In Re RICO Madness

This morning, Aaron Walker and I jointly filed the following letter with Judge Hazel.

I do not wish to make any further substantive comments concerning the subject of the letter until the court has ruled on our request.

27 thoughts on “In Re RICO Madness


  1. “But as typical, the Plaintiff believes that court rules and criminal laws do not apply to him. The question is whether this Court agrees.”

    ZING!

    Once again, the ball is in Judge Hazel’s court. The question is to whether or not he will act upon your requests fairly and ethically. It would be nice to see for a change.


  2. I was expecting an earth shattering kaboom but not so much.

    There are only two remedies proposed, both of which cost the defendants something and Kimberlin nothing, or little.

    I would have pointed out the multiple violations of the CMO and that on the face of it these are in violation and as such should have been summarily rejected in accordance with the CMO rather than docketed. So that would have been remedy one, Judge, this guy isn’t following your rules so I am going to ask that you enforce them without making me file a motion. Then I would have gone to filing a motion to strike, and then filing a response. And then, sanctions against the plaintiff in addition to whichever other action the judge takes.

    This letter merely asks the judge to give defendants more homework.


    • Not if he takes the implied option of strike the nonsense on his own. That creates less paperwork for him.

      Also, the judge has ordered that motions for sanctions be deferred until after has deal with the motions to dismiss.


      • Another attorney I work with has the following theory of judges: “Judges will avoid doing work whenever possible.”

        Striking Kimberlin’s surreply sua sponte would be most consistent with this theory.


    • Regarding the judge saying that motions for sanctions are deferred until afterward, he docketed BKs motion (which he did not even ask whether he could file that one) for sanctions.

      And, as I read it, he was specifically saying that motions for sanctions on the forgery should be held off until the matter had been heard. Well, the matter was heard months ago and no action has been taken.

      The plaintiff motioned for sanctions and the motion was accepted. So is the judge going to reject motions for sanctions from the defendants?

      At a minimum, it would be instructive.


      • Unless I’ve lost track, the only open motion for sanctions is the court’s sua sponte motion against Kimberlin related to forging the summons.


      • Jane not saying that the letter should have been longer. I just think that it should have been geared toward punishment of Kimberlin for his bad faith actions rather than participating in furthering the lawfare’s effectiveness.

        See, the problem is that the CMO only applies to the defendants. Taking the approach that they are going to strictly abide by the CMO would have some value if they were asking the judge to hold the plaintiff to the same order. But that isn’t what this letter is asking. It is saying, hey, since you accepted this (and many other) document from the plaintiff, we ask that you respectfully keep us bound by the CMO, and, well, if you don’t allow us to say anything about it, we won’t.


      • I wouldn’t think these members of Team Free Speech have standing to complain about pleadings directed specifically at another member. If they tried to address the motion against Patterico, they’d risk a lot and almost certainly gain nothing.


      • I see – he asked the judge straight out for sanctions, and also asked for permission to file a motion.


      • It would be awesome if the defendants were allowed to engage in a metaphorical legal brawl. Something like that could cover all of every defendant’s legal fees and expenses as a pay-per-view event because they’d KICK ASS.

        What they did instead is to stay within the exact same rule/order they’re asking the court to enforce against the tiny terrorist. To do otherwise would not only be hypocritical, but would incur risk of damage to their current and future standing with the court. I don’t see anything they would gain that would make that risk worthwhile.

        They asked for permission to file motions to strike as one possible remedy. That’s where they’d give the bigger, better argument, if it’s necessary. They made most of the points you suggest, but in a quieter and more respectful way that frankly is more likely to appeal to the judge. Maintaining “clean hands” is an important part of any legal strategy, and so is considering the audience to whom one is writing.

        I think they made effective arguments without the bombast we all enjoy, and most importantly, without crossing the line into violating the CMO, which, again, is the exact complaint they’re making. Doing otherwise is asking for a ruling of “a pox on both their houses.” They must differentiate themselves from the petite plaintiff in general, as they’ve already gotten orders lumping both sides together because of the volume of past pleadings.

