“… appear odious, infamous, and/or frightening.” Words have meaning.
odi·ous adjective \ˈō-dē-əs\ : extremely unpleasant; repulsive.
in·fa·mous adjective \ˈin-fə-məs\ : well known for being bad.
fright·en verb \ˈfrī-tən\ : to cause (someone) to become afraid.
fright·ened | fright·en·ing
At no point in either of his 50-page complaints does TDPK actually allege a specific, provably false statement by a particular defendant that might normally be defamatory. But let’s pretend that he did.
Consider the behavior ascribed to Brett Kimberlin with respect to a middle-school-aged girl as portrayed in his authorized biography Citizen K. Is finding such behavior repulsive an abnormal reaction?
Consider skulking about planting time bombs and destroying a man’s life as Brett Kimberlin was convicted of doing. Might not being convicted of such crimes lead to infamy? For that matter, couldn’t lying about being a Vice-President’s former dope dealer (as the author of Citizen K concluded Kimberlin did) result in infamy?
I don’t frighten very easily, but I can understand how someone would be afraid of a notorious liar who is a convicted violent felon.
Given all that, it’s my opinion that Brett Kimberlin was odious, infamous, and frightening before I ever wrote one word about him. Simply put, his reputation is so bad that it is impossible to make it worse. I believe he is defamation proof.
He’s been trying use what Glenn Reynolds has called “brass knuckles reputation management” via lawfare to try to keep the lid on, and he has succeeded in frightening some folks away from discussing his odious infamy. The current state and federal lawsuits are what some of us hope are his last-ditch attempt.
You can help my codefendant’s and me in the state suit fight TDPK’s lawfare. Go to Bomber Sues Bloggers to find out how.
UPDATE—Aaron Walker, my codefendant in both lawsuits, has this to say about TDPK’s reputation.