Another Forgery?

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed a motion in his frivolous copyright suit against Kimberlin Unmasked that includes an exhibit purporting to show a Certified Mail green card with the Restricted Delivery “Yes” box checked.ECF 72-ExD_greencard

TDPK also filed a report on the status of service in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness that included the Post Office receipt for that particular piece of mail. The receipt shows that the extra fee for Restricted Delivery was not paid. Thus, there is no legitimate reason for the tick mark in the “Yes” box to be on the card.ECF 27-ExB_extract

I’m not a defendant in the copyright suit, so I don’t have standing to intervene in that case, but I’ll bet that it won’t be long before someone is able to bring this issue to the attention of Judge Titus.

Mark Twain once observed that if you tell the truth you don’t have to remember what lies you told to which people.

UPDATE—In 2013, the charge for Restricted Delivery was $4.75. As can be seen on the receipt, that amount was not paid. If it had been the total postage paid would have been $15.00.

61 thoughts on “Another Forgery?


  1. Restricted delivery checked, but not on receipt. Certified and return receipt on receipt, but not checked.

    Clerical error, I am sure.


    • Because if the postman doesn’t find the person named, it doesn’t get delivered. Without restricted delivery, it does and he gets the confirmation. Presto, service.

      Or not, as the case seems to be.


  2. I’m sure the post office tracking information for this package would indicate if the letter was delivered by restricted delivery.


    • If I were a defendant in these cases, I would bring these unusual incidents to the attention of the post office criminal investigations division.

      Oh, and how cheap can a person be?


    • Delivered BETHESDA MD 20817 January 14, 2014 2:55 pm
      Depart USPS Sort Facility GAITHERSBURG MD 20898 January 12, 2014
      Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility GAITHERSBURG MD 20898 January 12, 2014 5:46 am
      Processed through USPS Sort Facility ELK GROVE VILLAGE IL 60007 January 11, 2014 3:44 am
      Addressee Unknown SAINT CHARLES IL 60175 January 8, 2014 10:52 am
      Addressee Unknown SAINT CHARLES IL 60175 January 8, 2014 5:14 am
      Undeliverable as Addressed SAINT CHARLES IL 60174 January 7, 2014 10:21 am
      Out for Delivery SAINT CHARLES IL 60175 January 7, 2014 9:15 am
      Sorting Complete SAINT CHARLES IL 60175 January 7, 2014 9:05 am
      Depart USPS Sort Facility ELK GROVE VILLAGE IL 60007 January 7, 2014
      Arrival at Unit SAINT CHARLES IL 60175 January 7, 2014 4:45 am
      Processed through USPS Sort Facility ELK GROVE VILLAGE IL 60007 January 5, 2014 8:22 pm
      Depart USPS Sort Facility CAPITOL HEIGHTS MD 20790 January 3, 2014
      Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility CAPITOL HEIGHTS MD 20790 January 3, 2014 1:06 am
      Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility CAPITOL HEIGHTS MD 20790 January 2, 2014 11:26 pm
      Dispatched to Sort Facility CABIN JOHN MD 20818 January 2, 2014 1:31 pm
      Acceptance CABIN JOHN MD 20818 January 2, 2014 11:00 am


  3. I’m sure his PR firm will be on Twitter shortly to give a very good explanation for this. I heard a rumor that he talked to a court clerk at 3 AM who said this was a mere “technicality”.


    • Two hours since the gas-bag has released any of his flatulence on to twitter. Nice and quiet, even if we know it won’t last.


      • Boom, and there it is, providing clear proof that the Cabin Boy has reading comprehension problems. Perhaps he should try to read explanatory footnotes in briefs before opining.


  4. I guess the real reason he doesn’t properly serve with restricted delivery is the very obvious one: He wants that card back and he wants to be able to declare a party served. Why restrict when it could delay “service” when one can just check that little box afterward. And hey, five bucks is five bucks.


  5. And here, he wants to make it appear that the addressee somehow avoided it or restriction made it too difficult and he is entitled to some other form of alternate service.

    It wasn’t deliverable even with UNRESTRICTED delivery.


  6. The tracking information of his alleged service to Stacy McCain indicated that some mail had in fact been sent to West Virginia. That raised the question as to why Kimberlin would have forged a package with only $1.25 in postage when there obviously was a letter submitted with sufficient postage. One explanation is that one package with sufficient postage was deliberately sent to a wrong address in the right town with the full knowledge that it would be returned. That tracking receipt could be married to a package addressed to the right address to create a forged service to the right address.

    Lo and behold, a package with sufficient postage has been sent to a fictional address in St Charles Ill. This might not be a coincidence.


    • The postage shown is sufficient for a package of that size and weight with Certified Mail and Return Receipt but not for Restricted Delivery as well.


      • The St Charles mail was declared “Undeliverable as addressed” one hour and six minutes after being “sent out for delivery.” If it were a valid address you would have expected some notations about attempted delivery, and, notice left.

