Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s second amended complaint is chock full of self-conradictary nonsense. For example, in paragraphs 99 and 100 he whines about having the FBI sicked on him by some of the defendants, but in paragraph 189 he claims to have been retaliated against by same defendants because he was talking to law enforcement.

popcorn4bkYep. TDPK wants the court to believe that the defendants harassed him by sending the cops to his house while simultaneously retaliating against him for talking to the cops. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court precedents require that a complaint be plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

Stay tuned.

28 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. And, Brett Kimberlin was sufficiently in fear of you to not file a federal lawsuit while suing you in state court.

  2. Regarding the FBI – are they NOT doing anything about Brett Kimberlin’s forgeries?

    In 1978, they were so concerned by reports from a print shop, that they arrested him while he was at a print shop to see what he was up to. [It turned out his car’s trunk had complete unused bomb making materials in it, too.] This time the forgery is right there, submitted in court documents, with his own signature affirming that the forgery was submitted by him. An investigation into his earlier lawfare would most likely turn up related issues.

    • Team Kimberlin is too useful to the Democratic Party for the DOJ to investigate or prosecute it. Obama and his administration, especially the laughably named DOJ, are totally corrupt.

      • Notwithstanding JTMP’s goofy State Department work, he is neither important nor useful to this or any other administration. I do not credit the theory that anyone is looking out for him, apart from hired harassers like Neal Rauhauser. At the higher levels, it makes little sense for people at the DoJ to either know or care about Kimberlin.

        However, some of his recent actions w.r.t. forgeries are precisely the sort of crimes that Federal law enforcement is supposed to be preventing, in order to ensure the basic proper functioning of the justice system. It’s reasonable to expect those Federal LEOs to put a stop to it. Brett Kimberlin is apparently the first in American history to ever forge a court summons, and it makes sense to set a precedent that this crime will receive a serious response.

      • I think BK gets air cover. Back in the day he did a solid for the Democrats by smearing Dan Quayle. He got support from Joe Biden and Dick Durbin who are somewhat important in the Democrat party today. In Maryland I think they recognize him as a fellow traveler who is annoying the right people.

        He is allied with Rauhauser and Zeese who are players in Occupy. Zeese claims to be a founder of Occupy DC. I think Occupy was funded and supported by OFA.

        I don’t think that he is getting direction from Eric Holder or anything like that. But is the FBI looking into the forgery before the court? The court has done nothing about it. In the state case they wouldn’t do anything. I think the Feds won’t either.

        There is a reason why he identifies his targets as conservatives in his cases. People say don’t make it partisan, but, paraphrasing the saying, partisanship is interested in you. There is a reason that BS thinks that who appointed the judges matters. He does not believe for a minute that the merits of the case matter, just who is on what side.

      • Can you back that up with any specifics? For instance, what did the quid pro quo for smearing Quayle consist of? I believe there was none.

        Brett’s remarks about biased judges, and not getting exonerated, were intended to open up a sliver of hope for people on the political left, and he did it because it sometimes worked — e.g., it worked for several years on his own unauthorized biographer and Gary Trudeau. It should not work on you, too… and yet it does.

        Do you think ANY judge he’s appeared before in the last 5 years even heard of him before? If not, do you think the judge received any pressure from a politician? And if not, why do you keep writing the way you do? And if SO, why on EARTH would you not include substantiating details? It’d be a bit like having a devastating photostatic copy of hundreds of names of communist infiltrators… and then not actually ever naming a single one. In other words, it would be damaging to people who are on your own side.

      • Obviously I meant “authorized” biographer above.

        Anyway I don’t believe you. Your claims are serious, and jump gaps that ought to carry more explanation, which you so far never admit that you don’t have. I wish you would at least admit that you have no such knowledge of the relationships you’re implying.

      • BTW I will instantly modify my tune if any one of Brett Kimberlin’s lawfare victims steps in and says “Thanks Earl for bringing out the truth.” Or at least, “BKWatch is wrong since that kind of post helps rather than hurts our cause.” Even though there are quite a few victims, I bet not one would say this.

