Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

RICOMadnessYesterday, The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin received an additional 54-day extension of time to prepare his omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss filed against his second amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. That puts the due date for the Defendants’ replies to his opposition off until next January.

I am not amused by the delay.

TDPK hasn’t got a case—both the facts and the law are against him. He can, however, continue to inflict inconvenience and expense on the victims of his lawfare. To the extent that he does so, he may think he is “winning.” He isn’t. He’s really continuing to dig a deeper hole for himself.

The RICO case seems to be following the same general pattern as the earlier Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. TDPK is having some of his early motions granted. His case against a few of the Defendants may even survive motions to dismiss—if he’s unlucky.

At that point, discovery begins, and I doubt that he will be allowed to play the same discovery games he tried in the state suit. Failure of a plaintiff to provide discovery is grounds for sanctions. Several of the limitations on TDPK’s case in the state case resulted from his discovery shenanigans.

popcorn4bkEach defendant gets to submit 30 interrogatories, 30 requests for admissions, and 30 requests for production of documents. TDPK can rest assured that I will use the additional time resulting from this new delay to refine my list of information to be sought in discovery and the list of witnesses to be deposed.

Stay tuned.

29 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. If Kimberlin is claiming in his suit that his non-profits are suffering because people are broadcasting true facts about Kimberlin, then he should produce the accounting books of his non-profits to prove it.

  2. His case against a few of the Defendants may even survive motions to dismiss—if he’s unlucky.

    At that point, discovery begins…

    Aren’t you skipping something? If MTDs are denied, then the defendants would have to file their answers to the SAC—along with the other types of pleadings that can be filed concurrently with an answer to a complaint.

  3. I still wonder (and hope) that a malicious prosecution lawsuit can be filed against Kimberlin once these two trials are finished and his appeals are exhausted.

    • It would be preferably to have him declared a vexatious litigant to restrict him from filing future lawsuits. Suing BK isn’t that much of a threat to him — it’s not as though he would be likely to get around to paying any judgments against him.

  4. I don’t see how the outcome of the state case has him skating on thin ice in the state case, much less the Federal case.

    The only sanction leveled at him was a $600 award of attorney’s fees that he has still not paid. And the Maryland court is hearing his appeal. Maryland could not find that forgery before the court was punishable. I don’t think they will allow any type of vexatious litigant sort of legal action against him. Because you know he is just going after some Teabaggers and that is perfectly okay with Maryland.

    It is a certainty that he will refuse to answer discovery in the RICO case. He isn’t going to wise up and fly right in Federal court. Why would he? Because it is sanctionable? It is to laugh. How many times do I have to say that this court will not even sanction him for impersonating this court? Something intentionally dishonest they don’t bat an eye at. They even rewarded the behavior. He’s going to have to answer discovery why exactly?

    So, I go back to Ali in the state case, and his decision to go pro se. Ali undertook counterinsurgency by doing that. And it scared the crap out of BK. Ali knew that he could say things that counsel would not. There are a lot of pro se litigants here. I say – knowing that it is easier to say than do – turn Alinskyite tactics back on themselves. Start peppering BK with stuff he has to respond to. You won’t win rulings but that isn’t the point.

    I think you should depose Tetyana. Depose his daughters. Both of them. I am sure someone here will say that’s not fair what did they do? So what. That’s what he expects. He is teaching them to lie to courts, they should get questioned and put the lies down on paper.

    And every document sent to the court should include the FACT that he admitted to forging documents on behalf of the court. First paragraph. Just start off with the plaintiff forged this and admitted it. Why should we take his word on this topic? Ask for verified pleadings every time. He hates hearing that he forged the document. Put it in writing on the court record every. Single. Time. And it also let’s Judge Hazel know that he may have forgotten, but you haven’t.

    • THIS.
      Also depose:
      State Dept.

      Since some parties were just served, move to join additional parties.

      • I don’t like the idea of having Kimberlin’s daughters testify, no matter who is doing it. However, all of the others you mentioned are, at least in terms of basic principles of fairness, reasonable suggestions. I don’t know enough to say what would be best for the resolution of Kimberlin’s vexatious lawsuits. But basic principles of justice call for apologies from Craig Gilette, Kevin B. Zeese, Jeffrey R. Cohen, and (last and least) the State Department. It really irks me to see Kevin B. Zeese publicly patting himself on the back for being a good hearted activist every week, while at the same time refusing to fix his years long active aid to pedophile grandma murderer Brett Kimberlin.

