Brett Kimberlin has complained that I have treated him callously. No, really. He said so in a court filing referenced in the TKPOTD from seven years ago today.
* * * * *
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has been amazingly slipshod in his court filing. This is from his opposition to my motion to dismiss his first amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.The sharp-eyed Gentle Reader will notice the TDPK appears to have suffered a moment of mathematical challenge when he numbered the paragraphs in his opposition. As for the callousness of my argument, I simply pointed out that Kimberlin didn’t bother to allege any of the actual elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in his complaint.
He also failed to do so in the state Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. Here’s how our lawyer Patrick Ostronic explained the deficiency to Judge McGann during the 1 July hearing on motions for summary judgment in the state case.And here’s how Judge McGann ruled.That means that the judge found that, given the facts in evidence about which there was no dispute, we defendants were entitled to a summary judgment in our favor as a matter of law.
So was it callous of me to point out that essentially the same set of allegations in the RICO Madness as were found in the state case have the same problems? Perhaps, but no more so that TDPK’s filing a bogus and vexatious lawsuit.
* * * * *
I’ve never been callous enough to sue a stroke victim who couldn’t defend herself.