Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has been trying to claim in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness that he has a “property right” in his employment by Justice Through Music Project and that I have committed extortion (a predicate crime that can trigger RICO) by trying to get him fired. Here’s how I addressed that in my motion to dismiss.ECF 149-24Notice that I cited chapter and verse of a Supreme Court decision and pointed out that his allegation did not specify what “thing” I might have acquired by getting him fired. I also noted that he did not bother to specify when, where, and how I said or wrote that he should be fired from his job.

His task in opposing my motion was to show where in his complaint he did, in fact, plead the things I said were missing. Here’s what he submitted instead.ECF 231-36Did he show where in his complaint he specified what “thing” I would receive? No.

Did he show where in his complaint he specified when I advocated his being fired? No.

Did he show where in his complaint he specified where I advocated his being fired? No.

Did he show where in his complaint he specified how I advocated his being fired? No.

popcorn4bkDid he even try to sneak any of that into his opposition? No.

Oh, and one more thing … the case that TDPK cited in his opposition as authority for his position was Northeast Women’s Health Center v. McMonagle, 868 F.2d 1342 (3rd Cir. 1989), which was struck down by the Supremes in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.


Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

One of the ideas that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin won’t let go of is that I have been using the National Bloggers Club to raise money for myself or that I have been one of the major funders of the National Bloggers Club or both at the same time. This exchange is from TDPK’s examination of me during the trial for the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit.

MR. KIMBERLIN: So have you ever received any money, any funds at all from the National Bloggers Club?


MR. KIMBERLIN: Have you ever given money to the National Bloggers Club?

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No further questions.

My answer under oath to the second question would have been “No.”

popcorn4bkKimberlin’s projection of his motivations and methods on to others has made it impossible for him to see what his opponents are really doing. While I’m pleased that Hogewash! now generates enough cash flow to pay its own way, its pre-tax profit is probably less than 5 % of my adjusted gross income. TDPK misunderstands what motivates people like me, and that’s one of the reasons why he is doomed to lose at lawfare.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin wrote in one of his filings that Ace of Spades lawyer was being “hyper technical” by insisting that Kimberlin was suing the entity actually called out in his Kimberlin v. The Universe,et al. RICO Madness complaint rather than a third party. In his omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss the RICO Madness he claims that we defendants are relying on technicalities rather than facts.ECF 231-2This is ripe for fisking.


Because there is no truth to their defamatory statements …

The reason TDPK lost his state Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit was because he couldn’t show that anything we said and wrote about him was false. The doctrine of res judicata prohibits him from retrying those issues related to defamation. He can now longer use any of the evidence that he raised in that trial against Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, or me. Not only that, but he can’t use any of evidence that was available to him at the time that he could have raised but failed to do so.

… they instead ask the Court to dismiss the case for many technical reasons, …

“Technical reasons” means points of law.

… such as, 1) the three year statute of limitations should not apply to the false light claim, …

Yep. It should. The Smith v. Esquire decision that says so is a binding precedent in the District of Maryland. Kimberlin has misrepresented the Allen v. Bethlehem Steel case as being a ruling of the Maryland Court of Appeals which would be a binding interpretation of state law. In fact, it is a decision from a lower court and isn’t binding on the U. S. District Court. Also, TDPK has provided a false citation to the case.

… 2)  defamation and false light cannot apply to Plaintiff because he is a public figure and 3) defamation proof, …

I don’t recall any of the defendant arguing that a public figure can’t sue for defamation or false light, but several of us have pointed out that Brett Kimberlin’s reputation was so bad before we ever wrote or said one word about him that it was impossible to take it any lower. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted serial bomber like Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), and convicted serial bombers are notorious public figures with bad reputations.

… 4) the Defendants did not engage in a RICO Enterprise, …

As a matter of fact, we didn’t, and simply say that we did without saying who did what to whom on which day is not a well-plead allegation as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

… 5) the First Amendment allows fair comment …

Yes, it does.

… 6) Defendant Frey did not act under color of law, …

Well, he didn’t, and the U. S. District Court for the District of Southern California ruled that he didn’t in the very similar Naffe v. Frey case. Given that the facts of that case are so similar to the half-baked allegations in the RICO Madness, given that TDPK has not explained why that court got anything wrong, and given the rulings in similar cases by the Fourth Circuit (the next higher federal court to the District of Maryland), Kimberlin doesn’t have much of a case here.