      • BKWatch, I have to disagree with you on this one. Brett brought his girls into it. If he’s claiming in this suit as he did in the state that he’s been hurt by what happens to his kids, they can’t NOT be deposed.

      • Why not just skip deposing them? There’s no advantage in having their testimony.

        Besides, if Brett has a goal to drag his daughters into it, maybe the best thing is to not do anything to help him reach that goal.

        I’ve always been a fan of your posts so if we don’t see eye to eye, I think we are still on the same side.

    • What he said. Drag them all in. He claims loss from the State Department? Yes, bring them in. It’s relevant.

      Once you start pinning BK and his egregious actions on the people flying air cover for him, they will throw him under the bus. And bringing some attention to Judge Hazel’s free range judging might have some value, too.

      Regular counsel might not do that. A pro se litigant should have no compunctions.

      • Thus my suggestion that the defendants file against Judge Hazel. Judicial Misconduct is the least that can be alleged (and proved) to the appellate court. An emergency injunction against Judge Hazel is one possibility along with a demand he recuse himself for partisan political actions.

      • I am thinking that Hillary Clinton should be subpoenaed.

        BK tried to sue Secretary of State Madeleine Albright because his passport was kept from him while on parole.

        Drag Hillary into this thing it will get squashed real quick.

      • If any of those dupes and enablers did anything OTHER than “throw Kimberlin under the bus,” it would be profoundly immoral of them. Not only should they be carefully and diligently exposing the facts about their own support for Kimberlin, they ought to have done so without anyone having to drag them into a lawsuit to do it.

  5. Legal types – what does this mean on the docket?

    Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/15/14. (c/m to Plaintiff 10/15/14 am2s, Chambers)

    Does this mean that the Judge met with the plaintiff in chambers?

    • Either he met with Brett in chambers (a prohibited ex-parte event) or he signed the order in chambers. From the designation, in my experience in Federal Court as a criminal defendant, I would surmise that he met with Brett in chambers. I often received such notices when the various US Attorneys (there were eight separate US Attorney’s serially prosecuting the case against me) met with the presiding judge in chambers without the presence of my defense attorney present. Often because he was deployed to Iraq. (My defense attorney, supplied by the government, was a serving JAG officer in the Air Force who was deployed to Iraq during my case, the reason I did not see nor communicate with him for nine months, all the while being held without bail). The fact my defense counsel was deployed to Iraq did not stop or pause my prosecution and meetings between consecutive US Attorneys assigned to prosecute my case and the presiding judge in chambers occurred no less that three times during the nine month deployment. I was eventually notified by mail of those meetings. Not the content, just that they occurred.

    • Hold your horses, guys.

      “c/m to Plaintiff” means “copy mailed.”

      “am2s, Chambers” means that someone with the initials/user ID “am2s” from the judge’s chambers (one of his clerks or administrative staff, most likely) made the entry into the electronic docket. ECF #134 has the same attribution. All this means is that someone from the judge’s staff made the entry, rather than someone from the court clerk’s staff (e.g., “aos, Deputy Clerk”).

      I don’t see anything here to indicate that there was an ex parte communication in chambers.

      • I don’t know whether to hope you are right, or that you are wrong because that would be a great weapon for getting Judge Hazel removed from the case.

        But then this is MD; who knows what those higher up the food chain would bother doing?

  6. Every so often, and it is to be used rarely, a proper response to the “judge” is to tell him to go f–k himself. When he tries to hold you in contempt, escalate to the point of filing ethics complaints against him.

    He is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of facts and to apply the law equally to all parties. It is obvious that he is incapable of that level of responsibility.

  7. While there was NO collusion between defendants before the case, I hope there is significant cooperation now. I hope you make discovery as painful as possible for Mr. Kimberlin. He’s suing over his reputation. Dang. There’s a lot there. Don’t let him “get out of” answering about Citizen K. Quote it as you have on the blog and ask “what part or parts of this section of your authorized autobiography is incorrect?

  8. Have any of you considered the following theory? Every decision Hazel makes is well explained, if you just assume he and his clerks are not bothered by the amount of days that pass before the end of the case, but that they ARE bothered by the amount of work they have to do for the case to proceed.

    Brett refuses to serve anonymous defendants according to the rule that already exists for this exact situation? Well, stop the endless back-and-forth over it (and it is endless since Brett will never follow the rule). Just declare them served.

