48 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. OH! that’s gonna leave a mark!!
    Praying the judge sees this mess for what it is, a complete waste of everyone’s time and money and not only dismisses it but also grants just relief for you and your fellow defendants.
    Stay Strong and God Bless.

  2. Now let’s see if the criminal Brett Kimberlin will go into hiding with his fugitive disgraced associate, Neal Rauhauser. What do you think – does he plan to try to fight having to cough up, or will he try to hide?

  3. You have some typos in this letter.
    Top of page four says “10 January, 2104” – you meant 2014.
    Middle of page four “5. The summons shown in Tab 1 of th eMalkin/Twitchy Mtd is an crude forgery.” You mean “a crude forgery”

  4. The Dread Pedo…er I mean Pirate most likely just had a Schmalfeldt in his shorts upon seeing that delivered to him!

  5. You honor, in the interest of judicial economy, I merely saved you the trouble of granting me leave to add a party I forgot to include, and the clerk embarrasment as clerarly he only paid attention to my captio. Also in the interest of judicial economy, I have taken only those steps which impede the guilty parties, to the extent possible, of optimal chance for effective opposition. Clearly it saves the court time and money to just skip any sort of pleadings or motions that might interfere with my own.

  6. In regards to paragraph 19, you mentioned the photocopy of Kimberlin priority mail sent unsuccessfully to 29 Ridge Rd as being posted at a Kimberlin-associated site. Kimberlin, himself, submitted that photocopy to the court between exhibit c and exhibit D in his motion in opposition to unspecified motions by you. His exhibit c, the tracking of the package, clearly shows the mail annotated as “Undeliverable as Addressed.” In spite of his own exhibit, he accused you in 4) of deliberately, “fail[ing] to go to the Post Office to pick up the package after the notice was left at [your] home.” Surely, he could deduce that no such notice could have possibly been left at your house because your address is deliverable, while the address on the package was not. He, then, accused you of “schem[ing] at how [you] could falsely accuse Plaintiff of failing to serve him.;” and, in 5), being unwilling to “take the time to go to the Post Office to pick up a package served through the US Mail.” He, then, in 6), suggests that your refused to take delivery because, “This better served [your] purpose of falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to serve him.”

    All of that, I suggest, is yet another fraud on the court by Brett Kimberlin. Strike five.

    • The USPS actually opened an investigation in response to WJJH’s inquiry. Doesn’t sound like someone avoiding service.

      • And, it would be hard for Kimberlin to deny that he failed to read that publicly posted declaration either directly, or indirectly. On one hand, he wishes to tell the court he is being “harassed” by an almost daily stream of accusatory posts at Hogewash, yet he would have the court believe that during the height of his lawsuit he ceased monitoring Hogewash, or turned off his google alerts. Nor, is it even plausible to suggest that Bill Schmalfeldt failed to read John Hoge’s declaration that he had contacted the USPS about the missing piece of mail and that the USPS had opened an investigation into that missing mail. The expected time that Bill Schmalfeldt would have read that post was within minutes, if not seconds, of John Hoge posting it. Nor, is it plausible to suggest that Kimberlin is not in continuing and constant contact with Bill Schmalfeldt.

      • Speaking of BS, in light of this development, expect an escalation from the propaganda and psy-ops wings.

  7. Prayers for your success with this. It comes across as clear and serious. The conclusion is particularly worth the attention of the other partys/victims of lawfare.

    • That, and, “A reasonable payment schedule should be set by the court promptly. Failure to abide by this schedule will result in any future filing fees being applied to this judgment.”

      • I guess some of the “lickspittles” that Baghdad Blob and VOSF ridicule actually have legal experience. Unlike them. Cassidy! Res judicata!

  8. Para. 15: should be “he has not been alone.”
    Para. 16: good practice would be to provide a sworn affidavit as an exhibit, either by you and/or another witness. See, e.g., IIRC, Ex. A in Malkin/Twitchy motion.
    Para. 18: should be “was to prejudice their.” You have an extra “to.”

  9. Why give him the chance to correct his filings?

    They are false on the face.

    No, on reflection, you should have sunk it to the hilt, and filed immediately, IMHO.

    Were the positions reversed, BK would have shown no mercy, indeed, would have gloated.

    • Rule 11(c)(2):
      Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion.

      • He was wells aware that he had screwed up the caption, and knew what he was doing when he forged the summons. The forgery is enough to dismiss the case whether he “takes it back” or not.

