Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign


ANNOUNCER: From Westminster, it’s time for—

SOUND: Skype rings once. Telephone receiver picked up.

JOHNNY: Johnny Atsign.

LITTLE BIRD: (Telephone Filter) Hey, Johnny, it’s Little Bird. Have you had a chance to go through the entire set yet?

JOHNNY: No. I’ve passed everything off to the guy who does that sort of analysis for me?

LITTLE BIRD: (Telephone Filter) OK, I was just following up. Call me if you need anything.

JOHNNY: I’ll send you a DM.

MUSIC: Theme up and under.

ANNOUNCER: The Lickspittle Broadcasting System presents W. J. J. Hoge in the transcribed adventures of the man with the action-packed Twitter account, America’s fabulous free-lance Internet investigator …

JOHNNY: Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign!

MUSIC: Theme up to music out.

JOHNNY: The following is partial extract of the tweets sent and received during the Overly Tired Matter.

JOHNNY DMS: @LittleBird is that an unpaved alley in the pictu—

ANNOUNCER 2: We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to bring you this bulletin. The following certified transcript extract has been obtained by LBS News from the Clerk of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

ANNOUNCER 2: We return you now to our regularly scheduled program in progress.

-ext time? Sometimes, you have to guess. Join us, won’t you?

Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign!

MUSIC: Swell theme and under

ANNOUNCER: Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign, starring W. J. J. Hoge, is transcribed in Westminster. Be sure to join us next Monday, same time and URL, for the next exciting episode of Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign.

MUSIC: Theme up to music out.

ANNOUNCER: Johnny Atsign is a work of fiction. If anyone thinks it’s about him, he should read Proverbs 28:1.

Be sure to tune in every Friday at 6 pm Eastern Time for an episode of Blognet or Blogsmoke on alternating weeks. This is LBS, the Lickspittle Broadcasting System

34 thoughts on “Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign

  1. But that makes no sense. Surely, Kimberlin wouldn’t forge a transcript and perjure himself in the court of law any more than he’d eat the Presidential Seal or set of a string of bombs in Speedway, Indiana!

  2. I heard that PIs like Johnny often pay neighbors to keep an eye on the people they’re tailing. For example, I read somewhere that they’ll pay folks to videotape subjects who claim that they’re disabled, or just generally to watch their comings and goings. I wonder if Johnny does that.

  3. It’s just not fair. You are talented and clever. And they are….. Well, they are Kimberlin and Schmalfeldt. It’s just not a fair fight even with half your brain tied behind your back.

  4. Kimberlin lies when he could benefit by telling the truth or just keeping silent. He lies when he knows the lies are easily exposed. He lies constantly and he lies badly.

    He is a pathetic little guppy in a sea of big barracudas. It is hard to believe they still suffer his pathetic and moronic antics. One day he will piss them off.

  5. Compare the staple marks on the top left of the three document extracts (the Atsign scan here, including the front page, versus the two versions posted in the Kimberlin motion). There’s discrepancies between the three of them.

    The front page of the Atsign scan show a single, very nearly horizontal, staple in the top left corner. Following pages appear to be scanned without undoing the staple, and show obvious creases/shadows on the left as a result.

    Compare that to the non-horizontal staple marks on both the Kimberlin exhibits.

    I don’t know exactly how Hoge presented the transcripts to the Defendant, so the following is an observation only, based on visible evidence in the presented scans on Hogewash. Where the “truth” exactly lies, hopefully will be hammered out over time (between the parties and/or the court system, possibly including transcription services and/or original audio recording):

    The staple mark in both of Brett’s transcripts is not horizontal; it’s tilted to cut off the corner by roughly 10-15 degrees. What I find a little disquieting is the consistency of the staple markings; while occasionally other marks appear in that area, the top-left holes are quite consistent, and the leftmost hole is very near the left edge of the scan. This is equally true of both the Defendant’s presented exhibits, but at odds with Johnny’s scan.

    Left-side paper margins is a little curious as well: Atsign’s first page, including a certitication by the Clerk that the document is a true copy (and, of course, the Kimberlin motion did not include any such oath (under penalty of perjury) of truth, but while the court system may not involve itself in such assertions, it is still part of a growing list of omissions in motion practice).

    Atsign’s scans of documents shows an extra paper margin (very slight, at the top left, in the case of the index page), showing the interaction of the overall document binding with the pages. The margin of this marking is roughly 5-6 characters, using the typewriter font of the document as a rule of thumb.

    The exhibits (scans) presented by the defendants have significantly wider left margins, and no binding markings. Zooming in, and using a ruler on the screen, I estimate the left margin to be near 10-12 fixed-font characters, with some margin for error.

    The staple marks are approximately 6 fixed-font characters wide, so, if the binding marking from an original copy was erased (overdrawn with a white box), the entire extra left-hand column area would be sufficient to add a standard scan of a slightly diagonal staple mark from another document (after removing the roughly 5-6 character margin measured earlier).

    I encourage you to look at the documents independently of my comments, and make up your own mind.

