The Other McCain

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

Kimberlin Attacks @AceOfSpadesHQ’s Lawyer, Cites ‘Breitbart Unmasked’

Posted on | February 28, 2014 | 32 Comments

As a specimen of shamelessness, Brett Kimberlin has few equals in human history. The experience of being sued by Kimberlin offers a front-row seat to witness how utterly arrogant he is — as impudent as a four-year-old throwing a tantrum, lacking any regard for the rights of others, and with no sense of shame over the spectacle he creates.

In one of his most recent outbursts in the federal RICO lawsuit — dubbed Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al., by my co-defendant John Hoge — the perjuring bomber filed “Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Defendant Ace of Spades for Multiple Conflicts of Interests.”

This is noteworthy because:

A. Here you have Kimberlin, who once plotted from his jail cell to have a federal prosecutor assassinated, now presuming to appoint himself the arbiter of professional legal ethics.
B. Kimberlin actually includes among his exhibits a post at the pro-Kimberlin site “Breitbart Unmasked” attacking Ace’s lawyer, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen.

It’s astonishing, really, and a good occasion to remind you that Kimberlin’s self-described “associate” Neal Rauhauser was trying to “dox” Ace of Spades for months before I ever heard of Brett Kimberlin. This goes back to “WeinerGate” in 2011, which was the event that brought Rauhauser into the Kimberlin orbit. Patterico and Ace of Spades did some of the most effective blogging about the “WeinerGate” scandal, which made them a focus of Rauhauser’s obsession.

Is it merely coincidence, therefore, that identifying Ace is part of Kimberlin’s strategy in this federal lawsuit? Give me a break.

So, in the process of infringing Ace’s free speech rights, now Kimberlin wants to deprive Ace even of his right to legal counsel.

Utterly shameless.

Ace has handled this lawfare harassment with remarkable sangfroid, and let me quote what Ace wrote on Feb. 19:

[Levy] has kindly agreed to represent me in fighting Brett Kimberlin’s motion to compel a third party to give him my name and address, so he can then sue me in a suit which, in my opinion, is entirely baseless, and once again an attempt to chill Free Speech rights.
Which is what this has been about since the beginning.
What makes me particularly happy that Mr. Levy is representing me is that he is, by his confession, a “lefty.” It has bothered me from the outset of this entire affair that people who I thought might take an interest — people in the left-leaning media who ought to care about attempts to chill and punish Free Expression, left-leaning bloggers whose very jobs put them in danger of having the same tactics used against them — failed to do so.
Instead, what seems to have happened is everyone just “picked teams,” based on the typical tribal impulses. If anyone on the left wrote about this — not because they agreed, politically, with any of Brett Kimberlin’s targets, but because they supported the principle that people ought to be free to comment on news and newsworthy stories without the threat of a lawsuit hanging over them. (One person did cover it, briefly, in an “Interesting Thing Going on on the Internet” sort of way, but without actually examining the issues raised.)
And as far as the media, I’m afraid, the idea seemed to be “a pox on both their houses.” One guy is using the courts to pound critics and stifle free speech; but on the other hand, these guys are conservatives, so, of course, they are Unpeople, and They Were Probably Doing Something Bad Anyway. . . .

Please read the whole thing.

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • JeffS

    Shorter Kimberlin: “WAAAAAH!!!!!

  • librarygryffon

    Mr. Levy’s motion to dismiss Kimberlin’s motion to have him removed includes an email BK sent directly to Ace which I think most people, even those who didn’t know BK’s history, would find threatening. I would hope that most courts would not look favorably on someone who tries to communicate barely veiled threats directly to the person they are suing. BK is also claiming that some of the other defendants are in the process of settling. Given his history with Truth, I’d take that with several tons of salt.

  • Anon Y. Mous

    In one of his most recent outbursts in the federal RICO lawsuit — dubbed Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al., by my co-defendant John Hoge — the perjuring bomber filed “Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Defendant Ace of Spades for Multiple Conflicts of Interests.”

    Do you have a link on the new motion?

  • robertstacymccain

    Nobody is settling. Ever since this lawsuit was filed, Kimberlin (and his proxies, Bill Schmalfeldt, Neal Rauhauser, “Xenophon” at BU and others) have been chattering that some of the defendants were going to settle. Nobody has settled yet and nobody is going to settle, because this lawsuit is factually baseless and without merit in law.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Aaron Walker has it on his blog “Allergic to Bull.” It is linked to Scribd.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    I really hope no one is settling, unless Kimberlin is paying THEM. I would hate to see such brazen and transparent extortion, legal though it is, succeed.

  • http://ak4mc.us/cms/ McGehee

    Is Levy the same lawyer about whom some commenter on a previous RSM thread wondered how he could represent a Kimberlin opponent in this lawsuit after having represented Kimberlin once more than a quarter century ago?

    The phrase “conflict of interest” figured prominently and ridiculously in that comment, just as in this motion. Especially the “ridiculously” part.

  • Pingback: So what is happening with #BrettKimberlin vs. the Universe*? | Batshit Crazy News

  • RS

    It’s not ridiculous, alas. There is always a potential conflict when a lawyer subsequently opposes a former client. It’s not an automatic disqualification, but it raises an issue. The standard is whether the lawyer has any information as a result of the representation which might be used against the client in the new proceeding. E.g. lawyer represents Mr. A’s business. He probably can’t represent Mrs. A in the divorce if the business is an issue. Contrast, Lawyer write’s A’s will. Twenty years later, Lawyer represents B in an auto accident case against A. The latter is probably OK. There’s more to it than that, obviously, but that’s an outline.

  • Anon Y. Mous

    I am the person you described as “some commenter”. Do you have some basis in fact to support your description of my comment? Arron Worthy has linked Levy’s response to Kimberlin’s motion: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-embarrassment-of-riches-in-convicted.html

    In it, Levy objects to the way in which Kimberlin filed the motion (Kimberlin failed to follow the court’s order regarding filing additional motions). As to the substance, Levy describes Kimberlin’s claim as “spurious”, but does not address them in his filing. He does say that he will be addressing the substance in the future.

    All that being said, are you truly not aware that there is an issue when an attorney represents a client at one point in time, and then later represent someone else against that same client?

    It is an issue, and there are rules about when it is and when it is not allowed to occur. It is potentially a conflict of interest, and it takes more than a glib pronouncement of ridiculousness to determine whether or not the necessary hurdles have been cleared.

  • Anon Y. Mous

    Thanks for the heads up.

  • Mm

    I see that BK wants to pull BU into the lawsuit, as well.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    That’s an old trick, claiming a co-defendant is going to settle, in order to sow discord in a mutual defense. Whenever you have multiple defendants in an action like this, if there is any dissension about settling it can cause mistrust because not everyone’s interests overlap exactly.

    In this case, though, there is no case at all, so no reason for anyone to settle.

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    Simply pulling himself into it under a separate identity. Schmalfeldt let that out of the bag long ago.

  • Mm

    Understood, but he potentially is making the identity of BU an issue in the case.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    Which will go bad for him when it is revealed that he himself is BU. Attempting to perpetuate a fraud upon the court is quite serious as Kimby is about to find out in the SHOW CAUSE hearing in the instant case …

  • librarygryffon

    I understand that Mr. Levy is only representing Ace in opposing the motion to compel the loss of his anonymity. Since the case against compelling a 3rd party to release Ace’s identity to Kimberlin would presumably, as a 1st amendment issue, be the same no matter who was trying to out Ace, how is there conflict?

  • WarEagle82

    Okay, all this legal mumbo-jumbo is distracting from the really important point that we can be pretty sure that the chick using the pseudonym “Ace of Spaces” is not Miriam Weeks.

    But with all the interest in “Ace of Spades’” briefs, I am still not convinced “Ace” might not be “Belle Knox” who, coincidentally, seems to have a passion for showing off her briefs.

    And did you notice that nobody has EVER seen “Ace” and “Bell Knox” in the same room at the same time? And we are supposed to just assume this is a cosmic coincidence?

  • WarEagle82

    Well, Hoge offered to settle. But TDPK declined to pay Hoge the $1,000,000 demanded as settlement.

    It may have been a costly mistake…

  • DaveO

    I made comments to that effect as well. There are several agendas at play in this Kimberlin versus the World – one agenda belongs to NR, who stands to gain from outing Ace. Once outed, how long would it take to destroy Ace, both as a blogger and as a private citizen?
    Sounds like an 8th Grader’s attempt at fiction: “And then, suddenly, an Advocate appeared!” followed by “and then I woke up.” With no disrespect for 8th Graders or fiction writers.
    Really? Leftist Lawyer, who stands to lose economically, socially; and, who once was an employee of Kimberlin’s, and associates with the same folks who pay, admire, and employ Kimberlin – are you expecting him to have an epiphany from all this and suddenly go full GOP?
    You never go full GOP you know.
    Next up, the Advocate himself shows up to defend his honor.

  • Quartermaster

    I’m still waiting for Reid to prove he isn’t up to his cadaverous eyeballs in pederasty.

  • Quartermaster

    From observing Attorneys in court for years, I seriously doubt that there is a problem in this. The issue Levy is dealing with does not clash with what Levy represented Kimberlin for. Kimberlin is simply raving as usual.

  • Mm

    You and me both.

  • http://ak4mc.us/cms/ McGehee

    I called it ridiculous because it is. If there were any basis to call Levy out for conflict of interest in this case, any productive attorney would conceivably be hamstrung in his choice of clients beyond a certain point in his career.

  • G Joubert

    Especially in small towns.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    John Hoge has a wicked sense of humor.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Well, Adj, I think the defendants would settle for Kimberlin losing.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Whoa there, WarEagle: you’re assuming Ace is Human. #Endor

  • Aaron “Worthing” Walker

    no, it is a ridiculous assertion of privilege. he represented brett 25 years ago on an issue of getting docs from the gov. and he is assisting ace solely in the protection of his ID.

    Here’s the actual rule on the subject, from the code of professional responsibility:

    “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.”

    If Levy knows anything relevant to the instant case, from his representation of brett 1/4 a century ago, that is confidential, he must keep it to himself. that is all. bluntly brett is full of crap, which is why he is citing the model ABA rules instead of what is actually adopted in the states.

    This isn’t even a close call.

  • Pingback: It's the Weekend