Category: Blogging

One Week Until Bill Schmalfeldt’s Next Carroll County Circuit Court Hearing

Posted on Comments

The day before Thanksgiving Day, I asked a simple question:

Why does it seem that the targets of Bill Schmalfeldt’s harassment overlap Brett Kimberlin’s enemies list with such exactitude?

It was Schmalfeldt’s harassment of the person he believes to be “Kimberlin Unmasked” that prompted that question, and “Kimberlin Unmasked” has continued the comic series “Oedipal Bill”:

Schmalfeldt paid little or no attention to “Kimberlin Unmasked” until Brett Kimberlin filed the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit, and it was amusing to watch Brett Kimberlin in court last week trying to explain his failure respond to an attorney’s motion asserting that Maryland courts have no jurisdiction over “Kimberlin Unmasked.”

Of course, Schmalfeldt has been convinced by his Team Kimberlin colleagues that not only is this Maryland lawsuit a shining example of legal brilliance, but that the federal RICO suit known as Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al., is destined to succeed. Meanwhile . . .

In Carroll County next Monday, Dec. 9, there will be a hearing on John Hoge’s petition for a six-month extension on his peace order against Bill Schmalfeldt. To say that Schmalfeldt has been making an ass of himself is an understatement: He posted a video of himself tearing up a court document in the case, posted pornographic photos onto which he had superimposed Hoge’s face and, as of 7 p.m. today, had sent 468 @ messages to Hoge on Twitter since Oct. 16, in violation of the peace order the judge granted in June.

Despite all facts, law and logic, however, Schmalfeldt continues boasting on Twitter about what dreadful humiliation and punishment he expects to inflict on Hoge in court next Monday, and seems to imagine that our amusement at his antics is un-Christian.

Saint Bill of the Blessed Butt Stuff is certainly a paragon of Christian moral virtue, as I’m sure Lee Stranahan’s family would agree.




 

 


‘I’m Not Some Whack Job,’ Says Jailed Alabama Blogger Roger Shuler

Posted on Comments

Roger Shuler, Shelby County Jail inmate No. 288928

Popehat’s last update on the case carried this headline:

Alabama Court, Roger Shuler Continue To
Thwart Roger Shuler’s First Amendment Rights

The man is his own worst enemy. Even if you wanted to help a guy who had claimed that a federal judge once posed for a porn site — and refused to retract the claim even after the judge adamantly denied it — the kind of help he needs is a good lawyer, and Roger Shuler insists on representing himself, which he does quite badly.

Shuler was sued for defamation (not by the judge, but by another Republican) and refused to attend an October court hearing at which a judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for an injunction, so the judge had him arrested for contempt. Popehat says the injunction is unconstitutional as “prior restraint,” and Shuler also has the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, but at a hearing two weeks ago, Shuler refused to exercise his right to a court-appointed attorney.

If your goal in life is to be a First Amendment martyr, maybe this makes sense. Meanwhile, however, you’re wearing an orange jumpsuit in the Shelby County Jail, and you’re probably not helping yourself with interviews like this:

“To call it a kangaroo court is an insult to kangaroos,” Shuler said. “It’s worse than a joke.” . . .
He said he is deeply suspicious of the criminal justice system in Alabama — one of the reasons Shuler said he will represent himself in the case, as he has done in a number of previous legal skirmishes.
He quickly added, “I’m not some whack job who doesn’t want help. I want legal help, but it has to be the right kind of help. I’ve had some bad experiences with lawyers, and those experiences tell me that lawyers tend to take your money and represent the other side.”

OK, he hates judges and he distrusts lawyers, and he doesn’t seem to understand why this attitude leads to trouble, or why even those who otherwise want to help him might be reluctant to do so.

Can you explain to me again how Roger Shuler is not a “whack job”?

