Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s “Fletcher” Objection to Smith’s Memorandusm

And Other Assorted Silliness in the RICO Suit

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 two years, 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.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave her, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  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 let’s a do a little catchup.  I have been laboring under a stomach flu (and being a sharing couple my wife has had it worse) and John has beat me to the punch in most of these cases making a post on a lot of events unnecessary.  Most of you who are following The Kimberlin Saga^® know by now to follow along at Hogewash, and if you aren’t by now, you should.

So first, Brett admitted to forging a summons in the Federal RICO case against me (that case is still in the motion to dismiss stage).  You can read that admission, here.  Then on April 9, in the state case (which is just finishing discovery), he admitted to forging a green certified mail card.  You can read my reports on this here and here, which was verified by the official transcript of that hearing, which John Hoge posted here.

Next Michael Smith, counsel for Michelle Malkin and Twitchy, asked to file a supplemental memorandum discussing that April 9 hearing, here.  Previously he sought sanctions for the forging of the summons and that motion was still pending.  Here, the idea was that the fact that Brett altered documents in another case might bear on what the court thinks of him altering documents in the federal case.  Yes, the state judge didn’t fine him but only because she didn’t think she had the legal authority.  I respectfully think she was wrong, but the federal judge has unquestioned statutory and inherent authority to do so there is a good legal reason why you might get a different outcome in the federal case.  And I predicted that when the court saw what happened in the April 9 state hearing, it might be more likely to sternly sanction Brett, here.

So Smith was granted his request to file his supplemental memorandum, and it is short and appropriately brutal.  You can read that, here.  But really the best evidence of how effective it was, is Brett Kimberlin’s epically whiny Rule 11 motion that he served on Mr. Smith, but did not file.  You can read the whole thing, here.  And usually I don’t specifically recommend that you read the comments on a blog but I think in this case they are relevant.  Go through them and see how the commenters picked apart just about every absurdity.  You will see why in a moment.  We had a lot of fun with him.

And let me unpack something I just said a little more.  I said the Rule 11 motion was served on Mr. Smith, but Brett did not file it.  Rule 11 of course refers to the rule that in relevant part requires that every pleading is certified “that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Regular readers would know that Brett regularly violates this rule.  His suits are for no other purpose than harassment and to game the system.  His legal arguments are bogus, including citing several statutes that don’t even apply to his lying version of events.  And of course he lies on a regular basis.

The same rule sets up a procedure for filing such motions that is different from the usual motion practice.  Rule 11 also states that, in relevant part,

The [Rule 11] motion... must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.

So the rule is you serve the other side with a Rule 11 motion, and then wait 21 days after service.  If the problem isn’t corrected then and only then do you file what you served on the other side.

So all that recap brings us up to what happened today...  or more precisely, Friday.  You see Brett was (probably) entitled to file a response to Twitchy’s supplemental memorandum.  Of course there wasn’t much Brett could do with it—the logic was airtight.  But courts as a matter of course generally give the other side a chance to respond because that’s only fair.  I mean for all the judge knows, Brett could have come back with absolute proof that Mr. Smith forged the transcript.  He didn’t and you know there is only one convicted (and admitted) document forger in this case, but the judge has to give him a chance to be heard, just in case.  So Brett filed a reply and if you read that Rule 11 motion, you will see much of it is familiar:

   ECF 125 (Redacted)

So most of it is just a recycling of the Rule 11 motion.  It even included some of the most ridiculous parts, writing for instance that

Mr. Smith has used his "quote" Memorandum to violate the Court's Management Order, which prohibits motions without permission and ad hominem attacks.

Which is just a bizarre line on so many levels.  First, there is the obvious weirdness of him putting the word “quote” in quotes.  Second, the memorandum was filed with specific permission.  Earlier Brett characterizes it as a “stealth” motion to dismiss, as though it was a new motion to dismiss.  But it was not.  It was labeled as what it was: a supplemental memorandum for a motion for sanctions that sought, among other things, dismissal of the case.  It is not stealthy about seeking dismissal: it is up front about it.  And it is utterly proper.

As for ad hominem attacks, the key to an ad hominem fallacy is it is irrelevant.  Brett Kimberlin’s character and conduct couldn’t be more relevant in this context.  Seriously, what could be more relevant when discussing a motion for sanctions for forging a document than the undeniable fact that he admitted to forging a second document?  It would be one thing if Smith said, “and Kimberlin is a racist and a pedophile.”  That has nothing to do with the forgery.  But the fact he did the same thing in another case, when Brett was professing that it was an innocent mistake?  If that is not relevant, nothing is.

I will add that Brett claims that the state case is “an unrelated case.”  Brett could arguably have claimed that, had he not already filed documents stating that the cases were related.  The court does not typically let you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

And indeed one is left wondering who exactly Brett expects to fool with this routine?  I doubt the judge will be convinced since he seemed to accept as a premise that this was probably relevant when he granted Smith leave to file this memorandum.  To quote the court’s letter order granting them the right to file their memorandum:

Finally, Defendants Malkin and Twitchy have filed a Request to submit new information bearing on Plaintiff’s conduct with respect to the improper summons served on Twitchy. See Request. In my order of February 21, 2014, I found that Plaintiff’s conduct, though clearly improper, did not prejudice Twitchy, and I ordered Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not issue. Letter Order, ECF No. 88. In response, Plaintiff has stated that his conduct was the result of ignorance and not deliberate bad faith or desire to deceive.  See Pl.’s Verified Resp. to Feb. 21, 2014 Order to Show Cause re Twitchy Summons, ECF No. 102. If “Malkin and Twitchy believe that the transcript and their Supplemental Memorandum will assist this Court in resolving the issue pending before it,” Request, then I would be remiss in denying them the opportunity to bring such information to my attention.

It doesn’t outright say it, but that language suggests that Judge Grimm is at least open to the possibility that this stuff is relevant.  And it obviously is.

Really, reading his Rule 11 motion and now his response to Twitchy, I am reminded of this scene from Liar Liar (which, surprisingly, is not a biography of Kimberlin):

If you can’t watch the video, here’s what you see.  In Liar Liar, Jim Carrey plays Fletcher Reede, a lawyer who ordinarily is a pathological liar who is “cursed” with telling the absolute truth against his will for twenty four hours and finding that this almost completely unravels his professional life while making him a better person and closer to his son.  Mostly it’s a forgettable (albeit hilarious) comedy but this bit is a classic.  Fletcher’s client was presented with powerful evidence against her, and he attempted to object as follows:

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!

Judge Stevens: And why is that, Mr. Reede?

Fletcher: It's devastating to my case!

Judge Stevens: Overruled.

Fletcher: Good call!

Of course if Fletcher was not required to tell the truth, he would have given another ground besides that it is devastating to his case.  But whatever ground he would have given, evidently, would have been a lie: his real objection is that it harmed his side.  And one suspects that if a similar magic was worked on Brett Kimberlin, he would say write “I wish this motion to be struck because it is devastating to my case.”  For all the sound and fury, his real objection is that Smith made him look bad with facts, evidence and logic.  Yes, it made him look odious, in Brett’s own words (which demonstrates that when you use facts, evidence and logic, Brett looks pretty awful).  So he is angry: angry because he got caught.

And believe it or not we are not done.  Gosh, I hope you have stock in Conagra Foods, because you are going to need more of Mr. Redenbacher’s popcorn.  He filed something else, a letter requesting permission to file his Rule 11 sanctions motion:

   ECF 126 Redacted

(Embed courtesy of this post.)

You can tell that all of this is written in anger—and indeed it is evidence of metal deterioration on Brett’s part—because of the obvious errors.  For instance, in both the Rule 11 motion and the new response Brett forgets that he is the Plaintiff.  The very first line of his response reads:

Defendant Brett Kimberlin submits this motion in opposition to Defendant Twitchy's Memorandum and stealth Motion to Dismiss.

Of course as you might recall, Brett Kimberlin is the Plaintiff, and Twitchy is the Defendant.  Originally in his Rule 11 motion, he utterly confused the parties at times.  Here, he seems to have partially and unsuccessfully tried to correct it after one of John’s commenters pointed out the glaring error.  So plainly he read not only John’s post, but also the comments, but apparently couldn’t get his stuff together enough to fix any of the other idiotic elements they pointed out.  And bluntly, I saw other issues that I continue to hold my tongue about because why educate mini-me?

Brett, that is not appropriate!

  

As I said in the comments on this post, I think it is a Freudian slip, evidencing his endless sense of persecution.

In the same letter, he did himself additional damage, with his ridiculous claim that the following is also a reason for sanctions:

[Smith’s] release of the Rule 11 motion to Defendant Hoge for publication which amounts to violations of the rule and extrajudicial communications attacking a party.

Besides the typos, sharing a document with parties is not a violation of any rule, period.  We are allowed to talk to each other.  And we are allowed to say bad things about him to each other.  I am allowed to call Brett a sociopathic pedophile and terrorist to Mr. Smith and he is allowed to say similar things back.  And Mr. Smith is under no obligation to keep this communication private—this is true even if Brett demanded it, because he is under no obligation to do so.  Really, seriously, isn’t this typical of pedophiles?  He wants to bully Smith and then demand that Smith keep it “our little secret.”  But that has been the problem from the start.  He wants to abuse the system, abuse other people and then expect us to keep silent.  And when we don’t go along with his unrealistic expectations (which we are under no legal obligation to respect), he claims that it is a crime, a violation of the rules of legal ethics or whatever.  He fundamentally believes that no one is allowed to complain about him, charge him with a crime, file a lawsuits against him or even defend him- or herself when he files suit.  We are just supposed to shut up and take what he is doing to us, without a whimper.

(And the same, by the way, applies to his wife.  She wasn't allowed to defend herself and now I am being sued for giving her legal advice, when she told me that he was a pedophile, into young girls and that he threatened her if she dared to try to get her young girls away from him.  Yeah, yeah, another "false narrative" according to Brett.)

In all bluntness, these filings did him harm.  They are literally worse than if he said nothing.  As lame as it would have been, probably the smartest thing would be for him would be to have faked contrition (I don’t believe he has ever been actually sorry for anything in his life, except being sorry for being caught).

But instead he showed the judge his true nature, angry and stunning in his sense of entitlement.  He labeled protected speech “harassment” and an accurate statement of the facts as a “false narrative.”  He further leaped, with no evidence, to the conclusion that others have conspired against him making factual assertions the truth of which he couldn’t possibly know and so on.  In real life court you rarely get the classic “Perry Mason” moment when the bad guy confesses because you asked the right question.  What you get instead is moments when the person’s testimony is so awful the finder of fact—in this case, a judge—knows exactly what he/she/they are dealing with.  We had a moment like that in the July 5, 2012 hearing when Brett accused my attorney in court of “harassing” him by asking him reasonable questions.  You typically see that sort of thing in cross-examination because the witnesses often gets so caught up in the moment that they don’t see how bad they look.  I frankly never thought I would see it in a filing because...  who writes with that much anger and then takes the time to file it in court?  But that is plainly what we have here.

Oh, and there is one other thing.  Brett’s motion for sanctions is actually competent on the legal standard.  That’s because he evidently ripped it off from someone else, which like I have said before is okay, and indeed done all the time.  So there’s nothing wrong with the legal standards he is discussing: it’s just that Smith didn’t break any of those rules (and indeed I believe the judge is likely to be convinced by the supplemental memorandum).

But in trying to “lynch” Mr. Smith, Brett may have accidentally (metaphorically) tied a noose around his own neck.  If this case is dismissed (and I believe at this point the law demands that it be dismissed) I will probably be seeking my own motion for sanctions.  I suspect several of the defendants will, too.  And normally I would expect Brett to fall back into his “I’m just an ignorant pro se” routine.  Except this time, he has made it clear that he knows what he was supposed to have done.  He has written it in black and white in his motion for sanctions.  He just hasn’t done it.  That will harm him down the road.  It will support our own motion for sanctions against him.

At least one can hope.  It’s been a long, long time coming, but I believe justice will finally start to arrive.

Take us out, Mr. Cooke:

---------------------------------------

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.