Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

When I got home from work yesterday, I found a envelope with Brett Kimberlin’s return address on it in my mailbox. It contained this—

If I have anything further to say publicly about this before the court rules on my motion, it will be in the form of a reply to this opposition.

30 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. It’s kind of cute that Schmalfeldt has realized he’s so stupid that he let’s a pedophile write and mail his motions for him now.

  2. With out a transcript how the hell does bill schmalfeldt know what was said in court?
    How did he pay for and receive one?

    Copying from a third party is still a violation of copyright.

    • Yeah that’s a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the wayback machine’s TOS (which basically says “you’re still bound by copyright laws.”)

      Interesting academic question if the Wayback machine is a violation of copyright itself. (After all it can be used to skirt advertising and cut off revenue that theoretically is one of the bundle of rights in copyright.)
      Not really sure it’s relevant here. But still interesting question.

  3. Let me see if I understand this: He’s making the claim that because the original material is on an archive, it’s OK to take it from there under fair use, when in fact, the TOS paragraph he posted doesn’t even support that interpretation.

    You cannot make this up. He reads want he wants to read even though it doesn’t say what he thinks it says.

    Not to mention, he states certain things were said at trial, but was not there. Nor does he provide transcripts. And if does has transcripts, how did he get them with pauper status? Three guesses, first two don’t count.

    Not sure that the motion to amend the judgment will happen, but Schmalfeldt’s legal interpretation will most likely not factor in that, other than a good chuckle and facepalm.

    • Where has it been established that Schmally’s breach of the settlement agreement would not otherwise qualify as fair use?

      Transcripts would only be an issue if WJJH disputes Schmally’s assertions regarding the Court’s dicta, or whether or not WJJH objected to the trial statement.

      I agree that Schmally isn’t capable of actually writing this motion. I invite anyone to offer proof of that, which would stand up in court. I’m not convinced that Kimberpedo is capable of writing this, either, and it makes me wonder where the bulk of it was copy/pasted from.

      In any case, and without any real regard to this opposition, I wouldn’t get my hopes up regarding reconsideration.

      • I have just spent the last few hours on the internet archive site, and have copied all of The Other McCain, going back for 6 months, and Ace of Spades HQ for a year. When I have time, I will republish them on The Craft Blog not as fair use, but under the “I got it from the archive” exception as described on Brett Kimberlin, Esquire’s brilliant page 4 interpretation of the terms of service for a website which was not a party to the litigation.

        Oh, and when I’m sued…all documentation will be posted from some other guy’s address. No, not a lawyer. A serial bomber.

  4. Mr Hoge, do you suspect convicted bomber and adjucitated pedophile Brett Kimberlin of HAND DELIVERING this to your mailbox? With his history of violence I would not allow him within 1 mile of my home. Please take any and all action necessary to keep your family safe from him. It might be time to notify law enforcement and look into a protection order from the courts.

  5. “The measure of such damages is the sum which would place the injured party in the same position as if the contract had been performed.”

    Who ever wrote this brief obviously isn’t a lawyer, or is an incompetent lawyer. Had Judge Hazel “placed the injured party in the same position as if the contract had not been performed” he would have ordered the offending content removed, issued an injunction against further breaches and awarded John Hoge his costs, including his time, for repairing the breach. That injunction would have clearly stated the financial penalty for further breaches.

    One would kinda think that if Maryland law believes that a settlement agreement for a breech of federal copyright laws is a valid Maryland contract then Maryland would enforce all federally-issued rights under those copyright laws. Otherwise, the Judge is trying to split the baby by on one hand acknowledging that it was a valid Maryland contract, but, on the other hand, saying it really a federal contract that isn’t of concern to the state of Maryland.

    • You’re sort of right, despite an extraneous ‘not’ in your second set of quotes. Where it falls down is that Schmally’s breach of the agreement did no actual damage that can be proven. Hecker refused to enforce a principle, as a principle, despite the proven breach.

      • This is the second time then that Bill Schmalfeldt got off the hook after being told by a judge that he was wrong. The first time was when he violated the peace order for Mr. Hoge by tweeting at him.

  6. In tangentially-related news, A partial first-amendment victory was won on Wednesday as Techdirt handily won by having the malicious and frivolous defamation lawsuit brought against it by Shiva Ayyadurai be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

    Shiva is some hack now running for congress in Massachusetts who promotes his Tamil spice recipes as a form of woo-woo medicine and most importantly claims that he, and he alone, created the email system that we all use now today in the early ’80s when he was in his early teens. (I’ll give y’all a few minutes to stop laughing, as I assume that our gracious host and some fellow lickapittles may have personally used early email systems prior to 1983)

    He had the chutzpah, when Ray Tomlonson died, to attack publications rembering Ray as the “father of email.”

    In reality, he was hired to write a database-based messaging system that resided solely on one university’s system. Creating no feature not already found in already-exsisting messaging systems, not able to communicate to outside the mainframe it ran on, and not leading to amy descendents.

    Shiva got butthurt at Techdirt calling out media publications for swallowing Shiva’s BS without doing any independent research, using hyperbolic language such as “liar” “fraud” and “charlatan” to describe Shiva and his campaign of lies. (much like team pedo is butthurt about TFS’s equally-truthful writings)
    Ayyadurai sued Techdirt for defamation along with, iirc, interference with business and IIED.

    On Wednesday, the Judge denied Techdirt’s anti-SLAPP motion, but granted their motion to dismiss. Techdirt resides in California, but Shiva sued in Massachusetts, which has a much more pathetic Anti-SLAPP law similar to Maryland’s, which only covers speech to politicians. Techdirt argued that since the defendents are Californian, amd CA law is gives better protection, CA law ahould be used. The judge bizarrely decided that since a website is “published” in Mass. then Massachusetts law is the one that applies.

    Anyway, the judge granted complete dismissal of the case for several reasons, some of them including:
    * He found more than one “definition” of “email.” Whether Techdirt’s statements that Shiva’s claim to have invented “email” are false depends on how one defines email. It’s not the court’s place to decide what email means, therefore the articles are neither true nor false, and thus not defamatory.
    * Every one of Techdirt’s articles are clearly statements of opinion based on disclosed true facts. TD extensively links to the factual records on which they base their conclusions. Shiva provided zero evidence that TD’s sources were false or that TD had reason to believe they were false when they were writing the articles. Thus, the articles are not defamatory.
    *Hyperbolic language to express one’s opinions is protected under 1A.
    * The interference with business prospects amd IIED claims are just repackaging around the defamation claims, supported by nothing but a bare recitation of the elements of those causes. (gee, where have we seen THAT tactic before?)

    In true vexations litigant fasion, Shiva is appealing his defeat, with his lawyer making the false and irrelevent claim that “false speech is not constitutionally protected.”

    • In the late 80s, cutting-edge email involved knowing the names of a significant number of the machines between you and the recipient. You had to chain them together, backwards, so each machine knew where to forward the email.

      So…!!! would be delivered by your computer to, which would deliver it to, and so on.

      This clown wants to claim THAT?!

    • “therefore the articles are neither true nor false, and thus not defamatory”

      Schroedinger’s blog?

      (looks like that’s the name of a music blog… or is it?)

  7. Can someone file a complaint to the bar association about Brett’s conducting himself as a lawyer.

    The association might take action to protect their members; and it would get the court’s notice.

    And Brett did want ” endless lawsuits”. LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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