What I Saw and Heard in Court Today

The hearing on The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s motion to compel Google to give up the identity of Kimberlin Unmasked in the Maryland Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit was the last item that the court heard this morning. Other than the judge and his two clerks, the only individuals in the courtroom were Brett Kimberlin and one of the Kimberlin daughters; Kimberlin Unmasked’s lawyer and a law student working with him; Google’s lawyer; and my son William and me. There were no other eyewitnesses. I was present both as a party to the case (I am one of the et al.) and as a blogger/reporter.

Putting on my blogger hat …

TDPK spent around 15 minutes trying to make his case. His presentation was not well organized, but the judge got the gist of it and cut him off. There were a pair of affidavits submitted to support Kimberlin’s motion. One was objected to on the grounds that it was from TDPK who is not allowed to testify in Maryland courts because of his prior perjury conviction. The other was from a member of his family. I will not discuss that affidavit because it deals with a Kimberlin family matter which I believe should remain confidential for now.

Kimberlin Unmasked lawyer made a proper defense of why his client should remain anonymous. The judge did not agree.

Google’s lawyer took no position on the merits of the matter. He submitted a draft motion of what Google was willing to provide, and Kimberlin agreed to that order. Google will provide the current IP address and current name associated with the account in question.

After the judge recessed the court, TDPK went over to the two lawyers to work out some details. I was sitting close enough that I overheard the conversation. Neither my son nor I heard either lawyer offer any sort of apology to Brett Kimberlin for anything.

After Kimberlin left the area, I went to Technical Services and bought a copy of the courtroom audio for the hearing. This report is based on the notes I took during the hearing and a review of that audio.

I have been informed that Kimberlin Unmasked will not appeal the judge’s order. The Gentle Reader can make of that what he will.

Putting on my party-to-the-case hat …

I will have no further comment on the hearing or the judge’s ruling.

UPDATE—I will clarify one point. The second affidavit was not from Mrs. Kimberlin.

21 thoughts on “What I Saw and Heard in Court Today


  1. Question: Kimberlin keeps taking one or both of his kids to court. Why? Was it a school holiday in Maryland?


  2. Because he believes they will be useful? And he is a bad man. I sure hope he didn’t pressure his poor kid to sign an affidavit on his behalf.


  3. Slow Bill must struggle so hard to make sense of everyday life. Like ketchup. And toilet paper. He does not seem to understand that there has been no “adjudication” of the guilt or innocence of KU in the case, because, um, Kimberlin asked for a JURY TRIAL and there has been no trial. Unlike Bill/s case, of course, where the judge found that he violated the criminal harassment statute. I believe this makes BS a criminal, doesn’t it?


  4. KU should let his lawyer know that Bill Schmalfeldt, harasser as determined by a court of law, is defaming him by accusing him of having committed ethical violations. Oh, dear. Slow Bill, the guy who said he was not part of this any more, just keeps drawing the noose tighter around his own neck. It’s going to take so much time, effort, and money to litigate the suits in which he will be embroiled.


  5. BS also does not understand, being slow, that KU will not have “a record,” since these are CIVIL actions. Criminals, like BK and Gillette, have records. Adjudicated harassers, like Bill Schmalfeldt, have records.


    • Oh, dear. It is clear his brain must hurt from reading big words. He tweeted the following: “But a judge found his actions rose to the level of defamation. If I am an adjudicated harasser, he is adjudicated defamer.”

      Uh, no. The judge found that the complaint meets a threshold test sufficient to proceed with litigation on the question at issue. That is not an official finding of or lack of harassment. If the case goes to trial, the jury determines that.


  6. Bill is certainly pounding the Kimberlin talking point hard tonight. Like a savant he just repeats the same thing over and over. Still can’t offer any proof though. What a pathetic desperate man. He really needs Kimberlin to validate him. Pity. He will be used, sucked into legal issues, then left hanging on his own and he still hasn’t figured it out. Hubris and stupidity is a bad combination.


    • I am sooo glad you mentioned hubris! Here is CBBS’s tweet about his court appearances against WJJH:

      “Bill Schmalfeldt ‏@Fite_Rite_Radio
      You know why Hoge is going to be humiliated? Hubris. Sheer, blatant hubris and the inability to admit a mistake. 4:53 PM – 4 Oct 13”

      Hey, guess what? RES JUDICATA!!!


  7. It says who filed affidavits on case search.

    Not sure why she would be filing an affidavit on this particular matter, unless it was about something else unrelated to KUs identity, just brought in today.


  8. The question I have is whether, or not, Brett Kimberlin is about to be exposed as hiding assets subject to seizure by the DeLongs. KU has noted that the copyright holders of the stills he has posted are “Brettsongs” and “Op critical” and such. Brett Kimberlin has repeatedly claimed to be
    the copyright owner. This raises the obvious question as to whether, or not, “Brettsongs” even exists. Was “Brettsongs” formally incorporated at the time of the video shot? And, was his ownership interest in “Brettsongs” fully disclosed?

    I seriously doubt it. It seems more likely to me that Brett Kimberlin knew any copyrights he held were assets subject to seizure by the DeLongs so he “copyrighted” his work under a pseudonym.


  9. So Bill is still claiming to have a “source” in the courtroom. Since I doubt that either John or his son gave Bill and interview, and the attorneys certainly didn’t speak to him, that leaves Kimberlin as his source. What ethics that man has. Print the words of a convicted perjurer and the plaintiff in the case as though they came from an impartial observer. Any pretense Bill has made that he is not the official PR flack for Kimberlin is gone now.


  10. No one has yet offered the correct response to Bill Schmalfeldt’s outrageous lie: “What pray tell did the lawyer allegedly say exactly?”

    From John Hoge’s listing of all the persons present at the hearing the only possible “eyewitnesses” Schmalfeldt was quoting were Brett Kimberlin and his daughter. Of course, Bill Schmalfeldt will refuse to confirm this fact citing the alleged confidentiality of sources, but, they are the only two possible “sources.” That Brett Kimberlin was a party to the dispute is a material fact that an ethical journalist has a duty to report. Once again Bill Schmalfeldt pretense of being a serious journalist has been shown to be a shame, a fiction, and a pretense.

    I’m reminded of the “testimony” of convicted perjurer Brett Kimberlin once gave in open court. He swore to a judge that Aaron Walker told him, “I’m going to keep harassing you!,” after Kimberlin told him to stop writing about him. The judge thought this so improbable that he asked Kimberlin what Walkers exact words actually were. Kimberlin wouldn’t cite what Walker had actually said. What Aaron Walker actually replied was, “I’m going to keep telling the truth about you!” Obviously, Kimberlin wasn’t testifying to the facts, Kimberlin was drawing his own conclusions and presenting them to the judge as fact. Those conclusions were self-serving, and the product of a mind so mentally ill that it can no longer distinguish objective reality.

    The exact same distortion process might very well have happened here. KU’s lawyer may very well said something completely innocent that Kimberlin twisted into an “apology.” The other possibility is Kimberlin fabricated the story.


      • I have challenged the Cabin Boy to produce the courtroom audio recording that contains the apology. So far he has not done so. Until people hear it with their own ears I’m afraid taking a perjurers word, who is a party to the case, for it is not going to happen. Neither is taken the Cabin Boy’s word as he has been caught in so many lies that his credibility is zero.


      • Sure if Bill Schmalfeldt knews what was said he could provide us the exact quote.

        When the lawsuit was first filed I warned the defendants to expect that the accounts by Team Kimberlin of what had happened in court that day would not reflect what actually happened. Sure enough, it has already happened.


      • CBBS is having a field day over at KU’s blog insinuating he called KU’s lawyer (as a reporter), and the lawyer not only admitted he apologized to BK for all BK has had to endure, but he, too, supposedly admitted he needs to discuss with KU whether or not he will stay on as KU’s legal representation.

        I’m having a difficult time believing a lawyer would be so forthcoming to a “reporter” with regard to such personal client/attorney issues. I, too, am curious as to how CBBS identified himself to KU’s lawyer. If not in a direct sense, CBBS is most certainly coming very close to accusing KU’s attorney of some pretty unethical actions… imagine that… CBBS accusing others of being unethical.


      • KU is reporting that he spoke to his lawyer and his lawyer has not idea who Bill is nor did he grant anyone an interview about the case. So another clear lie from the Cabin Boy. Color me not shocked.

Leave a Reply