Copyright Trolling Meets RICO Madness

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin seems to have his panties in a knot over being caught again trying to play green card games. He’s filed this in his Kimberlin v. Kimberlinunmasked copyright trolling case.

He has also filed this in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.

TDPK wants a hearing bearing on the truth or falsity of his green card forgeries?

Go ahead. Make my day.

65 thoughts on “Copyright Trolling Meets RICO Madness

  1. Funny how the post office consistently charges him lower fees. Wish I had a sweet deal like that.

    • I didn’t see the paid receipts as exhibits. Those would prove his claim. Green cards he filled out quite simply don’t.

      What he did attach just isn’t legible, at least what I saw. Perhaps what the court received is clearer. Even so, nothing to stop him from changing cards after a photograph.

      After all of recent education he’s received, one would think he’d check his receipt to make sure he paid for, and the post office recorded, restricted delivery. It appears he didn’t. Funny that.

  2. Why does there need to be a hearing to establish the forgery? He did it. He admitted it in court. Why aren’t there already hearings scheduled to establish the PUNISHMENT for the forgeries?

    And why aren’t perjury and forgery considered parole violations? This clown’s sentence isn’t up until 2031. He should be back in right now, with more time tacked on for his… diddling of the courts.

  3. I can’t stop laughing – he put “into teenage poon” in a court document? The guy who wrote the song about “fu**ing teenage girls” is offended by that? The guy who said, IN A PRESS INTERVIEW, that “everyone likes to f**k teenage girls,” or words to that effect, is offended by that?

    • Oh well, I guess the judge will now get to hear the exact same points you just raised.

      And I wish it could be done in open court, with Team Kimberlin toadies in attendance, so people can watch their faces while the diddler’s own personally publicly announced diddling-loving is recounting in front of the judge.

    • Oh, you mean THIS?

      Not all the songs on his album—which Mahern characterizes as minimally produced and “pretty much Brett”—have political overtones, which in some respects may be unfortunate: While tracks like “Life’s a Bitch (For a Government Snitch)” and “Who’s Next” (a song about unfounded sex crime accusations) have a definite edge to them, others, like “Waiting to Meet” and “Teen Dream” (both about having sex with teenage girls) are lacking in subtlety and tend to make one squirm. But this is exactly what Kimberlin wants.

      “I say things a lot of people are afraid to say. Yeah, ‘Teen Dream’ is about f*cking a teenage girl. Every guy who’s seen a good-looking teenage girl has thought about it. I’m talking about that lecherous quality that every man, though he won’t act on it, has.”

      (Jason Vest, “Jailbird Rock.” Washington City Paper, 23 February 1996.)

      • “… “Who’s Next” (a song about unfounded sex crime accusations) have a definite edge to them, others, like “Waiting to Meet” and “Teen Dream” (both about having sex with teenage girls) are lacking in subtlety and tend to make one squirm. But this is exactly what Kimberlin wants.”

        Who puts “a song about unfounded sex crime accusations” on the VERY SAME ALBUM as two songs “both about having sex with teenage girls?”

        Why… a sawed-off, domestic terrorist with a long history of deceitfulness and alleged (and, self-professed) interest in young girls… that’s who. Good grief.

        Yet another contribution to the “You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up” file. *smh*

  4. He took a pic and that somehow proves he met the requirements for sending service?

    Are you !@#!~! high? A cellphone pic as proof….


    You know what would be actual proof? The receipt. If you thought enough about proving that you met the requirements for service to take a pic, why didn’t you save the receipt that has ALL the info about the package in one nice neat little spot? Riddle me that, tool. Produce the receipt and then you might have a legal leg to stand on, you sawed off runt.

    John, I sincerely hope you legally break this one off in his !@#~!.

    • Yes, a lot of legal stuff needs to be legally broken off in Brett Kimberlin’s… places.

    • I have a photo of Big Foot. I knew people wouldn’t believe me, so I took a photo, SO IT MUST BE TRUE.

    • GMTA, bagramdewclaw! haha I copied your thoughts, above, before I read your (better) post. Ooops. Sorry.

  5. Can’t. Stop. Laughing. Folks, don’t put a phrase like “teenage poon” into a court document unless you want it to go viral.

  6. Does this mean defendants’ lawyers get to subpoena the plaintiff to produce the iPhone for forensic examination of the photos in question? And order of habeas phoneus, so to speak. 😉

    • It would seem to me that they would certainly have a right to the original photo files and meta data. If those are the scans that are in the record then that is just flat out hilarious. I have seen Rorschach tests with more easily identified images.

      Maybe he wants everyone to look at them and see what he “imputes” is there?

    • No need, unless it shows he forged something. He didn’t send the mail restricted delivery per the post office records of the tracking number.

