28 thoughts on “Meanwhile, at the Federal Courthouse …

  1. I’m looking forward to the terrified tiny terrorist’s motions making accusations against Judge Hazel when he denies that silliness and sanctions the plaintiff for submitting it. He really should, and maybe he’s finally seen enough that he finally will.

  2. “5. Third party Hunton & Williams stated that it would accept the subpoena by email and therefore it has waived the issue of service.”

    Ohhh, and the Court is suppose to take the word of a convicted Bomber, Forger and Perjurer?

    I don’t think so!!!

        • So in other words that should read

          “5. Third party Hunton & Williams stated that it would accept the subpoena by email but stated explicitly explicitly they did not waive the issue of service.”

          So Kimberlin lied. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

    • It was pretty clear from H&W’s opposition filing that they told Kimberiln to do inappropriate things to himself since they argue any request would likely be used against them rather than used in Pedobunny vs Frey.

  3. “For example, on October 18, 2010, a reporter for Fox News, acting on behalf of the Chamber, contacted Defendant Frey to request all information he had on Plaintiff. The following day, that reporter wrote a smear piece that resulted in threats of harm and death against Plaintiff.”

    I don’t want to educate the Sawed-Off Pedo Bomber, so I’ll speak vaguely.

    1) How does the Sawed-Off Pedo Bomber know that the reporter was acting “on behalf of the Chamber?”

    2) Why didn’t the Sawed-Off Pedo Bomber name the reporter, and provide a link to the “smear piece?”

    3) Why didn’t the Sawed-Off Pedo Bomber cite the parts of the “smear piece” that were incorrect?

    I did a search of Fox News, and found this story that matches up with the timeline the Sawed-Off Pedo Bomber cited: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/leftist-bloggers-sordid-past-raises-questions-real-intent.html

    I read it twice, and didn’t see anything that was incorrect.

    • What are you talking about, “Using two popular leftist blogs” is obviously an error. In 2010 I read a fair number of blogs on both the right and left and I hadn’t heard of either “Velvet Revolution” or “Justice Through Music.” First I heard of either was though actually popular political blogs, Instapundit, and Patterico’s Pontifications.

      Which is to say, the only reason I and many of you know who he is or what he blogs is because of the Streisand effect, due to the consequences of him trying to shut up a fellow leftist about his somewhat less than glorious past, despite that there is a book about the whole affair he actively helped get made.

      • If I recall correctly, I first ran across the behavior of Team Bombapalooza on Popehat.

  4. Yeah, that article is pretty dead-on true. The littlest bomber has no hope. Even if his wildest narcissist fantasies were true, it’s just not a violation of any of his rights to talk or write truthfully about his past. Even if “the chamber” promoted the telling somehow, and others agreed to help spread the truth, that’s not a crime or a tort, no matter the motive, and it never will be. Nor would it be to express opinions about what kind of man he is. There is no right to elide and keep quiet your criminal past or question present activities based on that past. He has no right to a false clean slate.

    • I dunno, Onlooker. It just seems wrong to drag a man’s youthful indiscretions out to smear him for political purposes. Especially since he’s done his time, made reparations and publicly admitted…

      hmm? … he’s on par’ what? … he sued who’s widow? … he’s never what? … he even claimed secret what? DAGBLAMIT! Why won’t somebody tell me these things beforehand?!?!?

      … nevermind.

      In other news…

    • Yea, I bet the courts just love the whole “I’m suing them so they can do what I say until I say stop” routine. Especially since when someone else sues him, it doesn’t seem to apply for some reason.

Leave a Reply