Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

I find some of the parallels between various copyright trolls to be interesting. The TKPOTD from seven years ago today explored one.

* * * * *

Yesterday, I noted a similarity between the Prenda Law case and the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. case—that both Penda’s lawyers and The Dread Pirate Kimberlin had taken the Fifth during civil lawsuits. There’s another parallel between Prenda and TDPK.


Prenda is a copyright troll going after individuals who have downloaded pornographic videos for which it claims to control the copyrights.

Brett Kimberlin dealt pornography to other inmates while he was in prison and was also involved in a porn related lawsuit. There’s a section (pp., 202, 203) in Mark Singer’s book Citizen K that describes TDPK’s attempted suing of his source for $150,000 in damages because the porn wasn’t sufficiently exciting.

* * * * *

That porn LOLsuit was the first of the four RICO lawsuit that the Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin lost.

#BrettKimberlin’s Amended Copyright Complaint

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has submitted an amended complaint to the court in his Kimberlin v. Kimberlin Unmasked nuisance copyright suit. Here is the marked up version which highlights the changes.

There are several fatal errors in this complaint. I am disabling comments on this post to prevent anyone from providing unintended help to TDPK.

#BrettKimberlin’s Copyright Show Cause Answer

Judge Titus issued an order for The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin to show cause why his Kimvberlin v. Kimberlin Unmasked nuisance copyright suit should not be dismissed for lack of service of process on the defendant. He filed his answer at the last minute yesterday.

In paragraph 3 TDPK claims not to have received documents from AT&T until 13 March. However, the AT&T document is dated “2/13/2014.” I wonder if the judge will believe that it took a month for AT&T to get the information to Kimberlin?

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Close of business (4 pm ET) yesterday was the deadline for The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin to file an answer to a show cause order in the Kimberlin v. Kimberlin Unmasked nuisance copyright lawsuit. He was to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of service of process.

burnt_toastAs of now, any answer he may have filed has not shown up in PACER, the federal courts’ online database. Of course, if is possible that he filed something at the last minute, something that won’t be scanned in until later today.

It’s possible.

UPDATE—TDPK filed a Second Amended Complaint in the copyright case late yesterday.

More later.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has been given until close of business this Friday to file any further amendments to his complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. One reason he wishes to do so is that so much of his existing amended complaint has been gutted by the various motions to dismiss. As we wait this week for TDPK’s latest magnum opus, let’s review some of the better bits from those motions to dismiss.

Since this is my blog, I’ll start with my discussion of the deficiencies in his allegations of defamation.

32. Plaintiff is a public figure who is defamation proof. He became the object of public attention when he was tried and convicted as the Speedway Bomber. See U.S. v. Kimberlin, 527 F.Supp. 1010 (S.D. Ind. 1981) and 483 F.Supp. 350 (S.D. Ind. 1979). He broadened his fame when, while still in prison on bombing and drug smuggling charges, he claimed to have sold marijuana to then-Vice-Presidential-candidate Dan Quayle. See Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 6 F.3d 789, 791 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Further public interest was generated when his parole for the bombing and drug charges was revoked. Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F.Supp.2d 487 (D. Md. 1998). It was revoked because of failure to make restitution to the widow of a bombing victim (herself a wounded victim) which was a condition of his parole. He achieved another measure of fame when he sued the Bureau of Prisons because he was not allowed to possess an electric guitar in prison. See Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 318 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003). As a public figure, he has not alleged any instance demonstrating actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth by any of the defendants. NYT v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

33. As can be seen by the partial listing of Plaintiffs history in the paragraph above, he has considerable reputational baggage. Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin (Singer, Mark, Knoff, New York, 1996.) is an authorized biography of Kimberlin. It insinuates that Plaintiff had an improper relationship with a ten year old girl (p. 78.), that he was suspected of having arranged the murder-for-hire of the girl’s grandmother. (pp. 82, 83.), and that the subsequent Speedway Bombings were an attempt to distract the murder investigation (p. 89.). The book tells of other unsavory actions, including Plaintiffs bragging about sabotaging military equipment while working in a prison industry (p. 184.). Plaintiffs status as public figure is not unlike Nathan Leopold’s (of Leopold and Loeb); when one commits a sufficiently infamous crime, one becomes a public figure from that day onward. See Leopold v. Levin, 45 Il1.2d 434 (1970).

34. In paragraph 181 of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff alleges that statements by the defendants concerning his behavior make him appear “odious, infamous, and/or frightening” without, as noted above, alleging which particular statement(s) by which particular defendant(s) were defamatory. However, Plaintiff in the past has tacitly acknowledged his reputation (as a perjurer, drug smuggler/wholesaler/dealer, bomber, murder suspect, etc.) is bad. See e.g., U.S. v. Kimberlin, 805 F. 2d 210, 223-24 (7th Cir. 1986). Indeed, it is so bad as to render him defamation proof. See Jackson v. Longscope, 394 Mass. 577 (1985).

There was one other problem with his allegation of defamation against me.

31. Even if the alleged statements made by Defendant Hoge be defamatory, any claim by Plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations (Md Courts & Judicial Proc. § 5-105.) because all alleged statements by Mr. Hoge were made more than one year before the filing of the instant suit. 

It won’t matter how he amends his complaint. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted serial bomber, and, like other serial bombers (The Unibomber Ted Kaczynski, for instance), he’s now known as a notorious criminal. He’s defamation proof.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

RICOMadnessIt’s quite possible that the Gentle Reader is becoming confused by all the things coming due in the various bits of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s various vexatious lawsuits. There are the key upcoming events for TDPK:

Friday, 7 March Last day to file an amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. RICO Madness.

Thursday, 13 March Show cause why the Kimberlin v. Kimberlin Unmasked copyright suit should not be dismissed.

Friday, 14 March Show cause why he should not be sanctioned for forging a summons sent to Twitchy.

redenbacher12countThings will also be coming due shortly thereafter in the Maryland Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit.

It’s going to be an interesting few weeks ahead. Don’t run out of popcorn. Stock up now from Amazon. The link takes you to a pack of 12 three-bag boxes of Ovrille Redenbacher’s microwaveable gourmet popcorn.

BREAKING: Another Show Cause Order

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has been ordered to show cause why his frivolous copyright lawsuit against Kimberlin Unmasked should not be dismissed for lack of service of process.

More later.

UPDATE—Aaron Walker discusses his amicus motions mentioned in the judge’s order here.

A Note About Copyrights

Copyright is the right of the author of the work or the author’s heirs or assignees, not of the one who only owns or possesses the physical work itself. Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. If you don’t believe me, you can look it up at the website of the U. S. Copyright Office.

I bring this up because one of the forms of lawfare that Team Kimberlin engages in is false copyright claims. For example, The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed a lawsuit against Kimberlin Unmasked for copyright infringement. There is some question as to whether or not TDPK actually owns any of the images he is suing over. They are all pictures of him, and, unless he is claiming that all those Op-Critical music videos are selfies, he isn’t the “author” of the images. I suppose he could claim that the videos were “work-for-hire,” but who did the hiring? Did Brett Kimberlin, who has been paying himself $19,500 a year, pay for the production of those videos? Including the one’s that are marked © Justice Through Music? There are ownership problems with his claims.

Even if TDPK owned the copyrights, Kimberlin Unmasked’s “quoting” of the copyrighted works would be allowed under the Fair Use Doctrine as criticism, commentary, or parody.

TDPK isn’t the only copyright troll in Team Kimberlin. Bill Schmalfeldt has a go at trolling from time to time. Last summer, he filed DMCA takedown notices against this blog concerning images of which he was not the author and whose copyrights he probably did not own. More recently, he’s been trying to assert parody images of him are harassment. If the legal theory behind that idea held water, editorial cartoonists would be in a world of hurt.

It’s all part of Brett Kimberlin’s brass knuckles reputation management scheme—nuisance claims and vexatious lawsuits done solely as exercises in shutupery. To that end, Kimberlin has filed lawsuits in state and federal court attacking bloggers for writing truthful things about him, and I’m on the receiving end of a couple of those suits. You can help my four codefendants (Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Kimberlin Unmasked) and me fight TDPK’s attack our First Amendment rights in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. suit. Go to Bomber Sues Bloggers to find out how.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Team Kimberlin hasn’t been publicly bragging about this lawsuit the way they have Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.

Why not? Why keep this one under wraps?

The use of Brett Kimberlin’s images by Kimberlin Unmasked is obviously covered by Fair Use as parody and commentary, so the claims are bogus. There appears to be some other defects in the complaint as well.

I rarely disable comments, but I will for this post. Speculation and comment about this suit could educate Kimberlin and allow him to amend his complaint so that it might survive a motion to dismiss. Let’s make him work for it.

UPDATE—This is more of Kimberlin’s anti-First-Amendment lawfare. He suing, Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and me for a million bucks because we have published truthful information about him.

You can help us defend the First Amendment. Find out how at the BomberSuesBloggers website beginning later this morning.

UPDATE 2—BomberSuesBloggers is now live.