There seems to be a certain confusion among some of the Gentle Readers about what has to be proved or disproved at the present stage of the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. Ron Coleman sums up what should be under consideration in this paragraph from the motion to dismiss he submitted on behalf of Ace of Spdes.
As set out in the prior submissions of defendants, on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, the Court should treat as true only the “well-pleaded” facts in a complaint, while giving little or no weight to conclusory allegations as well as attenuated factual inferences or deductions of fact. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007); see, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). And, of course, the Court should not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Specific facts which, taken as a whole, amount to legal claims cannot be replaced with mere “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” under Rule 12(b)(6). Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). The SAC is extremely verbose; when trimmed of rhetoric, adjectives and conclusory language, however, it contains very little factual information – not nearly enough to support the claims[.]
Under the Twombly and Iqbal decisions, the federal standards are much stricter than the Maryland standards that allowed The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit to proceed to the discovery and summary judgment stages. It now seems unlikely that TDPK will have enough good sense to try to dismiss the suit on his own. That being the case, he will be very lucky if Judge Hazel does dismiss the case. Otherwise, we will proceed to discovery, and none of the defendants are inclined to let him get away with the kind of nonsense he attempted in the state suit.
Discovery will be a bitch.
Stay tuned.
Gonna have to order some more popcorn.
Those that are left are the hard cases Brett, leaving little anger management issues behind, the crap you flung not hit the fan but a high speed turbine and is heading right back at ya at warp speed
sip coffee then type…
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
“well pleaded”???? I read the complaint. I don’t remember anything well pleaded. But then I’ve never:
Filed a hundred of these
blown a man’s leg off at a football game
eaten the Presidential Seal
forgotten to hose out the Impala, or throw away the extra bomb making supplies
lived in mom’s basement
But, have you thrown marijuana out of a plane?
Well, haven’t we all? It was the ’70’s.
If you remember the ’60s, you weren’t there.
That was the 70s for Brett – how about the 90s? Anyone ever:
– File frivolous lawsuits against your own bombing victim? Then sue her lawyer?
– Transfer 6-figure amounts of recent income into a corporation called Brett Kimberlin Enterprises, then claimed you had no money whatsoever to pay your bombing victim?
– Bought an expensive DC area suburb home, then signed it to your mother’s name so you could claim you had no money to pay your bombing victim?
– Claimed to be unable to pay your bombing victim, with 3 new Mercedes parked in your driveway?
– While past the age of 40, written, recorded, performed, and bragged about two separate songs about having sex with teenage girls?
How long until “Viciously threatened me with a thorough discovery process” enters the complaint against you?
Oh lord don’t tempt the man! He’ll make it into a tort all of it’s own! lmao!
Otherwise, we will proceed to discovery, and none of the defendants are inclined to let him get away with the kind of nonsense he attempted in the state suit.
This would seem to imply that the defendants in the state suit “let him get away with” the discovery nonsense in the state suit. Yet defendants vigorously pursued discovery in that case and got bupkis. There were motions to compel and motions for immediate sanctions, and still there was nonsense. The court even made a small fees award that the plaintiff has yet to pay. The court levied the sanction that unprovided discovery could not be used in the case, yet plaintiff was still allowed to introduce that material, or the accusations, in court.
This also seems to imply that a Federal court will have a lower tolerance for shenanigans. This is not borne out by history. At least in the Maryland court, the judge expressed some anger about having been presented with forgeries, though she could not bring herself to do anything about it. The Federal court wasn’t even moved to say something negative about the forgery after BK having admitted it, much less do anything about it.
Kimberlin reminds me of moranis here: