Thanks for the Info

Xenophon (the troll) has a post up at Breitbart Unmasked (No, I won’t link to it.) wherein she outlines Brett Kimberlin’s case for his latest bit of lawfare, the Kimberlin v. Walker et al. lawsuit.

If Xenophon’s article truly reflects Kimberlin’s approach, I am even more confident of being vindicated in court. I won’t comment directly on the … I was going to type, “merits,” but there aren’t any … the substance of the complaint, but I will say that essentially all the “facts” cited by Xenophon are not factual. They are demonstrably false. Of course, this doesn’t surprise me. On multiple occasions, I’ve watched Brett Kimberlin lie in court, so why would I expect him or his lackeys to tell the truth any place else.

I’ll make sure that Xenophon’s post gets archived and forwarded to my lawyers.

I’m not really sure why Kimberlin had Xenophon do the post. His sites have vanishingly small traffic, so an email blast would be a more efficient and more secure way of communicating with his shrinking band of supporters. Indeed, a major portion of Breitbart Unmasked‘s readership now consists of folks doing opposition research on Team Kimberlin. Did he think that putting up patently false claims would rattle Aaron Walker? Or is he trying to outcrazy Stacy McCain? Or is he frustrated and/or panicking that all the defendants in his suit are presenting a united and confident front?

13 thoughts on “Thanks for the Info


  1. Xenophon says “Kimberlin successfully sued Mark Singer for libel over his book.” Is this claim along the lines of Kimberlin’s “secret” exoneration? I can find no mention anywhere of a Kimberlin vs Singer lawsuit.


    • You always have to consider the exact formulation with Team Kimberlin, aka Team Evil. I’m not sure exactly what happened, but, I did read about how “settlement talks” fell apart when Brett Kimberlin directed all books proceeds “due him personally” to the widow DeLong. [Of course, no money was “due him personally.” It was due to his corporate shell BKE.] It is not hard to imagine that the “settlement talks” ended successfully. Usually, such “settlements” amount to little more than the calculation by the defendant that the cost of settling is less than the cost of successfully defending the lawsuit. One of the key features of such “settlements” is that the defendant usually admits to no wrongdoing as a condition of the “settlement.”

      If that were the case, we could argue back by noting that Brett Kimberlin sued Mark Singer for writing an authorized biography that painted a picture of Brett Kimberlin as being a liar, con man, drug dealer, smuggler, racist and bomber, while strongly hinting that Brett Kimberlin had an inappropriate relationship with a girl when she was 10, 11 and 12, and that he had that girl’s grandmother murdered execution-style when she stopped their relationship with the result being Kimberlin agreeing that Mark Singer had engaged in no “wrongdoing” in writing all those things.


  2. If Kimberlin makes stuff up, and in the world he fabricates you and the other defendants are committing actual civil violations, won’t his suit survive a motion to dismiss (which tests legal, not factual sufficiency)? Kimberlin knows this, and that’s what he’s relying upon. Kimberlin also knows that his suit has no chance of prevailing on the merits, and that his suit will be dismissed before trial, on summary judgment. In my opinion, the entire purpose of his suit (besides creating a chilling effect for talking about Kimberlin) is to harass the defendants in the discovery process.

Leave a Reply