  10. Left Bill a msg on his latest theory that he has a case, that charges dropped means he can sue.


    Judicial orders and their enforcement do not creat a tort –

    For example, lets say you were ordered to not do [A]. But you did do [A] a physical act. You did [A] several hundred times, you deliberately choose to do [A] had to willfully and with the full knowledge there was an order for you not to do [A]

    The other party pointed it out to the court who issued the order that you are continuing to do [A].

    Now claiming that the other party was trying to physically injure you by your actions in doing [A] by notifying the court, now has caused you damages – is not going to go anywhere.

    If your health was at risk, then who is responsible for your doing [A]? Who did [A}?

    • Interesting how:
      (1) he lies and says 300+ tweets were accidental. At the time, he was claiming to have an AG opinion that gave him the right to deliberately tweet Hoge. All part of convincing himself that he is a victim instead of an adjudicated harasser.
      (2) he criticizes others for not allowing comments, but feels perfectly justified in not allowing comments. Complete lack of self awareness.
      (3) your polite comment explains why no sane lawyer would take his case.
      (4) even if he had a case, there are no deep pockets. The cost for expert medical witnesses in a trial could easily exceed $100,000. And that is just to pay the expert witnesses. In one case I knew about, the neurosurgeon charged $1,000 an hour for his time, and that was 16 years ago. Does he seriously think some lawyer is going to front these costs when there is no hope of recovery?

    • You’re banned!

      And, obviously, BS is not capable of acting like a grown-up and refraining from contacting people even when ordered to refrain from doing so by a judge! Totally Hoge’s fault! Any kindergarten student can see that. Or those at about the same mental age.

      • Indeed, I can’t help but feel as he cries “poor wittle me” over his health that maybe he should of thought of his health BEFORE harassing Hoge, or maybe BEFORE he violated the PO repeatedly that caused the state to bring the criminal charges he claims to have “damaged” him. Actions have consequences after all and while he may feel the consequences of his own actions are somehow Hoge’s responsibility, I seriously doubt the courts will.

  11. Left him a reply


    tort law is well established. Unless I have missed it, You offer nothing in rebuttal. You say I’m wrong (I’m not perfect) so please educate me from what sources you have that indicate that the enforcement of a judicial order is an actionable offense that one can seek damages.

    Then I will stand corrected, .with proper apologies to you

  12. Has BS started complaining about how Mr. Hoge thinks it is OK for him to dictate to the court what to do? He certainly got upset with Mr. Walker “ordering” the court around.

    Or did, perhaps, the laughter that followed that little exercise actually sink in a little?

    • No, he is rewriting history, claiming he didn’t do anything wrong because the charges were dropped. He omits that Hoge agreed to ask for the charges to be dropped during mediation. He omits that he admitted he tweeted over 300 times in violation of the PO. He is on another downward behavioral spiral because he lacks self control. Things are unfolding as many have foreseen.

      • Well he’s a dishonest and distrubed freak who can’t accept good advice, and can not bear to submit to the authority of the court – because that ordered him to stop @messaging Mr. Hoge.

      • I was rather mystified why John would agree to drop the charges and not object to his arrest record being expunged. It merely allowed Bill Schmalfeldt to move on to yet another victim who would have to built a new case against Schmalfeldt from scratch. I figured Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt would falsify self-serving documents to “comply” with the subpoena. Then, I had an epiphany: Bill Schmalfeldt still has a role to play in implicating Brett Kimberlin. John let him go.

        Kimberlin would probably do well to have nothing futher to do with Schmalfeldt. I can offer Kimberlin this advice because I know he won’t take it.

  13. BK is trying to pain the forgery as “not serious” because a serious fraud on the court is reason enough under rule 11 to shut him down.

      • He doesn’t directly address it. He calls it a “clerical error” that Twitchy was not named in the caption of his amended complaint. He knows he’ll be busted, and is trying to paint his act as non-prejudicial to any of the defendents or Twitchy, a technicality, not important.

        He forged a summons. He took a summons issued by the clerk for another party, and altered it and mailed it to Twitchy, whom he forgot to name as a party.

  14. How has this nonsense not been thrown out and why is this felon still walking the streets?

    “Justice delayed is justice denied!”

  15. It’s hard to believe he thinks he’s going to get away with all this. Let’s hope the judge sees through his pretending not to be aware of forging that summons and adding twitchy to the caption, adding new things in his motions without leave from the court, etc.

    “What marijuana? What plane?” He’s stuck using the same types of defenses he used over 30 years ago, including citing 30+-year old case law that was replaced by more recent cases.


  16. I think it is time to add an official suffix to BS’s moniker. CBBS-US. Ungrateful Slug. Very apt. Credit to Rick Buchanan.

Leave a Reply