        Yet again, because I believe this can’t be stressed enough, it would be the height of poor strategy to commit the exact same acts they’re complaining about. Put another way, “Your honor, I demand sanctions against the plaintiff for violating your order to not demand sanctions.” Or,

        Dear Judge,

        You recently ordered no party is to send letters to the court. However, just yesterday you received a letter from the other party. So, we’re writing this letter to make sure you’re aware he sent a letter in violation of your order to not send letters.

        Sincerely yours,

        The Party Who Wrote This Letter

        The judge should be aware of the back-story by now, at least to some degree. They shouldn’t feel the need to re-argue everything in every single pleading or request to file a pleading, which is what this is – a request to file a pleading, if the judge is not already inclined to grant appropriate relief. That just overloads the record and the judge, and will not win them any points.

        TL;DR: Again, sometimes less is more; especially when “more” may violate the CMO, irritate the judge, and is the exact infraction you’re complaining about.


    • I understand what you’re saying/writing, Earl, and it would have been great if they had permission to do so. Adding that info would have greatly increased the length of the letter and put them in the position of violating the order in the same way they are complaining the pedo plaintiff, Brett Kimberlin, violated it, kwim?

      Make no mistake, having read their writings for a few years now, it appears to me Team Free Speech took pains to push that envelope just as far as they thought was proper. To have gone further could very well have backfired and gotten their own argument stricken. After the judge rules, perhaps our host will lmk if my impression is correct.

      Also we should consider that all of the suggested additions would certainly be included if the court allows them to reply. We should also remember there are motions and replies pending right now that include that info and more.

      TL;DR – Bottom line: As we all know, the very last thing anyone wants to do is irritate the judge. It’s true that sometimes less is more.


      • IANAL, but the CMO seems to have only accomplished one thing to me, and that is to allow BK to cover-up his lack of legal skills by filing inappropriate motions, briefs and general whining to the judge in letter format.

        Speaking of sanctions, has Mr. Ostronic received his $600 yet?


      • Does anyone recall whether the tiny terrorist appealed the $600? If he did, that may be why Mr. Ostronic hasn’t filed for enforcement. If not, I hope he files soon.


  3. I’m glad you included the underlying lawfare and it’s associated expenses. Any further “tolerance” from Hizzonor is tantamount to complicity and should place Judge Hazel in a light as a potential accomplice to fraud on the court.


  4. I would say that we will see soon enough what the judge decides, but he is in no rush. The easiest thing for him to do would be to simply ignore this letter, which would significantly reduce his paperwork, but would allow the allegations that BK makes (there is much new here) to stay on the docket, but would preclude the defendants from rebutting it. So, saves him time, prejudices the defendants, what is the downside from Hazel’s perspective?

    There are some things the judge could do to hasten the case to conclusion, simple things that won’t take much time. But he hasn’t. That he hasn’t says to me that he would prefer that they remain murky. For example, how long could it possibly take for the judge to write a letter order clarifying the ace the person v. Ace of Spades the blog argument? He could very easily write a letter that says the blog is who was named in the SAC, the blog is represented by counsel, that’s settled.

    He could clear up the service business. He could order that if they aren’t served, they aren’t served. Or he could make the Hazel standard explicit – if they know about it, then they are served. He has used this standard already, he can go with it. It would also resolve the whole are they playing games on service business? They would just be served. He did it to Ace of Spades the blog, he can do it to anyone else he wants.

    Again, that the judge has not clarified says to me that he prefers them unclarified, for whatever reason.


    • The judge likely hasn’t cleared up those issues because he hasn’t had time to get to this case. Lower court judges have a very busy schedule and docket time to deal with cases well in advance. That docket is usually interrupted with criminal matters that require prompt attention. There’s no right to speedy trial when it comes to civil matters.

      I’m sure the judge has a future internal docket date to read and review all of the motions to dismiss, TDPK’s omnibus motion in opposition, and the various replies to TDPK’s omnibus response. When that happens, I expect there will be some movement in the case. That will probably include dismissing at least some of TDPK’s claims, if only to make the case more manageable. I expect at least one defendant will be released as well.

Leave a Reply