The Other McCain

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

‘Snools Rule’: Mary Daly and the Radical Feminist School of Atrocious Writing

Posted on | March 15, 2014 | 93 Comments

Mary Daly (October 16, 1928 – January 3, 2010) was an American radical feminist philosopher, academic, and theologian. Daly, who described herself as a “radical lesbian feminist”, taught at Boston College, a Jesuit-run institution, for 33 years. Daly retired in 1999, after violating university policy by refusing to allow male students in her advanced women’s studies classes. . . .
— Wikipedia

In one of the deranged rants by anti-PIV feminist Radical Wind quoted here previously, this sentence occurs:

Women’s situation is more complex since we are oppressed by all the different classes of men who are the originators and subjects of patriarchal snooldom.

“Snooldom”? I noticed that, but figured it was a made-up nonsense word. My guess was that the writer had one of those word-blank moments, but rather than stop and look up the word she wanted, just wrote “snooldom” in the draft with the intention to go back and insert the desired noun later in editing, which she subsequently neglected to do.

My guess was wrong, however. “Snooldom” was coined by Mary Daly in her 1984 book, Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy:

Given these conditions of Stag-Nation, Elemental Shrews and Furies urgently experience the need for Re-Naming/Re-Claiming our stolen Flames, undoing the promethean theft of Fire, retrieving our ravaged desire.
The would-be preventers of this retrieval of gynergy, the ghosts/ghouls that want our movement dead, are snools. The noun snool (Scottish) means “a cringing person”. It means also “a tame, abject, or mean-spirited person” (OED). In sadosociety, snools rule, and snools are the rule. . . . Snools are sadism and masochism combined, the stereotypic saints and heroes of the sadostate. . . .
Snools appear and re-appear in various forms. . . . Among the henchmen required for the smooth operation of fixocracy are the cocks, danglers, pricks, and flashers who keep girls and women intimidated. Necessary also are the fakes, framers, frauds and hucksters whose job is to manufacture and spread delusions. Heavier work is assumed by rakes, hacks, rippers and plug-uglies. . . .
Such, then, are the rulers/snoolers of snooldom, the place/time where the air is filled with the crowing of cocks, the joking of jocks, the droning of clones, the sniveling of snookers and snudges, the noisy parades and processions of prickers. Such is cockocracy/jockocracy, the State of supranational, supernatural erections. . . .

What is this nonsense? It resembles the “word salad” of schizophrenics, and any reader can be forgiven for suspecting that Mary Daly was one of the first feminists to discover that Women’s Studies is a license to steal: Get yourself a tenured professorship, find a publisher, submit a 300-page manuscript crammed with absurdities, and nobody cares!

Any book published by a tenured Women’s Studies professor is automatically profitable, because she will assign it to her students, it will be favorably reviewed in feminist journals, all university libraries will order a copy, and with any luck, the book will be added to the syllabus in other Women’s Studies departments. The author will sell copies at book signings in lesbian bookstores and, if it gets any media attention at all — even an hour on C-SPAN’s “Booknotes” — you’re guaranteed to sell 5,000-10,000 copies this way.

Years ago, when I worked at The Washington Times, I acquired quite a collection of feminist books from the “discard” table where editors of the book-review section left the books they didn’t want to keep. One of those feminist tomes was Mary Daly’s 1998 book, Quintessence… Realizing the Archaic Future: A Radical Elemental Feminist Manifesto. There are no words strong enough to describe how unspeakably wretched this book is. In this, however, it does not differ from anything else Mary Daly ever wrote. One of the few serious attempts to analyze Daly’s weird gibberish was Mary F. Rousseau’s review of Pure Lust, which included this:

The book is an instance of what it seems to recommend — new perceptions and judgments, expressed in a new language. It seems indeed, to be its author’s self-portrait. . . .
But the operative word is seems. For after a careful reading of more than 400 pages of Joycean word-play, this reviewer remains unsure of several of its main points. Words which have several different meanings are used in all of their meanings at once, often with intricate efforts to link all of the meanings of a word to the agenda of radical feminism. As often as not, entirely new meanings are assigned to words and new words are coined.

