Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Here’s another bit of whining from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s proposed second amended complaint in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 100-156OK, Lickspittles, consider yourselves egged.

25 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. So, one creates a blog, engages with their commenters, and encourages their commenting audience to get involved with the host and each other to discuss stories and events of common interest.

    I suppose one could snarkily reply, “So, sue me,” but… well… you know. *smh*

  2. OK. I’m engaged.

    Evidently, Kimberlin thinks we all ought to operate in a perfect vacuum. Since no one would blog if no one could or would respond….I’m sure Kimberlin would still be unhappy.

  3. He is complaining about people who “accused” him of “SWAT-ting” – but did he ever find and supply the court with a single instance where this happened. I never saw any of the defendants accuse him of it, several observed that those who ticked off Rauhauser seemed to get hit rather often, but I never saw anyone even directly accuse Neal, much less TDPK.

    • I am on record accusing Neal of arranging the calls, but it would not be like him to place the call himself. This does not remove the criminality from his actions, only makes it harder to prove (which is his goal).

      When Brett Kimberlin hired Neal to harass people, Brett would have known that this was one of Neal’s tactics and in fact the only reasonable conclusion is that Brett and Neal specifically discussed the use of this tactic before, during, and now after it was used.

      As you can see, Brett’s response to the above is to play transparent word games by falsely telling the court that his harassment victims accused HIM of PERSONALLY placing the calls. He thinks he is covered by the supposedly unprovable chain of his involvement since he is several steps removed from the calls.

  4. Specifics! Kimberlin! You gotta give specifics! I read the blogs operated by those you sued, and I knew their reporting on all of your misdeeds preceded their SWATting events. But they did NOT accuse you of calling 911.

    I’m pretty sure you’re the kind of guy people call 911 about.

    • It leaves us wondering. Did Brett Kimberlin fail to attach an exhibit to specifically prove the claim because he was too lazy to do so, or because even Brett Kimberlin’s misrepresentations of his own exhibits have limits and this one was too much of a stretch?

      For those who still haven’t read Citizen K, you should. Mark Singer spends several chapters carefully documenting Brett Kimberiln’s culpability for the Speedway bombings, as well as Brett’s actions against Julia Scyphers. For both of these issues, Brett had multiple lies – sometimes a series of changing lies – and Singer investigated each and showed how they were false and self-serving. Singer turns the last few dozen pages of the book into a veritable list of lies Kimberlin told him – some great, some small, some either so blatant or so silly that Singer seems insulted that Kimberlin even tried to tell the lie.

      Kimberlin is a man who commits serious misdeeds which are fatal to others; brazenly tells self-serving lies at almost any perceived opportunity; lies in court; convicted of perjury; admits – in his own biography! – of committing more perjury which he wasn’t convicted for, is the first known person to ever forge a summons, forges evidence submitted to the court to deny his lawfare targets their legal rights. Also forged military ID documents, claimed to be some kind of military security, forged customs documents, forged passports, forged other travel documents, bought “burner” cars and electronic timers (later used as bomb parts) while claiming to be somebody else. Forged prison release order, lied about his debt to his bombing victim Sandra DeLong when obtaining his mortgage, abused a closely held corporation to try to conceal assets from DeLong.

      Does anyone think it would be beyond this man to lie about whether his lawfare victims accused him of placing 911 calls? No, even his defenders don’t believe this, because they’re in on it. They are OK with evil tactics because they are OK with evil as long as it is being used against their own opponents.

  5. That particular whine is an effort to wheedle past sec 230 of the communications decency act, which he doesn’t like and refuses to understand.

    Asking someone to look into his biography or consider coincidences or to write about his past and present is not “incitement”; and protected written opinion, or fact, however unfavorable, is not defamation. Also one lie is very brazen, and the core of his suit. Every one mentioned by BK never accused him of swatting. Most, or all, of them I believe know he didn’t carry out any SWATtings himself ( and has taken the trouble to say so) However, given his associates, the timing and context of the swats, it’s reasonable to suspect a connection to writing about BK, even if BK had no hand in them. But that has been gone over many times before, no need to trot out an explication of events now.

    • Yes, exactly, to this and the one below, Onlooker. People will often tell on themselves. Kimberlin is certainly one who proves that theory.

  6. I’d say the best hint that bk had anything to do with the various SWATtings is his overstatement about what people have actually.said about those SWATtings. He protests too much and *invents* the accusation, almost as if HE knows what he is guilty of when no one else does.

  7. What I think is funny (not for the defendants of course) is that any hope BK had that he could escape his past vanished when he started this suit. The egg is all over his face.

Leave a Reply