The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin makes mind-bogglingly false assertions in his various court filings. Consider this from his opposition to my motion to dismiss his first amended complaint in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.The Smith case he mentions is a case from the U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland which interprets the Maryland one year statute of limitations on defamation as also applying to false light invasion of privacy. It’s the controlling legal authority in the court handling the RICO Madness. TDPK states that Maryland’s highest court, that would be the Court of Appeals, has ruled otherwise. If that were the case, that would settle the law because defamation is a matter of state rather than federal law.
The Allen v. Bethlehem Steele case TDPK cites never went to the Court of Appeals. It is a Court of Special Appeals case, and that court is an intermediate appeals court. It’s decisions on matters of law are not binding on any federal court. The Court of Appeals has never ruled on the statute of limitations for false light, so the federal court’s precedent controls. Furthermore, there is no such case citation as 314 Md. 458 (1988). The proper citation for Allen is 76 Md. App. 642 (1988).
There has been a certain sense of TDPK sorta/kinda making it up as he goes along. It will be interesting to see what kind of bizarre legal theories he will put in his omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss his second amended complaint.