Team Kimberlin Bonus Post of the Day

RICOMadnessThe Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed a combined response to the motions to dismiss from Aaron Walker and me in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.BK_ECF29-14As the Gentle Reader might suspect, that mischaracterizes our arguments. I’ve argued that Brett Kimberlin, a convicted serial bomber, has been convicted of multiple infamous crimes and is, therefore, a public figure in the same sense as other convicted bombers such as Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh. I believe his reputation (as a perjurer, drug smuggler/wholesaler/dealer, bomber, murder suspect, etc.) is so bad as to render him defamation proof.

Even Bill Schmalfeldt understood that TDPK has a lousy reputation.

Sat Jun 16 22:27:31 +0000 2012, liberalgrouch, 214122056504184832, @Prepostericity If your point is that Kimberlin is a scumbag, I’m way ahead of you on that.  Said so in my blog weeks ago.  I could do

Sat Jun 16 22:28:26 +0000 2012, liberalgrouch, 214122288910577664, @Prepostericity without the condescending bullshit from a fellow blogger, if you don’t mind.  …


11 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Bonus Post of the Day

  1. Indeed he has done this bit about being convicted of “a crime” before and i have called him out about it before, repeatedly. As though it enhances his credibility before the court to tell a lie that can be so easily exposed.

  2. I think the key point is that Brett Kimberlin is yet again posturing as if he were the judge in this case when he is merely a party to this case.

    It was a very odd claim for Kimberlin to make. It is firmly established law that “public figures,” whatever that means, have a much higher burden of proof in defamation claims than those whom are not. If factually correct, arguments that public figures have a higher burden of proof are meritorious. “The moon is made of green cheese, therefore, I am entitled to damages.,” is an example of an argument without merit. Even if the moon were made of green cheese, it would not be a legal basis for demanding damages.

    • BigSky, I was talking to a lawyer friend of mine that’s working on another case and he said that the determination of a public figure is left to the court (not a jury). So the judge has to decide whether Kimberlin is or is not a public figure.

      He did say however, that because Kimberlin owns businesses that work on public issues, solicits donations, etc., was featured publicly in the Speedway Bombing incident by prominent journalists in widely circulated newspapers and that Kimberlin sought out publicity to sell a book on the matter, he doubts very, very much that Kimberlin can evade his public figure history now. There’s just too much out there and too much he did himself to gain notoriety. He also told me there’s a lot of case law that backs up what Mr. Hoge is saying.

      If Mr. Hoge needs that case law and a nice paper on the threshold for defamation or libel per se, I’ll be happy to forward that to him if it helps.

  3. In Brett’s defense, i am pretty sure Baghdad Blob was only pretending to recognize Brett was a scumbag when he said that, in order to attempt to maintain some credibility. Which I admit is not much of a defense.

  4. Btw, notice Brett sued Seth for calling him scum, but not Baghdad Blob for calling him a scumbag. So apparently he only objected to being called scum but didn’t mind being called a bag meant to hold scum.

      • Maybe someone else can help with this question, since I’m not all that technical. I was on the Twitter help page today when I found a link to request a download of my archive. I just received an email that it’s ready. Some others have saved it in a file that can be searched. I will see if I can save mine in a searchable manner as well.

  5. It can’t be a coincidence that after both 1) almost immediately after being instructed by the court to include his email address, address and telephone number on all filings Brett Kimberlin submitted a motion missing all that data; and 2) after being told that physical [mail] service to all parties was required, Brett Kimberlin almost immediately filed separate motions with exactly these defects. Perhaps, it is a pattern. Perhaps, it is a direct provocation designed to test what consequences he will suffer, if any. His failure to “substantially” follow the template of “I swear under of penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct,” is another example of such a direct provocation. Apparently, Brett Kimberlin holds Judge Grimm in low regard.

    The continuation of that pattern would be for Kimberlin to submit another forged document and/or mail copies of filings not identical to those stamped by the court. Another possible ploy would be for Kimberlin to mail “service” that lacks all the required documents. I would caution all defendants to estimate the expected weight of service and compare it to the actual weight of the envelope before opening it. Only opening mail from Brett Kimberlin in the presence of the court or, perhaps, a notary, might be a sensible precaution. Videotaping yourself placing all filings into the envelope and handing it to the mail clerk In the presence of a witness who is not a party to the lawsuit would be a sense precaution to prevent Kimberlin from making specious claims of improper service.

    While the sociopath’s perverse need to reject authority might be driving Kimberlin’s actions, it may also be the case that he has made the calculation that the benefits of not playing by the rules exceeds the costs. That is due in large part because court’s refuse to punish him any more severely than warning him to stop no matter how egregious his conduct.

Leave a Reply