Prevarication Du Jour

The panic is palpable over at Team Kimberlin. Cabin Boy Bill Schmalfeldt’s attempts to recycle provably false statements that never achieved any traction in the real world are a clear indication that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has run out of “facts” and doesn’t seem to be able to invent any more. Consider this nonsense from a post that went up this morning at Patriot-Ombudsman (No, I won’t link to it.).P-O20131228Fact checking has never been the Cabin Boy’s strong suit.zcheck4tOf course, a copy that check has been posted on this site since 22 August, but it really is too much to expect Bill Schmalfeldt to actually look up documentary support for his wild assertions.


18 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour

  1. I also find it odd that he keeps accusing you of fraud, despite clear evidence to the contrary, when he himself just ran a Kickstarter fundraising scam to raise funds for his PD-dedicated station. The one that he folded within days. Are those donors getting their money back?

  2. Just thinking this through, but posting a $3,000 check from August neither proves nor disproves you haven’t paid an attorney to represent “TK” (I assume “TK” is Tetyana Kimberlin and NOT “Team Kimberlin”) at “the next hearing” or some other point in time, right?

    Of course, the appropriately nicknamed “BS” has no proof of any of his assertions and I would demand independent verification if he told me the sky was blue or the sun had risen.

    Or am I missing something?

    • Of course, you can’t prove you haven’t paid an attorney if you haven’t as it is difficult to prove a negative.

      You could always have the attorney provide a sworn statement to that effect, but you might have to pay an attorney to prepare the sworn statement. But that wouldn’t be paying an attorney to represent “TK.”

      This gets a little confusing…

      Happy New Year.

      • Ah, it wasn’t clear from his post whether “the next hearing” was the prior hearing or a hearing yet to come…

        I am probably missing a bunch of other facts so thanks for sharing.

        Happy New Year!

      • So is “BS” demanding that you prove that you haven’t paid an attorney to represent a client at a hearing that never happened? If you would just leave these guys alone the “investigation” would stop…

        Hey, this gets easier when you act like a lunatic!

  3. I still don’t understand how offering to cover someone’s legal expenses, (to push back against a terrible bully who has already made false statements to get an involuntary committment, no less), is an inducement to fraud. No one could, because it is not.

    • I think the charge Brett Kimberlin is asserting is “bribery.” Mrs Kimberlin filed criminal charges against Brett Kimberlin. John Hoge donated to her legal defense fund, which Brett Kimberlin claims was giving her “something of value.” In a highly self-serving manner, Brett Kimberlin has conflated the two statement to declare that John Hoge bribed Mrs Kimberlin to accuse Brett Kimberlin of what most states deem statutory rape.

      Kimberlin makes two distinct charges of fraud. The first is that John Hoge is defrauding those who hit his tip jar by knowingly making false statements about Brett Kimberlin. The second is that John Hoge had engaged in financial improprieties in the operation of Mrs. Kimberlin’s defense fund. Brett Kimberlin simply has no standing to file civil fraud charges on the alleged behalf of those who hit the tip jar. Nor, does Kimberlin have any evidence of any financial impropriety in the operation of the fund. He merely gives the formulaic listing of the necessary elements. Kimberlin’s whole point is demanding the names of Aaron Walker’s, John Hoge, Lee Stranahan, and other’s donors so that Kimberlin can harass them in turn.

      Bill Schmalfeldt’s claim that the retainer in question was $5,000 instead of the $3,000 is probably neither an accident nor an error in memory. Kimberlin needs to show that any alleged financial impropriety exceeded $10,000 to raise a federal question. If Bill Schmalfeldt can start a rumor that the figure was $5,000 he could later start another rumor that the figure is $50,000. Brett Kimberlin could use that rumor to avoid an automatic dismissal in his federal Rico suit.Once the claims are unmoored from the underlying facts anything is possible.

      It was my hope in all the RICO madness that some donors step forward to offer a motion to dismiss the fraud and mail fraud claims of the RICO suit based on claims such as,

      1) Kimberlin’s suit is an assault on the First Amendment. The donor-supported blog model is speech. If making in good faith one error of either opinion, fact, or analysis, no matter how trivial, becomes a basis for civil litigation and threats of criminal prosecution, it will have a chilling effect on those not wealthy enough to self-finance their blogging. All blogger should have standing to make that claim.

      2) Kimberlin is asking the court to become arbiters of which opinions and which analysis are acceptable, and which are not. For instance, Mrs Kimberlin had formally charged Mr Kimberlin of illegally having sex with her when she was fifteen. A number of bloggers have repeated her charges, and, stated their opinions as to why they believed her charges were highly credible. In another example, others have noted the fact that a number of Brett Kimberlin’s critics have been swatted. Some have suggested that that would be a very odd coincidence. Mathematicians could analyze the general rate of swattings, and, the rate among Brett Kimberlin’s critics and note how many sigma of an event if would be for four swattings to have occured among his critics by random chance. The relief Brett Kimberlin is asking the court for is both to find his wife was lying, and his critics were acting criminally in believing her, believing that it is pedophilia for a forty year old man to have sex with a sixteen year old girl, or, even believing with their wallets that MRS Kimberlin ought to have counsel, and asking the court to both declare him innocent of any involvement in the swattings, and deeming those that noticed and publicized the oddity of so many of his critics being swatted as libelers. Even trying these questions inherently will have a chilling effect on free speech.

      3) Kimberlin’s suit, if allowed to go to discovery, could be used to identify those that donated money to his critics. They, in turn, could be subjected to harassment. This would violate the privacy of those that donate to bloggers, again having a highly chilling effect on free speech.

  4. Did anybody notice that the Twit’s Tweet claimed a $5,000.00 payment? The posted check is only for $3,000.00. One supposes the two K. must be in “Monopoly money” (Coin of the realm in CBBS’s institution.)

Leave a Reply