The Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit is now in the discovery phase. I was served with interrogatories which I answered through counsel. Some of the questions sought privileged information which I declined to provide. The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin filed a motion with the court seeking to compel me to answer those questions. The court has denied his motion.
I do not wish to make any further comments concerning the discovery process in the lawsuit until that phase is completed.
You can help my codefendants (Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Kimberlin Unmasked) and me defend our First Amendment rights from Brett Kimberlin’s vexatious attack. Go to Bomber Sues Bloggers to find out how.
UPDATE—I can add that the motion to compel which Judge Rubin denied was also directed against Aaron Walker and Stacy McCain, so they will not be required to provide further discovery either.
UPDATE 2—Nothing I have provided in discovery is under seal, and I expect that when the materials are released TDPK’s questions and my answers will be the source of some amusement. However, it is not in my interest to do anything that has the potential for providing an advantage to TDPK, so neither my lawyer nor I believe it is in my best interest to publish anything.
Yet.
Stay tuned.
Well…that just leaves Kimberlin to answer his part of discovery and then we’re OFF TO THE RACES.
I can’t wait to hear the compelling story about why he felt the need to transport a little girl across state lines. Or why he thought it was necessary to bring an under-aged child across international borders for the purpose of marriage.
Now, those are some good questions.
Brett Kimberlin also ought to answer why he buried Tovex explosive, bomb parts, and a rifle in the yard of Julia Scypher’s son-in-law and daughter, and then right after, he went to federal law enforcement agents to say that he thinks someone in that household might be guilty of events surrounding Julia Scypher’s murder.
Brett Kimberlin ought to answer how he disposed of huge international drug trafficking earnings which he was supposed to use to re-pay his bombing victim.
Brett Kimberlin ought to answer what he did with 6 figures surreptitiously paid to him by mafia types while in prison, which he admitted to laundering in his authorized autobiography, and was also supposed to pay to his surviving bombing victim as ordered.
Brett Kimberlin also ought to answer what happened to the supposedly huge earnings (and based on # of mercedes parked in Kimberlin residence, I believe it truly was huge) in mid 90s Ukranian “import-export” businesses, which he ought to have been paying to his bombing victim.
Brett Kimberlin should detail timing and amounts of the mid 6 figures payments he was receiving over his authorized biography, at just the same time he was also busy harassing the ever-living daylights out of Sandra DeLong to try to deny her the long-delayed restitution he owed for blowing her husband’s limbs off as well as injuring her.
Brett Kimberlin should also be asked to account for at least 7 figures worth of donations to his “charities” and to what extent are these funds controlled by someone who has been convicted of forgeries, admitted to many more besides those he was convicted of, and whose entire income prior to and during his long prison stint was laundered to conceal sources and destinations.
Given how Kimberlin abused the discovery process in the lawsuit Aaron Walker brought, I don’t blame you.
I clicked the thumb’s up thing 450 times but it only went up once. Can someone take a look at that?
Yeah, I already tried that. There’s no bonus button. I even checked under the keyboard.
Bets, it’s right next to the frammis …
The SA of Montgomery County and the Judge didn’t cover them with Glory in allowing a convicted perjurer, bomber, terrorist and a person of interest n a murder investigation, claim injuries from exposure to his perjury, bombings, and being a person of interest in a murder investigation.
Kooky, HUH??
I hope you’re submitting your discovery requests through council. If I recall correctly, TDPK is making substantially the same damage to reputation/business interests claims that he is making in the Federal case. If so, you should have a LOT of fertile ground for discoverable material.
And hypothetically you would coordinate with Mr. Walker’s council to make the most of your limited number of discovery requests.
Not that I expect TPDK to actually comply with your discovery requests.
The bad guys will never provide anything that could harm their interests. They will forge lie or ignore. Ignoring has worked very well for them as cases are dismissed. When that happens, they gain whatever they got from discovery and are better able to harass more innocent people.
That’s what still sticks in my craw over a previous suit, where the ‘good guys’ gave everything they could possibly find about an number of innocent people in what, to me amounted to a naive stunt that showed disrespect. The consequences for some good people continue today.
If Hoge is only yielding to the bad guys what he must, nothing more, he is showing a savvy that others have lacked (even if they had the same basic goal).
But to your point: no, the bad guys will never comply in any way with giving information that could harm them. These processes that assume good faith by two professional adversaries simply do not work in a case with insane pro se harassers like TDPK.
Actually, the bad guys don’t often seem to know what will hurt them. There’s a lot more evil than there is wisdom over there.
