RICO Madness Update

As promised, here’s the opposition that I filed against The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s Motion to File Second Amended Complaint.

Also, TDPK has sent a letter to the judge, and rather than try to characterize it myself, here it is. The Gentle Reader may form his own opinion.

I didn’t make that up.

UPDATE—IANAL, but my understanding of the judge’s two orders goes like this. TDPK moved to amend the complaint by adding Twitchy as a defendant. The bit quoted in TDPK’s letter above is the judge granting permission to amend by adding Twitchy. He didn’t give leave for further amendments. Instead, he said that he would not accept any further amendments after 7 March.

UPDATE 2—So Judge Grimm has not yet ruled on whether to allow the Second Amended Complaint. Since TDPK made the addition of Twitchy a part of the SAC, I assume that Twitchy will not be added as a defendant if the judge denies the motion to amend. That will put the court back to dealing with the motions to dismiss against the existing version of the complaint.

UPDATE 3—My codefendant Aaron Walker, who is a lawyer, has a different take on the judge’s orders.

UPDATE 4—Stacy McCain chimes in here.

115 thoughts on “RICO Madness Update

  1. actually looking back and re-reading the judges letter order from Feb 21st, it does say
    “Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend will be GRANTED. ” However when I originally read that it seemed to be referring to straightening out whether or not Twitchy is a named defendent and NOT a rewrite the entire complaint allowance….and I still think so.

    It’ll be up to the judge to clarify…

      • so BK is gonna try arguing to the judge that Bk’s interpretation of what the judge wrote is the correct one and not what the judge says he wrote…

        JEEEEZ it’s a damn shame all the time and money the defendants have had to waste to deal with this crap..

      • Yes and yes. The judge is the best judge (sorry!) about what he meant in his orders, not any of the parties.

    • …Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, which seeks to “correct a clerical error in the caption of” the Amended Complaint by adding “Twitchy” as a defendant…, Plaintiff will be permitted to amend his complaint as he has stated he intends.

      ~ Hon. P. W. Grimm

      The WHOLE body of those two paragraphs is all about Twitchy and MM. The sole reason for granting the motion to ammend is to allow Brett to correct the “Clerical error” he created.

      I have a feeling Judge Grimm will live up to his surname with regards to TDPK taking a mile. Does anybody know if Hizzonor ruled on Brett’s showing regarding the forgeries? I know he granted a bunch of effective allowances, but wouldn’t he have issued an order that said he accepted BK’s showing of cause?

      Can you say \ˈsaŋ(k)-shənz\ children? Good, I knew you could.

  2. BREAKING NEW; BK states the truth in a court filing:

    ‘plaintiff is confused’

    that is all.

  3. I can see how the judge’s letter would be confusing – if you choose to read it in a confusing manner. The judge pretty clearly says if you want to add twitchy, that’s fine, do so. But, any further amendment (beyond the twitchy addition) is going to require a motion – which was not filed – and even so, any further amendment needs to be in by the 7th of March.

    • I agree.
      In the Judge’s Letter Order ECF 88, he states “Plaintiff has filed a Notification of Intent to File Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 80”. He declares that nonsensical and tells Kimberlin to either file or not file the Motion to Amend. Then he states that the Letter Order was only going to grant Kimberlin’s request to add Twitchy to the caption:

      3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Complaint Caption, ECF No. 48, is GRANTED;

      Mr. Hoge has previously stated that he believed the Judge had given Kimberlin approval to amend in the Case Management Order but I haven’t found that online to see exactly what the Judge said in that order.

  4. Reading through the 2-21 letter order (which is actually pretty confusing) shows two issues:

    The first is Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct the Caption to add Twitchy as a co-defendant. The court granted this motion.

    The second is Plaintiff’s Leave to file Motion to Amend the complaint. The court granted leave for Plaintiff to file a Motion to Amend, but did not grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.

  5. In the Judge’s Letter Order ECF 88, he states: “Plaintiff will be permitted to amend his complaint as he has stated he intends.”
    I think much of the confusion comes from speculating about what the Judge believes Kimberlin, in his previous motions, has “intended” to do. And, up to that point (ECF 88), I believe Kimberlin had only indicated that he wanted to add Twitchy to the caption.

