Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The following is from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s proposed Second Amended Complaint in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 100-1-152He goes on to complain that he lost his contract when the State Department became aware that his background was becoming publicly known.

Well, let’s think about the situation from the State Department’s point of view. Would they want the governments of those countries to be able to claim that our government was bringing “activist” to the U. S. for training by the Speedway Bomber?

Bad optics.

16 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. So what was false about the narratives? It seems they told the truth about Kimberlin’s criminal past, and the truth harmed his ability to get donations and contracts. So how is that actionable against the truth tellers?

  2. Didn’t he also claim it made it tough to bring those international students to JTMP’s offices? Where, in the basement of his mother’s house?

    • Auntie, I wondered about the same thing. If he had a contract, then he also has the paperwork for them withdrawing the contract and the reason for it. That kind of thing has a paper trail a mile long or longer. Why didn’t he attach such self-evident proof of harm, if he had it?

  3. Might be worth noting that the indystar did major retrospectives on the Speedway bombings, and Kimby, the Speedway Bomber, in 2010 and 2013.

  4. I think it goes beyond optics. There is a possibility that a country that will not allow a violent offender through its borders. His past made him of limited utility to the State Department. They could easily find trainers that had not set bombs and could go anywhere.

  5. does anyone else find it ironic in the extreme that as he claims to have hosted events as director of Justice Through Music in countries that are predominately Islamic, and a major tenant of Islam in NO music/musical instruments?? O.o

    • Federal Statutes Imposing Collateral Consequences Upon Conviction states on Page 9 (my emphasis added):

      Conviction may result in debarment from participation in a federal contract or program. For example, a conviction for fraud, an antitrust violation, embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements or claims, receiving stolen property, obstructing justice, “A a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction,” or “any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects the present responsibility of a person” may result in debarment from participation in contracts with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. See 24 C.F.R. 24.305. Conviction of a crime may also form the basis for an order debarring an individual from obtaining other federal contracts. See 48 C.F. R. Part 9, Subpart 9.4.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s