after an assault by Respondent[.]‖ In question two, the Petitioner writes that thiscourt should consider ―[w]hether it was
erroneous for the Circuit Court to prohibit evidence of
Respondent’s repeated post assault retaliatory harassment to demonstrate future harassment.‖
Putting aside the fact that the Respondent never did assault the Petitioner
and the court
didn’t find that
any assault occurred
the Petitioner falsely claimed that the Circuit Courtrefused to consider evidence of harassment. The Petitioner has claimed that various statementsabout the Petitioner to a general audience by the Respondent
the Petitioner was somehow athreat
the Petitioner. The Respondent runs an internationally-read news and opinion website,and has written numerous pieces
about what the Respondent sees as the Petitioner’s abuse of the
Maryland court system in an attempt to suppress freedom of expression at his website (available
The reality is that the Petitioner’s demonstrably false criminal charges against Respondent had
by the State’s Attorney of Montgomery County when video evidence of the
incident in which the Respondent allegedly assaulted the Petitioner came to light contradicting
the Petitioner’s story. In the end
, the Court found that the Petitioner had only made an initial
showing of assault in the most technical sense: the Respondent took the Petitioner’s iPad from
the Petitioner and then the Respondent peacefully held the device away from the Petitioner untilauthorities could arrive
. Judge Johnson stated the following: ―
What occurred? An item wassnatched from your hands. If this was an assault trial, perhaps the evidence would be sufficientbeyond a reasonable doubt, without addressing possible defenses, that an assault did occur.
Transcript, Exhibit A at page 91 lines 3-6.
This does not, contrary to the Petitioner’s claims,
constitute a finding that the Respondent assaulted him, precisely because the
circuit court didn’t
consider any defenses.And any consideration of such defenses
would require the court toexamine who the Petitioner is. The petitioner is a convicted violent bomber with a history of turning everyday objects into deadly weapons that have cost one man his life.
, 7 F. 3d 527, 528-29 (1993). The Petitioner is also suspected of having masterminded themurder-for-
hire of Julia Scyphers after she raised questions about the Petitioner’s relationsh
ipwith her pre-teen granddaughter. Exhibit B. And the Petitioner is suspected of having attemptedmore murders-for-hire including the prosecutor in his trials related to his bombings andattempting to frame others for his crimes. Exhibit C. The Respondent was aware of all of thiswhen the alleged assault occurred. By contrast, the Respondent is an attorney in good standingin Virginia and the District of Columbia with nothing on his record more serious than a trafficviolation. Thus, contrary to the
Petitioner’s suggestion, it is not the Petitioner who should be
afraid of the Respondent, but the Respondent who should be apprehensive of the Petitioner, as is
the Respondent’s wife.