Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin lost the last bit of his Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit last Tuesday, but most of it was put to rest during a hearing on 1 July. During that hearing, Judge McGann denied TDPK’s motion for summary judgment against my codefendants and me, and he granted our motions for summary judgment on five of the seven count of TDPK’s suit. The judge also ordered him to comply with discovery.

This transcript of the hearing shows how ineptly he has presented his case throughout the litigation.

57 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. ” The court will look unfavorably upon the plaintiff offering evidence which should have been answered in the interrogatories… ”

    Earl’s been right. It appears that Brett Kimberlin doesn’t really care if he wins or not. He just wants to make people go through the time, effort and expense of defending senseless pleadings. Which is vexatious.

    • None of Kimberlin discovery was designed to find any admissible evidence. None.

      All designed to obtain more enemy names to feed to his harassment crew.

    • Significant monetary and other legal sanctions, payable to the courts, is the only way to put an end to this never ending farce which serves only as a mask for raw, unfettered judicial terrorism upon countless imagined wrongs. Kimberlin is as pathetic an example of pro se legal representation as I have ever seen in any court of law. He is only looking for a platform, not a remedy.

      It is clear to me that all donors, either directly or indirectly, are now on sufficient notice to comprehend their own liabilities for continuing to fund Kimberlin’s crude attempts to stifle the 1st Amendment speech rights. Kimberlin’s perverted, distorted and twisted views of our entire legal process as well as his pathetic legal skills are simply not sufficient to grant him continued access to his spiteful little personal spats via an expensive legal forum paid for by the taxpayer. Kimberlin clearly meets both the legal and social standards for a “vexatious litigant” with its attendent consequences.

      With respect to the alleged sufferings of his daughter from other school mates, perhaps Maryland’s departments of family services should begin to take an interest in Kimberlin’s home conditions now that they also have been put on notice through testimony at this and other hearings.

      “Acme Law – If there’s a way, we’ll screw it up for you!”

      • There are several different issues you touch on on this post, all of which are sensitive and difficult to handle properly. I will only try to deal with one of them, though.

        Kimberlin’s defendants have paid the price in money and labor. They’ve paid the price in having their names dragged through the mud, and having been harrassed. Their families, friends, employers, and churches have also been harrassed. All this for being brave enough to stand up and try to stop Brett Kimberlin’s thuggery.

        I encourage everyone to donate. The defendants need to know we have their backs and they don’t suffer alone.

    • One topic that might be fruitful in the open source vexatious litigant project would be to go through BKs cases and see how many times he has opened a case and then dropped charges while in the courtroom. The purpose obviously then is to get his targets into the courtroom in the first place. In this transcript, he drops two charges and admits, essentially, that he knew that he could not bring them, but he just wanted show how terrible these tea party people are. (That reference to the defendants as tea party extremists, well. What did I tell you?). Basically he says that he knows that the charges couldn’t be brought yet he did it anyway, and even fought to keep them included during motions to dismiss. I believe has has done similar things in the RICO case and some of his recent PO cases. That should be the very definition of vexatious litigation. Taking someone to court then dropping the charges.

      • I live near state and federal courts where he might have filed some cases. I need to volunteer for some docket scraping.

      • “That should be the very definition of vexatious litigation. Taking someone to court then dropping the charges.”

        Careful there Earl. Some prosecutors could be considered vexatious litigants using that standard.

      • @ Reader

        I have been commenting here for a long time and have contributed multiple times to Mr. Hoge. He has said that family is off limits. So I am not Neal or Bunny Man or any other delusion you may have. I am insisting on standards that our host has proclaimed apply on this blog.

        However, who I am is not relevant. What legal standard do you suggest we use to demonstrate that two underage girls are part of a criminal enterprise? Those were the words used. Do you agree that they both are criminals? A simple yes or no would be nice instead of an argumentum ad hominem.

      • Hey, Neal.

        I am not playing your game. I am not going to engage in explanation and defense and untangle the straw men.

        I wrote what I wrote. What you are writing is not what I wrote.

        If you have a problem with the things that you are making up for what I wrote, stop making them up.

        That is all.

  2. Page 43 begins the most excellent section of the hearing. The judge learns that Kimberlin has NOT answered anything, and starts nailing him down. Kimberlin comes off like a very unprepared junior high student. He seems to think excuses are good enough. “Garsh, your honor. Did you really want me to print out all those thousands of pages of evidence….???” (And copy them, mail them to all the parties….)

    As to the larger issue, his lack of preparation and lack of faithful discover should convince some folks about him being vexatious. He could argue that in fact he is actually an idiot. Take your pick Brett. That’s a choice you might have to make.

  3. Also in this transcript, he admits that his purpose for having his daughter testify is to get her up there on the stand to cry for the jury.

    Wow, this family acts like a criminal enterprise itself, from grandma on down.

    • I’d be at pains to point out that TK and the two children especially cannot really be blamed for what Brett is up to. The situation with the children is hard. I do believe there are solutions and some day it’ll be righted, but there are no easy answers. I wrote some thoughts on my blog about this, based on people I know.

      I’ve avoided writing anything about Brett’s mother, but it os clear he has her under his control.

      Brett’s sister has no excuse. She deserves to face justice for her fraudulent bankruptcy suit against Brett. She also owes DeLong and family a big sincere apology for it.

      • BK is teaching his daughters to lie in court. How that gets righted is anyone’s guess.

        Let’s not forget that BKs perjury conviction occurred when he was 17. That was for lying about whether he sold LSD or not. If he was on the radar for a Federal major drug investigation at 17, he had been committing offenses much earlier. It doesn’t just happen overnight.

        • Actually, his perjury before the grand jury occurred when he was 18. He was 19 when he was tried and convicted of the perjury. His conviction when was 17 was for selling cocaine.

      • Thank you for the correction Mr. Hoge.

        I guess the point remains that young people can have a criminal bent.

        Especially if their parents are enabling and/or encouraging it.

      • I’d say his sister was – and probably still is – scared of him. This may have been a matter of, “I’ll do this for you, then I am out of here for good.”

        It surely wouldn’t surprise me. I really do not have a good impression of BK at all. To put it mildly, for the purposes of extreme, sarcastic understatement.

      • The fuller story of the flagrant whopper he told, and his endless protests of his victimhood and being set up for that charge is in Citizen K. It’s the pattern of his entire entire life.

      • SInger describe his sister’s relationship to him as one of “hero worship” but I tend to think your impression is more correct, Diana.

    • @ Mr. Scruggs

      Yes, Kimberlin brazenly admits his own purpose, but that does not make his child’s actual or potential behavior as a witness criminal. Do you have any credible evidence whatsoever for your innuendo that she and her sister are criminals?

      I am sure that one of the results of Kimberlin’s behavior is that his daughters’ lives are made very difficult. Would you want your adolescent daughter to hang out at the home of a convicted drug dealer and bomber who married an adolescent decades younger than himself? That Kimberlin’s daughters are genuinely shunned and consequently genuinely upset seems highly plausible. I have little doubt that each can truthfully say that she has shed many tears about this situation. Such tears are their tragedy, not their crime.

      Of course, that tragedy is not the fault of the defendants in this case. It is the fault of Kimberlin alone, not just due to his criminal history, but also due to his avidity for publicity, which has inevitably drawn public attention to, and made currently relevant, his infamous behavior. Given the stipulation offered by the defendants, no decent man would have put his daughter on the stand, His admitted expectation that her testimony would reduce her to tears says all that needs be said about him; it says nothing about the child.

      I think your understandable anger at Kimberlin has led you to kick the cat, in this case the cat being a child who has the misfortune to be daughter to an adjudicated felon. I like cats and children and do not believe they should be kicked.

      • JeffM, are you perhaps mixing up the definitions of imply and infer?

        Please note what I wrote not make something up. What I wrote was that BK is teaching his daughters to lie in court. At a minimum, by example. If they are present and watching while he is lying in court, they are learning it. And there are numerous reports of one or more of his daughters being present in court at a number of the different hearings and trials in this whole episode. So, yes, I believe they are being taught to lie in court, and in that this family practices its own sort of omerta, I say that they act like a criminal enterprise.

        If you read the rest of the story, you will see that BK had his daughter confirm on the stand that his wife was home packing for their vacation, and for that reason was not present in the courtroom. A number of the defendants have questioned the veracity of that statement.

        Do you think that she was telling the truth? Do you have some reason to think so?

    • Mr. Scruggs

      What you said was that Kimberlin’s “family acts like a criminal enterprise itself, from grandma on down.” I am not sure whether you intended by that to state or to imply that Kimberlin’s children are criminals. You tell me: they are your words.

      You have also said that “this family practices its own sort of omerta, I say that they act like a criminal enterprise.” Again I am not sure whether you intend to state or to imply that Kimberlin’s children are the moral equivalent of Mafia don’s. You tell me: they are your words.

      Whether they are statements or implications, they require evidence. Watching someone lie in court does not make the watcher a criminal. Watching someone lie in court and then get his ass handed to him does not necessarily teach that lying in court is a good idea. Last I saw, perjury requires a wilful misstatement of a material fact. One child said not a word. As it is, you are attacking the other child as criminal because some people believe that their mother was not packing to go on a trip, which was material how? Have any of these children been charged with a crime? Have any been convicted? Have any been sued for even a tort? Now that you have doubled down on the statement (or implication) that these children are engaged in a criminal enterprise, I realize you are someone who enjoys picking on kids in an ugly situation not of their own making. What is my evidence for that opinion? Why your own words, regardless of whether they are statements or implications.

