Did you know @wjjhoge eats his own boogers?
Who sees that? Since Mr. Hoge does not follow me, this will not show up on his home page. It will show up in his mentions feed. This will also show up on the homepages of anyone who follows Hoge. Therefore, this is not a direct communication only seen by me, only seen by Hoge. It is seen by my followers, it will be seen by Hoge's followers, and Hoge will only see it on his mentions feed.
Now, Twitter has recently added a "Reply" feature that allows you to see a conversation string. There is a difference between "replying to" a Tweet and simply beginning a Tweet with a person's @username. The former keeps a conversation intact, the latter does not.
"Any tweets that seem directed to another user are not 100 percent private. The only way to make sure a Tweet remains 100 percent private is to deliver a 'direct message'."
And this is why, according to US v. Cassidy, the Maryland legislature, the state attorney general, and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh -- a friend of Mr. Hoge -- using @wjjhoge in a Tweet is NOT contact, it cannot BE harassment since Hoge can BLOCK my tweets any time he wants to.
Professor Volokh also offered the opinion that any infringement on a person's right to mention someone's name on Twitter would likely be a violation of the First Amendment.
Yet, here I sit, waiting for the knock on the door. I doubt it will come tonight. Maybe tomorrow. I will ask the police to be gentle. If they must use handcuffs, they will have to handcuff me to my walker so I can get to the police car. One of them will have to hold onto my arm as we make our way from the house to the car and then from the car to the jail. Such a dangerous man I am.
And I must BE dangerous. Hoge says he got the arrest warrant when he filed 198 new criminal charges against me yesterday. That is not a misprint. 198. One Hundred and Ninety-Eight, to go with the 38 he filed on Friday.
According to Maryland Rules 4-212 (d) a court commissioner issues an arrest warrant:
<blockquote>(When on) review of an application by an individual for a statement of charges, a commissioner may issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant, other than a corporation, upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged in the charging document and that (i) the defendant has previously failed to respond to a summons that has been personally served or a citation, or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown and the issuance of a warrant is necessary to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court, or (iii) the defendant is in custody for another offense, or (iv) there is probable cause to believe that the defendant poses a danger to another person or to the community. A copy of the charging document shall be attached to the warrant. </blockquote>
So, Mr. Hoge had to convince the commissioner that one of these four circumstances was in play.
1. I have failed to respond to a summons that has been personally served or a citation. This has not happened.
2. The whereabouts of the defendant are unknown and the issuance of a warrant is necessary to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court. Here I am. Everyone knows where I live. It's no secret.
3. The defendant is in custody for another offense. Which I'm not, which leaves ...