In Re RICO Madness

Ron Coleman, the lawyer representing Ace of Spades in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness, has sent the following answer to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s most recent letter to Judge Hazel whining about Ace’s identity.

Mr. Coleman says:

After three tries, the time has come for this plaintiff to demonstrate that his pleadings are sustainable under the law or fail to do so.

Just so.

24 thoughts on “In Re RICO Madness

  1. Alrighty then. Hopefully that one leaves a mark. But, and I’m channeling my inner Earl here, seeing how this court has behaved previously I’m reserving any hope.

  2. Well argued as the defendants documents usually are.

    It will be interesting to see how Hazel responds. I suspect that he is going to split the baby here and say that he did not err by breaking the rules of the FCRP in ordering the service effected on Ace when Ace was not even named in the suit. So Ace will continue to be a defendant. But then he won’t order the identity of ace to be divulged at this stage.

    • Any claims by Judge Hazel that he did not err in identifying “Ace of Spades” the blogger as the defendant instead of Ace of Spades the blog is not the law and Judge Hazel is fully aware of that fact.

      Justice demands a hearing before a fair and impartial arbiter. Due to his own incompetence Judge Hazel has placed himself in a situation in which a fair and impartial ruling in this matter will embarrass himself. He is fully aware that if his decision is any way tainted by his dilemma he has a duty to recuse himself. Also, he knows that if he doesn’t recuse himself he could very well be forcibly removed from the case. I don’t see how he can do anything else but acknowledge that Ron Coleman has accurately read Brett Kimberlin’s pleadings as written.

      • Bingo. I’ve said for months that Judge Hazel needs to recuse himself to be free of this tarbaby he created. Else the defendants need to petition the appeals court to direct Judge Hazel recuse himself or forcibly assign the case to a different Judge due to a conflict of interest /inability to remain impartial.
        (or Judge Hazel can dismiss the case with prejudice, order fees and costs to be borne by the plaintiff and declare Brett a vexatious litigant.
        Any of those options will allow justice to be done, at least as regards this specific case.

      • Reference to Uncle Remus = Racist, Paul. I’m sure a certain troll will be reporting you to your PO again.

      • The law is precisely what Judge Hazel says it is. Sure, he might be overturned on appeal, but he can do whatever he would like in his own courtroom. As I often say, what, are they going to dock his pay?

        Ron Coleman’s argument is that the SAC – which Hazel allowed, improperly, in all its overlength glory – names the blog and not a person as the defendant. But that doesn’t matter, because Hazel ordered the person, not the blog, served, by means other than what is allowed by the FCRP – and in conflict with Judge Titus’ ruling on the same topic. So that means that the person, not the blog, is the defendant.

        To acknowledge Coleman Hazel must admit error in ordering service on the person. Which I am pretty confident that he will not do. I am pretty sure that “failure to admit error” does not require recusal – the courts would really be logjammed!

        While it would not surprise me to see the judge say “Forget Brodie, let’s go by Hazel” on identifying Ace, his decision on service did at least continue to protect Ace’s anonymity. I think he figured that Ace would be grateful for that, and thus not mind all of the procedural fails along the way – that he was served by an email to an attorney that no longer represented Ace.

        I mean, wow. No one at all should believe that judges, certainly not this judge, practice defensive decision making to ensure that their decisions are not appealable. I am pretty certain that any one of the errors along the way would result in overturning of decisions, but only after seeking appeal, and probably after it won’t even matter.

  3. Also I note there is more fun in this exchange of Hazel’s own making.

    BK in his letter rather than requesting to file a motion, goes ahead and makes his legal argument (such as it is) in the letter. Coleman responds in kind, and in spades (heh). Hazel’s mismanagement of the case management order has created a new forum for argument unbounded by the niceties of the FCRP – which Hazel doesn’t really follow, either. BK has taken the opportunity to enter the door Hazel opened and start arguing motions through correspondence.

    I think that Coleman’s response smartly uses the same method – not unilaterally disarming by following the rules as written, but instead employing the same tactics allowed to the plaintiff.

    • I have to admit, Earl; your positives are as uplifting as your negatives are depressing. You remain the voice of cold, cynical observation.

    • Well, you know, someone has to point out the violence inherent in the system.

      The deck is stacked. It isn’t so much a conspiracy as a structural fault. BK is continues to conduct lawfare against people on the Right, and continues to get away with it. He doesn’t prevail in court, but that isn’t his goal. Like the case against Breitbart’s widow, the Left fights to silence the Right. Leftist lawyers provide pro bono assistance to a millionaire who is suing about being quoted, for acts taken not by the defendant, but by the Government. And they do it to send the message, don’t be on the Right. We will pursue you in any way possible, even beyond death, and take it out on your family if we must.

      What will change things is when this game becomes costly to the other side. Go full Alinsky. Writing incisive legal documents is not useful when the law is ignored. When the lawfare game starts to hurt the Left, suddenly it will be found that it is a bad thing and it should be stopped. (See the Independent Counsel Statute.) This is why I applaud Rush Limbaugh’s efforts on the legal front. Doesn’t matter if it is good law, the law is not good itself.

      • I agree that Alinsky’s methods are powerful. And inasmuch as dishonesty is avoided they should be used as liberally as the Liberals use them. The only problem is that they are willing to willfully lie. That is a path we should never follow.

  4. Bravo Mr. Coleman. But I don’t understand how this disproves the allegation that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile? Or was that not the question?

  5. Ron Coleman happens to have law and facts on his side, which helps, but he’s one of those people that make you wonder how can anyone be so good at something. Nile, Tower of Pisa, smile on the Mona Lisa. Yeah.

    I’m depressed like Early though. Judge Hazel is the sort to give slack where it isn’t due, certainly when he’s already made the same error Brett did.

  6. All Kimberlin needs to convince the judge of is that it is fine for words to mean whatever you want them to mean, without bearing out what they actually say. If this thought were true, law itself would have no meaning. Judges should be a little shy in ruling that their profession is meaningless.

Leave a Reply