Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


This is one of the key allegations that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin makes in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 100-145That’s not true.

In fact, Ali Akbar did file the appropriate paperwork with the IRS concerning National Bloggers Club and it’s 501(c)(3) status, and he has received the confirmation letter from the IRS. National Bloggers Club is a recognized 501(c)(3) entity.

TDPK’s crude attempt to smear Ali has run aground on the truth.

#Pwned

35 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • Complaints often contain claims which are denied and are later demonstrated to be false. It is only a problem to the extent sanctions are sought, such as the costs for defending a frivolous suit. I know there are several pro se’s which will help BK in the event the court does grant sanctions, but there are still a number of rather deep-pocketed defendants in this action with top dollar counsel. I can’t even imagine what he may be Ordered to pay if the defendant’s succeed in obtaining an award for their fees. Of course, since when has a million dollar judgment ever hurt him in the past?

  1. Kinda reminds of the scene in the movie Tombstone….when Ike Clanton lost for the 12th hand of poker and Doc Holliday, said….”Ooooppsss”

    • That’s because the Copyright office doesn’t charge interest and penalties that compound monthly …

  2. In a thread a couple weeks ago, I voiced my doubt that Osborne had always been Xenophon. Yesterday, I suggested that an apology was in order from Osborne for smearing Ali, via BU and his personal blog. Then i saw this tweet (do not follow the link embedded in tweet without protection):

    In the article, Osborne claimed to have spoken with Xenophon and family members via Skype, and said Xenophon was not Melissa Brewer. Hmmm….. Who did he speak to via Skype? Who was Xenophon, or claiming to be, in the past?

  3. Proof that someone is really a PR hack and pretending to be a journalist: failure to do a modicum of research in order to drive a false story, accompanied by a failure to print a retraction:

    https://twitter.com/wmsradionetwork/status/478844314055737344

    It took me ten seconds to look up and find the National Bloggers Club on Guidestar.org, where it is listed as a legitimate charity. But then, I’m not a “journamolist.”

      • I think Ali would qualify as a public figure, which means that the bar to prove defamation is higher. When someone who claims to be a journalist posts tweets like that, without exerting a modicum of effort to determine whether claims by Ali are true or could be true (e.g., a time lag in getting an official letter and the info making it to a government website), and simply calls him a liar using a grammatical artifice, it may strike some as malicious in the legal sense.

    • Judging from the title, Acme Law’s brief seems absurd. First, he seems to be using the accuse the accuser strategy. Acme is leveling the symmetric accusation. It makes little sense. John Hoge filed a DMCA takedown notice, to which Bill Schmalfeldt filed a counterclaim. That drove the issue to litigation. If Bill Schmalfeldt had a problem with alleged infringement by John Hoge his first step would be to file DMCA notices. Only if resulted in counter-notices would seeking relief be ripe. ,Second, John Hoge has fifteen days to reply. A hearing is set on John’s motion before that date. The motion is futile in pursuing its nominal purpose.

      This may be a perfect time to point out to the court that Acme Law is practicing law without a license. The motion is a transparent attempt to argue the pending hearing through briefs.

      • The title is hard to parse. This would seem to be either
        a) a defendant’s memorandum in opposition to a memorandum supporting his own motion to dismiss
        or
        b) his own memorandum in support of his own motion.

        The first would seem to be somewhat counterproductive. The second seems rather redundant, and, not being a lawyer, I’m not sure if it’s even proper to write memorandums supporting your own motion.

  4. I think he wants Mr. Hoge to stop copying and pasting the outlandish things he (Mr. Schmalfeldt) says. What’s next? A permanent anti-snark injunction, barring the pointing and laughing? Finally a permanent injunction against any actions which cause Mr. Schmalfeldt to be feel sad? Sorry, kid. You write silly things on the internet, and people will notice.

    Of course if you just left Kimberlin alone, none of the investigating would be necessary.

    • Bill needs to quit complaining about people defending themselves against his smears, defamation and other crap he does

      • EPWJ, have you seen a “motion to dismiss a motion” before? I don’t believe I have. Usually, one files an answer to a motion, not a motion to dismiss a motion. But what do I know? I’m just a Hogeist, I guess. Or was that a “lapping spaniel”?

  5. I’m sure most of you noticed, but it may be worth pointing out: our host’s original post did not mention BS at all. Nor did a Reader’s comment. Whether or not BS believes what our host has said is factual is an irrelevancy to all but him. It is what BK can prove in court that is relevant; that’s not looking so good for him.

    I suspect that the menagerie were caught by their false sense of entitlement to information. No one said in response to the menagerie’s claims of fraud that the proper paperwork had in fact been filed. So they assumed silence meant admission. And BK fell for it and has based his suit in part on a demonstrable falsity. BS of course is now doubling down in an effort to demonstrate his own reckless disregard for the truth.

  6. Purposeful lying has a purpose.

    These people are not mistaken about the facts, nor the law. They are lying because that serves their purpose, and costs/inconveniences their targets. It costs them nothing to lie. Not. One. Thing.

    Perfect cost/benefit ratio for them.

  7. To what extent did Lois Lerner enable the RICO lawsuit?

    By making conservative groups wait a long time, how many of this type of attack were allowed?

  8. A certain party on twitter is now madly tweeting up a storm (I thought he had trouble typing and VR just doesn’t work that well) trying to convince everyone that he just wants to see the signed agreement, and that he has no interest at all in Krendler’s real name.

    Like anyone who wanted to stay anonymous would ever, ever let BS see anything with his signature on it. Because we know that Bill seems to live to dox people.

    And speaking of living…. The stress of the lawsuit was going to kill him, but now he’s saying that it’s having the opposite effect. If he’s trying to us the physical toll from the lawsuit as part of his counterclaim, he shouldn’t publicly state that it’s now invigorating.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s