Anyone know anything about this guy?

[Demosthenes]

From: J. <johngimbel@charter.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: u need to shoot all u.s. and u.s. states' cops-pigs-vermin in their fucking mouths today, then...

...then drag their families and children with thick cables and trucks, video-ed on the nt.

that's the law.

[Imalawman]

Nope and don't wanna. It was people like him that we had armed escorts at civil tax hearings. Absolute scum of the earth.

[Demosthenes]

Looks like he has a history of threatening people.

A PARTICULAR DECLARATION OF JOHN GIMBEL IN SUPPORT OF TRANSFER

THERE EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED I N THE LOCAL JUDICIARY, THE DEL
NORTE COURT ON THIS CASE, A TIMELESS, ONGOING NIGHTMARE-MOCK OF REVIEW, CONDEMNABLE, WILLFULLY DIRTY ATTENTION TO DETAIL, TO RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT AND TO FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE; LET ME CITE MERELY A SINGULAR EXAMPLE AMONG SCORES OF EXAMPLES

DISCUSSION:
There persists to defendant presently also the question as to whether the alleged victim, the
police chief, has also named himself the chief investigator; if so, would this be to "color" the accusation and see to such as smiling smiley, "emoticon," deletions, one might ask? As follows:
Police and all local authority are well documented by defendant to have quoted the post out of context, leaving out a yellow-sun, smiling smiley with sunglasses,"emoticon,"which exactly accompanied the post as integral to the whole speech. It has been laboriously documented by defendant that *they made no screenshot of the post, left mention of it deliberately out of the police report, then had post deleted at the forum; and, that their exact, every move was the exact, pure similitude of the moves one would make to destroy the evidence of the smiling smiley, integral to the post, a piece of Gimbel's exact posting authorship, sweep it under the rug forever, among other things. THEREFORE: Whether ones muses THEIR EXACT ACT as deliberate or not, (and defendant is certain of deliberate), the technicality persists to the case that suppression of speech HAS OCCURRED at the hands of the police, contrary to the stern warning in Watts vs. United States, Supreme Court, that, "Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device outlawed by our constitution." To wit: the full "speak" of Gimbel at the forum included the authorship of the smiling smiley. For whatever reason, it was suppressed--and his life

*Footnote: Both front arresting officer (dep. McManus) and alleged victim (pol. chief D. Plack)
are caught on tape in Dec. 2004 admitting they don't even know what a computer "screenshot"
is. To wit: In this relatively-yet, new computering age, especially even moreso in 2004, they don't know beans about computers or its net forums either. They just wanted to appear at defendant's house to see if they
could get some target practice on him and to "play hound dog" with the defendant because he was speaking a form of pure political hyperbole that displeased them. There is a vehemently serious issue here not only pertinent to a police and D.A. charge which is a hands down, first amendment violation by them in the 1st place, but tons of acquitable factors lie about everywhere of themselves . Defendant indicates...just let these persecutors "do their damndest" now, because no piddly technicality will "green up my freedom"; i.e., I'll soak these persecutors, and/or errant persecutors' empowerments to the max in my civil cross file for the 2 years of their exact all-but-murdering-me in my decades long, extremely frail health--by this local judiciary, enforcement, "authority," to which I've been subjected to date.
has been ripped out from him steadily now to date for nearing 2 years running over these charges, case, still hanging out there, now into appeal. Habeas relief will undoubtedly be sought somewhere if people don't start listening, but defendant thinks first appellate court of appeals in San Francisco could stand to look at this case. Defendant has been all but murdered by his ordeal.
Defendant "swears to God" he doesn't even really want "some vindicating technicality" present to
his case because he has consistently believed the speech to be allowable. Defendant dreads the idea that the prosecution, local cops, and authority up here, now possibly awakening to being caught for an illegal, unheard-of-lengthy ordeal of personal retribution, persecution and destruction of evidence that has transpired against Gimbel up here for pure speech,"might be all over, agreeing and 'yah-yah' " on vacating over a technicality to avoid the inevitable assault-arrest charges against themselves which Gimbel will pursue in a civil cross file for wrongful arrest, asf. (they laid 12 to 20 pair SWAT hands and 8 or more squad car-hands on him; but, Gimbel let himself be arrested peacefully, is not in dispute; an advising attorney made clear they could be charged in the civil action with assault and battery because they laid hands on one). Let if further be hereby known that defendant, Gimbel, made the only screenshot in creation of the posting.
WE NOW PERFORM OUR ANALYSIS
OF THE SMILING SMILEY, THE SAME
EVIDENCE WHICH THE POLICE ATTEMPTED
TO DESTROY, TO SHOW THAT THESE AND ALL
ISSUES WHICH MIGHT PERTAIN TO STUDYING
MATTERS OF LAW SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED LOCALLY

