Judge Hazel Wipes the Slate Clean in Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s RICO Suit

And: “I Get Results! (Not really!)”

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.

Update: I had to fix a bad embed of a letter.  Fixed now!

Well, Murphy’s law can be a real bastard at times, can’t it?  I was all ready to post on today’s events, when we had a game changer.  So I will try to adapt what I said to the news.

I have been on blogging hiatus for a while.  The principle is, after all, “case(s) first, and blog second” and I have been pretty busy behind the scenes in those twin lawsuits against me.  As mentioned in my standard blurb in the last paragraph, we have two suits going on: 1) a Maryland state case where he is claiming that I, John Hoge, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar and whoever KimberlinUnmasked is, mostly centering around his sexual abuse of his wife, discussed here, and 2) a federal case claiming that a long list of defendants are engaged in organized crime to call him a SWATter.

To update you some, there is going to be a hearing on July 1 in the state case regarding several motions for summary judgment and a related motion to dismiss for failure to comply with discovery.  My attorney has asked me not to share very much about that for fear of educating the midget...

He is looking buff...

...so I won’t.  I will simply say that legally we should prevail and if the judge follows the law, the entire case will be thrown out.  But then again, if the law was followed, we wouldn’t have gotten this far, so we’ll see how it goes.

Oh, and none of that tells you about the Copyright case that John has filed against Bill Schmalfeldt (a.k.a. “Baghdad Blob”).  You can read several of the documents he filed recently in this case, here.  In the name of brevity I won’t discuss that in detail, but basically John has alleged that the Blob has been ripping off his copyrighted work and that of another blogger, and there will be a hearing for a preliminary injunction to stop that this coming Thursday.  And I don’t think I have updated you about the case Schmalfeldt filed against ten bloggers or internet commenters and then dropped literally two days later.

But it’s in the RICO case that we got the big news.

BREAKING: Blubber (Counter) Sues Bloggers

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.

Of course the title is a kind of an in-joke, that I will untangle briefly.

As you might remember when Brett Kimberlin first started off this most recent spate of lawsuits starting with suing me for represented a another client, in this case his wife, we created a legal defense fund at the site Bomber Sues Bloggers—which you can still donate to!  Then when Bill Schmalfeldt threatened to sue various bloggers, in February (you have to be specific, because he is always threatening to sue people), I joked that we might have to start up “Blubber Sues Bloggers.”  You know, because Bill Schmalfeldt is very, very fat.

Hey, just because I’m a Yalie, doesn’t mean every joke has to be erudite, okay?

Anyway, in the last few weeks we saw that Blubber seemed to finally make good on his threat to sue various people in a laughably incompetent complaint he filed in U.S. District Court.  Then he claimed he spoke to his doctor who suggested he doesn’t need the stress and so he withdrew the complaint.  You can read all about that at Blubber Sues Bloggers, a site which I think constitutes great minds thinking alike, in terms of its title.  I should stress that “Blubber” is not a fundraising site, unlike Bomber Sues Bloggers.  It’s a news and mockery site.

So anyway, as you also might know, John Hoge has also sued Schmalfleldt in federal court for a violation of his copyrights, and also the copyrights of the anonymous blogger known as Paul Krendler, who sold the rights to him for the purpose of stopping Schmalfeldt from ripping off his copyrights.

Well, I have just heard from John that Schmalfeldt has answered the suit and counterclaimed in it.  In it he has added to counter-defendants: Chris Heather who is allegedly the twitterer known as “GunTotingTeaBag” and Paul Krendler.  John said he didn’t have much time to look at it, yet, but he did say that there was also a motion to get immediate discovery, most likely of one or more of their identities (it depends on whether he is actually sure Heather is the right guy.

Surely you will see more at Hogewash as this develops.  I will share what I know as I learn, though as always, my motto is “case first, blog second.”

Still, you might want to start popping the popcorn right now, because I am willing to bet this is a pretty awful one.

Bond v. U.S.: Analysis: John Roberts Knows What Chemical Weapons Are When He Sees Them

Or: “Can an International Treaty Make Barack Obama President For Life?”

First, a programming note.  As often is the case, much of my writing energy has been consumed as of late in court documents that have not yet been released on the internet (indeed in many case, have not yet been filed.)  But I am on break and in that break, I can talk about other things.  I will also catch up on the big legal occurrences last week shortly.

Today the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Bond v. U.S., and while the decision was unanimous, it was a surprisingly contentious unanimity.  But first a little background.

There is an infamous line in the otherwise unnotable opinion on obscenity from Justice Potter Stewart.  First Amendment doctrine has long held that “obscenity” (more or less, hard core porn) is an exception to freedom of speech or the press that can therefore be banned, even with criminal consequences.  Of course anyone with basic Google skills can quickly discover that such bans are like the proverbial finger in the dam as it bursts, but whether such bans are of any practical use or not is beside the point.  They exist and therefore the Supreme Court had to wrestle with how to define that term: obscenity.

So Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) is mostly unremarkable.  It involved a movie called The Lovers, which I have never viewed but you can read a review here, but to be blunt nothing said in the opinion was too unusual.  It was from the time when the Supreme Court felt that the way to manage the issue of obscenity was to personally review every single allegedly obscene movie, book, exposing these justices to whatever deleterious social effects these movies supposedly have.  Still, it was a pretty straightforward application of the prevailing legal standard at the time: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest, so long as it was utterly without redeeming social importance.  In other words movies you watch just to see people having various kinds of sex, with no attempt to have a plot, characters, social significance, etc.  Which still doesn’t really tell you where the line between the good stuff is and the stuff that can be banned, does it?

Again, all of this is actually not remarkable for the doctrine at the time and the case is pretty much forgotten except for what Justice Stewart wrote in his concurrence: