Stale Law

Acme Legal really should open a fresh box of law books. They seem to be specializing in stale law, especially in the use of citations to old court cases that have been overturned or that rely on a law or rule that has since been changed.

For example, The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin kept relying on Conley v. Gibson, a 1957 case, in his oppositions to various motions to dismiss in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. Every motion to dismiss has cited Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a 2009 case that effectively overturned Conley.

As I read through the various Acme advised filings from Team Kimberlin, I see a consistent pattern of citing cases that seem to support Acme’s legal theories without regard to whether the case has been superseded in some way.


13 thoughts on “Stale Law

    • Didn’t Mark Singer say something to the effect that BK believed that he could change things in the real world if he just thought hard enough?

      I’d guess that he’s thinking real hard right now about how Conley still takes precedence.

  1. If the usual excuses are made, plaintiffs should remind the court that they, too, are pro se and have family and employment obligations.

  2. Why would he reference things that are unhelpful to his case?

    He is going to argue that he is right, regardless of what the actual law is. It is not stupidity or laziness. Purposeful lying is purposeful.

    On the forgery in the copyright case, I don’t think that was lazy or stupid, either – it was BK saying to the defendants “How does my ass taste?”

    He is going to do what he can get away with as long as he can get away with it. He has been shown that his shenanigans are perfectly acceptable to the court. The rules are not helpful to him, so he doesn’t follow the rules. He forged a summons to Twitchy, Twitchy’s representation said, hey, he forged this summons – guess what? Twitchy is a defendant. Ali was not served, but sent representation. Guess what? Ali is a defendant. Ace was not served, but sent representation. Guess what? Ace is a defendant. BU not served? BU sent representation. BU is a defendant.

    You asked for miracles, Theo? I give you the F. B. I.

    • awful lot of work when there doesn’t seem to be a strategy where he actually has a positive outcome.

      • He is not seeking a positive outcome. His best case scenario is that these combined actions consume the time and talent of those he attacks. His worst case scenario (and regrettably very unlikely) is that he is adjudged a vexatious litigant, which would be both justice, and the only way to stop his lawfare.

Leave a Reply