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.Brett 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.