35 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. Just curious… but at what point would “sharing the workload” cross the line from “helping an ally” to “practicing law without a license?”

  2. The ABA provides the following:

    Sec. 10-101(h)
    (1) “Practice law” means to engage in any of the following activities:

    (i) giving legal advice;
    (ii) representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political
    subdivision; or
    (iii) performing any other service that the Court of Appeals defines as practicing law

    (2) “Practice law” includes:
    (i) advising in the administration of probate of estate of decedents in an orphans’ court of
    the state
    (ii) preparing an instrument that affects title to real estate
    (iii) preparing or helping in the preparation of any form or document that is filed in a
    court or affects a case that is or may be filed in a court;
    (iv) giving advice about a case that is or may be filed in a court.

    Emphasis added.

  3. It’s almost as if the websites and embedded data are going to be used in future court filings. It may actually be helpful for one or more actors in this drama to be very careful what data is being carried with their documents.

    It also looks like some are playing chess, others are playing checkers, and still others are playing Mystery Date.

  4. I have been in a quiescent mode lately because of both my instincts and professional training. I believe that “blog silence” MUST become the operative word and I offer my thoughts on this:

    I sense that an opportunity is now beginning to take form whereupon the collective forces of the ‘only correct side’ (read Hoge et al) against the poorly organized and somewhat incoherent “Dark Side” are beginning to coalesce into a formidable and magnificent force. Nothing less than total victory must be obtained as it will irreversibly set back the “K’s” and force them into a collective survivalist environment.from which they will never be able to satisfactorily reassemble again.into a coherent group. This, above all, must remain the goal of the ‘only correct side’!! Anything less will only allow the “K’s” to regroup and begin again, assuming of course, that funding from ultra liberals, such as the Soros’ and the Streisand’s of the world, remains copiously available.

    In my opinion, there is altogether too much free intelligence being freely given to the “Dark Side” without any real, substantive thought being given to it. I believe that this is a function of inexperience and, quite frankly, too much ego – especially among those of us that may or may not be practicing attorneys, regardless of characterization by the “Dark Side”. I know that some efforts have already been started some time ago to move in this direction, but I believe that this must occur “off-line” until total victory is achieve. As far as I am concerned, total victory is achieved when punishing monetary and legal sanctions are sufficiently in effect so that no one repeat no one thinks that the simple filing of a lawsuit or 150 lawsuits or 1,000,000 lawsuits will cower free thinkers. The truth is the truth and we have a right to know when terrorists from whatever ilk are loose amongst us from a societal point of view.

    Collectively, we have become a “Band of Brothers” regardless of our respective backgrounds. I offer up King Henry’s St. Crispen’s Day charge to his troops prior to the Battle of Calais which has inspired free peoples around the world ever since. We know who the enemy is and we must not allow the “Dark Side” any advantage at all!

    My recommendation is, now that the battle is joined, is that all websites go silent with regard to all lawsuits and that any coordination between the legal staffs be conducted off-line or on secured password-only fora. Far too many leaks have heretofore occurred, in my opinion, and may allow the “Dark Side” an unnecessary advantage.

    Let the night fall on our efforts and strike panic into the “Dark Side” as they foolishly expend efforts in wrong directions. There will be no greater dessert that seeing any member of the “Dark Side” in front of an increasingly angry judge with nothing more than a bad case of the “humma humma hummas”

    Short term “gotcha’s” are both a delight and morale booster to us as well as detrimental to our foes. I think they should continue. However, I do believe caution about “loose lips” is well advised.

    Just sayin’

    Thanks for taking the time to read this

    • I want to address three different lines of thought related to your post.

      1. Kimberlin’s donors, including Soros and Streisand, were sincerely ignorant of the nature of the organizations they gave to, and probably if they knew just a few more things about Brett Kimberiln, they wouldn’t have given. Kimberlin has already telegraphed that the reputational hit is a big problem for him, which fits quite well with this theory. In fact it seems to make him quite furious. Sue me, Brett.

      2. Don’t you think that our host already considered the points of strategy you mentioned? He wouldn’t – and doesn’t – make posts that give gifts to the other side.

      3. Putting 1 & 2 together, it is definitely important to continue to discuss Kimberlin’s crimes because it is part of how he can be stymied. If you like, this can be done without reference to any specific strategy that is valuable to the defendants.

      Brett Kimberlin has actually thrived due to some people not understanding some things about him, and silence is not the answer to that.

      Now let me say a part where I think we are in agreement. I have a handful of ideas about Team Kimberlin which I do not say in public because the ideas would aid the strategy of Team Kimberlin. And, there are a few peripheral enemies of Team Kimberlin who actually seem to not already know these ideas so maybe it would help if the “good guys” could share ideas better. But on the other hand, I sometimes get a strong feeling that both host, and also his co-defendants in Kimberlin’s two lawsuits, are already well aware of the few points that I would make and they probably figured it out before I did. On the balance, there is probably a use for a secure repository of good information and ideas, but the people who need it are probably not the same ones as the people who are now taking Kimberlin down.

    • Never forget, however, the value of the planted “clue”, the head fake, nor the occasional psy-op.

      Opponents must ask themselves, “how much of what is published is an actual “leak”, how much is a “plant”, and how much is done for the sheer LULZ (I saw what you did there, Palantine Pundit)?”

      Stay inside their OODA loop, and it almost doesn’t [fnord] matter what they think they know…

      Be Happy Warriors!

    • I have to say that what I am reading makes sense in the context of litigation as it typically happens in the real world, but, little sense in the context of Acme Law.

      As a thought experiment visualize a street person walking the subway platform speaking into his palm held by his ear, “Sell 500 shares of …. at ….!” In his own mind, the street person is emulating the behavior of the person who he thought seemed to be an important person. Such a person believes that by mimicking the behavior of an important person he himself appears to be an important person.

      Normal people see a person talking gibberish, avert their eyes, hold their children’s hands a little more tightly, and accelerate their walking pace. Had they saw and heard a well-dressed man in a suit say the same words into his cellphone they would have thought nothing of the same episode. That is because in the latter case, the form of the words were concordant with the substance of the words, while in the former they were not.

      I submit that the chief console at Acme Law exhibits exactly the same thinking pattern as the hypothetical street person cited above. He [, or she,] merely “researches” an existing case were the desired side won and cut-and-pastes their words into his lawsuit. In his own mind, he believes that because he has emulated the form of a winning legal argument he will prevail. In the real world, his arguments lack the substance of a winning legal argument because among other defects they are not germane, they don’t argue from the underlying facts, they are incomplete, and, they lack intuitive appeal.

      I submit that the chief console at Acme Law cannot understand any criticism of the substance of his arguments. The words simply have no meaning to him. And, I submit that the current client of Acme Law is so deeply in denial [“I’m going to have it expunged, like it never happened!”], that he will not endeavor to understand their substance. I submit, the only people we would be gagging is ourselves.

      • I would add that Aaron Walker, and others, pointed out numerous legal deficiencies in their MTDs Brett Kimberlin’s federal lawsuit. While it was a road map to for Brett Kimberlin to improve his pleadings, he did not.

  5. While there may be certain advantages to withholding information so that the convicted terrorist bomber Kimberlin and his ilk are not tipped off, shining the light of truth on these cockroaches makes their existence known to all who happen to peruse the topic.

    The more the world knows about the actions of the convicted terrorist bomber Kimberlin and his cohorts, the better.

    • Its never a good idea to help someone fix their errors before they are irretrievable.

      But its been absolutely hilarious to see how TDPK will “fix” an error by making a worse one.

      • Case in point: Various motions to dismiss in the Rico Madness case point to the fact Kimberlin has failed to state a claim based on his failure to allege certain facts to support the conclusory allegations made against certain defendants. (Ostensibly, Kimberlin was told what he did wrong, and had the opportunity to correct these issues.). Kimberlin’s response: double down on stupid by writing a much longer, more bizarre complaint which still fails to allege facts sufficient to support the claims made against the very same defendants who told him what he did wrong with the last complaint. Ahem. Futile.

  6. I just read “Bill’s” answer again, and I’m laughing so hard my stomach hurts. Law clerks pray for something like this to brighten up their dull, overworked days. The standout, of course, is the Krendler parody, which I predict will be passed around the courthouse.

    • Oh, but it gets better. He is in the process, so he says, of filing an amended complaint today because we all tipped him off to all his errors. Yep, you go with that Bill. Legal Genius in action.

      • Odd, that he’d listen to us, since we’re all supposed to be “dim, stupid, lickspittles, retards,” etc. Maybe some folks were conducting psyops, as Leroy suggested, above. Heh, heh.

      • Amending a counter-claim? IANAL but I thought that has to be requested not just filed … the original plaintiff has one amendment available before needed to request filing a second amended complaint. I’m not sure a counter-claim has the same freedom, help from any of the legal scholars here?

      • I just hope he doesn’t notice the fatal weakness in his pleading…

        lack of mention of Team Themis…

  7. Question: Is there an exception to the “No Contact” requirement of the Peace Order which allows for Adjudicated Harasser and Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt to mail a court document DIRECTLY to our Gentle Host?

    • Excellent question!!! Is the gentle host proceeding pro se? I would hope he has counsel. If so the adjudicated harasser could send correspondence to his counsel, which would almost certainly not violate the Order

      If the gentle host is pro se, It would seem to reason that an adjudicated harasser could freely file responses to the Court, but not necessarily to the gentle host. Procedural rules probably serve as the basis for any required direct contact, but a court Order may be prohibiting such contact. That is what you would call being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

      There may be a general exception to peace orders allowing such contact. Even in the absence of such an exception, the Courts might be inclined to create such an exception, provided the contact is only for the purpose of abiding by the rules of court.

      In any event, if the gentle host is pro se, the adjudicated harasser would have to tread very carefully… something he has demonstrated an inability to do, thus far. Hopefully he has counsel and this is not an issue.

      • Just read the complaint again… the gentle host IS pro se. It seemed a rather well drafted complaint for a non-attorney, IMO. Not that I have ever read a copyright complaint. That means no attorney to send pleadings to for the adjudicated harasser… Rock and a hard place. Tread carefully.

Leave a Reply