    PPS. On Page 65, Line 3, there’s a mention of someone called “Tetanya Kemberlin” in the transcript. Given that there was the name “Kimberlin” used earlier in the sentence to refer to “Mr. Kimberlin”, one would suspect that this was a transcription error — but, in reality, this transcription error is quite modest relative to the difference in the English language between “lie” and “like”. Even so, the presence of this other item on the same page is of some concern. I suspect that one or more of the parties involved may want to see (sorry, hear) if the original court audio can clarify anything.

    • I’ve heard enough accents where a non-native speaker of English swallowed their consonants that I would find it plausible that a transcriptionist could make an honest error in listening to an accent like that. I don’t know what a Ukrainian accent tends to sound like, but there was a Thai guy at my church small group years ago who never seemed to pronounce his final consonants when speaking English; I had the hardest time understanding him until I got used to his accent. (I found out later that that’s because the Thai language requires you to “swallow” certain final consonants: actually pronouncing a final “p” or “t” or “k” is incorrect in the Thai language).

      But Brett Kimberlin wasn’t willing to argue that the transcriptionist made an honest mistake. Instead, he argued that Hoge had forged a transcript and that the actual transcript said something else. And he conveniently omitted the required “I swear under penalty of perjury”, etc., part of the motion. I wonder why? I also wonder why “my opponent is perfectly willing to forge a document to gain an advantage in this case” was the first thing that sprang to his mind. Surely it couldn’t be something a psychologist would call… oh, what’s the word? Protection? Objection? Something like that. And now it’s too late to say “Oh, never mind, I was wrong, Hoge’s transcript was a correct copy of what the transcriptionist wrote down. My wife really did say “like” and the transcriptionist simply misunderstood her, but we didn’t catch that error until just now.”

      That’s what an honest man would have said. But Brett Kimberlin didn’t choose to say that. And now it’s too late to change what he filed, so I can safely mention this detail about accents, knowing that the only person I’m educating is Mr. Hoge.

      • Yes, I thought it was against interest to file for sanctions against John Hoge predicated on asssumption that the transcriptionist correctly heard her words.

  6. Have you noticed that BS never talks about his cat and dog, Boris and Jake, any more? What are the odds that he returned them to a shelter, or set them loose?

    • Typical Schmalfeldt, when something is no longer useful to him, like say a caregiver that can no longer run his errands, they go POOF. I seem to recall he used to have a showplace Tincasa that he swore never to leave. Dogs he swore never to leave. A nunnery he swore never to leave. A town of “his people” he swore never to leave. All tossed aside. That should be a warning to everyone that comes in contact with Bill “Stolen Valor” Schmalfeldt. If you are no longer useful to him, to the curb with you!

    • All these posts are predicated on the assumption that Bill Schmalfeldt had enough of his pets and rid himself of them. Another possibility is that Boris and Jake had enough of Bill Schmalfeldt and rid themselves of him.

  7. “Peeled out of my “Depends”. (I was a little Billy Pee Pants last night.) Went into the bathroom, got in the shower using the proper sequence of turning on the water, pulling down the flexible shower head, then diverting the water to the shower head AFTER I was in the shower. Wet myself down. Realized I had forgotten a washcloth. “Fuck it,” I said to myself and just lathered up real good, rinsed off and then turned off the water. That’s when I realized I had left a small, but very important part of my body unwashed. Had to turn the water back on, adjust the temperature, WASH that nasty little bugger, and then turn off the water (again) and dry off.” – Bill Schmalfeldt

    Does he still wear Depends? Is he still “little Bill Pee Pants”? Just how small is “that nasty little bugger”?

    In other news, Lee Stranahan is looking really good. And still reporting from Washington, DC. I’ll bet he doesn’t wear Depends. https://twitter.com/Iconoclast52732/status/854138427599712258

  8. Why, of course! Like he deserved to know about Lee’s personal life, his marriage, his children, medical records, etc.! I deserve to know as a concerned citizen and animal lover, who is worried that a man with fake-PD who couldn’t even do the laundry is unable to care for the animals he adopted to make himself look more attractive to potential … well, I’ll leave it at that.

    • Um, if Mr. Fakinsons has written and “broadcast” (AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!) about his pets and no one here seems to know what happened to them, isnt it obvious people aren’t stalking him? Like Mr. Fakinsons said himself indirectly a real stalker would have to spend more effort that what anyone cares to.

      If he thinks saying the same crap over and over magically makes it true he needs to be repeating “that pedo won’t throw me under the bus” as many times as he possibly can.

    • If Lardass McFattersen wasn’t lying, he would have provided the links to his many posts the past week. I wonder if the local authorities in Iowa are aware of these pets and their particular situation?

    • Well, we don’t have to worry about the last part, do we?

      I remember some campaign wonk talking about a new brand of dog food. It had attractive packaging, and, a really slick marketing campaign. But, alas, the company failed. The problem was simple: the dogs wouldn’t eat it.

      True to his nature as a serial oversharer, Bill Schmalfeldt announced to all potential Mrs. William Schmalfeldt the Fifths that he has the dog food problem!

      He might as well add that he is impotent.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s