Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has sued us defendants in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness for a non-existent tort. He has a habit of doing that sort of thing. Two of the counts alleged in the state Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. were thrown out because the were not valid causes of action.ECF 135-claim9TDPK must have slept through the hour they covered civil torts while his was imagining getting his B.S. in law from the Robert H. Smith School of Business during the years he was serving time in federal prison. If he’d stayed awake, he might have known that conspiracy isn’t a tort. Even an inexperience pro se like me knows better.

Consistent with this principle, it was sometimes said that a conspiracy claim was not an independent cause of action, but was only the mechanism for subjecting co-conspirators to liability when one of their member committed a tortious act.  Royster v. Baher, 365 S.W.2d 496, 499, 500 (Mo. 1963) (“[A]n alleged conspiracy by or agreement between the defendants is not of itself actionable.  Some wrongful act to the plaintiffs damage must have been done by one or more of the defendants, and the fact of a conspiracy merely bears on the liability of the various defendants as joint tortfeasors”).  See Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 479 (CADC 1983) (“Since liability for civil conspiracy depends on performance of some underlying tortious act, the conspiracy is not independently actionable; rather, it is a means for establishing vicarious liability for the underlying tort”).

Bech v. Prupis, et al., 529 U.S. 494, 503 (2000). Stuff like this isn’t that hard to look up on Google Scholar.


3 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Leave a Reply