The Other McCain

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

Brett Kimberlin’s ‘Evidence’

Posted on | February 21, 2014 | 37 Comments

Brett Kimberlin could have been sentenced to 230 years in federal prison.

Brett Kimberlin’s Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., is a nuisance and a distraction, and it angers me that I should be required to prove a fact that is abundantly self-evident to anyone who cares to investigate: Brett Kimberlin is a liar.

So if Brett Kimberlin files a lawsuit claiming I have defamed him, harassed him, stalked him, etc. — “Mopery With Intent to Lurk” — common sense suggests that the judge would take one look at his lawsuit and say, “Oh, this is Brett Kimberlin, the guy convicted of perjury in 1973, ‘a man whose idea of the truth is utterly malleable,’ ‘the convicted bomber, habitual liar and all-around sociopath‘ — that Brett Kimberlin? Yeah, he’s full of it. Case dismissed.”

Unfortunately, the legal system doesn’t operate on the basis of common sense,  which is why we need lawyers to prove the obvious, that I am innocent and Brett Kimberlin is a liar:

Plaintiff’s motion includes 38 pages of attachments in supposed support of his request. Yet those attachments do nothing to support Plaintiff’s request for so drastic an action as removing and suppressing the reportings and opinions of Mr. McCain. In particular, the motion and accompanying exhibits do not include even one example of a defamatory posting by Mr. McCain …
Plaintiff’s Exhibit D is supposed to provide examples of how Mr. McCain (and the other defendants) “dramatically title their posts and fill them with highly charged accusations such as rape, pedophilia, sex slave, domestic abuse … See, e.g., Exhibit D.”
As part of Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, Plaintiff includes a single blog posting by Mr. McCain. The “dramatic” title of Mr. McCain’s blog post is “Motions, Motions, Motions — Judge Grants Brett Kimberlin a Delay.” Mr. McCain is therein reporting on a ruling (in Plaintiff’s favor) in a federal lawsuit initiated by Plaintiff against Mr. McCain and a host of others. That same posting goes on to report and opine on other aspects of that case. Notably, the following words and phrases are never once used: “rape,” “pedophilia,” “sex slave” and “domestic abuse.”

And the “dramatic” title of that document is “Defendant McCain’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”

Kimberlin v. Walker – McCain – Opposition to Preliminary Injunction by Robert Stacy McCain

This goes to show the fundamental problem we’ve been dealing with: Kimberlin merely alleges this, that and the other, but the way civil court procedure works is, he doesn’t actually have to prove that I wrote anything defamatory — and of course, he can’t, because I didn’t — in order to drag me through all this preliminary bullshit. Hell, his complaint didn’t include a single example of anything I wrote that could even plausibly be construed as defamatory, yet still the judge let the case go forward because (and I quote from memory, but I’m pretty sure these are her exact words), “there’s enough alleged here.”

It’s like the Supreme Court abolished common sense or something.






37 Responses to “Brett Kimberlin’s ‘Evidence’”

  1. ariyadesai01
    February 21st, 2014 @ 1:46 am

    RT @smitty_one_each: TOM Brett Kimberlin’s ‘Evidence’ #TCOT

  2. alanhenderson
    February 21st, 2014 @ 1:51 am

    Somehow, this article seems a bit relevant to the bloghost’s travails with trolls.

    (“Travails with Trolls” sounds like a Gilderoy Lockhart title. Harry Potter fans will know what that’s about.)

  3. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    February 21st, 2014 @ 2:36 am
  4. DonaldDouglas
    February 21st, 2014 @ 5:40 am

    Sorry you have to deal with this. “Trolls gotta troll…’

  5. joethefatman
    February 21st, 2014 @ 7:21 am

    I would say “Welcome to the world of Civil Courts” but that would be a lie. They aren’t civil and no one is really welcome there. Civil court seems to be deliberately set up to cause normal people pain in the brain. The only time I ever got warned that I was courting contempt charges was in civil court.

