Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen's Consumer Justice Project, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« More on the President's executive order on forced arbitration | Main | The relationship between the concept of the lawyer as economic parasite and access to justice »

Friday, August 01, 2014

Comments

Sarahw

Two points...there have been no "attacks" on his family. And he never specifies statements that he contests.

Pablo

He indicates that, for example, that other parents won’t let their children have sleepovers with his daughter.

That looks to be a public service provided by the defendants, particularly considering the kiddie porn convict he has recently had living with said daughters.

DonM

Has good judgement been previously displayed in Brett Kimberlin's life?

Nervous Commenter

Mr. Levy, I immensely enjoyed reading this crystal-clear presentation of the issues relevant to the controversies surrounding Brett Kimberlin. To be perfectly blunt about it, the antics of said Brett Kimberlin have strongly tempted me to vigorously repost and amplify the many accusations made against the man by various other bloggers. Sadly, I lack the financial resources necessary to adequately deal with the inevitable, vicious attacks from a convicted terrorist bomber, known perjurer and notorious liberal zealot who has been closely linked to fraudulent false SWAT calls that have left homes in shambles and innocent people shaking in fear for months.

I suppose I should stop here, or a certain person we all know and heartily detest will add me to his frivolous, thuggish lawsuits against journalists and other brave souls.

Amy

Kimberlin is employing the time-honored tactic of cowards everywhere: using children as shields. I hope the judge throws him out on his whiny behind.

That said, it *is* sad if Kimberlin's children have to face the consequences of their father's pathological, sociopathic behavior. But it's also sad that people like Kimberlin can have children in the first place. And the fact that his children suffer is Kimberlin's fault, and the blame lays squarely with him. But that is in no way the fault of the people that Kimberlin harasses who fight back.

Mr Minority

I have been following the disgusting antics of Brett Kimberlin for years since I read the legal BS he put Mr Walker through.

This man (and I use that term loosely) will have no qualms putting his daughter through the wringer just so he can say that the defendants in the case were out to get him and his family.

Brett Kimberlin displays the traits of a narcissistic sociopath, whose only goal is to inflict harm on others that don't agree with him, hold a opposing political view, or plainly get in his way of what he wants to do (whether it is to inflict pain or financial burdens on others or file his lawfare suits). He is a morally corrupt man and unfit to be a father.

So I would not be surprised if he did file the affidavit of his daughter and have her go though the pain of cross examination in a public trial.

Because in the end it is all about Brett Kimberlin and no one else in his demented mind.

Aaron "Worthing" Walker

I am the Aaron Walker mentioned in the article.

I'll mainly leave off on the merits of the various cases Brett has filed on this blog, except to say I have never written anything about Brett that I didn't believe was true. I don't want to put Paul in an awkward position.

But as for the larger point, it seems to me that the classic example of a meritorious suit for defamation that still shouldn't have been brought was the recent Chris Kyle/Jesse Ventura case. For those not in the know, basically Kyle (a famous American sniper) said that he was at a wake for a fallen special forces soldier when Ventura happened to be in the same bar. Kyle claimed that Ventura said something about us deserving to lose a few in Iraq and Kyle decked him. Then he wrote about it in his book without naming names, and then, when he was on tour, admitted Ventura was the guy he was talking about.

So Ventura sued. As i understand it Ventura didn't sue over the claim he was decked--there are apparently enough witnesses to that to put it beyond reasonable dispute--but over the claim that he said something about our troops deserving to die. Then Kyle was tragically shot to death and Ventura continued the suit against Kyle's grieving widow.

And just last week he evidently won, a bit over $1 million. I am always reluctant to second guess a jury, out of a combination of 1) trust in the regular folks and 2) I wasn't there, so I don't know all that they saw. I am concerned, however, that since Chris Kyle is dead, that his estate might've merely lost because it could not longer effectively defend itself.

But let's assume the jury was right, Ventura was slimed and all that. Even so, right now there are few people who think this helped Ventura's reputation and people like Dana Loesch are digging out some other crazy stuff that Ventura verifiably said that makes what he was alleged to have said not very damaging by comparison. I have gone as far to say that if I was Ventura's lawyer, i would tell him to publicly announce that he was going to forfeit the debt, now that he got his moral victory. I think the majority of people would agree that even if Ventura was technically right in all of this, he was morally wrong, and the suit should have ended with Chris Kyle's death.

So even where a defamation suit is meritorious it is often a bad idea to actually sue.

Or take another case, Falwell v. Hustler Magazine. (I forgot whether it was styled Falwell v. Hustler or Hustler v. Falwell, in the Sup. Ct. but whatever.) Now aside from the fact that parody is protected speech, one really has to wonder how on earth it advanced Falwell's goals to bring this suit. First, it puts him on the wrong side of a freedom of expression debate, and second, you want to talk about Streisand effects? There is a copy of the offending parody ad in my constitutional law casebook! There is a movie starring Ed Norton (and others) largely about the case. If Falwell just let the whole thing go, no one would remember this lame attempt at humor any more than people would know the name 2Live Crew but for the attempt to censor them.

As a lawyer, I see my job as not so much to sue people, but to help my client find a solution to a problem. The best lawyers know that sometimes the answer is not to sue. Sometimes it is even just to let things go.

Matthew Cline

Is damage to the social life of the children of a plaintiff the sort of thing that counts as "damages" for a defamation suit? If so, to me it doesn't seem to be the sort of damage that could be cured by money. On the other hand, allowing that sort of thing to trigger a preliminary injunction would just encourage defamation plaintiff to bring their children into their mess.

DaTechGuyblog

I think you are missing something.

I don't think Kimberlin's actual goal is "relief" of anything.

His primary goal, in my opinion, initially was to intimidate those who would write against him and/or interfere with what he was doing politically.

As that did not work due to the nature and sheer volume of the net goal #2 is to cause the maximum inconvenience to said foes.

Thus very motion, every delay, every single day that the defendants in this case constitutes a "victory" for Mr. Kimberlin et/al and of course there is always the tiny chance that one of said defendants will make a mistake that Mr. Kimberlin can pounce on.

That is what this is all about and the only price he is paying consists of time that he has plenty of.

And of course there is always the outside chance that friends may help fund all of this.

andrews

At the very least, the past defendants ought to get their costs if not their fees against Kimberlin. Does anyone know if they have actually received checks?

In the present case, they may want to look into the possibility that the appropriate state has an ``offer of judgment'' statute. Again, no guarantee that they would be paid, but a few of those unpaid judgments for fees and costs could make life more interesting for Mr. Kimberlin.

BKWatch

The trial was over, and Paul Alan Levy was right. Kimberlin was wrong, and did in fact choose to put his daughter on the stand to testify that Brett hadn't molested her. The defendants did not cross the witness.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30