Patterico's Pontifications

9/4/2013

Brett Kimberlin Sues R.S. McCain, Aaron Walker, William Hoge, Ali Akbar, and “Kimberlin Unmasked”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:43 pm

The joint statement is at McCain’s blog and Hoge’s blog, and reads as follows:

Convicted felon Brett Kimberlin has filed a Maryland lawsuit naming bloggers Aaron Walker, W. J. J. Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain, National Bloggers Club President Ali A. Akbar and the anonymous blogger “Kimberlin Unmasked” as defendants.

The defendants believe that the suit is without merit and is part of Kimberlin’s continued effort to use lawfare to silence journalists and bloggers who have written about Kimberlin’s criminal past. The defendants will not be made available for comment until they have finished initial consultations their respective legal counsel.

Until a complaint is made public, only limited comment can be made. A search of court records reveals the complaint is for “DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, HARASSMENT, STALKING, CONSPIRACY, INVASION OF PRIVACY AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.” It sounds like “accuse the accusers” on steroids, doesn’t it?

It will be fascinating to see how Kimberlin tries to assert that his reputation has been damaged — given that he has been convicted of setting off multiple bombs, one of which blew off a man’s leg, causing him to commit suicide. Doesn’t that tend to harm one’s reputation quite a bit more than stuff said by bloggers on the Internet?

Anyway, I just made some donations. Consider doing the same.

UPDATE: Interesting. Hoge suggests that Kimberlin is upset at having been called a “pedophile.” Ken from Popehat offers this analysis in Hoge’s comments, which I will quote in full:

To put it in boring legal terms — which are now in play –

The statement “X is a pedophile” is not defamatory if it is true; only false statements are defamatory.

In addition, it cannot be defamatory if it is a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact. Whether or not a statement is opinion or fact depends on the context, and on whether the statement implies undisclosed facts. For instance, “I’ve reviewed Y’s tax returns and it is my opinion that he is an embezzler” implies undisclosed facts, and therefore can be defamatory even though it is couched as opinion. On the other hand “based on these two articles in the paper, Z is a thief” is classic opinion.

This can apply just as easily to a statement “X is a pedophile.” Consider Torain v. Liu, 279 Fed.Appx. 46 (2nd Cir. 2008). There the Second Circuit affirmed a summary judgment against a plaintiff who complained that the defendant called him a pedophile. The Second Circuit found that the circumstances showed that the statement was one of opinion based on disclosed facts:

“Having reviewed the statements in the overall context that they were made, see Brian, 87 N.Y.2d at 51, 637 N.Y.S.2d 347, 660 N.E.2d 1126, we conclude that a reasonable listener could not have believed that the statements were intended to convey objective facts. While Torain is correct that the term “pedophile” may be used in a way that has a precise meaning and that is capable of being proven true or false, see id., no reasonable listener could *47 have perceived Liu’s statements, in the context that they were made, to convey that Torain had committed acts of pedophilia. Rather, Liu was clearly expressing his disdain for Torain’s comments on the radio that he wanted to sexually abuse the four-year-old child of a rival disc jockey, using the term “pedophile” as an entirely warranted expression of opinion in view of the statements concerning the plaintiff’s intended conduct, statements which Liu does not dispute he made over the airwaves. Cf. Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 285, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974) (explaining that the use of the term “blackmail” to describe the plaintiff’s negotiating position was non-actionable because “even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered [the plaintiff’s] position extremely unreasonable”). Torain himself admits that his “war of words,” as he describes his remarks, received “extensive media coverage and commentary.” Compl. at ¶ 7. It is within this surrounding circumstance that we must examine Liu’s statements and how a reasonable listener would have perceived them.1 Thus, for example, when Liu described Torain as a “criminal” and as someone who “must be put behind bars,” a reasonable listener would have easily perceived that Liu was expressing his opinion that Torain should be imprisoned for his harassing on-the-air remarks, not for committing actual acts of pedophilia.2 In short, when examined in the context in which they were made, we conclude that none of Liu’s statements would “reasonably appear to state or imply assertions of objective fact.” Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 243, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906, 567 N.E.2d 1270 (1991).”

And that is merely the first case I found on Westlaw in about three minutes. I suspect there are more about the use of the word “pedophile” (or words to similar effect), and there are tons of cases about epithets like “crook” and “criminal” and “thief” and so on.