    • The snarky insult at the end of BK’s letter to the court is beyond belief. My thought is it will only help to burn Brett’s RICO house down, but you know what that show of aggression really is, is Brett’s promise to “get” that judge; he’s baring fangs to demonstrate he will bite if crossed.

      • It appears that the Plaintiff has confused this court as thinking the Judge, being the 24th defendant in this RICO suit…

  6. Your analysis is probably dead on, although think it is clear the judge granted leave to Brett to make a motion to amend, and even allowed a (curtailed) time period where further amendmentS (plural) could be attempted, but he specifically reserved the possibility that a motion to amend could be booted if it was not in compliance with local rules and did not state any amendment would be approved.

  7. So, basically, the puny plaintiff thinks it’s a good move to mischaracterize this judge’s own order, just like he mischaracterized the contents of so many exhibits, and to play semantics with judge. Way to hand the court absolute proof of what the defendants have been saying! Wow. And I’ll echo other posters and add: hahahahahaha

  8. Bll. Shaky… Shiny object over here. just

    STOP READING THESE COMMENTS if they ‘offend’ your tender behind, or enflame your butthurt.

    Oh, answer to yesterdays riddles:

    only 1, the other one is dead.

    the second riddle:

    to visit the grave!


    • oh, and i strongly behave, based on your behavior you are faking and/or exaggerating your ‘illness’. the PD, no the psychosis.

      • believe = behave… not that shaky has the comprehension skills to read words that don’t have to do with anal rape fantasies.

    • FAtboi is on a rant; maybe the doom clock will start again? I’m guessing; its hard to guess what liars will do.

      • he’s off outing a random person and trying to get them fired. Yes, the same thing he accuses of us ‘harassing’ him by.

        Ask yourself shakey… What Would Bobber Do? WWBD?

      • And we can’t read his blog because he’s made it members only. Again. Which I assume will only last a day or two because he can’t stand being ignored, and he won’t get the attention if he doesn’t put his stuff out in public.

        • The members only thing won’t last; he’ll miss the traffic and focus on Mr. H’s blog with all the fine things we point out about Fatboi!

      • It’s been down for at least an hour! I guess he had to make it public so that LE could read all about the dastardly Mr. Grady.

      • He reserves the right to get upset over things people say on a blog he doesn’t have to visit by claiming he “has to know” what lies are being said about him.
        OK, then doesn’t that mean that the people he lies about have the right to read his timeline for the same reason, to know what lies he’s telling. But unlike him rather than act like spoiled brats demanding everyone else shut up, they correct his lies??

        seriously how does one think they can do/say whatever they want to whomever they want and whenever they want, and their victims have to just sit there and take it otherwise the aggressor is being “attacked/libeled/defamed” !!!!!!11!! ???

  9. I turn next to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, which seeks to “correct a clerical error in the caption of” the Amended Complaint by adding “Twitchy” as a defendant listed in the caption of the complaint.

    Judge was fairly clear. He was allowing Kimby’s motion to amend the complaint to add Twitchy. Anything else? Nope, file a motion to ask leave to amend. So simple even a Schmalfeldt could…oh no. Sorry…so simple even a frozen cave mean….oh jeez, this is getting embarrassing.

    • if you must make those types of jokes, do it on twitter and not Hoge’s blog, it’s much more satisfying 🙂

      • feel free to delete the above comment as it was in response to a comment that you (rightfully) deleted …

    • It shaky would just stop reading this blog, and realize the pedo bomber is not really his friend, and stick to his radio shows, he wouldn’t be known as the worlds most popular ‘deranged cyberstalker bill schmalfeldt’

      but instead, his name is forever mud, and know he’s dragging bobber in to the mud too.

  10. i stand by analysis. last week was a reversal. consider the implications of that if i am right. it means the judge was going to allow the amendment… until he said otherwise. So… what changed?

    My guess is it really is this issue with the forging of the summons. Now he has admitted to the forgery that changes the ballgame.

    • We disagree about the reversal ( i.e., he always reserved power to boot amendments, or refuse to grant a motion for amendment), except there probably has been a “reversal” in the broader sense of his outlook being rather different post show-cause (as it ought to be.)

  11. Heh, so apparently the Judge only granted Kimberlin’s motion to add Twitchy to the compaint and gave a deadline of March 7 to do it. That deadline also applied to any other motions Kimberlin might want to file. But instead of filing a new complaint (only adding Twitchy to the complaint caption as the Judge granted) and then filing another motion asking to file a SAC, Kimberlin only files a new motion to file a SAC, including Twitchy in the caption. The Judge must be shaking his head in disbelief. Looks to me like Kimberlin hasn’t successfully added Twitchy as a defendant and that the FAC is (so far) the only governing complaint. I can’t see the Judge granting the SAC as written and the deadline has passed.

  12. Judge Grimm in the summary at the end of the 2/21/14 letter put it this way

    “Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Complaint Caption, ECF No. 48, is GRANTED;”

    And said nothing about generally amending the complaint

  13. Someone is trying to use a 3 1/2 year old post about hating his job as a weapon…A lot could have changed in 3.5 years, plus so what? A lot of people openly admit to hating their jobs. If they do them well, businesses don’t tend to care. Plus said person looks to be rather senior in the company. That allows for leeway. Put another way, sorry champ, you’ll probably fail with trying to get this one fired

  14. Since this seems to be where all the action is, I have a question to pose to the crowd on the subject of logic and grown-up, long-term thinking. Please answer subjectively; I’m interested in your thoughts, not the thoughts that may or may not be blinking dimly in some other person’s mind.

    Let’s assume you‘re a random blogger, radio station geek and somewhat prolific (in quantity, not quality) Tweeter. Suppose you were feeling particularly cranky and put-upon one day because of the efforts of the various and sundry adversaries you’ve collected over time whilst pursuing your online livelihood, such as it is. And on this day, suppose you decide that, as much as you hate to do it, because it’s just not in your nature to be a mean person, you feel…compelled…to report this person to his employer.

    Hypothetically, here’s a list of some things you may know about this person:

    You may know where he lives because you doxed him.
    You may know he’s been at this job for around 20 years because you doxed him.
    You may know he admitted online about 3 ½ years ago that he’s not really happy with his job. You know this because you doxed him.
    You may know he’s also admitted online, about 4 years ago, that he has bipolar disorder. You know this because you doxed him.
    You may know he has a son with a disability, because you doxed him.
    You doxed him in an effort to scare and intimidate him, but that certainly hasn’t worked out to your satisfaction.

    You may think, though you cannot prove, that he may be multiple commenters simultaneously on a particular blog that you believe harasses you constantly, but which you are strangely unable to leave alone in the manner which you beg, plead and DEMAND your army of adversaries to leave you alone.

    In addition, you may be of the opinion, though your evidence may be sketchy and subject to the most freewheeling of interpretations, that that he has made credible threats against you, and that he might be a highly functioning sociopath.


    • It’s obviously an insidious plan that is well beyond said adversary’s ability to fathom. The wheels within wheels form an elaborate design all carefully constructed to be inscrutable to the common man; but to those with the proper perspective (or a decoder ring) the elegance is simple and the simplicity is elegant. I.e. If you can’t see the simple beauty of this plan then you must be too simple?

    • I see where you are going with this…and would like to here more. Can you live-blog it?


    • I missed all the excitement, DAMN patients, always getting in the way.

      A quick recap for the after-work crowd from anybody, plz?

      As to your question, I answer as I’ve always answered. A sociopath is incapable of thinking more than one move ahead, he thinks he is beyond the intelligence of other people so his decisions cannot possibly go wrong. (See Kimberlin, Brett in Letter to Grimm, Judge 3-25-14)

    • Further information to guide your answer: on your Twitter account, you have just within the past couple of minutes passed on to “the proper authorities” this “threat,” which you are apparently incapable of recognizing as a “Boy, I really didn’t think this thing through, did I?” situation.

      Carry on.

    • I see Bill just called this a threat, unable to realize that the last paragraph is contingent upon you losing your job, which seems extremely unlikely.

      Another loss for Bill.

      • He seems to think this is some sort of threat also. Though since he’s made all but the first few lines of his blog posts “members only”, I’m not sure.

      • funny how without his name being mentioned at all, Twinkie felt this was a threat directed at HIM and although PP mentions repeatedly it’s hypothetical, he views it real enough to “turn it over to LE”…

        kinda like when he ran crying to the cops after the person he had been harassing by calling them a felon said he’d let the real felon know what all Twinkie had been saying about them. THEN turned around after being “afraid for my life” continued to taught the person he was harassing by telling them to “come on and kill me already”..


    • “If you really believe that,” Miles asked, silkily, “Then why are you still standing in my way?”

      “A Civil Campaign” by Lois McMaster Bujold.

  15. “Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity. Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

  16. “Who is Bill Schmalfeldt?
    “Schmalfelt’s a guy who describes himself as a progressive . . . He leaves no sense of what values he promotes, only of what groups and individuals he hates. There’s only one circumstance when you get a sense that he’s enjoying what he does, that he has a craft or a calling. That’s when he’s describing someone being raped, murdered, or otherwise abused, or when he’s pursuing the families of someone he hates.”
    – Ken White, Aug. 6, 2013

  17. Fatboi hasn’t started the doomsday clock yet; I guess he’s trying to think of new lies (since he can’t remember the old ones!)

    • A guy whose initials are/were RH attacked me at a housewarming party, nearly 30 years ago in Dublin, Ireland, and I ended up with a dislocated pelvis. RH eventually went on to become a mercenary, and really, we all hoped that someone else’s bullet found him, he was evil.

      • Bill took the last tweet out of context and decided that the un-named “he” who I said the world would have been better if he were killed, and is claiming that I mean him.

      • Yes, I know he did, and that is why I called him out. He is either the guy who attacked you, or he deliberately chose to twist the tweet around to facilitate his faux victimhood.

      • Ok, I’ve been out of service this week. Had a doctor’s appointment yesterday and was in bed for most of today. Did a few things this evening and just finished dinner.

        I just got a little caught up on some of this. Apparently he now thinks you are me. Unfortunately, I’ve never been to Dublin. Although I do have arthritis in my hips.

        And I’ve told him repeatedly to stop directly addressing me and to stop contacting me.

  18. @Librarygryffon – this is for you.

    “Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. .. . He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological… and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that – do not listen.”
    The Exorcist

    • Just as I consider Joan of Arc some of the best evidence for divine intervention, I consider CBBS some of the best evidence for demonic possession.

  19. BREAKING: Schmalfeldt admits he did not read her twitter feed and claimed that a tweet that did not name him was about him. Defamation.

  20. BREAKING: Schmalfeldt again posts the tweet in which his name does not appear, claims she’s talking about him when her timeline clearly states it was the SO of a friend, and he is now in Eastern Europe.

  21. I think that Aaron got himself lost in interpreting Judge Grimm’s earlier letter order. I think the correct explanation is the simplest one given what was in front of Grimm at the time. A request to correct the caption to add Twitchy and a request to be allowed to file a motion to file a second amended complaint.

    Judge Grimm answered the first in the affirmative – that Twitchy be added to the caption – and the second by saying that Kimberlin could file a motion for the second amended complaint.

    I think Grimm is showing signs of being annoyed at Kimberlin usual overreach, blame others for his actions mentality. I think that the issue of the OSC regarding the forged summons is a separate issue for Grimm.

    We’ll see.

    • I’m just overcome by BK’s graciousness at the end of his letter to the court, giving the judge an out like that. Delicacy and tact are his strongest suit. O.o.

      • I’ve got to tell you, you made me laugh out loud.

        And now I’m picturing Brett Kimberlin reading this and thinking, “What? I don’t get the joke.”

    • I’m wondering if the Judge didn’t consider Kimberlin’s desire to add Twitchy’s name to the caption AND Kimberlin’s wish to file a SAC as the same thing. At the time the order (ECF 88) was written, the big issue being fought over was his summons forgery and the caption screw-up. The Judge may have thought that only fixing the caption was what the SAC would consist of. And then Kimberlin called Rauhauser, who then convinced him to go for broke.

  22. Pingback: In Which Brett Kimberlin Presumes to Lecture U.S. Judge Paul Grimm : The Other McCain

  23. Allowing amended complaints, especially in a RICO case, is extremely prejudicial to the defendants. The plaintiff essentially gets to see the defense to his charges, then revise them to avoid those defenses. It’s like seeing the other players’ hole cards in poker before you bet.

    Therefore, amending complaints is not usually allowed beyond correcting simple errors. This is what the judge permitted here, that the Defendant left off the list for service be added back to the suit. That’s reasonable.

    Allowing further amendments to include entirely new defendants and new allegations and new theories of the conspiracy may not be unprecedented, but I’ve never heard of such a thing.

  24. Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Circle Of Signifiers : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply