Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign


Johnny Atsign Logo 2ANNOUNCER: From Westminster, it’s time for—

SOUND: Skype rings once.

JOHNNY: Johnny Atsign.

GRAYSON: (Telephone Filter) Johnny, It’s Peter Grayson.

JOHNNY: Well, I haven’t heard from you for while. What’s up, Peter?

GRAYSON: (Telephone Filter) More legal nonsense. The Grouch has filed another LOLsuit against me.

JOHNNY: How many does that make? Three?

GRAYSON: (Telephone Filter) Four, if you count that peace order. I’d like to send you a copy of the complaint and have you mark it up with notes referring to evidence you have on hand.

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. Continue reading

Pro Bonehead LULZ Du Jour


By now, the Gentle Reader may have noticed that the Cabin Boy™ is prone to making outlandishly asinine statements, e.g.—BS201608250424ZThe Dreadful Pro-Se Freeloader Schmalfeldt’s lawyer was “recruited” by the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Illinois to represent Bill Schmalfeldt. He is not doing so voluntarily, but under the order of the court.

Patrick Ostronic’s representation of me (and Ali Akbar, Stacy McCain, and Aaron Walker at various stages of the first case) in a couple of lawsuits filed by Brett Kimberlin was purely voluntary. He learned about the Popehat signal going up because of the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit while reading Instapundit, read Ken White’s post, and decided to represent me. I’m thankful that Ken White and Glenn Reynolds helped by publicizing the first Kimberlin case, and I’m especially grateful for Patrick Ostronic, his commitment to the First Amendment, and his pro bono representation of me in two of the four lawsuits The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed against me.

In one case, a lawyer read about a situation and volunteered his services to represent a defendant. In the other case, a lawyer was drafted by a court to represent a plaintiff who claimed pauper status while reporting a middle class income. The Gentle Reader may decide for himself if either case involves freeloading.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Today is The Dreadful Pro-Se Freeloader Schmalfeldt’s big day when he gets to meet with his freebie lawyer that the court has assigned to help him with his LOLsuit VII: Degenerations. That unfortunate lawyer has his work cut out for him. If the case is going to go forward, he’ll have to draft an amended complaint that actually alleges the elements of least one tort and that has admissible evidence to back up its allegations. There’s nothing like that in TDFS’s current complaint.

I haven’t got time to dissect his entire complaint, so I’ll just use his defamation claims as an example. He cites two quotes, one from Paul Krendler and one from Sarah Palmer to show how he was supposedly defamed. The quote from Sarah Palmer is a pure expression of personal opinion which clearly protected speech under the First Amendment—the inapposite bit of case law the Cabin Boy™ cites does not change that.

The Krendler quote is taken out of context, and the reference cited at The Thinking Man’s Zombie is false. I did manage to find the quote on a different website. The words quoted in the complaint are preceded by these—

Oh, and just an aside…by the above I do not mean to suggest in any way that

which means that the words TDFS claims are defamatory are not words that Krendler offers as being true.

I think it would be highly unlikely that any lawyer would be willing to risk Rule 11 sanctions by allowing a client to make such a false allegation.

The Cabin Boy™ should have an informative day today.

I’m Not Making This Up, You Know


Jim Rutenberg, the “Mediator” at the New York Times, has an opinion piece up expressing concern over the challenge of reporting objectively on Donald Trump.

It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

Walter Duranty was unavailable for comment. Read the whole thing.

Who to Vote Against?


I don’t see anyone to vote for among the nominees for President this year (even among the minor parties). Of course, being in Maryland, my vote doesn’t really count. The state is so heavily Democrat that if the election were close enough for my vote against Hillary to matter, the national election will be a 48- or 49-state blowout. In that case, Maryland’s electoral votes wouldn’t matter, so pushing the state one way or the other won’t really swing the election.

Those of you living in the swing states will have to do the choosing this year. One of the likely differences between the candidates is how they will handle Supreme Court appointments. Reason has collected a series of comments worth reading. FWIW, I tend to agree with Glenn Reynolds’ analysis.

The future of the Supreme Court under Hillary is clearly dreadful: appointees would be to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and probably corrupt to boot. Under Trump it’s unclear: His list of potential appointees actually looked pretty good, but with Trump you never know what he’ll actually do. So I’d say it’s a choice between certainly awful, and possibly awful.

Read the whole thing.

Amending the Bill of Rights


Over at WaPo, Dave Weigel has a piece about Hillary Clinton’s promise to seek to “amend” the First Amendment in order to eliminate the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision. That’s an important personal goal for her because what that decision actually did was tell the Federal Election Commission that it could not prevent Citizens United from showing a video that told inconvenient truths about Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election. She views that as a severe flaw in the First Amendment.

Of course, that’s not the only part of the pesky Bill of Rights that she feels needs … um … modernizing … yeah, that’s the sort of word she’d use … modernizing. Clearly, the Second Amendment will have to go entirely, and the Fourth and Fifth will need work as well, except as they might apply to certain charitable foundations.

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 infamous cyberstalker has filed a bar complaint against a First Amendment lawyer. Your job … help 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. Continue reading