      • BKWatch, in all honesty, I do not understand your series of comments on this post, or why you made them. Hard to comment when that is the case.

      • BKWatch, had your second cuppa this morning, eh?

        Let me start with something I posted here back in April:

        I know it is unfashionable to consider this a Left-Right thing. And I have said before, I would bet that BK has no discernible political ideology, but if your lifestyle includes smuggling dope, running guns, and chasing underage girls, I imagine that one political party is more accepting of you than the other.

        But whether you believe it is about Left-Right, the Left believes it about you. BK did the Democrats a solid with that foofaraw over Dan Quayle. It was a sideshow that lasted for years, and, here you may see a pattern – it was ultimately not an actual thing, but it cost him nothing and cost his opponents something. He made a pile of cash from the book, which oddly enough disappeared, he got notoriety, he won the lifelong gratitude of people like Durbin and Biden – people who have paid no price at all for their backing of BK.

        I have written this before – he acts with impunity because he has impunity. That may not be good grammar but it is what it is. We think it is a big deal that Soros and Streisand fund charities that have given cash to BKs organizations. But the real big deal is that they get a whole lot more money – most of their money – from you and me. The US taxpayer is funding this lawfare. And the funder? Department of State. Led by whom then? Chief of staff was who then? Married to who, exactly?

        There are people who suggest that Zeese or Rubin might want to disassociate themselves if they knew. If they knew? These people are mobbed up in the Occupy movement, Occupy is really just a different face of OFA, and, well, you know what the O stands for in that.

        TK are like Nixon’s plumbers. They are out there doing the dirty work, and have a lot of air cover. The way to defeat that is to expose that linkage. Once these little hoodlums can be tied to big cheeses, they will find themselves under the bus.

      • So, which of those connections is undocumented?

        Here is a letter from Senator Carl Levin:

        http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/kimberlin.html

        He is still a Senator. In this letter, Levin is using the Kimberlin claims about Dan Quayle to attack the administration. I don’t know how much damage it did, but it dominated several news cycles back in the day before there were news cycles. Levin did not care whether the accusations were true or not. He only cared whether they were damaging to his opponents. (does this sound familiar?)

        Biden and Durbin similarly supported Kimberlin’s claims. And, as I pointed out, they also are of some note in today’s Democrat Party.

        Do you think that it is not true that JTMP received funding from the US State Department to work with Muslim musicians? Was the Secretary of State not Hillary Clinton, was her Chief of Staff not Huma Abedin, was Abedin’s husband not Rep. Weiner? Why do you think TK runs a site against Breitbart?

        You don’t think Zeese and Rauhauser are involved with Occupy? Just google it.

        So, again – I don’t think that these Democrats are all chatting in some IRC channel with BK, but I think that there is a recognition of what side he is on, and thus he is able to get away with things he would not otherwise. When every one is acting in concert of their own volition, it is indistinguishable from conspiracy.

        Because, you know that if you or I forged a summons from a court, that something would happen to us. And it wouldn’t take four months (and counting) for that something to happen. Which brings me back to Rand about contradictions:

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

        So, are you really troubled by me writing this because of concern for TK’s targets? Or do you have some different concerns about it?

        Or are you just playing conflict Cupid?

      • Reader, never say never. I compared TK to Nixon’s plumbers who ultimately were tied to the Big Cheese.

  3. BK Watch, a lot of these judges were appointed by the administration that benefited the most from BK’s smears about Quayle. They have their jobs because Clinton won that election. I dont believe he’s being looked after and completely protected from by high level Dems. However, I do think a few powerful people do what they can to allow him to continue his harassment of the Right. How else can you explain how he’s able to always get away with his recent crimes without so much as a slap on the wrist?

    • Political protection is a lot simpler than some of you are making it out to be.

      What if Neal and Brett were paid to help Anthony Weiner, and what if they helped other politicians with crisis control, via dirty tricks?

      Then what happens if they are in legal jeopardy? Anthony Weiner and his associates, as well as others they have assisted, are exposed to scandal if they talk about what they’ve done. I do not think they would hesitate to threaten such to anyone who could help them. It is within the realm of possibility that a major presidential candidate for the next election is only a degree or two of separation away from some scandalous conduct.

      So yeah, the potential that they have been protected is plausible at the very least. They have repeatedly behaved as if there will be no consequences.

      • I may like to address this subject in a later post or a different venue, but I believe you are looking in the correct direction and misinterpreting some of what you’re seeing. It is a reasonably established fact that Neal has been a dirty-tricks man for Congressmen (and others)… perhaps we’ll talk later.

  4. BK Watch

    I grant you that I cannot supply evidence of the kind that would stand up in court that this administration is a criminal enterprise. But, as an example, tell me: do you believe that this administration did not use the IRS as a weapon against political critics, even very obscure ones. For another example, do you believe that this administration faithfully executes the laws, say the immigration laws or Obamacare? Or for a third example, do you believe that they did not dox and jail an innocent man to try to support their lies that Benghazi was inspired by the movie made by that man, about as clear cut showing of contempt for the First Amendment as possible.

    Now you may sincerely believe those things. If so, I have nothing but contempt for your intelligence. As for me, I believe this administration will literally do anything, including murder, to silence its political opponents. They certainly will do nothing to Kimberlin.

    • While the current administration is certainly the most politically and financially corrupt administration over the past 90 years, I have a hard time seeing the Justice Department manipulating multiple levels of employees and judges, individuals each with their own ideas about right and wrong, to support a nutcase like Kimberlin who is a convicted bomber/forger/perjurer. Even a corrupt Justice Department would see the potential for disaster in such an effort.

      Better to shy away from conspiracy explanations and return to an Occam’s Razor line of thought.

      • The administration does not need to manipulate multiple levels of career bureaucrats (who by the way are for the most part ideologically supportive). It need merely suggest to a single presidential appointee not to waste prosecutorial resources on Brett Kimberlin. BK Watch started by wondering why nothing was being done to punish Kimberlin for an admitted case of forgery. Very little needed to be done: his parole could have been revoked. Remember that the government could not wait to revoke the parole of someone who had not committed any crime when it was politically convenient to do so in the case of Benghazi.

        We have an administration with a clear record of contempt for the civil rights of any who dare say things that do not fit within the administration’s approved ideology. We have a paroled felon who attacks those who disagree with this administration, yet has neither been indicted nor had his parole revoked for an admitted forgery in a federal proceeding. Furthermore, this convicted felon claims that his conviction has been vacated, albeit secretly. This does not amount to proof that the administration will ignore his behavior because it has been found useful, But it certainly provides strong grounds for suspicion that Kimberlin is being protected by influential friends in the administration.

  5. Kimberlin is at best an embarrassment and liability, if he gets any support its just to keep his crookery taint away from anyone who has a reputation to protect.
    Not only does noone believe he isn’t a con who stole his story about MJ and Dan Quayle, Dan Quayle is a: all but forgotten b: “he bought MJ in college” has no traction as scandal with any person of sense, certainly not with the former Choom Boy (his own title) occupying the White house. He may have some dirty money or some backdoor schemes with people who have since figured him out, but exposure of Brett Kimberlin would never be quieted to protect Brett as leftist hero, but only to keep the embarrasing fact of him low key. That the IRS lets his crap slide – Bretts biggest worry ought to be that they need a sacrificial scapegoat as example of , agency/asministration fairness. He’s on thin ice and probably doesn’t realize how thin.

  6. Sorry I did not mean to cause the amount of argument that occurred above. Earl, while we still disagree, I hope you see it as respectful disagreement. Particularly if it comes up again 🙂

    Since the discussion moved way off into a bunch of other directions, here are some answers that also move off way into those other directions.

    – The IRS is horrible, true. The tax code is horrible, true. Does the current administration abuse it (more than it is usually abused)? It’s all but proven so, and I do believe so. I would like to add that the newish provisions in the tax code at issue are probably inherently highly abusable.
    – Carl Levin was super excited and champing at the bit over Kimberlin’s (almost certainly fabricated) Quayle story. True, but let’s face it, you’d way out on a limb saying that Carl Levin or ANY democrat is pulling strings to protect Kimberiln right now.
    – Ayn Rand… this whole discussion is pretty far off in a lot of different directions so I was tempted to respond with something making fun of her. But then I remembered she grew up in a very sick political system but managed to arrive at a good deal of truth and common sense in spite of it. This is an unusual accomplishment by itself and is nearly impossible to appreciate by people who grew up in orderly, peaceful societies. I disagree with some of Rand’s key claims but she was cleverer than most of her critics and certainly worked harder to get to where she was than most of them ever could have.

    But back to the core of the “democrats protect Kimberlin” theory. In the “strong” version of the theory, the protection is conscious, deliberate, and involves string-pulling. I believe this version of the theory is totally untenable. It lacks explanatory power for either present or past events so I don’t expect the theory to work in the future either. Regarding past events, Kimberlin was jailed by a Democratic administration with help of Democrat Jack Thar (who moved on to politics, in fact) who is known to have disliked Quayle. Nevertheless Singer says that Thar kept an eye on Kimberlin years after Kimberlin was jailed, and Thar even took it upon himself to tell reporters that Kimberlin’s Quayle story was full of crap (see Citizen K, 276-277, 354).

    While Kimberlin spun the story that his Quayle story was suppressed for political reasons, Singer (apparently quite Democrat-leaning) researched Kimberlin for years and eventually concluded this political-bias angle was an intentional lie by Kimberlin. This is interesting since Singer was originally taken in by the lie. (Also see page 294, 295).

    Next, Kimberlin was paroled (with no discernable influence from the administration) under Clinton, then parole revoked under Clinton (no indication anyone at the white house cared a bit about him), then was let out again under Bush (who likewise probably wouldn’t know the name). On the matter of politicians knowing who Kimberlin is, in spite of Kimberlin’s constant jockeying to stay visible to politicans – and celebrities – and teenage girls! – Singer noted that Quayle did not recognize Kimberlin. Singer also noted that Brett made a big deal about claiming that he WAS recognized even though Singer was there and could clearly see this was not true. Hmm, I’m noticing a really strong pattern here: claims about Kimberlin having solid connections tend to wither under scrutiny, and they often originated from Kimberlin.

    OK since this post isn’t long enough already, let’s look at the “weak” version of the “democrats protect Kimberlin” theory. Under this theory, There Is No Cabal, but sometimes when a democrat encounters Kimberlin, he first comes to know Kimberlin by his left-leaning public advocacy, and therefore automatically takes his side. Now, this theory, I admit, ABSOLUTELY has happened! It started happening as soon as Kimberlin discovered the whole left/right angle with Quayle and it sometimes happens ever since. Now, I would be surprised if this explains much about the FBI, judges, etc etc, but it might explain Karoli Kuns. Hmm, so what should we do about it? Answer: try to move the discussion beyond partisan republican/democrat politics (which, I’m sorry, is probably all a terrible waste of time anyway) and appeal to the democrat in the most non-partisan way possible. This *might* mean that if you are a rabid democrat-hater, you are therefore a less effective opponent of Team Kimberlin because many democrats – and even moderates – will be biased to ignore you.

    In other words, Kimberlin does use politics as a wedge, and you ought to take care to not play into it. Now, if a democrat is duped by Kimberlin, is that partly his fault? Sure it is! But you could also blame yourself if you disqualified yourself from polite discussion with such people.

    Not that anyone is going to read this post, but at least now I could link to it if someone does ask later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s