ZivZo’s TRO: Lawfare as Spectacle — How Fischer & Schimel Are Trying to Silence Criticism (And How You Can Fight Back)

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

Why the TRO Won’t Fly

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. No Emergency = No TRO
   If this was a harm emergency, why file months after the posts? Judges don’t like late-acting litigants.
5. 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.

This article connects to BlitzMetrics processes including SEO audit, SEO Tree. Each of these concepts has a definitive article that explains the full framework.