What the Words Actually Say


The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt™ says that the readers of this blog have great difficulty understanding what words actually say. Of course, sometimes the words are confusing.

The words that the Cabin Boy™ alleges that WordPress neglected to include in the DMCA takedown notice they forwarded to me list the following blog post as containing infringing material, http://hogewash.com/2014/06/20/in-re-schmalfeldt-v-hoge-5, and he describes that post as “It is a full page screencap of my copyrighted ‘Patriot-Ombudsman’ blog that I have since taken off line, but the copyright can clearly be seen at the bottom of the page. Used without permission.”

Here’s that post—

In Re Schmalfeldt v. Hoge

Originally posted on 20 June, 2014

On 19 June, 2014, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied Bill Schmalfeldt’s petition for a writ of certiorari. His appeal of the extension of the peace order will not be heard.

UPDATE—The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt™ has asked this question …wmsbroadcasting201406200144Z… and his question deserves an answer. The way that I’ll win the next “unwinnable” case is the same way I won the “unwinnable” peace order and the “unwinnable” peace order extension—by having the facts and the law on my side.

* * *

<sarc>Now, the words that the Cabin Boy™ claims to have included in his takedown notice clearly seem to say that the post contains a “full page screencap” from Patriot-Ombudsman, so the Gentle Reader’s confusion is understandable.</sarc>

UPDATE—Added the <sarc> tags.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


RICOMadnessHere’s another bogus claim that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin makes in the second amended complaint of his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 135-153He goes on to assert that one or more of the defendants tried to get him fired from his job at Justice Through Music Project through some sort of extortion scheme, and he alleges that’s a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, the federal extortion law and a predicate act for RICO.

Pretend for a moment that one of the defendants did try to get him fired. So what?

He has no such “property interest” under § 1951. That law defines extortion as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” The Supreme Court has ruled that to be “property” under that statute, the thing obtained must be something tangible, something that one could “exercise, transfer or sell.”  Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 405 (2003).  Because TDPK fails to explain what thing any of the defendants could have acquired as result of his being discharged, seeking to have him fired cannot be construed as extortion.

#PoorAttentionToDetail

Translation Service


wmsbroadcasting201407111041ZIt’s just like the narrative in Daniel 5. A low-grade tyrant calls for a learned man to help him when he’s perplexed. I’ve got my Aramaic dictionary handy, so I can translate what it’s telling him.

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

MENE: Your works have been measured and are coming to an end.

TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances and found overweight.

UPHARSIN: What’s left of your audience will be divided between Nigerian and North Korean spam bots.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Belshazzar's FeastUPDATE—William Walton wrote a musical retelling of the original story. A recording of his work is available from Amazon.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin simply can’t keep his stories straight. Consider this from his second amended complaint in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness—ECF 135-83That’s from paragraph 83. Note the date. Now, take a look at what he wrote just a few paragraphs later.ECF 135-95

So my codefendant Erick Erickson joined the mythical RICO enterprise twice.

Uh, huh.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is now stuck having to prosecute his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness based on his Second Amended Complaint. The court has ruled that he gets no more do overs. That means he has to make his case using junk like this—ECF 135-189For those of us who haven’t memorized all the thousands of pages of the U. S. Code, here’s what 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) says.

(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Notice that § 1512(k) doesn’t prohibit anything. It simply describes what the penalty for conspiring to commit a violation would be. So what that means is that in paragraph 189 TDPK is accusing my fellow defendants and me of … nothing at all.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3) requires that we defendant respond to an amended complaint “within 14 days after service of the amended pleading.” The Clerk of the Court posted it on PACER on 24 June. TDPK should expect a deluge of paper between now and 8 July. He will then have 14 days to reply; the second half of July might be quite busy.

popcorn4bkBTW, all of the discovery in the state Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. case is due on the 10th, and the trial for that case is set for 11 August. Yep. The second half of July could be busy.

Stay tuned.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin may have filed over a hundred lawsuits, but he hasn’t won very many. That’s not surprising given how badly reasoned and poorly presented has case has been thus far though his pleadings for the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. This is from his response to Michelle Malkin’s motion to dismiss.ECF 67-p4That paragraph is utter nonsense. Of course, our motions to dismiss address TDPK’s specious allegation that the National Bloggers Club was a racketeering enterprise. Here, for example, is part of what I wrote in mine.ECF 5-18Moreover, the Malkin motion to dismiss, the very motion TDPK is answering with his gibberish above, says this (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal556 U.S. 662.)—ECF 41-p11From the very beginning, we defendants have been pointing out to the court that TDPK’s allegations are bullshit, and, rather than correct his errors and trying to allege with specificity something that we defendants did, his proposed second amended complaint merely doubles down on more fact-free arm waving.

