TDPK continues to try to spin a tale that paints him as a do-gooder who has been victimized by a cabal of nefarious bloggers. He’s included another version of his “narrative” in his Motion to Dismiss filed in the federal Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. civil suit. It is possible to mislead someone while telling the literal truth, especially when the whole truth isn’t told.
<fisking>Here’s an example of how TDPK tells only part of the truth. In relating the outcome of the Kimberlin v. Allen lawsuit TDPK writes:
Three months later, the Montgomery County Circuit Court issued a judgment in the case, both monetary and injunctive, in Defendant Kimbelin’s favor.
That is literally true. It is also true that TDPK did not win on the merits but because a technical error by Seth Allen resulted in a default judgment. It is also true that the judge awarded $100 in nominal damages instead of the $2,250,000 sought by TDPK. It is also true that when TDPK sought to have Mr. Allen held in contempt for violating the injunction, the judge ruled in Mr. Allen’s favor.
TDPK’s discussion of the events surrounding that contempt hearing contain this statement:
At a post judgment hearing on January 9, 2012, Plaintiff appeared uninvited, interrupted the proceedings, was told he would be forcibly removed if he did not stop his interruptions, and then followed Defendant from the courtroom where he assaulted Defendant and took his iPad from him.
Some of that is literally true. It also true that Aaron Walker was in court that day on an emergency motion to seal personal information in a motion improperly filed by Brett Kimberlin. It is also true that Judge Rupp granted Mr. Walker’s motion. However, the transcript of the hearing does not show the judge telling Mr. Walker that he would be forcibly removed. Indeed, the final exchange between the judge and Mr. Walker is:
THE COURT: And I’ll grant the request to seal the information that’s contained at Docket Entry 114, which is the motion to withdraw as moot.
All right. Sir, that concludes your —
MR. WALKER: Actually, I would like a little more relief, it you don’t mind me taking a moment.
THE COURT: That’s it. No. I’m done. You’re done.
MR. WALKER: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.
We have dealt with the nonsensical assault claim in earlier posts.</fisking>
<mockery>One wonders why TDPK believes that he should be able to get away with misrepresenting the contents of court transcripts. OTOH, he has denied in open court that he had his parole revoked for failure to satisfy the judgement against him for the bombing injuries to the DeLongs and Mr. Delong’s subsequent death. It seems that the prison psychologist was correct:
When confronted with other areas that contradict this “image” he will use his considerable skills to persuade others that they are wrong about him.
His skills may be considerable, but they don’t seem to be sufficient to overcome the written record in this case.</mockery>
As we delve deeper into this motion and its exhibits, we will find interesting evidence of how the divergent interests of the defendants is affecting their behavior. We’ve only made it to page 3 of 14 in our fisking, so there’s lots more to come.