19 thoughts on “Another Motion to Dismiss

  1. Heh.

    I imagine every single lawyer having to restrain him/herself, as they use a reasoned and measured tone to explain why each and every single outrageous stretch and sketch and skirting of the truth merits the dismissal of this nasty lawsuit.

    It would only be justice if BK found himself having to pay the court for all the costs associated with this suit. He couldn’t, of course, but it would be perfectly wonderful to watch him justifying why he couldn’t, but could, somehow, out of a salary of $19,500, loan $4500 to VRUS. I just live for that happy moment.

  2. Going with a NASA theme here… it’s like watching a body in space form by gravitational accretion. The piling-on has begun, and will only become more massive as more such motions add their respective weights to the whole.

  3. The Sawed-Off Terrorist Diddler has also filed:

    1) a motion for extension of time to reply to the MTDs;
    2) a motion for referral to a magistrate judge for settlement conference/ADR; and
    3) a request for hearing on his motion to subpoena AoS’s identity.

    I look forward to our Gentle Host’s comments on these latest developments.

  4. He’s trying to avoid SLAPP sanctions.

    ADR, where the defendants will be able to submit all the evidence to the magistrate from which they were constrained by page limits and other protocols from doing before.

    • It is a continuation of the strategy to cost his opponents something while costing him nothing. I do not know how ADR works in Federal court – I suspect that the parties agree to be bound by the decision, and that some retired judge is appointed to review and discuss it with the parties. It is a roll of the dice, just like going to court. A mediator may not be trying to find the “correct” solution, but rather one that works. So a mediator can just try to split the differences, give a little to one side, and a little to the other.

      I would bet that a majority of the defendants would be amenable to an outcome in which they were not found liable for any of the things the suit alleges, and then they have to publish something that says “hey to clarify on Kimberlin we never said he was a SWATter, and you should not infer from anything that we have written that he is.” The defendants are all making that point in their MTDs anyway, so that sounds reasonable.

      • Binding arbitration is one thing when there is, say, clear liability or some very and fights over damages, or very ambiguous legal situation, eg, courts have ruled more than one way on same issue. A pre-negotiated high-low (unknown to arbitrator) can smooth things tangly things out or get to a resolution instead of litigation dragging out forever.

        IMO it’s not for a case like this. The plaintiff is a liar and he wants to get out from behind the law and hope to gain advantage with lies.

      • Maybe some would, those at the får periphery e.g., Glenn beck but it would be utterly unprincipled to satisfy him in that way. The pleadings are enough for Kimberlin to make that point to anyone. He can tell anyone NOW they have denied calling him a swatter. And, those same persons/entities are the most certain to be dismissed as defendants.

  5. The ADR request is indeed an attempt by TDPK to cost defendants more money in legal fees as part of his abuse of the court system. Its transparent.

  6. In honor of the typo on the first page, I offer the following:


    Honestly, I was just looking for a reason to embed that someplace.

Leave a Reply