Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

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 Further public interest was generated when his parole for the bombing and drug charges was revoked.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 It was revoked because of failure to make restitution to the widow of a bombing victim (herself a wounded victim) which was a condition of his parole.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.

15 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. Your conclusion is correct John. As another person who is defamation-proof due to prior bad acts and criminal history, I fully concur with your citations. Even though I am not as infamous as Kimberlin is nor am I involved in continued criminal activity like Kimberlin is I am still defamation-proof as a consequence of my actions. For the rest of my life I will bear those consequences, allowing those who wish to make accusations and allegations about me, no matter how outlandish or untrue, to do so without consequences themselves. If only Brett understood that, accepted that as a just consequence of his actions and behaved accordingly. Sadly, for idiots like Brett, a ‘just’ consequence is one where they get what they want not what real justice commands.

    • Paul, i don’t think you are defamation proof. Though given your past, it would be harder than it would be with say, John, i don’t think your conduct has reached that level of infamy.

      I say that neither to praise you nor to beat you up, but just to call a spade a spade.

  2. Ted Kaczynski is defamation proof?

    I guess it’s time to report that I once caught at least one domestic terrorist with a penchant for explosives having sex with a sheep. I’m not gonna say if it was Brett or Ted, but that sheep was definitely under the legal age.


  3. I actually have written news for years, and understand by training and experience the importance of getting the story right — and documenting your sources. Hoge, Walker, Ace and the rest of the “Universe” were very careful about how they wrote their stories. Had Kimberlin been just a run of the mill serial bomber, perjurer, and document forger/eater, the bloggers were still on firm ground with their writing.

    Those who were SWATted pointed out they were targeted after they wrote about Kimberlin — and NOT that they were SWATted BY Kimberlin. The stories were well footnoted with public documents, book quotations from the AUTHORIZED biography, and other news articles from the print press. You guys did journalism.

    RM Nixon(Still Kicking) — You are humble and contrite. There’s forgiveness, and there’s Grace. I hope you find both.

    • Thank you sir, the forgiveness has already been paid for by my Lord and Savior’s sacrificial act of expiation. His Grace is the sufficiency that fills my soul. May God bless you.

  4. Here is my guess on the amended complaint. [redacted] Hey! Please don’t give TDPK any useful hints.—wjjhoge

    Others will be added that are just as tenuous to spread the pain.

    The ridiculousness of the charges will remain. He doesn’t actually need to make them more specific or less conclusory, because the judge has already ruled on their sufficiency in motions to dismiss.

    The new defendants will file their MTDs which will give rise to another amended complaint…

    • Dropping defendants from the case would be a tacit admission that they shouldn’t have been sued in the first place. They would have sufficient grounds to be awarded costs.

      As for amending complaints, Judge Grimm has declared that this will be TDPK’s last bite of the apple.

      Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 calls for amendments to be freely granted, Plaintiff will be permitted to amend his complaint as he has stated he intends. However, in the interest of expediency and protecting Defendants from multiple rounds of briefing, no further amendments will be permitted after March 7, 2014. Further, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint will not be accepted by the Clerk if it fails to comply with Local Rule 103.6.

    • “He doesn’t actually need to make them more specific or less conclusory, because the judge has already ruled on their sufficiency in motions to dismiss.”
      Earl – Has the Judge actually ruled on any MTDs from individual plaintiffs at this point, apart from the rendering the issue whether Twitchy was served moot?

  5. The little runt postures as if he’s all butt-hurt about supposedly being defamed, and he brings his pro se lawsuits, but you can’t miss the fact that he’s a complete attention whore who’s in love with the attention and notoriety.

  6. I hope that this time the proper formula for getting the allegations in the complaint subject to perjury if untrue is followed verbatim. Otherwise every motion to dismiss should start with the statement that the complaint is defective as a matter of law and can be dismissed on that ground alone.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s