AS PERTAINS TO THE ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE SMILING SMILEY ONLY, we believe that 2 words that ostensibly analyze the smiley inclusion in the post in terms of the author's "expression" in the forum, to his audience, are: "SMILE" and "SERIOUS." Generally, the same as: "SMILE/smiling"; and,{whether}"SERIOUS."
Fact: the smiling smiley was part of the exact post. Fact: The charges are concerned ONLY with anything quantitatively "serious" about the post. Apart from finding it, the prosecutors must begone, for the case would be minimally not prosecutable, also acquitable, because the main element of 4 of 71 PC is absent. Despite the attempt to destroy the evidence of the smiling smiley by the police, the smiley makes a contribution the same as any other character of letters or expression within the post. The defense is concerned whether that contribution is anything to do correct freedom of expression to extents that any alleged concern-as-to-"serious" is exonerated. We believe that this smiley, among other elements of the speech, firmly exonerates the post as both correct freedom of expression, and that the main component of the smiley is held to be the smile itself, which does this. Hence, again: The prosecution: issue="serious."The defense: issue="smiling." We draw the 2 words for our discussion from this insight.
We will show that one cannot be the other by all expressions allotted us in the authoritative dictionaries of our time. By this, we are fairly examining the posting in terms of this particular component (the smiling smiley) of the whole expression (entire posting) for that with which any crime of "threat," as 71 PC here, is concerned: i.e., "serious" threat or not.
(Other key words that revolve about the "significance" of the whole post in terms of criminal events and CA 71 PC are: "threat"; "serious"; "intent." We will look among the 1st tier, major definitions of our two words, "SERIOUS" and "SMILE" for any existence of these other words as well, or similar, as we pursue our analysis of the smiling smiley in the post....)
To show what the police illegally did, then went to cover up, after they had satisfied themselves to have splurged their personal SWAT wrath on Gimbel's face and rip out his home only for personal reasons, we go to the best online site for word definitions for English that factually exists: http://www.onelook.com/?w=SERIOUS&ls=a
At this site, for any word entered, you can view the particular word in any one of a host of world famous dictionaries of English.
What we will do is enter first the word "SERIOUS," then the word "SMILING," and posit here the first tier, major definitions of each contained in the first 5 major dictionaries. (Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition; Compact Oxford English Dictionary; Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition; The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus; The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language;) You will see this first tier also becomes clearly, per the major definitions of these words, another front line of defense which further clearly vindicates this case.
It will definitively show an author and freelancer at work who expressed himself with the smiling smiley for a purpose; that purpose ostensibly to share his style of political hyperbole to an epitome of distaste that he feels certain subjects he writes about warrant, ("...welcome {caustic}as a bee sting"--Hustler Mag. Inc. vs Falwell; Supreme Court; affirming right to publish such), but includes positive, clueing signs that such as this is the entire matter; i.e., it is but a piece of writing about his subject. The positive inclusion of the smiling smiley, e.g., was a full, clueing, safety inclusion in that writing effort, (among MANY other safety devices present which he is aware of), and that is why the police saw they would have to destroy its evidence.
Let's start with the word "SERIOUS":