Applying the phrase “Joycean word-play” to Mary Daly’s writing involves an unnecessary insult to James Joyce. It is more apt to compare Daly to the “Beat” writers of the 1950s and ’60s, Jack Kerouac or Allen Ginsberg, except that their bohemian rebellion against bourgeois convention did not presume to represent a philosophy or political ideology. Daly’s method can only be explained as an expression of Sloth, Greed and Pride — having once become known as a “feminist author,” after publishing The Church and the Second Sex in the radical year 1968, she had found her market niche, which she felt obligated to continue exploiting with a new book every five years or so thereafter. However, her paucity of ideas and her unwillingness to do actual research led Daly to the crucial insight that consumers of radical feminist books didn’t really care about facts or logic or coherent argument. No, the feminist readership consists of disgruntled misfits who want someone to give voice to their inchoate rage.

My theory, then, is that Mary Daly discovered she could write books by spending a few hours a week sitting in front of a word-processor, probably with a supply of whiskey and ice near at hand, typing any kind of stream-of-consciousness nonsense that popped into her head. So long as her rants were aimed at the phallocratic patriarchy, and invoked the celebration of radical liberated womanhood, the incoherent nature of Daly’s prose was actually a feature, not bug. No one could refute her “arguments,” because no one could make sense of them.

And if any critic dared to point out the obvious truth — that Mary Daly was just an ugly woman whose anger toward men involved a large measure of sour-grapes rationalization — well, MISOGYNIST!

As a racket, then, radical feminism is a perfect hustle for any lazy writer fortunate enough to obtain an academic sinecure. As a philosophy that presumes to explain how the world operates, however, it is a useless dead end, a one-way ticket to Bedlam.

Regular readers will therefore not be surprised to learn that anti-PIV fanatic Radical Wind is a major Mary Daly fangirl:

Women by contrast are dispossessed from all the words necessary to name and therefore conceive of our condition — this is one of men’s most deadly weapons against women’s liberation. As Mary Daly says, “Women have had the power of naming stolen from us. We have not been free to use our own power to name ourselves, the world, or God.” (Beyond God the Father: Towards a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (1973), p.8). Radical feminists are cursed with this invisible distorting lens, men’s false reality separating us from the world and from ourselves, the meaning of our words doomed to never reach our recipients — we may repeat the truth of the atrocities again and again but so erased and reverted is our reality that even to get women to glimpse a modicum of men’s oppression and understand that men’s violence against us is not a victimless crime, may take years.

In other words, if feminist arguments don’t make sense, if they fail to persuade women that they are victims of oppression, this is not the fault of feminists. No, blame the patriarchy, which “dispossessed” women of the language they need to describe their “condition.”

Radical Wind repeatedly invokes Mary Daly as an authority:

[I]f we talk of popularity in terms of numbers, it isn’t difficult to see that the vast majority of women in the radical feminist community, especially those who have written and influenced current feminism, are not male-essentialist. As bloggers and regular commenters, including those who left, we’re just a handful, probably around 8-9 women, and the only published essentialist writers I know of are Mary Daly and Sonia Johnson. That’s two. Sonia Johnson, who in order to have her work published uncensored, self-publishes, and Mary Daly, whose immense philosophical work is often discounted as merely spiritual, and her essentialism is rarely if ever discussed seriously in radfem work.
— Jan. 29, 2014

I’ve finally figured something out. That we’re not supposed to be angry against women, as in, our anger against women is purely manufactured by men. And if we are angry, we’re angry against the male colonisation in her, not really her, though what happens is that we confuse it with the woman and hit on her instead.
This ‘embedded maleness’ or ‘incarnate male presence’ as Mary Daly called it, are insidious male ideologies that men have hammered into our psyche, like an anti-personnel landmine fastened inside us which explodes in contact of other women, so that women turn against us, instead of turning against men and feeling sorry or compassion for the pitiable state that men have put us in.
— Dec. 18, 2013

As Mary Daly says in Pure Lust, apparent microshifts in consciousness have the power to bring macrochanges in our reality, in women’s world and possibly the universe. The power yielded by moving ourselves and other women along with us is incredible. This is what I understand by the physics, or metaphysics of liberation — meta because it isn’t just a physical process, it transcends the physical realm. It reunites our male-fragmented parts and reintegrates ourselves to natural life movement.
— Oct. 16, 2013

