There are a couple of more posts that I want to do on Defendant Kimberlin’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions in the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et. al. lawsuit before tomorrow’s hearing. Let’s get started on this one.
<fisking>Take a look at paragraph 8.
8. Plaintiff’s counsel is acting pro bono and therefore is not entitled to attorney fees.
That’s plucked out of thin air. Of course, pro bono attorneys can collect fees in certain circumstances, and TDPK’s violation on Rule 4:12 is such a circumstance. Indeed, reviewing my notes confirms my recollection of Judge Potter explicitly warning TDPK that if he did not have satisfactory responses to discovery to Aaron Walker’s lawyer in a timely manner, the judge expected that Mr. Backer would file for sanctions under Rule 4:12.
In lieu of the foregoing order or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make the award unjust.
<mockery>Do you suppose, Gentle Reader, that the judge will find disobeying his instructions from the bench on 5 October as “substantially justified”? Me neither.</mockery>
Moving right along …
Moreover, he has already raised more than ten thousand dollars from gullible Americans to litigate this case.
<mockery>And your point is? Envy? How much has been raised by Justice Through Music Project’s Pussy Riot Defense Fund that doesn’t actually defend those musicians? At least the Blogger Defense Fund is a legally registered charitable organization transparently raising money for a legal purpose.</mockery>
9. Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant is practicing law without a license is meritless and laughable. It is well established that civil litigants have a First Amendment right to defend themselves pro se in a court of law.
Yes, pro se litigants may defend themselves, but the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, § 1 begins:
The right of individuals to represent themselves is an unalienable right common to all natural persons. But no one has the right to represent another; it is a privilege to granted and regulated by law for the protection of the public.
TDPK may represent himself. It’s against the law for him to represent anyone else. Period.</fisking>
<mockery>Meritless and laughable. Yeah, that about sums up TDPK’s arguments. I look forward to hearing Judge Potter’s reaction to them tomorrow morning.</mockery>
Have your popcorn ready, and stay tuned.
Tick, tock, tick, tock, …
UPDATE–Dan Backer is working this case pro bono, but there are still expenses involved in a lawsuit. You can help cover those costs by joining with the rest of us gullible Americans and going to the Bloggers Defense Team website and clicking on the Donate button.