Posted on | March 12, 2014 | 39 Comments
U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm has been thrown onto the horns of a legal dilemma by the extraordinary procedural misconduct of pro se plaintiff Brett Kimberlin. As the attorney for Michelle Malkin and Twitchy has pointed out, this is unprecedented:
Mr. Kimberlin’s conduct has taken this Court into uncharted waters. Twitchy’s research has not found a single case, Federal or State, involving a party’s forgery of a court summons — much less, the subsequent sending of it through the U.S. Mail with the intent to deceive. This is a serious matter, and obviously one that calls for a severe sanction. . . . [D]ismissal with prejudice and a significant award of fees against Mr. Kimberlin is warranted. . . .
[T]he questions raised to date regarding Mr. Kimberlin’s “summons” to Twitchy and other certifications to the court, against the backdrop of his many crimen falsi convictions, make this lack of authentication central. Neither the defendants nor this Court can have any confidence that anything Mr. Kimberlin attaches to his filings, is what it purports to be.
Now, Kimberlin has filed a Second Amended Complaint, even while overwhelming arguments against his First Amended Complaint have yet to be ruled on by Judge Grimm. Kimberlin’s heinous abuse of the court process has already damaged the defendants’ ability to get justice in this case and now, after the fatal legal flaws in his First Amended Complaint have been thoroughly exposed, we are confronted with the Second Amended Complaint that in many ways amounts to an entirely different lawsuit. We are left hanging in limbo, wondering whether (a) Judge Grimm will require us to reply to the Second Amended Complaint, or (b) Judge Grimm now has enough evidence of Kimberlin’s mala fides to dismiss the whole thing in toto.
Obviously, I hope and pray that it is (b), but Judge Grimm must consider the likelihood that if he dismisses Kimberlin’s (entirely meritless) lawsuit, this will mean that the Fourth Circuit will have to deal with Kimberlin’s (equally meritless) appeal. Alternatively, then, Judge Grimm — who must be laughing his ass off at the absurdity of the crackpot paranoia evident in Kimberlin’s Second Amended Complaint — can let the big-dollar lawyers rip it to tatters, which will impose a near-term burden on the defendants, but which almost certainly guarantees that when Judge Grimm does dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, it will be gone for good, with no hope that Kimberlin could ever succeed on appeal.
Meanwhile, we have Kimberlin’s answer to Judge Grimm’s “show cause” order in regard to the forged Twitchy summons:
Plaintiff has apologized to counsel for Defendant Twitchy on several occasions for the mistake he made when serving Twitchy. Plaintiff explained to counsel that the mistake was not in any way done with an intent to mislead. Instead, it was a misunderstanding of the process, which Plaintiff as a pro se litigant did not understand, but now understands full well.
Plaintiff did include Defendant Twitchy in the Complaint in several paragraphs as a named Defendant but Plaintiff inadvertently left Twitchy off the caption.
When the Clerk initially sent Plaintiff 21 summons, Plaintiff spent hours compiling them with the Complaints, the envelopes and certified cards only to discover that the summons for Twitchy was missing. At the time, Plaintiff assumed that the Clerk had inadvertently forgotten to include that summons since Twitchy was named as a Defendant in the Complaint and Twitchy’s address was listed in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff typed the address on a summons and included it with the Complaint to Defendant Twitchy and sent it certified to that address. . . .
Plaintiff apologizes once again to Defendant Twitchy and counsel, and to the Court for this misunderstanding. Plaintiff assures the Court that this will not occur again. . . .
Plaintiff urges this Court not to impose sanctions on Plaintiff since this was an honest mistake, he is proceeding pro se and was unaware of the proper procedure, he has learned from the mistake, he has apologized to all parties, and Defendant Twitchy was not prejudiced.
Twitter reaction to these excuses was rather amusing:
— Bomber Sues Bloggers (@BomberSues) March 12, 2014
— Paddy O'Furniture (@FlynnsTake) March 12, 2014
— Paddy O'Furniture (@FlynnsTake) March 12, 2014
— Stephen Sheiko (@stephensheiko) March 12, 2014
Joking aside, the problem is that Kimberlin’s habitual dishonesty and procedural misconduct in his previous pro se court cases is so thoroughly documented — as several of the defendants have pointed out in their filings — that it strains credulity for him now to claim he made an “honest mistake” because he “was unaware of the proper procedure.” Hell, no. Brett Kimberlin deliberately falsified a court document, thinking he was so clever that the defendants wouldn’t notice his clumsy forgery. This is analogous to how Kimberlin got caught in 1978, brazenly trying to forge documents while driving a car with evidence of his bombings in the trunk. Kimberlin has spent the past 35 years blaming others for his own stupidity, trying to convince people that his conviction was the result of a corrupt government conspiracy, never once expressing regret for blowing off Carl DeLong’s leg, while presenting himself to naive “progressive” donors as a former “political prisoner.” But I digress . . .
The Perjuring Pro Se Pipsqueak continues trying to get Ace of Spades’ lawyer Paul Alan Levy thrown off the case, and it is mordantly amusing to watch the notorious felon Brett Kimberlin present himself as a self-appointed Arbiter of Legal Ethics.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 13, 2014