Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


This TKPOTD is from four years ago today. It provides a succinct summary of Brett Kimberlin’s lawfare campaign attempting to use the courts to suppress the First Amendment rights of his critics.

* * * * *

One of the subjects of interest at this blog is the First Amendment. I got interested in Brett Kimberlin back in 2012 because of the unconstitutional gag order he was granted against Aaron Walker as part of a peace order. That struck me as an attack on Aaron’s First Amendment rights, and I wound up participating in the Everyone Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day blogburst. Because the hearings involved in the Kimberlin cases were within commuting distance of my home, I began attending them and writing about the various Kimberlin-related peace order petitions and lawsuits.

As a result, I became part of the story.

In late July, 2013, Brett Kimberlin filed a false criminal complaint against me accusing me of harassment. The charge was dropped by the Montgomery County State’s Attorney.

In late August, 2013, Brett Kimberlin sued Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, Kimberlin Unmasked, and me in Montgomery County Circuit Court alleging a wide array of torts, including defamation and false light invasion of privacy. In July, 2014, most of that case was dismissed on summary judgment. The next month, Aaron, Stacy, Ali, and I received a directed verdict in our favor when Kimberlin was unable to put on enough evidence to allow the remaining case to go to the jury. Kimberlin appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and a three-judge panel upheld the Circuit Court’s finding in January, 2016. Kimberlin has asked an rehearing en banc by the entire Court of Special Appeals.

In October, 2013, Brett Kimberlin sued over twenty defendants, including me, in federal court alleging a RICO conspiracy and civil rights claims as well as a laundry list of state law torts. On 17 March, 2015, the federal claims were throw out, except for one claim against Patrick Frey. Kimberlin tried to appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but he was turned away because the case was still ongoing in the lower court. The remnant portion of the case has been limping along, and discovery finally ended last Friday. Kimberlin has sought to subpoena information from me, but I was not properly served. However, I voluntarily let him have the responsive information that I had. Because he was disappointed with what he received, he filed a motion to have me sanctioned. That motion is still pending.

In March, 2015, Kimberlin filed a false peace order petition against me that alleged I had harassed Mrs. Kimberlin’s elder daughter. On 13 March, 2015, that petition was denied.

The following Monday, 16 March, 2015, Kimberlin filed his second RICO lawsuit, the so-called Team Themis suit, against almost twenty defendants. My name was tacked on the end. (This was great timing; the first RICO suit was dismissed the next day.) That lawsuit was dismissed last week.

On 15 April, 2015, Kimberlin filed another lawsuit in Montgomery County Circuit Court which essentially was the state law claims from his first federal RICO suit alleged against most of the same defendants. Michelle Malkin, Twitchy, Breitbart, Glenn Beck, Mercury Radio Arts, and The Blaze were dismissed from the suit in September, 2015. Aaron Walker was dismissed in January, 2016. Dan Backer, DB Capitol Services, Lee Stranahan, and I were dismissed yesterday. Of the four remaining defendants, Patrick Frey, Ali Akbar, and National Bloggers Club remain unserved, and Mandy Nagy is incompetent to defend herself following a devastating stroke.

Kimberlin appealed the denial of his bogus peace order petition, and his appeal was denied after a hearing in Montgomery County Circuit Court on 14 May, 2015.

A few days later, acting through his wife, Kimberlin filed a false criminal complaint based on the allegations in his peace order petition. In June, 2015, the Montgomery County State’s Attorney dropped the charge for lack of evidence.

So where are the cases now.

The peace orders and criminal charges are done.

The first state lawsuit has failed on appeal, and it’s unlikely that the Court of Special Appeals will bother with an en banc hearing and even more unlikely that the Court of Appeal (Maryland’s highest court) would grant a petition for certiorari and take the case.

The first RICO case isn’t over in the District Court and can’t be appealed until the claim against Patrick Frey is adjudicated there.

The second RICO is in now toast in the District Court. I expect that Kimberlin will file an appeal with the Fourth Circuit in a few days.

The second state lawsuit isn’t over yet either, and it can’t be appealed until the claims against the remaining four defendants are resolved.

So, for now, Patrick Ostronic, my pro bono attorney in the state cases, will be watching the Court of Special Appeals for a decision on an further hearing, and I’m lining up legal resources to deal with the expected appeal in RICO 2. And we shall see how Judge Hazel rules on that sanctions motion. Meanwhile, it’s become abundantly clear that the Rauhauser/Kimberlin strategy of on-the-cheap pro se litigation has backfired.

We’re dealing with people who have likely had no interaction with the court system beyond a traffic ticket; the potential for a pro se litigant to force them into expensive, long distance, lengthy, discovery laden litigation doesn’t seem to cross their minds.

—Neal Rauhauser, quoted by Stacy McCain.

Kimberlin now overlooks at his own risk the potential for a group of defendants, some with excellent legal resources, dedicated to the First Amendment to push back against his lawfare. Maybe, just maybe, he’ll begin to understand the potential costs of taking on dedicated pro se defendants with time and resources.

#Loser

* * * * *

Loser indeed. Not only did The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin wind up losing all those cases and their appeals, he wound up having appeals court costs taxed to himself and getting sanctioned for frivolously including me as an appellee in one of the appeals. Oh, and he lost his RICO 3 Lolsuit that he filed agains Breitbart Holdings, Steve Bannon, and a long list of other defendants when it was dismissed sua sponte by the District Court. His LOLsuit against Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley was also dismissed sua sponte, and he lost all the appeals related to those case.

Everything proceeded as I had foreseen.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


This episode of Blognet from five years ago today deals with the early stages of a case that resulted in quite a few episodes.

* * * * *

BlognetTitleCardMUSIC: Theme. Intro and fade under.

NARRATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

MUSIC: Up, then under …

NARRATOR: You’re a Detective Sergeant. You’re assigned to Internet Detail. Bloggers are being harassed by a convicted terrorist who is suing them for writing about his past. Nothing they’ve written appears to be false, but there is a gap in the terrorists bio. Your job … investigate.

MUSIC: Up then under …

ANNOUNCER: Blognet … the documented drama of an actual case. For the next few minutes, in cooperation with the Twitter Town Sheriff’s Department, you will travel step by step on the side of the good guys through an actual case transcribed from official files. From beginning to end, from crime to punishment, Blognet is the story of the good guys in action.

MUSIC: Up and out. Continue reading

Copyright Trolling


The time I would have spent drafting a post for today was spent doing research to support a fellow blogger who is being threatened with a lawsuit by a copyright troll. Almost seven years ago, the blogger linked to a story at a major newspaper’s website, including a photo from the story. Years later, the photographer is trying to extort money out of the blogger for use of the image.

First of all, such a link is most likely an example of Fair Use.

Even if it weren’t, research indicates that the photographer may have failed to timely file for registration of the copyright on the image. IANAL, but it’s my understanding that such  a defective registration means that the copyright holder is only entitled to the actual damages he suffered. Statutory damages are off the table. Indeed, I believe that a reasonable argument can be made that the blogger’s linking to the newspaper’s article created additional traffic to the story and enhanced the value of the photo. Thus, the photographer received a benefit from the link rather than suffering any damage. His case is nonsense.

Copyright trolls need to be dealt with swiftly and firmly.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


One of the benefits of following The Saga of Team Kimberlin has been the friendships that I have developed with my various codefendants, some of whom I got to know before we were sued and I was simply covering the First-Amendment-related story of The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s use of lawfare to punish people who told the truth about him. Stacy McCain is one of those friends, and the TKPOTD from four years ago today dealt with TDPK’s foolish attempts to out-crazy Stacy.

* * * * *

Back in June of 2014, Judge Hazel ordered The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin to serve copies of the Second Amended Complaint in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness on all the defendants. He never bothered to serve Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, the National Bloggers Club, or me during the 120 days allowed for service.

Aaron and I have been proactively engaging with TPDK and his court filings. Stacy elected to wait until he was served with the intention of responding within the 14 day window after service. TDPK never served him, so Stacy never responded.

popcorn4bkBrett Kimberlin tired to outcrazy Stacy McCain while he had him on the witness stand during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial. He failed miserably, but he didn’t learn his lesson.

He’s now seeking a default judgment against Stacy when, as Stacy so ably put it “Plaintiff hasn’t even bothered to provide a bad forgery of such alleged service.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) failure to serve within 120 day is grounds for mandatory dismissal. Also, TDPK was ordered by the Court to effect service. Failure to obey that order is grounds for dismissal under Rule 41(b).

All TDPK had to do was mail Stacy a copy of the SAC.

All Stacy had to do was wait.

* * * * *

Going after Stacy was clearly more that Kimberlin could handle, and TDPK dropped Stacy as a defendant in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), the state RICO Retread LOLsuit.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


One of the dumbest things Brett Kimberlin has done during his campaign of lawfare was to use Bill Schmalfeldt as one of his PR mouthpieces. Aside from his incompetence, Schmalfeldt personal legal problems became a massive source of pointage, laughery, and mockification that damaged the Team Kimberlin brand. Schmalfeldt’s misbehavior resulted in his receiving a dozen restraining orders issued in five states. One was issued to protect a three-year-old child.

Here are a couple of posts from four years ago today that dealt with Schmalfeldt’s inability to obey one of those court orders. The first was a Legal LULZ Du Jour. The second was a Prevarication Du Jour.

* * * * *

NQ01601211819ZIf the Cabin Boy™ were to bother to read his copy of the stalking no contact order issued against him on behalf of Patrick Grady, he would see that he is forbidden from communicating “to or about” Mr. Grady. NCO_b1It may be that Cook County is interested in seeing that the orders of its courts are obeyed. BTW, Wisconsin recognizes out-of-state orders as enforceable in Wisconsin.

* * * * *

NQ201601212145ZNo, I don’t hate the First Amendment. I believe that prior restraint on publication generally is prohibited by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. See New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), also known as The Pentagon Papers Case.

However, I do believe that it is possible for someone to do something that can result in the loss of some or almost all of his rights. For example, a felony conviction will put an end to a person’s Second Amendment right to own a modern firearm. A jail sentence ends someone’s right to travel as he pleases. Thus, it may be that a finding by a court that one has used his speech to violate the rights of another can cause a loss of some of the violator’s First Amendment rights. IANAL, and I haven’t read much case law in the area, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the Illinois stalking no contact order law is valid.

* * * * *

Schmalfeldt should have spent more time invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. IIRC, the last of the restrain orders has expired, so his First Amendment right to speak is unfettered. But now it seems that nobody is listening.

Karma is a bitch.

On Being Dangerous


The men in primitive human societies are the hunters and warriors. As such, they must be dangerous. They must be capable of the violence necessary to harvest game and to protect their tribe, but they must restrain their violence in order to be cooperative members of the tribe. That ability to act with restraint in one of the marks of a proper adult male human being. Indeed, as we have become more “civilized,” that restraint and cooperation have become even more necessary to allow large societies to function smoothly.

The attendees at the pro-second-amendment rally in Richmond today were mostly men, and the peace and calm reflected in their behavior is an example of mature restraint.

It’s a bit early yet, but it seems that there is a great deal of disappointment in certain quarters because the rally was peaceful. There seems to have been an expectation that mature men would act like spoiled children and have some sort of hissy fit because they weren’t getting their way.

The governor and legislature in Virginia are on a path that could take them beyond the point where peaceful protest of their actions is no longer appropriate, but they aren’t there. Yet. Perhaps, they will reconsider their unwise attack on Second Amendment rights, but it may be that they won’t. If they persist, many Virginians may be inspired by these words written by the second governor of Virginia—

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now, one peaceful way of handling such a situation would be recall elections, but the legislature is moving to make recall more difficult. If they unfairly game the political process, they should not be surprised if other means are sought.

There are times when it justified for dangerous men to be dangerous.

UPDATE—Seen on Gab—

When Overreach Starts to Fail


Nancy Pelosi allowed the forces on her left wing to go a bridge too far. She tried to find a way to salvage the House Impeachment Hoax, but she’s been outmaneuvered by Cocaine Mitch. The mopping up action will begin in the Senate next week, and the hapless PR skirmishing by the Maddows in The Media will not save The Narrative.

Meanwhile in Virginia, Governor Blackface and his friends in the Legislature are pushing ahead with California/New York style gun control. As anyone who has looked at a map of those Second Amendment sanctuaries can see, the proposed laws have little popular support outside of the DC suburbs and a few urban areas. The legislature has responded to public unrest by changing its rules in order to be make lobbying by gun control supporters more difficult and by moving to change the law related to recalling public officials. The governor plans an emergency declaration to prevent the carrying of firearms at a pro-Second-Amendment rally. These are not the acts of fair-minded politicians seeking to do the will of their constituents.

We see the system of checks and balances envisioned by The Founders working in the case of the Impeachment Hoax. We see it apparently failing in Virginia. I doubt Madison or Jefferson would be pleased with their home state today.

President Trump will face an election, and the voters will either keep him for another term or fire him.

Virginia … well, the state’s motto is sic semper tyrannis, so let’s hope that cooler, wiser heads prevail.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


One of the reasons that I (sort of) jokingly refer to Team Kimberlin getting their legal advice from the same outfit that sells stuff to Wile E. Coyote is that the theories they advance are usually as harebrained and effective as all those fine Acme products. Six years ago, I became the first of several individuals to hold Bill Schmalfeldt accountable for his online harassment, and he spent most of 2013 trying to figure out how to get that first peace order issued against him set aside. This Prevarication Du Jour from six years ago today dealt with one of his failed approaches.

* * * * *

ftrrnews201310092359ZDoes Eugene Volokh agree with Bill Schmalfeldt’s interpretation of U. S. v. Cassidy? Well, it’s certainly true that Prof. Volokh agrees that writing about someone on the Internet is protected speech. But how about writing to someone? I’ll let the good professor speak for himself. Here’s what he had to say when writing about the patently unconstitutional peace order Brett Kimberlin secured against Aaron Walker last year, an order that forbade Mr. Walker from writing about Kimberlin—

The old narrow restrictions might well be constitutional (see, e.g., Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Department), but precisely because they deal with essentially one-to-one speech — restricting such unwanted speech to an unwilling listener leaves the speaker free to keep talking to other, potentially willing listeners.

Of course, it is just that sort of one-to-one speech that the Cabin Boy engaged in after being asked to stop which violated Maryland’s harassment law. Prof. Volokh also notes that

[p]erhaps a specific statute that bars the deliberate sending of one-to-one messages to a person who has asked that the messages stop, or who would otherwise clearly be substantially distressed by the messages, might be constitutional.

So it looks as if Prof. Volokh might agree that old-fashioned harassment statutes apply to behavior on the Internet just as they do in the real world. Perhaps the Cabin Boy should ask Eugene Volokh to file an amicus brief.

* * * * *

In fact, Eugene Volokh did wind up filing an amicus brief in one of the Kimberlin case. He filed it in support of Aaron Walker, and as I understand his brief, he agrees with the point of view I expressed in my post.

Some More Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


Brennan Gilmore was present at the Charlottesville riot in 2017. He recorded a car being driven into a crowd that resulted in the death of a women, and he posted that video online. He also made appearance in the news media discussing what he saw. As a result, Gilmore and his video became a topic of controversy, and Gilmore was upset with some of the commentary. He has sued Alex Jones and a host of others for defamation in federal court. When the judge in the case denied most of the motions to dismiss, two separate groups of defendants filed motions for reconsideration or for an interlocutory appeal of the dismissals to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge has granted a motion certifying an interlocutory appeal of the following question:

Where an online journalist or publisher with a national audience purposefully and primarily focuses their coverage underlying the suit-related conduct on forum-state events and persons, is such conduct sufficient for a forum court to assert specific personal jurisdiction over that journalist or publisher?

I found footnote 1 interesting.

However this question is limited, the Fourth Circuit may nevertheless review uncertified issues contained within the Court’s order on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. “[W]e would not necessarily be limited to only those questions expressly or implicitly identified as ‘controlling’ by the district court; under § 1292(b), appeal is from the order certified, not from particular rulings embodied within it.” Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, 1989 WL 42583, at *3 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished).

IANAL, but seems as if the judge in taking note that the defendants could raise other issues related to the motions to dismiss beside the certified question in their appeals.

This could be interesting.

Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


It’s been about two years since Brennan Gilmore filed a defamation suit in the U. S. District Court in Charlottesville, Virginia, against Alex Jones and a non-related group of defendants. Earlier this year, the judge ruled against most of the defendants’ motions to dismiss (Allen West’s motion was granted), and all but one of the remaining defendants then filed motions for reconsideration or for an interlocutory appeal to a higher court to resolve disputed matters of law. Those motions were fully briefed, so the court scheduled a hearing to consider them on 5 September. However, the court gave notice last week that it would rule on the motions based on the written briefs and that the hearing was cancelled.

Since the briefs were filed, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that bears on when a district court must certify a question for an interlocutory appeal. The lawyer representing several of the defendants had planned to bring that ruling to the court’s attention during the hearing. Because he will no longer have that opportunity, he has filed a motion to be allowed to supplement his brief.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The idea for Blogsmoke came out of a lame attempt by Matt Osborne at Breitbart Unmasked Bunny Billy Boy Unread to make fun of me as someone who imagined himself as the sheriff of the Internet. And so, the Lickspittle Broadcasting System was born. As the Twitter Town Sheriff’s department expanded, Blogsmoke begat BlognetThis episode first ran five years ago today.

* * * * *

BlognetTitleCardMUSIC: Theme. Intro and fade under.

NARRATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

MUSIC: Up, then under …

NARRATOR: You’re a Detective Sergeant. You’re assigned to Internet Detail. A noted anti-First-Amendment activist has sued a group of bloggers trying to shut down their free speech and free press rights. Your job … get the facts.

MUSIC: Up then under …

ANNOUNCER: Blognet … the documented drama of an actual case. For the next few minutes, in cooperation with the Twitter Town Sheriff’s Department, you will travel step by step on the side of the good guys through an actual case transcribed from official files. From beginning to end, from crime to punishment, Blognet is the story of the good guys in action.

MUSIC: Up and out. Continue reading

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


This episode of Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign first ran five years ago today.

* * * * *

Johnny Atsign Logo 2ANNOUNCER: From Westminster, it’s time for—

SOUND: Skype rings once.

JOHNNY: Johnny Atsign.

RULE 5 GIRL: (Telephone Filter) Hi, Johnny.

JOHNNY: Hello.

RULE 5 GIRL: (Telephone Filter) Johnny, have you checked GoodGuysUnmasked today?

JOHNNY: Not yet. What will I find?

RULE 5 GIRL: (Telephone Filter) The Bunny has published photos The Bomber says he took of some green cards before he mailed them.

JOHNNY: Yeah?

RULE 5 GIRL: He’s saying the photos are proof you got things wrong about whether the cards he submitted to the court are genuine.

MUSIC: Theme up and under.

ANNOUNCER: The Lickspittle Broadcasting System presents W. J. J. Hoge in the transcribed adventures of the man with the action-packed Twitter account, America’s fabulous free-lance Internet investigator …

JOHNNY: Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign!

MUSIC: Theme up to music out. Continue reading

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The episode of Blognet first ran five years ago today.

* * * * *

BlognetTitleCardMUSIC: Theme. Intro and fade under.

NARRATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

MUSIC: Up, then under …

NARRATOR: You’re a Detective Sergeant. You’re assigned to Internet Detail. A noted anti-First-Amendment activist has sued a group of bloggers trying to shut down their free speech and free press rights. Your job … get the facts.

MUSIC: Up then under …

ANNOUNCER: Blognet … the documented drama of an actual case. For the next few minutes, in cooperation with the Twitter Town Sheriff’s Department, you will travel step by step on the side of the good guys through an actual case transcribed from official files. From beginning to end, from crime to punishment, Blognet is the story of the good guys in action.

MUSIC: Up and out. Continue reading

The Old Normal


Several conservative commentators have taken the position that Donald Trump’s tweets about The Squad last weekend were a PR blunder. One pundit described it as an “own goal.” I disagree. While I might not have phrased those tweets exactly as the President did, I believe that his main point—Why don’t you go straighten out one of those troubled foreign countries you admire (eg., Somalia, “Palestine”) to provide a worked example of how you think we should change America?—is a valid put-up-or-shut-up challenge to those congressional novices.

I also think that he’s been smart in refusing to back down, and there’s a post over at Bookworm Room that provides a partial explanation of my view. Over the past decade, the Left has successfully narrowed the range of “respectable” public opinion (called the Overton Window). Trump is forcing the allowable range of our public conversation back to realm of opinions held by most sentient adult Americans, including many, if not most, Leftists.

Think of ideas that were normal just a decade ago: using pronouns consistent with biological sex, worrying about Muslim-inspired terrorism, admiring the Founding Fathers, believing that a traditional male-female marriage is optimal for raising children, mentioning the Judeo-Christian God in public, questioning anthropogenic climate change, or being anything but mindlessly positive about a member of a “Progressive protected victim class.” Nowadays, thanks to relentless media, entertainment, political, and educational pressure, voicing those ideas creates the risk that the speaker will be shouted down, humiliated, fired, or even physically attacked.

Read the whole thing.

Donald Trump is sometimes inarticulate or coarse. But just as the economy has improved by the changes the President has championed to the New Normal economy, our public discourse will likely benefit in the long run as we allow the values that made America great to compete with the New Normal in the marketplace of ideas.

First Amendment 1, Baltimore 0


Several years ago, a Baltimore resident called 911 to report a burglary and wound being beaten, tased, and arrested by the police officers who responded to the call. Her claim against the Baltimore Police Department spent several years in the courts and was finally settled. Baltimore includes a “non-disparagement” clause in such settlement agreements, so when the women spoke to the press about her experience, the city reduced her settlement payment in accordance with the non-disparagement clause.

She sued in U.S. District Court, claiming that the clause violated her First Amendment right to speak freely about the government. She was joined in the suit by the Baltimore Brew. The Brew claimed that the city’s use of such agreements violated its free press right to investigate and report on matters of public interest such as police misconduct. That suit was thrown out by the District Court on summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has reversed the District Court’s granting summary judgment in Baltimore’s favor and sent the case back to the lower court.

The City has not identified a comparably compelling public good or other legitimate governmental aim that was, or could be, furthered by enforcement of the non- disparagement clause (other than a general interest in using settlements to resolve lawsuits). Consequently, the City is not entitled to summary judgment on Overbey’s First Amendment claim.

Also,

we conclude that the Brew has sufficiently pleaded an ongoing or imminent injury in fact that is both traceable to the City’s challenged conduct and redressable by the court. As discussed above, neither the parties’ arguments below nor the district court’s disposition went meaningfully beyond the pleadings in evaluating the Brew’s standing. We therefore decline to do so ourselves— even though the order under review is nominally a grant of summary judgment to the City. Instead, we remand to give the parties and the district court an opportunity to develop the evidentiary record relevant to the Brew’s claims.

It will be interesting to see how the case unfolds.

Bad First Amendment News


TechDirt reports that a state court judge in Rhode Island has issued a restraining order requiring a Massachusetts blogger to take down allegedly defamatory posts. The order was issued without a hearing, creating due process issues in addition to being clearly at odds with the First Amendment.

There’s more about the case over at The Volokh Conspiracy where Eugene Volokh points out that the First Circuit Court of Appeals (Rhode Island in in the First Circuit) has ruled that even permanent anti-libel injunctions barring the repetition of statements found to be libelous at trial are unconstitutional.

The ACLU is representing the blogger and has removed the case to federal court.

Stay tuned.