Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

RICOMadnessThe Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin did file his responses to the motions to dismiss in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. nuisance lawsuit on time. He filed a combined response to the motions from Aaron Walker and me and separate responses to the motions from DB Capitol Strategies and The Franklin Center. I’m still digesting them. The response to the Walker and Hoge motions is over 30 pages long and has 67 pages of exhibits. The response to DBCS is of similar length, while The Franklin Center’s is only a few pages.

In one of the exhibits in the response to DBCS, TDPK includes a declaration of “facts.”BKDeclarationThat’s an odd form of verification. The usual form is “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” I guess Brett Kimberlin didn’t want his name too close to the word perjury.

10 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


  1. I wonder if Brett Kimberlin has EVER appeared in court without telling at least one lie to the court. He’s so bad at telling the truth that I don’t think he can do it even if he depends on it.


  2. He lies because it is essentially a cost free exercise for him. The government will only pursue perjury if they are trying to get you.

    Look at the thing with faked up mail delivery. While the judge denied him a motion, he has fanboys like BS who declare victory saying well if he’s lying in court why isn’t he in jail?

    Because that isn’t how it works.

    Mostly he gets rewarded for it.

    In the RICO case the judge essentially gave him permission to lie and fake documents.

    Or that is how he reads it, I am sure. That is in fact what his declaration is.

    A restatement of what the judge said in response to the verified responses motion.


    • An internet search stated this was the text of 28 USC 1746 reads,

      “Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

      ” (1) If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.

      ” (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.”

      I don’t know how Brett Kimberlin can cite 28 USC 1746 while claiming ignorance of the requirement that a declaration must be “substantially in the form of ‘I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.'”

      The judge stated that he will not entertain any more motions that were not formed properly. I wonder if he meant it.


      • Cruel and unusual punishment, I think DPBK provides the comedic and usual parody of himself with his filings, from what I’ve read. Thanks to his degree in BS from The Acme School of Law & Comedy.

Leave a Reply