The browser walks back in and says, “I have service via three different ISPs, personal, business, and business mobile. Guess which one I’m using now.”Reading what someone has posted publicly is not stalking. Trying to stay aware of the wild accusations made by someone who has been harassing me for over a year is not stalking. If anything, I am the stalkee.
The Cabin Boy™ has posted the following over at Patriot-Ombudsman (No, I won’t link to it.):Schmalfeldt 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.Most 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.
The Cabin Boy™ wonders why he wasn’t able to maintain his sekrit identity as
Clark Kent Matthew Lillefielt for a whole week. The answer is that he is mind-bogglingly clumsy with operational security. Although I saw no need to mention it, I’ve been aware of the Matthew Lillefielt ID for quite a while. I stumbled on it when I went to document one of the videos he had posted. I went searching for his The Lord of Satire YouTube channel, and found this:There’s the Cabin Boy’s™ portrait inset into a banner from one of his pornographic animated videos, and there’s the name Matthew Lillefielt.
The game was over before he put his quarter in the slot.
Matthew Lillefielt returns to The Examiner. Again.
A few hours ago, I noted that Breitbart Unmasked posted photographs of Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Walker taken by Brett Kimberlin while he was stalking the Walker’s at the Howard County District Courthouse on 1 March, 2013. Bill Schmalfeldt was the editor of Breitbart Unmasked at the time the pictures were published. A few hours ago, the Cabin Boy™ tweeted this.Here are thumbnails of the pictures that were published. There’s no question that the pictures were taken by Brett Kimberlin. He was photographed while he was taking a picture of Mrs. Walker, and there is forensic information tying the images to his iPhone. There is also no question that Bill Schmalfeldt (in his “Liberal Grouch” persona) was editor of the blog at that time. As of 12:01 am ET today, they were still on line at www.breitbartunmasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/walkerandwife1.jpg and www.breitbartunmasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/walkerandwife11.jpg.
These aren’t the greatest images, but the Breitbart Unmasked posts using them claims that they are, in fact, pictures of the Walkers.
UPDATE—The thumbnail on the right is a picture of the Walker’s car with Mrs. Walker sitting in the front seat. It was taken from a fairly low angle, suggesting someone sitting in a lower car parked in front. If you look closely, you can see that something is covering Mrs. Walker’s face. It turns out that it was an iPhone, and that she was using its camera.Her photo shows someone in a gold Prius holding an iPhone up as if to take a picture. According to the contemporaneous records, that Prius has the same tag number as the one shown in the online court database for a traffic ticket issued to Brett Kimberlin, and Brett Kimberlin was driving it.
Breitbart Unmasked, a website over which the Cabin Boy™ exercised editorial control, published the pictures in question on two occasions, tagging them as “walkerandwife1″ and “walkerandwife11.” But the Cabin Boy™ says that he was not responsible. He’s right. He was irresponsible.
The Cabin Boy™ has published what he claims is his letter to Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office.Note the salutation—”Dear Mr. Kirwan.” I wonder if he means T. Wayne Kirwin, Director of Community Justice & Public Information in the Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office?
So let me get this straight. Bill Schmalfeldt has been sending his complaints about this blog to a person in the State’s Attoney’s Office who is an expert witness for Brett Kimberlin.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
And the judge wasn’t gonna look at the twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.
IC3? That’s the Internet Crime Complaint website set up jointly by the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center for submitting reports of online fraud. According to its FAQ page,
The Internet Crime Complaint Center accepts online Internet crime complaints filed by the person who believes they were defrauded or filed by a third party to the complainant.
The elements of fraud are (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) made with knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) with the intent to deceive the alleged victim, (4) who justifiably relied on the statement, and (5) with resulting injury to the alleged victim.
Here’s another whopper from the Cabin Boy™.Let me get this straight. Schmalfeldt says that he paid no attention to me until after I filed an Application for Statement of Charges on 18 February, 2013.
Let’s fact check that.
On 27 January, 2013, he tweeted this.Of course, these tweets aren’t the first times that the Cabin Boy™ “paid attention” to me. They’re just a few that were easy to call up from the hard drive on the laptop I happen to be using at the moment. He’s been writing about me ever since I did a post on his publishing sealed court documents back in the fall of 2012.
Some people might refer to Schmalfeldt as factually challenged. A simpler term is liar.
Wow! I’ve spent the morning working and not paying attention to the blog or Twitter, and look at all I’ve missed!I have no idea what the Cabin Boy™ is going on about. It seems as if he’s complaining about some sort of threats. If he really has received credible threats, he should call the cops. If he’s simply trying to stir the pot, he should reflect on Maryland Criminal Law § 9-501 before he gets in over his head.
I may have more to say after I’ve reviewed the comment threads.
