The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has been given until close of business this Friday to file any further amendments to his complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. One reason he wishes to do so is that so much of his existing amended complaint has been gutted by the various motions to dismiss. As we wait this week for TDPK’s latest magnum opus, let’s review some of the better bits from those motions to dismiss.
Since this is my blog, I’ll start with my discussion of the deficiencies in his allegations of defamation.
32. Plaintiff is a public figure who is defamation proof. He became the object of public attention when he was tried and convicted as the Speedway Bomber. See U.S. v. Kimberlin, 527 F.Supp. 1010 (S.D. Ind. 1981) and 483 F.Supp. 350 (S.D. Ind. 1979). He broadened his fame when, while still in prison on bombing and drug smuggling charges, he claimed to have sold marijuana to then-Vice-Presidential-candidate Dan Quayle. See Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 6 F.3d 789, 791 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Further public interest was generated when his parole for the bombing and drug charges was revoked. Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F.Supp.2d 487 (D. Md. 1998). It was revoked because of failure to make restitution to the widow of a bombing victim (herself a wounded victim) which was a condition of his parole. He achieved another measure of fame when he sued the Bureau of Prisons because he was not allowed to possess an electric guitar in prison. See Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 318 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003). As a public figure, he has not alleged any instance demonstrating actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth by any of the defendants. NYT v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
33. As can be seen by the partial listing of Plaintiffs history in the paragraph above, he has considerable reputational baggage. Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin (Singer, Mark, Knoff, New York, 1996.) is an authorized biography of Kimberlin. It insinuates that Plaintiff had an improper relationship with a ten year old girl (p. 78.), that he was suspected of having arranged the murder-for-hire of the girl’s grandmother. (pp. 82, 83.), and that the subsequent Speedway Bombings were an attempt to distract the murder investigation (p. 89.). The book tells of other unsavory actions, including Plaintiffs bragging about sabotaging military equipment while working in a prison industry (p. 184.). Plaintiffs status as public figure is not unlike Nathan Leopold’s (of Leopold and Loeb); when one commits a sufficiently infamous crime, one becomes a public figure from that day onward. See Leopold v. Levin, 45 Il1.2d 434 (1970).
34. In paragraph 181 of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff alleges that statements by the defendants concerning his behavior make him appear “odious, infamous, and/or frightening” without, as noted above, alleging which particular statement(s) by which particular defendant(s) were defamatory. However, Plaintiff in the past has tacitly acknowledged his reputation (as a perjurer, drug smuggler/wholesaler/dealer, bomber, murder suspect, etc.) is bad. See e.g., U.S. v. Kimberlin, 805 F. 2d 210, 223-24 (7th Cir. 1986). Indeed, it is so bad as to render him defamation proof. See Jackson v. Longscope, 394 Mass. 577 (1985).
There was one other problem with his allegation of defamation against me.
31. Even if the alleged statements made by Defendant Hoge be defamatory, any claim by Plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations (Md Courts & Judicial Proc. § 5-105.) because all alleged statements by Mr. Hoge were made more than one year before the filing of the instant suit.
It won’t matter how he amends his complaint. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted serial bomber, and, like other serial bombers (The Unibomber Ted Kaczynski, for instance), he’s now known as a notorious criminal. He’s defamation proof.