Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Here’s the answer that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin provided for the interrogatories I sent him through my counsel as a part of discovery in his Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit.Won'tAnswerBrett Kimberlin is convicted perjurer. Maryland is one of several states that does not permit anyone who has been convicted of perjury for testifying in court. (Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 9-104.) However, under the Maryland Rules relating to civil actions in the Circuit Court, Kimberlin is obligated to provide answers to my interrogatories under penalty of perjury unless he can convince a judge to issue a protective order relating to one or more particular questions.

While given under oath, answers to discovery interrogatories are not testimony. They are not covered by § 9-104 per se. Rule 2-421(d) says, “Answers to interrogatories may be used at the trial or a hearing to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence.” In the case of TDPK’s answers, § 9-104 would disallow any of his answers being used as testimony, but one of the uses of discovery is to develop information that will lead to useable evidence. It can show me and my codefendants which rocks to turn over.

TDPK’s vexatious lawsuits—Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.; Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al; and Kimberlin v. Kimberlin Unmasked—are all exercises in anti-First-Amendment shutuppery. He’s afraid of the truth being told about him. He afraid that more truth will be known about him.


UPDATE—Running Wolf clarifies TDPK’s statement.

25 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • I’m with you. I hope they are starting to see this for what it is. My grandfather, father, and brother are all attorneys and they don’t understand it either.

      • Again, not to go all Randian, but:

        Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

  1. In terms of Kimberlin’s past being known to the world, the cat’s already out of the bag. Always has been. It just required a few people on this wonderful internet-thingy to research the record and make it available for viewing.

    Kimberlin believed, wrongly, stupidly, that he could submerge and hide all his historic evil actions, so that he could continue his money-making schemes to solicit non-profit charitable donations from unknowing benefactors. It appears that if his non-profit books ever get a good going-over by an unbiased accountant he’s going to be dancing faster than a (…supply your own metaphor).

    I believe this is what Breitbart was alluding to when he suggested that someone check out the contributions to Kimberlin’s non-profit entities. Which is why Kimberlin and Co. so hate Breitbart. Even in his afterlife, Breitbart haunts Kimberlin and his cohorts.

    All Kimberlin and his cohorts can do now is try to inflict fear and agony upon his perceived enemies, out of sheer spite. Base instinct for a sociopath.

  2. To the extend that Maryland has a perjurer’s privilege that allows them to refuse to testify under oath in court documents it would seem apparent that Brett Kimberlin has long ago waived that privilege by repeated testifying in pleadings such as,

    “Defendant Walker further stalked Plaintiff by attending, uninvited, a family court matter involving Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s wife, and, then following the wife out of the courtroom, making contact with her, offering her things of value,…;”

    “Defendant Walker defamed Plaintiff, calling him an unfit father. He begged her not to remain with her Plaintiff husband.;”

    “Defendants Walker, Hoge, Ali, and McCain have engaged in a course of conduct of approaching and pursuing Plaintiff knowing that conduct reasonably placed Plaintiff in reasonable fear of assault;” and,

    “When the FBI talked to Plaintiff’s wife, she state that Plaintiff did not….”

      • You know there is no such privilege, and, I know there is no such privilege. But, Brett Kimberlin is arguing the law is something completely different. His claim is that the defendants have tried to “have it both ways.” My point is that he is trying to “have it both ways,” himself. He has repeatedly testified in his pleadings as I have noted above. In an another instance, he is attempting to tell the court what happened outside a courtroom when you and him were the only people in the room [at least at the start.] Sure, you could simply point out that his objection has no basis in law. Or, you could note that beyond his claim having no basis in law he is being intellectually dishonest as well.

        In the world of law you win by simply noting that his claim has no basis in fact. In the world of public opinion, Brett Kimberlin has claimed to have been treated “unfairly” by the Maryland court system. If that stands, he could gain in the battle for public opinion. But, if you can demonstrate that what Brett Kimberlin is claiming is that people who don’t play by the rules, in this case perjurers, should be treated better by the legal system than those that do, you win the battle for public opinion decisively.

  3. Shorter Whiny Bitch : STAND STILL SO I CAN HIT YOU !!!!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!#@!!!!!

    No wonder Whiny Bitch had to resort to bombs. He is a complete, total and utter coward. In a fair fight, Barney Fife could probably bitch-slap him all day, every day, and four times on Sunday. But what I want to know give the frauds he has perpetrated on the courts THUS FAR, why in the hell is Whiny Bitch STILL walking around loose in society?! Exactly what in the hell does it take to revoke his probation? A multi-state killing spree?

  4. If BK refuses to answer interrogatories, the judge should dismiss the suit with prejudice right now. When is he ever going to make some decisions?

  5. Pingback: Late Saturday Amusing Reading | Blubber Sues Bloggers

  6. He really thought suing popular bloggers, a publisher, and a guy who owns his own network would reduce the amount of publicity he would get? It just gives lots of people more opportunity to tell the truth about Brett Kimberlin, who committed perjury while a teenager, brought a bomb to a high school football game, left bomb making supplies in the trunk of his car, sued one of the victims to avoid paying damages, and who thought as a prisoner he should have an electric guitar. And whose AUTHORIZED biography detail a very close relationship to a very young girl. Oh, he also ate a copy of the presidential seal so it could not be used as evidence. No, he’s far more well-known now. May his fame spread far and wide.

    • Sure, Brett Kimberlin would have most rathered that his crimes do not receive negative attention. But in some ways it is too late to completely fix that now. So, for him, a different strategy has been called for:

      The Kimberlin + Rauhauser strategy has some hallmarks. One hallmark is a complete “ends justify the means” philosophy. Like Scientology attacking its enemies, TK considers its detractors “fair game” and may use whatever means are convenient to attack them.

      However they can’t let it be seen this way. Indeed one of the attacks they are most eager to use is the attack on the reputation of enemies, so they are always thinking of appearances. Therefore when they start a dirty attack, they must portray it as a two-way feud where both sides have dirty hands. Please re-read that sentence because it is important and it is a very pervasive pattern. If you do not help defeat this one tactic, you may be only hurting the cause.

      Brett Kimberlin can no longer hope that most people will be ignorant of his twisted and even violent pursuit of young girls. Nor that they will be ignorant of his killings, his extreme abuse of the courts, his severe harassment of many self-created opponents. What he can hope for is that onlookers will perceive the situation as just a feud where both sides are guilty.

      • That’s correct, but, I would add a key observation: they systematically accuse others of doing precisely what they are doing themselves.

      • BSB, that is in hope that onlookers will perceive two-way feuds rather than attacks by Kimberlin. It also causes his critics to spend resources defending against the accusations and dilutes the discussion. Ideally the discussion would consist 100% of the facts about Brett Kimberlin. When you make it a two-way street, the discussion is 20% Kimberlin puppet #1 and #2 (say, these two are Rauhauser socks), 20% Kuns and Osborne, 20% Schmalfeldt, and then the critics spend most of their share of the conversation defending against attacks, or criticizing the sockpuppets/meatpuppets listed before.

        Not that the associates I listed don’t warrant criticism. They do. But the insertion of other people into the attacks is also probably a dilution strategy, just like trying to turn a Kimberlin attack into a two-way feud is.

        I should have said, there is another reason for muddying the waters. It helps with later revenge harassment. Team Kimberlin members can introduce themselves to someone unfamiliar with the argument – say, your employer – and say “if you look on the internet, you can see a lot of vitriol from so-and-so.” And a cursory glance will show what looks like a 2-way fray. If speaking to an otherwise uninterested party who identifies with the left, TK would add that you are a “RWNJ.” Either way, the presentation is that there are really two sides. And that one wouldn’t want to side with YOU.

      • BKWatch,

        Brett Kimberlin, Neal Raushauser, Bill Schmalfeldt and the rest of their ilk accuse others of doing precisely what they are doing themselves because they want to shift the focus of the discussion from the substance of the accusations against them to the process.

        People have this tendency to believe that, “The truth must lie somewhere in the middle.” Folks like Raushauser exploit this intuition by shamelessly fabricating symmetric accusations alleging conduct that is equally outrageous and wrongful. They do so in the hopes that folks will read similar accusations, presume, “The truth must lie somewhere in the middle!,” and conclude that both sides are equally guilty.

      • BSB,
        Agree 100% with your last post. And the point is that we have to strategize accordingly. That doesn’t come naturally to everyone.

Leave a Reply