… and 7) the SAC violates the Maryland Anti-SLAPP statute.

SAC stands for “second amended complaint,” and, yes, it does. It has the effect of chilling discussion of a topic of public interest.

Each of these and other arguments is without merit and belied by the facts and law.

Uh, huh.</fisking>


Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

This another one of the improperly pleaded allegations that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has been throwing around in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 231-22

In order to be well-pleaded an allegation needs to specify the who, what, when, where, and how of the act in question. In order to recover for damages, the damages must be specified. Simply alleging John Doe hit me isn’t well-pleaded. That’s only who and what. A proper allegation would be something like this: John Doe hit me in the ribs with a baseball bat in City Park at around 10:15 am last Fourth of July; he broke two of my ribs, causing severe pain; and as a result of that injury, I sustained medical expenses of $2,369.14 and lost $752.00 in wages because I was unable to work.

Oh, and when you get to court, you better have witnesses and/or evidence to back up your story.

Just saying that I falsely called TDPK a “swatter” doesn’t cut it. He needs to say when, where, and how I did it. Of course, he can’t because I have never called him a “swatter.” I have noted that people have been SWATted after run-ins with Brett Kimberlin, but I also have noted that there is no proof of whodunit. Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but I can understand why some folks are suspicious.

It is true that I do try to raise money via this blog. The Gullible Victim Gentle Reader will find the Tip Jar here.

There’s also a fund set up to help defray some of the costs of defending bloggers from Brett Kimberlin’s Anti-First-Amendment lawfare. Go to Bomber Sues Blogger to find out more.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Here’s another bit of nonsense from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 231-97res_judicata_mugsIn noting that TDPK has not demonstrated that he had been subject to any infliction of emotional distress by me, I’m not merely expressing my opinion. I’m reporting the finding of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. At the end of TDPK’s presentation of his case in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance suit, Judge Johnson found that TDPK had not presented a “scintilla” of evidence to support his claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The fact that Brett Kimberlin did not suffer any emotional distress because of anything I did is now a settled matter. It isn’t subject to being litigated again. And so I invoke the legal doctrine of res judicata.

TDPK says that I do so “callously.”

callous adj. \ˈka-ləs\ : not feeling or showing any concern about the problems or suffering of other people.

Hmmmm. TDPK may be right there. I really don’t care how much of a problem he’s made for himself by suing me. In any case, given his expertise with callousness, perhaps I should defer to his judgment just this once.

UPDATE—A correction: Actually, Judge Johnson never ruled on whether TDPK had any evidence of emotional distress. He didn’t have to. Judge McGann had already thrown that claim out for lack of evidence at the summary judgment stage.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

This is from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 231-6Words have meaning. Consider the word youth.

youth n. \ˈyüth\ : the time when a young person has not yet become an adult.

Brett Kimberlin’s first felony conviction was for perjury when he was 19 years old. That might be stretched to qualify as during his youth, although a 19 year old is legally an adult. It’s not a series of crimes.

He was convicted of a series of crimes beginning in 1979 with his drug smuggling conviction. He was 25 years old, old enough to serve in the House of Representative, and clearly not a youth.

Brett Kimberlin is one of the clumsiest liars I have ever dealt with. He makes Joe Isuzu seem to be a pillar of probity.


Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

I believe that I have done something that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has not done. That is, I read the memorandum by Judge Hollander that he attached to his motion to ID Ace of Spades all the way to the end. At the very end she writes:

Moreover, plaintiff has agreed to a protective order, and the Doe defendants’ privacy concerns will be addressed adequately by a protective order limiting disclosure of the defendants’ identifying information to the parties and their counsel.

So part of her reasoning in granting the subpoenas in question was that the plaintiff in the case had agreed to a protective order limiting disclosure. Given Brett Kimberlin’s history of giving away sealed court papers, … let’s just say that I’m sure that Ace’s lawyer Ron Coleman will have fun writing that part of the opposition to TDPK’s motion.