 

Helping Dr. Helen Sort All This Out

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Let’s lay down a few Lefty assertions that, while not absolutely true, may have some explanatory power:

  1. The federal government, staffed with ‘officials’ and ‘experts’, is your parent.
  2. You are a sheep, lacking free will, and are a sort of hormonal robot.
  3. You are a guilt-free slut-o-matic, or dildo with feet, and should both consider the natural plumbing a mere going-in position (heh), and indulge every hedonistic whim in the name of “liberty”.
  4. All of the traditional moral frameworks are, like, over 100 years old. Who can understand them? If you feel a transient confusion, see #1. In any case, do not keep your hormones to yourself, reach a proper adulthood, and attempt to rise above your 20g chocolate ration.
  5. All women are victims, and all males are oppressors. Building upon #4, the notion of equality before the law, irrespective of the selected gender identity of the moment, is dispatched to the midden-heap of history. (How can Democrats build a permanent political hegemony if treating everyone truly equally?)
  6. You are a victim. You didn’t build that family, you’ll never build that family, but if you give everything to #1, the feddle gummint can ensure that nobody else can, either.
  7. So eat, drink, be merry: for that is the career the feddle gummint has set for you.

Dr. Helen is mystified at the asymmetry of college kids, booze, and sex:

Why is it that women can’t think if drunk but men can? Why is it always about men controlling themselves and being responsible for any sex act while women are treated as children?

Given the aforementioned assertions, what we have in modern college is a cultural grinder whose chief product is Democrat sheep who will do several things:

  • make a lot of money, as they are rendered too stupid to grasp heterosexuality and the joy of parenting, and
  • give that money to the Democratic party, and finally,
  • never question what their Progressive Overlords say, as they’re too intellectually stunted.

Of course, that’s idiotic. It’s a purely myopic, culturally destructive, near-term approach. Following such an approach would lead to things like a “knockout game”, and holiday shopping spectacles indistinguishable from a rugby scrum. What country would be stupid enough to buy into all that?

via Instapundit

In The Mailbox: Black Friday

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho




CLASSIC THANKSGIVING LEFTOVERS
The Desolate Wilderness
The New Land


OVER THE TRANSOM
First Street Journal: Democrats Lie; What Else Is New?
Proof Positive: Pilgrims Elect To Receive
Dead Republican Party: Official Obamabot Thanksgiving Litany
Michelle Malkin: Thanksgiving 2013
Twitchy: “Best Pic Captions Of The Day” – Oprah vs. Dr. Ben Carson On Obamacare


RIPPED FROM TODAY’S HEADLINES
American Power: Depraved Leftists Escalate Assault On Thanksgiving
American Thinker: The Knockout Game – What Took Conservative Media So Long To Notice?
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: This Actually Happening
The Necropolitan Sentinel: Obamacare Watch – Check Out The Contractors
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, November 27-28
Jammie Wearing Fools: Goofing On Joan Walsh For Saying She Knows More About African-American History Than The Average White Person
JustOneMinute: It Takes A Village – To Find Hillarity’s Accomplishments
Pat Dollard: State Department Blames Closing Of Vatican City Embassy On Benghazi
Protein Wisdom: Documents – Karl Rove Gave Grover Norquist $26 Million In 2012
Shot In The Dark: Equity
The Jawa Report: Obamacare Bureaucracy Cancels Little Boy’s Life-Saving Cancer Treatments
The Lonely Conservative: NLRB Gives Unions The OK To Pay People To Protest At Walmart
Megan McArdle: A Fight Over Contraception Won’t Help Obamacare


Deadline to submit links for tomorrow’s FMJRA is noon Saturday; it used to be midnight Friday, but I don’t get up as early as I used to on weekends any more. Anyway –
DO IT.


Be Thankful for Bill Schmalfeldt

Posted on Comments

The biggest laughingstock on the Web  has been providing hours of entertainment, thanks to “Kimberlin Unmasked” — my co-defendant in the Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. — who has been turning Bill Schmalfeldt’s ridiculous rants into a series of comics. Among my favorites in the series are “Oedipal Bill #22: Internet Detective,” and “Oedipal Bill #23: Play It Again, Sam!”

Kimberlin Unmasked offers this mission statement:

Kimberlin Unmasked mocks Breitbart Unmasked, which was originally about defaming Andrew Breitbart, and has over 90 posts about Brett Kimberlin and even posts pictures Brett Kimberlin himself took. Brett Kimberlin claims he doesn’t want people talking about his criminal past, or his present-day activities. But his lawsuits have given rise to the Streisand effect. If you want to know more, follow @bombersues on twitter and sign up for updates at bombersuesbloggers.com.

In recent days, Schmalfeldt has been relentlessly harassing Kimberlin Unmasked, to whom Schmalfeldt paid little attention until . . . ?

Kimberlin Unmasked was sued by Brett Kimberlin!

