Blognet


BlognetTitleCardMUSIC: Theme. Intro and fade under.

NARRATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

MUSIC: Up, then under …

NARRATOR: You’re a Detective Sergeant. You’re assigned to Internet Detail. An notorious anti-First-Amendment activist and serial bomber claims that he has been exonerated and was paid a settlement because of his bombing convictions. Your job … get the facts.

MUSIC: Up then under …

ANNOUNCER: Blognet … the documented drama of an actual case. For the next few minutes, in cooperation with the Twitter Town Sheriff’s Department, you will travel step by step on the side of the good guys through an actual case transcribed from official files. From beginning to end, from crime to punishment, Blognet is the story of the good guys in action.

MUSIC: Up and out.

SOUND: Footsteps in halway.

FRIDAY: It was Monday, October 17th. It was a bight Indian Summer day in Westminster. We were working the day watch out of Internet Detail. My partner’s Liz Smith. The Boss is Twitter Town Sheriff W. J. J. Hoge. My name’s Friday. It was 11:06 am when Liz and I returned to Room S-140, Internet Detail.

SOUND: Door opens and closes. Footsteps across room. Chairs pulled out.

SMITH: The notes say that he made the claim fairly early in his afternoon testimony. I’ll pull the audio files for Thursday afternoon.

FRIDAY: OK. While you try to nail down exactly what he said, I’ll start a search on PACER.

SMITH: The notes say it was a case against the Department of Justice.

FRIDAY: Uh, huh. I’ll search for cases that have Timberland and the DoJ as parties.

SMITH: I’ll use headphone to search the audio to keep from distracting you.

FRIDAY: It’s surprising how tedious a search through PACER seems, especially when I’ve had the experience of slogging through paper files in courthouses. It was early afternoon before I had given up finding a case where Timberland had received any sort of settlement from the Department of Justice.

12:42 pm.

SMITH: Listen to this. It may give you a clue for your search.

TIMBERLAND: (Through a small speaker) I won a judgment for false imprisonment.

JUDGE: (Through a small speaker) Again, Mr. Timberland, I’ve told you already that we are not retying that case …

TIMBERLAND: (Through a small speaker) This is background.

JUDGE: (Through a small speaker) … to include any subsequent civil suit you may have filed against the federal government.

SMITH: I think that the clue: “false imprisonment.”

FRIDAY: Yeah. I can modify the search to look for that term. “False.” I should have guessed.

SMITH: Why’s that?

FRIDAY: I fits with his “false narratives.”

MUSIC: Stinger

FRIDAY: I went through Timberland’s cases on PACER doing a word search for “false imprisonment.” Eventually, I hit pay dirt.

3:24 pm.

OK, Liz. I think I’ve got something.

SMITH: A real case?

FRIDAY: No, but one I can see might be something he’s trying to spin. You remember how Timberland claimed to have been that politician’s dope dealer?

SMITH: Yeah.

FRIDAY: Do you remember what happened?

SMITH: He wound up featured in the funny papers.

FRIDAY: That was the second time around. The first time it came up, he was briefly put in solitary confinement to keep him from talking to the press. He sued some of the Bureau of Prison officials involved and also named the United States as defendant. He claimed that being put into solitary confinement was false imprisonment.

SMITH: OK, I remember that now. Didn’t the case go up to the Supreme Court?

FRIDAY: It did. The issue was whether he had standing to sue. The Supreme’s said he did. The case went back down to the District Court, then up to the Court of Appeals, and then back down to the District Court for trial. By the time thirteen years had elapsed, the government wasn’t listed as a defendant any more, and there’s no record of the government settling the case.

SMITH: So there’s no settlement?

FRIDAY: Well, not from the Department of Justice or any other part of the government.

NARRATOR: On Tuesday, July 15th, 2003, an order terminating the Timberland v. Quinton, et al. lawsuit was issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In a moment, the nature and results of that order.

MUSIC: Stinger.

ANNOUNCER: Mmmm, coffee. Are you a proud member of Team Lickspittle and a fan of Blognet? Why not sip your coffee from a Hogewash! Murum Aries Attigit Coffee MugMurum Aries AttigitRes Judicata, Team Lickspittle, The Grand Hog, Collateral Estoppel, and Johnny Atsign merchandise is available exclusively at The Hogewash Store. Drop by today, spend some money, and show your support for Team Lickspittle. You can also show your support by hitting the Tip Jar or by doing your Amazon shopping via the link on the Home page.

NARRATOR: On Tuesday, July 15th, 2003, an order terminating the Timberland v. Quinton, et al. lawsuit was issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The order states that the case was dismissed with prejudice against the two remaining defendants, Quinton and Mallard, pursuant to a side agreement among the parties. The matter did not come to trial, and there were no findings with respect to any of Timberland’s claims.

MUSIC: Theme up and under.

ANNOUNCER: You have just heard Blognet, a series of authentic cases from official files. Technical advice comes from the office of the Twitter Town Sheriff’s Department.

MUSIC: Theme up to music out.

ANNOUNCER: Blognet is a work of fiction. Anyone who thinks it’s about him should read Proverbs 28:1.

Be sure to tune in on Monday evenings at 6 pm Eastern Time for the transcribed adventures of the man with the action-packed Twitter account, America’s fabulous Internet investigator—Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign. This is LBS, the Lickspittle Broadcasting System.

17 thoughts on “Blognet

  1. If I read this right (which is always something I have to question of myself) it looks like all he won was merely the right to sue someone in that particular case – “standing.” Doesn’t read to me like he won anything past that.

  2. So, he may have extracted something from a couple of guys in settling a civil suit…but of course he was lying when he claimed he won a judgement vs. the government. What a shock.

    The Announcer needs to fix his html a little bit.

        • So I’ve been saying. He never ever had any settlement with respect to the underlying convictions, EVER, nor his probation revocation. No one gave him a nickel.

          • And IIRC, his “side settlement”is almost certainly disposing of costs of litigation, not related to any compensation for his high weaselness’s actual detention, or at least that was strongly tipped in documents related to the case.

          • Fwiw, brett was hoisted on his own petard in regard to giving a good faith reason to detain him. He was going around telling everyone and his mother that he was hearing about death threats from guards and I think inmates, any the everyone included reporters…. So his attempt to puff up his not just dubious but insignificant “revelations” required him to be a soopah whistleblower in grave danger.

            He was just an annoying gnat.

  3. Dismissed WITH prejudice. As I recall from another case where a guy sued for being called a rapist and the case was dismissed with prejudice, that means that technically it was decided on the merits in favor of the defendants.

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