Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

In yesterday’s TKPOD I quoted The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s inadvertent admission that he has no case in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 249-p12This is not the first time TDPK has run aground on the shoals of particularity. During the first day of the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit trial, Judge Johnson explained the requirement to him.BKvAWday1p44_45 The Gentle Reader may remember that TDPK lost that trial via a directed verdict in favor of the defendants because he could not produce a “scintilla” of evidence to support his case.

The Walker, et al. case was a walk in the park compared to what will be coming Kimberlin’s way if the RICO Madness survives the motions to dismiss. There will be discovery, and it will be more interestingly focused. There will be depositions. There will likely be counterclaims. Parties may be added as counterclaim defendants.

Of course, TDPK could come to his senses and dismiss the suit. There is still time. The ram has not yet touched the wall.

27 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • I would suggest feeding the RICO charge right back at Team Kimberlin. Team Kimberlin is a RICO enterprise. The predicate acts are there. The attempts to induce “hackers” to invade the computer systems of some of defendants violated their civil rights, (namely, their Constitutional Right to be secure in their papers.) Their attempts to tell the leadership of NBC to cease and desist their advocacy violated that leadership’s Constitutional Right to free speech. Their attempts to seize the assets of the NBC by falsely claiming ownership to those assets was an act of fraud. Selling class four [?] controlled substances without a prescription is a felony. Retaliating against the press for reporting possible violations of those laws could be considered a felony. The recent reports on the whys, wheres and hows to murder Aaron Walker is arguably criminal. There are attempts to impersonate government officials. There is, also, the issue of the possession of fraudulent passports. There is even issues with the manufacture and dissemination of child pornography that victimizing one of the defendants. Did we mention the international human trafficking of minors for immoral purposes? Or, the acts of retaliation for reporting that conduct? You could even mention the curious timings of various SWATTINGs. Then, there is the stalking and harassment, some of which has already been adjudicated.

      If Judge Hazel is going to allow very lenient definitions of what is a “RICO enterprise” to go to trial, then, that is the law for the duration of this case, and, you should argue the law as Judge Hazel interprets it.

      • The Constitution protects your rights against state actors, not private parties. That is not to say that some of the alleged activities are not crimes.

      • The use of assets and participation in the lawsuit behind the scenes of various ‘non-profit’ organizations begs for their inclusion as counterclaim defendants (in addition to tearing the corporate veil all to Hell).

      • One more thing – the standard of proof in a civil case is lower than a criminal case. Perhaps there could be an adjudication regarding certain SWATting incidents.

      • A Reader, the solicitation for “hackers” was for information that would lead to their arrest and prosecution. In the last analysis, Brett Kimberlin intended that his enemies be prosecuted by the state acting under color of law based on searches that violated their Constitutional right to be secure in their papers.

      • Did state actors actually do this? If they did not, there are no Constitutional claims based on these allegations.

  1. My wish is that the judge will dismiss this and hand down sanctions.

    Unfortunately, my brain tells me this will go to trial.

    I am looking for a shooting star to see if it helps.

    • There’s a lot yet before trial. This is the Motion To Dismiss stage of the lawsuit, under FRCP Rule 12(b). Anything surviving this, after robust rounds of discovery, will then be subject to Motions For Summary Judgment under FRCP Rule 56, which will be, if anything, even more vigorous and contentious than what we see here. Then there will be trial.on anything surviving that.

    • I doubt this case will ever go to trial. Federal judges don’t like to let cases on their docket drag on and on (granted, this one has already dragged on way too long). Given the fact that this case has a pro se plaintiff against numerous defendants, some of whom are also pro se, this would be quite an unwieldy case to have to go to trial.

      • Where do these notions of what Federal judges like and dislike come from? Is there a list? Some Federal judge wish list?

        Shirley Sherrod sued Andrew Breitbart in 2011 in Federal court. Breitbart passed away in 2012, today the case continues with his widow as defendant. Michael Mann sued National Review and Mark Steyn in Federal court in 2012. That case is still going on. BK sued the Washington Times, an oped author, and Senator Orrin Hatch in a Federal case that lasted over three years.

        Theoretically FRCP lists the things that Federal judges want to see in a case. Local rules add on to that. Yet it seems that Judge Hazel is not that thrilled with the rules, and prefers to go by Hazel.

        The discovery game will be won by the party most willing to defy the courts.

      • You know, Earl, you can disagree without being disagreeable. I’ve seen you do it.

        There’s nothing wrong with Joshua’s comment and opinion, imo. One person’s definition of “drag on and on” may be very different from another’s.

        Hope you post more, Joshua.

      • Didn’t feel like I was being disagreeable, but it was admittedly pre-coffee.

        But my point is one I have made before, and I am sure that it is tiresome.

        Without going all Randian Objectivist, I have to say “check your premises.”

        What does that mean? Well, that comes from:

        Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

        So if you were to look at this case and say, hey, judges hate it when plaintiffs do X, and the plaintiff did X and yet the judge has not expressed displeasure….

        Then you have to check your premises.

        We are all opining here with only information that is publicly available and our own knowledge and notions. We are all guessing at what is going on, and what are the motivations.

        Would that it were true that Federal Judges dislike it when cases drag on. There is no real evidence or history of that. Certainly in the case where Leftists are conducting lawfare against people on the Right. Hazel in this case has extended time for responses even when it was not rational to do so. I would have to guess that he is perfectly happy with this case dragging on and on, because he has not only allowed it do so, he has made it that way.

      • Like many other very smart people, you don’t suffer [those with views you see as unfounded] gladly, or quietly. Excellent post, btw. Checking one’s premises is always a good idea.

        That a judge hasn’t expressed displeasure publicly, or expressed it to the satisfaction of all on Team Free Speech, doesn’t definitively show the judge is not displeased.

        True story: A party to the case was a very disgraced former lawyer. It’s a fact that the judge considered him a disgrace to the bar. (I know someone who is good friends with the judge’s wife; the two couples socialize regularly.) So, the other side expected it to be an easy case because of the judge being predisposed to be on their side. However, the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the former lawyer out of concern about his own bias against the creep. It ended up a lot tougher than it would have been had the other party not been a disgrace.

        None of us know whether or not something similar is in play here. As you point out, we’re all expressing opinions based on very limited information, and our own personal experiences – guessing. Any guess based on facts is as valid as another, imnsho.

        None of us are objective. That we don’t agree that some of the decisions are fair, or even rational, doesn’t mean reasonable men won’t disagree. Without a history of a particular judge’s dealings with other pro se parties we can’t determine his decisions are even unusual, much less evidence of politically motivated bias.

  2. Does Kimberlin really need to show a case? Didn’t he say:

    “And tomorrow, I can file another lawsuit against them. And now I know what I need to do. It’s going to be endless lawsuits for the rest of their lives. And that’s what it ends up being. I sue them. They sue me. They come into court. I sue them. They come into court. That’s the way it is.”

    The punishment is the process.

    • Good point, tannyo, and excellent evidence to a finding of him being a vexatious litigant.

      I’m of the opinion that the other pending case caused him to not lash out over his HUGE loss in some of the ways he has in the past – YET. I pray for all of the defendants, and hope they never stop expecting trouble from the tiny terrorist. We all know he’ll never give up, no matter how badly he bungles his case, and no matter how humiliating are his losses.

      • Since he is on probation make him have to get permission from a parole officer to ask the court for permission to file a suit. Of course the best outcome, he is back in the lock up.

      • Being in lock up may be helpful to reducing the intensity of Brett Kimberlin’s crime spree, but here’s what needs to happen to him for the best possible outcome:
        – convicted of molestation of Debbie Barton
        – convicted for his role in the murder of Debbie’s grandmother Julia Scyphers
        – made to compensate Sandra DeLong
        – made to compensate victims of his lawfare while in jail (e.g. Rev. Val J. Peter)
        – convicted of rape of his estranged wife. Convicted for his false imprisonment attempts on her.
        – convicted for the absolute blizzard worth of perjuries he committed in his recent lawfare campaign
        – convicted for his role in getting his critics SWATted
        – made to give up his info on other criminal activity by people he allied with, such as Neal Rauhauser, BS, Melissa Brewer, and anyone who signed false JTMP or VRUS documents in bad faith
        – made to repay “donations” to his “charity” scams

        Probably more can be added.

        To the extent practical, we should all try to do what we can to bring about these results. Since it is such a long list, we will still be working on it after the pedophile Brett Kimberlin is back in jail.

      • BKWatch,

        Is Debbie Barton known to have -ever- made any statement, to anyone, alleging abuse by Kimberlin? There’s no evidence I’m aware of that Kimberlin ever actually acted on his obvious [and apparently confessed] hebephilic impulses in regard to Miss Barton, or anyone else other than his wife and her cousin.

        Is there anything close to eliminating reasonable doubt in the Scyphers case? Unless the guy who actually pulled the trigger decides to confess, I doubt it.

        Is there any reason to think Mrs. DeLong is ready to go back to court?

        Is there any reason to think Mrs. Kimberlin is up to testifying against her husband?

        Is there any evidence at all you’re aware of that actually ties BK to swatting?

        Do you think there’s some chance we have BK waterboarded? Is he really likely, lacking that, to further implicate himself by ratting out his henchmen? Or admit that any significant portion of his non-profits receipts were used unlawfully?

        I only ask these questions because you reference practicality, and it seems like you’re mostly just fantasizing about what could happen beyond BK just losing in court. Might as well expect him to have to pay sanctions to NASA for misusing the acronym THEMIS.

        Practical? Tossed out of court and ordered to pay defendants’ fees. A vexatious litigant finding without having to file another suit would be a huge bonus.

        It would appear that the veritable fleet of other ships has long since sailed.

      • AJ,

        These are all good and important questions which I can’t do justice to right now but I’ll at least start on a little of it.

        There is a deposition or interview in which Debbie or her mother (forget which) talk about how denial of Brett’s access to Debbie was largely spurred by him slapping her on a couple of occasions and taking away her puppy. I infer the sexual nature of the relationship from Brett’s biography (I hope everyone here has read it!). TK had also stated he kept nude pictures of Debbie.

        Brett’s custody of the murder weapon is strong evidence in the Scyphers case. He buried it in Scyphers’ daughter’s yard.

        No idea about DeLong or TK.

        There seems to be an incriminating recording of Brett, Melissa Brewer, and Neal and talking about one of their SWATtings. I don’t know why we don’t hear more about it. Additionally the accomplices can and should turn each other in and testify against themselves and each other. Rauhauser’s overwhelming need to screw over everyone around him makes this perhaps practical.

        If enough people were able to donate enough resources, perhaps more of these cases would be practical to pursue. DeLong’s is pretty open and shut but for the hassle of removing Brett’s assets from his control – which would be easier if he couldn’t make legal filings without first passing them through someone with ethical obligations.

        I agree these are hard, but to me that just means we want more people working on it and more sacrifices from them. Brett has a conscious and deliberate goal of making it hard to hold him accountable and this behavior must be defeated. Thoroughly. Along with everyone who helped him. I can’t do it myself but I will always be there with those who are working on it.

  3. This is off topic, but you do have an additional legal matter that is about to go to court.

    My opinion is that you do not lead luck to prove that the order has been breached, but you may need luck in getting meaningful sanctions for those breaches. So I wish you the best of luck. It is bad enough that you have had to deal with the bomber; it adds insult to injury that you must deal as well with the bomber’s sycophantic tools and fools so I for one hope that at least a stinging fine is awarded.

Leave a Reply