This is from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s defamation claim in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.
Now that TDPK has lost his defamation claim in the state Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit, perhaps I can trick you Unsuspecting Readers into spend some of your hard earned cash on Collateral Estoppel goodies from The Hogewash Store. Or perhaps I can interest you in some Hogewash! Res Judicata trinkets.
It doesn’t seem that TDPK has yet figured out that he should cut his losses and drop the RICO Madness, so we probably have to finish slogging through the motion-to-dismiss stage of that lawsuit. That may take a while. Therefore, you Unsuspecting Readers may wish to stock up on popcorn, Jujubes, Raisinets, Junior Mints, Milk Duds, or Red Twizzlers available via Amazon.
How about a series of posts in the meantime that explain how to build a ham radio or telescope or something. All I got’s are put-put boats.
A judge has decided that the things which Kimberlin thought were the “worst” were in fact not defamatory. In casual terms, they were “true enough.” Don’t sue folks for calling you a pedophile if you’ve been arrested for a similarly named offence. Especially if your defense includes the the notion that she was 16, not 15. Or that your authorized autobiography is in error in describing your relationship to a pre-teen (although you don’t have a copy of the book.)
In short, if you’re going to be creepy and felonious, please don’t sue people for calling you those things. Funnier still, not only could he NOT “out crazy Stacy McCain” he ended up not being able to out crazy Ali.
And to the main point, yes. It is interesting when creepy, felonious jerks get exposed for their crimes. And Hoge, Walker and McCain all deserve kudos for continuing to publish the truth about Kimberlin. I’ll read that stuff any day. So yes, it does build web traffic to speak out in favor of shuttupery and against creepy old con men.
yep, the truth is always popular to those who value it.
Note that TDPK is not pleading that he himself was harmed by the (allegedly) false statements. He is alleging that you benefited from the (allegedly) false statements.
As I’ve said before, I don’t practice in this area, but I can’t think of ANY cases where a defamation (or false light) claim for damages is based on unjust enrichment. Damage to reputation is an element of the offense, not merely how damages are calculated.
Anyone aware of case law that would support, even tangentially, a defamation claim based on unjust enrichment?
New shirt slogans
1. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL: “When a Judge asks you if you’ve ever been arrested for Pedophilia”
2. PRICELESS “When the Judge demands that you answer the question whether you’ve been arrested for Pedophilia”
3. DAVE WEIGLPEDIA: “Speedway bomber: an internet activist who made bad choices”
I just bought a security camera through the Hogewash Amazon link to help support the defense (both Mr. Hoge’s legal defense and my property defense). We had an incident where a gunman broke into my neighbor’s house and dragged him out of bed the other night. Thankfully it was resolved without anyone being hurt, but I got video of the guy walking right by my cellar door carrying a rifle or shotgun. I don’t know what made him go on to the next house rather than choosing ours, but now I am upgrading our surveillance a bit by adding a better indoor camera and thought it only fitting to use the link here given the nature of the purchase. Now if only Amazon sold shotguns which are next on my acquisition list…
Anyway, stay safe people!