33 thoughts on “In Re RICO Madness

  1. The title alone made me laugh as did its contents. Good stuff from Coleman. It must always be tough for him to say things to the effect of “assuming Mr. Kimberlin is telling the truth.” I know I am always tempted to add “don’t laugh.”

  2. Should have mentioned how sealed discovery got leaked, and how Kimberland kept trying to make public sealed information by putting it in the titles of his pleadings.

      • Its already in the file, and some lawyers prefer to throw everything, including the kitchen sink at the judge (like me). And some prefer to say just a few things, and get off the stage. I won’t criticize the other approach.

      • As long as it’s in there…

        And you of all should have good reason to be certain that it is.

        I frankly forgot you were a party, I was getting the state and federal cases confused again…

        Best of luck, and kick his ass.

    • Or, he might have noted Brett Kimberlin’s acknowledged attempts to inform as many “Imans” as he could reach about an upcoming public appearance by Aaron Walker. And, how, by information and belief, his then employee, Bill Schmalfeldt publicly broadcasted that Aaron Walker and others should “fear” the date of that public appearance. At the time of these acts, Brett Kimberlin had already stated his subjective belief that Aaron Walker faced a very real threat of being murdered by Muslim extremists.

    • Y’know; I’ve been thinking (I know, it’s a dangerous past-time). Why would Hizzonor expect the esteemed Mr. Coleman or ‘Ace’ to comply? Kimby has flouted the CMO, service, discovery, hell’s bells pretty much the entire process; and Hazel hasn’t as much as batted an eye. Why SHOULD the defendants bow and scrape to a judge who, having abandoned the yoke of the law, can no longer claim its graces?

      Has Hazel abdicated his authority?

      • Oh sure, SPQR, if you want to get hung up on ideas like character, honor, repsect for the law and other quaint anachronisms.

        Someone once said something to the effect that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I would posit that the “Social Contract” in not either.

    • I suppose you would you would prefer “spirited” and “passionate.”

      Paul Levy is a well-respected lawyer who is a noted litigate on the issue of anonymous speech. He filed several informative briefs on the behalf of one of your client’s bloggers. The entirety of his work was casually dismissed by Judge Hazel with the words, “I find nothing convincing…” I found that an interesting tone for a rookie judge to direct towards an experienced advocate who is considered a leading expert in his field. Had he found his pleading convincing he would have ruled in Levy’s favor, so his ruling literally offers no reason or explanation. He just issued an edict.

      • Levy’s an idiot, and he made Coleman’s task more challenging – Levy’s response should have been one line

        “We have no idea what Kimberlin is referring to your honor” should have been the response not the hastily dictated stuff previously filed

  3. That may well be the most persuasive filing in opposition that I’ve ever read. Concise and compelling.

  4. Reason number 12,432,476,194 why I cannot be an attorney: I’d have to use civil language to write about infuriating pipsqueaks and that, my friends, is an art that I will never be able to master.

  5. I really enjoyed this brief. It is not the least bit reticent in describing Kimberlin’s brazen bad faith in using the legal process to punish and harm his critics. It seems Kimberlin went out of his way to be sure that Walker and his satire of the evil Prophet Mohammed was well publicized, perhaps in the hopes that some Muslim would kill Walker for this.

  6. I got nothing.

    I mean, great legal response, lots of red meat for the audiennce, does it have any influence on what Hazel does?

    Who knows?

    Personally I think that the defendants should be pounding the table over the perjury. This response makes a subtle reference, but I don’t think there is value in subtlety. I think the defendants should say something like “BK admitted in writing to this court that he forged documents ostensibly from this court, you should not believe anything he says in this case.”

Leave a Reply