Adam Liptak has a piece over at The New York Times worrying that the recent Supreme Court decision striking down an Arizona town’s signage ordinance will
roll consumer protection back to the 19th century.
I suppose one doesn’t have to worry about free speech rights if he thinks he is protected by the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment.
I’ve been posting motions to dismiss in the Kimberlin v. Most of the Universe, et al., RICO Retread LOLsuit this week. Here’s one from Glenn Beck and his companies.
This motion brings up the problem that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s LOLsuit has with Maryland’s Anti-SLAPP statute. Breitbart and Erick Erickson/RedState have raise the same issue, but in separate motions. Since they are represented by the same lawyer, the Gentle Reader should not be surprised to learn that those motions are very similar. Here’s the motion filed for Erickson/RedState.
TDPK has opposed my motion to dismiss, but he filed his opposition a week after the drop dead date for his response; the court may decide that my motion is unopposed. TDPK was also ordered by the court to respond to Aaron Walker’s motion to dismiss not later than tomorrow. He also now has a motion from Michelle Malkin and Twitchy which must be opposed by 17 August and a total of five motions from other defendants with responses due on the 18th.
Judge Albright (who is handling the Walker v. Brett Kimberlin, et al. case while Judge Mason is on vacation), had denied The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s sealed motion for a TRO, preliminary injunction, and protective order.
It appears that the motion has been unsealed.
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin filed a motion seeking a subpoena in the Kimberlin v. Most of the Universe, et al. RICO Retread LOLsuit directed to Intermarkets, a company that handles blog advertising, concerning the identities of the blogger Ace and the Ace of Spades blog.
His similar request in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness was unsuccessful, and he his filed another such request in the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit.
The Maryland Rules require that a party filing a court paper such as this motion must serve a copy on every other party. As you can see from TDPK’s certificate of service, he only served a copy on the lawyer for Intermarkets. None of the defendants or their lawyers were served. My lawyer obtained this unsigned copy only after pinging Kimberlin. However, the lack of proper service is the least of the defects with this motion.
Brett Kimberlin has spent the past few years trying to engage in brass knuckles reputation management. He’s used the members of Team Kimberlin to try to spin his false narratives in a way that the public would buy. However, PR flacks like the Cabin Boy™ and websites like Bunny Boy Unread have been more effective in focusing attention on The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s multiple failures at lawfare than promoting a positive image for TDPK.
Thus, far I’ve been successful (with the help of friends, codefendants, and pro bono counsel) at beating back all of Kimberlin’s lawfare attacks against me. The false harassment charge he filed in 2013 was nolle prossed and expunged so quickly that I was never served. His Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit never made it to a jury. The Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness never made it past the motions to dismiss, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals shut down TDPK’s appeal of that dismissal on the morning of the first day after the last informal briefs were due. The bogus peace order he filed against me was denied. The appeal of that denial was thrown out, and so was the follow on false criminal charge of online harassment of a minor. He still has two lawsuits and an appeal pending against me, and all seem to be headed down the tubes. Indeed, it now seems proper to refer to them as LOLsuits.
Which brings me to a new term I’ve coined to describe how to publicly deal with Team Kimberlin’s legal shenanigans—
As I wrote yesterday morning, lawfare needs to be taken seriously in the courts of law, but it needs to be aggressively ridiculed in the courts of public opinion.
I intend to keep talking and writing about the serious damage Team Kimberlin has inflicted on so many people, and I will treat that seriously. Murum aries attigit.
However, I intend to subject Team Kimberlin to derisive laughter at every opportunity. Asinīs dērīdeō sed eis non miserēbor.
I hand-delivered this filing to the U. S. District Court yesterday as a favor for Dave Edgren.
UPDATE—It’s always gratifying to know that I contributed in some small way to bringing the members of Team Kimberlin to justice or at least causing them to fear their just deserts. When comment such as they are sending now, childish stuff of the sort most of us outgrew before high school, start appearing, I know I’ve had a bit of success.
The Cabin Boy™ has his panties in a knot because folks refer to him as a “deranged cyberstalker.” (Stacy McCain deserves credit for first referring to Schmalfeldt that way.) Aside from the fact that expressing the opinion that Schmalfeld is a deranged cyberstalker is protected speech under the First Amendment, he is admittedly demented (deranged and demented are synonyms), and he is an adjudicated harasser. Since his harassing was done on line, that fits the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of cyberstalking. Thus, calling him a deranged cyberstalker is not only protected opinion, it is also an true statement backed by the facts.
Additionally, the Cabin Boy™ has promoted his identity as The Deranged Cyberstalker through the sale of a CD of his “comedy” bits. While that CD appears to be out of print, the tracks are still available for download from iTunes and Amazon. Note: Amazon’s MP3 downloads are cheaper and will play on Apple devices.
Imagine the cross examination in court …
Q: You say you were defamed and damaged by being called a “deranged cyberstalker.” Is that correct?
Q: I show you the items marked as Defense Exhibits 11 and 12. They are screen shots from iTunes and Amazon, respectively. Can you identify the downloads offered for sale?
If the Cabin Boy™ is very lucky, Schmalfeldt v. Grady (, et al. ?) will be dismissed with prejudice.