.

      What is most amusing to me is I repeatedly said that I think Schmalfeldt and Kimberlin are bad, nasty people, and I have never said that I think Hoge is bad or Nasty. I have never said that Hoge did anything wrong. I only questioned whether the PO was worth the effort and said that the two of them – Hoge and Schmalfeldt – would likely keep going at this until one of them died.

      Not sure why that – basically siding with Hoge on everything but the value of getting a PO, makes me public enemy #1, but as I said – I dared to not be 100% in agreement with everything you all think, which seems to be something none of you can handle.

      Like

      • popcornseller says:

        So much to rebut, so little time….

        “I have discovered that any opinion outside of the herd is hated and must be stopped at all counts by the cult-like group here.”

        Let’s just say that I’ve heard your argument for the umpteenth time and no one has stopped you. Could you please repeat it again. And please, add several more paragraphs because your comments are not “walls of text” yet. It would help us practice our reading skills.

        Monkeytoe, bunny boy, Matt Osborne, tilt at windmills much?

        Like

  46. kmbuchanan says:

    So, if I boil down all this bullshit(and that’s exactly what it is)to the bare bones what I get from MT is that Hoge should be the “bigger man” and just walk away. I have a suggestion for MT, GFY. Harassers should be held accountable. Hopefully, eventually there will be consequences.

    Liked by 3 people

  47. Monkeytoe says:

    All, thanks for the entertainment. I had a hard time concentrating at work today because I’m leaving on vacation this week, so you helped pass the day more quickly.

    Hope you all get what you want out of the Hoge-Schmalfeldt drama and don’t lose too much money to Lemmen’s cons.

    Good day sir!

    Like

    • kmbuchanan says:

      Be sure to climb on your highhorse and take the high road since you are obviously so much more adult and intelligent than any of us. We are but poor bumbling fools whose trials are for your amusement.

      You have no idea what Hoge or anyone else harrassed by The Troll have been through.

      Liked by 4 people

    • popcornseller says:

      As I said earlier, mission accomplished for the concern troll. This thread stopped talking about Bill Schmalfeldt a long time ago.

      Liked by 2 people

  48. Anyone notice the @monkeytoe twitter account has bunnies for a background.
    I wonder who else has a bunny fixation.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Monkeytoe says:

      That’s not my twitter account. I’m not on Twitter. Stop being like Schmalfeldt and trying to dox me and find out everything about me rather than just responding to what I actually say here. What’s next – are you going to accuse me of being Jeannette Runyon or Paul Krendler?

      Like

      • Tao says:

        This is an open blog, at least at the present time.

        Personally, I find nothing offensive about someone checking your Twitter ID. The fact that someone who suddenly appears and dominates the posting on a contentious issue, then adjourns for the evening thanking all for the entertainment would arouse in some a modicum of curiosity. If the Twitter account in question is not yours, then say so and move on. No need to launch into a tirade.

        Liked by 2 people

      • popcornseller says:

        Monkeytoe, I mean bunny boy, I mean Matt Osborne:

        You mad Bro? Why are you so angry?
        Can’t someone have an opinion that does not agree 100% with yours?

        Like

  49. Monkeytoe says:

    “Personally, I find nothing offensive about someone checking your Twitter ID. The fact that someone who suddenly appears and dominates the posting on a contentious issue, then adjourns for the evening thanking all for the entertainment would arouse in some a modicum of curiosity. If the Twitter account in question is not yours, then say so and move on. No need to launch into a tirade.”

    I’m just point out that many on this blog resort immediately to the tactics they find deplorable when Schmalfeldt uses them. Doxing, accusing people of being people they aren’t, trying to find them on the internet, etc.

    I have no twitter account.

    Like

  50. Monkeytoe says:

    “dominates the posting on a contentious issue”

    I only “dominated” because people became so enraged that I had a slightly different opinion than them. I mean, I don’t believe obtaining a PO is worthwhile in this case. the outrage!! I also think the Maryland statute may be unconstitutional to an extent. Again – the outrage!!

    “then adjourns for the evening thanking all for the entertainment” Because none of the other commenters come to blogs for entertainment or find entertainment in having blog arguments. that is “strange” and “arouses” curiosity.

    Like

    • popcornseller says:

      So, you admit you dominated the posting. And why was that necessary again? You must have stated your opinion tens of times. I guess this part of the shmycle is “domination” Monkeytoe. Is it working for you? Are you persuading people? Are you making friends and influencing people? Asking for a friend. 🙂

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s