Category: Neutral Objective Journalism

‘Mr. Kimberlin’s Fantastic Allegations’

Posted on Comments

The quoted phrase comes from a motion by the attorney for Michelle Malkin to dismiss Brett Kimberlin’s federal lawsuit that John Hoge has dubbed Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al. Of course, the word “fantastic” is used not in a positive sense, as a synonym for “wonderful,” but rather in the sense of unbelievably delusional.

Furthermore, in that motion for dismissal, Malkin’s attorney provides evidence that suggests Kimberlin forged a summons for Twitchy, the site Malkin created and recently sold. John Hoge examines that evidence at his blog, which is fantastic in the good way.

While I am not a lawyer and do not wish to draw a hasty conclusion, if the federal court should find that Kimberlin did what Malkin’s lawyer says he did, this would tend to indicate that Kimberlin’s notorious lifelong pattern of dishonesty has not been discontinued.

 


Another Brett Kimberlin Lie?

Posted on Comments

My co-defendant John Hoge has been keeping up with the federal RICO lawsuit he has dubbed Kimberlin v. Universe, et al.

Hoge recently filed a motion with the court which makes note of an interesting claim by the pro se plaintiff:

Twice since Brett Kimberlin filed his federal lawsuit, I’ve attended hearings in his Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.

In what sense does Kimberlin claim I am evading service, when I was right there in Montgomery County Circuit Court with him?

Hoge has much more RICO Madness.

 

BomberSuesBloggers.com




 

 

Federal Court Upholds Bloggers’ Rights

Posted on Comments

Eugene Volokh cites a ruling yesterday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox:

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.

This is obviously relevant to the Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., as well as to the federal lawsuit that my co-defendant John Hoge has dubbed Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al.

It’s interesting that the Ninth Circuit cited the Citizens United case, which figured prominently as a casus belli for the anti-Clarence Thomas campaign of Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution.

It’s also interesting that in neither his state nor federal lawsuits against bloggers does Brett Kimberlin mention his role in founding Velvet Revolution which, the last time I checked, was located at the same Bethesda street address — i.e., Kimberlin’s mother’s basement — listed on Kimberlin’s legal filings in both cases.

 

BomberSuesBloggers.com




 


Brett Kimberlin Allegedly Alleges

Posted on 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?

 

BomberSuesBloggers.com




 

 

Kimberlin Lawsuit Hearing Today

Posted on Comments

‘Speedway Bomber’ Brett Kimberlin was sentenced to 50 years in 1981

“I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money . . .”
— Brett Kimberlin to Patrick Frey, Oct. 11. 2011

Expect little blogging today as I’ll be attending a 10 a.m. hearing in Montgomery Country Circuit Court for the million-dollar Maryland lawsuit, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. The court will rule on several pending motions, including my motion to dismiss, although I’m not very optimistic on that. 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.

The federal RICO suit — also known as Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al. — is another matter, and it appears that I’ll be required to file some motions on that case in the next few weeks.

Nevertheless, the wheels of justice grind exceedingly fine. The record of Brett Kimberlin’s “deceitful maneuvers” is clear:

On June 6, 1997 the revocation hearing was convened at the United States Courthouse in Baltimore. [Kimberlin’s] witnesses included his mother and a friend, Julia Karamin. . . . [Kimberlin] claimed that the February 10, 1997 Notice of Action had deprived him of all income, and he requested a continuance in order to obtain appointed counsel. He claimed that his mother had filed a $150,000 lien against his house, tying up its use as an asset. He also requested a continuance because various witnesses were not present, including his sister, mortgage loan officer Tim Rood, and his personal assistant Monika Kosior. Officer Ramsburg opposed the extension requests, testifying that by [Kimberlin’s] previous statements he had recently received substantial income from LADA and $339,000 since 1993 on his book contract, with no documented explanation of where the money had gone. The examiner denied the continuance because it appeared [Kimberlin] had sufficient assets to hire counsel, and because [Kimberlin] admitted that he was given Form CJA-22 but did not submit it at or following the preliminary interview. . . .
The examiner found that [Kimberlin] used “deceitful maneuvers to hide his ability to pay” and that his “relatives and friends are obviously acting to help him by filing claims and liens to protect his money and property from being available to satisfy the victim’s judgment.” The examiner further found that the “evidence against [Kimberlin] was provided by the subject himself,” and that at no time did [Kimberlin] “indicate any concern or empathy for the victim.” Finally, the examiner found that [Kimberlin’s] settlement offers were not undertaken in good faith; concluded that [Kimberlin] had resisted parole supervision by Officer Ramsburg “in every way he can,” and recommended revocation of parole with a presumptive parole date of two years. . . . [Kimberlin] was taken into custody at the conclusion of the hearing.

You really ought to read the whole thing. Brett Kimberlin’s claim that he is a victim of defamation is certainly amusing. Perhaps Brett’s prison buddy Darrell Rice will testify as a character witness.

