Here’s another whopper from one of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s filings in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RiCO Madness, in this case, his opposition to Lee Stranahan’s motion to dismiss.

That deserves some fisking.

As best I can tell, the only one of the defendants named in the suit who took Kimberlin’s photograph and photoshopped into to any Nazi-related imagery was Kimberlin Unmasked. What KU did was clearly within the bounds of parody and commentary. It was certainly no more extreme that Kimberlin’s superimposing the words of Adolph Hitler over the faces of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain in the opening sequence of the Op-Critical Fear Not video. In any event, TDPK dismissed KU from the suit, and the dismissal was with prejudice. Since he has not pleaded and cannot factually plead that behavior by any other defendant, it’s a dead issue.

Pedophile? That was settled last August. Kimberlin lost that case. Res judicata and all that.

Supporter of Terrorism? I’m not sure who called him that, and he hasn’t pleaded that anyone actually did. OTOH, if the Gentle Reader were to feel justified in referring to either Ted Kaczynski (The Unabomber) or Timothy McVeigh as a “terrorist,” I can understand why he would feel that designation also fit a convicted serial bomber such as Brett Kimberlin.

SWATter? I don’t know which of the defendants might have called him a “SWATter.” Again, he doesn’t say who actually did. But I understand why the circumstances surrounding several of the SWATtings raise questions about cause and effect for some people. I’ve heard recordings of the SWATting calls related to the RICO case. It isn’t Kimberlin’s voice, but that doesn’t mean he might not have been involved. If he were connected, I doubt that he would have made the calls himself. He strikes me as the kind of person who hires a hit man.

#Loser

So now my motion to dismiss, The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s opposition to my motion, and my reply to his opposition are all before the court. We’ll see how the judge rules.

FWIW, I believe the most import part of my reply deals with the implications of res judicata. TDPK sued me in a related case in state court and lost. Under Maryland law, he could have included every single one of the claims in the RICO Madness in the state lawsuit, but he chose not to. It’s also the law in Maryland that res judicata applies to TDPK and me not only for the claims he made in that state case but also for the claims he could have made. That means that res judicata barres all of his claims against me in the RICO Madness. The same doctrine obviously applies to my codefendants in the state suit, Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, and Ali Akbar.

There’s another twist to this. When a conspiracy is alleged among defendants and res judicata applies for one, it applies to all. TDPK alleged that every single defendant was a member of his mythical RICO conspiracy. That means the res judicata also should apply to his claims against National Bloggers Club, Patrick Frey, Erick Erickson, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Lee Stranahan, Mandy Nagy, Breitbart,com, DB Capitol Strategies, Dan Backer, Mercury Radio Arts, The Blaze, Ace of Spades, RedState, and Twitchy.

Stay tuned.

Here’s another bit of nonsense from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.In noting that TDPK has not demonstrated that he had been subject to any infliction of emotional distress by me, I’m not merely expressing my opinion. I’m reporting the finding of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. At the end of TDPK’s presentation of his case in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance suit, Judge Johnson found that TDPK had not presented a “scintilla” of evidence to support his claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The fact that Brett Kimberlin did not suffer any emotional distress because of anything I did is now a settled matter. It isn’t subject to being litigated again. And so I invoke the legal doctrine of res judicata.

TDPK says that I do so “callously.”

callous adj. \ˈka-ləs\ : not feeling or showing any concern about the problems or suffering of other people.

Hmmmm. TDPK may be right there. I really don’t care how much of a problem he’s made for himself by suing me. In any case, given his expertise with callousness, perhaps I should defer to his judgment just this once.

UPDATE—A correction: Actually, Judge Johnson never ruled on whether TDPK had any evidence of emotional distress. He didn’t have to. Judge McGann had already thrown that claim out for lack of evidence at the summary judgment stage.

Ah, yes! The legal doctrine of res judicata. Dan Backer’s motion to dismiss in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness discusses the applicability of res judicata to the case.

The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent lawsuit when there was: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits. Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354- 55 (4th Cir. 2004). Res judicata bars not only claims that were raised and fully litigated but also bars all grounds for recovery previously available to the plaintiff regardless of whether they were raised or litigated in the prior suit. Peugeot Motors of Am. v. E. Auto Distribs., Inc., 892 F.2d 355, 359 (4th Cir. 1989); See also Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 129-30 (U.S. 1983) (holding res judicata not only bars the matters litigated also bars claims for any other admissible matter which might have been offered). The Fourth Circuit has upheld res judicata in a motion to dismiss a court may take judicial notice of facts from a prior judicial proceeding when the res judicata defense raises no disputed issue of fact as to the factual accuracy of the record of the prior suit. Andrews v. Daw, 201 F.3d 521, 524 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Thomas v. Consolidation Coal Co., 380 F.2d 69, 75 (4th Cir. 1967)).

Plaintiff sued numerous Defendants in this case in his concurrent Maryland state case, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., No. 380966V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2013), on substantially similar claims yet failed to include Backer or DB Capitol Strategies PLLC as a party to such case. Plaintiff admits that he filed the case the judgments or orders in the case will help him “decide whether to file the motion [for preliminary injunction] in this case or withdraw the request to file as moot. (ECF No. 175). All state claims have been litigated and that court was so unpersuaded by them that it directed judgment, after earlier dismissing several of Plaintiffs other colorful claims. Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., No. 380966V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2013). Because the laundry list of predicate acts claimed by Plaintiff to gin up his RICO claim have been deemed not actionable by the state court, Plaintiff cannot continue to rely on these debunked claims. Consequently, the same claims made here, and the fantastical conspiracy to commit these acts found not to be unlawful, cannot be sustained against the defendants who allegedly made them or those in the alleged conspiracy to further them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in its entirety as to Backer should be dismissed in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin shouldn’t be allowed to relitigate his losing case that failed in state court.

Of course, one of TDPK’s claims is that I’ve been using my reporting on his activities to raise money by defrauding the Gentle Readers who hit my Tip Jar. He has yet to explain how that injures him. In any event, I’m always thankful for  reader support.

You can also support the blog by shopping at The Hogewash Store or shopping via the Amazon link on the Home page.

Whichever means you chose, your support helps keep this blog on the air.

If you want to offer broader support to the bloggers, go to Bomber Sues Bloggers to find out how.