Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin make lots of assertions in his various filings in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness that are equal parts falsehood and silliness. This is from his opposition to my motion to dismiss his first amended complaint.

ECF 29-14Point (1) of that claim is simply false. Here is how I replied—ECF 56-p10_11Of course, I expect to win the RICO Madness lawsuit. It should be dismissed for multiple reasons, including TDPK’s failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Even if it makes its way to trial as the state Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit did, TDPK can’t present evidence for all the elements of any of the torts he’s alleged.

popcorn4bkThe Team Kimberlin Theory of Lawfare as propounded by First Mate Neal Rauhauser relies on low-cost pro se lawsuits against defendant’s with little legal experience who can be intimidated into settlements. TDPK’s practical application of the theory in the RICO Madness has been rather inept. He’s sued a couple of lawyers, several media entities with counsel either on retainer or staff, and several other defendants deeply committed to defending their First Amendment rights. The other defendants who might have been intimidated have been encouraged by the vigorous defenses that some of us have made.

It’s disappointing to have to wait until next year to see this vexatious lawsuit go away. OTOH, the longer it lasts, the greater the potential blowback on Brett Kimberlin. I’ll bet that he doesn’t have enough good sense to cut his losses by seeking to dismiss the case rather than filing his omnibus opposition.

We will see.

Stay tuned.

11 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. What is the status of the State case regarding Kimberlin’s appeal? He seemed to be crowing at Mr Hoge via /@WhoisNumberOne account earlier this week.

    • Brett Kimberlin has started the paperwork in motion for his appeal. I can’t tell you much more than that. I do know that the first drop dead date for getting something completed in the process was close of business last Monday. I don’t know whether TDPK met that deadline. If he met that obligation, the process will continue.

      For the sake of discussion, let’s pretend that he met his Monday deadline and that the appeal isn’t dead yet. He still has the problem that both the facts and the law are against him. The last time he appealed a ruling by Judge Johnson, TDPK lied about the nature of the judge’s ruling. That was his appeal of Judge Johnson’s finding in the first Kimberlin v. Walker peace order case. The judge found that TDPK had failed to present enough of a case to require that Aaron Walker put on a defense, and he ruled in Aaron’s favor as soon as TDPK rested his case. (Sounds familiar.) TDPK claimed that the judge prevented him from calling Aaron as a witness when, as the trial transcript shows, TDPK simply failed to do so. That appeal failed. I expect this one to do the same.

      • In the state case, what happened to the “Kimberlin Unmasked” defendants he was suing? I know that they weren’t involved in the trial. Were they even served in the first place? Is it normal to be appealing against some of the defendants while other defendants are still subject to the trial court?

        • It is my understanding that Ms. Thomas and Mr. Malone, the two individuals TDPK named as Kimberlin Unmasked in the state suit, have filed motions to dismiss based on the outcome of the August trial.

          UPDATE–The motions to dismiss were denied by Judge Creighton.

  2. I find Bretts habitual use of passive voice not only irritating but an attempt at deception. The example here, of course, is “he was convicted of a crime that occurred in 1979”, as if that crime happened all by itself without any interaction by Brett nor responsibility by Brett. This disingenuousness belies the fact that Brett not only “was convicted” but was found guilty of actually committing several criminal acts, intending to commit those acts with the full knowledge they were illegal acts and doing so with the intent to harm. Brett wants all that baggage to disappear. As stated in other places Brett “was sent to prison for youthful indiscretions” and has since devoted his life to public service.
    Lying liars gotta lie.

  3. And which of us hasn’t blown a guys leg off, plotted the death of a prosecutor, sued a victim of the bombing, and forced our family to live in the cellar just to hide income? When you’re young, you make silly mistakes.

Leave a Reply