 

BomberSuesBloggers.com

 




 

Bill Schmalfeldt’s Clown Show, and a Certain Dog That Has Not Barked

Posted on Comments

That is Bill Schmalfeldt’s clumsy summary of certain allegations made by Brett Kimberlin in the Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., but Schmalfeldt doesn’t say this, does he? No, he cites no source for these claims, but merely repeats them as if they were statements of fact, which can be dangerous. Is the irony here intentional? John Hoge doesn’t seem to care for ironic interpretations:

That tweet accuses Aaron Walker and me of stealing money. Theft is a crime. If Bill Schmalfeldt has evidence that I have stolen money, he should give that information to law enforcement. If he doesn’t, he would be well advised to publish a retraction.
That tweet accuses Aaron Walker and me of attempting to force someone to commit perjury. That is a crime also. If Bill Schmalfeldt has evidence that I have attempted to force someone to commit perjury, he should give that information to law enforcement. If he doesn’t, he would be well advised to publish a retraction.
Very soon.

It’s an odd thing: Brett Kimberlin can allege any damned thing he wants in a lawsuit without any risk that a false allegation would be deemed libelous, even while his Maryland suit would seem to rest on his claim that persons reporting on legal actions against Kimberlin thereby commit defamation, harassment, stalking, etc.

Meanwhile, ignoring Kimberlin’s own unusual theory of defamation, Schmalfeldt treats the allegations made in Kimberlin’s legal actions as if they were gospel truth, and without any apparent fear that Hoge or Walker might sue for defamation.

There is a problem, however, which any reader of Sherlock Holmes mysteries would recognize as the dog that did not bark.

As Hoge says, perjury and subornation of perjury are both criminal offenses — not civil torts — and if the sworn statements which Tetyana Kimberlin made in her criminal complaint of July 29 were deliberate falsehoods, why isn’t the state of Maryland prosecuting Brett Kimberlin’s wife for the crime of perjury? Furthermore, if one believes Brett Kimberlin’s claim that Hoge and Aaron Walker somehow influenced Tetyana to make statements which Hoge and Walker knew to be false, why is the state of Maryland not prosecuting them for that crime?

In case you have forgotten the charge in this alleged effort “to force Tonya Kimberlin to perjure herself,” of which Bill Schmalfeldt wishes to remind his readers, here is the July 29 complaint:

Charges State v Kimberlin (Redacted)

The charge was subsequently dropped, for reasons that were never fully explained to me. However, the only people who accuse Tetyana Kimberlin of having perjured herself are (a) Brett Kimberlin, and (b) Bill Schmalfeldt, although for some reason neither of them seems interested in a criminal prosecution of that case.

What we have instead is a $1 million civil suit, in which I am named as a defendant because . . . Well, why do you think this is?

Bill Schmalfeldt says I am dragging Tetyana Kimberlin “through the mud once more,” but he’s the one accusing her of perjury! And it was Bill Schmalfeldt who recently raised the subject of how, he says, Tetyana was enticed “to run off with a PIZZA BOY!”

So if I quote Bill Schmalfeldt, I’m defaming Tetyana?

The rule seems to be that Bill Schmalfeldt can write anything he wants about anyone and never suffer consequences, but if you dare quote him, you’ve committed a hateful atrocity. Whatever.

Here is an allegation from the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit:

What I find interesting about this allegation is that it involves only Walker and Hoge. I have never filed a civil suit, a peace order or a criminal charge against Brett Kimberlin and yet find myself a defendant in this lawsuit. It seems to be Kimberlin’s theory that I have somehow conspired with Walker and Hoge in these “false, malicious filings” from which they have allegedly “enrich[ed] themselves.”

Kimberlin’s conspiracy theory is false, and if either Hoge or Walker have been enriching themselves, they’ve managed to keep it a secret from me. Certainly, I’ve never seen them cruising around in Ferraris or lighting their Cohibas with $100 bills. Meanwhile, however, Bill Schmalfeldt has doubled down on stupid, making more unsourced accusations against Walker, Hoge and Ali Akbar.

Save some of those Cohibas for me, you guys.

 

BOMBER SUES BLOGGERS





 

Bill Schmalfeldt’s Poor Judgment

Posted on Comments

Kimberlin Unmasked called attention to a bizarre recent post in which Bill Schmalfeldt indulged in a violent revenge fantasy:

If two shitheads like Aaron Walker and John Hoge did what they did to Tetyana Kimberlin, they would have been visited at their homes by the Schmalfeldt brothers. It would have been one on one, with fists, and it would not be pretty. The three brothers would have stood by while I gave the shithead the beating of his life. Then, we would go to the other shithead’s house and repeat, lather, rinse and repeat.

That snippet inspired me to investigate further, and I discovered this weird interpretation of events by Schmalfeldt (no link):

To come between a man and his wife, to work SO HARD to entice the wife into leaving her husband and run off with a PIZZA BOY! To EXCUSE his theft of a car. To PAY HER LEGAL FEES as long as she tells the lies they wanted her to tell. I thank God that she came to her senses.  . . .
You fucked with a man’s family, boys. You did it, and there’s no denying it. Tonya spilled the beans. And when you couldn’t have HER lie for you, you just went ahead and lied on your own.

