Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

RICOMadnessThe motion to dismiss filed by Michael Smith on behalf of Defendant Michelle Malkin and Non-Party Twitchy in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness is a nice bit of legal writing. Here are a couple of excerpts.

In Cardillo v. Doubleday, Inc., 518 F.2d 638 (2d Cir. 1975), plaintiff sued for libel the authors and publisher of a book, My Life in the Mafia. Affirming the grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor, the Second Circuit recounted plaintiff’s extensive background of securities fraud, bail jumping, receiving stolen property, and other wrongdoing, and found as a matter of law that he was libel-proof, i.e. “so unlikely by virtue of his life as a habitual criminal to be able to recover anything other than nominal damages as to warrant dismissal of the case, involving as it does First Amendment considerations.” 518 F.3d at 639-640 (citations omitted). …

The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine warrants dismissal of the defamation count, since Mr. Kimberlin’s lengthy record renders him even less reputable than the plaintiffs in the above cases. As lengthy as Cardillo’s record was, he doesn’t appear ever to have conspired with intent to distribute 10,000 pounds of marijuana loaded onto a Colombian airplane, or illegally possessed and/or used the seal of the President of the United States or Department of Defense insignia, or impersonated a federal officer, or received explosives as a convicted felon. Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F. Supp. 2d 487, 489-490 (D. Md. 1998). Cardillo was not a convicted perjurer. United States v. Kimberlin, 483 F. Supp. 350 (S.D. Ind. 1979). He never conducted a bombing spree in which an innocent couple leaving a high- school football game were permanently injured and maimed, and then, after one victim eventually committed suicide, sued the surviving widow. Kimberlin, 12 F. Supp. 2d at 490 (citation omitted). Simply put, even if Mr. Kimberlin’s complaint allegations were true, and even disregarding his failure to describe with particularity the defamatory statements he attributes to Mrs. Malkin, FAC [First Amended Complaint] ¶¶ 80-81, 99, nothing she (or any defendant) wrote could possibly lower his public standing further than the subterranean level to which his own depraved conduct has taken it.

Just so.

38 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

      • I know I’m getting repetitive here, but this one deserves mentioning again.

        The motion reminds us that Brett Kimberlin sued the surviving widow, whose husband he maimed with a bomb, and went through all kinds of loathsome contortions to avoid paying restitution. How can his supporters live with themselves after acting as flunkies of someone who did this?

      • “How can his supporters live with themselves after acting as flunkies of someone who did this?”

        Because they are acting in opposition to people on the political right. That’s all they care about.

      • I don’t think they care about “people on the right” at all. It’s exposure of things y that might get in the way of fictional self-narratives essential for cons.

  1. “nothing she (or any defendant) wrote could possibly lower his public standing further than the subterranean level to which his own depraved conduct has taken it.” That should be put on one of those big billboard trucks and parked in front of Kimberlin’s house. The truth of it is indisputable.

  2. Good grief, BS is claiming a bunch of new nonsense, including his fantasy that he is a “reporter.” One thing that stands out is his claim that BK won a libel case against Seth Allen. He did no such thing. Allen failed to present a defense so the court awarded a default judgment to BK, which is not the same as a trial on the merits. In fact, failure to state in pleadings and motions that this was a default judgment in which nominal damages of $100 were awarded could be viewed as deliberately misleading the court.

    • This particular lie of Kimberlin and Cabin Boy’s reinforces the belief that the only purpose of these ridiculous frivolous suits was to somehow arrange another default judgment – probably through more fraud on the court.

  3. I would like to know a few things from Mr. Schmalfeldt.

    1. How did he obtain the sealed court documents from the Walker v. Kimberlin case and who obtained them for him?

    2. Did he, in fact, use IP addresses collected from his own site in an attempt to accuse random people of being Kimberlin Unmasked?

    3. Why will he not address his good friend Brett Kimberlin’s forged subpoena of Twitchy, when he is so willing to address other issues related to this case?

    4. Why is he violating not only the peace order, but the mediation order by posting comments on this blog under the name “JoeBlow”? And why can he not control himself?

    5. Why should anyone trust anything Mr. Schmalfeldt says anymore, when he has explicitly told us not to do this?

    6. Should we be expecting another dire warning prior to BlogBash? And will there be costumes again? I think the participants would like to bring more cameras this time around.

    • This.

      Re 1 – BS obtained and printed those documents AFTER they had been sealed. In contrast, the documents that he and his “very good friend” the convicted perjurer are whining about concerning his marital issues were obtained legally and posted BEFORE they were sealed. Big difference.

      Re 5 – indeed, cyber stalker Bill Schmalfeldt has admitted that nothing he writes can be trusted.

      • I made that exact point on his blog. I also asked him to compare and contrast the difference between his mewling over Shuler’s unjust injunction and the injunction Kimberlin is trying to force on the defendants. The chances of him giving an actual answer to either of those questions? Nil. He has proven before that when confronted with the misdeeds of Kimberlin (forged Twitchy summons) and with his own lies that he will talk around the issue and never actually address it.

  4. Smith’s words are legal poetry. His piercingly truthful words should be set to music and performed by Op Critical on a YouTube video.

  5. Oh, my, now it appears that cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt’s very good friend is fielding another flawed legal theory via BS’s blog to get everyone to help him do his research. Namely, the use of res judicata in a completely unrelated state court case involving someone who is not a litigant in the instant cases. No, this argument does not apply, but I am not going to provide free assistance by explaining why, and neither should anyone else. It will be oh so much more entertaining to watch Mr. Smith shoot it down.

  6. There is no reason for this motion not to succeed in dismissing all of Kimberlin’s frivolous and fraudulent complaint.

    But if for some procedural or evidentiary problem, its not granted, I think that it should be presented again in the form of a motion for summary judgment. It is simply obvious that Kimberlin is as a matter of law “defamation proof”.

Leave a Reply