Posted on | January 13, 2014 | 20 Comments
As predicted this morning, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied today in the the million-dollar Maryland lawsuit, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. And as I had previously explained: “A motion to dismiss is entirely a matter of legal procedure, and one must argue it as if all the facts as alleged by the plaintiff were true which, of course, they aren’t.”
Knowing this in advance, it was nevertheless a stunning thing to hear Montgomery County Judge Sharon Burrell say that she was denying the motions to dismiss because “there is enough alleged here.” That is to say, merely by alleging that he is the victim of torts, Brett Kimberlin gets past the preliminary hurdles, and never mind that the plaintiff is notoriously — nay, infamously — dishonest.
It’s irritating, but that’s the law. Co-defendant John Hoge reports:
None of the motions to dismiss were granted .. . Kimberlin’s motion to consider Ali Akbar served was denied. His motion for additional information from Google was granted.The reason for the denial of Kimberlin’s motion concerning service of process on Ali Akbar was an apparently forged document submitted with his motion.
This last item is curious: Kimberlin had previously submitted a receipt for certified mail of his attempt to serve Ali on which the box for restricted delivery — “addressee only” — was not checked. Yet in court today, Kimberlin claimed to have a receipt on which the box was checked. After a lot of argument about this, Judge Burrell asked Brett to show her this receipt and, after comparing it to what he had previously submitted to the court, the judge declared that it clearly wasn’t the same document. Was this a forgery? I make no such accusation.
Unlike pro se litigants filing lawsuits against innocent defendants, blogging is not covered by the Allege Any Damned Thing rule.
Further motions by the defendants are to be expected in the future, however, and who knows what might be alleged, eh?