It would appear that Bill Schmalfeldt is relying on Brett Kimberlin’s version of events for this counterfactual narrative, which can be disproven quite easily. No one had to “entice” Tetyana Kimberlin to “run off with a PIZZA BOY” — why all-caps, Bill? — because she did that before Aaron Walker or John Hoge ever met her. You can read this from the court documents filed by Brett Kimberlin, Tetyana Kimberlin and Tetyana’s boyfriend Jay Elliott:

B. Kimberlin v. Elliot Petition for Peace Order 7.9.13 (OCR) by AaronWorthing

Elliot v. B. Kimberlin Petition for Peace Order 7.9.13 (OCR) by AaronWorthing

T. Kimberlin v. B. Kimberlin Petition for Protective Order 7.9.13 (OCR) by AaronWorthing

All of these documents were filed by the parties themselves, without any influence by Walker, Hoge or anyone else.

Schmalfeldt’s belief in Brett Kimberlin’s assertions to the contrary — which are the burden of the million-dollar Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. — evidences a foolish trust in Brett Kimberlin. And as to Schmalfeldt’s claim that Tetyana “spilled the beans,” what does Schmalfeldt mean by this? Does he mean (as I suspect) that he is relying on hearsay from Brett Kimberlin?

Does Bill Schmalfeldt even bother to paying attention to facts to determine the sequence of events? Look here:

  1. Brett Kimberlin v. Jay Elliot — filed July 6.
  2. Jay Elliott v. Brett Kimberlin — filed July 7.
  3. Tetyana Kimberlin v. Brett Kimberlin — filed July 7.

In other words, Brett Kimberlin himself started this, by filing a petition for a peace order against Tetyana’s boyfriend. It was Brett Kimberlin who decided to make his wife’s estrangement a matter of public record. Jay and Tetyana then responded the next day to Brett’s court action, and all of this took place July 6-7.

As to what happened after that, I suppose Bill Schmalfeldt is relying on the false allegations in Brett Kimberlin’s lawsuit and/or misrepresentations of Tetyana’s words and actions that Brett makes during “Team Kimberlin” conversations with Schmalfeldt.

Here’s a tiny little clue for Bill Schmalfeldt: I take notes.

Your ridiculous threats and phony expressions of chivalrous umbrage on behalf of Tetyana Kimberlin — a person whom you were quite willing to defame as mentally ill in July — neither deceive me nor intimidate me, Bill Schmalfeldt, and your poor judgment in trusting Brett Kimberlin is further proof that you are an utter fool.

As if further proof were needed . . .

 

Motions, Motions, Motions — Judge Grants Brett Kimberlin a Delay

Posted on Comments

Rather than subject you to the tedium of every motion filed in Brett Kimberlin’s two lawsuits — the Maryland suit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., and the federal RICO suit John Hoge has dubbed Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al. — I’ve opted for occasionally updating you on the process. Most recently (and quite hysterically) Kimberlin filed a motion in the federal case complaining that some of the defendants, in responding with motions to dismiss, were conspiring to ruin his holidays by filing motions to which the rules required him to respond in late December and early January. This was just an outrageous lie, and Kimberlin had the unspeakable effrontery, in making that claim, to name me as part of this non-existent conspiracy when (as he damned well knows) he hasn’t even served me yet in the federal case, and I have therefore not yet filed any motions at all in that case.

My co-defendants John Hoge, Aaron Walker and DB Capital Strategies all replied to Kimberlin’s preposterous claim for a two-month delay (until Feb. 28). However, it appears from a letter the judge in the case issued Monday that he didn’t see either Hoge’s or Walker’s replies. At any rate, this part of the judge’s letter granting an 18-day extension (until Jan. 17) seemed to me rather interesting:

The bloated buffoon Bill Schmalfedlt was huffing and puffing on Twitter about what a huge victory this is for Brett Kimberlin, when obviously it is nothing of the sort. The delay granted is 41 days less than Kimberlin sought, and the judge pretty much puts him on notice: “Cut out your shenanigans and get in line.”

Kimberlin has no plausible excuse for having served only a few of the defendants in his RICO suit against 20 different parties, and certainly he can’t claim that I have avoided service, as I showed up at a hearing in his Maryland lawsuit in November. All he would have had to do was to hand a copy of the federal suit to the Maryland bailiff and had the bailiff serve me. There will be another hearing Jan. 13 in the Maryland case that I also plan to attend, so I suppose Kimberlin can serve me then, if he wishes to save money on postage.

At some point (and I hope we reach this point sooner rather than later), Kimberlin’s litigation will collapse under the weight of its own demonstrable falsity, and everything that transpires between now and then is just prelude to the predictable finale.

 

BomberSuesBloggers.com