Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Today’s episode is another look at factual errors in the amended complaint The Dread Pirate Kimberlin filed in his frivolous Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit.AmendedBKvAW40

In the context of the previous paragraphs, the fundraising tool referred to in paragraph 40 is the fund created to provide legal and other support for Mrs. Kimberlin. The first error is the statement that Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, Kimberlin Unmasked, and I “profited” from the money raised. The only payments made from the fund were a check written to Mrs. Kimberlin’s lawyer and refunds made to donors at Mrs. Kimberlin’s request. The only other expenses were PayPal transaction fees. Not one cent was paid from the fund to anyone else. Period.

The second error in the paragraph is the statement that it was “unauthorized.” Mrs. Kimberlin approved of the creation of the fund.

The third error is the statement that I refused Mrs. Kimberlin’s demand to refund money to donors when she changed her mind with respect to the fund. It is true that I did ask her to specify a charity to receive any donations that could not be refunded. However, I was able to identify all the donors, and every single donor, except one, received a full refund. I was the exception. I personally covered the expenses of the fund, including paying the legal fees and PayPal transaction costs noted above.

Perhaps TDPK believes that everyone’s accounting practices are as shoddy as those of his 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 not-for-profits appear to be. Mine aren’t.


3 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. The more obvious error is his formulation that, “Defendant Hoge…refused Plantiff’s wife’s demand that all money be returned to the donors.” I would suggest that Mrs Kimberlin demanded that you cease and desist in raising money in her name, to which you fully complied. She merely requested that you return monies raised using her name with her permission. I would note also that that request came nominally from Mrs, Kimberlin. As to who really made that “demand,” I leave to the reader.

    John, I commend you for acting graciously in honoring a request that had no basis in law whatsoever. Personally, I am reminded of the trip Mrs Kimberlin and her boyfriend had interrupted by a “demand” by Brett Kimberlin that Mrs Kimberlin drive her SUV directly back to Maryland and that the boyfriend not be permitted to drive the vehicle. The correct response from Mrs Kimberlin would have been to drive the vehicle to the local police station and kindly explain to an officer that she and her boyfriend were free human beings who had the liberty to come and go as they pleased, and were choosing to continue on their trip alternating driving whether it be by that SUV or rental car. She should have then asked the officer to relay that position to Brett Kimberlin and allow him the one choice of retrieving the vehicle from that police station or acquiescing to both the remainder of the trip and the boyfriend driving the vehicle. If she were feeling especially frisky she would have filed for a peace order for stalking [by GPS and text] and asked for the immediate relief of removing the GPS unit. Because they failed to handle it as a legal matter they were subjected to frivolous and malicious charges. Because you didn’t treat it as a legal matter you now stand accuse of some unspecified wrongdoing in statement 40. We both know the exact legal deficiency that will result in statement 40 being struck, but, your good name has been sullied.

    • I have a reputation based on 65 years of life. Brett Kimberlin has a reputation based on 59 years of life. He not the first person who has falsely accused me. If my life keeps going the way it has, he won’t be the last.

Leave a Reply