Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


In their latest attempt to find a legal theory that might save The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s frivolous and vexatious lawsuits, Team Kimberlin has sent the Cabin Boy™ out to float the idea that res judicata applies as to whether or not TDPK is a public figure. Schmalfeldt has posted a clip (No, I won’t link to it.) from the docket of the Kimberlin v. Allen suit which shows that Judge Quirk ruled against Seth Allen’s motion to declare Kimberlin a public figure. Res judicata to the rescue!

Au contraire. Take a look at this more complete bit of the record.BK v Allen 119:140Docket Number 140 is the record of the judge’s ruling on Docket Number 119. Docket Number 119 was Seth Allen’s motion.

Here’s why that’s important: Res judicata applies when the same matter is brought up a second time in litigation between the same parties. Thus, Seth Allen is no longer allowed to argue in court that Brett Kimberlin was public figure before February, 2012. Anyone else can, and Mr. Allen can still argue that TDPK may have become one since then.

There’s a long string of case law supporting the principle that someone who is convicted of an infamous crime becomes a public figure. I argue that Brett Kimberlin, who is, after all, a convicted serial bomber with dozens of other felony convictions, is a public figure just like other convicted serial bombers—like Ted Kaczynski (“The Unibomber”), for instance.

They must be working overtime at Acme Law.

If you’d like to help my codefendants (Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Kimberlin Unmasked) and me defend ourselves from Brett Kimberlin’s anti-First-Amendment lawfare in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit, go to Bomber Sues Blogger to find out how.

res_judicata_long_sleeve_tshirtUPDATE—Res Judicata t-shirts, coffee mugs, and other goodies are available at The Hogewash Store.

Stop by today and spend some of your hard earned cash in support of Team Lickspittle.

6 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. They really are utterly clueless. The incompetence never seems to end. Neither do the lies by them obviously.

    As an aside, I’d argue that res judicata does not even apply to Seth Allen since he had no opportunity to fully litigate the matter – given the default judgment – an element of the doctrine in most jurisdictions.

    • That’s precisely right. It’s not enough that Seth lost, he has to lose on the merits.

      Here’s how it actually works.

      If Seth can’t deny that he defamed him. And arguably the specific allegations that he made against Brett might be considered still defamatory if he repeats them–or in the case of the claim Seth called Brett a pedo, if he says it for the first time. after all, seth never did call him one.

      But if Seth called him something new–like, i don’t know, a tax cheat–then Seth would be able to litigate the entire issue.

      Unless he is unfortunate enough that the judge did issue some kind of ruling, saying, “i find that Kimberlin is not a public figure.” then res judicata would apply. But i doubt it. It was probably denied without an opinion.

      So respectfully, John is wrong in the text of his post on that point.

      And even if it was on the merits, Brett can’t use it against us. Hey guess what? My rights are not prejudiced by a clueless pro-se litigant, who, if memory serves, wrote that motion by hand (I think Rupp said something about that on Jan 9, 2012).

      Otoh, if Seth had won that motion, then Brett would not be able to relitigate that in the future. just as the criminal cases means Brett can’t deny that he is a terrorist, convicted document forger, drug lord, perjurer, etc.

      Still its always cute when Team Kimberlin learns a new word or phrase. They are precisely like a child who wants to use that new word or phrase all the time, even when its inappropriate to the context.

  2. And how many of us have major-publishing-house (authorized) biographies that had enough royalties to hide from civil judgements? Have articles about our con-artiste creds in the New Yorker and Time-magazine? (the last in 2007). He attempts to push himself into the present public spotlight in matters of pulic concern ways in which his lying, terrorist, criminal past matters and for which exposure and criticism is highly appropriate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s