The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed to dismiss The American Spectator as a defendant in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.
hogewash
Never pick a fight with a man who buys pixels by the terabyte.
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed to dismiss The American Spectator as a defendant in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.
It would seem that the decision as to whether, or not, The American Spectator shall recover attorney’s fees is a decision for the Judge to take.
Ultimately yes, but if the Rules of Civil Procedure say “if a party is dismissed before it files anything in response to the plaintiff, then it shall not be eligible to recover reasonable attorney fees”, then they probably won’t get them.
Unless the judge is super sick of BK’s shit and finds an exception (there’s always an exception), likely found somewhere near where it talks about suits not brought in good faith.
Assuming such a rules exists, which I seriously doubt. The same rule Kimberlin cited states that if Brett Kimberlin ever sued The American Spectator again for the same alleged torts in another forum attorney fees shall be awarded in this case automatically. That suggests that such fees are at the discretion of the judge.
The rule Brett Kimberlin cited does state that the resulting dismissal is without prejudice. If Brett Kimberlin wishes to dismiss their cases with prejudice he must ask for the court’s permission, which he hasn’t.
This article suggests that the court can impose sanctions on Brett Kimberlin even after he has sought a voluntary dismissal:
http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2050&context=lawreview
I haven’t been keeping too up-to-date on the non-pro se defendants; has American Spectator actually been served and/or had motions filed on their behalf by their legal counsel?
Just checked the docket, The American Spectator is only listed three times, as a Defendant in the header, as a defendant in the second amended complaint and in the motion to dismiss, no representative is listed for them. So they apparently have not made any response to anything, which might be a OK strategy, let everyone else waste time on motions to dismiss and keep an eye on things as they progress. Some reports were made on service for the first amended complaint but i do not see anything for the second, I think the deadline has not passed yet. I am not a lawyer and this legal stuff is new to me so I may have missed a few things during my search.
Wonder if he forged that service as well.
He just throwing the judge a bone on “didn’t know what they were getting into” gaffe that the judge called him out on.
Really!?!?!? The judge hints, with all the subtlety of an applejuice/cabbage sulphrous lingering fart at a wedding, that he needs to cull a bunch of defendants, and he whacks ONE!?!?!?!?!? Moron.
Hmm. I did a search over there and don’t see any of Stacy articles on the pipsqueak. Maybe I’m not doing it correctly.
Google sends me here: http://spectator.org/blog/57672/liberals-love-perjuring-bomber-brett-kimberlin-—-and-hate-free-speech
Yeah, I got that too. Sigh.
The wayback machine copied it on 8_14_2014.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140814062422/http://spectator.org/blog/57672/liberals-love-perjuring-bomber-brett-kimberlin-%E2%80%94-and-hate-free-speech
I go to the Spectator link above and get an “Access Denied — You are not authorized to access this page” message.
There is a cached version of one article still available, I saved a copy.
Ready to ditch them for good if they did it on purpose.
I do not believe that BK was trying to curry favor with the judge. I don’t think this removal from the case is the result of following hints.
I have my guesses as to why he filed this.
Paid to go away is my guess … just what Brett wanted.
Or, perhaps Kimberlin knew he faced sanctions so tried to blow an order denying attorney’s fees to either party past the judge.
Pingback: The American Spectator Betrays Readers (And First Amendment) By Removing All Brett Kimberlin Material | Lee Stranahan