Source: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-franklin-center-replies-to.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:40:29+00:00

Document:
So previously the Franklin Center (“TFC”) filed a motion to dismiss Brett Kimberlin’s silly RICO suit which you can read here. The way it works in federal court, and in most state courts, is this. Party A files a motion. Anyone inclined to oppose it files an opposition. Party A then has an opportunity to file a Reply. And it is worth noting that the opposition could be filed by people on the same side. I could have theoretically filed and argued that it would prejudice my interests to see TFC dismissed. That does happen in other cases, but I don’t expect it to happen here, and I know you won’t see that coming from me. I want to see everyone out of the case as soon as possible, even if that ends up meaning I am the only one in it.
But a sharp-eyed reader will notice that Brett makes reference to arguments made in other Oppositions. The truth is Brett’s three separate oppositions filed that day—against me and John’s MTD, against DB Capital Strategies’ MTD, and against TFC’s MTD—all make reference to each other effectively requiring us to respond to all three. So truthfully, you will not see the whole picture until you see all three, but I want to wait until I present my reply before you see it. After all, I want his lies rebutted in the same post where they are presented.
Furthermore, while the court does give a certain amount of deference to parties litigating pro se, this "does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court." Solomon v. Dawson (D. Md. July 18, 2013) case number PWG-13-1951.
“Liberal construction does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court.” Solomon v. Dawson, Case No. 13-CV-01951, ECF No. 5. (D. Md. 2013).
While some deference is ordinarily due to a pro se litigant, this “does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court.” Solomon v. Dawson (D. Md. July 18, 2013) case number PWG-13-1951.
I think it is fair to say that they seem to be more likely to be borrowing more from my reply. From the word “this” on, it’s word-for-word in matching my language, including my choice of when to start quoting from the court.
And, incidentally, as a matter of inside baseball, you can tell something about this Solomon case just by looking at it. That “PWG” in the case number? That stands for Paul W. Grimm, the same judge deciding this case. So basically what I, John and TFC have done is quote Judge Grimm back to himself, which is wise for all kinds of reasons.
In addition to that, TFC seems to have taken from one of our legal arguments the citation to Carpenters v. Scott and Griffin v. Breckinridge, although the quotation is not so close as to ring any bells and could have come just as easily from the motions to dismiss as any of our replies. And they likewise seem to have taken my idea that Smith v. Esquire controls on the statute of limitations for False Light claims. You will see a lot more fireworks on that subject in my reply because Brett tries to lie to the court in relation to that case.
Finally, a notation on redactions. Normally email addresses are pretty strictly redacted when I publish these things, with the exception of professional contact information for lawyers, because if anything they probably prefer that information to be out there. But I made an exception for those messages allegedly sent to Kimberlin that crossed the line into a true threat, in my opinion. I mean I don’t care about a guy who just said, “you’ve been exposed” or said Kimberlin is going back to jail (again). A threat to expose Kimberlin’s conduct is not actionable. Neither is a threat to send him back to prison. I suppose if that person said, “give me $10,000 or I will send you back to prison” that would be extortion, but just stating that he is going back to prison? A person has a right to want that, even to gloat over the possibility, even if one might find it distasteful. It’s protected speech.
But if someone allegedly threatened true physical harm, then by redacting that information I am potentially hiding evidence from the world. And I think more sunlight is better than less in these sorts of cases. Bluntly, if you have any information about who might have allegedly sent those messages I want it to come out.
But also I don’t think any of them are genuine. Patterico once documented strong evidence that Team Kimberlin was faking death threats and Kimberlin is a convicted document forger, after all, one of the few people know knows what Presidential Seal tastes like. And here’s one more thing: why hasn’t Brett made any of these people who allegedly threatened him part of the suit? He has never been shy about suing anonymous writers on the internet. Right now he has three actions against the person or persons known as “Kimberlin Unmasked,” and the RICO suit includes “Ace of Spades.” So why hasn’t he sued, for instance, the person who wrote under the name “Army of Davids” who facially really did send a death threat? Am I the only person who thinks that he hasn’t sued them, because he knows who sent these messages, and he knows that at its core it is phony?
Still, on the off chance that they are genuine, I am not redacting information like their email address and if you think you know anything about them, let me know. Or let law enforcement know (for if you don’t tell them I will).
So that is it for today. The next document dump will be Monday and it will be Brett Kimberlin’s latest attempt to use the courts to shut us up. Stay tuned!
And then my loose plan is to show you the documents I filed starting Tuesday. As a preview, I filed three things last Monday. First, a motion to strike his oppositions. Second, a motion asking for leave to file a reply in excess of the page limit. And third, the reply itself, on the assumption that the court will grant that leave (as is commonly done).
* It is worth noting—in light of all the shenanigans going on with service—that TFC received service much later than I did even though their address is closer to Kimberlin than my home.
Is it just me or does Kimberlin come across as a whiny drama queen in his filings?? Seriously I know he's "pro-se" but he needs to drop the florid dramatizing adjectives if he wants to be taken seriously.
Hope this ridiculous mess gets dismissed with FULL relief for you and the other defendants.
I don't mean to make light of your situation, because I know it is not easy. But there is a certain "pass the popcorn" element in all this right now. Mostly in watching how Kimberlin is stumbling over himself, time and time again. I'm wondering if he is starting to realize he may have bitten off more than he can chew this time.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.