Prevarication Du Jour


The Cabin Boy™ wants folks to believe that he isn’t involved with the Kimberlin v. Frey (previously Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al.) LOLsuit.Cheddar201602270217ZIn fact, he’s been deeply involved since before the beginning and may now be in over his head.

I was one of the original defendants in the LOLsuit, and I found out about it around 9 am on the morning of 16 October, 2013. I was sitting in my lawyer’s conference room waiting to go to a hearing on a motion Schmalfeldt had filed in the first peace order case. I used my iPad to check his website and found that he had posted a copy of the original complaint in the Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. suit. The Cabin Boy™ involved himself directly in the suit by sending two letters to Judge Grimm attempting to intervene in the case. The first letter has become somewhat infamous because it contains his statement that he suffers from dementia. The second letter complains about “death threats” received from an IP address of 127.0.0.1.

According to one of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s recent filings, Schmalfeldt is part of the group filing frivolous complaints against Patrick Frey—ECF 345-P1_2—and recently, he provided his excellent friend with a “Pretendy Land” “journalist” email in support of TDPK’s quest to breach the confidentiality of discovery documents covered by a protective order.ECF 327-1The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt may not be a party to the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit, but he’s involved.

43 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour

  1. To this day, PACER lists Schmalfeldt as an “interested party.” If he had a lawyer, that person might be getting ECF alerts about the case.

  2. Gracious, he’s but in full Chief-Justice-Schmalfeldt mode right now. Directed verdicts are being laid down left and right from the full Twitter bench.

    • The Cabin Boy™ has published his address, including the apartment number, on his own websites. Thus, he should no longer have any expectation that it is private. The Hogewash! policy on redaction is more strict than required for public documents such as court papers and is based not on law but a sense of fairness.

    • You do realize he published his OWN unredacted address on his Twitter not long ago? And when I pointed it out, his response was, ‘Feeling froggy? Then JUMP, coward!’

    • TOR obfuscates. Done correctly, it’s pretty hard to track back.

      I did mention “correctly”, right? That doesn’t mean, “install the TOR plugin in a browser”.

      Betcha the ex-millionaire knows how. Any bets that he’d have shown that to Bill/Bill would have understood/Had the discipline to go through all of that to hit “F5” repeatedly? (That would be a bad, bad idea, actually.)

      • TOR makes its money off of turning in people for cash – so some say – NOTHING – NOTHING can be done anonymously and random number generators are not random, if they use code, which they must then they are not random

        • For cryptography, what matters in a random-number generator is that it must be unpredictable. True randomness is unpredictable, but so is pseudo-randomness based on unpredictable things — like the pattern of keystrokes and mouse movements the user inputs. (Which is what Linux uses for its /dev/random entropy generator).

          So your last statement is not quite correct. It’s true that crypto is really hard to get right… but it is possible. And truly unpredictable (not truly “random”, but truly unpredictable) pseudo-random numbers do actually make for good crypto, if implemented correctly. That last clause is where the problem always lies, not in the pseudo-randomness of code-based random-number generators.

          • Robin, billions are spent on encryption – a free site does not have the resources IMO

        • Re: billions spent on encryption –

          I think we’re talking about two different things. I’m not saying that Tor (the anonymity network, not the publisher) has unbreakable encryption. I don’t know one way or the other. I’m talking about the fact that good encryption is possible with free tools, as long as you know what to look for. One BIG clue is: the encryption methods must, must, MUST be published and open for all to see, preferably for the past twenty years or so. Then you’ll have some confidence that they’ve been hammered on by skilled mathematicians and not yet found lacking by any of the “white hats”. Yes, the “black hats” may have found a flaw, and if so they wouldn’t reveal it — but the “white hats” would, and do, reveal flaws they find.

          “Billions spent on encryption” is irrelevant; that you think it’s a relevant argument tells me that you’re ignorant on this issue. (Which is not intended as a put-down of any kind, by the way. I’m very ignorant on a lot of issues, but I do know something about this one.) Let me illustrate with a real example. When DVDs were brand-new, the big Hollywood firms got together and spent millions of dollars on an “unbreakable” security system called CSS, the Content Scrambling System. It was cracked by a 17-year-old from Norway, who put its master keys on the Internet for all to use. (Look up DeCSS for the full, highly amusing, story). They would have been better served going with something like SSL, which has been free (and open-source) for years — the only security holes found so far in SSL have been found in the implementations, not in the protocol itself.

          I could write entire blog posts about this, but this comment is long enough already. The point is, “we spent lots of money on this crypto software” is a red flag, not a sign of quality. (Look up Bruce Schneier’s article on snake-oil crypto if you want some interesting reading). The best locks are the ones where everyone knows how the lock works, yet professional locksmiths have tried for years to open the lock without its key and been unable to find any working tricks.

          • Robin, no one has encryption its one of the myths that keep on keepin on. ask the Germans, then the Japanese, then the Soviets, then the NSA, if there is something that really exists, sure computers make it harder but they also make the breaking of cyphers easier on the other hand

          • So you’re saying that those billions that people spend on encryption is totally wasted? Why do they spend it, then?

            I don’t think you actually believe that encryption is useless. Perfect encryption may not be possible (see https://xkcd.com/538/ for one reason why), but it’s a darn sight better than bad encryption.

            Also, in the case of the Germans, Japanese, Soviets, etc., there was plain old human spying going on too. You can have all the encryption in the world, but if you write down your computer password where your secretary can see it (and tell the enemy about it because she’s secretly been working for them for years), you’ve just wasted all that effort you put into encryption.

            But I suspect we mostly agree, and are just arguing around the edges.

          • absolutely total waste and fraud, because most breeches are done from the inside – better to spend monies on separations – most fortune 500 companies run on closed systems and clone stations, no way to retrieve anything on any medium – physical security trumps electronic wishes all the time. I kn\ow for a fact most of the banks and top firms still use faxes and paper copies to be entered into their systems. Companies who go web like Target, because they cannot affords the admin costs usually get breeched within a matter of months,

          • One time pads–a code that is used only one time–can be anything. I have never heard of a one time pad message being broken

          • All encryption is broken eventually.

            But the best current encryption means you are no long the lowest hanging fruit.

            Or as I like to use: I don’t need to outrun the bear chasing us in the forest, I just need to outrun you!

    • Now he’s trying to show us some criminal records that have an arrest but no conviction and just said a 3 year old was mauled by a dog – that three year old has a court order – more impressive admissions against interest

      • Hey, wasn’t William himself charged with a crime? I vaguely remember that he was, which is how he became known as the Diminished Capacity Kid in the first place.

      • He has no right to bring up criminal records not as serious as bombing and terrorism. He supports Brett Kimberlin, the Speedway Bomber. I think he’s even said something in the past something about Brett’s criminal records not being relevant? He can correct me if I’m wrong in my memory.

        • He really cannot understand why everyone who encounters him despises him.

          In the double-entry bookkeeping on Bill Schmalfeldt and bad actions, should this be categorized as stupid or loathsome? I can always break it up, but…

          This individual has never done a single thing to Bill, but Bill has to go digging around and publishing information that – for all he knows – may not even relate to the person he’s targeting. It’s not like he never did that before, is it?

        • Calling these criminal records, while accurate, is quite a stretch in this context. There are charges, but no convictions. Of course, if that is the game BS is playing, then he has to accept that he is guilty of over 400 counts of harassment, right?

        • Brett himself occasionally makes a negative reference to Ali Akbar as being a “convicted felon.” I believe this is what is known as a “stunning lack of self-awareness.”

  3. The second letter complains about “death threats” received from an IP address of 127.0.0.1.

    Is that a 21st century remake of “When a Stranger Calls”?

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