Update (Oct. 3, 2025) – The peace order described below has been dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear. See the proof in the court docket below and read my latest post here: Peace Order Dism
For a comprehensive archive of Benson J. Fischer’s lawsuits, court records, and forensic audits, see Benson-Fischer.com.
issed: Another Lawfare Loss for Benson Fisher & Richard Schimel.

Introduction
Fischer and his attorney Schimel just filed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to make me take down my posts and shut up forever. This isn’t justice—it’s lawfare. I’ve published on BlitzMetrics how they hit me with a $6M lawsuit, weaponized defamation claims, and tried gagging. Now they want full-on censorship. Not happening. Let’s flash-memo their own words and show you how to push back—publicly and legally.
Their Words vs. Reality
| Their Claim | My Reality Check |
|---|---|
| “Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring removal of the subject blog post and domain.” (TRO filing) | That is a prior restraint—literally asking a judge to censor before trial. The Constitution hates that. |
| Alleging damaging “false statements” with no specifics. | Without specific statements or any actual evidence of falsity, it’s a Twombly/Iqbal pleading failure—just labels, not facts. |
| “We believe he intended to … interfere with Nautical Bowls.” | That flips reality. Every message was initiated by Fischer or Schimel. I told them to stop. They didn’t. |
| Claiming cybersquatting and domain misuse. | richardschimel.com is clearly commentary. Courts are consistent—non-commercial criticism domains are protected. |
Why the TRO Won’t Fly
- First Amendment & Prior Restraint
Federal courts nearly always reject gag orders on opinion or fact-based criticism. Ask yourself: if they had real defamation, they’d issue corrections—not gag lawsuits. - Public Figure + Actual Malice Requirement
Fischer markets himself as an industry expert. That means he’s a public figure. Public figures must prove actual malice—knowing falsity or reckless disregard. If I’m using public records, that’s not malice; it’s research.“Defendant has made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs on the internet.” — Civil Complaint, p. (quote location)That is a classic Twombly/Iqbal problem—no facts, just legal boxing terms. - Domain Critique Isn’t Cybersquatting
Turning “registering their name” into cybersquatting is weak. Courts (e.g., Falwell, Lamparello) reject that. Domain is a critical discourse tool, not a shopping cart. - No Emergency = No TRO
If this was a harm emergency, why file months after the posts? Judges don’t like late-acting litigants. - Public Interest Favors Transparency
My post is about due diligence, reviews, and context. That’s exactly what public interest needs. A gag helps no one—except them dodging critique.
The Pattern: Lawfare in Motion
My timeline—documented here—shows:
- Fischer launched contact via LinkedIn.
- Schimel followed with “remove it, or else.”
- No proof of falsity, no corrections, just threats.
It’s classic lawfare: use legal action to suppress criticism.
Want To Read More? Here’s The Traffic Backfiring
- ZivZo and Fischer Suing Me for $6 Million—Here’s Why That’s Ridiculous
- Benson Fischer The Lawsuit Is Filed — And Now Comes the Gaslighting
- Breaking: Benson Fischer and Richard Schimel Just Filed Their $6 Million Lawsuit And It’s a Gift
What You Can Do If You’re Targeted Like This
- Document every message. Save emails, DMs, calls, screenshots—even if it’s “just business.”
- Correct me, don’t silence me. Inviting corrections shows reasonableness. Demanding censorship is a red flag.
- Talk to a lawyer about free speech defenses. Public statements are protected; legal threats aren’t always serious cases.
In Conclusion
ZivZo’s TRO is a parody in motion—a legal show meant to scare. But no one gets silenced if they stand on truths and facts. Their own documents undercut them. It’s not just my fight; it’s about defending commentary, reputation, and the right to question.
Let’s keep shining daylight on these legal sideshows.
