The Gentle Reader should take note that I generally am rather slow to discuss some aspects of the lawsuits that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed against me. That’s because I don’t wish to educated him about errors he makes until it is too late to correct them.
Take the process of discovery in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit as an example. The process isn’t complete yet. However, some parts of it have gone as far as they can go. Each party is allowed to ask 30 interrogatories of each other party. TDPK asked 32 of me, and I answered all of them. (I let him have the extra 2.) Of course, some of my answers were in the form of “No, you can’t have that privileged information,” and he asked the court to compel me to provide the information he sought. The court denied his motion. Since that part of discovery is done, I’m willing to talk about it.
The clock will run out on the last bit of the discovery process later this month. At that point, I will have some mind-bogglingly silly stuff to share with you.
When he can’t forge a default judgment via fraud, he is baffled how to proceed “proving” his fanciful lies.
He does indeed seem to have always jumped from “commit fraud” to “win”, with the courts giving him the “then a miracle occurs” as a given. No one has ever required that he “should be more explicit here in step two”.
“You asked for Miracles, I give you the US legal system.” (With apologies to Die Hard.)
South Park’s “underpants gnomes” could take a lesson or three from TDPK.
If nothing else, he could see them at eye level while lecturing.
“Jumping the connection.” Perfect description of the so-called analysis of several bloggers, including Xenophon, who write logically flawed pieces.
Or the flow chart?
Look forward to you revealing more.
Is there any guarantee that he will fulfill his obligations to respond to your discovery requests? We see how well he complied, and how well the court handled his refusal to comply, to discovery with Aaron.
I am. It’s the “patience” part that’s not going so very well!
Dianna, he may have trouble with sentence construction when trying to type out Kimberlins moronic nonsensical ravings – Brett was probably raving in his 32 questions more than he was asking for discovery
Or the short version: its hard to type while laughing hysterically at the genius of Brett
It’s suspenseful, because I can only guess and wonder whether he kept the amount of perjury to under 30 counts per reply.
Oh, I know – did he manage to commit forgery while drafting his responses? 30 per, or…?
I can understand why you would honor the extra two questions.
But give an inch, take a foot-long…..
I look forward to finding out the behind the scenes stuff — but only after the bomber is considered a vexatious litigant. Hopefully he won’t be able to try this on anyone else. I don’t know about Justice Through Music”….but I figure we’ll see justice.
Looking forward to just seeing the questions he’s asking — but I know, “Stay tuned.”
Looking at the state case, it appears that the defendants have attempted to resolve a dispute over discovery and documented that to the court, and then have submitted a motion for sanctions due to plaintiffs failure to provide discovery.
Here is where a lawyer with experience in the Maryland courts may enlighten us. I would think that the proper thing here would have been a motion to compel rather than a motion for sanctions. The court would compel the answers which would then make failure to provide the discovery contempt of court. Typically a court might also make the one who is ordered to compel pay the legal fees for the parties that had to seek the motion. I do not see on the docket that the defendants have sought a motion to compel yet. Plaintiff did, and his motion was denied.
Not sure that the court would go for anything other than that unless there are serious issues of misconduct. Which is of course possible. Likely what would happen is that anything that had been requested as discovery and not provided could not then be used as evidence in the trial. So, for example, if the defendants had requested, say, an original birth certificate for someone, and the plaintiff did not provide it, he could not later introduce a birth certificate into evidence to support his case. Well, he could, but the defendants could then ask that it be struck and excluded and it should be granted.