        There is a simple enough test: send some certified mail to “resident” at the address in St Charles submitted in court and follow its tracking.

        It defies explanation that Kimberlin could have “doxed” someone at a non-existent address.


    • You know, I’ve been to St. Charles IL. Maybe I’m Kimberlin Unmasked. Someone should send me a CERTIFIED LETTER.


      • Have you been to SAN ANTONIO? KimberlinUnmasked is from SAN ANTONIO as well, or haven’t you heard?

        OMG. There is only ONE person who can be in TWO places at ONE time. And I think we all know who that is. It’s that Pony-Thieving, Time-Traveling, Gotta-Do-Crimes, Kyle Kiernan!

        Kyle Kiernan is KimberlinUnmasked.

        Unless I’ve completely missed something.


      • I don’t have time to be KU. These crimes don’t do themselves you know and you can only repeat Tuesday so many times before you wear a rut in the time-space gradient and then Boom! there goes the continuum!


      • Ohhh. Mr. President. You naughty, naughty man. I did not expect that. I bet Kimberlin didn’t expect that either.


  7. Mr. Hoge – did you notice the zip code: “60174” That 0 looks just like the 0 read as 9 that was supposed to be the 20 in your address in DPBK’s mailing to you. Sloppy penmanship indeed.


  8. And the Moldwarp is now saying that BK is paying him and the court, so he wouldn’t have tried to get out of paying for restricted delivery.

    Why is BK paying BS? Why is BK paying the court? Did I miss something again?


  9. You know, I can get a cup of coffee, visit the loo, contemplate my navel. When I finish any of those, if the mood strikes me, I will check for the latest opinion from the noted legal scholar in Elkridge, MD, and there is usually some dropping to be found. He is now asking if Levy breached attorney client privilege with Brett Kimberlin, a move that indicates I was correct in my comment earlier today that BK will try to get Levy thrown off the case. I also predict that BK, as is his standard MO, will sue Levy.

    Bill Schmalfeldt ‏@2014

    Has Paul Levy breached Attorney Client Privilege in his article about Brett Kimberlin? http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2014/02/brett-kimberlins-attack-on-free-speech.html
    11:24 AM – 19 Feb 2014 · Details


      • What I find irksome is not that he makes mistakes about the law or misinterprets things, it’s his arrogance about his level of knowledge, plus his complete and utter lack of self awareness, humility, and a modicum of respect for people who may actually know what they’re talking about. I confess that I know squat about hosting a radio show, something that he has done for years. Yet he is analyzing an area of the law – with little or no knowledge – and finding against an respected attorney with 30 plus years of experience.


  10. That scream you heard was me. When I read this. Not only because it is an incorrect analysis, but because Levy doesn’t have attorney-client privilege. That’s like saying he married himself. OK, just showed this to someone else and what you now hear is their screaming. With laughter.

    Bill Schmalfeldt ‏
    @wilsb8 Levy violated his attorney client privilege.
    11:57 AM – 19 Feb 2014 · Details


    • I assume BS is claiming that Levy violated the privilege that BK had with him from his previous case. I’m guessing that that tweet of Bill’s (and Ferguson has an almost identical one) would be libel, and actionable, not that it’s likely worth the effort.


      • First line in Schmalfeldt’s current law review article:

        “Lawyers are bound by the American Bar Association to a very tight code of ethics.”
        No, they’re not, because the ABA is a VOLUNTARY trade association that many lawyers choose not to join. They are bound by the ethical rules of the jurisdictions in which they are admitted to practice.

        Perhaps he should also read Rule 1.9 of the ABA model rules.


      • Remember that South Park episode where the whole town started poo-ing out of their mouths? THAT. It’s that over and over. Day in, day out with him. This is just getting too hard to watch.


  11. What BS is babbling about of course is that Levy is conflicted due to his prior representation of BK on a completely different case. I presume Levy spent a little time considering that and concluded that he wasn’t conflicted. So between Levy and BS on the issue of being conflicted, guess which one I am going to rely on.


    • Ultimately, it is a distinction that does not make a difference. Nothing stops Levy from publicly posting, “If I were a lawyer defending AoS I would argue….” Kimberlin can try to prevent Levy from pleading directly in the case, but, he simply can’t stop him from voicing his opinions of the facts and the law in this case.


      • Yes, but here Levy is pleading in the case. You may have missed the sarcasm at least intended in my original comment: I was not trying to say that that I believed a conflict to exist. Rather I was pointing out that BS is so far from understanding the issue that he cannot even properly identify it, let alone analyze it with any intelligence. The rule against conflicts is not grounded solely on the risk that confidential information will be disclosed.


      • And, my point is that Kimberlin is pursing a fight that he will either lose outright, most certainly, or de facto. Levy has decided to help AoS. Kimberlin can try to limit how Levy helps AofS, but, he can’t stop him from helping AoS.


    • In MD, the former representation is not a bar to represent another client in an adverse proceeding against him, unless it is in the same or substantially related matter. The new case has nothing to do with the former case.

Leave a Reply