Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

As the TKPOTD for eight years ago today showed, clarity of thought has never been one of Team Kimberlin’s strong suits.

* * * * *

The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt is lying.CBPR201411121734Z

There is no question that TDPS has posted pictures that meet the definition of pornography under the Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15) standard.

He posted a picture of two men engaging in anal sex with my face photoshopped onto the body of the the one being penetrated. The picture was originally posted at http://radiowms.com/2013/07/19/the-fat-man-episode-004-murdery-me [dead link]. The page disappeared when the copyright holder of the video from which my face had been lifted asked that the picture be removed.

Schmalfeldt posted another picture into which my face had been photoshopped. It showed my face surrounded by naked men with erect penises. Again, the link is dead—this time because the web host took the site down for violation of its policy against porn. The original URL was http://www.patriot-ombudsman.com/oh-cutie-pie-eh-nsfw-you-are-warned. This is the picture which may use a photo of me taken while I was underage.

Even if I could, I wouldn’t post either of those pictures here, but I can’t. Judge Stansfield placed them under seal during the peace order extension hearing last year. However, the pictures are part of the record of the hearing as is Schmalfeldt’s admission of having made and posted them. That record can be used as evidence in any further proceeding.

The Cabin Boy™ is correct in saying that I want no part of anything that is about to happen about, to, or because of him. If he thinks things through with the least bit of clarity, he should realize that he doesn’t want me involved either.

* * * * *

It turned out that Schmalfeldt’s second photoshopped image did us a picture take when I was 17.

It also turned out that Schmalfeldt lost all of the LOLsuits he filed against me.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Copyright trolling and bogus DMCA claims were two of the means that Team Kimberlin used to try to harass people. Their efforts invariably backfired. The TKPOTD for eight years ago today dealt with one of their early failures.

* * * * *

Some of the best comments that I’ve had about Sore Loserman Bill Schmalfeldt’s recent fascination with DMCA takedown notices have come via email from lawyers. Alas, they’re off the record, so I can’t share them, but they’ve given me some interesting ideas.

Let’s review the story thus far.

The photographer who took the headshot photo that I use on the Internet retained the copyright on the image. I use it under license. When he discovered that it was being used as the basis of a pornographic image on one of Schmalfeldt’s websites, he sent a DMCA takedown notice. Schmalfeldt responded by replacing that picture with another pornographic image with my face photoshopped into it. He also posted nine copies of the DMCAed image on Twitter. In addition to those postings, Schmalfeldt retaliated by sending a bogus DMCA notice about material covered by the Fair Use doctrine to the host for this blog.

The copyright holder of the image of my face in the new pornographic picture asked Schmalfeldt to take that image down and he complied on one of his sites, but not on Twitter or any of the hate sites run by Acme for Team Kimberlin.

When I pointed out the hypocrisy of his position vis-á-vis parody images, the remaining porn came down, including stuff on sites such as Breitbart Unmasked and hogewash dot net. However, the Cabin Boy issued a threat of a second DMCA takedown notice to Hogewash! concerning a parody image created by one of my readers.

When I refused to be bullied over a Fair Use parody, Schmalfeldt issued the second takedown notice. And he posted another image of me that he describes as “obscene.” He’s right about that.

Schmalfeldt makes all sorts of claims about copyright law. I don’t think I’ve seen one that’s correct.

He claims that Fair Use audio clips are limited to 30 second. Of course, there’s no such limit in the Copyright Act, and the case law specifically allows for a whole work to be reproduced in some instances of Fair Use.

He has his “check list” about what qualifies for Fair Use. It’s different from the one in 17 USC §107, the one Congress enacted into law and that the courts really use.

He thinks he can drag people into court in Maryland. That’ll work for me. But Lee Stranahan, for example, lives in Texas, and DMCA cases are tried in the federal court district where the defendant resides. 28 USC §1338 gives U. S. District Courts jurisdiction on copyright matters. 17 USC §512(g)(3)(D) specifies that the appropriate District Court is the one with jurisdiction over the alleged infringer’s address in the case of a DMCA dispute. Relying of books about copyright law published before the DMCA took effect may not be a wise strategy.

Getting legal advice from Acme may be even worse.

Meep, meep.

* * * * *

BTW, a third image of my face that Schmalfeldt photoshopped into a pornographic image was lifted from the Vanderbilt University annual for my sophomore year. It turns out that the headshot he lifted had been taken during the first semester of my freshman year in the fall of 1965. I turned 18 on 31 December, 1965, so I was 17 when the photo was taken. I was underage, and he photoshopped that headshot into a pornographic image.

Bill Schmalfeldt claims he has never produced child pornography.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

In a comment to last Friday’s TKPOTD, a certain cockroach suggested that Bill Schmalfeldt might want to review the statute of limitations in Maryland before returning to the state, It turns out that’s good advice. Consider this information in this post On the Use of Underage Images from five years ago today and the update that follows.

