In Re RICO Madness

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin still doesn’t know who Ace the blogger who runs Ace of Spades HQ is, and he wants Judge Hazel to help him find out.

More later.

UPDATE—Now that I’m back from a day in the Real World, I was going to write a few paragraphs summarizing the significance of Kimberlin’s latest whinery, but I see that Stacy McCain has beaten me to the punch.rsmmcain201411062155Z

30 thoughts on “In Re RICO Madness

  1. Ace has truly done an exceptional job of maintaining his anonymity. Far better than I ever did (when I thought I could try, before I realized how foolish that was.)

    Having said that: This letter reads like crazy. Crazier than normal. I’m not even sure there’s a string of logic holding it together….
    “Maybe Ace is a cop! Wait, Maybe he’s actually a DA in LA. Maybe it’s really Patterico in disguise! Also look more potshots at Levy!”


  2. I would think that a plaintiff in a defamation case would indeed have the right to face the person or persons defaming him/her. But to require the destruction of someone’s anonymity, shouldn’t said plaintiff first have to prove, legally, that the tort actually occurred? This letter seems based on the theory that simply by claiming that Ace committed a tort against him, that the claim has now become a fact. I would hope that the court would not agree with him.

    • You have fallen into Brett Kimberlin’s trap. The key point is that Brett Kimberlin, apparently unintentionally, never sued the anonymous blogger behind the Ace of Spades blog, but rather, he sued the blog itself. That is what his filing states. And, that is what the Blog’s motion to dismiss notes. Neither, we nor the court has any obligation to save Brett Kimberlin from the fact that he has incompetent counsel. Or, as Hillary Clinton put it, “Coulda, woulda, shoulda!”

    • “I would think that a plaintiff in a defamation case would indeed have the right to face the person or persons defaming him/her.”

      There really isn’t such a right. You can demand the anonymous person participate in the case, including providing discovery (which might reveal the person’s identity), but there’s no general right to confront someone you’ve accused.

      The right in criminal trials to “face your accuser” is (in part) so you can put the issue of their reliability on trial. Ace’s reliability is not at issue. Either she made defamatory remarks or she didn’t. TDPK can prove (or not prove) that without knowing Ace’s identity.

      The only reason TDPK wants to dox Ace is for nefarious purposes.

      • You’re quite right. I was falling into the same trap BK has, conflating criminal and civil law. 🙁
        There is no reason why someone couldn’t partake in discovery anonymously since I understand it’s done at a distance, usually by mail.
        I do agree that the main reason for this is to unmask Ace for other, even less pleasant purposes.

    • If Ace were to refuse an order to identify himself, the judge could start throwing around contempt charges: Lawyers, ISPs, domain registrars, advertisers, and so on, until somebody caves. Unlikely, but possible.

      • It would be pretty ballsy of the judge to threaten a defendant with contempt when he has let slide what appears to be a felony by plaintiff.

  3. Ahhh ha ha ha ha! I bet Kimberlin doesn’t even realize how hilarious he is.

    ” You gotta help me! They won’t do what I want! ”

    A round of popcorn for everyone. This going to be good.

  4. First, I would note Brett Kimberlin is incorrect in stating that defendant Ace of Spades[the blog]’ position is that, “since I have identified Ace as a natural person the case against Ace should be dismissed.” The position of the Ace of Spades Blog is that the anonymous blogger who posts at the Ace of Spades blog was never sued so doesn’t have to answer this complaint. The Ace of Spades blog filed a motion for dismissal of case against it for numerous other reasons.

    Second, I would note that “Virginia’s unmasking statute” is not in force in Maryland, or any state other than Virginia. Brodie remains the relevant standard in Maryland. If there is any case law that backs Brett Kimberlin’s position he ought to actually cite it.

    Third, I would note that there is not a right to “face those who commit torts against me.” There is a right to sue people whom you believe have committed torts against you. Brett Kimberlin simply hasn’t exercised that right regarding the anonymous blogger who posts under the name Ace of Spades at the Ace of Spades blog.

    Fourth, I would note that in Dan Backer’s personal MTD it was argued that it is improper to sue both his law firm and Dan Backer personally. Such a prohibition ought to equally apply against suing both the Ace of Spades blog and then the blogger who runs the Ace of Spades blog.

    Thus, amending the complaint to include the natural person who blogs as Ace of Spades would be both improper, and against the prohibition against further amendments. It would also cause considerable more delay, which is probably Brett Kimberlin’s intent. Identifying individuals who blog at Ace of Spades could be more properly a matter for discovery, if his case goes that far.

    Then, I’d point out that it was the blogger behind the Ace of Spades blog who requested a hearing as to whether, or not, his anonymity could be pierced. Judge Hazel blew off those requests. As a result, Paul Levy withdrew as counsel for the anonymous blogger behind the Ace of Spades blog since his anonymity was no longer at issue. Should a hearing be ordered, the effects of Judge Hazel’s actions and inactions either would be that he first denied Ace of Spades counsel and then demanded he answer at a hearing without that counsel, or that Paul Levy reenters the case causing further delays. Neither outcome would not reflect well on Judge Hazel competence.

    Then, I’d point out that Brett Kimberlin’s communications with Paul Levy indicate a willingness on Brett Kimberlin’s part to allow the blogger his ongoing anonymity in exchange for things of value. Through a cleaver, ethical, and legally correct filing the lawyer for the Ace of Spades blog has denied Brett Kimberlin that leverage. Giving that leverage back to Brett Kimberlin gratis would be little less that Judge Hazel opting to become a party to extortion.

    Vexatious litigants argue improper motions because they are vexatious.

  5. Judge Eric Johnson granted Brett Kimberlin’s motion for a judgment yesterday. The Maryland database states the case is closed.

    What happened?

      • The romantic in me wants to believe that Johnson made a finding of fact that evidence was presented that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile, which, in the absence of any rebuttal whatsoever from Plaintiff, the court finds compelling.

  6. So TDPK is suing the blog, rather than the blog’s owner/contributor.

    Is there potential to transfer ownership and copyright of Ace’s blog to another individual who doesn’t care about their anonymity? i.e. The Krendler Solution. Problem solved.

Leave a Reply