Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s Request to Seek Sanctions Denied

And Reading Judge Grimm’s Tea Leaves

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 you might have heard it on my twitter, or seen it over at Hogewash but Brett Kimberlin’s request to file a motion for sanctions has been denied.

You can read the entire letter order here, after the break (so quick, get the popcorn!).  And bluntly, if you don’t know what is going on, I suggest you read this post as background which discusses some of the law of Rule 11 motions for sanctions.  So, see you after the break!

   ECF 127

So a few thoughts…  First, it is “without prejudice” which means that Brett can, in theory, file it again.  We’ll see how reasonable that looks as an option when the judge rules on Twitchy’s motion for sanctions.

And there are hints in the order that suggests a few things behind the scenes.  For instance, let’s unpack this line a little bit:

It appears that Kimberlin contends that ... Twitchy’s filings intended “to present a false narrative to this Court,” but he does not allege that the facts in Twitchy’s filings, or the state court transcript on which they purport to rely, were fabricated or false.

There are several things to note, here.  First, Brett’s request said nothing about a transcript.  So the only way Judge Grimm could know that there is a transcript—let alone one from the state court—is if he had read Twitchy’s filing, or perhaps Brett’s response, or skimmed them anyway.

Second, he seems to be taking it as an admission that the facts Twitchy has alleged are true, and that the transcript is authentic—i.e. not fabricated.  So it’s a false narrative without any actual, you know, falsehoods.  Brett did not help himself by showing the judge how saying the truth amounts, in Brett’s mind, to a false narrative.

Also we can see that the judge notes Brett’s objection that John Hoge published his incompetent Rule 11 motion.  But then Judge Grimm’s denial doesn’t even address that issue.  He says “[s]hould it become apparent that Twitchy has acted improperly in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” Brett can file a motion, then.  But how could it possibly be apparent that John and Mr. Smith are engaged in that horrid “extrajudicial communications attacking a party” (to quote from Brett’s request) based on those prior papers?  The answer is, they can’t but the judge thinks this is such a non-issue that he isn’t going to hear it.

But that line I just quoted from the order contains another nugget, when you look at the whole sentence:

Should it become apparent that Twitchy has acted improperly in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there will be ample opportunity to explore that possibility after the substantive issues in this case are resolved on their merits.

That last phrase would seem to be out of place.  Isn’t the right to time to consider that when the motion for sanctions is resolved, not the entire case?  I mean suppose Judge Grimm looked at Smith’s motion and decided it was improper?  Then the time to decide the issue of sanctions would be right now while the issue is still fresh, not after the case is over which could be months from now, if not more than a year...

...unless the case is almost over, that is.  In other words, I think Grimm may have let slip that the case is about to be over.  Indeed, it would not shock me if it turned out that Grimm was taking home a pile of motions this weekend, to figure out 1) whether to allow Brett to amend the complaint, and 2) if he is not allowed to amend it, whether the prior complaints were sufficient as a matter of law to survive a motion to dismiss.  And the two inquiries are actually closely tied together, because as you have seen, one of the reasons why a motion to amend can be denied is if it is futile to do so.  One of the reasons why it can be futile is if the proposed amendment doesn’t solve the problems of the original complaint.  And that invites the court to say, “if I grant this motion to amend, will I just be dismissing the amended complaint?”

Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me if he has already decided it needed to be dismissed and he just writing the opinion.

Or… maybe the judge just meant to say “after the substantive issues regarding Twitchy’s motion for sanctions are resolved on their merits” and it came out wrong.  I don’t say that to insult the judge or whoever did the actual writing, but we are all human and every now and then the completely wrong thing comes out of our mouths or onto our computer screens.  That is the danger with reading tea leaves: you might be getting a false signal, as it were.  Still there is reason for cautious optimism.

It also answers another question for me.  I had been thinking of filing my own motion for sanctions against Brett, especially now that he has made it clear that he knows what his duties under Rule 11 are.  I mean given what he wrote to Mr. Smith, he can’t do the “I’m just an ignorant pro-se” routine.  He knows what the law required him to do.  He knew he couldn’t lie.  He knew he had to be reasonably competent in the law.  He just didn’t do those things.

But I think I know now that if I asked the court for permission to file my Rule 11 sanctions motion, what the answer would be: “not yet.  Wait until the case is over.”

And if my tea leaf reading is correct, that day is coming soon.  Pray for justice, my friends, and always be happy warriors.

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

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.