The context of your posts makes it clear that you are stating an opinion based on disclosed facts — namely, Kimberlin’s reported statements and the undisputed age of his wife at the time he married her. It will be very, very difficult for him to establish that your statements were ones of fact for purposes of defamation analysis.

I’m not 100% clear whether the age of Kimberlin’s wife at the time he married her is undisputed. I know that I saw documents making different claims about that point in various places. I doubt this lawsuit gets to discovery, but if it does, that’s obviously a point that will be fleshed out. If Kimberlin is truly suing for defamation for being called a pedophile, obviously any discovery would have to delve deep into any evidence regarding whether the accusation is true.

Barbra Streisand might have some advice for Kimberlin on this point. Maybe she could write him a note and attach it to one of those checks she sends him. (Does she still do that, I wonder?)

Anyway. This thing is not screaming “good judgment” or “legally meritorious” to me so far, which I have to admit does not particularly surprise me.

UPDATE x2: Instapundit with a typically incisive, one-line quote linking McCain: “BRETT KIMBERLIN’S PLAN TO AVOID UNWANTED INTERNET ATTENTION doesn’t seem very well thought-out.”

Heh, as they say. Indeed.

67 Responses to “Brett Kimberlin Sues R.S. McCain, Aaron Walker, William Hoge, Ali Akbar, and “Kimberlin Unmasked””

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. That and the perjury and drug trafficking, use/acquisition of counterfeit documents, boasting of forgery (see 95-125 of Citizen K), various pesterings and pursuits and/or romances of young girls (2-16)(328) not including the Russian teen (not, apparently, his wife) or Debbie Barton.

    Coupled with his wife’s own account of her situation, presented in open court, I’ll be interested to see what sort of character he believes he has to preserve.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  3. Who is it again that funds him? (No, I haven’t always paid the closest attention, just enough to know he is a convicted criminal and domestic terrorist). Even if he does a lot of his own legal work he needs to pay his bills.

    My own limited but all too real experience has shown that a claim can be totally without merit but you still have to defend it if your persecutor has the money to come after you. (at least in PA)

    I guess if one simply wants to be vindictive and not spend time, energy, and money raising a family, one has more disposable income.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  4. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted terrorist, a psychopath, and an overall terrible human being. And you should see his friends.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  5. OT, but the blaze has a story on your favorite man on the street… Greg Packer.

    Ghost (476943)

  6. Got a link for donations?

    Craig Mc (3b4553)

  7. Follow the links to McCain’s and Hoge’s blog and you’ll see tip jars. That’s where I went.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  8. Kimberlin might not have thought this through well…
    Discovery will be…interesting

    Unknown Simian (2ea904)

  9. Mdinphilly asked who funds kimberlin.
    His biggest donor has been Joie Evans Threshold foundtion. Check out their grants to jtmp and velvetrevolution fom 2006-2011
    Interestingly enough the org has yet to post their 2012 annual report

    Auntie fraud (6c3682)

  10. You’d think a guy who was sentenced to 50 well-deserved years in jail, and then had 4 more years quite rightly tacked on to that, would be grateful to be walking around free less than 33 years later. Even with the extra 4 years, he served barely a third of his original sentence.

    Dr. Weevil (318956)

  11. Kimberlin might not have thought this through well…
    Discovery will be…interesting

    Well . . . first, I doubt it will get that far. Second, based on his long history of dishonesty, starting with his perjury conviction and running through false statements he has made under oath in Maryland courts in the last couple of years, I would expect him to lie and stonewall in discovery.

    That said, depending on the allegations, the breadth of questions he could potentially be forced to answer about who he and his nonprofits pay, and for what? Yeah, that could be interesting indeed.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  12. I’ve seen speculation before, that, as plantiff, stonewalling on discovery is a good way to get a case dismissed with prejudice. Thus why discovery gets REALLY interesting if that is true

    Unknown Simian (2ea904)

  13. This is hilarious given how bad his other attempts at suing people – directly and by proxy – have gone.

    But he’s obviously flailing about in a panic as his wife’s divorce action warms up.

    SPQR (768505)

  14. Rauhauser says at his blog that this is the first of two civil actions by Kimberlin. And Rauhauser, Kimberlin’s self-described “associate,” should know.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  15. You can sue for Definition of Character?

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  16. Rauhauser still hiding from warrants?

    SPQR (768505)

  17. The pedophile is upset people are watching his divorce proceedings.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. The pedophile is upset people are watching his divorce proceedings.

