Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has included an admission that he has no case in his opposition to Lee Stranahan’s motion to dismiss the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 249-p12Unfortunately for TDPK, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Supreme Court decisions require that his case be pleaded with particularity. He needs to say that Defendant A took action B on date C and caused damage D. Furthermore, since TDPK is alleging fraud, Rule 9 applies; it states “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud …”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving civil procedure. It heightened the pleading requirement for Federal civil cases, requiring that plaintiffs include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible—not merely possible or conceivable—that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) the Court clarified and tightened the pleading standard set forth in Twombly. “Threadbare” recitations of the element of a tort with no connection to what happened in the real world are not acceptable. A well-pleaded allegation says who did what to whom, when it occurred, and what the resulting damage was. With particularity.

* * * * *

popcorn4bkYou know, TDPK’s opposition to Lee’s motion amounts to a surreply to my motion, and the Local Rules don’t allow for surreplies without leave from the Court. I could try to have it thrown out on that basis. Or I could let it stand with its admission that Kimberlin has no case.

Decisions. Decisions.

35 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


    • You have to wonder if when he was typing that, he though “Hm. This doesn’t sound very good.” I’m sure he meant that the whole body of online commentary about Brett Kimberlin should obviously show malice of four thought…or something.
      In fact, the body of Hoge, Ace, Walker, McCain and Patterico’s blog posts about Brett Kimberlin were pretty measured and well documented. Butthurt is no tort. Better get used to it.


      • He’s stupidly trying to claim there is just too much to list it all in the complaint, despite that being a requirement; and because there was just so, so, so very much, he couldn’t even list a few examples. hahahaha

        I hope the judge has a very low tolerance to having his intelligence so thoroughly insulted.


  1. If you strike his improper surreply, Brett Kimberlin still has admitted that this case involves no “single instance of misconduct that can be pleaded with particularity.” He just took 50 pages to say so in his first complaint, and 83 pages in the second.


    • They seem to realize that they are losiing the RICO suit, and cannot help The Cabin Boy in any effective way, and so they are literally going for blood, Aaron’s blood; at Breitbart Unmasked. The article is “The Manassas, Virginia Jihad: Aaron Walker Is No Charlie Hebdo”. The premise to softswat Aaron again is despicable enough, but the baying dogs that encourage such behavior in the comments is very telling as to just what kind of subhumans we are dealing with today. I cannot safely link to it.


      • Not an especially helpful (to K) tactic. If that’s not that’s where the mentally ill SWJs banned from Wikipedia must have run off to, the characters give a fair impression of intellectual and moral deficit that mirrorsKs arguments so closely they implicate him. Probably all one insane person posting over and over.


  2. Shouldn’t there be some significant consequences to TDPK for wasting the court’s time (and the defendants) with this frivolous action? Not to mention all the nonsense and lies in his filings.. And shouldn’t the court take action on its own initiative without waiting for the defendants to move for sanctions or something?

    I know, I know, in a perfect world, etc, etc.


    • Sadly, too much of the time there aren’t any consequences for even the most frivolous suits. That’s why the idea of “loser pays” is becoming more appealing to many.

      However, this case is way beyond frivolous, imnsho, and goes far past the line into malicious. If the defendants seeks sanctions, I’m confident significant sanctions will be order. Collecting on a judgment would no doubt be the most difficult challenge of the entire suit, but if they’re willing to go through the trouble to collect, I’m even hopeful they’ll collect in full.

      The puny plaintiff’s behavior was so egregious; he has demonstrated total contempt for the judge and the process in this case; not to mention he hasn’t paid a single dime on an order that’s decades old and all of the beyond bad faith maneuvering he engaged in to avoid compliance with that order; I doubt the court would have to see him more than twice before locking him up until he pays.

      It wouldn’t surprise me a bit for the judge, when pronouncing his order, to warn the tiny terrorist in no uncertain terms that he will not hesitate to jail him and/or refer him for revocation of parole proceedings should he be anything other than in total compliance with this judgment. And if he doesn’t explicitly convey that message, I’d bet a large sum that he’ll be thinking it.


      • That seems to be wish casting.

        Judge Hazel has been the source of some of the more frustrating legal abuses in this case. He has refused to sanction BK forging a document that ostensibly came from his court, in effect allowing BK to impersonate the court and not saying boo about it.

        He has allowed and encouraged the flouting of FCRP.

        So it seems unlikely he is suddenly going to turn around express his shock that gambling is going on in this establishment.


      • I hope you’re wrong about wish-casting.

        I really can’t speak to how things go in federal court, but in local state court judges rarely take any action without a hearing. So, until he actually refuses on the record, I consider those issues to remain pending.

        Like you, I would have hoped any judge from any court would be furious over the tiny terrorist’s blatant forgery, etc. That goes way beyond typical pro se mistakes. But iirc he is a new judge, and have his hands full with other matters, along with the likelihood of the “squeaky wheel” rule being in full force.

        FRCP are something most judges won’t be totally strict about with a pro se party, but I agree he’s cut the puny plaintiff way too much slack, and was appalled at the judge giving legal advice on service to him. It bothers me more because the party the judge seems to want to help is evil, as opposed to someone sincerely confused which wouldn’t bother me so much.


      • If we are wish-casting, I could only hope the reason for all the delays in acting on the previous Judge’s Show Cause Order is that the sanction is going to be jail time for Brett Kimberlin. Perhaps, Hazel thought it violate impartiality to jail Kimberlin while the case was still being heard.


      • Both Judge Grimm (a more experienced judge) and Judge Hazel have been more than lenient to a pro se litigant – they have actively aided his case.

        Grimm provided a tutorial and did research to assist BK in serving Breitbart. Hazel just obviated the Federal rules and said, here, I am going to make up my own rules on Ace of Spades and just deem him/it served. As to the forgery issue, Grimm had a hearing, then walked way from any action on it when he turned the case over to Hazel. Hazel has since failed to take action on it, and the “oh maybe he is busy” excuse doesn’t cut it – he has made plenty of other decisions in that time period. As to squeaky wheels, well, Twitchy and Michael W. Smith remain conspicuously ungreased.

        A long time ago (because it has been a long time since this thing got started) a popular meme was that the Judge was just being super cautious so that he would have an appeal proof case and “giving BK enough rope” with which to hang himself.

        Time and events have proven the folly of this notion. The judges have taken plenty of actions that would be fodder for appeal (should the defendants lose). Their actions have been decidedly one sided – it is help that they are giving BK, not rope.

        Remember the glee that Fat Bastard took in announcing that the case would go before an Obama nominee? As wrong as he is about just about everything else, one thing he does understand is that the Left loves them some terrorists.


      • haha, thanks, Al.

        Earl and everyone:

        I don’t recall the details of the case nearly as well as does Earl, so will assume all of the factual assertions he made are accurate and complete.

        1. One thing we should all be aware of is that none of us can be truly objective. That allows us to see things such as not sticking to the most pedantic interpretations of rules as huge violations, which in the grand scheme of things may not be a big deal to any but us.

        No judge is ever going to know the details of this case like the average lickspittle or zombie. Apparently, he was convinced that Ace was avoiding service. Since he was receiving correspondence and pleadings from Ace’s lawyer, that’s not an unreasonable finding.

        Another thing we should be aware of is that most of us are not lawyers, and even some of those who are do not practice this type of law. Despite the cyberstalking freakshow’s ridiculous assurances to the contrary, the practice of law entails a lot more than reading English.

        2. Again, in my experience, sua sponte rulings of the type some seem to expect are very rare. Unless and until someone requests a hearing or a ruling, the judge is unlikely to take any action on the forgery issue, particularly as he wasn’t on the case at the time of the initial hearing. That simple fact – the change of judges – probably has a lot to do with why there hasn’t been a ruling yet.

        FTR – simply mentioning something in a pleading isn’t what I consider being a “squeaky wheel.” Demanding findings and a ruling, as the court is asked to do every single day in several cases, is being squeaky.

        3. Some here are of the opinion that the judges are literally throwing the case to the puny plaintiff, rather than doing what they do in most cases involving a pro se party – note the tiny terrorist frequently reminding the court about his pro se status as an excuse. If that were true, why didn’t the judge grant the preliminary injunction? Isn’t that pretty much the goal of the little loser’s lawsuit – shutuppery?

        Either the judge concerns himself with possible appeals or he doesn’t. We can’t call it folly when another suggests it, then use the same rationale to explain the lack of a preliminary injunction.

        4. Suggesting the cyberstalking freakshow is right about anything is the true folly. That he is the one who made an assertion is a prima facie case the assertion is false.

        TL;DR: If the court finds in favor of the diminutive diddler on any counts, then we may have reason to suspect judicial misconduct. At this point in the proceedings, we simply don’t have justification to suspect the judge is willing to literally violate the law, all of his ethics, and risk his seat on the bench by throwing a case. And I’d bet a lot the puny plaintiff would just love for us to make the accusation, and is heartened and encouraged to proceed by those who believe he has the judge in his pocket.


  3. I hope the lifelong pattern of lawfair and lying mean something to the judge.
    The only difference between Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Timothy McVeigh and Brett Kimberlin is that the latter caught a huge break from the system. When is somebody going to (legally, non-violently) take this individual to task?
    (I am using the Lickspittle Style Book, Chapter 6, paragraph 2 titled “Do We Call Him a Man?”)


      • Sadly, he is the prototypical ‘man’. Fallen and corrupt, lead by lusts and self-interest only. Brett is what man is without the salvation of Christ. Putatively human, spiritually arid as a desert. ‘Man’ in the raw, unevolved morally and spiritually.


      • There are plenty of atheists who live ethical lives, no harm to anyone [except, perhaps their own after-life selves]. It’s not merely the lack of salvation that makes a kimberlin. It’s the active embrace of evil.


      • AJ perhaps you are correct, I do not know. In my belief, any who follow their own will above that of God are lost no matter how nice they are or how ‘ethically’ they conduct their lives. I do not hate them nor disregard them. They are entitled through free will to live as they choose and I would die to protect that right. We can all live this life in harmony if we but try. The next life is a different proposition but I understand that Atheists do not believe in a spiritual eternity so they are already predisposed to not going to Heaven.
        Selah.
        If my words or actions could persuade I would gladly offer that persuasion, however I doubt that short of a ‘Road to Damascus’ moment most would not be impressed in the least. Instead, I just pray.
        That being said, I have met an Atheist or two who are quite highly developed people with a sound moral compass and ethics. They are not arid morally, thus they do not come any where near a kimberlin-type undeveloped and fallen proto-man.


    • The reason BK got a break from the system is his bombings were not caught on video and played non-stop on the 24-hour news cycle, unlike the other two monsters. And while lawfare plays havoc with the targets, it doesn’t make compelling TV. Without a strong verdict from the court of public opinion or serious annoyance to important people (sorry, Team Free Speech), there isn’t much incentive for the court to drop the hammer on BK.


  4. Just trying to keep up on the history: What is the “mentally ill SWJs banned from Wikipedia must have run off to”. Who are these people and can anyone link me to a history?


    • This is a Gamergate thing. Five or so people have been banned for life from ever altering any article dealing with feminism, gender issues, etc. as a result of their vicious rewriting of history over Gamergate to advance their view of it. This has gone further than any other infighting that I have ever seen on Wiki.

Leave a Reply