Or “The Franklin Center Plays John
Hoge the Most Sincere Compliment Imaginable”
This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®. If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not
everyone reads my blog. The short
version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over a year, his worst
conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime. I recognize that this might sound like an
incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in
other words, you don’t have to believe my word.
You only have to believe your eyes.
So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.
So previously I dropped on your
five different documents in the two lawsuits filed by Brett Kimberin and
myself. You can read my basic motion to
dismiss, here;
the memorandum of points and authorities for that motion, here;
a motion requiring him to file verified pleadings, here;
and a memorandum in support of maintaining Kimberlin Unmasked’s identity, here. And I posted a copy of DB Capital Strategies’
motion to dismiss, here. And yesterday, I dropped a post
talking about the ridiculous claim by Brett Kimberlin that somehow all of this
defamation had rendered him “odious, infamous and/or frightening.”
Most of the purpose of this post
is to give you the Franklin Center’s Motion to Dismiss in Brett Kimberlin’s
lawsuit. Like Dan Backer, they went with
a less-is-more approach. You can read it
below the fold:
But let me tell you a quick
story. About a decade ago I worked for a
Federal Public Defender’s office as an intern.
I was still a law student, so my role was limited, but in one case they
asked me to decipher the federal sentencing guidelines, to argue for the lowest
possible sentence for one of their clients.
And I wrote a memo summarizing what I found.
The attorney in charge said it
was good and asked me to do him a favor and send him a Word copy of it. I complied.
The next thing I saw, he was filing with the court his own memorandum
with the language I had used directly cut and pasted word-for-word into it,
without attribution.
And then some time later the
sentencing hearing was held, and I went to see how well all of this was received. The judge then took out a written opinion and
proceeded to read it from the bench. And
for several paragraphs, he was using the exact same language that my
supervising attorney had put into his memorandum, which was taken from my memo, without attribution to either one of
us.
Here’s the thing: this happens
all the time, and it is not considered plagiarism. It would be in any academic writing
context. It would be if someone did that
in a book. But as I often say, in law
there is no such thing as plagiarism.*
When a judge “rips off” an attorney’s writing, that’s a good thing: that
means you said something so well, so logically, and so persuasively the judge
can’t imagine a way to say the same thing differently.
And when an intern hands a memo to a lawyer, we are generally hoping to
see a similar result. I wasn’t
insulted. I didn’t feel ripped off. I felt complimented. It was a concrete sign that I might be good
at this law business. I thought it was
really cool.
So with that in mind, I direct
you to this passage in the Franklin Center’s memorandum on points and
authorities, on the topic of Brett Kimberlin’s status as a public figure:
Plaintiff is a
public figure because he has had an authorized biography published about him detailing
his exploits. Citizen K: The Deeply Weird
American Journey of Brett Kimberlin (Singer, Mark, Knoff, New York, 1996)
is an authorized biography of Plaintiff Kimberlin. In it the book insinuates
that the Plaintiff had an inappropriate relationship with a ten year old girl, (id.
at 78.), that he was suspected in having arranged a murder-for-hire of the
girl's grandmother (at 82, 83), and that the subsequent Speedway Bombings were
an attempt to distract the murder investigation (at. 89).
And I said to myself, “gosh, that
sounds familiar.” So I looked over to
John Hoge’s Motion to Dismiss, which he posted here,
and found this passage:
As can be seen by
the partial listing of Plaintiff’s 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.).
Starting with the words “Citizen K” it’s almost word-for-word
even to the point that there is considerable redundancy in the first two lines
in quoted passage from the Franklin Center filing. Notice the repetition of the words “authorized
biography,” “insinuates,” “suspected.”
And the phrase “and that the subsequent Speedway Bombings were an
attempt to distract the murder investigation” is taken word-for-word from John’s
writing. There are differences, but if
this was normal expository writing, it would be plagiarism.
But in law, it isn’t because... it just isn’t. I indeed pointed this out to John last night
and he wasn’t annoyed. He was tickled to
see them borrowing from him. A real
lawyer looked at what he wrote as a pro se defendant and thought it was good
enough that she would borrow it. Heck,
to a lesser extent I borrowed from him as well in mine, though I think if what I
wrote was expository writing it would not be considered plagiarism. If imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery, the Franklin Center’s attorney has played John Hoge a huge compliment
for which he is rightfully proud.
It is also worth noting that some
of the relief the Franklin Center is seeking is the same as DB Capital
Strategies. Given how close they were together
in filing, that is probably a case of two separate groups of lawyers coming up
with the same solution to the same problem.
In other words, great minds think alike.
Also I got a phone message from
the attorney representing Red State and Erick Erickson, and he indicated he has
not been served. I am hearing that from
several defendants, that Kimberlin has been negligent in service of process of
many of the defendants, which is strange, even for Brett. I’ll let you know how that develops.
So to keep a tally, Brett has to
respond to 1) a motion to dismiss the RICO suit by John Hoge, 2) a motion to require
verified filings in the RICO suit by John Hoge, 3) a motion to dismiss the RICO
suit by me, 4) a motion to require verified filings in the RICO suit by me, 5) a
memorandum in support of Kimberlin Unmasked’s right to remain anonymous in
state court, 6) a motion to dismiss the RICO suit by DB Capital Strategies, and
7) a motion to dismiss the RICO suit by the Franklin Center. And he will have to work on all of it over
Christmas—I mean, he doesn’t want to default on any of that, does he?
And that’s just what I know
of. For him it truly will be...
---------------------------------------
* Of course, plagiarism does
exist in legal academic writing, and it can get one in trouble. But in motions, briefs, memoranda presented
to the court, etc. or for that matter contracts and court opinions, there is no
such thing as plagiarism. If someone
says the right thing in a good way, there is nothing wrong with ripping that
person off and it’s done all the time.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the
harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get
us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten
years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims
using documentary and video evidence. If you would like to help in the
fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the
right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon
Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about
my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
Think of all the poor trees that have had to sacrifice life and limb (literally) to produce the blizzard of paperwork engendered by Brett's assclownery!
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard that perspective on legal copying before. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, the judge will send Kimberlin to his room without supper.
Kimberlin hasn't served everyone for two reasons - the first being that the point of this frivolous lawsuit was to be able to talk about it as if it was a fait accompli (instead of the fail accompli that it is) that had somehow already "proven" its allegations.
ReplyDeleteThe second was that he is going to try to file perjurous affidavits claiming valid service and fake up default judgments to play into the first above.