Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has been trying to claim in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness that he has a “property right” in his employment by Justice Through Music Project and that I have committed extortion (a predicate crime that can trigger RICO) by trying to get him fired. Here’s how I addressed that in my motion to dismiss.ECF 149-24Notice that I cited chapter and verse of a Supreme Court decision and pointed out that his allegation did not specify what “thing” I might have acquired by getting him fired. I also noted that he did not bother to specify when, where, and how I said or wrote that he should be fired from his job.

His task in opposing my motion was to show where in his complaint he did, in fact, plead the things I said were missing. Here’s what he submitted instead.ECF 231-36Did he show where in his complaint he specified what “thing” I would receive? No.

Did he show where in his complaint he specified when I advocated his being fired? No.

Did he show where in his complaint he specified where I advocated his being fired? No.

Did he show where in his complaint he specified how I advocated his being fired? No.

popcorn4bkDid he even try to sneak any of that into his opposition? No.

Oh, and one more thing … the case that TDPK cited in his opposition as authority for his position was Northeast Women’s Health Center v. McMonagle, 868 F.2d 1342 (3rd Cir. 1989), which was struck down by the Supremes in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.

 

23 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


  1. Citing cases that were overturned as unworkable is fitting given that Brett Kimberlin’s theory is itself unworkable.


  2. Maybe I’m missing something here.

    For him to lose his “job” at JMTP wouldn’t he have to fire himself?


  3. In his authorized biography Brett Kimberlin, the trained para-legal, boosted of his unauthorized practice of law while incarcerated. This case is just another example of his continuing unauthorized practice of law [see BrettKimberlin.org and the discussions of the data mining of a Bill Schmalfeldt filing.] The chief obstacle for a para-legal to practice law is standing. A para-legal sorta can prepare filings, and coach a client, but, he can’t enter the Court and speak on his client’s behalf. A member of the Bar can. Brett Kimberlin is attempting to obliterate any meaningful restrictions by claiming secondary effect grants standing. Thus, if this argument is accepted by this Court any employee of an company would have the standing to litigate his employer’s interests in Court by the expedient of claiming to have a “property interest” in his employer’s fate. Furthermore, if we accept that premise, and we also assume “Happy Wife, Happy Life!,” any person could argue his “martial interest” grants him standing to argue his spouse’s interests. Then, “parental interest” could extend standing to children, and, “family interest” could extend standing to all relatives. He could then claim secondary emotional harm to any “friend” he claims has been damaged. He could even brazenly claim his “economic interest in pursuing his para-legal work” is harmed by not being able to file and argue for both he and his client’s interests. Then standing would have no restrictive power.

    There is a point to questions of standing: it is a gatekeeper that reduces the amount of litigation in the system. If one Judge in Maryland decides to effectively abolish standing the floodgates for litigation will be opened wide. Judge Hazel needs to think very carefully about the consequences of his rulings.


  4. Maybe DPBK was afraid Team Themis would seize his Prius, you know, the one with the sagging springs on the passenger side.


  5. There is no difficulty understanding the 3.93 GPA. First, what evidence is there that it is true other than BK’s word? Second, assuming it is true, what are the standards of the prison extension program of some third-rate community college?

Leave a Reply