Posted on | October 21, 2013 | 44 Comments
“I’m going to sue this episode of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo because it upset me.”
– Ken White, Popehat.com
Bloggers keep asking me how to get sued by Brett Kimberlin, and I urge everyone to hurry now: If you don’t immediately join the “conspiracy” to “defame” the convicted perjuring bomber, the dishonest creep may actually wise up and reconsider his epic legal folly.
Ken White at Popehat.com has brutally dismantled Kimberlin’s RICO nonsense, and I’ll just quote a few highlights, including Ken’s point about the anonymous blogger Kimberlin Unmasked:
Kimberlin’s purpose is clear: he seeks another legal avenue to pierce the veil of anonymity and identify Kimberlin Unmasked, and he means to inflict expense and worry on someone who is criticizing him for being an unrepentant wrongdoer.
That’s important to understanding why it is not defamation to call Brett Kimberlin “evil.” Having been convicted of federal crimes, Brett Kimberlin has spent more than three decades defaming the victims of his crimes, defaming the law enforcement officials who apprehended and prosecuted him for those crimes, and defaming the witnesses who testified against him. He is an infamous liar.
He is indeed an “unrepentant wrongdoer” and why? Because repentance would first require admitting his guilt, and if he ever admitted his guilt, Brett Kimberlin would have to admit his motive.
Evil — quod erat demonstrandum. But I digress . . .
Kimberlin filed an initial complaint, and then a First Amended Complaint in a couple of days. Are there flaws in his revised complaint? Hell yes. There are pleading defects, failures to offer necessary details, and vague legal conclusions where there should be predicate facts. Moreover, much of the speech Kimberlin attacks — like reports to police, petitioning of the government, statements in legal proceedings — is privileged, meaning that it enjoys protection from lawsuits. His attack on speech is so broad, and often so focused on petitioning the government, that he’s likely triggered Maryland’s rather limited anti-SLAPP statute. Am I going to explain all of the defects? No. Let him find out when he gets the motions to dismiss.
And there will be motions. . . .
Kimberlin’s focus on swatting coverage is a legal and rhetorical trick, an effort to avoid the even more obvious problems he’d have if he sued over coverage of his utterly incontestable history of committing monstrous crimes, evading his duty to repay his victims, and abusing the legal system. The effort to change the narrative should fail. I believe it will. . . .
Read the whole brilliant thing, and please do all you can to help us defeat the evil perjuring felon Brett Kimberlin, because I suspect the desperate plaintiff has not fully considered the consequences of his forthcoming failure. When he loses this lawsuit? Heh.