The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

REPORT: @NadiaNaffe’s Lawsuit Against @Patterico Flounders in L.A. Hearing

Posted on | December 10, 2012 | 7 Comments

The diligent John Hoge calls our attention to the report at Popehat which indicates that the plaintiff was unable to show a valid claim during a Monday hearing in federal court.

Admonishments against sarcasm are duly noted.

Meanwhile — and I’m sure this is just a coincidence, Neal Rauhauser — the pro-Kimberlin trolls decided to create a slam-dunk case of Twitter terms-of-service violations against themselves. One account has already been suspended, and others are likely to suffer the same fate shortly.

It is important to remember why the cyberstalking harassers do what they do. It’s about defending their patron saint, Brett Kimberlin.

So every time they start jumping up on Twitter, I respond by Tweeting out the facts about their hero: “When ‘Jessica’ Was 10, 11, 12.”

How’s that “brass knuckles reputation management” workin’ for ya?

Category: Patterico, The Kimberlin Files

Comments

7 Responses to “REPORT: @NadiaNaffe’s Lawsuit Against @Patterico Flounders in L.A. Hearing”

  1. Red__Rover
    December 10th, 2012 @ 11:36 pm

    RT @smitty_one_each: TOM REPORT: @NadiaNaffe’s Lawsuit Against @Patterico Flounders in L.A. Hearing http://t.co/zzsNVsI8 #TCOT

  2. WJJ Hoge
    December 10th, 2012 @ 11:38 pm

    Folks really should get themselves a copy of “Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin.” Amazon sells it. I’m told there’s an Amazon link someplace on this page.

  3. Scott Jacobs Jr
    December 10th, 2012 @ 11:51 pm

    I am withholding my glee for late December.

  4. SPQR
    December 11th, 2012 @ 12:43 am

    Reading Coleman/White’s Reply brief is the best summation of the fundamental dishonesty of Nadia Naffe’s claims. When you are using the Plaintiff’s own exhibits and own case cites as the foundation of shredding the Plaintiff’s arguments, that’s the best legal writing.

  5. Quartermaster
    December 11th, 2012 @ 7:58 am

    Went to the Instapundit link and read Insty’s entry. Wikipedia never covers themselves with glory. nearly everything on Wikipedia needs to be viewed with suspicion unless verified elsewhere. The only peropl who believe that bunch does not have an agenda is the people that run Wikipedia.

  6. Becca Lower
    December 11th, 2012 @ 10:31 am

    It’s great to hear updates on these things, thanks. But as the diligent Mr. Hoge would point out, the word in your title should to be ‘founders’, not ‘flounders.’

  7. annon
    December 11th, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

    Sooooo Popehat was able to ANTI-SLAPP a bitch?