May 25, 2012
— Ace My belief is that this will not be "won" by publicity.
Publicity without action? What's that? So Brett Kimberlin is a bad man. He knows he's a bad man. His public-record convictions demonstrate he's a bad man.
His associates and donors probably know he's a bad man -- and they probably appreciate having a Bad Man to do their Dirty Business.
No, this will be resolved by either judicial action or legislative action. In a court of law, or an Act of Congress, or an act by a state government.
So what can you do?
If you are interested in seeing justice and Free Speech prevail, please write or call your Congressman (or a nearby Congressman, or a Congressman known to be responsive to abuses by the left, if you think your own Congressman won't act).
Write to him and ask him or her for the following tangible steps, or any other steps he might think prudent:
In addition to reading his record into the Congressional Record, to finally end this absurd contention that it is now apparently illegal to mention the facts laid out in US federal court records, there is tangible legislative action that can be requested:
* That a 501(c) "charity" must certify its principals and employees are not engaging in harassment, intimidation, or attempts to punish free speech, on pain of perjury if this is false.
Will Brett Kimberlin's business partners and co-principals sign such a certification?
* That a 501(c) principal conducts his legal affairs through a licensed lawyer and not pro se (on his own behalf) unless he can demonstrate that he is indigent.
See, 99% of lawyers would not put their license at risk for frivolous crap like this. Kimberlin can because he has no law license to lose. He represents himself, as as is his right as a citizen... but then, he has no right to run a 501(c). I think a 501(c)'s principals can be slightly burdened to have their suits signed off by a real lawyer, who can face sanctions for false or vexatious litigation against Free Speech.
* That they urge the FBI and DoJ and IRS investigate this matter, as well as possibly-related crimes of intimidation of Free Speech, such as Patterico's and Mike Stack's SWATting.
Are those related? We don't know. It would be nice to know, however.
* That the Government Oversight Committee (or whichever committee is proper) hold hearings on the possible abuse of 501(c) charities for uses against the public interest.
* That Congress stiffen penalties (or add them) such a punitive damages and possibly inductive relief against anyone attempting to use harassment and intimidation to suppress Free Speech. And that they add a law which permits a judge to rule that a litigant bringing vexatious lawsuits with the purpose of chilling free speech be henceforth required to post a large bond before suing, and to have his lawsuits signed off by a lawyer or judge before filing.
I am no expert in this area. Quite frankly, I don't know what, specifically, can be done. These steps seem reasonable to me, and accomplishable; but perhaps they are unworkable.
Our Congressmen are, however, experts in these things (or have staffers who are experts).
We can at least ask them to put their expertise to use, searching for some resolution to this.
We should all remember that this is supposed to be a participatory democratic republic.
We have the right to petition our representatives with our concerns and our grievances.
We should exercise that right.
Our Congressmen, as we keep insisting, work for us. When their are outrages, abuses, and injustices, we should ask them to take an interest.
This is how laws are passed -- by concerned citizens writing to their Congressmen and asking them for their aid.
Complaints that remain in a blog's comments area might as well be written on the ice of Saturn's moon Titan. You cannot blame Congressmen for failing to act when they've never been asked to actually do anything.
If they don't know about it, why would they be expected to act? If their constituents and other citizens don't alert them, how can it be charged that they are to blame?
This is a representative democratic republic. And a participatory one.
Ultimately, government is not -- or at least should not be -- left solely to representatives.
It's on us.
It's on us.
No one can blame Congress for failing to act if citizens fail to act first.
They're not psychics, and they do not read every single blog in the world. They probably read three, just to have a sense of things.
They do not serve blogs. They serve citizens.
And citizens must make themselves heard.
Here's an Easy Thing: Ask Congress to pass a special law against SWATting with serious penalties -- like 10-20 years.
Telephone lines are a federal concern. The use of telephone lines to both waste police resources and put citizens' lives at risk should be a major crime.
Add a kicker penalty -- another 10 years -- if the crime is determined to be conducted for the purpose of intimidating or squelching free speech.
Posted by: Ace at
09:59 AM
| Comments (194)
Post contains 869 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 10:02 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 10:03 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: steevy at May 25, 2012 10:06 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: Mr. Spock's Logic Instructor at May 25, 2012 10:08 AM (NgwbY)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 25, 2012 10:08 AM (HethX)
Posted by: steevy at May 25, 2012 10:09 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: Tami at May 25, 2012 10:10 AM (X6akg)
I'll write, but I have a hunch this gets me a "thank you" form letter along with an envelope for campaign $$$
Congressmen react quickly to news stories that they have to show "action" on
Posted by: kbdabear at May 25, 2012 10:10 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: AndrewsDad at May 25, 2012 10:10 AM (C2//T)
Why not focus on the fact that this guy has already broken laws on the books? Why not write to the respective DA's and inquire as to why they have not gone after him?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at May 25, 2012 10:11 AM (akXk+)
Sorry to sound cynical, but as long as both report to Holder, this gets the same consideration that threats to Zimmerman's life got.
Posted by: kbdabear at May 25, 2012 10:12 AM (Y+DPZ)
Kimberlin can because he has no law license to lose. He represents himself, as as is his right as a citizen...