SERIOUS: WORDSMYTHE ONLINE:
Definition 1. marked by careful, weighty thinking. Example She gave his application a serious review. Synonyms thoughtful (2) , painstaking Crossref. Syn. solid , earnest , businesslike Similar Words ruminative {ruminate (vi)} , meditative , sincere , careful , meticulous , contemplative Definition 2. not lighthearted; sober; grave. Example a man with a serious nature. Synonyms earnest1 (1) , sober (3) , grave2 (3) Crossref. Syn. solemn Similar Words somber , grim , severe , unsmiling {smile (vi)} , staid , solemn , humorless {humor (n)} Definition 3. not trivial; important; weighty. Example Pollution is a serious matter. Synonyms important (1) , heavy (3) , grave2 (1) , crucial , weighty (3) Crossref. Syn. deep , great , earnest Similar Words momentous , far-reaching , fateful , significant , great , vital , consequential Definition 4. causing apprehension or requiring immediate attention. Example a serious heart problem ; a serious financial crisis. Synonyms grave2 (1) , critical (3) , acute (3) , alarming , exigent (1) Crossref. Syn. deep , grave Similar Words severe , fearful , heavy , menacing {menace (vt)} , dangerous , bad , harmful , hazardous , crucial , perilous Related Words solid , tragic , steady , hopeless , profound , critical , high , literal , real , thoughtful , pressing , austere , urgent , important , nasty , capital Derived Forms seriously, adv. ; seriousness, n.

SERIOUS: MSN ENCARTA:
se·ri·ous [ s?ree ?ss ] adjective Definitions: 1. very bad or great: very great, bad, dangerous, harmful, or difficult to handle 2. important: important or grave enough to require thought and attention a serious difference of opinion 3. thoughtful or thought-provoking: discussing or dealing with matters in a thoughtful or thought-provoking way, as opposed to in a superficial or merely entertaining manner; e.g., a serious discussion of the issues
4. not lighthearted: quiet, thoughtful, not laughing or making jokes very often, and always being sensible 5. meaning something literally: not joking, pretending, or exaggerating about something
Do you think she's serious about helping us out?
6. dedicated to something: showing great interest in or commitment to an endeavor, skill, or pastime; e.g., a serious stamp collector 7. likely to succeed: having a possibility of success, or showing an intention to succeed; e.g., serious candidates for the job
8. substantial: substantial or sustained rather than trivial or insignificant ( informal )
I've invested serious money in this venture. [15th century. Via French / late Latin seriosus / Latin serius] se·ri·ous·nessn

SERIOUS: COMPACT OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY:
• adjective 1 demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application. 2 solemn or thoughtful. 3 sincere and in earnest, rather than joking or half-hearted. 4 significant or worrying in terms of danger or risk: serious injury. 5 informal substantial in terms of size, number, or quality: serious money. — DERIVATIVES seriousness noun. — ORIGIN Latin serius 'earnest, serious'.

SERIOUS: MERRIAM WEBSTER ONLINE:
Main Entry: se·ri·ous Pronunciation: 'sir-E-&s Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English seryows, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French serieux, from Late Latin seriosus, alteration of Latin serius weighty, serious; probably akin to Old English sw[AE]r heavy, sad
1 : thoughtful or subdued in appearance or manner : SOBER 2 a : requiring much thought or work /serious study/ b : of or relating to a matter of importance /a serious play/ 3 a : not joking or trifling : being in earnest b archaic : PIOUS c : deeply interested : DEVOTED /a serious musician/ 4 a : not easily answered or solved /serious objections/ b : having important or dangerous possible consequences /a serious injury/ 5 : excessive or impressive in quantity, extent, or degree : CONSIDERABLE /making serious money/ /serious drinking/ - se·ri·ous·ness noun synonyms SERIOUS, GRAVE, SOLEMN, SEDATE, STAID, SOBER, EARNEST mean not light or frivolous. SERIOUS implies a concern for what really matters /a serious play about social injustice/. GRAVE implies both seriousness and dignity in expression or attitude /read the proclamation in a grave voice/. SOLEMN suggests an impressive gravity utterly free from levity /a sad and solemn occasion/. SEDATE implies a composed and decorous seriousness /remained sedate amid the commotion/. STAID suggests a settled, accustomed sedateness and prim self-restraint /a quiet and staid community/. SOBER stresses seriousness of purpose and absence of levity or frivolity /a sober look at the state of our schools/. EARNEST suggests sincerity or often zealousness of purpose /an earnest reformer/.


