The World’s Worst Pro Se Litigant™ Gets the Complete @Popehat Treatment

Posted on 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 . . .

More of Ken White’s careful and masterful analysis:

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.

BomberSuesBloggers.com

 

44 comments

  5. Better idea, take Ken’s advice in that post and do the legwork to have him declared a vexatious litigant (legalese for PITA) which would require him to get approval to file anything. Slam the courthouse door in his face and watch the reaction when he can’t do lawfare anymore. Should be fun

  9. RSM, what do you think about the link at the end of Ken’s post about conservatives with deep pockets helping out conservative bloggers, instead of having to run to Ken for help?

    I thought it was a very good point, and I can’t think of a reason why, but I’m just a lurker that reads very few sites.

  11. Well, he can’t file anything in Maryland or any other venue that forbids a convicted perjurer from testifying.

  12. It wasn’t Ken that made the point, but you just did. Lefties can fund a scumbag like that, but conservatives can’t help their own when they need it?

  16. Brad, this is something that myself and others have been complaining about for years: Big-money GOP donors just don’t “get” the blogosphere, especially the value of having a swarming “Army of Davids” — the smaller, independent bloggers, including the party-timers who only post a few times a week while holding down full-time jobs to pay the bills.

    You can ask Jimmie Bise Jr. and Dan Riehl about this, because we’ve been talking about it since 2009, at least. For the multi-millions that GOP donors sink into campaigns and super-PACS, they could easily support, say, 300 bloggers at $300 a month, and $90,000 x 12 = $1,080,000.

    Now, maybe $300 a month doesn’t seem a lot to most people, but there are part-time bloggers who would crawl through broken glass for that kind of blog money. Do the math and figure what $5 million or $10 million a year could do. Then remember that three GOP 2012 primary campaigns (Cain, Perry and Gingrich) combined to consume more than $30 million.

    Think about it.

  17. Thanks for the response. The truth is I never really thought about it until Ken brought it up.

    Your post seems to scream out as evidence of how bad the republican party at the national level really is, and how bad they want to control things.

    It’s sad that Breitbart has become unreadable, and Townhall and Hotair’s ads make it almost too hard to read via smart phone.

    Where is our Mark Cuban? Is there no rich, young conservative that would get involved with conservative new media just because it is new and interesting, and no one else has done it?

Comments are closed.