In a surprising twist Xenophon the Troll finally tells the truth in a post at Breitbart Unmasked (No, I won’t link to it.) about The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s vexatious lawsuits against bloggers and media entities. In a prolonged screed about Paul Alan Levy’s representation of anonymous blogger Ace of Spades in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness, Xenophon writes—Yep. As TDPK has claimed, donations from big-time leftwing contributors are drying up for his not-for-profits. For example, the Threshold Foundation had given Velvet Revolution grants totaling as much as $65k a year, but it has zeroed out its support.
It was leftwing blogger Seth Allen who first shined some light on Brett Kimberlin’s current activities. The fact that it was mostly the right half of the blogosphere that rallied to Allen’s defense allowed TDPK to paint resistance to his lawfare as persecution from the right.
That dog won’t hunt anymore. Ken White, Zoa Barnes, and Paul Alan Levy are not rightwing nut jobs, but they have all provided pro bono legal help to victims of Team Kimberlin. The ACLU, which is also helping in Ace’s defense, is rarely thought of as a rightwing organization.
Because of the extra publicity stirred up by TDPK’s frivolous lawsuits, good people on the left are realizing what kind of person Brett Kimberlin is, and they are deciding that they have better things to do with their money than supporting his unprofitable not-for-profits. The Streisand Effect blowback putting a real crimp in his business model.
On advice of counsel, I won’t reply with a Clint Eastwood quote.
[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Furthermore, 47 U.S.C § 230(e)(2) says in part that
No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
Now, Acme will probably point to the recent Hare v. Richie case where discovery was allowed to continue in spite of a website’s contention that is was protected by § 230. There are three things to consider. First, discovery was allowed in that case to determine if the site operator was involved in producing any of the offending content. Second, the plaintiff wound up losing the case. It was dismissed.
Third, discovery in a similar lawsuit involving Hogewash! would lead to the same result.
In my earlier post, I pointed out that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin failed to properly serve whoever he was attempting to serve in St. Charles, Illinois, because he did not pay for Restricted Delivery as required by Md. Rule 2-121a. (That’s the applicable rule governing service of process by a Maryland resident serving someone in Illinois.) The evidence for that can be seen in the receipt TDPK filed in his report on service in the RICO Madness.
I have no idea why TDPK failed to use Restricted Delivery. I doubt that it was to save $4.75. If I had to guess, I’s say it was likely that Mr. “I’ve-filed-over-a-hundred-lawsuits” was arrogantly confident of his knowledge of the law and applicable rules and didn’t bother to check the actual requirements for service for each locality. Like so much of what TDPK “knows,” his understanding of the mechanics of service of process simply wasn’t based in reality.
Whatever the reason, he seems to have blown it, and it looks as if he’s been caught filing a second altered Certified Mail green card—this time in a federal lawsuit—to try to cover his tracks. Furthermore, this may not be the first altered document he’s proffered to a federal court in the last couple of months.
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) says:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Also, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) is a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and two separate violations could trigger a RICO civil claim or counterclaim.
Some things are so ludicrous and immaterial as to not be worth a reply.
It is true that I have written, “It would be unwise for the Bill Schmalfeldt to try my patience.” Those are the opening words of this post.
It is not true that I have threatened to join the Cabin Boy™ as a party in any of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s nuisance lawsuits. Indeed, in that very same post I wrote, “… I have no particular reason to involve Schmalfeldt in that lawsuit … but not all the other defendants necessarily agree with me.”
Schmalfeldt lies again. And in other news … water is wet, the Pope is a member of the Catholic Church, and a bear was found defecating in a forest.
No, it’s not one of the reasons I’m being sued. The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is suing me because of what he claims I’ve written, not what commenters on my blog have written. I’ve posted his state and federal lawsuits. Read ‘em for yourself.
Of course, TDPK isn’t really suing anyone for writing false things about him. He’s suing my codefendants and me because we’ve written truthful things about him, and he doesn’t like it.
Very Ordinary Seaman Ferguson is pontificating on things about which he has no knowledge. In response to someone’s curiosity concerning the police reaction to the Cabin Boy’s™ overreaction, he tweeted these:While I don’t intend to discuss the details of last night’s brouhaha, I will say that VOSF’s characterization of it is thoroughly, totally, and utterly wrong.
Now, as to who is banned here at Hogewash! … For now, that’s a very short list. Other than the anonymous obscene blogger(s) who still is(are) sending in comments from time to time, only two people are banned by name: Bill Schmalfeldt and William Ferguson. Occasionally, I have to bounce a single comment or string of comments, but no one else has crossed the line to get themselves banned.
… I just finished a pleasant telephone conversation with an officer from the Howard County (Maryland) Police. I provided him with the information he requested and wished him a good evening.
There’s really nothing more to report than that.
The Moon is full.
The Gentle Reader who has been following The Saga of The Dread
Pirate Pro-Se Kimberlin for a while may remember that TDPK got his panties in a knot when Aaron Walker filed a memorandum in support of Kimberlin Unmasked in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. TDPK filed a motion to have the memorandum stricken from the record. His motion was denied last Friday.Now, if I were a “reporter” like the Cabin Boy™, I would spin this as a great legal victory and proof that the other side’s case is headed off a cliff. But I’m “just a blogger,” so all I’ll say it that in the normal ups an downs of a lawsuit the good guys came out ahead on this one. We’re still a long way from shutting down TDPK’s attack on our First Amendment rights.
You can help Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, Kimberlin Unmasked, and me defend ourselves from Brett Kimberlin’s virulent anti-First-Amendment attempt at brass knuckles reputation management. Go to Bomber Sues Bloggers to find out how.
Noted legal “reporter” Bill Schmalfeldt has published his analysis of one of Aaron Walker’s motions in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness over at Patriot-Ombudsman (No, I won’t link to it.).The Cabin Boy™ seems to think that there is something untoward about Aaron Walker filing a motion for leave to exceed normal page length at the same time as he files his long reply to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s opposition to the Hoge and Walker motions to dismiss. In fact, such simultaneous filing is a normal procedure. BTW, my reply would also have exceed the limit if I had decided to go after every error in TDPK’s opposition. Instead, I included this in my reply:
Because of the 25-page limit on this Reply (L.R. 105.3), only a partial list of deficiencies follows.
It’s interesting that the Cabin Boy™ seems to believe that the defendants should be held to all the Rules but believes that TDPK should get a free pass when he ignores them. Even after a warning from the judge, TDPK continued for several weeks refusing to include his email address and phone number in his signature block as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). He has neglected to include a table of contents on pleadings longer than 25 pages as required by Local Rule 105. He’s neglected to provide an index of exhibits or tab his exhibit when he has submitted more than five (L.R. 105 again). And so on.
Another ludicrous comment from the Cabin Boy™ was his remark that the judge will be upset by defendants “telling” him what to do. Actually, the whole point of written pleadings is to explain to the judge why the parties believe he should rule in their favor. Here’s a sampling of how the various defendants have asked the judge for relief:
Walker—” … Plaintiff has failed to meet those pleading standards, and, therefore, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.”
Malkin—”The FAC’s RICO count is serially deficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should be dismissed. “
The Franklin Center—”So therefore under current precedent, the claim for false light is barred under the Statute of Limitations and should be dismissed”.
DB Capitol Strategies—”These facts are insufficient to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), and, as such, Plaintiff’s first claim should be dismissed.”
Hoge—”Thus, Plaintiff’s count based in 42 U.S.C. § 1985 should be dismissed with prejudice against all Defendants.”
We defendants lay out the facts and the law and tell the court what we believe it should do. TDPK, on the other hand, tells the court what it must do.Furthermore, TDPK cites old case law that has been overturned by the Supreme Court as his authority for telling the judge what he must do. Given that Judge Grimm has cited the same Supreme Court decision, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), that we defendants suggest is good law in several recent rulings, … oh, never mind …
The Cabin Boy™ must have been reading the law book that Acme sent him again, and now he is pontificating over at Patriot-Ombudsman (No, I won’t link to it.) on the standing of parties in a lawsuit to oppose and/or reply to the pleadings of an adverse party.Yes, it’s true that Aaron Walker isn’t TFC’s (The Franklin Center’s) lawyer, but it’s utter nonsense to say that what The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin puts in one of his pleadings is none of any defendant’s business. Anything that affects the lawsuit can have an effect on all defendants. Thus, any defendant has the right to oppose or reply to an adverse pleading from the plaintiff. As the Supreme Court noted in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932)—
In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 389, the necessity of due notice and an opportunity of being heard is described as among the “immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the Union may disregard.”
To date, Defendants Aaron Walker, DB Capitol Strategies, The Franklin Center, Michelle Malkin, and Stacy McCain; Non-Party Twitchy; and I have filed motions to dismiss in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. Defendants Erick Erickson, RedState, Glen Beck, Mercury Radio Arts, The Blaze, James O’Keefe, and Simon & Schuster have given the court notice that they intend to file motions. TDPK should expect, with some limited exceptions, that whenever he files a pleading that there may be an opposition or reply coming from every defendant.
In his rant to the court about my Motion for Amended Report and Motion to Strike, TDPK said that “[r]esponding to these is a huge waste of time and judicial resource.” Just so, but not in the sense Kimberlin means. It was TDPK who filed the frivolous and vexatious lawsuit. It was TDPK who botched service of process and filed a misleading report with the Court. It was TDPK who did not send timely service to me. All of the paperwork involved in the instant vexatious lawsuit stems from the plaintiff’s actions. And, yes, the whole exercise has been and continues to be a huge waste of time. Kimberlin’s rant has suggested to the court another reason to dismiss his lawsuit with prejudice in favor of all defendants.