Prevarication Du Jour

Bill Schmalfeldt thinks he’s found perjury in the Applications for Statement of Charges that I have filed.WMSBroad201311211303Z

He must not have looked very hard. The second tweet listed in the first Application appears to be his part of this exchange taken from the @LobotomyRadio timeline.LR201310220101ZThat’s pretty good evidence that the Cabin Boy sent his tweet by clicking the Reply button at the bottom of @LNSmithee’s. Here is Twitter’s definition of a @reply:Twitte_@replyThus, we see that my allegation that Bill Schmalfeldt was using both @mentions and @replies is supported by evidence.

UPDATE—Yes, indeed, Gentle Reader, the Cabin Boy wants us to believe that he didn’t use the reply button on this tweet to generate his tweet addressed to the accounts in the Reply to line shown here. @LNSmithee201310220100ZDo you believe that it’s just a coincidence that the addresses on the Cabin Boy’s tweet are exactly the same accounts in exactly the same order with exactly the same capitalization as would have resulted from hitting the Reply button on the tweet he was commenting upon?

Neither do I.

13 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour

  1. Uhh….and this matters now? Haven’t we covered that @mentions and @replies are functionally the same thing: designed to notify the mention of the tweet by placing it in their timeline.

    It’s telling that the twitter text command for a DM is “d @person Message” right in your tweet box. @mentions are just a public message.

  2. Bill seems to have, for whatever reason, decided that an @mention is not contact. But that is not what Twitter says, and it’s not what he was told by a judge. He can cling to his mistaken notions, but they won’t, and haven’t, stood up in court. Sucks to be him next time he’s in front of a judge.

  3. BS has indeed used @reply. So his perjury outrage is just more of his usual wrongness.

    The twitter text command “D” or “M” plus the username (WIthOUT THE @) sends a private message, e.g., D Wjjhoge .

  4. He seems to have found his ability to do a live show again. Back in the summer, he “retired” from doing a live show because of PD. Surprise! Then he came back and said he could record a show (he couldn’t do that before?) and called people names when they called him on it. Then he said he couldn’t even do that any more, an announcement conveniently times with court dates. Now, all of a sudden, he can do a live show again, even though he said his PD is so bad the doctor told him he has only ten years left to live.

  5. Schmalfeldt is a stalking horse for BK, right?

    His arguments are a stalking horse for BK’s arguments.

    The purpose of his arguments are to establish a precedent, of sorts.

    Note the defamation case is based on tweets about someone. BS is trying to make his case about tweets about someone.

    If the court finds his tweets “about” are harassment, then BK will use that as an argument that his defamation case (which also includes harassment) is correct. So, BK is using BS as a sacrificial lamb – he is egging on his “first amendment” stand trying to get him convicted, so he can use the precedent against Walker et al.

    Of course, that isn’t exactly correct legal theory, but that is not his concern.

    But BS is not even a lickspittle to his “good friend.” He’s disposable. BK is willing to put a disabled Navy vet in jail for his own advancement.

    Sick, isn’t it?

    • Possibly, but in order to use the precedent established in Hoge v. Schmalfeldt The Dread Pirate Kimberlin will have to establish that the tweets were to him not simply about him. That will, in turn, require that he admit to being the user of @BreitbartUnmask or some other account that he has denied any connection with.

      If he stops to think things through, he will avoid opening that can of worms.

      • Well, yes.

        But he hasn’t shown himself to be a good thinker.

        Like I said, not correct legal theory. It only works if BS can make the case that he is tweeting about, not to. That is why he is so adamant about it.

        Not because he wants to beat the rap, but because he wants to be convicted.

        • The tweeting about versus tweeting to question was pretty much settled in the second Kimberlin v. Walker peace order in 2012 when the Circuit Court overturned Judge Vaughny’s unconstitutional gag order on Aaron Walker.

Leave a Reply