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.
There was a post up briefly at HuffPo over the weekend claiming that the FBI was ready to seek an indictment of Hillary Clinton. HuffPo has taken down the article by freelance contributor Frank Huguenard with no explanation.
Breitbart (a codefendant of mine in bogus lawsuits, including one that claimed we were a RICO enterprise) reports:
Huguenard, an apparent Bernie Sanders supporter judging by his Twitter account, wrote that the FBI will recommend indicting Hillary Clinton on racketeering charges.
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.
The two RICO LOLsuits that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed against me were not his first venture into RICO madness. This is from the section in Mark Singer’s book Citizen K about TDPK in-prison business selling porn.
In January 1987, in federal court in Madison, Wisconsin, Kimberlin sued Crest Paragon Productions, alleging false advertising, breach of contract, mail fraud, conspiracy, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). According to the complaint, instead of thirty magazines and sixteen books Kimberlin expected when he responded to a back-of-the-book advertisement placed by Crest Paragon, he was sent “fifteen pamphlets and three paperback books of low quality.” He described this material to me as “real old four-by-six black-and-white pictures that looked like they were from the 1960s and came from England.” The tepid paperbacks had titles like Making a Score and Coed Cohabitation. When Kimberlin wrote a letter demanding the material he had originally ordered, the defendant had the temerity to offer instead “sexual aids,” including, Kimberlin noted, “a live-size inflatable doll, dildos, and a vibrating plastic vagina.”
Though Kimberlin felt conflicted because “I could have made a fortune on that stuff inside prison if it wasn’t contraband,” mainly he felt compelled to sue. He asked for compensatory and punitive damages totaling $150,000. After “a fucking Reagan appointee” dismissed the suit on procedural grounds, Brett appealed to the Seventh Circuit but was told he’d have to pay an additional filing fee. “I decided at that point I’d spent enough on this,” he said. “So I just blew if off.”
Next Tuesday, the next set of hearings in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit will be held to deal with motions to compel discovery from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin and motions for summary judgment. Writing about TDPK’s present situation might provide him with insight into how to better argue his case, so for the next few days, I’ll be recycling some oldies from the TKPOD Greatest Hits section.
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is no stranger to filing—and losing—RICO lawsuits. While he was still in prison, he ran a business selling porn to other jailbirds. When he lost his original connection for the porn, he turned to a new source, but was unsatisfied with what was provided. On page 213 of Mark Singer’s Citizen K we find:
In January 1987, in federal court in Madison, Wisconsin, Kimberlin sued Crest Paragon Productions, alleging false advertising, breach of contract, mail fraud, conspiracy, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). … He asked for compensatory and punitive damages totaling $150,000. After “a [redacted] Reagan appointee” dismissed the suit on procedural grounds, Brett appealed to the Seventh Circuit but was told he’d have to pay an additional filing fee. “I decided at that point I’d spent enough on this,” he said.
One wonders when he will come to the same realization in his current Rico Madness.
Breitbart Unmasked (No, I won’t link to it.) is now featuring a sockpuppet “lawyer” in its comment section called RogerS. (H/T, Patterico). Here’s the beginning of one his bits of “advice” to The Dread Pirate Kimberlin concerning the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO suit.
I certainly hope that TDPK takes that advice about getting the FBI involved in investigating his claims. Of course, that’s not going to occur. The last thing Brett Kimberlin wants is the FBI looking into what’s been happening.
And it’s almost a shame that TDPK has used up the one amendment (without court permission) to his complaint allowed under Rule 15. There are a lot of people who would pay to see Ken White go after Kimberlin in court.
Aaron Walker, the lead codefendant in the Maryland Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit, has been writing a series of posts dealing with the flat-out lies in Kimberlin’s frivolous and vexatious lawsuits that relate to him in particular. He is also one of the codefendants in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO suit, and he’s published four posts so far that deal with The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s warped understanding of obstruction of justice as it applies to the RICO suit. One, two, three, and four.
