The Pro Se Pipsqueak’s astonishing arrogance:
ECF 113–BK Letter Insulting Judge Grimm
Now, there is a fairly complicated story behind all this — you can read my post last night to catch up on the latest in the perjuring bomber’s bizarre RICO lawsuit, which John Hoge has dubbed Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al. — but there was a lot of confusion after Judge Grimm issued his Feb. 21 letter order in the case. The judge clarified the situation in another letter order last week, and how does Brett Kimberlin react? He insults the judge, as Aaron Walker explains:
In any case, it was a trivial typo given that both dates had passed and it was dishonest of Brett to pretend that this was like a fabricated quote, or something.
And it was more than dishonest. It gave the judge a first-hand taste of how Brett twists facts. Often Brett will take something with a kernel of legitimacy and twist it into something it was not. For instance, Seth Allen really did write in an email “maybe I should murder him” (meaning Brett). That was legitimately wrong and Mandy Nagy was right to report him to the police. But Brett just twisted it first into a threat (it’s not a threat if you don’t communicate to the target) and then complaining that Patrick and I didn’t report it to the police even though Mandy told us she was going to do that, and then told us after she did it. Why would we need to call the police when we know someone else was doing it? So there is a kernel of legitimacy there, but it is all twisted around.
And now Judge Grimm is seeing first-hand how Brett does that.
Thanks to Stephen Sheiko for pointing out that Judge Grimm’s March 5 Case Management Order made the situation clear:
What Judge Grimm has witnessed is what we have been dealing with for months, namely Brett Kimberlin’s sociopathic dishonesty:
[A] plaintiff who was described in 1999 by Slate as “the convicted bomber, habitual liar, and all-around sociopath who claimed to have sold drugs to Dan Quayle.” . . .
Brett Kimberlin . . . was notorious as a liar before I ever wrote one word about him.
“. . . a world-class liar . . .”
— Amazon.com
“. . . a top-flight con man . . .”
— Publisher’s Weekly
“. . . a man whose idea of the truth is utterly malleable
. . . a dangerous smooth talker . . .”
— Kirkus Reviews
Kimberlin’s habitual dishonesty is arguably his most notable personality trait, as abundantly demonstrated in this case. Here are two paragraphs from his Second Amended Complaint:
What Brett Kimberlin is actually arguing here is that once he sues somebody, they’re supposed to shut up and not even mention that they have been sued by him. You cannot even publicly proclaim your innocence or offer evidence in your defense. As for the March 1 post cited by Kimberlin in Paragraph 138, go read it yourself: “Kevin Zeese, Neal Rauhauser and the ‘Occupy Infiltrator’ Frame-Up.” Is this a defamatory “attack” on Brett Kimberlin? Have I falsely “imputed” anything that is not reasonably construed from available evidence?
Of course I haven’t, and even if Judge Grimm doesn’t dismiss Kimberlin’s suit in its preliminary stages, there is zero chance that Kimberlin could prove I have “defamed” him, because I haven’t. This explains why I haven’t been bothering Judge Grimm with any filings in this case, other than a brief Motion to Dismiss. First, and most obviously, I believe that my co-defendants and their lawyers have already pointed out fatal flaws in Kimberlin’s suit, so that it is likely to be dismissed anyway. Second, I know I’m innocent — truth is the ultimate defense. And third, as a pro se defendant, I have hesitated to file anything for fear I’d make some rookie error that would cause Judge Grimm to strike my filing or deny my motion, and thus inadvertently provide Kimberlin’s admirers like Bill Schmalfeldt cause to gloat. Ultimately, of course, I know how this story ends: I win, and Kimberlin loses. But I won’t give Schmalfeldt & Co. even a moment of transitory satisfaction in the meantime.
John Hoge has filed his motion in opposition to Kimberlin’s Second Amended Complaint, pointing out a few of Kimberlin’s egregious violations of Local Rule 103.6.
UPDATE: Aaron Walker’s opposition to the motion to amend:
Opposition to Leave to Amend (SAC)02 Redacted
He cites more than two dozen violations of Local Rule 103.6, which Judge Grimm specifically admonished Kimberlin to observe.
, a novella that sometimes seems nightmarish in its inversion of all the honorable and glorious tropes that made the Bolo stories what they were. Let Colonel Kratman introduce you to Maggie, a Ratha reviewing her long career shortly before its end…or a new beginning.