Prevarication Du Jour

Now that the deadline for allowable amendments to his complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness has passed, I’m gong to spend some time taunting The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin for his incompetence in drafting his original Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint.ECF 100-1-139Consider the allegation above. It accuses me of using this blog and my Twitter account to defame TDPK “hundreds” of times since mid October. That’s a good opening sentence for a set of allegations relating to defamation, but it isn’t everything necessary to allege the tort. In order for such an allegation to stand up to a motion to dismiss, it must say with specificity what was said or written that was defamatory and when it was published. Here’s what the Supreme Court has said:

Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Every one of the motions to dismiss filed against TDPK’s First Amended Complaint cited Iqbal and/or another recent Supreme Court case. Yet, Kimberlin did not bother to correct his deficient pleadings by alleging specific instances of actions by the defendants that led to damages that he suffered. In my case that would be because there were no such incidents.

Indeed, the only specific writing of mine that TDPK referenced in any of his complaints is a blog post that does not say what he claims it says. Furthermore, even if it were defamatory (and it isn’t), it is so old as to be beyond the statute of limitations on defamation.

If I had published hundreds of defamatory comments about TDPK over the past five months, surely he could have come up with at least one or two examples and cite them. The fact that he did not suggests that he is either massively incompetent or he is lying. Or both.

36 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour

  1. And by the language chosen here, saying “hundreds of blog posts AND tweets” rather than “hundreds of blog posts OR tweets,” isn’t TDBK alleging that you have published >100 posts to your blog AND >100 tweets, each accusing him of “crime after crime?”

    In addition to listing with detail and specifics the crimes of which you have allegedly accused him, is he not now on the hook to prove it happened at least 101 times here AND at leaast 101 times on Twitter?

    Hasn’t TDBK effectively doubled (or more) his burden of proof as to this count of his complaint?

    What a pity…

    • Considering the crap The Mad Terrorist has gotten away with, I highly doubt the judge would hold him to that strict an interpretation.

      Pro se and all that.

    • @Patrick — Logically, you are correct, but linguistically it’s too ambiguous. In fact, it would be common English for me to say “I have seven dogs and cats” when referring to a total of seven animals. If I have seven of each, then I would be more likely to say, “I have seven dogs and seven cats” to avoid that confusion. So I would say interpreting the words in natural English would mean Kimberlin is thinking of “blog posts and tweets” as a single object which is collectively modified by the “hundreds.”

      But don’t worry. There’s plenty of other petards Kimberlin will be hoisted upon.

    • No judge in his or her right mind is going to parse a natural language like English as though it was written in mathematical notation. “Hundreds of A and B” is quite capable of the interpretation of at least one A, at least one B, and a sum of A and B > 200. Indeed, math notation of (A + B) > 200 would not even imply that A was positive. Moreover, the number is not relevant to the issue of liability (although it possibly would be relevant to the issue of damages). A single defamatory post or tweet is still defamation.

      Mr. Hoge has identified the critical point: BK has failed to specify even one post or tweet that is both defamatory and not barred by the statute of limitations. BK has made this error DESPITE numerous motions to dismiss having already stressed the lack of specificity in his complaint.

      The only way that justice can be served in this case is for the case to be dismissed with prejudice and for BK to be declared a vexatious litigant and sanctioned.

  2. I don’t understand why TDPK did not just add the tort of “butthurt” to the complaint, knowing that defamation was a loser.

    Perhaps butthurt more properly belongs in the category of emotional suffering, though.

  3. In the last analysis, Brett Kimberlin believes that he is the trier of fact and arbiter of law in this case, and, that the federal courts exist only to rubber-stamp his edicts.

  4. As part of Moldwarp’s further proving his lack on consistency, in the not-quite-a-threat he made to Mr. Frey and Mr. White, he stated:

    I say that unless someone is dragging @Popehat……and Frey OUT OF THEIR OFFICES and BREAKING THEIR KNEES WITH BASEBALL BATS because of this, then there is nothing for them to worry about. Words are just words, and they cannot harm you. “Sticks and stones,” as they say.

    Or, baseball bats.

    The bit I’ve bolded would seem to suggest that he shouldn’t be at all upset about anything anyone has said here or anyplace else on the web, because it’s just words, and according to BS himself, they can’t hurt him.

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