I want to skip over some of the mumbo jumbo in Defendant Kimberlin’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions in the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit and discuss the part of the filing that I am unwilling to publish. A substantial portion of the main body and all of the exhibits consist of material from discovery, material that Judge Potter ordered should be kept confidential.
<fisking>Paragraph 13 claims that Aaron Walker and his lawyer are perpetrating a fraud by spinning a false tail relating to why Mr. Walker was fired from his job at [name redacted]. The next six paragraphs consist of [redacted] which on close reading does not support the argument TDPK attempts to make. Indeed, the [redacted] provides some support for Aaron Walker’s version of events.
Which brings us to paragraph 20:
Clearly, in light of the above, Plaintiff and his counsel are intentionally misrepresenting the reasons for Plaintiff’s firing, …
As noted above, that conclusion is not at all clear from the material cited by TDPK.
… and are using that false pretense to raise funds to litigate this case against Defendants.
And he goes on and on about why he thinks a criminal fraud is being perpetrated.
21. Counsel knows that Plaintiff’s Muslim hate blog provided a strong basis for his firing.
How TDPK is aware of what Dan Backer, Aaron Walker’s lawyer, knows is not established. Indeed, for Mr. Backer to know (as opposed to believe) those things, they would have to be true, and no evidence has been present establishing that the blog in question was a hate blog or that the imagined hate was directed at Muslims as a whole. Nor has any evidence been presented that the blog per se was the cause of the firing.
Therefore, Defendant has every right to include portions that blog [sic] to show the Court the vile depictions that precipitated his firing.
All that to try to explain why including non-germane material should be allowed in TDPK’s filings. If the blogging, or its contents, were the reason for Mr. Walker’s termination, a simple statement by the former employer would establish it. However, nothing in the [redacted] supports TDPK’s proposition.</fisking>
<mockery>A poorly reasoned argument unsupported by pages of material that tend to support the opposition. Wow. Either we’re about to be blown away by an unsuspected legal genius, or …
… yeah, that’s what I think too.</mockery>
Internet devices aren’t permitted in the courthouse, so I plan to blog the results from the parking lot very soon after the hearing ends. Get your popcorn ready and stay tuned.
Tick, tock, tick, tock, …