ECF 124 Redacted

8/12/2019 ECF 124 Redacted

1/32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * Civil ActionPWG 13-3059

NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al., *

Defendants *

* * * * * * * * * *

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS MICHELLE MALKIN ANDTWITCHY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL (ECF No. 41)

Michael F. SmithThe Smith Appellate Law Firm1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1025Washington, D.C. [email protected](202) 454-2860

Bar No. 29941Counsel for DefendantsMichelle Malkin and Twitchy

Date: April 28, 2014

Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 5


2/32

1

Mr. Kimberlin has pending a Maryland state-court action against various defendants in this case,

though not Mrs. Malkin or Twitchy. Kimberlin v. Walker et al. , Montgomery Cir. Case No. 380966. At

an April 9, 2014 oral argument on defendant Ali Akbar's motion to dismiss that case, he admitted

altering a Postal Service return-of-service card in connection with his purported service of the complaint

on Mr. Akbar, to indicate he had requested "restricted delivery" before filing it with the court:

THE COURT: Did you alter the return receipts between docket entry 38 and 50whatever, did you change them?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I did not change them intentionally. When I go to the post office, Iask them to do it so it's registered or whatever it's called, restricteddelivery, and they did not do it. [Defendant Akbar is] saying thatthere's an extra fee. I've never paid an extra fee for restricteddelivery. I've sent literally 50 or 100 of these things and neveronce faked a [unintelligible] restricted delivery, but, you know,Mr. Akbar here sitting right there that this was sent in January 2ndto Mr. Akbar. It came back, it's restricted delivery. This one hereis January 25th, again, Mr. Akbar came back restricted delivery,you know, undeliverable. And you know he keeps accusing me ofnot paying the extra fee.

THE COURT: This isn't about paying a fee.

MR. KIMBERLIN: That's what he said.

THE COURT: This is about the exact same brief green card being filed -- thesupport motions you filed, the different docket entries, oneshowing the restricted delivery box checked and one not.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, like I said I asked the post office to send it restricteddelivery.

THE COURT: You're not answering my question.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I changed --

THE COURT: Did you change it?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I did.



3/32

2

THE COURT: And then you filed it representing that it accurately reflected thegreen card that had been filled out.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, no, no, I filed it and accurately said -- it accurately reflectedwhat I told the post office to do and that's what it is. You know,like I said I'm a pro se litigant and --

THE COURT: Don't even use that with me.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay, okay --

THE COURT: You know it's one thing to say I'm pro se so I don't understandrules or I don't understand how to get something in and the rules ofevidence and another thing to alter something and file it.... [Ex A ,TR 4/9/14, pp 21-23 (emphasis added)].

DISCUSSION

I. Mr. Kimberlin's statements show a pattern of misconduct that undermines his defense ofinadvertent pro se mistake, and supports dismissal and/or a significant monetary sanction.

After first ignoring the allegations regarding the Twitchy summons, ECF 67, Mr. Kimberlin

admitted forging it but offered this Court various excuses, including his pro-se status. ECF 102

Response. But as his comments to the state court show, Mr. Kimberlin's falsification of the summons is

part of a pattern of similar litigation misconduct that vitiates the defense he has proffered here.

In the state court, as in this Court, Mr. Kimberlin when caught in misconduct sought refuge

behind his pro-se status. Ex A , TR 4/9/14, pp. 14, 22; also ECF 102 Response, pp. 1-2. In both courts,

he claimed his action was necessitated by a public employee's improbable neglect of his or her routine

duties. Ex A , TR 4/9/14, pp. 21-22 (postal clerk failed to honor his request for restricted delivery); ECF

102 Response, pp. 1-2 (deputy clerk of this Court failed to issue Twitchy summons). In both courts he

assumed a chastened air and said he had learned his lesson but only after a defendant was forced to

expend resources exposing his conduct, and extracting an admission of wrongdoing. Ex A , TR 4/9/14,

pp. 22, 25 ("I understand"); ECF 102 Response, pp. 1-2 (private session with Clerk for summons



4/32

3

instruction). And in each court he has blamed the victim of his unsuccessful deception for complaining

about it. Ex A , TR 4/9/14, pg. 22 (criticizing Mr. Akbar for supposedly objecting that he failed to pay

for restricted delivery); ECF 111-1 Response, pg. 1 (Twitchy is being "petty" and "wasting the court's

time" in continuing to seek dismissal and sanctions).

This Court's inherent authority "extends to a full range of litigation abuses," Chambers v. Nasco,

Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991), and a pattern of litigation misconduct may justify dismissal under it.

Vargas v. Peltz , 901 F. Supp. 1572, 1579-82 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (persistent pattern of misconduct by

plaintiff and her husband that amounted to fraud on the court, including fabrication of evidence, perjury,

and repeated false deposition testimony) (collecting cases); Riverside Mem. Mausoleum, Inc. v.

Sonnenblick-Goldman Corp. , 80 F.R.D. 433, 435-436 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (dismissal justified by plaintiff's

pattern of ignoring court orders and deadlines). The April 9 hearing transcript establishes such a pattern,

and shows that falsification of the Twitchy summons was no innocent or accidental pro-se mistake. It

warrants the strongest possible sanction, up to and including dismissal.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael F. SmithMichael F. Smith

The Smith Appellate Law Firm1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1025Washington, D.C. [email protected](202) 454-2860Bar No. 29941

Counsel for Defendants Michelle Malkinand Twitchy

Date: April 28, 2014



5/32

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Supplemental Memorandum and its Ex

A was electronically filed in this case on April 28, 2014 and thus served on counsel of record via the

Court's ECF system. Additionally, I am serving the document via email this date on plaintiff Kimberlin

and on defendants Hoge, McCain, and Walker by the express permission of each.

By: /s/ Michael F. Smith

Dated: April 28, 2014



6/32

Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 27


7/32



8/32



9/32



10/32


11/32



12/32



13/32



14/32



15/32



16/32



17/32



18/32



19/32



20/32



21/32



22/32



23/32



24/32



25/32



26/32



27/32



28/32



29/32



30/32



31/32



32/32


ECF 124 Redacted

Documents

Transcript of ECF 124 Redacted