Friday, August 29, 2014

Fighting Back at Brett Kimberlin: Vexatious Litigants and Civil Restraint Orders #BrettKimberlin

There has been much talk about having Brett Kimberlin adjudged a "vexatious litigant" after his last two lawsuits against conservative bloggers.  His recent lawsuits include a meritless lawsuit in the Maryland court system, now ended with a directed verdict against Kimberlin, and an ongoing (even more absurd) RICO lawsuit in the federal court system.

Kimberlin has reportedly filed over 100 lawsuits, suing judges, opposing attorneys, the widow of his bombing victim, and even a U.S. Senator in an orgy of meritless and abusive litigation.  This week W.J.J. Hoge reports that Kimberlin will now appeal the directed verdict in the Maryland case, and is considering a third lawsuit, this one in federal court.

I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding:  A "vexatious litigant" is anyone who files many meritless lawsuits, abusing the legal system to punish or extort defendants.  Once a court finds someone to be a "vexatious litigant," that person can no longer file lawsuits without the prior review and consent of a judge, and must post bonds to cover the expenses of the defendants in the event the suit fails.

Ken White at Popehat discusses the need and the means to have Kimberlin declared a vexatious litigant.  He wants to compile a list of all lawsuits filed by Kimberlin over the past 35 years.  But is that even necessary?  Why wouldn't the last five, six or ten of his latest lawsuits suffice?  Or the most egregious examples?  Why would we need all of his lawsuits to prove him a vexatious litigant?  How many are necessary?  What have other court cases decided in similar situations?

I found this book on Amazon (see graphic above):  Vexatious Litigants and Civil Restraint Orders.  It is a legal guide to vexatious litigants.  Resources are available.  We should not let this issue drop.  With Kimberlin promising to punish his victims with "endless lawsuits for the rest of their lives," it is imperative that seeking a civil restraint order against Kimberlin's serial litigation go forward as soon as possible.

Postscript:  Here is a federal court case in which the pro se plaintiff was declared to be a vexatious litigant.  This pro se plaintiff's suit and claims have a striking similarity to those filed by Brett Kimberlin in his RICO lawsuit, i.e.:
1. In this case alone, Plaintiff filed almost one hundred motions or other requests for relief, the majority of which are duplicative of relief previously denied by this court or other courts.
2.  The court dismissed the plaintiff's causes of action against the defendants for "1) race discrimination, (2) employment discrimination, (3) retaliation, (4) free speech discrimination or retaliation, (5) defamation, (6) breach of contract, (7) breach of trust, (8) breach of confidence, (9) antitrust violations, (10) unfair competition, (11) copyright violations, (12) conspiracy, (13) civil violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, (14) violations of privacy, (15) misappropriation of intellectual property, and (16) bad-faith dealing."
3. [T]he facts alleged in the Complaint are both fantastic and delusional. For example, one of Plaintiff s allegations involves what he calls a “broad base conspiracy” to steal unidentified “intellectual properties.” Compl. at 3. To this end, he alleges merely that all of the defendants in this action “are inter-connected holding business contracts for joint business purposes.” 
4. Plaintiffs allegations are clearly fanciful and delusional on their face.  The facts and legal claims set forth in the Complaint are virtually identical to those made by Plaintiff in cases that have been repeatedly dismissed by other courts, including the courts of this district. They are frivolous and, in keeping with Plaintiffs typical modus operandi, appear to be made for the purpose of harassing the defendants into entering into a nuisance settlement.
5. “It is evident to this Court that Whitehead is either, at best, a dealer in Mitigation futures,’ or at worst a ‘litigation extortionist.’ Neither approach should be tolerated under the Rules of Civil Procedure.”

No comments: