Down the Rhoad

Two weeks ago, CL ran a cover story ("Shutdown," Jan. 24) recounting the legal dispute of a feuding couple. Last September, Phil Haberman brought his ex-wife, San Diego resident Kristen Rhoad, to a Sarasota County courthouse on civil charges of cyberstalking. She'd "tracked [him] down" online, Haberman told the court, e-mailed him constantly and even started a blog lambasting his reputation. Haberman was not out to prove her allegations false, simply that they had been made. The judge issued an injunction -- or court-ordered halt -- against Rhoad's behavior, including an order that she shut down her blog.

Cyberstalking may have been a fair charge -- the statute says that one cannot cause another "emotional distress" through direct electronic communication without serving a "legitimate purpose." However, legal experts interviewed for the article agreed that passing an injunction against her blog may also have been a violation of Rhoad's First Amendment rights.

According to freedom of speech specialists, such an injunction would only be constitutional if Rhoad had made violent threats or false allegations. But Haberman was not contesting the accuracy of his ex-wife's claims. (Asked later why he hadn't sued for defamation, Haberman said "You can't get blood from a stone. I'm not on a crusade; I just want it to be over. I want to live my life and be happy.")

Considering her blog her First Amendment right, Rhoad has refused to take rhoadwarrior.blogspot.com down. Haberman's motion for an emergency contempt of court hearing after the ruling was denied. Rhoad assumed she was in the clear.

But on the evening of Monday, Jan. 22, just two days before CL hit the streets, she received a visit from some unexpected guests.

The two San Diego county sheriffs at her doorstep informed her she was being served to show cause for civil contempt of court. According to records filed with the Sarasota County clerk on Jan. 9, Haberman requested another hearing to address her violations. A week later, the judge ordered Rhoad to return to Venice on Thursday, Jan. 25, in the same courtroom where he'd granted his injunction.

She had two days. Startled by the news, Rhoad claims she faxed a request for a continuance the morning after the sheriffs made their house call, proposing Judge Bennett postpone the hearing until she had time to find an attorney and book a flight to Sarasota County. She says she heard no response, even after a second fax sent on the 25th.

The hearing began at 2:30, with Rhoad still in California. Representing himself, Haberman appeared with Pamela Swinney, his friend, and Detective Mary Thoroman, who clutched a stack of evidence of the defendant's continued blog posts -- as well as several articles (including CL's) the petitioner felt had been prompted by Rhoad.

The proceedings were short, lasting no more than five minutes. Noting her absence, Bennett swiftly issued a bench warrant for Rhoad's arrest.

Bennett refused to comment on his decision, and access to the bench warrant has been denied. But following his court appearance, Haberman agreed to speak with CL.

He wasn't happy with the outcome.

"Honestly, I was hoping she would be there," he said, "because she's been avoiding this for too long." The case may remain at a standstill for even longer. Though the trial was civil, cyberstalking is a first-degree misdemeanor, and it's unlikely that Florida will extradite her for such a low-level charge. With a groan, Haberman told CL he could imagine her "jumping up and down" victoriously. "She'll say the state of California is standing up for her rights," he said.

Michael Seigel, a criminal law specialist at the University of Florida Law School, explains that thus far, the case has not become criminal. While a bench warrant has been issued, "a warrant for arrest can be used in a civil case," he says. "In this case it's not a criminal matter."

Of course, Rhoad could still be extradited. But as Seigel points out, it would be unlikely, especially when dealing with a case of civil contempt. State-to-state extradition -- especially across the continent -- is an expensive proposal and is usually reserved for particularly extreme cases. "As long as she stays out of Florida," says Seigel, "she's probably OK."

Still, it would be a good idea for her to drive like a saint.

"If she's driving her car in California and gets pulled over, that warrant may show up," says Lieutenant Chuck Lesaltato, public information officer for the Sarasota County Sheriffs' Department. "The police will call into Sarasota County. Then, we'll check the warrant and make a decision."

Haberman apparently doesn't want to leave it to chance. Though he wouldn't broach specifics with CL, he acknowledged that a "pending criminal investigation" against his estranged ex-wife is already underway.

Corresponding from her home, Rhoad says she's still in the dark. After several phone requests for a copy of the warrant -- or any legal documents related to the hearing -- she claims Bennett's office has been reticent. "I've left messages," she reported on Feb. 1, "and [the judge's secretary] couldn't recall if she'd sent it to me."

It's a bit of a stalemate: At this point, Rhoad could appeal the warrant, but is already being held in contempt of court. Also, she says the arrest warrant has left her unemployable at the legal office she used to work for, though she is still trying to find odd jobs as an actress. Otherwise, she's exercising caution -- "I'm trying to watch my back," she says -- and, without being asked, says she's watching the speed limit.

She still refuses to remove her blog.

For Rhoad, hers is an act of civil disobedience; she feels her webpage is still constitutional. "I want to pursue a lawsuit against the State of Florida," she told CL, "for ruining my reputation and making me a fugitive."

The irony here is that Rhoad may hold the key to her own destiny. When held in civil contempt, Seigel explains, the defendant need only comply with the court's order for the sanction to be lifted. If Rhoad removes her blog (and anything else she's "caused to be posted"), she may emerge scot-free.

Rhoad's blog isn't the only publication Haberman has hoped to censor. Prior to the hearing, on Jan. 17, he filed a request for an emergency hearing of a different sort.

"I am respectfully requesting an injunction be issued against the publication 'Creative Loafing,'" he wrote.

"[I] was contacted on Sunday, January 7... by Joel Rozen, a reporter with the newspaper, after my phone number and contact information was given to him directly by Ms. Rhoad."

Haberman submitted a copy of an e-mail CL sent him on Jan. 16 (a day before he submitted his request for an injunction), 2007, providing him a last opportunity to participate in some way.

"[I] ... reiterated to Mr. Rozen that he is violating a restraining order by publishing the article, and threatened civil action against [CL] if the story is published."

As Haberman saw it, CL would be "aiding Ms. Rhoad in her quest to stalk" him if the article went to print. Given CL's location within Bennett's jurisdiction, the petitioner requested:

∑ an injunction against the upcoming "Shutdown" article

∑ a hearing for a permanent injunction that would bar CL from ever contacting or writing about Haberman

∑ a prohibitive measure that would bar CL from contacting Rhoad

∑ a measure restricting CL's access to "any future hearings pertaining to the domestic injunction" between the couple.

None of these requests was granted.