Noted legal “reporter” Bill Schmalfeldt has published his analysis of one of Aaron Walker’s motions in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness over at Patriot-Ombudsman (No, I won’t link to it.).The Cabin Boy™ seems to think that there is something untoward about Aaron Walker filing a motion for leave to exceed normal page length at the same time as he files his long reply to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s opposition to the Hoge and Walker motions to dismiss. In fact, such simultaneous filing is a normal procedure. BTW, my reply would also have exceed the limit if I had decided to go after every error in TDPK’s opposition. Instead, I included this in my reply:
Because of the 25-page limit on this Reply (L.R. 105.3), only a partial list of deficiencies follows.
It’s interesting that the Cabin Boy™ seems to believe that the defendants should be held to all the Rules but believes that TDPK should get a free pass when he ignores them. Even after a warning from the judge, TDPK continued for several weeks refusing to include his email address and phone number in his signature block as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). He has neglected to include a table of contents on pleadings longer than 25 pages as required by Local Rule 105. He’s neglected to provide an index of exhibits or tab his exhibit when he has submitted more than five (L.R. 105 again). And so on.
Another ludicrous comment from the Cabin Boy™ was his remark that the judge will be upset by defendants “telling” him what to do. Actually, the whole point of written pleadings is to explain to the judge why the parties believe he should rule in their favor. Here’s a sampling of how the various defendants have asked the judge for relief:
Walker—” … Plaintiff has failed to meet those pleading standards, and, therefore, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.”
Malkin—”The FAC’s RICO count is serially deficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should be dismissed. “
The Franklin Center—”So therefore under current precedent, the claim for false light is barred under the Statute of Limitations and should be dismissed”.
DB Capitol Strategies—”These facts are insufficient to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), and, as such, Plaintiff’s first claim should be dismissed.”
Hoge—”Thus, Plaintiff’s count based in 42 U.S.C. § 1985 should be dismissed with prejudice against all Defendants.”
We defendants lay out the facts and the law and tell the court what we believe it should do. TDPK, on the other hand, tells the court what it must do.Furthermore, TDPK cites old case law that has been overturned by the Supreme Court as his authority for telling the judge what he must do. Given that Judge Grimm has cited the same Supreme Court decision, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), that we defendants suggest is good law in several recent rulings, … oh, never mind …