    I think he’s more upset that people have noticed that apparent predilection and that his “non-profit” appears to be staffed with people who share his tastes.

    Rob Crawford (45d991)

  19. UPDATE: Interesting. Hoge suggests that Kimberlin is upset at having been called a “pedophile.” Ken from Popehat offers this analysis in Hoge’s comments, which I will quote in full:

    To put it in boring legal terms — which are now in play –

    The statement “X is a pedophile” is not defamatory if it is true; only false statements are defamatory.

    In addition, it cannot be defamatory if it is a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact. Whether or not a statement is opinion or fact depends on the context, and on whether the statement implies undisclosed facts. For instance, “I’ve reviewed Y’s tax returns and it is my opinion that he is an embezzler” implies undisclosed facts, and therefore can be defamatory even though it is couched as opinion. On the other hand “based on these two articles in the paper, Z is a thief” is classic opinion.

    This can apply just as easily to a statement “X is a pedophile.” Consider Torain v. Liu, 279 Fed.Appx. 46 (2nd Cir. 2008). There the Second Circuit affirmed a summary judgment against a plaintiff who complained that the defendant called him a pedophile. The Second Circuit found that the circumstances showed that the statement was one of opinion based on disclosed facts:

    “Having reviewed the statements in the overall context that they were made, see Brian, 87 N.Y.2d at 51, 637 N.Y.S.2d 347, 660 N.E.2d 1126, we conclude that a reasonable listener could not have believed that the statements were intended to convey objective facts. While Torain is correct that the term “pedophile” may be used in a way that has a precise meaning and that is capable of being proven true or false, see id., no reasonable listener could *47 have perceived Liu’s statements, in the context that they were made, to convey that Torain had committed acts of pedophilia. Rather, Liu was clearly expressing his disdain for Torain’s comments on the radio that he wanted to sexually abuse the four-year-old child of a rival disc jockey, using the term “pedophile” as an entirely warranted expression of opinion in view of the statements concerning the plaintiff’s intended conduct, statements which Liu does not dispute he made over the airwaves. Cf. Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 285, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974) (explaining that the use of the term “blackmail” to describe the plaintiff’s negotiating position was non-actionable because “even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered [the plaintiff’s] position extremely unreasonable”). Torain himself admits that his “war of words,” as he describes his remarks, received “extensive media coverage and commentary.” Compl. at ¶ 7. It is within this surrounding circumstance that we must examine Liu’s statements and how a reasonable listener would have perceived them.1 Thus, for example, when Liu described Torain as a “criminal” and as someone who “must be put behind bars,” a reasonable listener would have easily perceived that Liu was expressing his opinion that Torain should be imprisoned for his harassing on-the-air remarks, not for committing actual acts of pedophilia.2 In short, when examined in the context in which they were made, we conclude that none of Liu’s statements would “reasonably appear to state or imply assertions of objective fact.” Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 243, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906, 567 N.E.2d 1270 (1991).”

    And that is merely the first case I found on Westlaw in about three minutes. I suspect there are more about the use of the word “pedophile” (or words to similar effect), and there are tons of cases about epithets like “crook” and “criminal” and “thief” and so on.

    The context of your posts makes it clear that you are stating an opinion based on disclosed facts — namely, Kimberlin’s reported statements and the undisputed age of his wife at the time he married her. It will be very, very difficult for him to establish that your statements were ones of fact for purposes of defamation analysis.

    I’m not 100% clear whether the age of Kimberlin’s wife at the time he married her is undisputed. I know that I saw documents making different claims about that point in various places. I doubt this lawsuit gets to discovery, but if it does, that’s obviously a point that will be fleshed out. If Kimberlin is truly suing for defamation for being called a pedophile, obviously any discovery would have to delve deep into any evidence regarding whether the accusation is true.

    Barbra Streisand might have some advice for Kimberlin on this point. Maybe she could write him a note and attach it to one of those checks she sends him. (Does she still do that, I wonder?)

    Anyway. This thing is not screaming “good judgment” or “legally meritorious” to me so far, which I have to admit does not particularly surprise me.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  20. Barbra Streisand might have some advice for Kimberlin on this point. Maybe she could write him a note and attach it to one of those checks she sends him.

    bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    tears

    Dustin (303dca)

  21. Seriously. How has this guy not been audited yet?

    Auntie fraud (6c3682)

  22. Who runs the IRS now?

    narciso (3fec35)

  23. Patterico, I think Ken’s use of the adjective “undisputed” with respect to Ms. Kimberlin’s age was not itself really necessary to reach the conclusion he reaches. That there is some evidence of her age is enough disclosed facts for the analysis … IMO.

