Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Toward the end of his direct examination of me during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial, The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin brought up the subject of Bill Schmalfeldt.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Have you filed any — do you know a reporter named — or an individual named Bill Schmalfeldt?

MR. HOGE: Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Have you filed 367 —

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained —

MR. KIMBERLIN: — criminal charges against Bill Schmalfeldt?

THE COURT: — that is the most leading question I’ve ever heard.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. Have you filed any charges against Bill Smallfeld?

MR. OSTRONIC: I’m still going to object.

THE COURT: Sustained. You can’t tell the person the answer to the question in the question. That’s what a leading question is.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Do you know Bill Schmalfeldt?

MR. HOGE: Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Have you ever filed any charges against him?

MR. HOGE: Yes.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KIMBERLIN: How many?

MR. HOGE: It’s some place north of 360 for multiple violations of a peace order.

MR. KIMBERLIN: So, 367 criminal charges. My question, what were the results? Simple question. Were they nolle prosed?

MR. HOGE: At my request.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And you — why did you file — what got Smallfeldt on —

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, your honor. This —

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: — can’t be possibly be defamation —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay, I’m only trying to show that these individuals attack anyone. Innocent question. He’s a reporter. He wrote a story.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Well, that’s not a —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. And what happens?

THE COURT: — cause of action. It’s not a cause of action whether they — even if they did that —

MR. KIMBERLIN: It goes to malice.

THE COURT: — that’s not a cause of action.

MR. KIMBERLIN: It goes to malice, sir.

THE COURT: But — for someone else to be — no. Ask another question if you have one.

TDPK got off that topic and moved on briefly to something else. My lawyer only had one question during cross examination.

MR. OSTRONIC: I just have one question, and — on the Bill Schmalfeldt bit. Your charges were — what was the brief disposition of those?

MR. HOGE: Because of — things were getting so out of hand, at the suggestion of the Carroll County State’s Attorney’s Office, Mr.Schmalfeldt and I engaged in a mediation session. At the mediation session, Mr. Schmalfeldt agreed to abide by the peace order going forward. If I was going to get him to abide by the peace order, there wasn’t any reason to go any further, and so I — if you’re going to do this, then let’s dismiss the charges.

This was the second instance of TDPK trying to make the case that my attempts to enforce the peace order against Bill Schmalfeldt demonstrated malice toward Brett Kimberlin. (The first was in a filing in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.) I find this more than a little interesting.

Now, it is true that the first time I wrote about Schmalfeldt, I was covering the news of his publication of sealed court documents on Kimberlin’s behalf. However, the basis of the peace order had to do with Schmalfeldt’s subsequent harassment of me. It was not based on any actions taken by TDPK—unless Schmalfeldt was acting as Kimberlin’s agent while harassing me.

Of course, that’s not an unreasonable assumption. Schmalfeldt famously proclaimed that he would not have to be “investigating” folks if they would leave Brett Kimberlin alone.

Whatever.

Bill Schmalfeldt is now effectively sidelined. He knows that any further attempts at using extortionate tactics for his “investigations” will result in pushback, the least of which could be yet another restraining order or peace order. He has no significant following. He sputters and rants about what he reads online to a minuscule audience. No one takes him seriously, and, except for a few people who poke fun at him, almost no one looks at his tweet feed or blog. Essentially all the copies of his recent books that he sold were purchased for use as evidence against him. None of his “friends” have answered any of his tweets for over a week. He’s last year’s train wreck.

He’s also is, or should be, an object lesson to the rest of Team Kimberlin. Their lying, cyberthuggery, and lawfare is doomed to failure when it meets determined opposition. The smarter members will likely try to disentangle themselves. The rest will go down with The Dread Pirate Kimberlin on his sinking ship.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Here’s another bit of bumbling from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s direct examination of Stacy McCain during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. And then did you also tweet that “Perhaps Pat Stranahan and that WJJ Hoge can communicate facts to hired liar Monica Hess”?

MR. MCCAIN: Did I tweet that? Are you showing me a tweet? Okay, let me state for the record that this is not — this is — what this is from — can I make the point this is from the site Breitbart Unmasked. Do you agree?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m just asking you a simple question —

MR. MCCAIN: No. No. You’re showing me something from another site that you are accused of owning.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No. I’m asking a simple question. Did you tweet –

MR. OSTRONIC: Your honor, I’ll object. It’s an unauthenticated document.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No further questions for this witness.

It is downright foolish to attempt to outcrazy Stacy McCain.

Dotting Is and Crossing Ts


Paul Alan Levy has responded to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s most recent letter to Judge Hazel in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.

BTW, TDPK has 33 days left before his omnibus response to the motions to dismiss is due on 15 October. That’s the first anniversary of his filing the lawsuit.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin asked remarkably foolish questions during the trial for the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. Consider this exchange with Stacy McCain.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Do you tie me to Neal Rauhauser?

MR. MCCAIN: You’ve tied yourself to Neal Rauhauser. You told a Maryland court that he is your associate. He has claimed you as his client. Neal Rauhauser has represented your other —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Objection. That’s hearsay

MR. MCCAIN: I’m answering your question.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: It’s your question, sir.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I know. But —

MR. MCCAIN: Can I answer the question?

THE COURT: Yes. You may.

MR. MCCAIN: Thank you. Okay. Neal Rauhauser, you stood in court and said that Neal Rauhauser is your associate. He’s attended multiple hearings where he was not a party that you were involved in. Neal Rauhauser has described you as his client. Neal Rauhauser represented himself as an agent of your nonprofit, Velvetrevolution.us. So he is your associate.

Comparing TDPK to Hamilton Burger would defame Hamilton Burger.

#FAIL

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


A good trial lawyer never asks a question of a witness unless he knows what the answer should be. A corollary of that is that a good trail lawyer will avoid asking certain questions because he knows what the answer should be. The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin repeatedly violated both those rules in his conduct of the trail in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit.

This question may have been his most spectacular blunder. He asked it of Aaron Walker.

MR: KIMBERLIN: Okay, now when you call me a pedophile, you must have some basis for that, so I’m going to let you tell the jury why you — you know, why you think that’s true, and where is the truth? Where is the evidence?

Aaron responded at length with a detailed explanation of the evidence that led him to view TDPK as a pedophile. At the end of TDPK’s examination, it was our lawyer’s turn to ask questions.

THE COURT: — oh, do you have questions you want to ask him? No?

MR. OSTRONIC: No, your honor. I think Mr. Kimberlin asked every question I wanted.

Heh.