A Legal Term

Piercing the corporate veil is a legal term that refers to a court’s decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders or officers.

Generally, one must prove that the incorporation was merely a formality and that the corporation neglected proper corporate formalities and protocols. The corporate veil may also be pierced for single person corporations that are managed in a haphazard manner.

Stay tuned.

22 thoughts on “A Legal Term

  1. One needs evidence that the individual has failed to treat the corporation as a separate entity.

    Like using corporate assets for personal purposes ….

    • There are three corporate veils. First, the JTMP is a thinly veiled attempt by Brett Kimberlin to further his ambition to be a rock star and promoter with tax-advantaged dollars gained by defrauding his contributors who mistakenly believe that they are donating to a charity. The second is Velvet Revolution which is little more than a giant slander and libel machine that is deliberately grossly undercapitalized so as to be, apparently, judgment-proof. The third is the veil between the JTMP and Velvet Revolution, which again provides the Velvet Revolution a tax-advantaged staff and, apparently, judgment-proof office and computer equipment, etc.

      • Not to mention the large amounts they appear to have spent on consultants. It will be interesting to see who those consultants are.

      • I will be surprised if we ever see it. Kimberlin will almost certainly “avoid” discovery simply by not answering the submitted questions. Yes, this will result in a default judgement but the probable point of these suits is to take up the defendants time and money not to win the case. Of course, there may be additional ramifications this time because the defendants are better prepared and organized.

      • Brett Kimberlin might simply refuse discover, but, the JTMP as a corporation has no such right. Given Kimberlin’s partner in the enterprise is a member of the Bar, I doubt he would allow his law license to put in jeopardy by refusing a lawful order from a court.

  2. This will be delicious. Can’t wait to see the skeletons hiding in the closets of Kimberlin’s charities. And I use charities as loosely as possible, much like Kimberlin allegedly tried to use the 12 year old sister of his wife. I mean, according to his wife. I wouldn’t personally know. Just going on the court document she signed.

  3. Latest articles of TK seem to admit that they are doing what they do to wear down and silence the right.

  4. BREAKING: “Reporter” and adjudicated harasser BS not reporting on the RICO Madness case – instead, trolling Twitter, searching for his name, and harassing people who are not @ mentioning him. RECOMMENDATION: Get a copy of AmJur and get up to speed on legal terminology.

    • Nor, do I think Kimberlin taunting the DeLong widow with a declaration that all his potentially recoverable assets were protected by a “corporate veil” is apt to go over well with the judge.

      • Here’s the quote to which I am referring:

        “Despite a healthy income, petitioner continued to resist paying the DeLong judgment, which had been reinstated on June 13, 1994. In a July 12, 1994 letter to Probation Officer Koehler, he threatened to go into bankruptcy if enforcement of the judgment was to occur, and claimed that he was personally judgment-proof, with his assets and income protected under ‘corporate veil.'”

        Kimberlin vs Stephen DeWalt as quoted in John Hoge’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberling Day post.

  5. You know, I recently commented on McCain’s blog that you don’t publish everything you know about Kimberlin. This is something you stated a long time ago. And because of this, I implied that Kimberlin was playing with fire by pushing these lawsuits.

    He screwed up again. And badly, didn’t he? Otherwise I don’t think you’d be posting on this sort of topic. And if he did what you’re hinting at…these lawsuits are over.

Leave a Reply