Posted on 09/20/2014 12:53:14 PM PDT by Daralundy
We recently wrote about the Brett Kimberlin saga -- which is long and involved, and which we'd avoided jumping into for a long time, given how complex and nutty it was. If you're not familiar with it, go back and read that post to catch up on it, but the super short version is that Kimberlin has been suing a lot of people, in large part because he doesn't like the way they're characterizing his past. And he's more or less indicated that he intends to tie people up in court for as long as possible, leading some to put out calls to have him declared a vexatious litigant. Most of the folks he's sued are fighting back, and so far are winning (easily), but apparently the publication The American Spectator not only caved in and likely settled, but it appears to have also deleted all stories from its site about Kimberlin. That seems exceptionally questionable. Pretty much everyone who's looked at these cases has said that Kimberlin has little legal leg to stand on. Many of his legal claims could be summed up as "those people said stuff about me that makes me look bad, and I don't like it."
It was pretty clear that the American Spectator settled when Kimberlin filed to dismiss the charges against the publication with prejudice, which usually suggests the parties worked out a settlement. But to then completely remove all stories that mention Kimberlin entirely raises questions about what sort of standard the American Spectator has concerning its own journalistic integrity. I will admit that I know little about the publication, and don't recall ever having read anything there, but given Kimberlin's lack of success in court to date, it's difficult to see why a publication like that would agree to settle in this manner.
TAS...???!
Verrry strange....
____________________
But this from Wikipedia was interesting:
In November 1988, while Kimberlin was in federal prison, National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg reported that Kimberlin claimed to have sold marijuana to Republican Vice Presidential candidate Dan Quayle, while Quayle was in law school in Indianapolis.
How many Clinton or Obama rumors with as little confirming evidence did Nina make public?
There’s lots of ways to skin a potatoe.
‘Lord Jones is Dead’ - Nina Totenberg
The tort system is lopsided and very much needs to be changed.
When A can sue B and rely on payment of some sort just to avoid court costs, there’s something very, very wrong.
As it stands, there’s more of extortion than tort in the courts.
‘Lord Jones is Dead’ - Nina Totenberg
Didn’t `the totebag’ get herself fired for some viscious, stupid thing she did or said?
The American Spectator is easily cowed by determined critics. I learned that long ago from personal experience. They have dumped journalists before who have contributed major stories not because the writers published something wrong but because powerful critics threatened to sue.
Apparently, all you have to do is so “boo” and they cave immediately. This is shameful. I might also add that National Review has on occasions been almost as bad, too. These little magazines just don’t have the deep pockets to defend themselves and are easy prey for predators with lawyers — predators who deserve the criticism and light of transparency shone upon them.
All right thinking womyn, of course, know our nation's progress has but one enemy: undomesticated flesh-eating men.
Unlike Lloyd Bentsen, who I can forgive now since he's 'gone on to meet his reward,' I cannot forget her unprincipled, unapologetic and enthusiastic rush to join the Clarence Thomas lynching party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.