Dread Pirate #BrettKimberlin, Go Away or I Will Taunt You a Second Time

The Dread Pirate Kimberlin keeps filing motions with little or no connection with the law or reality, and he wonders why he is a source of laughter on the Internet. Of course, he really doesn’t have much choice in the small corner he has painted himself into. The DeLong judgment (a million bucks plus) is still hanging out there unsatisfied, and anything that would show that he has an above-poverty-level income would result in the attachment of his assets. Still, you’d think that he could come up with less nonsensical arguments. Then again, maybe not.

Yesterday, we took a look at Dan Backer’s reply to TDPK’s Motion to Order Plaintiff to Cease and Desist and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff’s Counsel in the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit. Today, we’ll begin looking at TDPK’s reply to that reply.

<mockery>This post will be a fisking of paragraph 1.

Plaintiff’s counsel argues that he has aright [sic] to raise money off this case and to do so off the internet.

Yes, he argues that because it’s true.

The problem with this argument is that Plaintiff has repeatedly said that Dan Backer is handling this case pro bono, see Exhibit A, yet Mr. Backer has stated that he has been paid thousands of dollars in legal fees for this litigation. Exhibit B.

The problem with that sentence is that it is untrue and not even supported by the Exhibits cited. Exhibit A does say that Mr. Backer is on the case pro bono, and he is. Exhibit B does not say that he has received any legal fees. It does describe expenses incurred in the case, including fees paid to other lawyers, but there’s nothing in it about funds paid to Mr. Backer. In Exhibit B Mr. Backer clearly states, “I have not taken one dime of these funds for myself.” You know, if I were trying to show that someone was being paid, I’d find a document that supported rather than refuted my claim.

He can’t have it both ways.

True, and since Mr. Backer isn’t trying to, he doesn’t have a problem. And TDPK doesn’t have any facts to hang his assertion on.

No wonder Judge Potter ruled against the motion.</mockery>

There’s more nonsense in this motion which we’ll take at look at later.

It would probably be less expensive for TDPK to throw in the towel at this point, but I doubt that he will. He’s more likely to fight the case to the bitter end. That means there will be more of his actions to mock. Regardless of how much trouble he has caused or may cause in the future, he’s now a laughingstock of the Internet.

So pop some more popcorn, settle down, relax, and stay tuned.

And in the words of my French colleague, “And, if you think you got a nasty taunting this time, you ain’t heard nothing yet!”

4 thoughts on “Dread Pirate #BrettKimberlin, Go Away or I Will Taunt You a Second Time


  1. Sheesh. He doubles down AGAIN and clearly states he refuses to comply with discovery even thought the court ordered him too. Basically he is throwing it in the judges faces again, and again , that he isn’t going to do what the judge says.

    If he didn’t (and I would bet he didn’t) have the discovery ready to go by 5PM yesterday, I really don’t see how the court can let him get away with that. If he was a smart man (and nothing he has put into the court record shows that he is) he would have had discovery ready to go just in case the court ruled against him.

    He has painted himself into a corner, alright. He is probably furiously triyng to come up with a way to make sure his real income stays legally hidden. However that is where someone is at their most dangerous. His motions are getting more and more angry sounding each time he does one. It must be eating at him that he hasn’t been able to make this go away. Keep your eyes open.

    It is easy to forget that he has already shown a willingness to hurt people by using explosives, and of course there are the suspicions that he was involved in at least one murder Yes, he would be a prime suspect if anything were to happen to anyone involved in this case, but he has shown he is not afraid to use a proxy in the past..

    He can be a harmful man if he sets his mind to it. And with the way he seems to be coming unglued in his court motions he may be nearing that point.


  2. The first sentence of paragraph 4 jumped out at me. “Defendant argues, without any basis in fact…” Wait, isn’t TDPK the defendant? And what’s this “…Plaintiff sued Plaintiff…” stuff all about?

    Am I missing something? Or is this paragraph full of FAIL?


  3. Oh ya know I just caught this. Paragraph 4. As written he is arguing that he himself is arguing that he is connected to Breitbart Unmasked. Another brilliant legal argument he has introduced.

Leave a Reply