    Brett committed multiple forgeries and perjuries? That would take hearings and other serious efffort to resolve, and would make them stick their necks out on tricky issues, so, just don’t even say a word either way about it for months at a time.

    Brett wants the court to sit around and do nothing for an extra month or two or three? Fine, the court finds that easy to do, so no problem.

    I guess Brett had experiences like this in his vexatious lawsuits in the 1980s, and perhaps also when he was working for the mafia while in jail. He is not good at law, but he is good at wearing people down and persuading them to just give up and let him get away with things. On a closely related subject, you should all donate repeatedly to

    • The corollary to that theory is that the Judge is hinting at the parties to settle simply because he wants the case to go away. By granting arbitrary delays in adjudication, he has acted to make this decision self-fulfilling. As the represented parties see the costs of the arbitrary delays mount they are being pressured into the expedient of settling. Each move towards settlement grants Brett Kimberlin the option filing for yet another delay further increasing the pressure to settle on the remaining parties.

      I would agree with moving to recuse the judge for pursuing this strategy.

      First, I would note that it is against public policy. Public policy is to adjudicate SLAPP suits quickly. Public policy is to adjudicate RICO suits quickly because of the stigma associated with being accused.

      Second, it is against the FRCP. Those were waived for no reason.

      Third, it is unconscionable. One of the pro se parties is an octogenarian, and, another an elderly heart patient. Should one of them die or become decapitated it would unduly burden their estates to hire counsel. Another pro se defendant is subject to an ongoing attempt by Plaintiff Kimberlin to “dox” him to Muslim extremists who have issued a fatwa to murder him. Should he be murdered, his estate would be burdened.

      Fourth, it is not in the interest of justice. The suit is lawfare aimed at shuttupery. The Court has failed to balance any interest in protecting the First Amendment against its own expediency. Successful lawfare breeds successful lawfare. The precedents set in the case will haunt the courts. Any marginal drop in work in this case will be more than offset with having to deal with the marginal increase in cases this decision will generate.

      I would object to his various hints that the party “settle.” The position of several of the defendants is that Brett Kimberlin is a vexatious litigant. No conceivable “settlement” is going to include that determination. That Brett Kimberlin is a vexatious litigant is a question that this Court will have to adjudicate. In hinting at “settlement,” Judge Hazel has telegraphed his prejudice against determining Brett Kimberlin a vexatious litigant. He is suppose to be a neutral arbitrator who takes his decisions after the cases are argued, and, not before.

      I would object to his failure to enforce his own rules. Brett Kimberlin has continued to include material that is scandalous and defamatory. Though Judge Hazel has noted that fact, he has never enforced his own rules. This prejudices defendants who attempt to follow those rules in good faith.

      • Defendants cannot “object” to the judge. He is the judge. He can do whatever he wants.

        This prejudices defendants who attempt to follow those rules in good faith.

        So, if you can’t the plaintiff to abide by the rules, and the judge won’t enforce the rules, what does that leave?

        I say it leaves a lot of room for defendants to no longer follow the rules in good faith.

      • I really don’t know whether it makes sense for the judge to recuse himself, but I guess probably not.

        The four points you nake to support your argument are all correct, though. I agree with those.

        Then you say the judge encourages the defendants to settle. Not sure about that.

        It’s true what you say that Hazel hasn’t been enforcing his own rules. The real trick is, what is the most advantageous action to take in response?

        For us onlookers, maybe more of us should start blogs exposing true facts about Brett Kimberlin’s history of crime and victimization? Maybe we should all donate more regularly to bombersuesbloggers? Brett wants opponents to get tired and give up and let him get away with things. So never do that. Always use just and ethical means.

    • Just declare them served.

      But isn’t it just as simple to say THE TRUTH, that bk failed to serve them and they are not parties to the case or grant the summary judgement?

      • Granting summary judgment guarantees an appeal from serial vexatious litigant and grandma murdering pedo Brett Kimberlin.

        As for service, the judge believes the named defendants all saw true and correct copies of the case, so, close enough. Addressing Brett’s forgeries is a headache so they just put it aside.

        Much shorter version: No, it is not easier.

        I know a lot of people say this proves the courts suck, but actually what this proves is that the courts suck at punishing forgery, perjury, and vexatious litigation. If it were any other way, Brett would not have “filed over 100 lawsuits” (including this one).

Leave a Reply