Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Thursday, 28 August, 2014, was the drop dead date for The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin to either file his motion for a preliminary injunction in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness or to inform Judge Hazel that he was withdrawing his request to file such a motion. Failure to do one or the other was not an option, but it seems that was the course TDPK chose.

No new filings showed up in the case docket on PACER on Thursday, but if something had been filed at the last minute or put in the after-hours drop box, it would not have made it into the system until Friday. There was nothing new on Friday either.

I was informed by my lawyer in the state Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit that TDPK had threatened to file an additional federal lawsuit against me and my state codefendants for some unspecified cause of action. (Mopery with intent to lurk?) That suit was also supposed to come on Thursday as well, but no new case had appeared in PACER as of Friday.

I’m beginning to wonder if Brett Kimberlin has caught on to the fact that his associate Neal Rauhauser’s theory of lawfare has several fatal flaws. First, it won’t work when it is used to attack someone or some organization with a combination of deep pockets and deep principles. Second, it won’t work against a pro se defendant with the time, intellectual resources, and stamina to engage in the kind of legal judo necessary to turn the lawfare back on the plaintiff. Third, it won’t work when it is used to attack so many defendants at once that they can overwhelm the plaintiff with their filings in reply to his complaints and motions.

TDPK hit the trifecta with his RICO Madness. Maybe he’s learned his lesson.

popcorn4bkAnd maybe not.

He is making noises about appealing his loss in the state lawsuit.

Stay tuned.

11 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. He is making noise, hoping someone else will do something. Because he doesn’t know what to do. NOTHING is going as he has foreseen. And if Twitter is to be believed, 2nd chair attorney at lol Rauhausee has his own battles to fight.

  2. Your analysis works as far as it goes, but it leaves out two more considerations.

    1st, lawfare is not a wise tactic when you have to actually hire a lawyer. As demonstrated here (, part of his lawsuit threat involved a situation where he was going to have to hire a lawyer. And for that matter, it is not a wise tactic when you risk sanctions, or worse yet, get them attached to you.

    2nd, one of the dangers of lawfare is a verdict against you. Brett inconvenienced us but the result is that he can never claim it is false to call him a pedophile ever again, at least as of the date of the verdict. I suppose he could pretend to have been cured but that requires him to admit he had a problem in the first place, and there is a great deal of literature to the effect that it can’t be cured–that the urges never go away and can only at best be controlled. As i note here…

    …I believe you can now say he is an adjudicated pedophile, just as Schmalfeldt is an adjudicated harasser. Brett is plainly unhappy with that outcome and this would normally be where I say he has no one to blame but himself…

    …but that may not be true. I suspect that much of Team Kimberlin was playing cheerleader to him, encouraging him to pursue this suit and thus risk this disastrous outcome. (And plainly this outcome is a disaster; it would have been better from a PR perspective to not have any kind of verdict.) A true friend tries to stop a friend from making a mistake. One has to wonder if Brett has any true friends by that definition.

    I don’t know if he learned his lesson yet, or if he merely stopped his immediate plans to file suit when he learned that he would have to hire a lawyer for his daughter.

    My guess is he will appeal, appeal, appeal, and then when he loses (and he will lose), he will reassess the situation, then.

    It also suggests he spent the majority of his vacay raging about what we were writing about him. Its sad that he will go to somewhere as beautiful as hawaii and still obsess about what others are saying about him. He wants to be famous, but he doesn’t like what he is famous for. If I was a true friend, I would tell him to turn off his google alerts, and just stop obsessing about what we say about him. But again, i don’t think he has any such true friends.

    • It’s an odd speculation. If certain theories posited about his basic personality type are correct, he is not a real friend to anyone, and, therefore, probably has no one who is really a friend to him. Waiting for a true friend of Brett Kimberlin to give him some good advice is probably a pipe dream because 1) he lacks true friends; and 2) people who have any familiarity with him would realize such advice would be ignored, resented, and, ultimately, counter-productive.

      What Brett Kimberlin needs is some tough love. It is time for mamma Kimberlin to kick his sorry ass to the curb, and, tell him it is time to seek gainful employment.

  3. The fatal flaw in Rauhausher’s theory is that lawyers don’t want their antics exposed by amateurs. Litigation is often little more than “greenmail” in which cases are brought forth with the understanding that the target will spend more to “win” his case than to settle. Allowing a clearly bogus litigant to avail himself to the toolbox of greenmailers in a case drawing publicity isn’t in the interests of the more apt and subtle greenmailers. Imagine high-priced call-girls plying their trade through escort services reacting to the sight of a trashy whore with needle-marks running down her arms, and swollen glands, standing under a streetlight near the local high school. They don’t want to be caught up in public demands to “do something” about the scourge of prostitution in their community!

    Brett Kimberlin is little less than a walking, talking advertisement for tort reform. Eventually, out of self-interest, the Bar will deal with him.

  4. I have been thinking (meaning speculating) that BK was so stupid that he misunderstood the definition of defamation per se. I am doing this from memory, but if I can remember back almost fifty years, defamation per se is (1) defamation involving an accusation of (a) incompetence at one’s trade or profession, (b) a crime, (c) a loathsome disease, or (d) (in the case of a woman) unchastity.

    BK thought an accusation of pedophilia was an accusation of a crime (wrong), and he thought an accusation of a crime was, in and of itself,.defamation per se (wrong). Before you can prove defamation per se you have to prove defamation in the first place. And in Maryland that means the plaintiff has the burden of proof in showing that the allegedly defamatory statements are false. The whole point of defamation per se involves damages: in the case of defamation per se the plaintiff does not have to prove actual damages if the statements are in fact defamatory, but the plaintiff still has to prove defamation. (Again, I have not studied this stuff in fifty years so place no reliance on it. Talk to your lawyer.)

    In short, BK is not merely a convicted felon, but he is also a fool (although being a fool deliberately may well have a deliberate purpose).

    This whole thing about A bringing suit for damages suffered by statements made by B about C is foolishness raised to a power, perhaps to the level of outright idiocy. Let’s say that the statements about C were false. A has no standing to sue for false statements about C. Of course in this case, C failed to prove that the statements were false in the first place. So A is trying to sue for damages from statements that were about someone else and were never ruled defamatory.

    Now Earl will likely say that the courts in Montgomery County are so corrupt that they will permit such a case, brought by a registered Democrat (or even a legally incompetent child whose parent is a registered Democrat) against a registered Republican, regardless of the law, This may well be correct. I see no reason to believe that the judges in that county are not tools of the Democratic party and totally corrupt: after all each judge who touched the original case permitted it to go forward to trial, and another judge in Maryland ruled that he was entitled to ignore a Republican’s rights under the US constitution as articulated by the Supreme Court of the US. In Maryland, members of the political minority have no legal rights that most judges will vindicate. Justice in Maryland, at least in Montgomery County, is denied to any whose party affiliation is not dominant..

    • JeffM

      Well, i think the assessment of corruption in Mont. Co. is not supported by the evidence. Johnson certainly doesn’t fall into that category. And neither does Rupp. i think the better explanation is that it is the same as with the pedophile priests: an inappropriate belief in redemption. Redemption is always possible, but too many people in Mont. Co. is too quick to believe a felon who says “but, I’ve reformed! Honest!”

      And as a point of law, in MD defamation per se only relieves him of the need to show damages if he shows constitutional malice. And we don’t want to educate Brett on what that means, but I am willing to bet you know exactly what it means.

  5. You can tell things are going badly for BK when trailer park trash Schmalfeldt starts losing it on Twitter. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

Leave a Reply