A couple more replies to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s opposition to our motions to dismiss his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness arrived on PACER just before midnight.
hogewash
Never pick a fight with a man who buys pixels by the terabyte.
Wouldn’t it be nice if this were the last you heard of us?
In some ways, yes. OTOH, I enjoy your blog.
Only in court, sir. only in court…
Will you marry me?
Mr. Coleman, I agree it would be nice if this was the last we heard from you in this case, but reading your briefs has been a very great pleasure, and an education as well.
It would be even nicer if this was the last we heard from Brett Kimberlin, excepting his vexatious litigant designation.
To the contrary, Ron, I will continue to “hear” from you. Just on subjects sans psychopaths.
Inasmuch as after this case is dismissed the next steps are sanctions, demands for attorney’s fees, and the designation of Brett Kimberlin as a vexatious litigant, it would be highly unfortunate to miss your input in that process.
And then there’s the collection process which could turn out to be the best part of the entire case, including discovery.
I’ve heard of people being jailed until they pay off an order. With this crew, I’m hopeful no stone will be left unturned in enforcing the court’s order(s).
I noted no request for sanctions or costs. Surprising.
Al, you’re correct the reply from Frey/Nagy/AOSblog didn’t request fees that I saw in a brief skim. However, most, if not all, of the other replies requested fees, costs, and/or sanctions. (Primarily that Kimberlin finally be declared a vexatious litigant.)
It’s going to be a FUN ride for fans of Team Free Speech.
* For example see:
page 22 of ECF 244, Beck/Blaze/MRA-Lackman- requested fees, costs
page 9 of ECF 243, Bretibart-Bailen- requested fees and costs
page 10 of ECF 242, Erickson/Red State-Bailen- requested fees and costs
page 29 of ECF 241, Malkin/Twitchy-Smith- requested fees and costs
page 25 of ECF 240, Walker-pro se- requested sanctions
page 7 of ECF 239, Backer/DBCS-Siroui- requested fees, costs, sanctions
page15 of ECF 236, Hoge-pro se- requested costs, sanctions
I have read all of the briefs that you posted here so far. They seem overwhelming to BK’s case. I do not envision any way the case can survive them. Surely the case will be dismissed, and sanctions levied against Brett Kimberlin. I also do not know how BK can escape being adjudged as a vexatious litigant, with restrictions placed upon him to prevent more vexatious filings in the future. His lawsuit is one huge glaring episode of bad faith.
Remember who the judge is. So far this judge has not shown that he cares too much about what the law says. After all, Kimberlin forged a summons. A historical first! What did the judge do to punish him? Nada.
On the other hand, judges generally like to keep their workload down. This case, with one pro se plaintiff and numerous defendants, some of whom are also pro se, would be a heck of a case to allow to go to trial. If I were a judge, I would not be enthusiastic about keeping this case on my docket longer than necessary.
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
Page 4 of the second response is simply EPIC.
Reblogged this on Truth Before Dishonor and commented:
The terrorist scoundrel Brett Kimberlin gets dealt multiple hay-makers by upstanding defendants in the terrorist scoundrel Brett Kimberlin’s vexatious lawfare lawsuit. The Kimberlin Corollary to the Streisand Effect is very plain to see. Someone should make a movie of this, once it’s all done.
You know, I read these responses and think there is no way that the judge can allow this to go forward. There are so many fatal flaws. I mean a federal judge takes the time to write you a step by step tutorial on how to serve a corporate entity , and even researches exactly who you need to serve for you, and you still can’t be bothered to get it right? It is astonishing the number of things that the defendants point out. About a case that has been allowed to exist for over a year.
And the thing is none of it is new. The defendants did not suddenly become proficient at writing legal briefs, and the plaintiff did not all of a sudden become sloppy and malicious. And yet here we are.
I wrote before, in a straight game, the defendants will win their MTDs.
So if the case goes forward, the conclusion will be obvious.
BTW, special kudos to attorney Smith who pointed out several Rule 11 actions he intends to file. Good on him.
Are there any more replies from other defendants that we are still waiting to see?