  7. WOW, I guess it’s a good thing for BK that the Post Office records will back up his phone pic 100% right??..
    he’s toast and knows it…


    • Yes, and faux journalist Osborne is reporting the pics as if that’s the end of the discussion, with no mention whatsoever of the postal records that don’t jibe with BK’s assertions.

      • Reading the comments over at BU actually made me laugh. Such idiocy, especially from someone who claims to actually be a lawyer. Yeah, they’re a lawyer like Bill is a journalist. In their mind.

      • I loved the “after some amateur sleuthing on the post office website”.

        Um. Really.

        He didn’t want to do that.

  8. Note well how he lies. He says that the defendants lie saying *he* didn’t check the box! and says yes I did yessiree Bob!

    Except defendants are saying that yes he did check it. Not the postal clerk. And certainly not before placing the postal order.

    • Well, the sender *is* supposed to check the Restricted Delivery box, if he wants Restricted Delivery. That’s how the postal clerk knows whether to charge for restricted delivery. Of course, that’s before the mailing. Not afterwards.

      • He can also write “Restricted Delivery” to the right of the address, or have it stamped, (either for an extra fee) but it can be requested along with certified mail, in addition to the cost of certified mail. If he doesn’t pay for it and the postal service doesn’t show the fee was paid, it was not sent nor delivered as “restricted delivery”.

        Check the box, don’t pay the cost? No restricted delivery.
        Don’t check the box, don’t pay the cost? No restricted delivery.

        He’s certainly done the latter, and says himself he has never paid a fee for restricted delivery. He has no plausible excuse except laziness and bad-faith for not knowing how to ensure restricted delivery along with the return receipt and certified mailing.

        Pay the cost, forget to check the box, write it or clerk stamps envelope? It’s is sent restricted.

  9. He was made to understand (although he already understood and was lying about it), in the previous dead-to-rights catch of BK altering a document which was submitted to the court as an original, undoctored document, that restricted delivery is a separate service from a certified mailing and also separate from a return receipt requested mailing. Each of these three services is ala carte, along with other services such as a registered mailing.

    If he had any doubt about what restricted delivery entailed remaining, it was up to him to learn how to send mail this way.

    One thing is very clear and would be clear to all but an insane person: if you do not pay for the service, you do not get it. If you pay only for certified mail and return receipt requested, you have failed your end. You can stand at the postal window until they give you a receipt confirming you have paid for restricted delivery.

    • Hoge is pro se. Hoge is not a lawyer. He does not make these “mistakes.” This should be pointed out to the court repeatedly.

  10. I wonder how the judge will react to the “A Reader” account being created and used by Brett Kimberlin and/or associates to deceive.

      • So, the Pedo Bear thing came from this spurious “A Reader” account? I really couldn’t make it out, on my phone screen.

      • the “A Reader” on Twitter linked to the vid. Apparently the vid was made by someone else. I do get the vibe that the person that made the vid is associated with some folks that don’t play nice. Think 4chan types. Not sure of that at all, but I really, really hope I’m right. It would be epic.

    • I think the animated Pedobear cartoon with the “little girls” song is due to OwainPenllyn, who is a long time poster here. I also think the main thing wrong with his art is that it needs to be re-done with much higher production values. And it looks like he may already be on it. This type of satire about a public figure criminal like Brett Kimberlin would obviously hold up in court. But even if the video were libel, he can’t bitch at the current RICO defendants for it. In an ideal world, 7 billion people on earth would make a video like that and dare Brett to sue them all. This would have the side benefit of keeping the USPS running in the black for a few more years, regardless of how many check marks Brett fills in before or after the mailings.

      • The cartoon is one thing. OwainPenllyn would never have tried to pass as “A Reader” (the original.) Someone trying to gin up something to complain about might use a phony twitter account to get folks to talk about the video or RT is so they could crank out some outrage! otherwise unavailable to them.

    • After reading his filing for summary judgment…. it seems to this casual observer that the Pro-Se Pipsqueak is purposely not sending his legal paperwork restricted delivery, handwriting sloppily to cause non-delivery, and any other thing he can come up with in that pointy little head of his to justify claiming to the court that he did everything he could to serve defendants, but… darn it… he needs summary judgment…. for justice or something.

      That lying hobbit needs a legal butt kicking in the worst way.

      • Yep, he continues to believe that he can, through manipulation of the service of documents, create the circumstances for a fraudulent default judgment – which has always been his goal. Once he has one default judgment, he’d probably quickly dismiss the rest of the litigation, and claim to have “won”.

  11. In ECF 167, TDPK lies to the judge about the tweets he is complaining of – I know, imagine my shock at finding so many lies in a TDPK filing … – ascribing to Aaron something tweeted by another person. He remains a very incompetent liar.

Leave a Reply