As part of discovery in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin lost this week, I sought discovery of documents.
You can see from TDPK’s answers beginning with number 13 that he thought that he would control what evidence would be introduced. He wound up being correct only because the case folded before we put on our defense.
I’m sticking by my theory that TDPK didn’t testify because he wanted to avoid being trapped between perjury and the Fifth Amendment when confronted with some of the issues raised in my request for documents.
He still has time to drop his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness before things really hit the fan in that case. Is he smart enough?
We shall see.
There’s been a lot of speculation about why Brett Kimberlin fought so hard to be able to testify and then kept himself off the witness stand. Gentle Reader, your guess is as good as mine, but I’m betting on fear of being trapped between perjury and the Fifth Amendment during cross examination. You see, he probably understood that he would be asked many of the same question that were in our discovery interrogatories.
One of the basic rules of examining a witness at trial is never to ask a question unless you already know the answer. That’s not true in discovery. The purpose of asking questions is to develop information that may lead to evidence that can be introduced at trial. However, that doesn’t mean that my lawyer and I did not already know the answers to my discovery interrogatories. We may have been looking for confirmation.
Still, some of TDPK’s statements during hearings or the trial or during proceedings in other courts appear to contradict his sworn statements made in answer to these interrogatories. In Maryland, contradictory sworn statements knowingly made about a material fact constitute a prima facie case of perjury.
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is refusing to answer the interrogatories posed by Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, and me or my request for production of documents for our defense of the his Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance suit, in some cases invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
He’s afraid to provide stuff like this—Hmmmmm.
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin doesn’t want to answer the interrogatories that I sent him as part of discovery in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance suit. For example—Irrelevant to the case? Really? I thought TDPK was suing me because he says I have called him a pedophile. This is from his complaint—
This is found on page 78 of Citizen K:
His [Kimberlin's] attachment to Jessica was quite a different matter. Their weekly after-school outings, Kimberlin said, were “very special days” for her. … For three consecutive summers, 1974 through 1976, they took vacations for a week or longer in Disney World, Mexico, and Hawaii. Sandi ["Jessica's" mother] couldn’t get time off from work, so on these summer trips it was just the two of them—Brett and Jessica.
Eyebrows levitated. A drug-dealing colleague had memories of conversations with Kimberlin that struck him as odd: “We’d see a girl who was pubescent or prepubescent, and Brett would get this smile and say, ‘Hey, what do you think? Isn’t she great?’ It made me very uncomfortable.” Another recalled Kimberlin introducing Jessica as “my girlfriend,” and if irony was intended, it was too subtile to register.
<sarc>Nothing to see here. Move along.</sarc>
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination rather than properly respond to some of the interrogatories or requests for production of documents from the defendants in his vexatious Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit. He is attempting to invoke other privileges as well.
UPDATE—Here are my responses to the interrogatories from TDPK:
I think so, Brain … but what if the stoats and weasels take the Fifth?
I think so, Brain … but if I did something that stupid, I’d keep my mouth shut.