Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Yesterday, I stopped by the Courthouse and picked up this copy of the Cabin Boy’s™ Motion for Summary Judgment in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit.

I don’t plan to make any substantive public comment on this motion until the court has ruled on it outside of the opposition I plan to file.

96 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. Address to be revealed to the court? Of all of the laughable absurdities in this motion, that one may take the cake. You’ll reveal it to the court? Oh, really? When? What about to the plaintiff? What Maryland Rule or AVVO advice gave you that bit of genius wisdom?

    And he still does not think there is any consideration in the settlement. I thought that horse had long been beaten to death. SMH.

    Finally, I love that in his argument that John has violated the Twitter terms of service, he quotes an ambiguous excerpt from a website I’ve never heard of, and not Twitter. I’m sure the judge will be convinced by that bit of expert evidence.

    Come on, Brett! I think Bill may be taking back the lead in most asinine filing? Are you going to let him get away with that?

    • I would suggest that the lack of an address isn’t an absurdity at all. There is another explanation for the lack of an address: the writer of the “Certificate of Service” simply didn’t know Bill Schmalfeldt’s current address and was too lazy to phone him to ask what it was.

    • Does Microsoft know that Blob is using Outlook again, despite their having thrown him off their service? He is incapable of recognizing when he’s not wanted…which in this case is a bit like a fish not recognizing water.

      That vow to never use Microsoft products again is working out pretty well for you, ain’t it, Blob?

    • “Come on, Brett! I think Bill may be taking back the lead in most asinine filing? Are you going to let him get away with that?”

      Considering there is reason to believe that Kimby had a hand in this one….

  2. Oh, he’s trying the “consideration” ploy again. That’s so precious.

    No, wait… not precious… what’s the word…? Oh, yeah…. stupid. Mind-bogglingly, warp-the-fabric-of-space, weapons-grade, if-it-was-a-virus-it-would-have-had-its-own-’80s-music-video stupid.

    • As I said in my comment below….the format of this filing is more in line with the style of what Kimby has filed in the past. So perhaps it’s Brett practicing law without a license? IANAL, so I will defer to the judgement of those who are.

  3. He’s wasting too much time trying to make us believe he has a real girl(?) friend; and not enough on his legal filings. they even worse than the normal slovenian horse shit he usually files.

  4. Yesterday, I suggested that our gracious host ask the clerk how the motion arrived at the court. I would now, in addition, ask when the document arrived. This motion simply was not mailed to the court. I don’t see how it was filed electronically. In fact, I don’t even think the document is genuine. I would analyze the consistency of the font and signature in the “affidavit” and “Certificate of service” with those in the body of the motion above them. When the package arrives, I wouldn’t even open it. I’d open it before the Judge’s eyes.

    Incidentally, Maryland Case Search indicates that Brett Kimberlin was at the Court House submitting a parallel motion the same day.

    • I would also note the distinct diference between the signatures of William Schmalfeldt in the “Certificate of Service” and the “Affidavit.” It is almost as if someone forging the signature in the “Certificate of Service” realized that his attempt to simulate chaos with a collage of well-form letters didn’t look right, so try the different tact of scribbling more randomly in the “Affidavit.”

  5. Once again old Cabin Boy™ throws mud in the hope that something sticks. It’s beyond laughable that he thinks he does not have to share his address, or that a judge would sign off on a non-binding settlement.

    Cabin Boy™ do yourself a favor, STOP trying to be your own attorney. You want all the PLM to end, stop giving the Lickspittles a reason.

  6. In bygone days we would take this to the 3×3 one-room, one-hole building out back to read. the one deserves the other.

  7. “As a practicing journalist, DEFENDANT’s sole ethical duty was to determine the accuracy of the documents.”

    That isn’t true of “a practicing journalist” – there are numerous ethical consideration for all forms of gathering and dissemination of information. The balancing of privacy interests and newsworthiness being one, but even non-journalists should be able to name any number. In particular, journalism doesn’t excuse people from the ethical considerations they should have as citizens and human beings. Certainly, the reason for the leak is opened of analysis. If the leak was malicious for personal gain, there should be ethical considerations even when the story was otherwise newsworthy. And, in particular, when the story isn’t particularly newsworthy, it should certainly raise red flags. For instance, if a journalist was the sole surviving witness of forty murders and was interviewing the murderer in the midst of his work, they couldn’t claim, “As a journalist, my sole ethical duty is to protect my sources.” Well. They could claim that. But they’d be wrong. In any case a document under seal isn’t only a matter of ethics. There is also the matter of due process, the prestige of the court, and of course, law. And well. Generally one doesn’t want to offend the prestige of the court, especially when one finds themselves in front of it semi-regularly.

  8. Let’s all relax. I have some answers.

    First, the signatures ARE different, therefore they are both by the same person.

    Second, Shakey was so busy huffing and puffing to inflate the doll known as Soulmate 4.0, that it caused anoxia. The resulting brain damage perfectly describes this filing.

  9. As a lecture on “mental sloppiness,” the only thing missing was a coffee ring or a smear of jelly across one of the pages.

    And some “yibble bibble bibble, homminah homminah homminah.”

    That would have made it totally impenetrable.

  10. I like the way it starts out: Put your “Sloppy” hats on, guys!

    Title: “Defendant William M Schmalfeldt’s Motion for Summay Judgement” (Title, all caps)

    “Now comes Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. (DEFENDANT) to move for summary judgement against Plaintiff William John Joseph Hoge III (PLAINTIFF) pursuant to Md. Rule 2-501.

    “In support of this motion, DEFENDANT states the following: ”

    (Subtitle, mixed case:) “Defendant misstates the Facts in Count I”

    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (yes, 21 “h”s) Bill… Shouldn’t that subtitle start with the word “Plaintiff”, not “Defendant? Where does one draw the line regarding “sloppy” writing? You are certainly willing to start a paragraph further down with:

    “Much of PLAINTIFF’s research in this case is equally sloppy […]”

    … and starts yet another paragraph a bit further down:

    “This mental sloppiness continues with […]”

    So, in summary, my take on the latest battles in the lawfare fronts are:

    1. Duelling transcript integrity on one front; and

    2. “Sloppy”, used multiple times within a defence motion to criticise the opposition, on at least one other front.

    I’m having trouble getting my head around all of this. I think I’ll substitute (the drink) claret for (reading the motion practice to find) clarity.

    • Replying to myself: I misspelled “Summary” in the title, and didn’t capitalise “Misstates” in the subtitle. My apologies to all, especially Bill, for any misrepresentation.

      I will respectfully pull my head in and refrain from commenting for quite a while.

      Let me remind myself: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

      • no worries mate
        you put more thought into your response than he did the entire motion and the decision to actually file it.

          • Depends on context, actually. I thought wherefore only meant why, for decades. I raised this point in an earlier thread, and was pointed multiple dictionaries that say wherefore and therefore are also interchangeable.

            I still think it looks wrong. I suspect that the meaning of wherefore was changed, or at least extended, by misuse at the hands of the sub-literate. So frequently improperly employed instead of therefore, that it came to mean the same thing by the sheer force of stupidity.

            Seeing how inexorably, immovably, inevitably stupid Team Kimberlin is only lends weight to my supposition.

          • Depending on context, it can mean “for what reason” or “as a result of which”. People shorten the former to “why” and the latter to “therefore”; strictly speaking they’re both incorrect meanings.

      • His confusion of “plaintiff” and “defendant” in that subtitle does mean that at least one line of the filiing is true though, Unca BIwwy is definitely mistating the facts (about all counts, not just I).

        And as we have all said, numerous times, it’s so precious that he thinks that dropping a lawsuit doesn’t count as consideration when the court which approved the settlement did. His complaint about this hasn’t had any effect before, it’s cute that he thinks that this time it will.

  11. Notice how this is formatted in the same manner that Kimby uses in his filings…..I seem to recall previous filings from Schmalballs having decidedly different formatting.

    But there’s no evidence of a conspiracy…

  12. The things Bill are wrong about are endless, but I particularly like the bit about how BU is just “a website” and that he wasn’t in charge when it did something, so he can’t be served papers for that now. That would be like saying that Dell is just a bunch of laptops and servers (the end product it makes, not the organization that makes them). Or that if the business did something wrong, you serve papers on the person who was CEO then, even if he isn’t CEO now. You may be suing the specific person as well, but since you are suing the company, you serve the company as it exists now, i.e. him – the public (and only) face of it. Sucks to be him…….

    • Corporations and the like provide a level of shielding for their officers against legal liabilities. If a corporation loses a suit, the corporation is liable for damages, but the officers are not. If BU is “just a website”, then it provides no such litigation shield and Bill is directly liable for whatever damages the court might award the plaintiff.

      So like I said, I wonder if he understands the repercussions of that particular claim. He might want to think about it again.

      Or whoever wrote the filing for him might want to do that.

  13. So much stupid packed into so few pages. I think my favorite part is where he uses the letter John sent him regarding his incomplete answers to discovery. The letter was professional and accurate. Bill just doesn’t like it so he lies. Again and again. That is NOT going to sit well with the court. *

    *MD

  14. Even as serious as things get, I can’t help but imagine Hoge reacting this way when he gets one of Cabin Boy’s filings:

  15. I can’t wait to see the Certificate of Service on the opposition to this motion:

    “I hereby certify that I served a copy of this opposition on Defendant William Schmalfeldt by First Class mail at an address to be revealed to the court.”

    • Nice try, but Hoge is kosher (no pun intended, but now that I read that…) sending any reply to the last address on file with the Court.

      Bill’s super genius plan notwithstanding.

  16. Hey Blob, when was the last time one of your children hugged you? It was last century, wasn’t it?

    • One of the weird things about his tweet is the “female, wife” part. Odd phrasing. This supports my contention that he is posing with different guys he knows or photoshopping people.

      Speaking of weird:

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