The Gentle Readers who have been following The Saga of the Dread Pirate Kimberlin know that he has been filing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits of late. I’m a defendant in a couple of them. Today, the postman brought me a certified mail package with the amended complaint in the Maryland Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. suit.
The package also contained a properly signed Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons in the federal RICO Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. case which allows 60 days for a response. In addition, the package contained a document which purports to be a copy of the amended complaint but is not the same as the amended complaint shown as Item 2 in the case docket on PACER. The one shown on PACER bears the receipt stamp of the Clerk of the Court, so I assume that what I have received is not a true copy of the complaint.
I will have no further comment on this matter until I have consulted further with counsel.
The Dread Pirate Kimberlin has filed a couple of frivolous and vexatious lawsuits that include me as a defendant. The first is filed in a Maryland court; it’s calledKimberlin v. Walker, et al. The other is a federal RICO suit which I’m referring to as Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. I have 20 codefendants in the RICO suit.
The suits may be risible, but they are also expensive. While I’m represented by a pro bono lawyer, there are other expenses that my codefendants and I have such as filing fees, transcripts, deposition costs, and the like.
You can help us defend the First Amendment against Brett Kimberlin’s lawfare. You can donate to our legal fund, but there are more ways to help than that. To find out how, check out BomberSuesBloggers.
Last Wednesday, Brett Kimberlin handed me a copy of the original complaint he filed in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO lawsuit. According to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that was not legal service of the complaint or the “summons” which came with it.
(2) By Whom. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.
Also, the “summons” that accompanied the complaint was defective on its face.
The first sheet is the notice of the suit. It does not have the case number on it. Neither does the summons. Also, Kimberlin had given me zero days out of a minimum of thirty to reply to the waiver for service, and it’s dated the day before he handed it to me.
The summons itself is not signed by the Clerk of the Court, so it’s not valid.
What this boils down to is that I haven’t been served with the suit because the wrong person handed me unfinished paperwork.
Very Ordinary Seaman Ferguson thinks that I have a bigger problem now, does he? I suppose he thinks that the two marvelously deficient lawsuits that The Dread Pirate Kimberlin has filed against me are big problems.
They are, but not for me.
If by some chance either of the suits survives a motion to dismiss, Brett Kimberlin will have to answer a lot of questions during discovery, and he will provide discovery this time. Because if he doesn’t, that will be grounds for dismissal. So either each suit is dismissed, or Kimberlin is subject to discovery, or he ducks discovery again and each suit is dismissed.
Of course, I suspect that one or more of the defendants is either or both of the suits will have counterclaims, and they will likely multiply after discovery. Also, I suspect that one or more of the defendants in either or both of the suits will be adding parties as part of their counterclaims. If I were a member of Team Kimberlin, I’d … no, I not gonna give ’em any advice.
The lawsuits aren’t a problem. They’re a golden opportunity.
Words have meaning. Here’s the meaning of the English intransitive verb to rail—
rail \ˈrāl\ : to revile or scold in harsh, insolent, or abusive language.
Here’s the meaning of the English noun racketeer—
rack·e·teer \ˌra-kə-ˈtir\ : a person who makes money through illegal activities.
If the link in that tweet were live (it isn’t, at least not from this blog), it would take you to a post at the Cabin Boy’s patriot-ombudsman dot com website that claims to show how The Dread Pirate Kimberlin has the defendants in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO suit dead to rights. As usual, his presentation is the sort that would be shredded in a high school debate contest.
Now, as to whether Schmalfeldt should describe the various commentaries on his “coverage” of the suit as railing, let me admit that some most of them do, in fact, revile the Cabin Boy. However, for that to be railing the comments would have to be harsh or insolent or abusive.
Harsh? While he might have found some comments jarring, they haven’t been cruel in so far as the truth isn’t cruel.
Insolent? While he might rightly think that most of the comments show little or no respect for him, that lack of respect stems not from the arrogance of the commenters but from the Cabin Boy’s truly inferior understanding of the facts and the law.
