Bill Schmalfeldt: Today’s Deleted Tweets About Brett Kimberlin

This is interesting…

Earlier today, Bill Schmalfeldt tweeted that meeting Brett Kimberlin for what he claims is the first time was the ‘high point’ of his day and that he doesn’t care what Kimberlin did in the past.

[note color=”#fefff9″]Don’t forget; what Kimberlin did was to set off eight bombs after allegedly having someone killed who was going to report Kimberlin for suspicion of child molestation. And then Kimberlin set out on a pattern of harassment against anyone who wrote about it as recently as…well, really really recently.  That’s the stuff Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t care about. [/note]

Now, these tweets about Brett Kimberlin appear to be missing.


They were at:

Here’s the section of his timeline now — you’ll see he has a tweet that begins “Seeing the cowardly Aarron Walker…”, which is a weird way to start a sentence.


Here was the original sequence  — you’ll see he cut out the tweet that ended with “The low point?”


Bill Schmalfeldt & Fair Use

One of Bill Schmalfeldt’s new tactics is to try to get information about him that he doesn’t like taken down by claiming his copyright has been violated.

Apparently, Bill Schmalfeldt understand Fair Use law as well as he understands harassment law. In other words, he arrogantly believes he knows the law when quite clearly he does not.

For example. Bill Schmalfeldt confidently claims this is a “:30 Second Rule” that grants fair use to audio. As he told his associate Matt Osborne:



He’s repeatedly claimed that he is an expert on fair use. For example, months ago I asked him to remove my photos, as their use violates my copyright* he responded thusly.

Every photo used qualifies under the US Copyright Law concerning “Fair Use.”  You’ve been told this already, Lee?  Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were young?

I’ve fought this battle before, and I’ve always won.  You keep forgetting, my friend, I’ve done this work for a long, long time.  I understand what I can and can not do under US Copyright Law.

Which also gives you a sense of the journalist professionalism that emanates from Bill Schmalfeldt’s unwelcome direct communications with me.

I am not a lawyer but I can use Google and read English. The official site at states clearly (emphasis added):

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

Or as this articles called The (non-existant) 30-Second Rule explains it:

Fortunately — and for the most part — most of the students I spoke to did understand that the law somehow limited their ability to just plop in the latest Lady Gaga or Jay Z song as background music. They weren’t exactly sure what those limits were, but they knew there were some. (That has not always been the case. Indeed, when the Internet first burst on the scene, many viewed it as a giant, electronic “candy store” where — with just the click of a mouse button — virtually the entire musical library of the 20th century could be had.)

The limit that most of them had somehow got in into their head was the “30-second rule.” That is, the rule that says as long as you use less than 30 seconds of a copyrighted work — audio or video — everything’s cool.

The problem is: There is no 30-second rule.

Or a 60-second or 15-second rule. I wish there was. My job would be a piece of cake. But there’s not. It’s one of those legal myths that was probably created from wishful thinking.

Simple Formula

(Ignorance + Arrogance) × Poor Research Skills ≠ A Legal Defense.

* For the record, I still believe Bill Schmalfeldt and his associates have used my photos constitutes for an illegal use  because I think it’s clear he is not using my work for a legitimate legal purpose but as part of a pattern of harassment. I have not yet filed suit against Bill Schmalfeldt or anyone else on this matter yet, however.

Simplified: The Case Against Bill Schmalfeldt

Although there’s a lot of material here on the blog about Bill Schmalfeldt’s harassment of me and my family, the criminal harassment charges I filed in Maryland are extremely simple.

I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, there are two main elements you need in Marylandhere for harassment 1) A pattern of direct contact that is intended to annoy, humiliate, and intimidate. 2) A clear request to stop that is ignored.

Bill Schmalfeldt has admitted to both of these elements.

I sent Bill Schmalfeldt a number of requests that were both polite and deliberately worded. I wanted to stop contacting me directly. I told him that any further contact would be considered harassment.

Here is Bill Schmalfeldt admitting that on this podcast:

Bill Schmalfeldt has admitted that I sent him these requests, both in writing and in his own words on his podcast. He’s admitted that after those requests, he continued to email me — 24 times by his own detailed, written account. 

Here is Bill Schmalfeldt admitting this in his words, from this podcast:

This is why the case should have no problems getting past the probable cause hearing. Bill Schmalfeldt has admitted to both key elements, in writing and on his podcast.


His defense is that he felt he could continue to contact me because he’s providing information to other people. Apparently, he did not consult an attorney after charges were filed against to see if this defense was valid.

His attorney in another, unrelated hearing this morning madd it clear to Bill Schmalfeldt that his ‘journalism defense’ would land him in jail. The lawyer was promptly fired