What state does Kimberlin reside in? In California, it is possible, though dificult, to have someone engaged in vexatious litigation as a Vexatious Litigant. This forces such idiots to be represented by a lawyer when suing ... and if a lawyer values his license to practice, idiots get shut down.
but then, he has no right to run a 501(c).
Drop a note to the IRS ...
I think a 501(c)'s principals can be slightly burdened to have their suits signed off by a real lawyer, who can face sanctions for false or vexatious litigation against Free Speech.
RICO ... lean on the Feds, since this is a RICO suit. Name everyone on the suit ... start with Brett Kimberlin ... and his record ...
Posted by: Arbalest at May 25, 2012 10:13 AM (7QlzQ)
Posted by: Dr. Manhattan at May 25, 2012 10:13 AM (XbS7O)
Also, a suggestion to all you bloggers on the front line, and to all the twitter members who are getting into this this:
Mockery.
These guys seem to be borderline demonic. As Thomas More said (and famously quoted by CS Lewis), "The devil...that prowde spirit... cannot endure to be mocked".
This is serious business, so I know this must sound impossible. But these guys should be met with mockery too.... it will be their undoing. They will become unhinged.
Posted by: dan-O at May 25, 2012 10:14 AM (/ROCY)
Posted by: Y-not at May 25, 2012 10:14 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at May 25, 2012 10:14 AM (YSyyZ)
Very little can be done legislatively.
Malicious prosecution and wrongful initiation of civil proceedings are potentially available, as is intentional interference with economic relations. Respondeat superior liability is unlikely available against the charity since he's almost certainly suing on his own behalf, not the charity's. A charity, like any entity, does have to be represented by counsel.
Tort law can punish malefactors like this. Just find a good tort lawyer.
Posted by: imp at May 25, 2012 10:15 AM (mHOEd)
Posted by: Y-not at May 25, 2012 10:16 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Riding Through The Desert On A Sock With No Name at May 25, 2012 10:19 AM (zEeUf)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 02:03 PM (8y9MW)
Who are you going to write to?
Posted by: © Sponge at May 25, 2012 10:19 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Ryan at May 25, 2012 10:19 AM (yLNCy)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at May 25, 2012 10:20 AM (0q2P7)
^ ^ ^
I like these kind of ideas above, because nothing says "I really don't have a clue on how to deal with this very serious problem" than declaring, "I know, let's make a new law!" as the best solution, my main beef with lawmakers. We need law ENFORCEMENT, not more stinkin' laws.
Posted by: Mr_Write at May 25, 2012 10:21 AM (VJUQK)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 10:21 AM (8y9MW)
In my sock: "Matthew Vadum joins Ezra Levant to outline the ties between the Tides Foundation and convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin."
Posted by: andycanuck at May 25, 2012 10:22 AM (FTuxU)
Posted by: Mandy P., long-time lurker at May 25, 2012 10:22 AM (qFpRI)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 25, 2012 10:22 AM (3GtyG)
Posted by: Barky O'McFuckstick at May 25, 2012 10:22 AM (vuxgX)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at May 25, 2012 10:22 AM (iKSAz)
MAY 24, 2012 - JTMP has been a participant in the State DepartmentÂ’s International Visitor Leadership Program for 3 years now, where citizens from around the world involved in the arts get to come to America and visit to learn about the role of arts in the US. This year we had visitors that came from Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia to see how Justice Through Music Project uses art to raise awareness on issues, and to bring about social change. This yearÂ’s contingent had musicians, playwrights, and people involved in art production. We gave them a presentation and showed them many of our musical art videos that deal with politics and issues, while we spoke about how we operate and produce our art videos. We then showed them how we use this art on our website and YouTube channel to raise awareness on an issue to help bring about positive social change.
http://tinyurl.com/7e8qayk
Posted by: Tami at May 25, 2012 10:23 AM (X6akg)
possibly inductive relief
injunctive relief
Your spell check has gone wonky, ace.
the federal anti-SLAPP act went nowhere, and is not likely to be revived by the Republicans in Congress
Posted by: imp at May 25, 2012 10:23 AM (UaxA0)
Posted by: xbradtc at May 25, 2012 10:25 AM (LouEe)
But messages sent. If enough real conservatives take up the fight I imagine Cornyn at least will pile on. Maybe. If he's not too busy helping the FCC stomp all over free internet.
Posted by: Ryt at May 25, 2012 10:26 AM (L7BXh)
All right, since you're here, walk on over and I'll take your scalp. Be quick about it, I've got better things to do.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at May 25, 2012 10:26 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:27 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 10:27 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 10:27 AM (lkdo/)
Hmm interesting maybe Bob Turner would be able to elucidate on how blogging might affect congress.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at May 25, 2012 10:28 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 10:29 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: toby928© at May 25, 2012 10:29 AM (NG097)
Posted by: Thursby at May 25, 2012 10:30 AM (H15Ok)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:31 AM (piMMO)
What would a new law like that, which would instantly run into Constitutional challenges, affect when the current laws are not being enforced?
