In Re RICO Madness

Judge Hazel granted The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin permission to file a motion seeking to identify Ace of Spades in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. He has filed it.

UPDATE—I was amazed to find a package from TDPK in today’s mail. I contained a copy of the above motion and a copy of the letter published earlier asking for permission to file a sanctions motion against Patterico. If the Gentle Reader scrolls through the motion above to the Certificate of Service, he will see that TDPK told the court that he mailed the service to me on the 12th. The kiosk-purchased mailing label is postmarked on the 13th.

No surprise there.

29 thoughts on “In Re RICO Madness

  1. Also I note that he has put this motion forward to get the judge to issue an order to the attorney to identify ace. I don’t know that the judge could order a violation of client attorney privilege.

    Oh, who am I kidding judges can do whatever they want. I would not be surprised if Hazel grants it. And then the question is will Coleman go to jail for ace.

  2. The argument is now “if his name is already in emails.”

    So ace is apparently a master of “imputing” but BK can’t do simple process of elimination?
    Or is he saying ace is also one of the other defendants (which, based on writing style is seems entirely unlikely anyway.)

    • If I could erradicate ONE WORD from BK’s vocabulary it would be “imputing”. Or maybe “narrative.” Oh hell, how about ALL OF THEM! lolz

      And I can guarantee you that Ace is not one of the other defendants. Brett really doesn’t pay attention to AOSHQ at all if he hasn’t determined what it is precisely that Ace does for a living. His endless speculation is laughable. And pure craziness.

  3. On a slightly different note, maybe someone should send BK a dictionary with the definitions and usages of “impute” and “imply” highlighted and flagged? Though I suspect it’s debatable whether he’s intelligent enough to comprehend the difference.

  4. While Brett Kimberlin is under the impression that the Ace the blogger, and The Ace of Spades blog are one and the same, that simply is not the law. The “defendant” is listed as “a blog.” Ron Coleman represents that blog. I have not read any statements by Ron Coleman that he represents both Ace the blogger, and The Ace of Spades blog. Nor, have I read any statement by Ron Coleman that indicates that he knows who Ace the blogger is. For all we know, Ace the blogger was as careful to shield his identity from Ron Coleman as he has been in shielding it from the public all these years.

    The key is that anyone semi-literate in the internet can know the defendant. Typing in the keywords “Ace of Spades blog” will result in a link to the blog. Following the link will find a searcher “the Defendant.” Furthermore, Plaintiff Kimberlin stated his knowledge of who registered the blog. Clearly, Plaintiff Kimberlin has already identified the blog.

    There can be a “motion to identify Ace of the Spades, the person.” And, there can be a “motion to identify defendant Ace of Spades, the blog.” But, there cannot be a “motion to identify defendant Ace of Spades, the person,” because the complaint clearly states the entity captioned “Ace of Spades” “is a blog.”

    Nor, can Brett Kimberlin’s desire to conflate the blog with a leading blogger there negate the fact that The Ace of Spades blog has filed a motion to dismiss, while the blogger names “Ace” has not.

    Judge Hazel has attempted to kick the can down the road on these questions. The exact phrasing of Brett Kimberlin’s motion will force his hand. It will interesting to see if he opts to save face, or follow the law.

    • Here’s an interesting thought. Ace of Spades the blogger doesn’t actually exist, never has. There is a blogger on the blog Ace of Spades that uses the nom de cyber of “Ace”, but not Ace of Spades. Even then Kimby asks for the identity of “Ace of Spades the person”. There is almost certainly nobody, no person, who is “Ace of Spades”. Again, there is an anonymous blogger who uses the “handle” Ace, but I think this request is so sloppy that Coleman could just say. “Sorry, never heard of such a person.”

    • Yes, but who exactly is Coleman representing? In Coleman’s correspondence regarding the request to identify ace he answers:

      We represent defendant Ace of Spades blog (“Ace of Spades”) in this matter and write in response to the letter from plaintiff Brett Kimberlin filed with the Court on November 6, 2014, concerning anonymity….

      Hazel in his order awarding alternate service does not specify whether Ace of Spades is a blog or a person.

      The SAC identifies the defendant as a blog. The service goes to “Ace of Spades,” and the response comes from the attorney for the blog, not the person.

      Since the blog is some sort of entity – there is a running gag, maybe not a gag, of AOSHQ LLC – the identification of contributors to the blog would be an item for discovery rather than for a pretrial motion. The entity Ace of Spades blog could be working with Coleman and he could, truthfully not know who the contributor ace is.

      This could be pretty interesting, actually.

      • Nor, does one serve a an entity such as a corporation. One serves a human being on behalf of that entity. Judge Hazel merely ruled that Ace the blogger is a proper person to accept service on behalf of the Ace of Spades blog.

        Brett Kimberlin has admitted that he considers the blog and the blogger as one and the same. by his own admission, his attempts to identify “Ace of Spades, the person” were equally an attempt to identify “Ace of Spades… a blog…”

        In the last analysis, we live in one of four metaphysical realities: 1) Ace of Spades blog is the defendant to this lawsuit; 2) Ace the blogger is the defendant to this lawsuit; 3) Both are defendants in this lawsuit; or 4) Neither is a defendant in this lawsuit. 4) is a non-starter. Since the law distinguishes between a blog and the blog for which he writes, and since there is only one party listed in the caption, we also can discount 3).

        The reality is that Ace of Spades the blog has filed a motion to dismiss explicitly stating that it was on behalf of the blog. In subsequent filings, Brett Kimberlin and Ron Coleman has held a cross-conversation before the judge about who is the defendant in this case. The reality is that after these exchanges the Court has not struck the motion by “Ace of Spades the blog” to dismiss the action against the defendant captioned “Ace of Spades” for lack of standing. That is, this Court has already by acceded to the position that the defendant is a blog.

      • I agree. An excellent expansion of the fact that there is no Ace of Spades the person; much less one named in the SECOND Amended Complaint.

      • I would find it likely that a blog registered by someone living on the West Coast is likely written by someone from the West. Ron Coleman is a member of the Maryland Bar. It wouldn’t be surprising that the blogger Ace sought legal advice near where he lives. That lawyer may very well have spotted the implication of Brett Kimberlin’s exact words and advised Ace that he was not a party to the lawsuit, but, that The Ace of Spades blog was. Then, the blog could very well have hired a Maryland lawyer on its own behalf. Sure, that lawyer might be required to release Ace’s identity if ordered to so by this Court, but, there are a lot of lawyers out West!

      • So I went back and read the order from Hazel on alternate service to Ace of Spades. I( am wrong in saying that Hazel created “Ace of Spades the person” through the alternate service order – though his ambiguity may make it easy to think so.

        Because he ordered alternate service to “Ace of Spades” not the blog nor the person, one could presume that he meant the person. Especially since the method of service is congruent with service to a person. Judge Grimm gave a tutorial on how to serve a corporate entity, Hazel did not go anywhere near that, his alternate service was to an attorney representing a person, ace. So, it appears that Hazel’s disregard for the FCRP has created the misconception of an Ace of Spades the person as a defendant.

        But that isn’t what the SAC – which is unamendable by Hazel’s order – says. It says defendant Ace of Spades is a blog. Hazel’s order on alternate service is to Ace of Spades, through attorney Levy who was representing person ace on the issue of anonymity.

        Godfrey and Coleman were admitted to represent “Defendant Ace of Spades.” They do not say Ace of Spades the person nor blog – just Defendant Ace of Spades. Until the response to the request to identify Ace of Spades – when Coleman writes that “We represent defendant Ace of Spades blog (“Ace of Spades”) in this matter….”

        Coleman has the better of the argument. Plaintiff stated that Defendant Ace of Spades is a blog. BK doesn’t get to say “well I meant such and such,” that isn’t hypertechnical, it is technical. You can’t name The Burger King Restaurant as a defendant, and then say, well, you know I meant the actual Burger King, not the restaurant.

        Hazel’s reckless application of the rules is the cause for this whole thing. BK has filed a motion, Coleman will get to respond, and then BK respond to that. All of this during the time which Coleman has to respond to the omnibus response and that Hazel has to watch over the case. This motion did not have to exist, or be allowed during this timeframe. And yet it does. More Hazel mismanagement.

        The easy way for Hazel to deal with it will be to allow the motion, and then to rule in favor of Coleman’s argument that the Defendant is Ace of Spades the blog. Like I said, his ruling before created the misconception of Ace of Spades the person as a defendant, but what he wrote does not explicitly say that – it just says “Ace of Spades.”

        When everything is ambiguous, you have to go with what is written unambiguously, and that is the declaration in the SAC of who the Defendants are.

      • Earl,

        Their Coleman and Godfrey’s initial filing, I believe, is here:

        They explicitly did say they were representing a “blog” and that that blog was the “defendant” in their memorandum on their motion to dismiss. That was filed before they responded to Brett Kimberlin’s motion to identify Ace [aka, “Can I haz my dox now?”].

      • Coleman’s position should be strongly that Defendant Ace of Spades is a blog. And, as such, the request to identify a contributor to the blog serves no purpose. Hazel actually kind of sort of gives a clue as to why that would be the case in his order allowing the motion. He emphasizes that there is no amendment to the case that can be a result of whatever might be found out without permission. In other words, if the judge were to order Coleman to give up ace’s identity, and it turns out that ace is Joe Smith of 123 Maple Street, Anytown, it has no bearing on the case. He can’t substitute that name in the SAC. Joe Smith cannot be served as a result – at least not in this case.

        In fact, Coleman’s first response should be a Rule 11 notification to BK allowing him to withdraw the motion. Because, if there can be no benefit to the case – which Hazel clearly laid out – then it is being done for an improper purpose.

      • @BSB you are correct, sir.

        So, the court has accepted that Ace of Spades blog is the Defendant by accepting Coleman and Godfrey as attorney’s for Ace of Spades.

        Otherwise, as you or somebody said, they should have been rejected for not having standing.

  5. I’m not saying that defendant Ace of Spades (whether person or blog) should refuse to comply with an order from the court requiring him to disclose his identity, I’m just saying that one party has repeatedly ignored the orders of this court and the rules of procedure and suffered no repercussions for it.

    That party is, of course, a murderer, terrorist, perjurer, and pedophile thug that abuses the judicial system and should be spending time in prison, not in a courtroom.

Leave a Reply