Bill Schmalfeldt has a post up at the St. Francis edition of правда in which he states that I have lied under oath. Since that is a public accusation of perjury and since I have not lied under oath, his statement is defamatory. I’m already suing him for defamation, so I suppose this means that he’s decided to double down. Still, a professional journalist would want to correct such an error and would certainly issue a retraction and an apology.
hogewash
Never pick a fight with a man who buys pixels by the terabyte.
Oopsie-poopsie!
He is a professional? You mean that someone pays him?
If that is so, my best guess is that the payments come from Maryland, perhaps even from a non-profit organization located there. My guesses are not worth much: they might buy you a cup of coffee if you add a few bucks. But eventually there will be discovery, and there will be facts to look at rather than idle speculation.
I suspect that in this context, “professional” means that he would charge IF he could get a buyer.
Getting a willing buyer, OTOH, is a different matter altogether. Sort of like his “books.”
Special* dementia addled doofus got fired from multiple unpaid writing gigs. Of course, the fat freak also managed to get fired from unpaid promotion of and collection of donations for a national charity.
*Special* dementia doesn’t interfere with anything important for practicing law in federal court per Acme law as it only affects cognition (e.g., abstraction, reasoning, attention), judgment, memory, impulse control, emotional problems, executive functioning, and causes delusions, hallucinations, irritability, and loss of bowel and bladder control. Besides, the loathsome loser claims to have graduated from high school, so with that kind of education, cognition may have never been an issue. hahaha
I guess … everything he does is with prejudice?
Checkbook Journalism
Is правда owned by Bill? If not they may not want to be involved in a defamation lawsuit.
Is this enough to get him thrown out of the “Society of Professional Journalists”? I think I’ll make them aware of this situation and throw last weeks plagiarism in for a bonus.
http://kimberlinunmask.com/files/steps-in-it.jpg
We must never forget the amazing fact that Witless Willie has a positive social value. Almost Panglossian in its nature, it is an example of what persuades many of divine benevolence.
Kimberlin generally keeps silent: he brings his suits, makes his motions, and loses in episodes separated by the very dilatory pace of the legal process. It would be hard to keep dozens of people motivated enough to follow, observe, and publicize the trail of slow slime left by that slug.
Witless Willie on the other hand is an overflowing, never ceasing fountain of derp. Whole crowds wake up daily expecting a new infusion of laughter with their morning coffee because of him. Whether it is an update on his bowel movements, an admission against interest, an attempt to get a writ of replevin for what he truly seems to believe to be his good name, a self-revealing picture of his sexual obsessions, he can be counted on to supply the crowd with a daily dose of entertainment until the next time Kimberlin pops to the surface. Indeed the crowd grows over time as the noise of hysterical laughter draws more and more observers.
When Kimberlin solicited or permitted Willie into the circle, it came under constant light. And the light cannot be turned off because Willie must have daily attention.
Panglossian and dilatory in the same comment?!?
I kept the math out this time.
And replevin.
“Witless Willie on the other hand is an overflowing, never ceasing fountain of derp.”
-snort-
I have an image in my mind of a chocolate fountain like they have at weddings…
But not with chocolate.
Apropos of nothing, the highest court in Massasschusets just got biatch-slapped by SCOTUS:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
(H/T to Instapundit)
NICE! Very, very nice!
How easy is it to amend a complaint in Maryland?
Asking for a friend.
Md. Rule 2-341
(a) Without Leave of Court. A party may file an amendment to a pleading without leave of court by the date set forth in a scheduling order or, if there is no scheduling order, no later than 30 days before a scheduled trial date. Within 15 days after service of an amendment, any other party to the action may file a motion to strike setting forth reasons why the court should not allow the amendment. If an amendment introduces new facts or varies the case in a material respect, an adverse party who wishes to contest new facts or allegations shall file a new or additional answer to the amendment within the time remaining to answer the original pleading or within 15 days after service of the amendment, whichever is later. If no new or additional answer is filed within the time allowed, the answer previously filed shall be treated as the answer to the amendment.
(b) With Leave of Court. A party may file an amendment to a pleading after the dates set forth in section (a) of this Rule only with leave of court. If the amendment introduces new facts or varies the case in a material respect, the new facts or allegations shall be treated as having been denied by the adverse party. The court shall not grant a continuance or mistrial unless the ends of justice so require.
IANAL, but my understanding is that this complaint would cover issues related to before it was filed. It could be amended but…
My be valuable to wait until the resolution of this trial then engage again using the previous outcome as evidence.
YMMV and I may be totally confused!
You can’t repeatedly sue the same parties over the same facts or over causes that you could have brought but didn’t in the first lawsuit. Bill Schmalfeldt will find out at some point that you can’t return to the court over and over again suing different parties for the same damages.
Witless Wilie always forgets that at the end of the day he has to prove damages (unless he thinks being quoted out of context is defamatory per se).