SERIOUS: THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
PRONUNCIATION:sîr-e-us- ADJECTIVE: 1. Grave in quality or manner: gave me a serious look. 2a. Carried out in earnest: engaged in serious drinking; serious study of Italian. b. Deeply interested or involved: a serious card player. c. Designed for and addressing grave and earnest tastes: serious art; serious music. d. Not trifling or jesting: I'm serious: we expect you to complete the assignment on time. Her question was serious enough to deserve a thoughtful response. e. Of considerable size or scope; substantial: a cleanup that cost serious money. f. Of such character or quality as to appeal to the expert, the connoisseur, or the sophisticate: "Every serious kitchen needs at least one peppermill" (Washington Post). 3. Concerned with important rather than trivial matters: a serious student of history. 4a. Being of such import as to cause anxiety: serious injuries; a serious turn of events. b. Too complex to be easily answered or solved: raised some serious objections to the proposal. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French serieux, from Late Latin srisus, from Latin srius. OTHER FORMS: seri·ous·ly —ADVERB seri·ous·ness —NOUN



ANALYSIS, "SERIOUS," FROM DEFINITIONS IN PREVIOUS:

The clues to the posting, ala the word "SERIOUS" as pertains to the smiley out of these 5 dictionaries' 1st tier definitions of that word? How about "alarming," "fearful," "menacing," "dangerous," "harmful," "hazardous," "perilous," "very bad," "not joking," "{having} dangerous...consequences," "...import as to cause anxiety," "serious injuries," etc. You will see all these words vanish entirely in a moment when we go to our definitions for "SMILE."
But these are the words, accusations, in "SERIOUS," the police tried to stick to Gimbel as they destroyed the evidence of that he had exactly said otherwise and opposite of these words, via his smiling smiley. They sought to destroy the evidence that he had expressed something, simply so they could charge him falsely.
Note, for our purposes, also an inclusion in the first tier definitions of "SERIOUS," of "unsmiling," and "not laughing," (perhaps also, "not joking"), BOTH BEING EVENTS OF A FACIAL EXPRESSION, SPECIFICALLY, OF DOWNTURNED CORNERS OF THE MOUTH.
which, as a matter of perceived fact, is bringing us a bit closer to the "why" in the existence and writer's purpose in having included a smiling smiling (upturned mouth).
In essence, Gimbel knew his right to express himself as he wished comes with a catch in this society, and in any potentially ever-suspicious society: Per that catch he must present a device that, in a first tier glance, a symbol, a character, a "word," in fact the emoticon he used, the smiling smiley, which could instantly catch the eye that this exhibit of writing was NOT accompanied by a mouth-downturned smiley which might be a first tier alert to the definitions in the foregoing paragraph. Gimbel knew his obligation to post that smiling smiley with that post that he not be taken as actually threatening, only clear political hyperbole-stunting. The police not only ignored the obvious in this, they exactly went about to destroy the evidence. In fact, this smiling smiley was only one of MANY devices which Gimbel personally incorporated into his post, or substantiated as inherently or already present, that created oodles of safety-inherent devices, visible to any and all readers.
Now let's go to the word SMILE, and the first major tier of definitions contained in our 5 dictionaries, the same dictionaries as before:
We now go to the word "SMILE":

SMILE; WORDSMYTHE ONLINE:
Pronunciation smail Inflected Forms smiled, smiling, smiles Definition 1. to have a facial expression in which the corners of the mouth turn up and the eyes brighten, usu. to express pleasure, happiness, or amusement, but sometimes to express derision. Similar Words smirk , beam , simper , grin Definition 2. to look upon or treat someone or something favorably. Example Fate smiled the day I met him. Part of Speech transitive verb Definition 1. to express by means of a smile. Example He smiled his agreement. Synonyms grin Similar Words smirk , simper Definition 2. to change or influence through smiling. Example She can smile the child's fear away. Synonyms grin Related Words grin Part of Speech noun Definition 1. the act or an instance of smiling. Definition 2. positive regard; favor. Synonyms favor (2) , blessing (4) Related Words grin Derived Forms smilingly, adv.

