800 Rounds!


The Hill reports that the wacko who jumped the fence at the White House had 800 rounds (!!!1!!111!!!) of ammunition in his car.

It was in his car and not on his person. He didn’t have a firearm either.

If it were the sort of rifle ammo I schlepped around Viet Nam, 800 rounds would weigh about 25 pounds. Personally, I never carried more than 500 rounds (twenty-five 20-round magazines) at a time, and that required using a couple of extra bandoliers.

OTOH, if it’s the kind of .22 long rifle ammo I buy for plinking, 800 rounds is only part of a box.1000rnds800 rounds could either be a whole lot of ammo, or it could be a partially full box.

Sigh.

Shameless Commerce


The easiest way to discredit Bill Schmalfeldt is to quote Bill Schmalfelt.

—Stacy McCain

Yep. And the easiest way to quote him wholesale is make his latest book more widely available. Why not let him embarrass himself in his own words?animus_nocendiYou can buy a copy from Amazon by clicking on this link. Of course, the Cabin Boy™ will make a few bucks on each sale, but so will I—and I’ll pass all the earnings through to the Bomber Sues Bloggers fund.

UPDATE—The purpose of promoting this book is not to embarrass the Cabin Boy™. To do that, he would need to have a sense of shame, so embarrassment is clearly off the table. No, the purpose is to discredit him.

One of These Things is Not Like The Others


comparisonTwo of the items shown above are from genuine U. S. District Court documents and are in the public domain. One is from a computer file used to create a document filed with a court, but it is not the court document itself. It is not in the public domain.

Can you tell which is which?

Hint: Look for the Clerk’s acceptance stamps and the PACER legends across the the top of the real court documents.

UPDATE—Here’s the significance of the above lesson. If a copyrighted work is included in a court paper, the court document may be reproduced with the copyrighted material included. However, the copyrighted material is not in the public domain, so it can only reproduced without infringement in the context of the public record. (Aside: The entire first issue of Action Comics was reproduced in a court filing. Guess what kind of lawsuit one would face if one published that material outside of the context of the related court filing without getting the permission of the copyright holder. You don’t tug on Superman’s cape.)

The Cabin Boy™ has included material from Hogewash! in his latest book that does not appear to be from what he filed with the court but from copies of the computer file(s) used create what he filed. If that be the case, he has again infringed multiple copyrights.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


My copy of Animus Nocendi, Bill Schmalfeldt’s latest cut-and-paste opus, arrived Thursday afternoon. I’ve read it. It uses some of his old blog posts and various court papers stitched together with a bit of connective text to attempt to tell his side of “the story.” I can’t really recommend it as an accurate, nothing-but-the-truth, recounting of the interactions between him and me over the past couple of years.

He does share one interesting anecdote. At the very beginning of the book, he relates a conversation he had with Brett Kimberlin in which the subject of Kimberlin’s claim of being Dan Quayle’s dope dealer came up. He quotes Kimberlin as saying, “Of all the things I’ve been charged with, that’s the one thing I DID do!” That summarizes the factually challenged nature of the book. Brett Kimberlin was never charged with selling marijuana (or any other drug) to Dan Quayle, and, if Mark Singer’s research for Citizen K, Kimberlin’s authorized biography, is to be believed, he never sold Dan Quayle any dope either. Similarly, many of the events discussed in the book did not actually transpire as Schmalfeldt describes them.

As I said, I can’t recommend Animus Nocendi. Howerver, if you insist on buying a copy, may I suggest that you use the Amazon shopping link on the Home page? I’ll get a cut of the action, and any earnings from sales of the book will be sent to Bomber Sues Bloggers to help with the expense of defending against The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s vexatious lawsuit aimed at suppressing the First Amendment rights of bloggers.

One more thing … animus nocendi is Latin for “intending to harm.” That appears to be an accurate description of the purpose of the book.

In Re Animus Nocendi


Animus Nocendi is the name of the Cabin Boy™ latest cut-and-paste opus. I haven’t read it yet, but Amazon says that I should have a copy tomorrow. I may give it a review in a few days.

Speaking of reviews … The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt™ is squawking about “false reviews” and warning that they are violations of law. The law he cites is 15 USC § 1125 which is part of the Lanham Act. It deals with trademark infringement, false labeling of country of origin, and false advertising. It will be interesting to see how far he gets trying to sue anyone over a bad review using that statute.

ACME LEGALI’m sure he is getting the very finest of advice from Acme Legal.

Meanwhile, the Gentle Reader may wish to stock up on popcornJujubesRaisinetsJunior MintsMilk Duds, or Red Twizzlers available via Amazon.