  6. rmnixondeceased
    February 21st, 2014 @ 7:24 am

    What a trainwreck! To be required to expend treasure and intellectual resources on BK’s bullcrap …

  7. Mm
    February 21st, 2014 @ 7:37 am

    1. He is a convicted perjurer. His self-serving statements are testimony, and a such, are in admissible in Maryland state courts.
    2. He is not a lawyer.
    3. His family members and employer are not parties.
    4. Because of 2 and 3, he cannot represent them, or seek damages on their behalf.
    5. At some point, someone is going to have to succinctly point all of this out to the judge and move to strike pleadings, etc.

  8. Daniel O'Brien
    February 21st, 2014 @ 8:03 am

    “there’s enough alleged here.” – the throw enough crap at the wall and some of it might stick approach. Sorry for your troubles, Stacy. Hang in there, bud!

  9. SDN
    February 21st, 2014 @ 9:05 am

    All of which begs the question, “Why hasn’t McCain’s lawyer done all of these things?”

  10. Katie Scarlet
    February 21st, 2014 @ 9:27 am

    “there’s enough alleged here.” – That’s an old liberal mantra, it’s the seriousness of the charge, not the nature of the evidence.

    My favorite line from Mr. Ostronic – “… he has ensured himself a toxic reputation.”


  11. DavidD
    February 21st, 2014 @ 10:02 am

    It’s unfortunate that the judge could not just review the complaint, see that it was unsupported by fact, and dismiss it out of hand.

  12. richard mcenroe
    February 21st, 2014 @ 10:35 am

    Maryland. Maryland judges.

  13. rustypaladin
    February 21st, 2014 @ 10:55 am

    Legally, the judge can’t. Apparently, the allegations must be considered true until the parties are in court after which the plantif must show proof of the allegations. While this is a pain in the rear, this is actually how it needs to work. Otherwise legitimate cases could be dismissed without being heard.

  14. Dianna Deeley
    February 21st, 2014 @ 12:52 pm

    Pretty little rag rug! I’m sorry it had to be used to illustrate your point.

  15. Ben Franklin
    February 21st, 2014 @ 1:32 pm

    Not really. The plaintiff has to actually allege a crime. He has to say what the defamation was specifically by quoting something that could be construed as fitting the definition. He failed to do so since, as the lawyer pointed out, there is no way what McCain said could ever be taken as defamation even if interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

    If I say your screen name is rustypaladin and that is the sum total of what you claim is defamation against you then no judge should let the case proceed. Here the judge did just that.

    Judges are by and large some of the least competent people you will ever have the misfortune to meet. In a place like MD this is especially so. They will muck things up, and then you will have to appeal to a higher court to get everything straightened out. People who practice lawfare understand this and use the process as the punishment.

  16. Escher's House
    February 21st, 2014 @ 3:50 pm

    Two words: seek sanctions.

  17. rjcarter
    February 21st, 2014 @ 3:55 pm

    Look at the bright side: at least he hasn’t bombed your legs off.

  18. Adjoran
    February 21st, 2014 @ 4:50 pm

    I don’t think McCain has one. For one thing, he wasn’t served in the case until he volunteered. But surely Aaron Walker and others have pointed all this out in other cases, yet Maryland lets Kimberlin play on.

  19. Adjoran
    February 21st, 2014 @ 4:51 pm

    Well, you let Democrats run a state for a couple dozen years and it all just goes to hell.

  20. Adjoran
    February 21st, 2014 @ 4:53 pm

    Such as? Kimberlin has set himself up so he owns no property himself that can be attached.

    The only possible solution is to have him declared a vexatious litigant so he can’t keep doing what he’s done over one hundred times so far, but Maryland appears unwilling to do it.

  21. DavidD
    February 21st, 2014 @ 5:50 pm

    I should have said “unsupported by assertions of fact”; no plaintiff should be able to make claims in his complaint that he does not support through assertions of fact.

  22. robertstacymccain
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 2:02 am

    Kimberlin has set himself up so he owns no property himself that can be attached.

    Bingo. He’s living in Bethesda — one of the priciest ZIP codes in America, the Rodeo Drive of the D.C. Metro region — and yet, on paper, his annual income is $19,000 a year.

    This whole escapade with his wife began, you will recall, when Kimberlin went to court to file charges against the wife’s boyfriend, charging the boyfriend with illegal use of the wife’s car, but the wife’s car is actually an asset of Kimberlin’s 501(c)3. So in other words, according to Kimberlin’s own court filings, this tax-exempt non-profit is providing his wife with a car that she was using to drive to her job at a daycare center. But if you think this apparent evidence that 501(c) funds were being used for illegitimate purposes was newsworthy, you’re part of a conspiracy!

  23. SPQR9
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 3:00 am

    It may prove profitable to pierce the corporate veil on Kimberlin’s fraudulent “non profit” corporations. That and the other fraudulent ways in which Kimberlin’s family conceals assets from Kimberlin’s creditors.

  24. robertstacymccain
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 3:35 am

    There is that, I suppose.

  25. Bad to Worse for Brett Kimberlin : The Other McCain
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 4:40 am

    […] If the law protects lying sons of bitches, certainly it must protect people who tell the truth about lying sons of bitches. […]

  26. Escher's House
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 9:19 am

    I confess that you are right. Bad advice on my part.

    I had forgot that he is pro se in this case. And that Kimberlin is practically immune from sanctions. The best that one might hope for is that the judge awards sanctions and then holds him in contempt for failure to pay and throws him in jail. But that runs afoul of the courts’ duty not to imposed fines that indigent litigants cannot pay. Barring him from the courthouse has the same due process implications.

  27. Escher's House
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 9:21 am

    What would be the underlying claim that the bloggers would have against the corporation? You need a claim before you can seek a piercing of the corporate veil.

  28. Escher's House
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 9:26 am

    Stacy may not have been represented by counsel when he made his initial appearance in the Case, but he is represented now. Take a look at the pleading embedded in the post.

  29. SPQR9
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

    No, you are confused in this case. Normally piercing refers to going beyond the corporate shell to individual investors own funds to satisfy a corporate claim, that is true. But in this case, the claim would be the opposite that the corporate shell is a fraudulent entity to hide an individuals assets.

  30. Adjoran
    February 23rd, 2014 @ 3:01 am

    Corporations enjoying non-profit tax exempt status are subject to greater scrutiny since there can be no “trade secrets” to protect.

  31. Adjoran
    February 23rd, 2014 @ 3:04 am

    And the house is Mama’s name, as I recall.

    I suspect it is precisely this scrutiny of the tax exempt organizations he controls that Kimberlin seeks to avoid by his lawfare tactics. He doesn’t really care about being known as the Speedway Bomber, he just doesn’t want a bunch of nosy IRS guys asking questions, and the best way to insure that is to sue anyone who mentions his name.

  32. Escher's House
    February 23rd, 2014 @ 3:00 pm

    Okay, but what would be the claim against him held by the bloggers that would allow them to reach the corporate assets?

  33. Escher's House
    February 23rd, 2014 @ 3:10 pm

    Have any of the bloggers filed a complaint with the IRS against the non-profits, the use for illegitimate purposes? If it’s being used to enrich Kimberlin or to render Kimberlin immune from suit, then it’s not for a charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, etc. purposes. It would definitely give Kimberlin another headache to deal with.

  34. SPQR9
    February 23rd, 2014 @ 7:42 pm

    Sanctions for Rule 11 violations, malicious prosecution, and many others.

  35. Escher's House
    February 24th, 2014 @ 8:01 am

    Okay, so you agree with my original advice “seek sanctions” under the Maryland equivalent of Rule 11. Adjoran does not, for reasons he has set out in many comments on this thread.

    (As far as I know, malicious prosecution applied to threat or use of criminal charges as bargaining leverage in civil matters.)

  36. rjcarter
    February 24th, 2014 @ 10:20 am

    So basically to get the IRS to look into him, he’d need to apply for tax exempt status for a political group with “conservative” in its name. 🙂

  37. Kevin Zeese, Neal Rauhauser and the ‘Occupy Infiltrator’ Frame-Up : The Other McCain
    March 2nd, 2014 @ 4:24 pm

    […] Feb. 21: Brett Kimberlin’s ‘Evidence’ […]