SMILE: MSN ENCARTA:
smile [ smil ] verb (past and past participle smiled, present participle smil·ing, 3rd person present singular smiles) Definitions: 1. transitive and intransitive verb make pleasant expression with mouth: to raise the corners of the mouth in an expression of amusement, pleasure, or approval 2. transitive verb express something by smiling: to express something by or while smiling smiled his agreement 3. intransitive verb have pleasant appearance: to appear to be in a state of happiness or enjoying goodfortune or pleasure 4. intransitive verb be favorable: to be favorably disposed to somebody or something Fortune smiled on their trip. noun (plural smiles) Definitions: 1. pleasant expression: a facial expression in which the corners of the mouth are raised, usually expressing amusement, pleasure, or approval 2. pleasant appearance: an appearance of pleasure or approval ( often used in the plural ) They were all smiles when we left. 3. sign of favor: an expression or sign of favor [13th century. Probably / N Germanic] smil·ern smil·ing·lyadv

SMILE: COMPACT OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY:
• verb 1 form one's features into a pleased, friendly, or amused expression, with the corners of the mouth turned up. 2 (smile at/on/upon) regard favourably or indulgently. • noun an act of smiling; a smiling expression. — ORIGIN perhaps Scandinavian; related to SMIRK.

SMILE: MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE:
Pronunciation: 'smI(&)l Function: verb Inflected Form(s): smiled; smil·ing Etymology: Middle English; akin to Old English smerian to laugh, Sanskrit smayate he smiles intransitive senses 1 : to have, produce, or exhibit a smile 2 a : to look or regard with amusement or ridicule /smiled at his own folly -- Martin Gardner/ b : to bestow approval /feeling that Heaven smiled on his labors -- Sheila Rowlands/ c : to appear pleasant or agreeable transitive senses 1 : to affect with or by smiling 2 : to express by a smile - smil·er noun - smil·ey /'smI-lE/ adjective - smil·ing·ly /'smI-li[ng]-lE/ adverb

SMILE: THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
NOUN: 1. A facial expression characterized by an upward curving of the corners of the mouth and indicating pleasure, amusement, or derision. 2. A pleasant or favorable disposition or aspect. VERB: Inflected forms: smiled, smil·ing, smiles INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To have or form a smile. 2a. To look with favor or approval: Fortune smiled on our efforts. b. To express cheerful acceptance or equanimity: We smiled at the bad weather and kept going. TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To express with a smile: Grandmother smiled her consent. 2. To effect or accomplish with or as if with a smile. ETYMOLOGY: From Middle English smilen, to smile, probably of Scandinavian origin. See smei- in Appendix I. OTHER FORMS: smiler —NOUN smiling·ly —ADVERB

ANALYSIS, "SMILE," FROM DEFINITIONS IN PREVIOUS:

The clues to the posting, ala the word "SMILE," as pertains to the smiley out of these 5 dictionaries' 1st tier definitions of that word? How about that every search-word for the words we found in "SERIOUS" come up empty here under "SMILE" (words like "alarming," "fearful," "menacing," "harmful")? How about NONE that are even close to those words in the first tier definitions of "SMILE" in these dictionaries; i.e., NEITHER similar words like "danger," "imminent," "threat," etc.?
What do you make of that? Are you now just finding out Gimbel may have been a studied, uniform expert of expression in the English language, (he was, in fact, the editor of the high school yearbook in his senior year), and that he knew the underlying definitions of the words most directly material and relevant to his smiley inclusion, "SERIOUS" vs "SMILE," (smile: also, "smiling") would come up directly opposite of each other in all instances, as we have in fact just shown? That the words stand opposite to each other in definition? And that he, HEREBY, DELIBERATELY STEERED THE READER TO OPPOSITE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SERIOUS? That he knew you couldn't squeeze a first tier definition of anything to do with "threat," "danger," "serious," out of the first tier definitions of "SMILE" or smiling? That he respects the dictionaries under our very stars we use the most to exemplify THIS difference, should you have learned to read? As he has? That the smiling smiley was precisely there as
a cap-to-caricature, cap to lampoon of deputization? This smiley was also a piece of his writing and authorship, and it was put there with a purpose. No wonder the police went to destroy that evidence to hang him.
Where is said men like the goon-cop-thugs hear what they want to hear, destroying that which they don't want to hear, it is proved Gimbel went by the book, and has been mercilessly put down for years now in innocence.
Well, OK, what about "smirk," "simper" and "grin" in first tier definitions of "SMILE"? These are words that connote, at worst, the substance of some caustic political hyperbole present, and are nothing of the sort to do with words in "SERIOUS" such as "menacing," "perilous," "dangerous."
The smiling smiley clearly had a purpose; it was so clear that the police knew they would have to destroy the evidence to "assist" with their desire for persecution. But, based on our showing here, ALL TRADITIONAL, WHERE NOT OLD SCHOOL EXPRESSIONS, were invoked by the author accompanied by uniform, first tier definitions that cannot be missed, to make his posting nothing more than a piece of writing expressing a view, a distaste, a form of political hyperbole. A mock of the cops' "morality" in their own deputizations is very present; a lampoon of "officialdom's morality" in their own deputizations is very inherent.
Defendant, to illustrate this further and the need for uniformity of decision in remanding the case beyond the local persecutors, said to an attorney about this case: "Heck, I've already
pointed out, rather poignantly I think, how, in my case, the local jurisdictions, empowered by
the state I guess, have forced me with their age-old charges into being acutely aware I'd been drafted by them to protect the constitution and the 1st amendment in this long-so-far fight, "
strangely, as I add, "fighting to protect it FROM the constitution." The local authority has
seemed to immensely, pridefully and smugly, enjoyed provoking Gimbel this way these last several years, second by second of his life ripped out, and the approach-avoidance thing the foregoing quote truly creates, as defendant stands there naked, smugly speech-chilled and stripped of 2nd amendment rights, before they with all theirs--their WMD and call-ups the police authority is factually empowered to make (Nat. Guard, etc) --defendant having only words that they delight in spitting on (e.g., denying permission to use Gimbel's proffered writings at both trial and sentencing. The judge took an exact 5 second glance in both instances at submissions and essentially..."spat," tossed Gimbel's 4,000 plus hours of work aside immediately--was clear as a bell.). Let me ask any court also this: If the trial judge so quickly tossed aside my writing at both trial and sentencing, how the hell are they even qualified to even whiff a brief which I may now write to appeal? These locals have NO credibility to ANY cause of justice in this case, and transfer is mandated.
"Strangely..." did I say that? How about "extremely painfully," San Francisco.... Enough of this nice guy bitten.
Oh, I could on and on about these Okie dolts up here; S.F. court of appeals, are you listening? I have just focused but one narrow issue in the case here per 1st amendment and other issues present in this case, to demonstrate more need for transfer. There are, factually, dozens more, all cozily overlooked, squelched, avoided by the court, conjunct some serious ineffectiveness and incompetence of counsel which is being raised on appeal, too. I urge the court of appeals in San Francisco to seize these locals and local court right off their cozy, unhearing persecutory towers; they have ZERO credibility or competence to issues or uniformity of decision.
Any "issues" here? I mean, like...dooooohhh!
I swear the foregoing, under penalty of perjury, to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Dated: _______________________ ___________________________
JOHN GIMBEL,
Defendant/Appellant, In Pro Se

Defense counsel designates this declaration to the record on appeal.

[Demosthenes]

Posted as a comment on a legal ethics blog.

Looking for case cites as follows:

Say some guy enters and speaks in what are public web forums anyone in the public can register and use. Include forums you don't have to register or login to that are open to the public. The guy that speaks has not set up the forum.

For a certain paragraph he writes, some police go find out the ISP of the poster, determine which computer, (also, who), then jump out to his house and charge him with a threat statute against the police.

I want any cases, cites, from any state, decided at any level in the process, where the above conditions are fairly closely met.

PLEASE HELP!

(psst: looking for a way to subscribe to replies to me: I'm at johngimbel@charter.net if you think to.)

