While I wait for The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin to file his omnibus response to the defendants’ motions to dismiss his second amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness, I thought if might be interesting to review the story of his vexations federal lawsuit by reposting some of the highlights of the past year’s coverage. Here’s my motion to dismiss his first amended complaint.
* * *
Team Kimberlin Post of the Day
Originally Posted on 12 December, 2013
The Dread Pirate Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed a frivolous and vexatious RICO lawsuit against 20+ defendants, including me. I was given 60 days from 19 October to respond to his Amended Complaint. I have done so with a Motion to Dismiss. Under Local Rule 105, TDPK now has 14 days to file any opposition to my motion.
Here is a copy of my motion. I do not wish to make any further public comment on it until the judge has ruled on it.
* * *
Of course, TDPK couldn’t be bothered to respond in a timely manner.
* * *
Team Kimberlin Post of the Day
Originally Posted on 30 December, 2013
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin seems a bit overloaded by the schedule he set for himself by suing so many defendants in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO case. Apparently, he didn’t expect so many of us to waive service of process and file motions to dismiss in the last week of the 60-day waiver period.
That’s nonsense. The principle of judicial economy normally leads a court to settle issues with no more expense of its time and resources than necessary. Thus, if only one of the motions to dismiss filed in the RICO Madness is sufficient to eviscerate TDPK’s case, the court could dismiss the suit and get on to other matters. My motion to dismiss is first in line. The court could go ahead and consider it, and, if Brett Kimberlin hasn’t filed an opposition by close of business this afternoon, judicial economy might lead the court to do so quickly without further input from TDPK. If mine isn’t sufficient, there are more on the docket.
It’s not in the interest of justice to require the defendants in the RICO Madness to meet the deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and allow extra time for Brett Kimberlin to deal with the mess he made for himself.
* * *
At this point, we were only about 2-1/2 months into the adventure and the paperwork was only just getting started.
(Slightly off topic) Today, a credulous dupe who carries water for Brett Kimberlin got annoyed at me. This is because he missed my rebuttal to his insinuation that Brett Kimberlin did not actually hire Neal Rauhauser to help run his harassment campaign against various critics left and right.
Of course, since Brett Kimberlin actually DID hire Neal Rauhauser to harass people, I felt this was important to clear up. So if you click through to this, you will see some discussion about it:
https://twitter.com/sub_aetha/status/517031655786020865
I thought some here might be interested in it. Will Ferguson sometimes reads this site, so if you don’t feel like getting involved in twitter, you can comment here too and your message might get across.
(replying to a post still in moderation) There’s an important difference between a hired gun, such as William Bowman or Neal Rauhauser, versus a credulous dupe, such as Sandy Barton or, I guess, William Ferguson.
The hired guns understand that what they’re doing is evil and unjust. Of course, when such people are committing misdeeds, we ought to try to help bring them to justice. I don’t know how to convince such people to adopt the principles of justice, so I don’t feel much point in debating them, myself.
The credulous dupes are enabling wrongdoers due to the dupe misunderstanding the situation or having some personal problem. People can be duped by many different ways and many of them involve little or no bad intention. Thus it’s often fruitful to debate the misconceptions of those people, and even if the debate doesn’t convince the credulous dupe in question (many are already too deeply invested and it hurts to admit wrongness), onlookers can learn from the discussion and thereby avoid becoming new credulous dupes.
Imagine if in the 1970s, somebody debated with Sandy Barton over the wisdom of letting her way underaged daughter hang out with convicted federal felon and nude lounging enthusiast, Brett Kimberlin. Now, I imagine Sandy might not have wanted to admit her mistake. However just the raising of a controversy would be protective of the other underaged girls Kimberlin hung out with.
Or credulous dupes could just be immoral reprobates who get their kicks out of watching evil in action.
BTW, there is one VERY interesting artifact of evidence about Neal and Brett’s harassment campaign that I didn’t say anything about. I don’t explain it because I suspect Mr. Hoge and some others already know all about it, and they’ve studiously avoided publicizing it. I will follow their lead.