Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Gentle Reader who has been following the Saga of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin and his vexatious lawsuits should not be surprised to find that TDPK has mischaracterized the arguments presented in the oppositions to his motion for a second amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. Here’s one of the tales he tries to spin in that reply.ECF 119-7Of course, it is true that by expanding his complaint with 60% more verbiage did not result in a short statement of the nature of his case. It is also true that he still doesn’t allege a sufficient set of facts upon which a claim for relief could be based. The defendants’ arguments are not incredible, but the facts upon which they are based are mind-bogglingly weird.

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin was given an opportunity to clean up his complaint. Instead, he has doubled down on stupid.

#Fail

10 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. I’m guessing this is only one reason CB has reversed his course of DOOM for you, John. Meanwhile, the rest of his pathetic life goes on as normal, with his weekly change in handles and so-called radio formats.
    Hang in there, kiddo.

  2. I would try to come back directly on his claims about the alleged false narrative, the alleged fraud of raising money based on that narrative, the alleged money laundering of that money, and, the alleged conspiracy to do all of these.

    A tip jar is merely a solicitation of a gift. When a gift is solicited, and received, no “fraud” occurs. To the extent that it allegedly a conditional gift that condition seems to be that the blogger owner maintain and write within that blog in expectation of drawing a salary. The bloggers with tip jars such as yourself, Stacy McCain and Aaron Walker have in return continued to maintain their blogs, and continued to provide content. No fraud has occurred.

    Brett Kimberlin wishes to assert that the gifts were gained fraudulently because the narrative was “false.” Even if that claim were true, which it is not, it is completely irrelevant to the question of fraud. John Hoge was publishing stories about Brett Kimberlin on a continuing basis well before he put up a tip jar. The readership here know exactly what “narrative” John Hoge would pursue with any gifts. Many of those that hit the tip jar do so precisely because that “narrative” will be furthered. They have not been disappointed. Brett Kimberlin is trying to argue to courts that he knows how other people should spend their own money than they know for themselves. Donors know that when they hit Stacy McCain’s tip jar they are paying him a salary. Drawing a salary is simply not money laundering.

    If in fact any of the donors came to the opinion that the “narrative” promoted here was false they have the resource of asking for their money back. Brett Kimberlin has offered no evidence that any donor wanted their money back, or were refused a refund if that is how they felt.

    Given his legal reasoning, Brett Kimberlin gives no reason to not to sue every single person who has ever hit the tip jar. Given the exact same set of facts he could infer malice and knowledge of the falsity of “narrative.” He has decided to claim about those donors, “They know not what they do!” That decision taken seems completely arbitrary.

    Having a tip jar is part of blogging business model. It simply is not evidence of any coordination or collusion, nor more than selling stock and paying dividends is a sign of conspiracy among large businesses.

    It must be stressed that what Brett Kimberlin is arguing is not merely nonsense, but, dangerous nonsense. If his legal “arguments” are allowed to go to trial it would create a precedent that would allow a number of frivolous suits to go trial. Anyone with a grudge against a clergyman could claim that he was promoting a “false narrative” that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven body and soul. He could then argue that the collection plate was “fraud,” and, that every church was in fact a RICO enterprise because they were colluding with each other in promoting a “narrative” they knew was false and raising money based on that “narrative.” One might object, “But, we have freedom of religion, so this could never apply.” Well, we also have freedom of the press.

    Such a precedent would forever change the balance between plaintiffs and defendants. Innocent defendants faced with the reality that they would in all likelihood be forced to endure discovery and trial would be forced to settle. Those that didn’t would flood the courts with cases until the decision to allow Kimberlin’s suit to go to trial was repudiated by a higher court. The argument has to be stopped. The sooner the better.

  3. If he really had the idea that the defect in his first amendended complaint was that is wasn’t verbose and convoluted and disorganized enough, he is brain damaged in some way.

    • I’m sorry to hear about all three. I have none of those excuses and I’m producing stuff that is far more unintelligible than that.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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