In Convicted Document-Forger Brett Kimberlin’s Frivolous Copyright Suit, Lynn Thomas and Peter Malone Pay Mike Smith the Ultimate Compliment

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.

Always have lots of popcorn
while watching a copyright
troll midget get slapped down!

Update: As promised, below I have embedded the Motion for Default that prompted Thomas and Malone’s reply.

Well, let’s play a little catch up, shall we?  One part of the story of Brett’s ongoing lawfare that has been neglected is the third suit he has filed, a patently bogus copyright action, also in Federal Court.  Originally it was against “KimberlinUnmasked” ("KU”) the writer or writers of the now-defunct blog and not-defunct twitter account dedicated to unmasking Brett Kimberlin.  He has named who he claims is this person or persons in all three suits.

(Now is a good time to add a disclosure.  I have been in communication with one or more people who claim they write as KimberlinUnmasked.  We have in the past entered into an attorney-client relationship (pro-bono).  As you might imagine, then, I know more than I can say.  And you might reasonably wonder if that representation leads to bias in his/her/their favor.  I would like to think not, but I report, you decide.)

And yes, the copyright suit is bogus.  For instance, here’s a line from the current complaint:

KimberlinUnmasked regularly copies photographs from these copyrighted videos and posts them on his site, without permission, compensation or consent of Plaintiff. KimberlinUnmasked alters some of these photographs by superimposing Plaintiffs face on to other backgrounds, for example in a Nazi uniform.

Every lawyer worth his salt can see the immediate problem with that example: it’s clearly fair use, which is a complete defense.  Now, I don’t pretend to know everything anyone else writes online, but I feel a high degree of confidence that all of the “uses” of Brett copyrighted photos by KU—to the extent that he even owns them—is equally obviously fair use.  To be blunt, I have always believed that the purpose of this suit was purely to identify KU and try to get discovery.

And there are other problems.  Anyone paying attention to the Hoge/Schmalfeldt copyright case can see some of the other pitfalls Brett has managed to fall into.

Since the case started Brett has decided that Lynn Thomas is KU.  Or Lynn Thomas and someone named Peter Malone, who are allegedly father and daughter.  He goes back and forth on that.  In the copyright case, he claims KU is Thomas and Malone; he makes the same claim in the state case; but in the RICO case, he claims it is solely Thomas.  He has yet to explain this discrepancy.  As per my disclaimer, I cannot tell you if he is even close, but any reasonable person would know by now not to trust his allegations.  For instance, you could logically recognize that it all could be a ploy to make the real KU step forward, to protect two innocent people from this litigation abuse.

Anyway, so last week Brett filed a motion to declare that Thomas and Malone were in default.  I don’t think anyone has published that document, so in a little bit, I will.  It’ll just take some time to do the redactions, which are significant.

And if you have been following along at Hogewash! (and, dear reader, if you aren’t you should be) you will see that John presented clear evidence that Brett lied about his mail.  Brett claimed to have sent it certified mail, restricted delivery, but in fact he didn’t.  In other words, he added the “restricted delivery” checkmark after he got the package back.  As you will recall, this was not the first time he was caught doing that, but apparently he didn’t learn from his mistakes.  And this is potentially serious because Brett filed a verified pleading, and therefore it is actually federal perjury.

So that takes us to today.  Via Hogewash! we see that Thomas and Malone have filed a joint response to Brett’s motion to find them in default.  The headline here is that they are telling the court that Brett has forged another document.  Read the whole thing:

   BK v KU ECF 19 Redacted

As I said in the comments at John’s blog, the perfectionist lawyer in me cringes at some of the “pro-se-ish” elements, here, but you can expect the judge to read their filing generously, and it gets the point across.  It also seems obvious to me that they have been following along, even if they were silent.  For instance, if the entire last section on fraud on the court sounds familiar, it should.  It looks like it is an almost word-for-word lifting from the first motion to dismiss filed by Mike Smith on behalf of Twitchy and Michelle Malkin, in the RICO suit.  Seriously, go look at the original and start reading at about page 40 in his motion.  They also seemed to borrow from Smith/Malkin/Twitchy’s supplemental memorandum that made Brett scream so much, which you can read about here and read the original here.  Thomas and Malone also nod at my previous amicus filings in the case, which is gratifying, and they very obviously saw John’s blog, too.  In the motion they cite the same tracking number John mentioned to compare to the two Brett used in his post uncovering this latest forgery.  I suspect more of it is ripped off from other sources, but I haven’t figured out where.

And as I said before, there is nothing wrong with that.  There is nothing wrong with Bill Schmalfeldt obviously ripping off other motions and briefs in his copyright suit.  Lawyers do this sort of thing all the time.  (Bill’s problem is that the stuff he rips off doesn’t quite apply to the facts).

Will this filing work?  Who knows.  I think the law is pretty clear that they were not served.  That was disposed of in the first few lines of their motion.  So a finding of default at this point would be contrary to law but as we have seen for the last two and a half years, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.  But the deeper point is, will Judge Titus, in seeing clear evidence of a fraud on his court get as mad as Judge Ryon did and actually throw the whole case out?  Cross fingers and all that.

It's called Rule 5, folks. Google it.

I will note that the response is agnostic as to whether Thomas and Malone are KimberlinUnmasked.  As weird and frustrating as it is, at this point they can’t deny it and expect the judge to consider that denial as evidence.  The time to admit or deny that will be if Brett manages to serve them and they answer the complaint on the merits.  At the motion to dismiss stage, all well-pled allegations are considered true.

Finally, it doesn’t at all verify my prior speculation that this was the same Lynn Thomas who is also a fairly hot adult actress.  So we can keep hope alive that this is her picture on the right!

(Always remain happy warriors, folks.)

Update: As promised above, here is the (redacted) version of the Motion for Default:

   Motion for Default Copyright Redacted (OCR)

You know better than to trust anything Brett is saying at this point.  He cannot stand the white light of public scrutiny.

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

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.