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.
Earlier I shared
with you happenings
in the state case, and I will talk more about it, soon, but things have
happened in the Federal case, too. As
you might recall, Brett filed a motion to amend the complaint. I filed an opposition, here,
as did Mr. Hoge, Dan Backer and DB Capital Strategies, and Michelle Malkin and
Twitchy. Brett could have filed at least
four different responses and go into a lot of detail, but instead he decided to
whine and spit venom for only one omnibus response, which has been published at
Hogewash. So go
read it already and then come back.
We’ll discuss.
Okay, back?
So he starts
right off by being dishonest, writing in ¶ 1:
In
short, [the objecting defendants] argued that Plaintiff failed to comply with
Local Rule 103.6(c) by missing a few, non-prejudicial bolds and strike-throughs
in the redlined copy he provided to them.
By way of
background, that rule requires that when you file an amendment to a complaint
you provide also a “redline” copy of it showing all the changes that were made. The purpose of that rule is obviously to aid
us and the court in determining whether his amendments were sufficient.
And his claim
that there were only a few errors is not true.
There were over forty by my count.
And I might have missed a few.
Next, in ¶ 3,
he claims we have never addressed the merits of the claim. This is not true and even if true, it is irrelevant.
First off, this
is not the time to address merits. If we
addressed merits, the judge would kick Brett’s arse so hard he would go into
orbit. Right now all well-pleaded
allegations are treated as automatically true.
Yes, as crazy as it sounds, our legal system treats any proper
allegation by this convicted perjurer and document forger, who now has admitted
to forging a summons in this case and altering a document related to service of
process in the state case, as automatically true. As I jokingly say, Brett Kimberlin is the
worst case scenario of a great deal of our laws and rules.
Second, even
though it is not the time, a great deal of the merits have been addressed. I filed a motion that spent several pages,
for instance, outlining
how he actually tried to frame me for a crime. No, not all the merits of his silly
allegations have been addressed, but to claim we have dealt with none of them
is simply a lie.
And bluntly the
courts are not there to do some kind of roving investigation. It is there to deal with cognizable causes of
action, which is what Brett doesn’t have.
That is even if everything he properly alleged is true, he hasn’t made
out any case of action mostly because he sucks at this.
In ¶ 4 he
writes that:
However,
in order to address these complaints and fully comply with rule l03.6(c),
Plaintiff subjected his Second Amended Complaint to the "Compare
Copy" tracking program in WORD and sent all the attorneys by e-mail and
Defendants Hoge and Walker by USMail a copy of the updated redlined copy of the
SAC.
Too little too
late. The time to comply was before we filed our oppositions. And indeed by subjecting it to a “Word”
comparison, he demonstrated how easy it was to comply all along. In other words that hurts him, not helps.
In ¶ 5 he writes:
The
five Defendants have used their motions to make arguments properly made in a
Motion to Dismiss, such as challenges to the various claims on the ground that
the amendments are futile because they fail to state a claim.
What exactly does he think “futility” means? It means that even with the amendments it
doesn’t address fundamental flaws in the last complaint.
In ¶ 6, he writes:
Additionally, in an abundance
of caution, Plaintiff also modified his Complaint to allege that the Defendants'
false statements were pleaded under defamation and/or false light...
Um, can someone diagram that sentence?
In ¶ 7, he writes:
The Defendants make the
incredible argument that Plaintiffs SAC is not a short statement of the claim
after arguing in their Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint that
Plaintiff did not state sufficient facts to state a claim.
Yes, we are saying he goes on and on about stuff that
doesn’t help him and meanwhile doesn’t say enough about the things he needed to
allege. That is he doesn’t say enough of
what he has to, and says too much about what he doesn’t have to.
A perfect example is his craziness about Team Themis
in the Second Amended complaint. Mind
you, I am kind of glad he wrote it, because an opponent going the full lunatic
in court is rarely a bad thing, but ultimately it was several paragraphs of
crazy irrelevance.
In ¶ 8 he writes:
Defendant Walker relies on a
show cause Order from Judge Titus in Plaintiffs copyright infringement case to
argue against allowing him to amend his complaint. However, once Plaintiff
showed cause, Judge Titus on March 20, 2014, granted Plaintiff leave to file
his Amended Complaint in that case and ordered the Clerk to issue summons.
Which of course is killing a straw man. I cited Titus’ order in the copyright suit for the prospect that Brett is not the ignorant pro se litigant he professes to be.
Judge Titus didn’t change his mind on that point.
¶ 9:
Defendants argue that
Plaintiffs Complaint is simply an attack on conservatives, implying that the
Defendants do not commit torts. This is belied by the fact that many other
people have recently sued eleven of the Defendants in this case...
“They have been accused of torts by others and
therefore they are guilty!” The fact
others are suing some of the Defendants is irrelevant. Indeed media organizations get sued all the
time. It is an unfortunate operating
expense of such endeavors. And him
noting in ¶ 10 that he is also suing us in state court really isn’t probative given
his documentedly litigious nature.
Then in ¶ 11 he decides to tell the judge he got it
wrong, again. I kid you not:
The issue before the Court is
whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to file his Second Amended Compliant.
In the Court's Order of February 21,2014, ECF88, the Court stated that it was
granting Plaintiffs request to file that amended complaint: "BecaUfieFed.
R Civ. P. 15 calls for amendments to be freely granted, Plaintiffwill be
permitted to amend his complaint as he has stated he intends."
“But you promised, your honor, that I would be
allowed to amend it. Won’t you keep your
promise?”
Maybe he should suggest the judge is ruling in the wrong
case again. I am sure that is a winning
strategy.
The point of this exercise, of course, isn’t just to
say he is wrong. Of course he is wrong. The
point is that he is obviously wrong,
in a way that Judge Grimm is not likely to miss. I don’t believe I will have an opportunity to
present these arguments, but I don’t have to.
They are obvious on their face.
---------------------------------------
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment