The Other McCain

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

‘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