Why ZivZo’s Emergency Gag Request Failed (and What Their New Filings Really Say)

TL;DR: ZivZo and Benson J. Fischer just filed four papers trying to (1) keep their lawsuit alive and (2) get a TRO—a court order to muzzle my speech. Their own exhibits are mostly screenshots of my public posts. That doesn’t meet the legal test for a gag order, and their complaint still doesn’t plead specific, provably-false statements as required by federal pleading rules. The criminal complaint they pushed was dismissed; this civil push is more of the same lawfare.

This post expresses my opinions based on public records, court filings, and my experiences. I encourage readers to review the documents themselves (links below).

What they just filed

ZivZo’s lawyer, Richard E. Schimel, filed four documents:

Reply to Opposition to TRO – their last-ditch pitch for a gag order
Exhibit 1 to TRO Reply – screenshots/printouts of my posts
Exhibit 2 to TRO Reply – more screenshots/printouts
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss – their response to my request to throw out the complaint

(Docs on the federal docket for ZivZo, LLC v. Fischer, et al., No. 8:25-cv-02075-PX (D. Md.). See docket entries: 7 (TRO), 9 (briefing order), 10 (my opposition to TRO), 11 (their opposition to my motion to dismiss), plus their new reply papers.)

What they’re actually asking the judge to do

They want emergency injunctive relief to stop me from speaking online about ZivZo/Benson—right now, before any discovery or trial. In plain English: a quick gag order on blog posts and social media.

To get that, they must satisfy the strict four-factor test for a TRO (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest). When speech is involved, courts treat such orders as a prior restraint—presumptively unconstitutional except in extraordinary circumstances.

Why their TRO should fail

Prior restraint on speech: Courts are extremely skeptical of gag orders about alleged defamation. Money damages are the usual remedy if someone later proves actual, specific falsity.
No “irreparable harm” shown: They point to reputational harm from online criticism—exactly the sort of harm courts say can be remedied later if they win. That is not the kind of immediate, non-compensable harm TROs are for.
No clear, provably-false statements identified: Their papers recycle general complaints about tone and “harassment” but do not pin down concrete sentences with factual falsity that they can prove are untrue.
Public interest favors more speech, not less: These are consumer-protection and business-conduct issues. The remedy for disagreement is rebuttal, not censorship.

(Insert screenshot of their TRO reply cover page)

Their exhibits are… my posts

Both “Exhibit 1” and “Exhibit 2” are screenshots of the very articles and posts where I documented sources, asked questions, and shared opinions. Opinion and fair-comment on matters of public concern are protected. Quoting me back to the court doesn’t transform opinion into defamation.

Context matters. My posts reference documents, case numbers, and public records. That weighs strongly against any claim of “actual malice.”
They contacted me first, repeatedly. The message history shows they initiated and escalated contact, while I asked them to stop. Labeling my responses “harassment” flips the record on its head.

(Insert screenshots of your “please stop contacting me” messages and timestamps)

Their lawsuit still has a Twombly/Iqbal problem

Federal complaints must plead plausible claims with specific facts—not labels, conclusions, and speculation. When you strip away rhetoric, their counts (defamation/false light, interference, ACPA/cybersquatting, “cyberstalking”) are long on adjectives and short on particulars:

Defamation/False Light: They do not identify precise statements, explain why each is false, and plead facts showing I knew they were false or recklessly ignored the truth. Opinions, questions, and value-judgments aren’t defamation.
Intentional Interference: You can’t convert truthful warnings and protected opinion into “interference.” There must be independently wrongful conduct; they don’t allege concrete facts.
ACPA (cybersquatting): Criticism and commentary sites that use a name to identify the subject of criticism are frequently protected; the statute turns on bad-faith intent to profit. I used the domain to aggregate research and commentary—classic nominative use and fair comment, not to sell anything off their mark.

Their opposition to dismissal tries to punt everything to discovery. But Twombly/Iqbal exists precisely to prevent fishing expeditions when the pleadings don’t state a real claim.

Meanwhile: the criminal case they pushed was dismissed

ZivZo/Benson also tried the criminal route in Montgomery County (electronic communication harassment). That case was dismissed. Trying to criminalize criticism failed. The civil TRO is the same play in a different jersey.

Pattern and practice: litigation as PR strategy

Public records show prior litigation involving Mr. Fischer with courts sanctioning bad-faith conduct—including fee and sanction awards approaching seven figures in a donut-related case. That history—paired with this civil+criminal pincer—fits a pattern: use the legal system as a megaphone to chill critics.

(Link to the bankruptcy/court order PDF and a short pull-quote—under 25 words—to stay safe on quoting length.)

[Insert link: Bankruptcy/MD case PDF]
[Insert link: Your earlier write-up summarizing those sanctions]

What happens next

TRO: The judge will decide based on the papers (and possibly a brief hearing). Prior restraint is disfavored; we’ve asked the court to deny.
Motion to Dismiss: The court will rule on whether their complaint states any claim. If parts survive, we proceed to discovery; if not, those counts are out.
If the TRO is denied: That’s a strong signal the court won’t police ordinary online criticism—especially before trial.

Read the filings yourself (document index)

Plaintiffs’ TRO Motion – [add docket link]
Court’s briefing order – [add docket link]
My Opposition to TRO (Doc 10) – [add link]
Plaintiffs’ Reply to TRO + Exhibits 1–2 – [add links to the PDFs you uploaded]
My Motion to Dismiss (Doc 8) – [add link]
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Doc 11) – [add link]
Background packet (70 pp evidence) – [add link]
Prior case sanction/fee order (Fischer donut matter) – [add link]

Why I’m publishing this

Sunlight helps everyone judge the facts for themselves. I’ll keep sharing documents, timelines, and sources so the record stays clear. If you’re a franchisee, small-business owner, or reporter who has relevant information, you can reach me here: [insert contact].

Again, these are my opinions based on public records, filings, and first-hand communications. If ZivZo or Mr. Fischer believes a specific factual statement here is inaccurate, please identify it with a source and I’ll review and correct as needed—that’s how honest discourse works.