Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign

Johnny Atsign Logo 2ANNOUNCER: From Westminster, it’s time for—

SOUND: Skype rings once.

JOHNNY: Johnny Atsign.

GRAYSON: (Telephone Filter) Johnny, It’s Peter Grayson.

JOHNNY: Well, I haven’t heard from you for while. What’s up, Peter?

GRAYSON: (Telephone Filter) More legal nonsense. The Grouch has filed another LOLsuit against me.

JOHNNY: How many does that make? Three?

GRAYSON: (Telephone Filter) Four, if you count that peace order. I’d like to send you a copy of the complaint and have you mark it up with notes referring to evidence you have on hand.

ANNOUNCER: The Lickspittle Broadcasting System presents W. J. J. Hoge in the transcribed adventures of the man with the action-packed Twitter account, America’s fabulous free-lance Internet investigator …

JOHNNY: Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign!

MUSIC: Theme up to music out. Continue reading

Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. News

It looks as if Judge Mason has had enough of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s diddling with service of court papers. Today, he issued an order striking a large number of filings from the Kimberlins that did not comply with his order concerning how papers were to be served.39855V DI241The following filings were stricken:strike01strike02Well, the pretty much guts the Kimberlins’ defense. Their answer to the complaint is stricken, and it is now well past the extension of time allowed by the judge.

IANAL, but with all of these motions stricken, about all the Kimberlins seem to have left would be a motion for some sort of relief from default.

I’m going to close comments on this post, lest someone inadvertently  educate the midget on some possible solution to his dilemma—if there is one.


2016 AUG 29 03:08:07 UTC Home Page

UPDATE—2016 AUG 29 11:30:05 UTC Home Page
2016 AUG 29 11:33:32 UTC Home Page

UPDATE 2—2016 AUG 29 14:56:38 UTC Home Page

UPDATE 3—2016 AUG 29 17:44:37 UTC Home Page

UPDATE 4—2016 AUG 29 19:32:24 UTC Home Page

UPDATE 5—2016 AUG 29 21:47:23 UTC Home Page
2016 AUG 29 22:01:23 UTC Home Page

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

BS201608281456ZBS201608281906ZIt’s seems that The Dreadful Pro-Se Freeloader Schmalfeldt simply doesn’t understand the meaning of the word spoliation as it relates to evidence. It’s the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. If someone so much as hides evidence sought by an adverse party in a lawsuit, he is has engaged in spoliation of that evidence. It doesn’t matter if someone else has a copy of the document. Spoliation occurs when the original is compromised.

It’s my understanding that the Rules of Evidence generally require that the original document or an authenticated copy is necessary for that document to be admissible as evidence, but an exception to the hearsay rule allows for an unauthenticated copy to admitted if the person who should have produced the document engaged in spoliation. IANAL, so YMMV.

popcorn4bkIt looks as if the Cabin Boy™ has painted himself into an corner. It’s obvious that he has deleted files from the Internet, in effect hiding them. If, as he says, spoliation hasn’t occurred because of the copies posted online, then he has authenticated the copies. (“Anything you say can be used in evidence against you.”) OTOH, if he fails to produce copies of his web postings during discovery or in response to a subpoena because he’s deleted them, a court may find that he’s engaged in spoliation. In that case, the court can make the adverse inference that TDFS was trying to hide something and that the online copies are true and correct. Neither possibility is favorable for the Cabin Boy™.