The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has tried to claim that he isn’t a public figure. That’s rubbish. He became an infamous public figure as a result of his convictions for drug smuggling, bombings, etc. Since then, he’s sought publicity by means of the “music” he has inflicted on the public. Still, he included this in his second amended complaint for the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness—

This is yet another “so what?” TDPK’s status as a public figure is only important insofar as it bears on his defamation claim. Since he’s suing under Maryland law, that means that it has no bearing on the case. You see, in Maryland the standards for proving defamation are the same for private individuals and public figures.

As of now, we have a final judgment in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit that Kimberlin didn’t present a “scintilla” of evidence that he had been defamed. That’s a settled matter now. Res judicata and all that. Moreover, there is case law saying that collateral estoppel applies not only to the points he tried to raise in that suit but also to all the matters available for him to raise in support of that claim of defamation. His defamation claim is not only merely dead, it’s really, most sincerely dead.

Which brings us to the Contest. No one has caught the fatal error that Aaron Walker found in TPDK’s motion for a new trial in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. case. There’s a Hogewash! Res Judicata coffee mug waiting for the winner.

Meanwhile, the timer is ticking down on the due date for TDPK’s omnibus opposition to the motion to dismiss the RICO Madness.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE—A bit of clarification … TDPK is trying to make a damage claim based on defamation per se. Under Jacron Sales Co. v. Sindorf, 277 Md. 165, 352 A.2d 810 (1976), a private individual seeking such damages must meet the same standard of proving actual malice as a public person would under NYT v. Sullivan.