Here’s another round of pointage, laughery, and mockification for The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s informal opening brief in his appeal of the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit.

<plm>TDPK makes the silly assertion that he has a First Amendment right to file his motion for summary judgment and the accompanying exhibits in the District Court publicly even though it contained sealed material. He writes—

Appellant had a right under the First Amendment to file his Motion for Summary Judgment publicly. However, the lower court ordered the parties to file them [sic] under seal and maintained that seal even after its decision was rendered. This constituted a grave constitutional error that prejudiced Appellant by having his case litigated in secret, away from scrutiny by the press and the public.

Also—

The First Amendment provides an affirmative right of public access to virtually all judicial proceedings involved in civil proceedings.

(And also proceedings proceeding in the Department of Redundancy Department.)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Local Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit all provide for the use of sealed materials in a civil court proceeding. In fact, some things, such as the full names of minor children must be sealed. Patrick Frey’s lawyers were able to convince Judge Hazel to issue a protective order sealing discovery in the case, and TDPK is bound by that sealing order.

The First Amendment right of access to the court records resides with the public, you folks who are not parties or otherwise connected to the case. (I’m covered by the protective order because Kimberlin tried to get me sanctioned during discover for failing to give him documents I did not have. Because I was served with sealed documents that I did not provide as part of TDPK’s motion against me, I am now covered by the protective order.)

If Breitbart Unmasked wants access to the sealed portion of the record, that “news” organization can hire a lawyer and file a motion to unseal. If an enterprising “journalist” like Matt Osborne wants a peek, he can file a motion; as an individual, he can file pro se and avoid the cost of a lawyer (but he will have to publicly provide the court with his contact information).

And that brings us to one of Brett Kimberlin’s principal problems with this case and his other lawfare: essentially no one, not even the leftwing moonbat media, believes him. The only members of the “press” or the “public” who would want to violate the privacy of Patrick Frey and third parties mentioned in the sealed discovery are members of Team Kimberlin, and they’re either too poor to afford a lawyer, too incompetent to file a proper pro se motion, or too afraid to let their whereabouts be known.</plm>

Failing failures gotta fail.