Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Here’s a news flash! The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed a couple of legitimate green cards with the Restricted Delivery boxes checked. They were filed with a motion in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit and are for some mail sent two days after he had to confess his previous shenanigans to Judge Ryon. But have no fear, Gentle Reader. TDPK managed to find another document to forge as one of the exhibits. He makes this allegation in his motion.BK v Aw 2013 AltSvc-6TDPK filed the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit on 30 August, 2013. With that in mind, consider his Exhibit E.BK v AW 2013 AltSvcKU Ex ESo TDPK informed Kimberlin Unmasked of a lawsuit filed on 30 August, 2013, on 22 February, 2013. Perhaps he’s traded his gold Prius for a blue Police Box.


33 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. Thank God he’s so stupid.

    Imagine the harm he could have caused with all his bombs and plots had he some cunning and dedication. All he will ever be is a ruthless fool. Dangerous, yes, but thankfully muted in actual effectiveness.

  2. I’m not sure that’s evidence of a forgery per se.

    KU posted their “Contact Us” page on 2/22/13. That doesn’t mean that TDPK submitted his comment form that day.

    That being said, if that’s all Exhibit E consists of, then it does not show what TDPK claims it shows.

    • To be clear, TDPK purportedly submitted a comment and took a screenshot of his comment before submitting it, which he then submitted as Exhibit E. He claimed that Exhibit E demonstrates that KU posted that they’d received notice of the suit. So he lied to the court. Perjury, not (necessarily) forgery.

      • I just spent half an hour looking for a copy of Exhibit E and I can’t find it. So, forgive me if I missed something that makes my conclusion below incorrect.

        I agree with Nil inultum remanebit. Kimberlin isn’t claiming to have sent the notice on 2/22/13. As NIR. says, that’s just the date of KU’s “Contact Us” posting.

      • To be more precise, TDPK entered a comment into the system, and screencapped it. If I screencapped this comment here and never hit “Post Comment” Hoge would not know I had typed this.

        Unless there is other supporting data, I see nothing to prove that TDPK ever even submitted the comment, let alone that KU acknowledged it.

      • At best he stale-posted to a comment form from February. That sort of thing goes straight into my spam basket, FWIW.

    • The suspected forgery may be akin to that of the summons – take a legitimate document and change it to something completely different. Perhaps KU posted something, somewhere in Feb. 2013. BK may have simply added the other text, totally unrelated to whatever KU posted, then falsely claim his doctored doc as “evidence.”

  3. So, what’s REALLY going on here is that Kyle lost the time machine.
    Kyle, we want a word with you.

  4. Better yet, there is no proof that the “Contact Us” form actually *does* anything at all!

    I’ve seen more than a couple of these that were deliberate stubs/placeholders, that allowed the form to be filled in, but that never actually sent anything, anywhere.

    Nope, Exhibit E proves nothing, other than Brett Coleman Kimberlin is attempting to defraud the court, once again.

  5. My guess is:

    1) Someone was playing Animal Crossing on the family Wii.
    2) They set the time on the Wii to be a date in the past to access some event that they wanted to do again or that they missed.
    3) BK posted his notice using the Wii that someone forgot to correct the dat eon after their AC session.
    4) Someone had a ton of weeds to clean up when they next played AC.

    See? Perfectly plausible!

  6. Regardless of the dates, and setting aside that the form may not have been submitted, is that even a valid means of serving someone under the court rules?

      • And it’s not a proper method of service, period, even if it is notice that there is some suit afoot – due diligence to serve properly is still necessary.

    • The courts have told him explicitly that rules regarding form of service are not important. Even forged evidence of service is acceptable.

      The court has pretty much said, hey, if you know about it, consider yourself sued, technicalities be damned. So BK is trying demonstrate that BU was notified. And if that notification did not follow the rules, or it was totally made up? Well, no matter.

      I am pretty sure that in a criminal case, if the state won a conviction after such action, that case could be successfully appealed.

      • And it’s true Judge Hazel declared his opinion that Ace was avoiding service, even though Ace was actually protecting his identity until BK had demonstrated some merit to his suit. In Hazel’s favor he didn’t just declare Ace served, he said BK would have to follow the available procedure and complete all the steps.

      • Here its not clear there was any constructive notice at all. BK stale-posts to a comment form (which may or may not be a functional comment form) like a purveyor of lace underwear and black-market ultram?

    • My understanding is that if someone avoids service and the plaintiff can prove the defendant is aware of the suit, then the judge may order that they’ve been notified; constructive service. Basically, the defendant knows there’s a suit and either has read it, or could. Courts don’t want to reward people for avoiding service.

      So, the tiny terrorist is falsely claiming that KU is avoiding service but is aware of the suit, even acknowledged awareness of the suit.

  7. That web page could have been downloaded and saved as an html file anytime in the distant past when the website was active. He could have opened that saved web page yesterday, typed the information into the text boxes and then taken a screen shot. A printed screenshot of that page is absolutely worthless and proves nothing.

    • And, in fact, if it ever comes to a trial, the defendants could have a computer and printer set up in the courtroom. They could open that saved web page, type in BK’s name and a complete confession acknowledging all of his many crimes. Then print it out and immediately submit it as evidence of guilt.

    • BTW, “notches” (the email he’s using for court) was the name of one of his crap Band “EPOXY’s greatest non-hits, described by a reviewer (has to be a shill) as song about “f***ng people over”.

  8. Speaking of webpages… and “when you lose Wiki…” (haha) those comments put it into my head to check and it appears there is a lot of info not included in the wiki page of Brett Kimberlin, director of Justice Through Music Project (JTMP) that I think should be there.

    Granted, I didn’t read it thoroughly, skimmed a bit, so I could have missed some, but not likely all that I think is missing.

    I didn’t see a lot of the info contained in the authorized autobiography, Citizen K, written by Mark Singer. For example, I didn’t notice anything about sabotaging the military equipment he was inspecting while in prison. Nor did I see that he took an interest in the Barton girl when she was only 10 years old, or the creepiness toward stalking that other teen girl from jail; the one he saw in a magazine. Of course, that he married his wife when she was 16 and he was in his 40’s also isn’t mentioned that I noticed.

    Since they do mention he’s suspected of being involved, one would think the likely motive for the murder of Julia Scyphers would be something to mention; that she was the Barton girl’s grandmother and put a stop to the “strange affection” adult Brett Coleman Kimberlin had for the young girl, but I didn’t see it.

    To back up the Scyphers murder inclusion they cite “Kimberlin Case a Maze of Murder, Deceit”. However, I didn’t notice the murder plans for the prosecutor, etc., Brett Kimberlin tried to make happen while in jail waiting for trial in the body of the Wiki page. That whole plot is referenced at the beginning of the same newspaper article cited about the Scyphers murder! But again, maybe I overlooked it…

    And there’s more that shouldn’t have been omitted, imo.

    I didn’t go through the talk page, etc. to see what was considered but left out, and the rationale. Has anyone been through this before and able to provide the summary for the rest of us?

Leave a Reply