BREAKING: Paul Alan Levy to Represent Ace of Spades

Paul Alan Levy, who at one time represented Brett Kimberlin with a First Amendment claim against the federal government, once again seeks to protect the First Amendment—this time from Brett Kimberlin. Mr. Levy will be representing the anonymous blogger (an my codefendant) Ace of Spades in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.

Mr. Levy has a statement about the case here.

UPDATE—Our codefendant Stacy McCain has some thoughts here.

UPDATE 2—Da Tech Guy has this to add.

72 thoughts on “BREAKING: Paul Alan Levy to Represent Ace of Spades

  1. BREAKING: Brett Kimberlin gets the new bunghole he never wanted. Admittedly, I did not see this one coming. Perhaps Kimberlin should just go ahead and settle this now. There are only a few attorneys outside of Texas that I am genuinely leery of. And Levy is at the very top of that list.

    I need to find a new snack food.

      • Wait, where’s the brief? Is it as brutal as I expect it to be? Did he absolutely bury Kimberlin in case law?

      • Its been common in some feminist lawyers’ circles to use the female to refer to the male as sort of a reverse of the old use of the male to denote the female. I sometimes do that, but generally say he or she, because it risks coming off as too “precious.”

        Okay and i sometimes accidentally say “he” for a he or she. Or mankind instead of humankind. I am a great believer in equality of opportunity for gender, but i was raised on language that is arguably sexist and sometimes it creeps in. Its sort of like how, being raised by jersey people, the word “Washington” still looks a little strange without an R in it.

        But my heart is in the right place, even if my tongue isn’t.

      • You should point that out to Baghdad Blob. He has “outed” Ace as a female based on Levy’s writing the pronoun “she”. Guess he just skims and doesn’t really pay attention.

        He also uses a most excellent resource to debunk much of what Levy asserts…..BU. Wow, didn’t see that coming. Oh, and he says that Aces identity has been confirmed by a “main stream media” entity working on the story with BU.

  2. I will add that i am irritated that the guy gives this much credibility to Kimberlin’s accusations against others.

    No, there is no credible evidence of stalking… except by Kimberlin directed at me. Sigh.

    Otoh, his liberal bona fides and his sympathy for his former client makes his defense of Ace all the more credible.

    Oh, and its about time the ACLU really stepped up on this. If I ran the ACLU Brett would be public enemy number one. I jokingly call the guy “a walking chilling effect.”

    • I have to say, I actually am happy with the suit that was to protect TDPK from being hidden away from the media. Assuming the claim is true, which is always in doubt where TDPK is concerned.

      I don’t trust the government to not abuse the abilities it gains when it puts someone in a prison. I also don’t trust them to be able to distinguish between good people versus lying sociopaths like TDPK. The government should not be allowed the discretion to hide away prisoners from media contact as a general rule.

      As for the rest, of course you’re totally right and it hurts to see Levy take something TDPK said at face value. And I can’t avoid the suspicion that his political views could be what led him to be careless about that. I also believe that kind of credulousness is something TDPK banks on. Narcissists and sociopaths do this same thing in all political movements.

    • Aaron, I understand how you must feel, but if you read that language carefully, it is judicious, polite, but noncommittal.

    • In this situation with Kimberlin, you sort of think David and Goliath. Except it’s not David and Goliath. It’s more like a world renowned surgeon and guy who stayed at Holiday Inn Express.

      Only the surgeon briefed like 10 or so SCOTUS cases and the Holiday Inn Express was actually the federal penitentiary.

    • Interesting that you brought up Carreon. They had to jump through hoops to service him. And Kimberlin thinks he’s gonna have some of the defendants declared “effectively” serviced with one attempt. Why do I see a lot more #FAIL in his future?

  3. Well I just finished reading the brief. Coming from the plaintiff’s former attorney, the last two pages are going to sting. The impression I had after reading the blog post were erased. Nothing is left to the imagination regarding his past, nor his potential for mayhem in the future.

  4. Was this excerpt supposed to be last week’s BS “bombshell,” only it went awry?:

    “As I usually do in these situations, I began by trying to persuade Kimberlin to drop his discovery request because the blog post in question is not defamatory.  Kimberlin responded by detailing a number of different statements that Ace of Spades had made which, Kimberlin threatened, would be made the subject of an amended complaint.  And when Kimberlin learned that I had not been dissuaded, he sent Ace of Spades an email threatening that, unless Ace immediately accepted Kimberlin’s unspecified terms, Kimberlin would unmask her and she might suffer the same fate as other bloggers whom Kimberlin had managed to identify (Kimberlin mentioned one blogger who had lost his job and suffered two years of unemployment).”

    • Among all the other things, Levy must have laughed at the idea of yet another amended complaint …

      And Kimberlin, in an email, owning the job loss he caused … that was a big mistake and he’s too clueless to know it.

      • And his ‘reporter’ needs to recognize Kimberlin’s ownership of AW’s job loss. I am sure we will see him correct his previous lies about AW losing his job due to incompetence. Any minute now.

      • I’ve read the stuff BS uses to claim that Walker lost his job due to incompetence. a) it smacks of CYA by the company; “We’re scared of BK and Muslims, but can’t use them as the reason. What else can we say?”, and b) if they really thought he was that bad the whole time, as the letter Schmalfeldt shows us claims, why did they make him in-house after two years? I’ve pointed that out to Ferguson, who at least agreed that I had a point.

        And there’s also where they got the documents. I don’t trust anything that’s been through TDPK’s team’s hands. I mean, it’s not like any of them have ever been less than completely truthful, right? /sarc

  5. I am relieved to see someone make a standing argument, p. 25. I had not seen it before in other filings, or may have missed it. That is a major flaw in almost everything BK files.

    • I’ve been wondering about that one ever since he brought it up. As a donor, I was curious as to whether he was in violation of the law. Essentially, was he practicing law without a license by attempting to represent alleged claims that only someone in my position had standing to bring?

      It seemed easier to just address it under “standing”. But nobody was doing that.

      • That is an interesting take that has merit, I think, regarding some of his filings. Nevertheless, I will refrain frm providing assistance to Acme Law.

      • Well, the problem would be…well, I and possibly other donors would have to file a motion to…nevermind.

      • Heh. One of the things that I enjoyed in the Levy brief was the use of the term “bete noir.” I immediately thought “Black Betty.”
        As for the brief, somewhere in a Federal District Court in Maryland, law clerks are breathing sighs of relief and crying for joy.

  6. Is there a public link to this brief, or is it all PACER action yet? I liked Levy’s blog post, sure I’ll love the brief if I can read it.

  7. Wrath:

    From the Motion:
    Therefore, assuming that Kimberlin attempts to introduce evidence to establish a prima facie case supporting any of his claims against Ace of Spades, the Court should consider the nature of Kimberlin’s proofs against Kimberlin’s history of deliberate dishonesty to judicial tribunals, in assessing the weight of Kimberlin’s prima facie case.

    Shorter Levy: “Liars lie.”

  8. I haven’t red other comments yet; I read Levy’s statement. He has given kimberlins’s good works and his complaints far too much credit….seemingly not aware of what a con man brett kimberlin is or how false his dealings with others. But perhaps,he caught on, or is catching on. The letter boasting of destroying another must have helped.

  9. Anyone else notice that the requests that TDPK is sending are coming from JTMP and NOT from him personally? Would that indicate a misuse of a nonprofits assests? Or that the non-profit is a party to the lawsuits? Either way it opens up JTMP to scrutiny does it not?

    • What do you mean by “requests”? And that would be practicing law without a license (see Betty’s comment). Kimberlin is not a lawyer and can represent only himself, no one else.

      • Look at Page 3 of this PDF. Kimberlin is sending his mails as
        From: Justice Through Music
        He is using his non-profits email accounts to send requests and notifications to AoS. that seems improper.

      • It’s not. JTMP is not a party and one obvious reason would be an actual lawyer would be required to bring litigation. But he should be careful – if that corporate veil is too thin his bad acts could poke right through it.

      • The defendants can object. What he is doing, despite only his name being on the caption, is advocating for damages for non-parties, which must be represented by an attorney, which he is not.

      • To clarify: sending the email from JTMP is not a violation of a rule that I’m aware of, but it does go to what onlooker noted. I was referring to the actual content of his filings.

  10. Five Signs Your Lawyer May Be Cheating On You:

    1. He’s withdrawn. He begins to indicate that he needs to spend time away from you or is often too busy for quality time.

    2. He’s unavailable. He doesn’t answer your calls or text like he used to and his paralegal may frequently tell you that he is in a meeting (with the FBI).

    3. He has become stand-offish. He literally does not want to stand next to you.

    4. He spends more time with other clients. He begins to dedicate more and more time to other cases and even takes on clients who are suing you.

    3. He’s defensive. He looks for reasons to find fault with you. Such as: you are a narcotics trafficker, domestic terrorist, attempted murderer, perjurer, forger, etc.

  11. The involvement of the ACLU is a big deal. Very big deal. It destroys TDPK’s (and via puppet strings NR’s ) narrative that this is all about fighting the “good fight” against those evil “Right Wingers”.

    That part may make NR and BK cry the most.

  12. Patriot Ombudsman has written about this. He’s now positive that Levy has identified Ace as a she (ignoring the footnote), and seems to have decided that it is some poor woman named Michelle who lives in CA. It’s an interesting read, and if his accuracy and sourcing was this good while he was at NIH, I’d better rethink my recommending stuff from them as accurate.

  13. Moldwarp is now claiming that Mr. Levy has breached attorney-client privilege in his post on pubcit.


    • Well, BS has gone for asking if Levy violated privilege to stating it as a fact. Isn’t that libel per se?

      • Someone needs to ask him to point to the specific place in that release where he breaches the attorney-client privilege. I’ll bet he can’t do it.

  14. And now, from the Department of Redundancy Department, famed journalist CBBS writes:

    “We are surprised, however, to see how willing Mr. Levy was to seemingly violate the still-extant Attorney-Client Privilege.”

    The definition of “extant” is “still in existence”, so he is talking about “the still still in existence” privilege.

    Truly a gifted wordsmith.

  15. Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Washington’s Birthday Hangover Edition : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply