A Manhattan woman who targets two historic lesbian bars and faces defamation suits completed a court-ordered mental health program and immediately resumed communications, sending roughly 100 emails in a few weeks that praised the assassination of Charlie Kirk and referenced a potential copycat, according to new court filings.
The emails began in late August and included a Sept. 12 message to Vic Smith, the Cubbyhole bar manager, his attorney, Manhattan court clerks and The New York Post's tip line, in which the writer described the Kirk killing as notable and hinted that crimes can generate copycats. The messages circulated as prosecutors and court filings detailing a pattern of behavior linked to Bompart, who has previously targeted two longtime West Village bars.
Anne Marie Bompart is the subject of defamation suits filed by Henrietta Hudson and Cubbyhole, bars that contend she launched a persistent social media campaign accusing them of racism and other grievances. Bompart was arrested earlier this year and charged with stalking and aggravated harassment. Her case has moved through the Manhattan judicial system amid a broader dispute over civil claims linked to online conduct against public-facing venues.
According to filings by attorney Tom Shanahan, Bompart had challenged a request for a 72-hour psychiatric examination but instead completed a 12-week court-ordered mental health program known as Pathways after Manhattan Criminal Court judge Louis Nock declined the shorter exam. Bompart completed the program in August and the civil case against her was dismissed, yet court filings argue she did not halt communications and instead resumed activity that could violate a no-contact order.
One September message to Smith and others described the Kirk killing in favorable terms and included a suggestion that copycat acts may follow, a claim Prosecutors say underscores a risk identified in the new filings. Police have already received at least one new criminal harassment complaint related to the emails, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.
The communications also included a screenshot Bompart said was from her mother, who urged her not to post or email anything more, with the mother declaring that enough damage had been done. Bompart @ ascribed to having learned from the Midtown Community Court experience in another email, while a separate message appeared to be sent from her work account at a small personal injury firm, directed at a Post photographer and Shanahan. In that message, Bompart wrote that she could not wait for the recipient to die and described plans to deface a grave, though she later apologized and said the Kirk comment had been sarcastic.
In subsequent messages, Bompart acknowledged that she regretted violent threats and asserted that her communications were incendiary on purpose. Her attorney did not respond to requests for comment, and Bompart has repeatedly referenced a desire to learn from her errors as the situation evolved in the weeks following the dismissal of the civil case.
The filings emphasize that many of the emails may violate a prior order barring Bompart from contacting Smith, a condition that could mean years in jail if violations are proven. Shanahan said the matter raises ongoing questions about how civil orders, mental health interventions and online harassment interact in high-profile disputes involving community spaces and public figures. Bompart has described her actions as regrettable, and prosecutors are continuing to review the emails for potential charges or penalties.
Saturday's filings add to a complex timeline that began with Bompart’s January arrest in connection with stalking and aggravated harassment charges, followed by the defamation lawsuits that prompted the original court-ordered assessment. The case underscores ongoing tensions between freedom of expression, online activism and the protections against harassment and intimidation for individuals and venues in New York City.
The case continues to unfold in Manhattan Supreme Court, where defamation actions and criminal allegations intersect as authorities monitor for further potential violations of court orders and examine the broader implications for how social media conduct intersects with civil litigation and constitutional protections.