    Since his proxy suit against a certain blogger went south, not least because of certain rather incompetent examples of the left wing plaintiff’s bar, and because Kimberlin thinks he’s the smartest guy (like all sociopaths believe) then the answer is …. **drum roll** a pro se lawsuit by ACME Legal.

    Brilliant!

    SPQR (768505)

  24. Then again, since it is a Maryland lawsuit which the diminutive, perjurous, dope smuggling, bomber has filed, we know courtesy of Mr. Hoge’s litigation with the alleged pedophile that he is unable to testify on his own behalf in court, which would make matters interesting if the suit survived that long.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. Since his proxy suit against a certain blogger went south, not least because of certain rather incompetent examples of the left wing plaintiff’s bar

    The whole “misstating facts so badly that the judge’s ire was aroused” thing was perhaps some part of it as well.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  26. diminutive

    Accurate.

    perjur[i]ous

    Accurate.

    dope smuggling

    Accurate.

    bomber

    Accurate.

    Looks like you can draw up a pretty stirring indictment of the guy simply by stating accurate facts.

    How about that!

    Patterico (9c670f)

  27. I keep thinking about expressions of psychological projection.

    htom (412a17)

  28. I keep thinking about expressions of psychological projection.

    Dude. With this crowd, that is the name of the game. I often am able to guess what they are up to by looking at what they accuse ME of doing.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  29. i think this Kimberlin person is maybe a wee lil bit kind of a loser

    it’s just a gut reaction on my part and I don’t know all the facts but I just think there’s better things to do with your one God-given life than a lot of these things he expends energies on

    he should be more like that guy in Houston what sided his whole house in beer cans

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Can_House

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  30. UPDATE x2: Instapundit with a typically incisive, one-line quote linking McCain: “BRETT KIMBERLIN’S PLAN TO AVOID UNWANTED INTERNET ATTENTION doesn’t seem very well thought-out.”

    Heh, as they say. Indeed.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  31. wee lil bit kind of a loser

    And an evil psychopath. But sure. He can be a wee lil bit kind of a loser too.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  32. Mr. P I couch things a certain way cause glory be I don’t need a lawsuit

    I have so much left to do in life

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  33. I never even been to Chatsworth

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  34. ‘The whole “misstating facts so badly that the judge’s ire was aroused” thing was perhaps some part of it as well.’

    Yeah. I hate when opposing counsel does that. 😉

    SPQR (768505)

  35. happyfeet, I’ve been to Chatsworth. You have not missed much.

    SPQR (768505)

  36. Mr. P I couch things a certain way cause glory be I don’t need a lawsuit

    Bad luck, happyfeet. “Evil psychopath” is not genuinely actionable any more than “loser” is . . . but then, “genuinely actionable” doesn’t have much to do with whether Kimberlin actually sues you. You might say: “I don’t like Brett Kimberlin because he is a convicted bomber” and he might sue you anyway even though your statement is easily proven true . . . because maybe he wants to teach a lesson to anyone who dares speak the truth about him.

    So, I know you’re being funny and it’s churlish of me to respond to the cornpone stuff in a serious fashion, but:

    If you’re truly concerned about getting sued by Brett Kimberlin, maybe just say nothing about him at all. Or even give a little speech about what a fine fellow he is.

    That’s safest, for those who care about remaining safe above all else.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  37. I’ve heard that Mr. SPQR but nevertheless this Saturday I’m gonna get up and go and just take it all in

    they have a park there, and I’m sure they have other stuff too

    I need to google before I go

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  38. Mr. P as America becomes an increasingly fascist enterprise safety is paramount

    you have to maintain your own viability so you can take care of the people what are counting on you

    that means don’t get sued

    or audited

    or on anyone’s radar

    you have to hunker down until the dark night of fascism turns into a new dawn of hope

    this is what history teaches us

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  39. glory be I don’t need a lawsuit

    I will add: I thought much the same until I was sued.

    It turned out to be way less scary than I had imagined.

    (I know I am spoiled because not everybody can rely on having a Harvard Law educated genius to represent them for free. Still.)

    Speak the truth, be careful only to say things you can support, and things generally work out OK.

    For example: I can say that I think Brett Kimberlin is evil; that he is responsible for a good man’s death; that he is a convicted perjurer; that he is a scumbag; and all sorts of other things — and I can’t possibly be sued successfully.

    Sued? Sure. Any yutz can file a lawsuit.

    But sued successfully? Nah.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  40. Mr. P as America becomes an increasingly fascist enterprise safety is paramount

    you have to maintain your own viability so you can take care of the people what are counting on you

    that means don’t get sued

    or audited

    or on anyone’s radar

    you have to hunker down until the dark night of fascism turns into a new dawn of hope

    this is what history teaches us

    Then please. Don’t call Brett Kimberlin a loser.

    You are putting yourself at risk, you see.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  41. Speak the truth, be careful only to say things you can support, and things generally work out OK.

    I practice this all the time but I still mess up fairly often.

    You know that saying about how assertion monkey asserts?

    That’s so me.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  42. For the record – let me be clear – I did NOT call Mr. Kimberlin a loser – I said he was *maybe* a wee lil bit kind of a loser.

    And I was drunk when I said it.

    And also I haven’t eaten all day.

    Plus I’m not supposed to be up this late.

    Cause I’m 7.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  43. Oddly, I still feel as though being able to speak my mind, while being honest, truthful, and sincere, is a fundamental freedom.

    There are plenty on the left, the right, and the crazy libertarian axis who would love to take that away from me. Many of them contact my workplace to try to shut me up — from all three axes.

    But if I shut up in response, I would not be me. I would be some different person.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  44. Another thing I have learned is that people will lie about you. And you can’t spend your life refuting it.

    Once you have demonstrated what type of person your critic is, it’s often time to let it go. Especially with obsessive psychos.

    Which, again, exist on all three political axes.

    That leaves some soft-headed people who will fall for unrefuted bullshit from obvious trolls and liars.

    Those are not the people I want covering my back when the real fight comes.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  45. Final comment on this: if you have contacted my workplace to shut me up? You are fundamentally weak. No matter your politics.

    You know who you are. And there are PLENTY of you out there.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  46. I see what you mean but still I urge caution. In an even modestly competent fascist regime the “real fight” is a chimera mean to distract you from seeing how the real fight is the one you’re losing at present and in truth have been losing for many many moons.

    John Boehner in particular hearts the “the real fight is coming” meme.

    I don’t know what’s wrong with him I just know something is deeply, horrifyingly wrong with him.

    Maybe we should pray.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  47. happy,

    It doesn’t matter to me much whether someone tries to shut me up using government authority, or the authority of their Internet mob. I’m anti-libertarian that way; I see both as equally dangerous. The real danger is shutting people up, and hackers or Internet bullies with cult followings or Aspergers loonies or genuine violent psychos with paid followers can all have a similar effect: if they manage to cow you into silence, they are fundamentally fascist no matter their politics or position in life.

    Again: everyone I am talking about here knows good and damned well who they are. And they know they can’t shut me up.

    That’s what scares them.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  48. Hi Brett!

    Hi Neal!

    Hi the rest of you!

    Patterico (9c670f)

  49. A genius like Ken was the bulk of it indeed. The rest was being up against the fourth string talent that would take a check from Kimberlin.

    SPQR (768505)

  50. Happyfeet, drive east instead and visit the Gene Autry museum. You would enjoy it.

    SPQR (768505)

  51. the only quibble I have with that is I think your average Internet mob has scads and boodles more authority than our government

    but yeah other than that I’m 100% on board

    just keeping my powder dry for now

    you have to pick your battles

    that’s what my mom said

    and she would know cause of she knew a lot about military strategy cause she watched a lot of Turner Classic Movies

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  52. Mr. Autry used to live up in the Studio City hills

    California was way different back then though

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  53. Happyfeet, drive east instead and visit the Gene Autry museum. You would enjoy it.

    last time i went to the Gene Artery museum, i found a nice building, full of interesting stuff, most, if not all of it labeled with interpretive descriptions that were beyond “politically correct” into blatant propaganda.

    it’ll be the 12th of never before i go back, unless i see a review that indicates they’ve given up on brainwashing.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  54. you have to hunker down until the dark night of fascism turns into a new dawn of hope

    if everyone hunkers down. there will never be a dawn. as i said in the other thread, tolerance in the face of evil is a crime.

    you don’t hunker down, you spit in it’s eye, because bullies are cowards.

    Bret Kimberlin is a convicted felon, a bully and a scoundrel of the first order and, on his best day, he’s less than the contents of a zit on my fourth point of contact.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  55. As a prison trained prose sociopath litigant, Kimberlin files lawsuits which the Maryland courts have trouble dismissing. And it is not because Kimberlin has properly pleaded his claims.

    The defendents should get one learned counsel to file a motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment to get rid of Kimberlin’s garbage lawsuit.

    It is a fact of life that it is hard to get rid of a lawsuit filed by a wacked out, pro se sociopath.

    slp (e172b3)

  56. Again, in my limited experience,
    one can simply repeat in a public forum, especially on line, the claimant’s own published comments and what has been written by others in the newspaper
    and be sued and your life made hell if you don’t have money for a lawyer
    at least in PA
    I was surprised to find that one could file a response to a suit that pointed out how everything claimed was documented elsewhere in the public record and all that happened was that the case went forward
    somehow things need to be changed to tip the scales back in favor of the innocent and curb “suitimidation”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  57. Republishing a libel is libel. The truth need not be a defense if the jurisdiction does not choose to make it one. Invective can be defamation. Defaming a dead person can be actionable. Accusations of crime or immorality can be defamation per se and no actual damages need be proven. It can be by innuendo, or that word SEK likes, apophasis. See e.g., Beauharnais v. Illinois.

    Other side: New York Times vs. Sullivan and progeny relating to public figures. And that is where Kimberlin falls, either as a public figure for all purposes, or a public figure in this particular instance. The Beuaharnais rules go out the window for public figures. Not only is the truth of defense, the plaintiff must show that the truth was available to the defendant and the defendant recklessly disregarded it. Damages must be proven as an element of the suit. No nominal damages, no punitive damages.

    There are nuances, but this is pretty much of the gist of it.

    nk (875f57)

  58. if everyone hunkers down. there will never be a dawn

    I agree with red.

    And if no one hunkered down, there would never be a night.

    Though personally I have no interest in continuing to worry about these psychos. I’m happy to ignore them now that they are mostly known for what they are. Unfortunately once in a while they basically force the issue. Instapundit is quite right that this is not a well thought out silencing campaign as it has the opposite effect.

    Dustin (303dca)

  59. I am pro-hunkering for the nonce

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  60. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted terrorist.
    He and his friends have anger problems.

    Allahu Akbar !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  61. Any news from Frad Briedman? Is he still peddling propaganda and ludicrous conspiracy theories?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. Any news from Frad Briedman? Is he still peddling propaganda and ludicrous conspiracy theories?

    No idea. I don’t think anyone much pays attention to him, do they?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  63. what name does he use to post here?

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  64. This tweet http://imgur.com/6OT5PR1 which linked to the Kimberlin lawsuit referenced here on this blog and on BrietbartUnmasked was posted by @OsborneInk (Matt Osborne) in response to my tweet here https://twitter.com/Captien_Obvious/status/376345110771806208 where I dared to state that I thought Ken White was an ethical lawyer regardless of who he defends.

    The tweet from Matt Osborne is clearly a veiled threat to join me to the Kimberlin lawsuit for daring to simply make a positive statement about Ken White on a lawsuit that wait for it, has NOTHING TO DO WITH BRETT KIMBERLIN. I’ve never libeled Kimberlin and though I’ve favorited or retweeted only a few tweets here and there regarding him, I’ve not actively discussed him on Twitter.

    Let me be clear, this is not just about politics, this is about a group of people who are determined to shred the constitution one amendment at a time, starting with the 1st amendment. I find such veiled threats repugnant and I will NOT be intimidated.

    Captain O (1c48be)

  65. 35, Chatsworth makes Rio Linda look like a luxury vacation spot.

    PCD (7a7072)

  66. Being convicted of being the Speedway bomber, I don’t see why Kimberlin hasn’t received a one way trip to Gitmo.

    PCD (7a7072)

  67. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2013 @ 5:39 am

    I was surprised to find that one could file a response to a suit that pointed out how everything claimed was documented elsewhere in the public record and all that happened was that the case went forward somehow things need to be changed to tip the scales back in favor of the innocent and curb “suitimidation”.

    And sometimes people unfortunate enough not to have any kind of legal help might actually have something done to them that’s quite against the law.

    What you described here is afrivolous lawsuit. Sometimes they can be sanctioned. What you would want is no discovery, so that the plaintiff doesn’t gte to find out anything about you, and a countersuit for havinbg to defend it.
    Something needs to be done to prevent

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3322 secs.