Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

There are now seven motions to dismiss filed against The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s second amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.

His response to the motion from Erick Erickson, RedState, James O’Keefe III, and Simon & Schuster is due by close of business on 25 July.

His responses to the motions from Glenn Beck, Mercury Radio Arts, and The Blaze; Michelle Malkin and Twitchy; DB Capitol Strategies; and me are all four due on 28 July.

His response to Aaron Walker is due on 31 July.

His response to The Franklin Center is due on 4 August.

TDPK sent a request to Judge Hazel asking for a delay until 15 October on filing his responses. Of course, he didn’t submit his request in the manner required by the case management order, so it will be interesting to see if the judge even considers it.

popcorn4bkMeanwhile, there is a hearing scheduled on 7 August in the parallel Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. The hearing will consider additional motions from Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, and me for summary judgment based on the contents of the discovery provided by TDPK.

Stay tuned.

11 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. What possible excuse did TDPK come up with to wait until October 15th? The kids are home from school for summer? He has a big project coming up for JTMP? Oh, wait, I’ll bet it’s the “I’m just a pro se!!!!” It’s either that or, “Your Honor, the longer this drags out, the more it costs my defendants, which is the entire point of this case.”

    Please, a two-week or even one month delay in response would have been an incredulous request. Three whole freakin’ months?

  2. I’m sure you are already on top of this, John, but I’m pretty sure that you can find case law out there that supports the notion that because TDPK chose how many people to sue, chose to sue them on multiple counts, and chose to proceed pro se he should not be able to bootstrap himself into any lengthy relaxation of motion deadlines absent substantial good cause based on circumstances he could not foresee when he filed the litigation. Brett is playing in the big leagues here. I can see the court giving him five, maybe even ten days more or less for the asking, but months? I don’t think so.

    • “TDPK sent a request to Judge Hazel asking for a delay until 15 October on filing his responses. Of course, he didn’t submit his request in the manner required by the case management order, so it will be interesting to see if the judge even considers it.”


  3. If it were Judge Grimm I would bet better than even money that he would get the extension. We have not yet seen enough from Judge Hazel to have a good guess at the outcome. Likely BK is going to resubmit correctly the request to make the request. Whether it is granted in part or in full or not at all will be an indicator of where Judge Hazel is headed on this.

    I doubt that the judge is planning to rule on the motions to dismiss until well into August, if not later, anyway. There is still the 60 day period after the SAC’s acceptance for a few of the parties to be served. At which point I expect BK will ask for a ruling that any parties not served be considered served anyway, which could carry the date out even farther. But even absent that, MTDs may still be trickling in through August, and time to respond going into September.

    So there could be an argument made that submitting responses now doesn’t speed things up any, since there are still (potentially) outstanding defendants and motions. I am not saying that it is a good argument, or that the Judge will find any merit in it, but it isn’t out of the realm of possibility. It would really depend on how the judge intends to do business – if he would prefer to consider them all at the same time, rather than have them come in on a bunch of different dates, he might go for it. Yes, that would mean BK gets extra time to work on responses that the defendants, who are following the rules, did not get, but certainly this court has proven that prejudicing the defendants is not necessarily a consideration in its decision making.

    The request for ADR is interesting, however. I don’t think there is any clearer indication that BK knows that there is no way his case will win in a trial. While I believe that he never thought there was a good chance of it winning, I think that he did think that he could get something – a default judgment against someone who does not respond, or a settlement (even nominal) from someone who found the nuisance not worth fighting – and that the cost-benefit ratio would continue to work in his favor. That the MTDs are all coming back in with requests for fees and sanctions, and Judge Hazel’s disposition unknown, I think that he is trying to get back into a settlement of any type that he can use to declare victory and avoid costs to him. Or at a minimum, drag the case out. It seems unlikely that he would accept in an ADR any outcome that causes him to both lose his claims and pay anything, as he can achieve that by non-suiting right now. If he drops the suit, then the defendants would have to go through the Rule 11 process – which means opening new cases, filing new motions, etc. – to get sanctions. It also seems unlikely that some of the defendants will be willing to accept an outcome that does NOT cause him to pay something to get out. Some (perhaps even a majority) of the defendants I think would accept that outcome, however.

    It still means that it drags out and continues to cost the people he is really trying to cost. (Because if the case survives MTDs, there is discovery phase, which of course he will monkey with, causing motions to compel and all that, which will go on and on, costing him nothing, but costing the defendants to pursue.)

    So, we shall see.

  4. One almost wishes the judge would respond with “Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on the court’s”.

Leave a Reply