No wonder he’s lost so many more than he’s won.

 

Plus Ça Change …


It turns out that the data used to support the conclusions in French economist Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century has been fudged. This undermines the credibility of yet another bit of “research” that bolstered a progressive political meme, increasing economic inequality.

I’m reminded of Michael Bellesiles’s Arming America.

plus c’est la même chose.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


In his opposition to my motion to dismiss in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness, The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin wrote the following:ECF 29-16I suppose by “non-profit that works with famous bands and artists” TDPK means “Justice Through Music Project.” If he does, he is misleading the court.

I recently took a look at the Justice Through Music Project website (No, I won’t link to it.) and worked my way back through over a year’s worth of its blog posts. There were lots of stories about “famous bands and artists,” but there was nothing about any of them working with or having anything to do with JTMP.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis.

#Wannabe

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Harassment and False Narratives are two of the recurring themes in The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s pleadings he files in all his vexatious lawsuits. He’s now filed what he hopes will be his second amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness, and both Harass/Harassment and False Narrative(s) appear throughout the 80+ pages of the document.

Care to guess how many times each appears?

To see the answers click “Continue reading.”
Continue reading

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is showing signs of being rattled. He is suing or trying to sue 20-some-odd people and organizations in his vexatious Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al RICO Madness. That makes him the plaintiff in the case, so why is his proposed motion for sanctions against one of the defense attorneys captioned like this? (Note: Twitchy is not yet a party to the lawsuit, but Mr. Smith also represents Michelle Malkin who is a defendant.)BK_Rule11_Smith_captionPlanitiff Twitchy? Planitiff? He’s written about using Microsoft Word in his pleadings. Doesn’t he use the spell checker? And notice that he refers to himself as “Defendant Brett Kimberlin.” What’s with that?

My guess is that he’s not only bitten off more than he can chew but also picked a fight with multiple critters further up the food chain than he is. And the realization of the seriousness of problem he’s created for himself—and the panic—appear to have set in. He’s making careless, but very significant, errors. He’s seems stunned that none of his targets simply rolled over and offered to settle and even more surprised that several of us are putting up vigorous defenses. The old saw about the best defense being a good offense suggests that even stronger push backs are likely coming. An effective suite of counterclaims pleaded by one or more of the defendants would put TDPK on the defensive.

If he’s very lucky, the RICO Madness will be put to rest on our motions to dismiss.

#InOverHisHead

Cyber Ins@nity


Bill Schmalfeldt has yet another cut-and-paste “book” out. It’s called Cyber Ins@nity. The Cabin Boy™ has been whining about reviews from people who haven’t actually read his books. Fair enough. Since I’ve read this one, and it was a quick read because it’s mostly recycled from earlier work that was pulled for copyright issues, I’m entitled to review his book under his rules.

Here goes.

Bill Schmalfeldt should have had his work reviewed by competent legal counsel prior to publication.

End of review.

UPDATE—RWG20140504

“Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”

A Reckless Disregard for the Truth, Part 2


I see that Karoli Kuns has a long piece up at Crooks and Liars. Clearly, it was not subjected to fact checking. Consider this typical paragraph which I will fisk:

To a large extent, it succeeded. Hoge filed numerous requests for peace orders which were routinely rejected by the Court. [I filed two.] After they were denied, Hoge appealed. [Only the first one.] Finally, Hoge scored on appeal and found a sympathetic ear in Judge Thomas Stansfield of Carroll County, who had no experience with online social networks or blogs. Judge Stansfield granted Hoge his peace order under Maryland’s domestic violence laws. [No. The peace order was granted under a Courts & Judicial Procedures statute. Protective orders, which are not the same thing, are granted under a Family Law article.] Schmalfeldt was ordered not to contact Hoge at work [No. The order does not mention my workplace because I was retired at the time it was issued.] or contact him by phone. (None of these things had ever happened or could happen because Schmalfeldt does not have the physical ability or desire to visit Hoge anywhere at any time.) He was also barred from contacting Hoge via email. [He is prohibited from contacting (by any means), attempting to contact, or harassing me.]

I’ve been told that accuracy in reporting has never been Karoli’s strong suit. After reading stuff like this, I’m inclined to believe that characterization.

She is no more accurate in her description of the state of the law in Maryland.

But Maryland also needs to evaluate how they’ve structured their peace order process. A simple refinement to the law which limited peace order requests to those where there was an established domestic relationship or closer physical proximity would have eliminated this problem and ended a lot of stress and aggravation for Schmalfeldt. As it stands now, any Maryland citizen can invent the idea that a criminal act has been committed against them online, take that idea to the courthouse and turn it into a peace order. This entraps people in a litigation net who do not belong there while depriving them of the same protections other citizens receive.

In fact, Maryland has two different procedures for dealing with conflicts outside of the criminal justice system. The first, Protective Orders, deals conflicts between family members or domestic partners. This is what Brett Kimberlin sought to use against his wife, unsuccessfully in the end.

The second, Peace Orders, deals with conflict between non-related parties. To obtain a peace order, one must prove (to the “clear and convincing” standard) to a judge during an adversarial hearing that one is the victim of one or more of a specified list of crimes. In my case against Schmalfeldt that was harassment. Harassment via the Internet is harassment. There is not an exception because blogs or Twitter were used.

I am not amused by this either.

sir robin shieldUPDATE—Karoli has taken down comments to her post that relate to the actual facts of the situation with Bill Schmalfeldt, and she has announce that she will not permit any more such comments. She claims that her post is really about how screwed up Maryland’s laws are. If they were as she describes them, I would probably agree. However, she does not correctly describe Maryland’s Peace Order stature or how it works.

Not only does she have her facts wrong, she has her facts about the law wrong.

A Reckless Disregard for the Truth


Over the past year, Bill Schmalfeldt has published many false statements about me.

He has falsely accused me of stalking.RadioWMS201307121530Z

He has falsely accused me of trying to entrap him in violations of the peace order issued against him.P-O20131023He’s falsely accused me of misappropriating money from the Tetyana Kimberlin’s legal fund.wmsradio1942dotcom20131102

And he’s doubled down on that false story.WMS201311032001Z

He’s even had trouble keep the amount correct.P-O20131228

He’s falsely reported that I used the fund raised for Tetyana Kimberlin’s legal aid for the purpose of suborning perjury.db201401041234Zdb201401041705Z

He has spun a false tale about the complaints I’ve filed concerning his violations of the peace order.pupsoc201311131740Z

And he doubled down on that one too.P-O20131123b

He has falsely accused me of hating Muslims.WMSBroad201311202247Z

He has falsely claimed that I lied about him in a pleading filed in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness and has attempted to use that as an excuse for violating our mediation agreement—in spite of documented proof that my allegation about his behavior is true.PBT201403152048Z

He has falsely accused me of sending pornographic images to him.PBT201403171811Z

He has falsely accused me of asserting ownership of the copyright of one of his books.@PatO201404211906Z

He has falsely accused me of sending my “minions” to disrupt the publication of one of his books.KillTheBookThese are a representative selection of the documented defamatory remarks that Bill Schmalfeldt has published about me. It would be in his best interest either to publish evidence supporting each of the false statements he has made about me or to retract and apologize for those he cannot prove.

He would probably find it advantageous to do so soon.

Very soon.

Prevarication Du Jour


The Cabin Boy™ has intentionally inflicted yet another of his books on the public. Perhaps the only thing good about it is the picture of the handsome young man on the cover. (The Gentle Reader can take a peek here.)

KillTheBookHe’s promoting his book over at Patriot-Ombudsman (No, I won’t link to it), and he has a sample of one of his chapters headlined with the copy shown on the left.

Of course, that statement is false. First of all, I don’t have any minions. Second, I didn’t send the minions that I don’t have out to “destroy” the Cabin Boy’s™ book. It self-destructed because of it’s own copyright infringement issues. Third, I try to respect the intellectual property of others and do not knowingly engage in copyright infringement.

I believe that Bill Schmalfeldt knows his statement is false. I believe that he made it with a reckless disregard for the truth. I believe that he made it maliciously in an attempt to damage my reputation.

I am not amused.

Justice Stevens and the Second Amendment


A few days ago, retired Justice John Paul Stevens published an op-ed over at WaPo promoting his new book coming out later this month. The hook for his piece was an explanation of how to fix the Second Amendment so that it will mean what he wishes it meant. I’ve been puzzling over how to comment on his essay, but a couple of other bloggers have beat me to the punch.

Clayton E. Cramer demolishes Stevens’s shoddy scholarship in a piece over at PJ Media.

Da Tech Guy points out that Stevens does conservatives a favor by reminding everyone that the Constitution means what it says and not what liberals wish it says.

Read ‘em both.

Bonus Prevarication Du Jour


The Cabin Boy™ has posted the following over at Patriot-Ombudsman (No, I won’t link to it.):P-O20140301Schmalfeldt may have written true things on his latest application, but, unless he provided straightforward answers to the information sought on that application, he was engaging in deception. The Examiner’s Terms of Service spells out what’s required to sign up as an Examiner.ExaminerTOSMost folks would interpret “accurate, current and complete personal data … (such as name …)” to include one’s true legal name.

fraud  noun \ˈfrȯd\ : wrongful deception intended to result in personal or financial gain.

The Cabin Boy™ says he was just trying to earn a little money.