Men have made science to be full of endnotes, dead-talk, lies and boredom. I will never thank Mary Daly enough for coining the word “academentia”. They are not interested in the truth, but interested in concocting fake evidence to support their lies and propaganda against women, to legitimise their totalitarian regime and political agenda of destroying the universe. . . .
One thing I’ve noticed is that one reason why writing felt so much like a chore is that the process was separated from the ends. Men focus everything on an end product, which is a dead object, a finished object, a square frame. It is very much based on ejaculation, or perhaps male notion of extinction. I read that from Mary Daly in Gynecology more than a year ago and she formulated this in a way I hadn’t really found words for. It’s not living work. University essay-writing was all about deadlines, dead ends. This is deeply alienating.
— April 13, 2013

So, science is a male conspiracy, “concocting fake evidence . . . against women,” as part of a “political agenda of destroying the universe,” and if women find writing a chore, this is because the idea of writing as a “finished object” is “based on ejaculation.”

Unnngh. Unnngh. Unnngh.

There — I’ve finished. Was it good for you? Now, fix me a sandwich.

 

Category: Feminism

Feminists and Their Vaginas; Also, Guess Who’s Talking About ‘Forced Procreation’?

Posted on | March 15, 2014 | 90 Comments

Last night I teased this at the end of a post about two “empowered” feminists and their podcast about the men they’ve had sex with.

At Huffington Post, author Jenny Block wrote a column with the headline, “My Vagina Doesn’t Smell Like Shame“:

So, I’m going to just put this out there loud and proud. I love my pussy. I love her. And my lovers love her.
She looks like a pussy and smells like a pussy and she’s perfect in every way.

Do you want to read the whole thing? It’s 31 flavors of crazy, and was written in reaction to an even crazier column at Jezebel:

I know that every woman smells unique. I know that good and bad is simply a judgement. No. My fear is that he might be indoctrinated by the same system I am struggling to escape. And if I see my own insecurity mirrored in his eyes, I will feel once again the humiliation that I felt growing up. The humiliation of having a vagina and knowing that others know I have a vagina. Blood is evidence I have a vagina. Discharge is evidence I have a vagina. Camel Toe is evidence I have a vagina. And perhaps most insidious of all; smell is evidence … that I have a vagina.
My vagina smells like shame. Rancid and sickly. SHAME.
Since educating myself through my own personal project The Vagina Times, I’ve discovered so much about our systemic culture of shame which has prompted women to mutilate, bleach and douche their genitals to eliminate their natural shape, colour and smell. It’s truly heartbreaking. Because shame stems from someone else’s emotional repression. And their beliefs become internalized until we perpetuate them and shame our daughters.

Sure, you want to read that whole thing, too, because you haven’t yet been convinced that feminism is a psychiatric disorder.

Guys, try to resist any urge you may have to write a column, “My Scrotum Is Made of 100% Pure Awesomeness.” The Huffington Post isn’t interested, and you’ll only embarrass yourself.

Speaking of embarrassment, remember Radical Wind of “PIV is always rape, OK?” fame? Well, she’s been busy lately, cranking out more of her uniquely crazy feminist gibberish:

All forms of domination stem from and serve this purpose of maintaining men’s sexual access to women, globally: it is the first and final cause. There is no system separate from patriarchy because men are the sole rulers everywhere on the planet, and their tyranny is always and inherently sex-based, based on their sexual domination over women. Power-over is phallic and male, and men treat subordination as female and receptacle-shaped. . . . Being male, holding the rape-weapon between their legs, is what grants status in patriarchy, power to oppress and the privilege of being considered a subject. That is because at the very basic level, their oppressive power is both achieved and maintained with the use of their penis-weapon, through the raping, impregnation, capture and domestication of women globally.

Did I mention her feminist gibberish is uniquely crazy?

Women’s situation is more complex since we are oppressed by all the different classes of men who are the originators and subjects of patriarchal snooldom. They are the rapists. The multiple violations men put some women into serve a completely different purpose than men’s own class divides — or put in another way, both serve only one class interest: male supremacy. Racism, classism and division of labour between men strengthens men’s global rapist apparatus against women, while from women’s perspective it is a male divide-and-conquer tactic to reinforce our sexual subordination to men. . . .