We all have one lawyer. the only exception is KU, who presently has no lawyer, but also presently isn’t served as i understand it.
Are the three of you each allowed to respond individually or do you have to act as a group? Basically, I’m wondering if you could make three sets of interrogatories, three responses to motions, three MTDs, etc with each using the page limit to the max.
is there anyway the court can hold anything ya’ll turn over for discovery until BK has turned in his??
I only ask cause he’s made a habit of ignoring that little part of his own lawsuits in the past…
O.o
A judge will not do that. It is possible in the case of a motion to compel that it might get settled that way, either between counsels or as a remedy by the judge if it goes to hearing and that is what is asked for.
But that is iffy and only if the timing works right. The judge expects each side to abide regardless of the actions of the other side. Another reason why the lawless person conducting lawfare has an asymmetrical advantage.
indeed and the fact that he has blown off discovery in the past makes no difference obviously…
i wouldn’t rule it out. in any case, we have given him what is proper and it really is pretty much bupkis.
I was expecting that discovery would result in Brett Kimberlin receiving e-mail after e-mail reading, “Give me a call. I found out something interesting.”
Last time the judge sealed discovery but that didn’t stop the little Terrorist from immediately sending it to his PR Flack Baghdad Blob Schmalfeldt to publish. Rules are for people other than the pedo pals on Team Kimberlin
Ah, but Frankie, CBBS swears by the beard of Zeus that he didn’t get the sealed discovery docs from TDPK.
And I believe him.
He got them from Neal, of course. Who got them from… well, you can figure it out. In their little cloak-and-dagger fantasy world, this is what passes for OpSec and plausible deniability.
“Some of the questions sought privileged information which I declined to provide. The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin filed a motion with the court seeking to compel me to answer those questions. The court has denied his motion.”
Good. Unfortunately, not everyone was this intelligent in a prior case involving some of these people. I don’t think you or your friends have anything to fear from the truth, but that is a different thing from giving very bad people access to anything they ought not have. It was, to be frank, stupid for […] to give so much that was privileged and useful by bad guys in discovery. The philosophy then was that BK’s anticipated refusal to comply with discovery would contrast with the ridiculous over-compliance with discovery of the ‘good guys’ and make an impression on the judge. How ruthless! And yet nothing was gained.
I roll my eyes at most of these ‘it takes a badass to fight those guys’ attitudes out there (for example when some moron brings family into this), but it does take a little common sense to keep a coalition together.
My prayers for some kind of real justice, such as the vexatious litigants being declared as such and some reasonable damages being awarded to the victims.
to amend John’s post, they denied it for myself and McCain, too.
Unsurprising. Would be consistent with Judge Rubin.
But also consistent with my theory of the case, which is that motions that lengthen the case will not be granted.
I do note that the next court date for the state is May 13, the topic being motion to dismiss. My guess is that all of the various MTDs will be considered.
Couple of things. This is before Judge Creighton, and she has not yet made an appearance in this I think, so roll of the dice. Also, not sure if this is standard procedure or not. I think the judge could deny or accept an MTD without a hearing. Again, given my theory of the case, that likely is more positive toward the defendants. This might be a place where the give him enough rope concept actually makes sense. If BK comes in and makes an ass of himself again, then the court could make a credible decision to dismiss that would not necessarily be the sole responsibility of the judge.
But that is all conjecture on conjecture.
Not that it really matters one way or the other, but Judge Creighton’s easy on the eyes…
http://static.squarespace.com/static/531e6deee4b0ddc80cd1eafd/t/532f0f2ae4b0011333cbace1/1395593023508/Creighton?format=500w
I assume the “privileged” information Hoge is referring to relates to the attorney-client privilege? I can’t imagine any other privilege that misters Hoge or McCain could raise at this point.
IANAL, but you’re only allowed to ask questions germane to the suit; unrelated facts (likely asked to cause embarrassment or just to fish for what you think *might* be there) would be privileged. Since unscrupulous people use this as a dodge to not answer questions, the judge has the authority to compel answers if the judge decides the questions *are* germane.
Note that TDPK bringing his “charities” and supposed harm done to them into the suit has opened questions about their finances and activities into relevancy…
Thus he has stepped on his crank …
Rob:
That information wouldn’t be “privileged,” it wouldn’t be relevant or discoverable.
I was just curious what types of privilege Mr. Hoge could assert.
Any chance of posting his interrogatories or your replies to them?
We apparently have a topic for the Cabin Boy’s next “final” batch of word-vomit:
https://twitter.com/PatOmbudsman/status/459101826739367936
What a nonsense topic for a book. All it takes for a person to cyber-bully another is a sufficient lack of conscience and the ability to enter text into a computer, be it by keyboard, VRS, or blinking. Disabled persons are as capable of cyber-bullying as regular folk. Take for example Bill Schmalfeldt. Though, by his own account, Parkinson’s Disease has left him without the ability to type, VRS has allowed him to churn out bullying tweets a prodigious rate. Any law targeting cyber-bullying ought to defend both the able and disabled from cyber-bullies, be they abled or disabled.
It’s hate crimes, just with a new protected victim class.
Most states already have cyber stalking and cyber harassment statutes on the books. Before adding more (unless a state doesn’t have them), lets just enforce the ones we have……
Ably assisted by @karoli judging by her twitter feed.
Wonder if they’ll open themselves up to a defamation and libel suit of their own
Depending on whom is addressed, it can be considered 3rd party contact under a PO. A very thin line and easily crossed (and proven).
OT and of import to only those who read the drivel in my comments, Barb and I have taken a nice shot of our 1st Texas Yellow Rose in our garden this year and in appreciation for the kindness you have shown Barb, she wishes to share it. With me coaching she successfully attached it to a tweet which with my coaching, she will embed below.
(Really folks, I appreciate your niceness — B)
Well Karoli is not always really credible but I think anyone who agrees with her take on the Brett Kimberlin/Schmalfeldt matters will be able to believe almost whatever he wants… even so, people who are successfully trolled by Schmalfeldt are helping BK’s side because of the problems which I touch on below.
Karoli can post bad anti-Schmalfeldt attacks out of context. And some will be really hard to defend because they’re basically indefensible. People should really stick to criticizing Schmalfeldt when he takes unconscionable actions – which is OFTEN so that SHOULD have been enough to keep critics satisfied. Here are some things I see which she can use to make him look like a victim,
– Posts making fun of Parkinson’s symptoms. Really! While this is a frequent subject of writing and therefore the general subject matter is not off limits for conversation, one must avoid taking schadenfreude due to it. Regarding Schmalfeld’s malingering and excuse-making, it is wisest to leave technical detail talk to the technically knowledgable such as BuchananRick (whose posts about Parkinsons are actually really valuable and informative – thank you BuchananRick!)
– Posts making fun of his type of residence. I could write a lot about how a trailer isn’t necessarily much different from respectable middle class American lifestyle, but either way, it is not proper grounds for criticism.
– Posts making fun of his physical appearance. What else is there to say? It is not a proper grounds for criticism.
Now, yes I do know that Schmalfeldt slimes Brett Kimberlin targets on grounds much like the three above, and he has also done far, FAR worse. Therefore, if you are ever hungry to criticize Schmalfeldt, why don’t you stick to criticism of when he does things like that? The really condemnable things he’s done are far more shocking and bothersome than things like the three areas I mentioned above so I have to conclude the only reason some people get into those 3 areas is because they are emotional, mad, and seeking vengeance. Well, being mad is one thing, but the only important thing is to be RIGHT. And what makes you right is not only your ends and beliefs (on which good honest people sometimes disagree) but on your TACTICS, your means.
I have one more thing to add, which is that I come here because of Brett Kimberlin lawlessness and evil, but sometimes I get side benefits and some of the more thoughtful and interesting posts by BuchananRick are real highlights among those side-benefits. Rick, if you are reading, you’re now on notice that I appreciate a lot of the thought and effort you put into some of your posts and also your special personal perspective on Parkinsons is valuable and interesting.
OK I was wrong when I said I have one more thing to add. Here is another.
In criticizing Bill Schmalfeldt harassment, it is unwise to imitate his style and turn it around on him. Parody posts are also have potential to be misconstrued by onlookers who (thank goodness) happen to not be intimately familiar with the special lingo of Schmalfeldt harassment.
I recommend the best method of criticism is to just use direct quotes.
No imitation, no parody is as bad or damaging. Just direct quotes.
Or you can let many of his less important remarks (that’s gotta be most of them) go without you commenting back, and busy yourself remembering about #BrettKimberlin instead.
With all the talk of books being published lately, I cannot wait for this whole story to be published.
I suppose it is too late to file counter suits against Kimberlin. However, I hope some form of legal redress is available to BK’s lawfare victims once this trial is over. Perhaps suing him for conducting malicious prosecution.
Even if it were too late to file counter-claims, it isn’t too late to sue Brett Kimberlin until the statute of limitations expires on the underlying torts.