My Explanation of What’s Going On With Richard Schimel and Why I Filed the Complaint

Here’s the situation in straightforward, factual terms.

For more context, see my earlier articles about Benson Fischer and Richard Schimel.

1. It started with the Maryland peace-order case that Benson filed against me. Benson filed a peace-order petition in the District Court of Maryland (Case No. D-06-CV-25-826641). The official court docket shows exactly what happened:

• A final hearing was scheduled for October 3, 2025.
• Benson, the petitioner, failed to appear.
• Because he didn’t show up, the court dismissed the case. The docket entry is explicit: “DISMISSED: PETITIONER FAILED TO APPEAR.” This is important: the dismissal was not due to any issue with service, jurisdiction, or anything I did or didn’t do. The reason was simply that Benson didn’t show up for his own hearing.

2. After losing the case, Benson filed a Motion to Vacate containing false statements about me and about the court record. In that motion, Benson made claims that:

• I had “evaded service,”
• The case was dismissed due to a “clerical error,”
• The “Return of Service” supposedly existed before the dismissal but wasn’t docketed in time. Those claims are provably false. The exhibits attached to Benson’s own motion contradict him:
• The police report (Exhibit A) shows I was cooperative and was served on October 13, 2025—10 days after the case was already dismissed.
• The officer’s narrative states clearly that I understood and accepted service.
• This directly disproves the allegation that I “evaded service.” Service cannot retroactively justify reopening a case that was dismissed because he didn’t attend the October 3rd hearing. Despite this, Schimel later aligned himself with these incorrect assertions.

3. In parallel, Schimel filed a federal Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) attempting to censor my speech. Schimel filed a TRO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Case No. 8:25-CV-02075-PX) on behalf of Benson and ZivZo, demanding that:

• I remove my online analysis and reporting about Benson and ZivZo,
• I stop posting about them altogether,
• I shut down the website benson-fischer.com,
• I comply with a sweeping, permanent gag order preventing me from discussing the matter publicly. The TRO sought to prohibit my publication of factual information drawn from public records and court filings. This type of relief—prior restraint—is almost never granted because it violates the First Amendment. The federal court ultimately dismissed that lawsuit.

4. Schimel’s TRO relied on inaccurate factual assertions and framed my lawful speech as harmful misconduct. The TRO filing mischaracterized:

• My factual reporting on ZivZo and Benson’s litigation history,
• My digital audit (which relied on public information),
• My commentary about Nautical Bowls (a separate matter entirely),
• My purchase of a domain name containing Benson’s public name. Schimel presented these lawful actions as if they were extortionate or malicious. In reality, they were entirely protected expression.

5. Schimel attempted to use litigation as a tool to intimidate me into silence. The grievance filing includes a detailed timeline showing that:

• Benson repeatedly pressured me to remove factual content about him.
• When I declined, Schimel escalated the situation by initiating legal actions.
• The TRO demanded I delete my publications, shut down a website, and permanently refrain from discussing Benson or ZivZo—limitations that are unconstitutional.
• The clear intention was to suppress criticism, not resolve a legitimate legal dispute.

6. Schimel’s conduct raises several ethical concerns that the Attorney Grievance Commission has the authority to investigate. Based on the documented facts, Schimel:

• Filed pleadings that contained false or misleading statements,
• Supported his client’s false narrative about service and procedural history,
• Attempted to obtain a gag order to suppress constitutionally protected speech,
• Participated in a pattern of litigation designed to harass rather than resolve a dispute,
• Engaged in actions that appear to constitute abuse of process and misuse of the courts. An attorney cannot assist a client in making false statements, cannot pursue frivolous or retaliatory motions, and cannot use the legal system as a weapon to silence lawful speech.

7. My grievance provides the Commission with:

• The docket showing the true reason for dismissal,
• The police report disproving any “evasion,”
• Benson’s Motion to Vacate containing demonstrable inaccuracies,
• The entire federal TRO filing by Schimel,
• Screenshots and exhibits documenting the sequence of events,
• A sworn statement of facts summarizing the misconduct. The Commission now has a full record to decide whether Schimel violated Maryland’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary, I filed this complaint because Ben Fischer and his attorney Richard Schimel have been using the legal system as a weapon, making false statements, and attempting to suppress my speech by filing meritless motions and a federal TRO seeking to gag me. The documents they filed contradict their own claims. The actions taken by Schimel go far beyond normal advocacy and veer into unethical conduct that the Attorney Grievance Commission is empowered to address. This complaint is simply a request for the governing body to examine the facts and determine whether Schimel’s actions meet the professional standards required of Maryland attorneys.