Abusive? Oh, come now. Certainly, it would be abusive to speak of most people as many commenters speak of Bill Schmalfeldt, but, in this case, telling the truth isn’t abuse. It’s earned.
The Schmalfledt Standard of Journalistic Ethics™ (don’t laugh) holds that one may not label someone as criminal until that person has been convicted of the crime in question. By that standard one may call Brett Kimberlin a perjurer, a drug smuggler, or a bomber but not a stalker or harasser, and that standard is so strict that even someone such as myself who is an eyewitness to his stalking and a victim of his harassment shouldn’t do so.
Fine. Then why is Schmalfeldt referring to my 20 codefendants and me in Kimberlin’s RICO suit as “racketeers”? Not only have none of us been convicted of racketeering or any related crime, none of us have been charged with racketeering or a related crime. Yes, TDPK has alleged that we formed an illegal conspiracy against him, but that’s a civil matter. It isn’t a criminal charge.
OTOH, Kimberlin has been convicted of making money through illegal activities. Thus, under The Schmalfeldt Standard of Journalistic Ethics™, I am in the clear if I refer to Brett Kimberlin as a convicted racketeer.
Of course, Kimberlin’s allegations don’t pass the laugh test. Does he really think that Glenn Beck takes orders from Patrick Frey? Does he really believe that I’ve been working with Simon & Schuster to oppress him? Is there any wonder why we’re laughing at his bogus suit?
We defendants will have to dot a few Is and cross a few Ts to get the suit thrown out of court, so we have to take it seriously to that extent, but, as a real legal threat, it’s bullshit.
So is all the PR flacking coming from Bill Schmalfeldt.
UPDATE—Ken White analyzes the fragility of Kimberlin’s lawsuits over at Popehat.
I don’t intend to conduct my defense of either of the frivolous and vexatious lawsuits Brett Kimberlin has filed against me on the Internet. That will happen in court should either suit survive a motion to dismiss. However, without discussing the merits of the cases, I will point out some obvious misrepresentations of the facts contained in Kimberlin’s complaints.
Here’s a clip out of paragraph 56 of The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO suit.Condemned Judge Vaughey? I won’t speak to the contents of the writings of others, but I will stand up for what I published. (I will note that Aaron Walker and Patrick Frey are lawyers and have a general understanding of the consequences of threatening a judge and that Lee Stranahan is a responsible journalist.) The Gentle Reader may find everything I’ve posted that mentions Judge Vaughey by typing Vaughey as the search term in the box on the upper right of this web page.
Go ahead. Do it. Read the posts. I’ll wait for you to come back …
It’s pretty clear that I disagreed with his ruling. So did the Circuit Court when the peace order was appealed. It’s obvious that I made fun of him. But I did not condemn him personally, and I did not encourage anyone to threaten him or invade his privacy.
I don’t know whether or not anyone threatened Judge Vaughey or invaded his privacy. If someone did, I do condemn that. However, judges are public officials and their public actions are not immune from criticism by the media, and that includes blogs. Kimberlin is engaging in a frontal assault on the First Amendment that needs to be … I was going to type stopped, but crushed is more accurate … that needs to be crushed. His campaign of lawfare as a method of brass knuckles reputation management must end.
You can help. Go to BomberSuesBloggers to find out how. Yes, we beneficiaries of that legal defense fund are asking for donations. Even though I am represented by a pro bono lawyer, there are expenses for filing fees, transcripts, deposition costs, etc. Please make a donation if you can, but also consider helping in other ways.
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says—
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
A party gets one free amendment to a complaint. Any further amendment requires either the consent of the opposing party(ies) or convincing the judge that an amendment is warranted. That’s not always a gimme.
Monday: Brett Kimberlin goes venue shopping to try to find a court that will let him testify and settles on a federal RICO lawsuit. Check.
Tuesday: Brett Kimberlin foolishly adds defendants with deep pockets good legal staffs as defendants in his RICO lawsuit. Check.
Wednesday: Bill Schmalfeldt attempts to use a hearing on a motion to modify the peace order issued against him as a trial de novo, gets shot down by res judicata, and fails to offer the judge any evidence of a change in circumstances meriting a change in the order. Check.
Thursday: Brett Kimberlin panics and rushes through an amended complaint which does not address all of the technical errors in his original complaint—wasting his one amendment allowed in his RICO lawsuit under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 15). Check.
Friday: The Maryland Court of Appeals fails to expedite the Schmalfeldt v. Hoge peace order appeal. Check.
… but it looks kinda shady. The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s “charity” Justice Through Music Project runs a website called pussyriotdefensefund dot org. Just looking at the name, it would not be unreasonable for someone to assume that the site was involved in raising funds to help with the legal defense for members of the Russian rock band that have been prosecuted.
Here’s the top of the site’s home page. (Click on the image to embiggen it.)Zooming in on the text show this:See, Gentle Reader, the site’s not really a fraud because it comes right out and tells you that the donations go to JTMP.
BTW, TDPK has filed a federal RICO accusing me of mail fraud and wire fraud because I asked you to donate to funds supporting other bloggers and because I am now one of the beneficiaries of a fund to defend against a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit from Kimberlin. If you believe that the BomberSuesBloggers fund is a scam, please don’t contribute. If you think that blogs such as Hogewash! should be able to publish about potential scams, even if they might be run by Brett Kimberlin, then please go over to the BomberSuesBloggers site and find out how you can help.
Since this filing uses up TDPK’s one free amendment to the complaint under Rule 15, comments are open. Bonus points for the first person to identify the most obvious violation of Rule 11.
Members of Team Lickspittle may now safely ignore any bluster from the Cabin Boy about being added as defendants. Further amendments require the permission of the Court, and it is safe to assume that they would be opposed by one or more of the existing defendants.
UPDATE—At the request of one of the other defendants, I have closed comments on this post.
Bill Schmalfeldt has more of what seems to be terminal confusion about the difference between civil and criminal court cases on display.Actually, I don’t think the “RICO charges” will vanish because I don’t think that any such charges will ever exist. Being named in a civil suit is not the same thing as being charged with a crime.
Brett Kimberlin has filed a complaint in a U. S. District Court which alleges that a group of individuals and organizations conspired against him in a way that constituted a racketeering enterprise as defined under 18 USC 1961, et seq. As Ken White has noted, being named in a RICO suit by a pro se litigant is generally about as damning as being accused of a RICO violation by a street person who is off his meds.
Gentle Reader, take a look at one of the consequences of my being named as a defendant in Brett Kimberlin’s lawsuit. Yesterday, the traffic here at Hogewash! went through the roof. It was the biggest day I’ve ever had other than a couple of Instalanches. OK, part of that had to do with Bill Schmalfeldt’s losing in court, but traffic was twice what I was expecting from that. My best guess is that new readers were clicking in to find out about this William Hoge guy who has been bundled with the likes of Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson, and Michelle Malkin.
Yes, I will have to spend some time and a trivial amount of money getting the suit thrown out, but I may charge those costs to the advertising budget. It may be the best shot of publicity this blog has ever had.
UPDATE—The Cabin Boy has been contacting defendants in the RICO nonsense to get “your side of the story.” Stacy McCain gives him an earful.
Brett Kimberlin personally handed me a copy of his federal RICO lawsuit Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. in the foyer of the Historic Courthouse in Westminster yesterday morning. Once again, I am one of the et al. Here is a scan of the suit.
I really don’t like disabling comments on a post, but I’m going to do it for this one. Here’s why: Kimberlin’s complaint is so mind-bogglingly defective that almost any comment will help him improve it. I have no intention of doing anything to help him. I want him to have to work very, very hard for his ultimate failure.
On the advice of counsel I have no further comment.