  4. Also, I think people are wrong to consider this incompetence. Purposeful lying is purposeful. I think this wheedling, meandering tale of woe and injustice is very practiced. What is shocking to the conscience is not how incompetent it seems, but rather how successful it is despite that seeming incompetence. Well, look, a year down the road he finally got a judge who kind of caught on to what was going on. It never should have gotten so far. It never should have gotten to trial. That the trial was such a farce is proof that everything leading up to it was farcical. Yet, the Montgomery County court let it go on and on and on. And it will continue. Because there will be continued litigation over the $600 in sanctions at a minimum.

    He does his whiny thing and judges allow him to do it. Even in this hearing where the judge was onto him he got an awful lot of leeway. Supposedly he would not be allowed to introduce things into evidence if he did not provide them in discovery. And yet he introduced things into evidence. It boggles the mind.

    • Having read that transcript, it seems to me that BK’s major ploy is to make a raw appeal to emotion.
      And in the past I suppose he’s been somewhat successful at that.
      Indeed such blatant emotivism tends to work on the general populace. (See Also: Democrat Party.) But in a court it should (in theory) fail in face of the law.

      I get the feeling that was his entire plan if when he got before the jury Make the jurors feel bad for him and hope they rule in his favor regardless of what the law says.

      Manipulating emotions only gets you so far in life though.

  5. “This transcript of the hearing shows how ineptly he has presented his case throughout the litigation.”

    Maybe “eptly” presenting his case was never in the cards, Mainly because he never had a case, but also because that really was never the point of it all. He just wanted to harass you and the other defendants by bringing the suit, which he did. He’s the poster boy for the concept of vexatious litigant.

  6. What a whiny freaking two faced weasel. Luckily he kept digging and talking long enough and Ostronic remained calm enough that the Judge saw through Kimberlin’s BS.

  7. After reading the transcript, reminds me of the “Plankton” character on Sponge Bob. That said, it is no farce for the defendants who expend their time and resources with this nonsense.

  8. This little tidbit found on page forty (40) is interesting.

    ” to have the FBI showing up at my wife’s house,”

  9. SPQR

    Because I quote Mr. Scruggs verbatim, I wonder why the number of my words is relevant. Ignoring word counts, let me ask you a simple question: are both Brett Kimberlin’s children members of a criminal enterprise, yes or no?

    • It’s tempting for me to totally skip this one, but also tempting to write a really long reply. I’ll try in the middle.

      JeffM’s a long time poster who’s always shown concern for victims of Team Kimberlin. He’s not Neal. Also he argued with me once (maybe on the runwolf blog) so you’re not allowed to dislike both of us at once.

      No one disputes that the testimony given Tuesday, that TK was at home packing, was either misleading or just false. The testimony is also irrelevant to Brett’s case, which is why the defense said nothing about it. I suggest we should all look to what the defense is doing and direct our thinking at what they want and what’s best for them. If you suspect I have a wrong take on what Team Good Guys wants, you may be right, but instead of endless back and forth, why not ask them to correct me?

      Many people, including me and (apparently) JeffM, think it’s mainly Brett Kimberlin who’s to blame for this needless testimony having happened. I think of the minor children as being blameless victims in all this; I can imagine other views, but find it harder to relate to them. But even if you do hold another view, you probably still agree that Brett consciously caused the whole problem by his really amazingly terrible, creepy behavior.

      I condemn Brett Kimberlin for that totally needless spectacle which served no legitimate purpose, and applaud the wisdom of the defendants in helping mitigate the damage Brett was doing.

      • BKWatch

        First, I did not intend in any way to imply that you had said anything in the least inappropriate. If I did so inadvertently, I sincerely apologize.

        Second, I did intend to imply that Brett Kimberlin is completely to blame for throwing his minor children into this cruel farce because he initiated, maintained, and thereby publicized it.

        Third, I do agree with you that the defense was both wise and humane in its treatment of Kimberlin’s elder child. They continued under pressure the policy of our host to keep family out of it. Pity Kimberlin is so unwise and inhumane that he pushed his children as far into it as he could.

  10. I say you’re acting like a sock puppet covered in mayonnaise. Only in Acme law does one confuse statements of opinions with slanderous statements that are actionable. You, are simply trolling for lulz. Look at you with your pitchfork and imaginary mob out to avenge some even more imaginary butthurt. You’ll never find that butthurt monster unless you open that creaky troll sized door that leads into your mind. Lot’s of butthurt monsters in there. You should spend some time alphabetizing them. I bet you could round them all up into one heck of a drum circle! Now go away you butthurt sock puppet monster all covered in mayonnaise troll type person. No one want’s any of your footlongs.

Leave a Reply