Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The last couple of posts in this series dealt with some of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s court cases while he was back in the slammer after his parole was revoked. This is from Kimberlin v. Dewalt and deals with why his parole was revoked. (For those who haven’t been following The Saga for long, Sandra DeLong is the widow of the man who died as a result of one of the Speedway bombings. She received a 1.6 million dollar judgment for her injuries and the wrongful death of her husband.)

Next, petitioner denied any attempt to avoid the special condition and offered to settle with Mrs. DeLong for $30,000. He further contested Officer Ramsburg’s testimony concerning the sudden changes in his financial situation after the February 10, 1997 Notice of Action. The examiner found that petitioner used “deceitful maneuvers to hide his ability to pay” and that his “relatives and friends are obviously acting to help him by filing claims and liens to protect his money and property from being available to satisfy the victim’s judgment.” The examiner further found that the “evidence against [petitioner] was provided by the subject himself,” and that at no time did petitioner “indicate any concern or empathy for the victim.” Finally, the examiner found that petitioner’s settlement offers were not undertaken in good faith; concluded that petitioner had resisted parole supervision by Officer Ramsburg “in every way he can,” and recommended revocation of parole with a presumptive parole date of two years. Petitioner was taken into custody at the conclusion of the hearing. On June 27, 1997 the Commission adopted the examiner’s recommendation, revoking petitioner’s parole and continuing him to a presumptive parole date of June 5, 1999.

He stayed in prison until 2001.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Yesterday, I published the text of the final ruling in Kimberlin v. Judges of 4CCA which referred to that suit as frivolous. Much of what The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin files fall into that category. Consider Kimberlin v. Dept. of Justice. TDPK filed the lawsuit shortly after being returned to prison when his parole was revoked. He sued the Bureau of Prisons because he couldn’t have an electric guitar. Here are some quotes from the decision of District Court for the District of Columbia.

Brett Kimberlin and Darrell Rice, prison inmates, challenge the constitutionality of the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) ban on electric or electronic instruments in federal prisons, except those used in connection with religious activities, and the Zimmer Amendment, section 611 of Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (“the Amendment”), which bans federal funding for electric or electronic instruments in federal prisons but does not by its terms create a religious use exception. Claims 1 and 2 of plaintiffs’ complaint allege that BOP violated the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1996)(“APA”). Claim 3 alleges that BOP interferes with their First Amendment right to expression through music and music writing. Finally, Claim 4 alleges that BOP’s policy deprives plaintiffs of their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Plaintiffs argue that to require them to express themselves musically on an acoustic instrument would be akin to requiring rap musicians to sing ballads, or Muslim prisoners to attend Catholic religious services. Plaintiffs insist that they cannot perform their music on acoustic instruments.

The trial court found that the law and the prison regulations were constitutional. This was another case TDPK lost.

Of course, he appealed, and this is what the Court of Appeals for DC ruled:

[W]e conclude that the challenged BOP regulations prohibiting prisoner possession or use of electric and electronic musical instruments do not violate the APA or the Constitution. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed.

The purpose of TDPK’s suit wasn’t to have access to a necessity. He was suing for access to something that was nice to have, for a luxury item. Prison isn’t supposed to be a place for easy living. Furthermore, the BOP’s regulation did not prohibit playing music, it simply limited the types of instruments available. As the District Court noted,

Here, the policy seeks to deter crime by making prison harsher. This goal is unrelated to the suppression of musical expression. BOP did not seek to suppress musical expression per se. Rather, it sought to make prisons harsher by prohibiting luxury items, including electrical and electronic instruments.

Brett Kimberlin does not pick his battles well. That’s one of the reasons why he’s a loser.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


A few days ago, I responded to a comment by noting that Brett Kimberlin’s history of frivolous lawsuits includes suing the judges of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. He filed the suit in December, 1998, when he was back in prison after his parole was revoked. Here’s the final ruling in the case:

Brett C. Kimberlin appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error in the court’s finding that Kimberlin failed to state a constitutional claim. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Kimberlin v. Judges of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. CA-98-1484 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 1999). We deny Kimberlin’s motion to certify this appeal to the Supreme Court and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

Yes, he’s filed over a hundred lawsuits and lost almost every one.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


This bit from my Informal Response Brief file in the Fourth Circuit appeal of the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness is worth repeating for emphasis.

It is telling that Appellant states he would have been able to allege his case with proper specificity if he had been allowed to conduct discovery.  See Appellant’s Lead Brief at 6, 8.  This amounts to an admission that he truly was engaged in a fishing expedition in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, sanctionable conduct providing yet another reason for the lawsuit to have been dismissed.

Stay tuned.

Is #BrettKimberlin Appealing?


The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals doesn’t seem to think so.

UPDATE—It turns out that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s brief arrived at the court in today’s mail.

It’s a marvelously defective document, but I’ll save my comments for my informal response brief.

Stay tuned.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin mailed his informal brief in his appeal of the RICO Madness LOLsuit to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the last day allowed for it to arrive in Richmond. The Court will probably accept his brief anyway.

Aaron Walker has a copy posted over at Allergic to Bull.

popcorn4bkI got a hold of a copy this afternoon and have managed to stop laughing long enough to write a first draft of my informal reply. I’ll review and edit it for a few days before filing it. Meanwhile, I don’t have any further comment on TDPK’s filing until after the Court decides whether or not to let the appeal go forward.

Stay tuned.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


I’ve been rereading various hearing and trial transcripts in preparation for … well. let’s just say that I’ve been reviewing stuff. I found this exchange from last August’s Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial interesting.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Did you write any article or did you see any article by any of these men, defendants after those charges were dropped that said that they were nolle pross?

MR. MCCAIN: I don’t know what I saw. I mean you know, I read a lot of articles obviously —

MR. KIMBERLIN: But did you write a story saying gee, Brett was falsely accused and my God I’m so sorry.

MR. MCCAIN: You weren’t falsely accused.

MR. OSTRONIC [Stacy’s Lawyer]: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MCCAIN: Noll pross does not mean you were falsely accused. I’ve had traffic tickets that were noll pross. That didn’t mean I wasn’t going 85 miles an hour.

popcorn4bkThe Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin was trying to make the point to the jury that some charges against him had been dropped, implying that he was not guilty. Stacy quite skillfully and humorously informed the jury that dropping charges does not necessarily mean the person charged was innocent.

TDPK is a lousy litigator. He’s also a fool for trying to outcrazy Stacy McCain.