Why does it seem that the targets of Bill Schmalfeldt’s harassment overlap Brett Kimberlin’s enemies list with such exactitude?

We might get an answer to that question if the Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., goes to trial, but that seems unlikely.

One of the things Bill Schmalfeldt, Neal Rauhauser and other members of the Brett Kimberlin Internet Fan Club (BKIFC) have been doing the past couple of months is anticipating all the awesome consequences of Brett Kimberlin’s future courtroom victories.

Unlikely.

And by “unlikely,” of course I mean, “Dream on, dancing bear.”

Ain’t gonna happen.

Tuesday I met with my lawyer, Patrick Ostronic. Schmalfeldt and the BKIFC have spent a lot of time mocking my lawyer lately. Very amusing, if you understand that (a) Brett Kimberlin is litigating pro se, as his own lawyer, and (b) Patrick Ostronic is a real lawyer.

Graduated from law school, passed his bar exams, stuff like that.

Hypothetical Question: Would it count as “intentional infliction of emotional distress” to humiliate Brett Kimberlin in court?

Anyway, there is a hearing today in Montgomery County Circuit Court, a strictly procedural affair that is unlikely to produce any actual news, although we can expect Bill Schmalfeldt and the BKIFC to pronounce it a legal triumph for the pro se Perry Mason.

Enjoy the laughs, and be sure to shop our Amazon Black Friday Week Specials, because the bottom line is this: We win, they lose.

And then we laugh at their loser asses.

Good people love me. And that’s all that really matters, isn’t it?

 

BomberSuesBloggers.com

 




 

‘It Is Not Journalism. It’s Crime.’

Posted on Comments

Barrett Brown promotes atheism on Fox News, January 2009

Until this afternoon, I had never heard of Catherine Fitzpatrick, but in September she put up an excellent and lengthy article debunking the Barrett Brown victim myth. Fitzpatrick first encountered Barrett circa 2005 in the online virtual world Second Life, where he was part of a pack of so-called “griefers” who engaged in destructive activity:

In Second Life, by his own admission, Brown participated in raids which crashed the servers of people holding live music events or discussions or just hanging out. I have no idea if he personally crashed my servers, but I believe that he did, because he stopped by my blog here several times to heckle and the group was small in SL and tended to do everything together. The PNs as they were called were notorious and everyone knew about them in this relatively small community. I was singled out for attack because I began blogging about their vigilantism and harassment tactics starting in 2005. When they attacked the John Edwards Campaign in Second Life in 2006 and committed other coercive acts of hacking against speech they didn’t like, I quickly saw that far from fighting for freedom from cults like the Scientologists, they were in fact engaged in a turf war for power over the Internet, and wanted to impose a regime where no one could live unless they accepted their arbitrary rule.

Fitzpatrick’s insight about “vigilantism and harassment tactics” is crucial to understanding all such anarchist activity. This is not about politics, but about the use of illegal “coercive acts of hacking” to attack one’s enemies. To accept political claims as justification of these crimes — Barrett Brown and others, including Jeremy Hammond, have characterized their crimes as “civil disobedience” — is to invite a sort of Hobbesian war of “all against all” where the sole determination of authority is simply who is more skillfully ruthless.

Few conservative writers have paid any attention to Barrett Brown, with the result that nearly all journalism about him is by liberals who sympathetically repeat the self-serving claims made on Brown’s behalf by his hacker buddies, a reverential attitude which ignores the fact that many members of Anonymous resented Barrett’s arrogant glory-hogging and never really trusted him. Catherine Fitzpatrick also points out that the paranoid conspiracy theories Barrett and his supporters created about HB Gary are fundamentally wrong:

The tech press is filled with so many gloating accounts of the hack of HBGary . . . that it is hard to clear away the cloud of hacker obfuscation and social-hacking to realize: Aaron Barr and his colleagues did nothing wrong by planning to respond to the challenge of hacking through various measures which are legal — and if unethical, no different than any that Anonymous itself first used, with far greater damage. Aaron Barr and Greg Hoglund were never indicted for any crimes, nor did any of the people they identified wind up being falsely arrested. Instead, real hackers who committed real crimes were arrested and sentenced, or turned informants, or are awaiting trial, like Brown.
A key reason is because Jennifer Emick . . . an Anonymous “hacktivist” who had joined the movement in 2008 to fight Scientology for personal reasons of seeing a relative caught up in the cult, and had been inspired by the fight for Internet freedom in Tunisia and elsewhere, became repulsed and concerned when she saw the hackers turn against others including HBGary. She enlisted the FBI’s cooperation, and eventually one of the chief LulzSec hackers discovered — Sabu — was turned into an informant, and his information led to the arrest of others. Naturally, those hackers who remain at large continue to attack her viciously in all the infamous ways that Anonymous has become known for — exposing her private information, a form of harassment known as “doxing,” stalking her and her family, making harassment phone calls, pizza deliveries and even prank calls to police or child welfare authorities. I’ve had a lot of this done to me over the years merely for blogging about the criminality of these people, so I have a sense of what it is like.
It is not journalism. It’s crime. . . .

You really should read the whole thing and notice that Catherine Fitzpatrick feels obligated to say she doesn’t like me because my “violent statements and extreme views are really a turn-off,” even while she references my own analysis of Barrett Brown’s illegal activities.

This is an important point: You don’t have to like me to agree with me when I’m right. (Although, of course, I’m always right.)

 

‘Gender Integration’ = FAIL

Posted on Comments

This is both hysterically funny and pathetically sad:

The Army colonel who wrote an internal email suggesting public affairs officers use photos of “average-looking women” when they need to illustrate stories about female soldiers has stepped down as the leader of an Army study on gender integration.
Army spokesman George Wright confirmed on Saturday that Col. Lynette Arnhart had agreed to step aside from the Training and Doctrine Command study she was leading.
In addition, Wright said, Col. Christian Kubik, a public affairs officer at TRADOC, was suspended for his involvement in the email chain.
“In order to protect the integrity of the ongoing work on gender integration in the Army, Col. Lynette Arnhart agreed to step down as the gender integration study director,” Wright said in a statement. “Concurrently, TRADOC suspended Col. Christian Kubik from his position as the public affairs officer pending the outcome of an investigation.”

I agree with Ann Althouse that this was a silly “scandal” — two military careers wrecked because of an internal e-mail — but the larger problem remains: MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT.

Insofar as they are different, they are not equal, because equality implies fungibility — sameness, so that one may be substituted for the other — and therefore the attempt to equalize things which are not the same is foredoomed to failure. What inevitably occurs in these kinds of social-engineering experiments is a lot of official make-believe, in which people are required to pretend that the failing policy is actually a success. Telling the truth becomes a firing offense.

The people who are ramming these policies through the Pentagon in the name of “gender integration” should be ashamed of themselves for perpetrating such a fraud. It is a dishonest and dangerous policy that is harmful to America’s national security.

 


The Hate-Troll Sockpuppet

Posted on Comments

After a while, you learn to discern the pattern:

  1. Not operated by a named person.
  2. Not associated with any organization.
  3. Lots of hashtags and/or slogans in the profile to signal ideological solidarity.
  4. Lack of organic content.
  5. Associates with other known trolls.

There are other traits — dots in the pattern — but the point is that such an account has no basis of responsibility.

No name, no location, no one to take the blame, so that when the account stops its automated “bot” function and begins harassing people, the target of the harassment finds himself arguing with a digital shadow. This type of account, the Hate-Troll Sockpuppet, deliberately spews insults in an attempt to provoke the target into an angry rage.

Do this: If you or any of your Twitter friends are ever waylaid by one of these accounts, do not immediately engage them. Instead, check out their timeline and look for the pattern. Have they previously done this to other people? Is their usual method of “argument” to hurl insults and obscenities? Going back-and-forth on Twitter with such an account is a complete waste of time. Just expose them:

See the point? It is a fact that many accounts like this are operated by the kind of drug addicts, criminals and perverts who supported the “Occupy” movement. The reason they don’t put their names on the accounts is because if people knew who they really were, nobody would have anything to do with them. (See, for example, the mentally ill convicted prostitute Melissa Brewer, or the convicted sex criminal John Thiessen or anal-rape enthusiast Bill Schmafeldt.) Their obscene derangement and obsessive hatred of normal people are never coincidental.

A hate-troll’s gotta hate-troll.

So if an account like this gets in your face on Twitter, remember: It’s not about you, and there is no “argument” to win. They have harassed others before, and will keep on harassing people as long as they have Internet access. It’s who they are. It’s what they do.

You can never know exactly who is operating a Hate-Troll Sockpuppet account, but a pseudonym can’t sue for libel, either.