(The “global rapist apparatus”? Please, tell us more!)

From men’s perspective, racism and classism is what provides male corporations with a continued flow of desperate, pliable male workers to exploit, who seek to escape the misery of their colonised country or impoverished region. It serves a capitalist and patriarchal interest because it supports the accumulation of wealth of a minority of men, which overall strengthens the patriarchal system. When we look at women, racism is what will provide all men with a continued flow of desperate, pliable women to be prostituted, raped and exploited in female subservient tasks. In this sense racism and classism benefits all men as it increases their ability to rape more women. Not to mention that all male economies are largely driven by trafficking in women, pimping, pornography and theft of women’s domestic work. . . .

(Isn’t the patriarchy amazing? It supplies us “with a continued flow of desperate, pliable women.” Just don’t tell my wife, OK?)

Groomed exclusively for breeding, married women are held captive in the man’s home and are either abducted, sold by the father or, more recently, manipulated or “seduced” into marriage and hetero-imprisonment. Her basic function will be to breed children until she dies from it, and if she doesn’t die after she has accomplished this horrific function, she may be killed, left to starve, or she will be used for domestic chores or to surveil other women’s children, or re-marry. If she’s lucky enough, she might be able to reduce the number of birthed children, survive her husband and enjoy slight freedom as a widow or spinster in the remaining years of her life.
Married women are evenly spread out across all male classes, nations and ethnic groups. All men of all groups conscript a majority of their daughters to marriage and forced procreation. All married women will be raped, forcibly impregnated and tortured to varying degrees according to the whim of their owner and more generally, according to the misogynistic customs of his male group. . . .

OK, that’s enough “hetero-imprisonment”/”forced procreation” paranoia, although she rants on for many more turgid paragraphs, ending with the promise that her next post “will focus on what it does when men inflict different degrees of violence between women.”

We can’t wait.

 

Category: Feminism

VIDEO: Harry Reid’s Koch Rant

Posted on | March 15, 2014 | 14 Comments

In a Senate floor speech Thursday, the Senate Majority Leader used the word “radical” 21 times in attacking the Left’s bogeymen:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday accused Republicans of holding up crucial assistance to Ukraine in order to protect the Koch brothers.
Reid tied the billionaire brothers who have bankrolled conservative causes to GOP demands that language delaying the Internal Revenue Service’s regulation of non-profit political advocacy groups be added to the Ukraine package. . . .
“It’s hard for me to comprehend how with a clear conscience they could say, ‘Ukrainians, we probably can’t help you because we’re trying to protect the Koch brothers,’” he said on Thursday. “And not only that, they’re saying to the American people that protecting the Koch brothers is more important than helping our country.”

 

Of the top 10 political contributors for the 2014 campaign cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, five represent Big Labor: The National Education Association (#2), the Carpenters and Joiners Union (#4), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (#5), AFL-CIO (#6) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (#10). Combined with the #1 donor — the Democratic Governors Association — these groups have contributed $21,717,266 to Democrats so far. By comparison, Koch Industries (#45) has spent $963,250, according to the same source.

So what’s with the Koch obsession? Allahpundit professed that he was mystified, but as Chris Good of ABC News explained, the Kochs are believed to have contributed to the Americans for Prosperity TV ad campaign targeting vulnerable Senate Democrats for their ObamaCare votes. I say the Kochs are “believed” to have done this because AFP is a 501(c)4 group and, as such, isn’t required to make its donors public. This drives Democrats nuts, because . . . well, because Democrats hate free speech, I guess.

Anyway, what Harry Reid and the other Koch-mongering Democrats are doing is (a) trying to justify the administration’s crackdown on 501(c)4 groups, (b) hoping to fire up Democrat donors, (c) seeking media sympathy, and (d) trying to establish a narrative that the reason they’re about to get their asses kicked in the mid-terms is because of “shadowy” right-wing mega-funders.

It’s an excuse, in other words — a scapegoat rationalization intended to shift the blame for Democrat political failures onto pre-demonized right-wing villains, so that when Republicans take over the Senate after the 2014 elections, Democrats can claim they were cheated, and assert that the new GOP majority is illegitimate.

