Here’s a real howler from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s reply to the oppositions to his motion for a second amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. It’s from paragraph 5.Uh, huh.
Here’s a partial list of deficiencies that I pointed out in my motion to dismiss his first amended complaint that are not addressed in his proposed second amended complaint.
1. The caption of the first amended compliant filed with the Court is not the same as the caption on the purported “first amended complaint” sent to me.
2. Neither version of the complaint alleges with particularity the elements of mail fraud or wire fraud. TDPK never specifies (1) who (2) knowingly made a (3) material (4) false statement (5) intended to deceive an alleged victim (6) who justifiably relied on the statement (7) resulting in injury to the victim. He never identifies a victim either.
3. Neither version of the complaint alleges any particular act meeting the definition of extortion.
4. Neither version of the complaint properly alleges the elements of a RICO conspiracy. TDPK never specifically alleges how he was injured in his business and property by any actual violation of any of the RICO predicate acts.
5. The only specific statement of mine claimed to be defamatory was made outside the bounds of the statute of limitations. The second amended complaint restates the same allegation.
6. Neither version of the complaint properly alleges the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
7. The first amended complaint does not identify which blogger named William Hoge who resides at 20 Ridge Road, Westminster, Maryland 21157, TDPK is suing. The second version does not clarify this point.
That’s a tiny list. There are a couple of hundred pages of motions to dismiss filed against the first amended complaint that call out many more deficiencies. Adding nonsense about Team Themis did not repair the problems with the first amended complaint.