Look at Patterico's case. How would new laws burdening legit 501(c)s have prevented his harassment or changed the outcome?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at May 25, 2012 10:31 AM (akXk+)
Aside from the 501(c) issues, whch are well stated, I am not sure how this is a Federal matter as a practical basis. The First Amendment issues speak for themselves. One of the problems is the serial abuse of state court systems. That is a matter that must be addressed at the state level. Well, I suppose given the current expansive reading of the RICO statute there could be said to be a potential RICO matter for the US District Courts but other than that, abuse of the state court system is a matter to be addressed at the state level.
All that means is that everything said above about writing/calling/emailing Congressmen applies to state representatives. Hopefully, those reps would be more amenable to discussing these matters since these issues go hand in glove with other court reform matters, such as tort reform. Those are
All of this also speaks strongly to the need for the courts to take perjury seriously. It is not okay for a litigant seeking a protective order from a court to lie. It's not. The level of tolerance for perjury in this area is heartbreaking for those of us who take the concept of perjury seriously.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 25, 2012 10:31 AM (VtjlW)
We all have to get naked and go spank it in the street?
Posted by: right at May 25, 2012 10:32 AM (RzLbD)
Posted by: stace at May 25, 2012 10:32 AM (lYlx9)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:32 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Mandy P., long-time lurker at May 25, 2012 10:32 AM (qFpRI)
Yeah and a mythical conservative sent me some pictures of the inner cities and said "This is how liberals make money off of poverty and human suffering" Go back to the stables and get a higher horse, you're going to need it.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at May 25, 2012 10:32 AM (0q2P7)
>>>Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 02:23 PM (lkdo/)
I'll note, again, this troll adopted this handle in our last Holocaust Thread.
Posted by: garrett at May 25, 2012 10:33 AM (wP6+9)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:33 AM (piMMO)
University of Minnesota Duluth was ranked #1 hottest students. (Hottness Index Datemyschool.com
Anyone been there?
Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 10:34 AM (lkdo/)
Posted by: nickless at May 25, 2012 10:35 AM (MMC8r)
No clue why there's a missing sentence in my comment - full sentence is Those are matters that state legislatures and state courts take quite seriously indeed.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 25, 2012 10:36 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at May 25, 2012 10:36 AM (mAm+G)
I encourage contacting United States Senator Jeff Sessions office on this.
Mr. Sessions is a former U.S. Attorney and Atty. General. And is a strong conservative.
I also encourage contacting Congressman Issa whose district is proximate to where all of this is happening concerning Patterico.
Posted by: Journolist at May 25, 2012 10:37 AM (QWOh7)
I'll abide by the rules of the house and apologize for the earlier outbursts made on this site. I'm close to some people he's hurt, so this Kimberlin thing is personal with me.
And I know this sounds mind-numbingly naive, but it never occurred to me the progressive foundations (Streisand and Heintz-Kerry et al) and other Velvet Revolution backers actually know the facts about Kimberlin are, in fact, using his background in murder, mayhem, intimidation/litigation to their advantage. It truly never entered my mind.
I guess Kimberlin's longterm goal is to become a second Bill Ayers, celebrated and respected in Progressive political circles. The parallels between the two are close. I'm betting he's using Ayers as his life template.
Posted by: troyriser at May 25, 2012 10:37 AM (vtiE6)
"Yeah and a mythical conservative sent me some pictures of the inner cities and said "This is how liberals make money off of poverty and human suffering"True.
Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 10:37 AM (lkdo/)
What's with the off-topic shit? Is this an uncomfortable subject?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at May 25, 2012 10:37 AM (akXk+)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:38 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: toby928© at May 25, 2012 10:38 AM (NG097)
Reminder: Geraghty has a BK post up about patterico
he should have a link on the sidebar. Snap to it, cob-loggers
Posted by: imp at May 25, 2012 10:38 AM (UaxA0)
Stace - Calling your representative's office is also key.
Posted by: Journolist at May 25, 2012 10:38 AM (QWOh7)
Posted by: blaster at May 25, 2012 10:40 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:40 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: SouthCounty at May 25, 2012 10:40 AM (PfjdQ)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at May 25, 2012 10:41 AM (QF8uk)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:42 AM (piMMO)
Sir, I would like to bring to your attention the plight of Patrick Frey, an Assistant District Attorney in Los Angeles, and blogger. He has been targeted for harassment since discussing the story of Brett Kimberlin.
Mr. Frey's harrowing tale of harassment can be found at his blogpost here:
(deleted because pixy hates links)
I urge you to press for federal law enforcement to vigorously pursue an investigation into this attempt to squelch a citizen's free speech.
Mr. Kimberlin and his associates have shown a pattern of filing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits to chill the speech of their critics. I would ask that you read into the Congressional Record Mr. Kimberlin's convictions. Such information in the Congressional Record greatly assists any targeted citizens in expediting the dismissal of frivolous litigation.
Further, Mr. Kimberlin, a convicted felon, serves as a principal of a 501(c)(3).
Why is it that a person with federal felony convictions can serve in a position of trust? I urge you to introduce legislation barring the the appointment of convicted felons as officers or principals to any 501(c)(3) or similar non-profit organization.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Posted by: xbradtc at May 25, 2012 10:42 AM (LouEe)
Posted by: nickless at May 25, 2012 10:42 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: andycanuck at May 25, 2012 10:42 AM (FTuxU)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 25, 2012 10:43 AM (C8mVl)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 10:43 AM (8y9MW)
For those of you who haven't read Andy's posted link to Patterico's piece, read it. Read it. Read it.
This is beyond serious and after reading Patterico's dealings with these folks, you will full well know why Ace is being very judicious about all of this.
Posted by: Journolist at May 25, 2012 10:43 AM (QWOh7)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:45 AM (piMMO)
XBrad - excellent letter. John Campbell is solid.
Posted by: Journolist at May 25, 2012 10:45 AM (QWOh7)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:46 AM (piMMO)
74 pound striper pulled from long island sound.
Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 10:46 AM (lkdo/)
Posted by: andycanuck at May 25, 2012 02:42 PM (FTuxU)
Michelle Malkin can do whatever she wants in my socks...
Posted by: Insomniac at May 25, 2012 10:47 AM (v+QvA)
One could possibly also find a civil rights infraction also.
Posted by: xbradtc at May 25, 2012 10:47 AM (LouEe)
Posted by: andycanuck at May 25, 2012 10:47 AM (FTuxU)
74 pound striper pulled from long island sound. Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 02:46 PM
How come I never see any skinny ones in the nudie bars I visit?
Posted by: Joe Biden at May 25, 2012 10:48 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 02:42 PM (piMMO)
What I'd seen of his recent ones today -- he was feeling sorry for himself because he had been so open and honest. Nothing newsworthy. The tweets are coming in at hash tag #BrettKemberlin so fast it's hard to keep up.
Posted by: LC LaWedgie at May 25, 2012 10:49 AM (vhwRj)
Jesus on a minibike. This is what KB is doing to Paterico.
read the fraking backstory.
Posted by: 13times at May 25, 2012 10:49 AM (h6XiD)
No. I like to be entertained by bloggers.
Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 10:49 AM (lkdo/)
How come I never see any skinny ones in the nudie bars I visit
Depends on the day. How often do you visit?
Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 10:50 AM (lkdo/)
I'd suggest a Federal Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law, since the jurisdictions these clowns are filing in don't seem to have much protection vs. vexatious litigants.
CA courts permit a defendant to make an immediate motion which forces the plaintiff to make a showing to the judge that his case isn't lawfare or otherwise brought merely to chill the exercise of rights in the public interest (e.g. free speech). The motion gets heard on an expedited basis before the plaintiff can run up legal bills by papering you in discovery or motion work.
Like anything else, it gets abused here, but its original intent was to cover exactly this sort of situation.
The Federal courts would not welcome the workload one bit, of course. This seems like it's right up their alley, though. Federal courts have already been used to enforce a certain minimum standard of due process among the states and there's a clearly legitimate Federal and consitutional interest to be protected in preventing lawsuits which chill free speech - particularly political speech.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 25, 2012 10:51 AM (yK8YH)
Posted by: Drew in MO at May 25, 2012 10:53 AM (w6lum)
Posted by: rockmom at May 25, 2012 10:53 AM (YPgCz)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:54 AM (piMMO)
What to do????
In the end..... you really cant do ANYTHING about BK.... directly.
But you CAN make those who support ( and I believe those supported him without knowing BKs past) distance themselves from him.
Im sure Streisand and all the other performers bought into the social justice thru music schtick. Support progressive causes through their own medium. .... I get it..... nothing wrong with that. But I bet they had no earthly idea who BK was and his role in those "charities".
We need to make sure they do. And make them understand that "Babs" and her friends are financially supporting a convicted terrorist.
Posted by: fixerupper at May 25, 2012 10:54 AM (C8hzL)
I could be all wet here, but I imagine there are quite a few felon ex-cons running homeless shelters and whatnot. Should we punish those who actually have gone straight and believe they are trying to do good things now?
Posted by: right at May 25, 2012 10:54 AM (RzLbD)
Posted by: andycanuck at May 25, 2012 02:42 PM (FTuxU)
Mine too. Oh, wait, that's not what you meant.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 25, 2012 10:54 AM (ElYjf)
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 25, 2012 10:54 AM (yK8YH)
What would you suggest California do to protect its residents from legal abuses originating in Maryland, that Maryland doesnÂ’t take seriously?
If it's across state lines, then it's supposed to be a federal matter due to the diversity of citizenship of the parties. One of the main problems is that states are not policing their own courts. A protection that is supposed to be built into the system is that the state court system is for matters between citizens of that state or that have all/nearly all contacts with the state. Well, if you have a serial litigant who is crossing state lines, then that litigation should be either tossed out due to lack of jurisdiction (subject matter or personal) or that matter should be removed to the federal court system. What appears to be happening, and this is said without having the benefit of reviewing the pleadings, is that the state courts aren't tossing suits and/or aren't awarding any type of penalty for filing a suit or requesting an order when there are no legitimate grounds for doing so.
How does California protect its residents? By saying that a Maryland resident can't show up in California and take out a restraining order. If that happens, there should be penalties. In reality, there's not.
MANDATORY DISCLAIMER: All statements made are general and should not be construed as legal advice. I am not licensed in your jurisdiction. I am not your lawyer. All commentary is based on general knowledge and should not be interpreted as being based upon any review of documents or other matters related to the specific suits being discussed.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 25, 2012 10:54 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Andrew at May 25, 2012 10:55 AM (HS3dy)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:56 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 10:57 AM (piMMO)
What I do not get is the lack of interest in prosecutors and judges to put a halt to this guy. They could do so if they wanted but are choosing otherwise. Not sure why.
My Dad was a longtime cop and he would say a law that is not enforced is not a law. While in no way shape or form am I excusing Kimberlin for his actions, if the laws are not going to be applied against what he is doing, no reason for him to stop.
Posted by: AndrewsDad at May 25, 2012 10:57 AM (C2//T)
If factual history is any guide, I'm willing to speculate that a future democratic presidential candidate has just had a good meeting in convicted felon Kimberlin's living room as I speak.
Posted by: Jimmah at May 25, 2012 10:58 AM (cWkOB)
But a law selectively enforced is worse than "not a law." It becomes, in that instance, a tool of tyranny.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 10:58 AM (8y9MW)
We need to make sure they do. And make them understand that "Babs" and her friends are financially supporting a convicted terrorist.
****
Why would they care. These are the same people who support the release of convicted cop killer Mumia (sp?)
Posted by: Infidel at May 25, 2012 10:59 AM (O/fK8)
Posted by: Dogbert at May 25, 2012 11:00 AM (CFshT)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 25, 2012 11:00 AM (C8mVl)
MANDATORY DISCLAIMER: All statements made are general and should not be construed as legal advice. I am not licensed in your jurisdiction. I am not your lawyer. All commentary is based on general knowledge and should not be interpreted as being based upon any review of documents or other matters related to the specific suits being discussed.
If your stompy boots were on for this...hottest disclaimer, ever.
Posted by: garrett at May 25, 2012 11:00 AM (wP6+9)
Yes. They're FELONS. If they wish for a restoration of their civil rights, they should apply for a pardon.
Or not commit felonies in the first place.
Or they could work with the community to have non-felons as the principals for their organizations, and be hired by that organization to implement the day to day operations.
Posted by: xbradtc at May 25, 2012 11:00 AM (LouEe)
We get driven from our homes, sued, bullied, threatened and fired from our jobs.
fuzzy legal advice is just clutter.
Posted by: 13times at May 25, 2012 11:01 AM (h6XiD)
Posted by: andycanuck at May 25, 2012 11:01 AM (FTuxU)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 11:03 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 25, 2012 11:04 AM (Sh42X)
Posted by: Andrew at May 25, 2012 02:55 PM (HS3dy)
Go back to the main page and scroll down a few posts. You'll catch up.
Posted by: © Sponge at May 25, 2012 11:05 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: nickless at May 25, 2012 11:05 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Warden at May 25, 2012 11:05 AM (aQKiN)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 11:06 AM (piMMO)
Yup.
Just wrote a similar one to my representative.
Everyone who cares should be writing to their representatives and senators.
This is what we can do. At a minimum!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 25, 2012 11:06 AM (nEUpB)
Drew - you are absolutely correct. The progressives mode is systematic in its attempt to completely dehumanize opposing thought and to label conservatives as essentially enemies of the state and a threat to the social contract.
This is what is going on in real time.
Once dehumanized, immorality becomes completely legitizmized and justified by those who started the process.
We are moving dangerously close to such evil.
A country that can eliminate 70 million through abortion is filledwith venomous impulses and a ready made pathway to evil design.
Pray for our country folks. And let the Holy Spirit be our shield and sanctuary.
Posted by: Journolist at May 25, 2012 11:07 AM (QWOh7)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 25, 2012 03:03 PM (lkdo/)
Were you born a douche or did you go to school or something?
Posted by: © Sponge at May 25, 2012 11:07 AM (UK9cE)
Ace,
Not to be too much of a pain in the ass here, but I sorta disagree with you that publicity doesn't help 'win' in these situations (at least in a 'big picture' sense...I'm absolutely not trying to diminish your point or the serious bullshit your dealing with right now....or the importance of your recommendations; I think they're good ones).
What I'm getting at is that publicity means more average people becoming aware of these tactics. I'm probably more informed than the average bear, and I've never heard of this dude until now. Most of my political awakening occurred due to people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant very publicly fighting the lunacy of Canada's 'Human Rights' commissions and their attempts to discourage free speech.
It's my belief that fighters like them (and yourself) absolutely 'move the cultural needle'. It makes more people willing to stand up when they realize they're not alone.
Anyway, sorry for the long comment. Best of luck with this sir....your contibution to these fights is truly appreciated.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at May 25, 2012 11:07 AM (V4JUZ)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 03:06 PM (piMMO)
I saw something on Twitter about shots at an elementary school.....is this the same thing?
Posted by: Tami at May 25, 2012 11:07 AM (X6akg)
107 Alex - you run into Consitutional and baldly political problems if you start allowing states to "close the courthouse doors" to other states' citizens.
If the lawfare/harassment lawsuits are being brought in CA courts, I expect the plaintiffs would be open to attack as vexatious litigants (which apparently MD and other states don't deal with). Once a judge rules you are a vexatious litigant here (basically that you've filed multiple BS lawsuits for frivolous or bad faith purposes) you need the Court's prior permission to file any subsequent lawsuit.
This problem is something that needs to be handled on a Federal level. Conflicts between citizens of different states already fall under diversity jurisdiction and we're dealing with Constitutional issues here as well as conflicts of law between the states.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 25, 2012 11:08 AM (yK8YH)
http://tinyurl.com/7hvwjgs
Posted by: Brother Cavil, New Caprica City DMV at May 25, 2012 11:08 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 11:08 AM (piMMO)
Hostage situation in Valparaiso, IN.
It's probably just some Tea Bagger upset about the Affordable Healthcare Act.
Posted by: Mayor Bloomberg at May 25, 2012 11:10 AM (wP6+9)
I don't think that Ace is saying that publicity isn't necessary; rather that it is insufficient. Specifically, he's talking about people jumping in the comments and posting a variety of ...unhelpful... comments (earlier posts) and what we can do instead of that.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 25, 2012 11:10 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 25, 2012 11:10 AM (piMMO)
A commenter at WRAL.com says a woman was shot by a man.
Posted by: EC at May 25, 2012 11:16 AM (GQ8sn)
Has any of Kimberlin's activity taken place in New Jersey? I have a very good contact in the AG's office there that could help with some state-level prosecution.
Posted by: rockmom at May 25, 2012 02:53 PM (YPgCz)
**
*****
Yes, an unidentified NJ person was also the victim of a SWATting incident. For what its worth I just sent Christie and Garret the story with the talking points outlined by Ace above.
Posted by: dananjcon-ski at May 25, 2012 11:17 AM (eavT+)
Concerning....
His house, his rules. This cannot be stated frequently or emphatically enough.
Posted by: Peaches at May 25, 2012 11:17 AM (kpCLl)
@AllenG @140
Fair enough, and agreed. As my nic indicates, I mostly lurk (and have been fairly busy the last couple days), so I haven't read all the comment threads and almost certainly missed Ace's more general and larger point.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at May 25, 2012 11:19 AM (V4JUZ)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 25, 2012 11:27 AM (5UcDQ)
Posted by Beefy Meatball
Good letter, Beefy Meatball. Is is all right if I use it? If not, let me know and I won't.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at May 25, 2012 11:30 AM (d6TfZ)
Ace,
In Illinois, a corporation is NOT allowed to file a pro se action in court. Other states may have similar restrictions. If push comes to shove, and a lawsuit is filed, definetley check this angle out when preparing your defense.
SQM
Posted by: SQM at May 25, 2012 11:30 AM (FimFn)
I don't see how adding another law for Eric Holder to enforce is going to help anyone who is not a communist. The things these guys are doing are already illegal. If you could prove they had done it, you could sue them for it, too. But you can't prove they did it, and apparently the various branches of LE are simply not interested, or insufficiently interested.
The one thing I see here that could be fixed is SWAT teams showing up at people's houses with guns drawn in response to 911 calls that can't be traced. The police are being played for suckers because they are suckers. They need to sharp up.
Posted by: Jerome at May 25, 2012 11:36 AM (eQa5p)
Posted by: Galos Gann at May 25, 2012 11:43 AM (T3KlW)
Posted by: Kaitian at May 25, 2012 11:45 AM (E81hb)
I'm not sure if those laws are a good idea or not (and isn't is supposed to be liberals who are all 'passing laws fixes everything').
I suspect 'SWATing' is already against the law, what we need to encourage is enforcement.
Posted by: Lea at May 25, 2012 11:45 AM (lIU4e)
The problem isn't that there are not laws to cover what is being done it is that they are not being enforced and law enforcement is not interested in taking up these cases. One more law not being enforced is just one more law that will be used for nefarious purposes later on when it is selectively enforced. Perhaps there is an aspect of existing laws that leads to them being ineffectual and they can be fine tuned?
I feel for you Ace because as a small business guy I see this a lot. The businesses with less money than you are judgment proof and the ones with more money can outlast you in the legal system. People abuse it both ways. There are con artists who the police have no interest in pursuing because it is a civil matter to them when it is a ruinous one to you.
The same is true here only in spades. Kimberlin probably has no assets that it would really hurt him to lose and judgements are not enforced. Law enforcement will consider it trivial or civil. The guys behind him like Soros have deep pockets and are untouchable. Your only hope with them is that they want to be thought of as legitimate so bad publicity can lead them to seek other malefactors as their associates. That is about it.
Perhaps it would be best to concentrate on what the problem really is. There is no system for controlling vexatious litigants. It seems to me perhaps that if someone were to lose a specified number of cases of this sort that involve aggravating factors that are hallmarks of harassment while representing themselves that they should be barred from filing further suits or at least filing them without a lawyer. This would have to be applied on a national level but it balances the rights of the little guy to seek redress against people abusing the system repeatedly for purposes of harassment. It would allow for someone to represent themselves until they prove they are abusing the system.
The virtue here is that the individual cases determine how much leeway someone gets in the future instead of having a one size fits all limitation on everyone's rights. That is typically how we justify taking someone's rights away... we find them guilty of something. Maybe you just subject their suits to heightened scrutiny by a judge before letting them commence and if they still abuse the system then they lose the right to represent themselves.
Blog comments won't move Congressmen but maybe they can help start the conversation to find the best solution so that everyone can support the same thing and speak with a louder and more unified voice as a consequence. If left to our Congressmen then they will screw it up royally. That is what they do. And they are easily confused so you don't want to push them in a lot of different directions at once. It is also easier for them to be comfortable with inaction when there is no clear direction. It is like herding cows. You make one path easy to follow and they naturally just go that way.
We can call for hearings and contact DA's or Congressmen but IMO should be careful about which if any legislative solutions we seek. Newspapers in jurisdictions where DA's have failed to act might be good targets as well.
Not sure any of this helps at all... just spit-balling.
Posted by: Voluble at May 25, 2012 11:48 AM (c8WV/)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at May 25, 2012 11:50 AM (p7SSh)
Posted by: southdakotaboy at May 25, 2012 11:51 AM (Ur6Wj)
Posted by: WClaw at May 25, 2012 11:51 AM (NEJFA)
I'm sympathetic to the argument that we've criminalized far too much conduct, but I think we can all agree that people convicted of going on bombing sprees match the common public definition of "felon" and that withholding quite a few civil rights from them for life is justified.
Posted by: xbradtc at May 25, 2012 11:54 AM (LouEe)
He might well not -win-, but deposition would almost certainly end up with him getting some of the information he doesn't have about phone records.
That is:
Patt talking to Bryn - which is dropped.
SWAT phone call.
Patt talking to Bryn again until they hit the front door.
Getting his own records and the records of the 911 call (as best the police can figure)....
But suing the police when you have to deal with them every day, probably not the best plan. Irritating.
Posted by: Al at May 25, 2012 11:55 AM (MzQOZ)
Kelly Ayotte was our NH Attorney General prior to moving up to the US Senate. I can see her taking an interest in this malicious use of the legal system. I'll be sending her a letter.
There might not be anything that the federal government can DO, but there's one thing that a letter campaign to our federal representatives WILL do: it will make them aware. It will take Kimberlin and his cronies out of their relative obscurity and expose them to the sunshine. The more letters our reps receive, the more voices they hear speaking out against this kind of malicious prosecution and shameful harassment, the more likely they are to make even a token gesture. I would ask one of them to read the first amendment into the Congressional record and state that no one -- not even Kimberlin -- has the right to suppress someone else's free speech, so long as that speech is TRUTH, not libel or slander, and that even in the latter example there is already legal redress an individual can pursue; harassment, threats, and terror-mongering are NOT valid forms of redress.
You can't deny your own past, no matter how much you might want to do so.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter [/i][/b] at May 25, 2012 11:55 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Kaitian at May 25, 2012 11:56 AM (0S4Wt)
Posted by: red923 at May 25, 2012 11:57 AM (Un7SJ)
Nope. Immunity. SCOTUS has ruled that the po-po have absolutely zero obligation to do anything for you. Ever, basically.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 25, 2012 11:58 AM (zlvkY)
In a way I hope so. Fuel to the fire, what with nice Federal telecom crimes and all that Eric Holder will blow off.
And that's the angle here. Massive federal crimes with the state borders being crossed. Where's DOJ on this?
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 25, 2012 12:01 PM (zlvkY)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 25, 2012 12:04 PM (zlvkY)
At that time, it meant literally, 'outside the law'--a person choosing to not be bound by the law, and thus not receiving its protections either.
Sometimes, I think the old ways had a point.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, New Caprica City DMV at May 25, 2012 12:05 PM (GBXon)
Yes, he can't sue them for -inaction-.
But you -do- see suits proceed against the police for overzealousness of all types. False arrest, excessive force etc.
Patterico would not -win- any such thing. But the police -defense- would revolve around why they felt they had a credible reason for storming his house in a 'no warrant served' type situation.
This gets the one piece he actually needs: Where, exactly, did the 911 call come from as best the police can tell?
Posted by: Al at May 25, 2012 12:18 PM (MzQOZ)
There are already laws on the books to protect folks. Look at your local "crimes of coercion" statutes.
Posted by: Chants at May 25, 2012 12:20 PM (po3rX)
Posted by: ManeiNeko at May 25, 2012 12:22 PM (TiE76)
Posted by: packsoldier at May 25, 2012 12:22 PM (IKpd3)
Kimberlin could be cut down to size by being designated a "vexatious litigant" for all his frivolous actions - he would then have to post bonds to pay opponents' legal fees before filing a suit, and any pleading or subpoena would need to be pre-approved by an administrative judge.
He could still call your employer if he can find them, but it would be harder to get all the info, and he couldn't use his "lawfare" tactics.
Posted by: Adjoran at May 25, 2012 12:23 PM (VfmLu)
Posted by: Labcatcher at May 25, 2012 12:27 PM (NPjQV)
Posted by: anon at May 25, 2012 12:30 PM (S9InG)
Ace,
I'm an attorney, but I don't practice law anymore and when I did I was a M&A drone. But I think the key to stopping this guy is to get him back in federal prison. He was origionally sentenced to 50 years. He was released on parole and it was revoked for 4 years because he refused to pay a civil judgement to one of his victims. He was re-released on parole on 2001. Now I'm no fancy criminal lawyer, but it my understanding that a prisoner released on parole is subject to terms of parole until the origional sentence would have expired (even if it is unsupervised parole). I gurantee BK is still subject to terms of parole. If he has done even a fraction of the stuff written on the various blogs reporting this story he should be sent packing. All of these bloggers should pool their resorces to get a really good federal criminal attorney to try to get BK's parole revoked.
Just my 2 cents.
Good Luck
PS: You have balls the size of basketballs.
Posted by: ZombieNixon at May 25, 2012 12:34 PM (Btp+g)
Posted by: bgates at May 25, 2012 12:47 PM (i4q5H)
This though seems to support the historical narrative that we're in the midst of a debate that ultimately will not be won over through discourse alone. It actually raises an interesting question... where is the line in the sand? Clearly the left is willing to stoop to any low to get its way, and we have known this for a while. So where is our line in the sand? At what point are things bad enough to justify "alter and absolishing"?
Posted by: JustAsking? at May 25, 2012 01:18 PM (HS3dy)
Posted by: Lauren at May 25, 2012 01:42 PM (bV8xV)
Posted by: Book at May 25, 2012 01:45 PM (lVWq9)
What they say in their propaganda isn't what they think, it is what they use to manipulate a populace that would hang them if a majority of them actually realized what they truly believe. They call us 'evil' not because it is a winning rhetorical move (it usually isn't) but it is what they believe. Now make the leap and imagine for a moment that they are correct. Remember that in the real world almost nobody believes they are evil, Dr. Evil is funny for exactly that reason. No, wherever their fudged up moral compass points they manage to declare to be 'good' and then anything on the opposite side of the compass is defined as 'evil' That would be us. Remember, scratch a liberal and you almost always find a fascist.
We lose because we fail to allow our minds to realize the scope of the problem because it leads to very dark places. They are evil. Laws won't stop them. The Constitution itself only slowed them briefly. Go reread what pattercio posted again. The guy doesn't want to crap in his own nest too much but read what he states but doesn't dwell upon. He is serving in a blue city in a very blue state and the powers that be are all too happy to look the other way. Reverse the party labels on the victim and perp and they would leap into action. Same thing is happening on the other coast with friendly judges who don't toss this idiot out on his butt for filing friviolous lawsuits and wasting their time. And you can bet his major donors know exactly what they are getting for their money, educating them is pointless, they KNOW; they don't care about anything but winning.
So Ace keeps asking where the sane ones on the left are who will help put this guy out of action are. They are right there with the moderate followers of Mo, in fantasy land. Sure, most of em wouldn't do these stunts themselves, any more than most Muslims will strap on a bomb vest. But just like average 'moderate' Muslims are more than happy to allow them in their midst and erect statues of the martyrs, the average prog is more than happy to allow this guy to dwell in their ranks and make sure he gets enough scratch to keep up his 'good works.'
You can't appeal to their better nature because they don't have one. You can't threaten to settle this "Untouchables" style because they know our side's moral code won't allow it. The reddest area's law enforcement would be all over a swatter regardless who they targeted or why. But that is the right direction to look for a solution. Force. It is the only thing they respect. What we can use against them is the only thing we have, Truth; thankfully it repulses them like garlic to a vampire. Remember that they must maintain the lie of what they are until they can make enough Americans accept them and they haven't done that yet, we are split 40-40-20 and most of them understand that. It is our best weapon, it must be used early, often and relentlessly.
So expose em, expose the ones who support them and keep doing it until these tactics aren't cost effective. Then expose and shame the law enforcement and judiciary who turned a blind eye. And don't stop when they cave to public pressure and do something about this single case, their job must be forfeit. Because if they can inflict more pain on us than we can return they will keep doing it.
This is what total war looks like. Do we want to win as badly as they do? Do you?
Democrat delenda est
Posted by: John Morris at May 25, 2012 02:21 PM (sCRhB)
Donation via Rally: Check
Wish I could do more, but what I want to do to a certain convicted domestic terrorist would be illegal...
Posted by: packsoldier at May 25, 2012 03:00 PM (IKpd3)
Posted by: Just a guy at May 25, 2012 06:59 PM (gnViO)
Posted by: UnravelThePuzzle at May 25, 2012 08:08 PM (g1ZAi)
Posted by: Kermit T. Frog at May 25, 2012 08:24 PM (7MFxV)
NOT
It's a false statement to the police to bring down their heavy reaction force on an innocent.
1st suggestion would be to turn the individual SWAT responders to pursuing charges charges against the one who issued the false statement - taking that bait makes SWAT look really really bad, and SWAT should take it, uhh, what word, not personally, but professionally disruptive.
2nd suggestion, if one did not already take the bait, is that that one should never complain to the civil authorities.
Posted by: Kermit T. Frog at May 25, 2012 09:18 PM (7MFxV)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 26, 2012 07:49 AM (3pr7e)
Posted by: IdahoGal at May 26, 2012 10:28 AM (4WRe7)
Posted by: Duston at May 28, 2012 11:01 AM (Nd/NB)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2546 seconds, 322 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Jimbo at May 25, 2012 10:02 AM (O3R/2)