42 thoughts on “Shame!

    • Oh, and “Spectator” is a good name for them – when the going gets barely tough, they sit on the sidelines and watch.

      Well, at least Mrs. DeLong has some funds to go after, should she so desire.

      • That’s if cash was part of settlement. Could well have been them removing the articles in exchange for him dropping suit…
        Cowardly, stupid, and sadly it will embolden him…

  1. Lee provides a feedback link in his article. I recommend it be used by all, after all, what good does berating them here do if they are not aware of the consequences of their failure in defending the right of free speech?

  2. This was my suspicion. That there was a settlement that wasn’t really a settlement. AS doesn’t admit fault, says no mas, and takes down the articles. BK agrees to drop the case. That is how he could have the order

    BK can call it a secret settlement in his favor (like how all his felonious activities are secretly exonerated).

    Again, terrorism works. I suspect the finances of AS are not exceptionally good, they probably can’t afford a phone conversation with an attorney – you aren’t going to talk to any DC atty for less than $400/hr – so start with a consult, plus the putting together of the filing, plus a response, plus whatever ….Probably at least $2500 just to get engaged with thing.

    Pulling down articles that really don’t drive up their traffic is an understandable, if unfortunate, business decision for them.

    • I cannot believe their foolishness. I know (and so does everyone, I think) that AS runs on a shoestring, but all they had to do was hold on a little longer, and the whole thing would be over, and they wouldn’t look like cowards.

      • Disgusting. Not very deep-thinking, or interested in liberty or conservative principles of speaking considered and necessary truths.

  3. If The American Spectator “settled,” then for Brett Kimberlin to claim it was a “voluntary dismissal” is little less than a fraud on the court. That means, to date, Brett Kimberlin has dimissed none of the defendants Judge Hazel strongly hinted that he ought to dismiss.

    • I do have to ask, though, how has Stranahan “confirmed” this? He doesn’t say. He doesn’t say someone told him, or that it is published somewhere. He just says it is confirmed, and then takes note of the same things that the rest of us found were, well, coincidental.

      So, while I do have my suspicions that this is exactly what happened, I still don’t see proof that it is the case.

      • Brett Kimberlin filed a motion that, apparently, unilaterally waives the Spectator’s right to recover attorney fees. In response, the Spectator has done nothing.

      • Yep, Brett knows what’s up so the prospect of having to pay recovery of attorney’s fees is probably on his mind a lot these days.

        AS’s acquiescence would help Brett on exactly one of the points where he’s worried he may need help.

      • BSB, yes, like I said, all things that we have seen and are coincidental.

        There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to lead one to believe that there was a “settlement.” But where is the confirmation?

      • Earl, I concur. This seems a bit speculative on Stranahan’s part. IF a settlement was reached, there was probably a strict confidentiality provision, likely requiring that neither side could confirm that settlement had been reached. Under such circumstances, Stranahan would be left to speculate, unless someone broke confidentiality.

        I think the denouncing of American Spectator for caving to BK is a bit reckless, unless he is holding back on his reporting on this matter to protect his source… although if someone with the American Spectator were his source, why hold back while simultaneously outing them and denouncing them…. If they admitted it, he should report it. If they didn’t, he should probably keep his speculation closer to his sleeve, lest he possibly defame American Spectator. All that said, their memory holing of BK articles seems suspicious.

      • I would propose testing the premise as follows: submit a letter to the court pointing out that Kimberlin has misstated the voluntary dismissal rule. Such dismissals are without prejudice, and, as such, they do allow for the possibility of attorney fees being awarded to The American Spectator should Brett Kimberlin’s suit be found to be vexatious. Brett Kimberlin has no reasonable possibility of being awarded attorney fees. On information and belief The American Spectator is an indigent defendant barely having sufficient funds to continue operations. Unlike indigent individuals, The American Spectator can only answer the charges through counsel. It is not in the interest of justice to court to expect that an indigent corporate entity should have to answer filings that are wrong prima facie. The court can and should enter the order as dismissal without prejudice according to the rules of civil procedure.

        Further, on information and belief we believe that The American Spectator and Brett Kimberlin have in fact entered into a settlement. While it is the right of both parties to settle on whatever terms, it is still a fraud upon this court to claim the entry of the settlement is a “voluntary dismissal.” This court has suggested that parties “dragged into something they didn’t understand” ought to have their suits voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff. To date, the number of defendants voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff remains zero.

    • Actually you can say whatever you want that is true about a person. Is Baghdad Blob really that stupid? Of course he is. See how that works?

  4. It’s September 2014, and BS is still subject to TWO restraining orders. What is this now, the second year? I believe it is. Is he shooting for a restraining order in Illinois? Time will tell.

  5. Congrats American Spectator, you just paid a ransom to a terrorist, showing him crime does pay. Brett may be off your back for now, but now that you’ve shown you’re spineless and will rewarded his behavior, he will be back for another easy bite off the apple.

    • Indeed, the federal Rico case is just a rehash of the state one, which he LOST by directed verdict.
      All they had to do was wait it out.
      sounds like they were penny wise and pound foolish

  6. Those were McCain articles, no? Has he commented? His timeline is so full of Wendy Davis I can’t see anything.

  7. Crazy unsupported theory of the day:

    Someone wants to purchase American Spectator, but doesn’t want to buy if they are going to be embroiled in protracted litigation, even if they should clearly win the litigation. In order to cash in, American Spectator makes a deal with a devil. I have absolutely no reason at all to believe that is true; however, it is hard to believe that even on a shoestring budget they couldn’t ask for help and get a Ken White type saint to represent them pro bono. It’s not like Kimberlin has a leg to stand on. If the matter ever did go to court, the Judge would probably laugh him out of the courtroom if his performance is anywhere near as bad as the last trial.

    • Can their insurance company tell them to remove content from their website? Wouldn’t they have some say on a settlement? I suppose it would depend on what it states in their policy, but I would think they would have a voice in it, no?

  8. BS seems to be putting it out there that the American Spectator paid BK money – https://twitter.com/Parkinsonsmedia/status/513139277723877377

    That means 1 of 2 things:
    1. BK breached the confidentiality agreement involved in the settlement thereby opening the possibility the settlement is no longer binding on American Spectator .
    2 .BS is lying

    I would argue option A to the courts and make BK confirm that BS is indeed lying (again). BK’s only other option is to throw away his settlement thanks to BS

  9. I wonder if you can use archive.org to find the articles? If not, perhaps the authors (ahem, Mr. McCain) could be convinced to “lose” them in a convenient place. It would be a shame to see those articles pop up on a foreign server that couldn’t give a flying fig about DMCA. And then links to those articles could start popping up like daisies . . .

  10. Also, the headline and main point of the story is beyond question; the American Spectator removed ll references to Kimberlin. Period.

    There’s no circumstance aside from an order of the court that makes this acceptable.

    Anyone who wants to defend AmSpec in this regard, go buy yourself a Team Kimberlin shirt.

Leave a Reply