 

Category: Harry Reid

Two Sluts Do ‘Empowering’ Podcast

Posted on | March 14, 2014 | 52 Comments

The headline at progressive blog Alternet:

“Guys We Fucked:” The Anti Slut-Shaming
Podcast That Everyone’s Talking About

Everybody is talking about this? Really? It’s a podcast, for crying out loud. But never mind that. Here’s the background:

Corinne Fisher and Krystyna Hutchinson have had a lot of sex — and they’re not afraid to talk about it.
After Fisher went through a rough breakup, the two New York-based stand-up comedians, both in their mid-20s, decided to pool their collective un-shame about sex and create a podcast in which they interviewed men they’d slept with. The first episode of “Guys We F**ked, The Anti Slut-Shaming Podcast” was released in December. Since then, their audience has grown quickly, and the show now has over 200,000 subscribers on SoundCloud.
“We’re saying, have a lot of sex and be proud of it,” Hutchinson explains at the beginning of the debut episode.

Here’s Fisher:

I was going through a really tough breakup and I was trying to think of different ways I could better myself as a human being. I had this John Cusack-like idea that if I went back and talked to different people I had slept with or had relationships with, I could figure out if I was doing something wrong. That progressed into Krystyna and I making it into something a little more empowering and a little less personal.

Here’s Hutchinson:

Hate stems from fear and I think [people who engage in “slut-shaming” are] just afraid of a woman who is empowered and sexually in charge and in control of her own body. And I also think that some people were raised to feel this way because the people in their lives didn’t have a positive attitude towards women, and they don’t realize that it’s messed up.

How many reiterations of this claim — that men who disapprove of promiscuity are afraid of “empowered” women — must we endure, before the voice of reason gets a chance to interrupt?

If sex is merely a source of recreational pleasure — always this, and never anything more — then the only argument against promiscuity is the risk of venereal disease or unwanted pregnancy. As serious as those risks may be, the stronger argument against promiscuity requires us to understand sex in its natural function, as the means of prcreation, in the context of discussing the need to form enduring pair-bonds to provide secure upbringing for children.

Promiscuous people become habituated to having a variety of sexual partners, beginning and ending “relationships” as soon as they or their partner get bored with it. A person in their 20s who has been sexually active since their mid-teens, who has gone through a half-dozen “relationships,” as well as a number of casual short-term “hook-ups,” will have difficulty adjusting to married life, because the habit of continually seeking new partners is ingrained in their personality.

So a promiscuous person — however desirable they may be as a partner for recreational sex — is undesirable as a spouse, because of the likelihood that they will be adulterous. A guy doesn’t want to marry a slut because he figures she’ll become bored with monogamy and cheat on him. The prospect of marriage to such a woman entails a high risk that the unlucky guy’s future will include child-support payments and weekend visitation. Married women — and single women who would like to get married — disdain sluts because promiscuous women make unencumbered sex readily available, thus reducing the incentives for men to get married and stay married.

The dignity of all women, and the security of their children, is impaired by the shameless promiscuity of sluts. Sure, “it takes two to tango,” and men are responsible for their own actions, but women whose behavior fosters an expectation of the easy availability of sexual “hook-ups” are harming other women’s prospects for happiness.

Corinne Fisher and Krystyna Hutchinson probably don’t discuss that perspective on “Guys We Fucked,” and I’ll also guess that amid all their chatter about how “empowering” it is to sleep around, they never discuss promiscuity as symptomatic of low self-esteem.

The correlation between promiscuity and emotional disorders is not random. You hear young single guys talking about this problem a lot: “Hey, I met this girl at a party and we hooked up right away. The sex was awesome at first, but we broke up after a couple of weeks because she turned out to be The Psycho Bitch From Hell.”

Gee, do you think that’s a coincidence?

Crazy women often have “issues” with substance abuse and difficulty maintaining relationships, so when you meet a drunk chick at a party or in a bar, and she’s eager to hook up with you, there is a non-zero chance that she’s The Psycho Bitch From Hell.

Women who use sex as a way of dealing with self-esteem problems usually wind up getting dumped by a series of users and losers, experiences that only reinforce their self-esteem deficits. They can talk all they want about how “empowered” they are. They’re not.

Feminism: The Ideology of Insanity.

 

Category: Feminism, Sex

Why Does Ezra Klein Hate Gays?

Posted on | March 14, 2014 | 91 Comments

It’s a silly question, but his fellow liberals are trying to tell Klein he can’t hire who he wants at Vox.com:

Hipster Homophobia: Ezra Klein’s Vox
hires Falwell-loving gay-bashing “gay”
— John Aravosis

Ezra Klein’s Queer New Hire
— American Prospect

Vox’s Unbelievably Terrible New Hire
— Slate

Since when did having the “correct” opinion about homosexuality become a necessary qualification for a reporter?

 

Category: Gays

Death at SXSW

Posted on | March 14, 2014 | 12 Comments

Madness:

Rashad Charjuan Owens, 21, the driver in a deadly downtown wreck who police suspected of driving drunk, will be charged with two counts of capital murder and 23 counts of aggravated assault with a vehicle after the car plowed through a crowded street full of people waiting for a South by Southwest concert, according to police.
An Austin woman riding on the back of a moped and a man from the Netherlands on a bicycle were killed when the car hit a crowd of people outside Mohawk. More than 20 others taken to the hospital.
The Travis County Medical Examiner’s Office said 27-year-old Jamie West of Austin was killed after Owens’ car slammed into a moped she was riding on.
According to a post on MassiveMusic.com, one of the victim’s was 35-year-old Steven Craenmehr. “This is an irreplaceable loss for the MassiveMusic family and we are grateful for the years we spent with him,” the statement said. Craenmehr was on a bicycle at the time of the crash.
Two people remained in critical condition, and three others had serious injuries and were being treated at area hospitals, Austin-Travis County EMS Chief of Staff James Shamard said.

Category: Crime

‘I’d Had Enough of the Insanity’

Posted on | March 13, 2014 | 77 Comments

Inside the madhouse of Kremlin-funded Russia Today:

Staci Bivens knew something was seriously wrong when her bosses at Russia Today asked her to put together a story alleging that Germany — Europe’s economic powerhouse — was a failed state.
“It was me and two managers and they had already discussed what they wanted,” Bivens, an American who worked in RT’s Moscow headquarters from 2009 through 2011, said of a meeting she’d had to discuss the segment before a planned reporting trip to Germany. “They called me in and it was really surreal. One of the managers said, ‘The story is that the West is failing, Germany is a failed state.’”
Bivens, who had spent time in Germany, told the managers the story wasn’t true — the term “failed state” is reserved for countries that fail to provide basic government services, like Somalia or Congo, not for economically advanced, industrialized nations like Germany. They insisted. Bivens refused. RT flew a crew to Germany ahead of Bivens, who was flown in later to do a few standups and interviews about racism in Germany. It was the beginning of the end of her RT career.
“At that point I’d been there for a little bit and I’d had enough of the insanity,” Bivens said. She stayed until the end of her contract in 2011 and didn’t make an effort to renew it.
Judging by interviews with seven former and current employees, Bivens’ story is typical. RT, the global English-language news network funded by the Russian government, has come into the spotlight since the Russian invasion of Crimea, which the network has defended tooth-and-nail. The invasion has led to two high-profile rebellions within the ranks: first, an on-air condemnation of the invasion by RT America host Abby Martin, followed days later by the live resignation of another host, Liz Wahl. Martin, who hosts an opinion show, said that Russia’s actions were wrong; Wahl, a news anchor, went one step further, saying that she could not work at a network that found Russia’s actions acceptable.
The public shake-up and skewed coverage of Ukraine has pulled aside RT’s curtain, exposing the network’s propaganda apparatus, which relies on a number of Western reporters and producers. . . .

Read the rest by Rosie Gray at BuzzFeed. (Yes, I know — everybody hates BuzzFeed, but this is a good story.)

 

Category: Media Bias, Russia

‘An Honest Mistake?’ Has Brett Kimberlin Ever Done Anything ‘Honest’ in His Life?

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:

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.

 

Category: The Kimberlin Files
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin