This morning, I filed this motion in the Kimberlin v. Team Themis, et al. RICO2 LOLsuit.

The motion speaks for itself. I do not intend to make any substantive public comment on the motion until the court has ruled on it.

48 thoughts on “In Re RICO2

    • My guess is that Kimberlin is going to unsuccessfully move that Judge Hazel recuse himself because life is conspiring against him, but that doesn’t impact our host’s motion.

      • LIfe? Hmm, how about:
        Allergic rhinitis?
        No . . . DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME! That’s the ticket!

      • I don’t think any of this helps BK. There is no ability to automatically “bump” a judge (as there is here in Alaska) in federal court.

        [b]28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge[/b]

        (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
        (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
        (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
        (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
        (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
        (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
        (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
        (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
        (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
        (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
        (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
        (c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
        (d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
        (1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
        (2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
        (3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
        (4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
        (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
        (ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
        (iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
        (iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
        (e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
        (f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

    • Yes, he should get to it by July-August.
      Oh, goodness, I’ve been reading too much Earl Scruggs.

    • I have a feeling this case will not be allowed to take as much of the court’s time as the last case.

      • Given how annoyed His Honor seemed in the dismissal – using variants of the word “failed” at 32 times seems almost mocking – I suspect that our host’s part in Rico Suave will not be long for this world.

        Then Kimberlin will get to deal with 800 lawyers.

        • I’m all about spreading joy.

          Want a bigger smile? Somewhere in Elkridge, a demented fat man thinks that his diminutive chauffeur is going to beat those 800 lawyers.

          • Not sure how he thinks BK is going to come up with the money to get through discovery and depositions. Or keep the green cards straight for service.

      • Why should he care? I am given to understand that this man has no interest in such things any more, and is focused like a laser on lovin’ his woman.

        • That was yesterday and William is celebrated for his mood swings. Today he spent two hours on his abominable “radio show” ranting about HOOOOOGGEEEEE.

  1. Kimberlin seems to be descending into madness at a rapid rate. If he thinks he is intimidating anyone with his frivolous lawsuits, he isn’t. All he is doing is making himself appear to be a major jackass and a fool. The only emotion he engenders from most is contempt.

  2. Great move, John.

    The probable time line:

    Response to your motion due. [I could not find the time in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the District Court Local Rules.]

    Next day, file your reply.

    Next day, Judge Hazel files decision granting your motion and dismissing the complaint as to you. He does it because it is quick, easy, and eliminates one defendant from the case.

    • The time allowed is 14 days plus 3 more if the service is by mail. If the due date would fall on a weekend, holiday, or other day the court is closed, the response time is extended to the next day the court is open.

      • Mark your calendars.

        The response to this motion must be filed on or before Monday, April 6, 2015.

        Then … .

    • My experience is that judges like to dispense with this sort of thing as soon as possible. Remember when CBBS filed his federal LOLsuit, the court dismissed it sua sponte in a couple of days (IIRC).

      I expect something similar here.

  3. The new lawsuit is similar to the first: preposterous claims, great generalities, no specifics. BK has no apparent standing in the case. He has no apparent right to sue any of these defendants for damages to him personally, and he has stated no such damages. His exhibits are irrelevant to anything that is obvious. It is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

  4. How much would a one-way ticket to the Crimea be? Asking for a short litigious convicted domestic terrorist who may be feeling the long arm of the law closing in.

Leave a Reply