* * * * *

Last year, Bill Schmalfeldt photoshopped my face into a couple of pornographic homoerotic images which he published on the Internet. Those images and their publication formed part of the basis for the extension of the peace order against him that was issued last December.

One of the images of my face was lifted from a college year book picture. While the yearbook was published for my sophomore year, the picture may be a file photo that was actually been taken in autumn of 1965 during my freshman year. I turned 18 on 31 December, 1965.

Thus, it is possible that one of the pornographic images Schmalfeldt published contains a juvenile image of me.

* * * * *

It turns out that the picture of me that Schmalfeldt used was taken when I was still only 17.

Jeffrey Epstein was unavailable for comment, and he didn’t kill himself either.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt is lying.CBPR201411121734Z

There is no question that TDPS has posted pictures that meet the definition of pornography under the Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15) standard.

He posted a picture of two men engaging in anal sex with my face photoshopped onto the body of the the one being penetrated. The picture was originally posted at http://radiowms.com/2013/07/19/the-fat-man-episode-004-murdery-me [dead link]. The page disappeared when the copyright holder of the video from which my face had been lifted asked that the picture be removed.

Schmalfeldt posted another picture into which my face had been photoshopped. It showed my face surrounded by naked men with erect penises. Again, the link is dead—this time because the web host took the site down for violation of its policy against porn. The original URL was http://www.patriot-ombudsman.com/oh-cutie-pie-eh-nsfw-you-are-warned. This is the picture which may use a photo of me taken while I was underage.

Even if I could, I wouldn’t post either of those pictures here, but I can’t. Judge Stansfield placed them under seal during the peace order extension hearing last year. However, the pictures are part of the record of the hearing as is Schmalfeldt’s admission of having made and posted them. That record can be used as evidence in any further proceeding.

The Cabin Boy™ is correct in saying that I want no part of anything that is about to happen about, to, or because of him. If he thinks things through with the least bit of clarity, he should realize that he doesn’t want me involved either.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Next Tuesday, the next set of hearings in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit will be held to deal with motions to compel discovery from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin and motions for summary judgment. Writing about TDPK’s present situation might provide him with insight into how to better argue his case, so for the next few days, I’ll be recycling some oldies from the TKPOD Greatest Hits section.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Originally posted on 15 December, 2013

RICOMadnessThe Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is no stranger to filing—and losing—RICO lawsuits. While he was still in prison, he ran a business selling porn to other jailbirds. When he lost his original connection for the porn, he turned to a new source, but was unsatisfied with what was provided. On page 213 of Mark Singer’s Citizen K we find:

In January 1987, in federal court in Madison, Wisconsin, Kimberlin sued Crest Paragon Productions, alleging false advertising, breach of contract, mail fraud, conspiracy, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). … He asked for compensatory and punitive damages totaling $150,000. After “a [redacted] Reagan appointee” dismissed the suit on procedural grounds, Brett appealed to the Seventh Circuit but was told he’d have to pay an additional filing fee. “I decided at that point I’d spent enough on this,” he said.

One wonders when he will come to the same realization in his current Rico Madness.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

DredPedoKmbrlnIn his biography of Brett Kimberlin, Mark Singer discusses the pornography business that Kimberlin ran while he was in prison selling porn to other inmates. On p. 203 of Citizen K, he describes how the business ended after he lost his original connection and tried a new source.

In January 1987, in a federal court in Madison, Wisconsin, Kimberlin sued Crest Paragon Productions, alleging false advertising, breach of contract, mail fraud, conspiracy, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). According to the complaint, instead of the thirty magazines and sixteen books Kimberlin expected when he responded to a back-of-the-book advertisement placed by Crest Paragon, he was sent “fifteen pamphlets and three paperback books of low quality.”

Though Kimberlin felt conflicted because “I could have made a fortune on that stuff inside prison if it wasn’t contraband,” mainly he felt compelled to sue. He asked for compensatory and punitive damages totaling $150,000.

The Gentle Reader will probably not be surprised to learn that the case was thrown out of court.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Yesterday, I noted a similarity between the Prenda Law case and the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. case—that both Penda’s lawyers and The Dread Pirate Kimberlin had taken the Fifth during civil lawsuits. There’s another parallel between Prenda and TDPK.

Porn.

Prenda is a copyright troll going after individuals who have downloaded pornographic videos for which it claims to control the copyrights.

Brett Kimberlin dealt pornography to other inmates while he was in prison and was also involved in a porn related lawsuit. There’s a section (pp., 202, 203) in Mark Singer’s book Citizen K that describes TDPK’s attempted suing of his source for $150,000 in damages because the porn wasn’t sufficiently exciting.