As I’ve mentioned before, The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s court filings are so chocked full of stuff and nonsense as to be a marvelously target-rich environment for fisking and mockery. Here’s yet another gem from Defendant Kimberlin’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions in the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. civil suit:
Defendant is a pro se litigant and cannot be held to the stringent standards expected of attorneys. Pro se litigant’s court submissions are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers.
And he goes on to cite a bunch of federal case law to that effect. TDPK thus runs aground on the shoals separating the federal courts from those of the several states. The standard he cites does not apply in state matters in Virginia. Indeed, in a recent opinion, the Attorney General of Virginia wrote:
Section 8.01-271.1 provides that the signature of an attorney or party on a pleading constitutes a certification that
(i) he has read the pleading, motion or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
If a pleading is signed in violation of these provisions, a court is authorized to impose “an appropriate sanction.”
To the extent that a party, an attorney or a pro se litigant engages in conduct worthy of contempt in the presence of the court, the court may sanction such conduct.
The net of all that is that if a pro se litigant signs a court filing in Virginia, the Virginia judiciary is supposed to hold him just as responsible a licensed lawyer for the correctness of the filing.</fisking>
Judge Potter has been patient with TDPK’s pro se shenanigans. He has bent over backwards to give him and the et al. defendants (First Mate Neal Rauhauser and Crew Member Ron Brynaert) second chances to meet their obligations.
<mockery>It’s one thing for a non-lawyer to make a few technical errors and expect a judge to cut him some slack. It’s something quite different to repeatedly file nonsensical motions and responses and such that have no basis in either the facts or the law and still expect patience from the bench.</mockery>
Tick, tock, tick, tock, …
UPDATE–As I write this update, the post is less 45 minutes old, and Mr. Down-Twinkles has already expressed his disapproval of comparing TDPK’s understanding of the law with that of the Commonwealth Attorney General.