This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®. If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not
everyone reads my blog. The short
version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst
conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime. I recognize that this might sound like an
incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in
other words, you don’t have to believe my word.
You only have to believe your eyes.
So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.
So last week, I
pointed out that Michelle Malkin and Non-party Twitchy filed a motion to
dismiss that included the explosive allegation that Brett Kimberlin forged a summons
of Twitchy in a corrupt attempt to fool Twitchy into believing that it was a
party, when it wasn’t. And I pointed out
that Brett’s only response to those allegations so far was to move to amend the
pleadings to add Twitchy as a party. And
as I
wrote back then:
This
is in essence a motion for leave to amend, and Twitchy will have the right to
oppose it. And there are legal standards
which govern whether one should be granted.
What are those standards, you might ask?
Well, hold on and you will see over the next few days.
Well, that day
has arrived, for today I am going to present to you my motion to strike all
three oppositions that Brett filed to the motions to dismiss (“MTD”) filed by
John Hoge, DB Capital Strategies (“DBCS”), The Franklin Center (“TFC”), and
I. Previously you can see John’s MTD here
and his reply to Brett’s opposition here;
DBCS’ here;
TFC’s motion here,
and Brett’s opposition and their reply, here;
and my memorandum supporting my MTD here.
And so without
further ado, here’s the first of three filings I made that day, my motion to
strike those oppositions:
There are
three major issues presented there. The
first is that he purported to sign a declaration that didn’t have the proper
affirmation. Unfortunately, there isn’t
much we can do if he chooses to go down to the courthouse and just add the
correct words and sign it again, but there you go. Second, by adding all these additional
allegations he has made what amounts to an improper amendment to his
complaint. So it should be struck for
that reason. I also address any
suggestion that he should be allowed to have a de facto amendment, by pointing
out that one of the reasons why courts deny a person an opportunity to amend is
when they demonstrate bad faith. So I spent
a great deal of time discussing evidence of Kimberlin’s bad faith. This was actually hard to write because
evidence of his bad faith was rolling in as I wrote it at times; it was a moving
target, if you will. Finally he failed
to give the proper signature block, which isn’t the most powerful argument, but
it’s a nice way to say, “your honor, he isn’t doing this even when you remind him. He isn’t taking you even slightly
seriously.”
Judges don’t
like it when you don’t take them seriously.
The motion is
identical except this copy is unsigned and my personal information has been
redacted. And of course I am not
bothering to include the exhibits. Most
of the exhibits are print outs from websites, or in one case a download of a
video from a website, or transcripts I have shared with you before. They are:
Exhibit E:
portions of the February 8, 2012 peace order hearing.
Exhibit F: the
email quoted here.
Exhibit G
& H: caption pages for this suit. You
will just have to trust it is what I tell you it is, as John has and as Malkin
and Twitchy has.
Exhibit I: a
website showing the cost of certified mail in 2013.
Now that only leaves
Exhibit A, B, and C. What are they? Well, they are the very same three
Oppositions, only I went through them and crossed out all new allegations using
strikethrough. I explained the
reason for this in this passage in my opposition:
In
order to aid this court’s analysis, Exhibits A, B, and C to this Motion to
Strike are copies of the Plaintiff’s Oppositions to H&W, DBCS and TFC
respectively, but in those copies all new facts have been struck out. The court can use these exhibits either to
see how difficult it would be to simply disregard every single new allegation
or to aid it in disregarding such allegations if it should choose to do so.
I am going to
give you those oppositions in just a moment, but, no, I am not going to then
re-post them here with the new allegations crossed out. Instead I will give you a sample page of what
this looked like...
...and ask you
to imagine for yourself how the rest might have looked (or if you are really dying
to know, go on PACER and download it).
That is not to say every page looked like the proverbial partially
declassified government document. There are
several pages where he discusses (and lies about, very often), the law and in
that case he often actually deals with facts he previously alleged. But still try to imagine the judge looking
over page after page where almost everything on the page is crossed out as a
new allegation. Heh.
(And please
note that I also eliminated all of Brett’s exhibits, since they had never been
included before.)
Of course, no
presentation would be complete without giving Brett a chance to speak for
himself. So… here’s his opposition to my Motion to
Dismiss...
...and his
opposition to DBCS’ MTD...
And he replies
to similar allegations by Mr. Hoge in the document posted here.
Of course we
are not done with all the blizzard of documents yet, not by a long shot. No, we are still waiting on 1) my actual
reply and 2) DBCS’ reply. DBCS has asked
for an extension and has been granted one, so they haven’t filed theirs at all,
yet. And my reply will be coming
tomorrow.
Also
sharp-eyed readers will notice that I said three things were filed the Monday before
last. So what was the third thing? It was simply a motion to exceed the page
limit in filing my reply. Yes, filed at
the same time as my reply. I expect that
to be granted as a matter of course and in any case, I made sure the first
twenty five pages were the most important, though there is good stuff after
that. I probably won’t bother to share
that with you because there isn’t really much there.
And as usual,
dear reader, you should be very reluctant to credit anything Brett is
alleging. He is a convicted perjurer and
a downright compulsive liar. He is the
kind of guy that if he says the sky is blue, you need to go to a window and
check. Indeed, as you can see in my
motion to strike he lied and then amazingly presented proof of his lies for you
to see. Seriously, how did he think he
could get away with lying about the contents of his own exhibits?
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted
terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame
me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you
read starting here,
you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video
evidence. If you would like to help in
the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on
the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel:
A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.
And you can read a little more about my
novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused
some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice
I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice
system. I do not want to see vigilante
violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the
particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part because
under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to
happen to him.
And for that
matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t
sneak around and try to photograph him.
Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line
into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.
The only
exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course
nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any
stories you might report. And even then
if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. That this is a key element in making out a
harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you
refuse.
And let me say
something else. In my heart of hearts, I
don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
When will the judge approve these motions? It seems obvious that the whole case should be thrown out with prejudice. When will there be a trial if the motions and the case are not dismissed?
ReplyDeleteThere is literally no way to know when the judge will rule. The judge will decide on his schedule. And bluntly, the longer the judge looks at this, the better, imho, although this kind of crystal ball gazing is not an exact science. my suspicion is that the judge wants to either 1) wait until DBCS' motion is in, or 2) all the motions are in. i get that from the judge's own comment about not wanting to look at the MTDs seriatim, i.e. one at a time. But its just an educated guess. only time will tell.
ReplyDelete