RICO Madness Update

Last week, Judge Grimm struck my motion to dismiss based on The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s Second Amended Complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. The reason was that the judge hadn’t granted TDPK’s motion to amend yet. The judge pointed out that what the defendants should be filing are oppositions to TDPK’s Motion to File Second Amended Complaint.

Michael Smith, the lawyer for Michelle Malkin and Twitchy, has filed such an opposition.

So have I, and I’ll publish it as soon as it goes up on PACER.

63 thoughts on “RICO Madness Update

      • “Are u serious.”

        Really? This is how an adult, a plaintiff in a RICO case, begins an email to a defendant’s counsel? There are no words. *smdh*

    • Am I wrong in assume that one could simply turn on “track changes” in most modern word processors to handle this duty that stuff be marked up between versions?
      I do it all the time for collaborative papers, how is this different? (While the court has a specific format, that could be handled with minimal effort.)

      This isn’t the 1960s.

      • There is a specific reason that TDPK couldn’t/didn’t in this case. A hint: who do you think actually wrote the SAC?

      • Yes, well, I’ll let the evidence speak for itself as to *who* may have actually written it.
        Still, they could have used a modern word processor (and been given the FAC digitally).
        I mean Acme law may be crummy, but grade-schoolers coordinate better than this.

  1. I think it was very helpful of Mr. Smith to include some citations from appellate cases rejecting amendments. Hopefully Judge Grimm finds them useful.

  2. I couldn’t help but laugh out loud at the Team Themis stuff in the opposition. Hoge, sorry you have to deal with this lawsuit, but you have to admit it has its hilarious moments.

    • “And, YOU need to but out of shit you know nothing about!”

      Bill Schmalfeldt really and truly had the gall to instruct someone else to do as much as he was head-over-heels in his sweaty-palm, happy place harassing Lee Stranahan over the death of Lee’s stillborn child for the gazillionth time.

      Tis enough to make one shake their head clean off their shoulders. What a monster. What an evil and despicable monster. *SPIT*

      • To be fair, if Schmalfeldt had to butt out of everything he doesn’t know anything about, then he would never be able to write about anything.

        Also to be fair, whenever I say “to be fair,” I am usually about to be super sarcastic, rather than fair.

  3. “careless mistakes at best and false certifications, forgeries, and violations of federal statutes, at worst”

    One question: When do the defendants get to for BK to cough up the monies that they have expended defending against this BS (by which I mean bullsnot and not Herr Dummkopf)?

      • They’ve requested fees and costs repeatedly; In the opposition above and in motions to dismiss. When the court rules on the MtD’s, he’ll likely consider sanctions/fees.

  4. “Where Mr. Kimberlin is told to do something not only by the court rules but by this Court’s
    specific admonishment, yet fails to do it – despite being a seasoned litigant, by his own description – it is difficult to see how allowing him to amend will do anything but encourage more of the same conduct down the road.”

    I enjoyed this part. Clear and to the point. Give him an inch, he forge more summons.

  5. Btw, if you cannot handle the rigors of litigation… here’s some simple advice: DON’T SUE PEOPLE.

    i mean its one thing if you are being sued. then it is being hoisted upon you. But if you are, say, the Plaintiff in 3 suits you have no right to b*tch that you are overwhelmed. You chose this battlefield. You chose your opponents. deal with it.

    • Aaron, I’m sure that BK will somehow be able to “prove” that you all forced, I say forced,[/Foghorn Leghorn] him to undertake all these cases at the same time. It wasn’t his choice!

      • Okay, I admit it. I am a Jedi. I like waved my hand at Brett and said, “you will sue 22 defendants claiming that Simon and Schuser is in a mafia.”

        “I will sue 22 defendants…”

        “Then when you amend the complaint you will add some really crazy paranoid crap to it.”

        “When I amend the complaint I will add crazy crap to it.”

        “And you will link to a site that claims that the NSA is trying to control the internet through sorcery.”

        “I will link…”

        “Oh and these are not the droids you are looking for.”

      • Of course it is your and the other defendant’s fault that he is so overwhelmed, you all were supposed to just run for the hills, lay down and beg for mercy, roll on each other and plead to settle immediately, by actually having the NERVE to defend yourselves you’ve just made the matter worse…

        do i really need a sarc tag?


  6. Again and again TDPK thumbs his nose at the judge and rules of contact yet never seems to have any negative consequences. Hsis, “I am pro se,” excuse seems to have run its course with even the judge acknowledging that it is BS

  7. Pingback: Will Judge Grimm Accept ‘Futile’ Complaint by Brett Kimberlin? : The Other McCain

  8. I find three interesting things in Brett Kimberlin’s letter to Mr Smith. The first is that Brett Kimberlin is accusing Mr Smith of violating professional ethics. Yet again, Brett Kimberlin attacks an opposing party’s right to counsel. Second, Brett Kimberlin continues to act aggressively even in situations in which it would behoove him to act defensively. This is a weakness. His actions can be predicted. It is just a matter of creating a situation in which the aggressive response is counterproductive, and let his instincts lead him to ruin. And, third, he is starting to crack every so slightly. Ted Bundy was brash, bold, vain and supremely confident he would never be executed right up till towards the end when it started to dawn on him that this time he really was going to die. It is said that his mental state deteriorated considerably towards the end. I expect Brett Kimberlin to follow a similar curve. The time isn’t yet, but, it might not be that much longer either.

    • I wrote a whole post about wondering if Brett might have a george constanza moment, that is a moment when he realizes every instinct he has ever had is wrong.

      also small quibble: “in which it would behoove him to act defensively.” right now, defensive isn’t what he needs to be, but honestly contrite.

      Although to be fair, if he suddenly had an honest or contrite bone in his body, his body might reject it to the danger of his health. 🙂

      • In the letter, Kimberlin is being both aggressive and contrite. He is “contrite” to the degree he admits lesser offenses. But, he pivots immediately to an aggressive posture of claiming persecution over being disproportionally sanctioned for his acts.

    • But there is the rub. To this day Kimby maintains that he was not the bomber. Never mind the pesky facts and all the evidence found in his car. Nope, HE claims he didn’t do it, so therefore the defendants are accusing him of something he didn’t do so that makes his case just like the Boston bombing case.

    • BK, like BS, is Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, and words mean what he says they mean, and not what the rest of the world does. They are endlessly malleable, depending on the circumstances and what he needs to back his position up. BK is a fabulist of the first water, and with his personal and ever changing definitions of language, he assumes that no one will ever be able to successfully challenge him.

      • Which, I guess, closes the circle of the entire argument about Kimberlin as a perjurer, forger and untrustworthy fellow; so why would the rich and famous blithely donate to his “projects”, regardless of the jersey he claims to wear?

      • Because the rich and famous aren’t, on average, smarter than the average bear? They have their pet causes, hear the right words from BK, and open their checkbooks, not thinking that it might be a good idea to check things out further, because no one on their side of the ideological aisle has *ever* done something wrong or illegal. (My sister, the democrat aparatchik in Seattle, used to keep assuring me that only Republicans had ever committed vote fraud, in the entire history of this country. This from a woman living in King County with precincts casting more votes than voters in 2004, and boxes of uncounted ballots being found in the backs of cars, all votes in them being for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate.)

        These same folks also probably suffer from the LindseyonOWN effect that RSM described over on his blog the other day; they are totally insulated so nothing gets past their handlers to challenge that simplistic world view, so of course they will give to the poor political prisoner who tried to bring down the evil Bush 41. I’m sure they don’t (or at least didn’t) know about his bombing past when they regularly supported his two “charities”.

    • Isn’t Kimberlin’s basic claim that he was convicted of enumerated offenses like “manufacturing and possessing a destructive device, and malicious damage by explosives with personal injury,” but, not a specific crime called “terrorism?”

      • Probably. I know that’s what Moldwarp keeps claiming.

        However: on the FBI’s website (http://1.usa.gov/1h19SAj) you can find this definition of Domestic Terrorism:

        “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
        Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
        Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
        Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

        Brett’s activities which garnered him a 50 year sentence would seem to fit all three bullet points. Ergo, we can consider him to be a domestic terrorist.

      • the simple answer is that what he was convicted of would fit the definition of terrorism. but the definition of terrorism wasn’t codified until after his crimes.

        But hey whine to a jury that just because you bombed a whole city for 6 days doesn’t make it right to call you a terrorist. That’s called a winning argument.

  9. IIRC, Timothy McVeigh was not convicted of “Domestic Terrorism” either. Yet, anyone with eyes to see, and ears to hear, and a brain with which to think and discern, would most certainly declare McVeigh’s acts as such.

    I realize that leftists have a difficult time calling a spade a spade. However, to deny that bombings are inherently intended to terrorize is as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Hence, Bill Schmalfeldt’s rabid denial Brett Kimberlin’s history and conviction of detonating bombs lands him squarely in the “Domestic Terrorist” camp.

Leave a Reply