[wserra]

Run a PACER civil search in NDCA. You find stuff like this order dismissing one of his cases:

The Court need not look past the first sentence of Gimbel’s “Amended Complaint” to see that it is nothing more than profanity-ridden drivel, replete with racial epithets directed at specific members of this Court, and should be dismissed with prejudice. Even if the “Amended Complaint” actually alleged a cognizable claim (which a cursory review of the document demonstrates that it does not), the Court is under no obligation to consider the merits of Gimbel’s calumnious screed, which is a stream-of-consciousness diatribe directed primarily at insulting the Court.

Docket 07-cv-00113, NDCA.

And this may be the most vile pleading I have ever seen. I refuse to copy it to my site, so PACER login is required. Sorry.

Nice guy.

[The Observer]

It appears to be more disturbing than that - the header implies that Gimbel was responding to another person who shares the same outlook towards police.

[Demosthenes]

It appears to be more disturbing than that - the header implies that Gimbel was responding to another person who shares the same outlook towards police.

The message was sent to the guy who was threatening Schiff's judge throughout the Schiff/Neun/Cohen criminal trial in Las Vegas.

[Demosthenes]

And this may be the most vile pleading I have ever seen. I refuse to copy it to my site, so PACER login is required. Sorry.

I've uploaded it here:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gimbel78.pdf

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

And this may be the most vile pleading I have ever seen. I refuse to copy it to my site, so PACER login is required. Sorry.

Nice guy.

Is there any way the Court can lay sanctions for that sort of behavior? Can't someone be found in contempt of court for using profanity on the stand?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Just...wow.

And the scary thing, the really scary thing - this guy could be your neighbor.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Just a W.A.G. - his residence is a single wide, yard kept like a junk yard/abandoned toxic waste site, loathed by neighbors and relatives and almost no friends. Car is a 15+ yeal old P.O.S. and he was a nasty, mean person that no one liked in high school.

I could be wrong however.......

Actually, CK, you're closer to the truth than you realize.

According to Google Earth as provided by the address he gave in that rant of a pleading...



...this is where he lives.

As you can see, you were pretty much right on the money.

EDIT: His residence is on the left of the picture.

[Demosthenes]

The guy has 156 acres of California real estate. He's not that broke.

http://www.fadsys.com/ADS/171446.htm

[Doktor Avalanche]

The guy has 156 acres of California real estate. He's not that broke.

http://www.fadsys.com/ADS/171446.htm

Something doesn't add up here.

Near as I can tell, an acre of land in Yreka goes for about $15000. If Mr. Gimbel has 156 acres then the price it should fetch is $2,340,000.00.

I realize the real estate market is what it is at the moment but has it cratered so badly that Mr. Gimbel is letting it go for $270,000.00?

Something ain't right. Either the real estate market has tanked worse than anyone is letting on or Mr. Gimbel (in addition to having bad legal acumen) has got to be the worst land broker on Earth.

Something tells me this land isn't his. I'm going to go ahead and call bull**** on this one.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I've actually run into one oddly similar to him.

Remember some years ago it was decided to let marginally sane people out of mental facilities?

I had the misfortune of having one show up at our door one early morning. He had hitch hiked to get here and simply slept on our front porch. One of our dogs at that time - you know the great security big noisy dogs are supposed to be - slept with him. He thought he had a daughter than had been taken away and for a minute I thought he had found out about our involvement with foster children. He would wind up into a raving spew of obscenities every time he'd try to talk about the authorities and what had allegedly happened and after a minute or so I told him to get off the property. He basically begged me to take a handwritten letter to President Bush (senior at the time) because he thought he lived in the area. To get him to leave I agreed.

Imagine something that looks like a civil complaint in tiny but legible handwriting that goes off into the same kind of dreck in Gimbel's spew. I can't recall much of it because it was mostly profanity-laced complaints about what the government had done to him, including being homeless and held in mental institutions. He wandered off toward the road and I called the Sheriff's office. Some time later he was actually taken back into a state institution for threatening the President.

[grixit]

So if i read the original argument correctly: if someone were to send a handwritten letter threatening a public official, and ended it with "j/k!", it would not be actionable? Because otherwise, why would anyone think that putting a smiley at the end of a threatening email would neutralize it?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Doctor A, you are assuming the land in question is nice, relatively flat land, or gentle sloping hillsides, perfect for development or some type of business (agro and non-agro).

For all we know, his land could be composed of near-worthless gullies, ravines, steep slopes and toxic waste - or is scattered around in little chunks that are of no real practical use.

Or he's so demented that he thinks that little plot of dirt his house sits on is actually 156 acres.

The boy is a few fries shy of a Happy Meal, that much is obvious. Having said that I really don't think he's got 156 acres to sell nor does he hold title to that much property.

[Demosthenes]

Property records support his story. The land in question is agricultural/rural. I found multiple parcels including this one.

From some of the filings, he's a veteran.

Owner Information
Original Name: GIMBEL JOHN H

Standardized Name: GIMBEL, JOHN H
Original Address: 225 BREVUS ST
CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531

Standardized Address: 225 BREVUS ST
CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531-2103
DEL NORTE COUNTY

Property Information
Standardized Property Address: CA
Land Use: AGRICULTURAL/RURAL (GENERAL)

Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 013-030-031
Recording Date: 08/08/1995

Sale Information
Recording Date: 08/08/1995
Document Number: 1995R0009961

Assessment Information
Assessment Year: 2008
Assessed Land Value: $113,822
Total Assessed Value: $113,822

Tax Information
Tax Rate Code: 123-001

Property Characteristics
Acres: 626.00 AC

[Doktor Avalanche]

Well, it's a six hour drive from my house to Crescent City. I'm almost curious to take a road trip and look at this land myself if for no other reason than to see how this guy really lives.

That and I have an affinity for property near the coast.

Something just isn't adding up, Demo. My BS detector is screaming at the top of its lungs and I'm really bothered as to why.

[fortinbras]

Three unpublished court decisions in WestLaw & Lexis:

Frank VILLARREAL v. John GIMBEL (Cal.App. April 27, 2007) 2007 WL 1229493, 2007 cal.app.unpub. LEXIS 3431: County deputy Villarreal issued Gimbel a traffic ticket for a broken tail light and no proof of insurance. Gimbel got vindictive. He phoned Villarreal's office more than two dozen times, leaving extremely abusive messages on his answering machine, that added up to about 90 minutes of messages. He kept it up for days, including a message that Villarreal should kill himself. Evidently Gimbel was already known to have threatened another public official, so Villarreal went to court for a restraining order.
The court ordered Gimbel not to communicate with Villarreal for at least one year; he could contact the Sheriff's Office generally, or other law enforcement officers, but not Villarreal.
Gimbel tried to have the restraining order withdrawn without success.

John GIMBEL v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al (ND Cal Sept. 19, 2007) 2007 WL 2753276, 2007 u.s.dist. LEXIS 73273. Gimbel sued the State, the county sheriff's office, the Crescent City police dept, and several individuals (whom I presume were law enforcement officers) in federal court. The court decision very decisively dismisses his lawsuit but it's not clear what he was suing for because the only description given is this: "The Court need not look past the first sentence of Gimbel's Amended Complaint to see that it is nothing more than profanity-ridden drivel, replete with racial epithets directed at specific members of this Court and should be dismissed with prejudice. .... The Amended Complaint filed by Gimbel is an abusive document designed to insult the Court, and will be dismissed under the Court's inherent powers to summarily dismiss abusive pleadings."

This was followed by John GIMBEL v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al (ND Cal Feb 29, 2008) 2008 WL 590504, 2008 u.s.dist. LEXIS 28201. Gimbel again sued the State, the Sheriff's Office, and now also the county govt, the district attorney, the county Superior Court, - and Frank Villarreal. Apparently this was an attempt to have the federal district court overturn the restraining order issued against him by the state court, but the federal court refused to do so, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that state cases are not appealed in federal courts below the US Supreme Court. But we have a clue as to how much fun it was to read Gimbel's pleadings: "Here, Plaintiff's eighty-five page complaint does not state a valid basis for subject matter jurisdiction because the case falls directly within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine."

[LPC]

No, I don't know anything about this guy.

And from what I've read here, I'm thankful.