A Brutal and True Depiction

Update: Krendler adds this wisdom:

Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar.  Bill Schmalfeldt cannot be trusted.  Bill Schmalfeldt is a worthless pig.  Bill Schmalfeldt is due for a lesson in manners and consequences.

For what it’s worth, I once tried to impress upon this fat piece of shit that our CHOICES determine our ACTIONS, our ACTIONS lead to CONSEQUENCES, and the RESPONSIBILITY for the CONSEQUENCES lies squarely with the person who made the CHOICES in the first place.

Here’s a shock:  it didn’t take.

___________________________________________

John Hoge reports that a motion to compel discovery from Bill Schmalfeldt has been filed with the court overseeing Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al.  It also appears that Schmalfeldt’s offer to settlethe case has been rejected by John Hoge. I have not read the offer. Since part of John Hoge’s issue with Schmalfeldt has to do with a previous agreement which was not honored, we can all see why Hoge might wish to let a judge decide who is right.

By the way, in this dispute John Hoge has the facts on his side, in my opinion. 

After years of Peace Orders and harassment, this lawsuit might hold Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt to task for their internet activities. Oddly enough, Schmalfeldt might be undone by one simple comment among thousands of more vile comments he has posted online. 

Nope. Not that one.

Bill Schmalfeldt’s own words:

I agreed with a blog entry on someone else’s blog that called Hoge out for stalking Kimberlin’s daughter. NO JUDGE IN THE WORLD IS GOING TO FIND ME GUILTY OF DEFAMATION FOR THAT EXPRESSION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

The text of this now-deleted post has been archived and is available should someone claim these are not the words of Bill Schmalfeldt. I am not linking to the document, but it is available.

He did much more than agree, he endorsed the truthfulness of the article.

From John Hoge’s complaint:

Paragraph 43 includes a correct quotation of the comment in question. I saw it the week it was posted, and have seen it on BU since.

In general, I think the author should be responsible for their own words. On the other hand, if you endorse the truth of another person’s writing, you have an obligation to back that up. Every fact in the article must be correct, and the tone of the article should match the event described.

Again, Bill Schmalfeldt:

I am also being sued for being part of a conspiracy to defame Hoge. He has no proof of this, nor was there anything even resembling the legal definition of conspiracy going on here.

It is my understanding that discovery isn’t going smoothly in this case. Please reread the Bart Simpson style comment above. “I didn’t do it and you can’t prove it,” is not a solid legal foundation.

Emails between conspirators might help prove John’s point.

Mr. Hoge might have a very hard time proving a conspiracy between a handful of actors in Team Kimberlin, if the participants refuse to cooperate. On the other hand, a judge might just figure that attempts to hide evidence of conspiracy is in fact a data point proving a conspiracy.