By the beginning of the second day of the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial, it was clear that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin had not adequately prepared his case.
TDPK’s opening statement rambled on and on. Eventually, our lawyer objected because of non-germane material:
BEGIN BENCH CONFERENCE
MR. OSTRONIC: I cut as much slack as I could on this one. This is just —
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m trying to lay the ground work for what’s happened, why these guys are involved.
THE COURT: But much of what you’re talking about is not in any way admissible into evidence.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I’m going to say that. I’m going to get this in evidence.
THE COURT: This is supposed to be a brief summary —
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. All right, I’ll make it brief. I’ll make it brief.
THE COURT: This is — I sustain the objection to you talking about issues that have nothing to do with what you allege these men did to you.
MR. OSTRONIC: Thank you, your honor.END BENCH CONFERENCE
A couple of minutes later the judge had to reel him in again.
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Come here.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, this goes to the gist —BEGIN BENCH CONFERENCE
THE COURT: Here’s the problem, you have claimed that you were defamed and shown in a false light, and you haven’t even talked about that.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m getting there right now.
THE COURT: You need to do that.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: I mean, if you’re going to do that, but —
MR. KIMBERLIN: But the whole thing is that they coached my wife to say something false —
THE COURT: Well, I understand that, but —
MR. KIMBERLIN: — and —
THE COURT: — none of that stuff is — how are you going to get that into evidence? That’s not — you’re not going to get that material into evidence.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh, I will. I mean —
THE COURT: It’s — you need to talk about what you allege they did to you.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: Apparently — in your papers, you claim that they were publishing —
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yeah.
THE COURT: — material that wasn’t true.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Right, okay.
MR. OSTRONIC: Thank you.
MR. AKBAR: Your honor, thank you.
THE COURT: One second.
MR. OSTRONIC: Can you just remind us, your honor, that the conspiracy was thrown out, and all these other charges that he’s threatening us with?
THE COURT: Well, yeah. You can’t talk about the counts that were thrown out. Only that that’s left in this case, okay?END BENCH CONFERENCE
MR. KIMBERLIN: So for the past year, my kids, my family, my wife, have been subject to a jihad, every —
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m a pedophile. Mr. Walker published this.
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: You asked me to show what they’ve done, your honor.
THE COURT: I didn’t ask you to do it. I told you —
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: — what you should not be talking about.
So during the remainder of his opening statement, he was continually interrupted.
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: It hurts my family.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, your honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: My daughter is a gifted —
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. This is an opening statement, sir, you are arguing.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: — criminal charges against me.
THE COURT: Sustained.MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: — these personal attacks —
THE COURT: Sustained.
TDPK kept trying to talk about things that he would not be able to introduce into evidence because he had no evidence to support them. As the trial progressed he seem to become more frustrated with a judge would kept insisting that he operate within the court’s rules.
Watching him fail was almost worth the year spent dealing with his vexatious lawsuit. Almost, but not quite.
My favorite part is still when he objected to the as answer to his own question.
Whoever writes a book about this the title should be, OBJECTION!!!!11!!!1!!!
He somehow thought that would strike testimony. Notice when he did it. It was whenever his blog or associates were brought up. Or the book. Telling.
And he wonders why the waiters put corks on the tines of his forks.
Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.
So in other words…
He had a year to get ready, he defined the scope of his case, and could have planned for whatever testimony he needed. Almost as if he really wasn’t motivated.
Yes, odd. Almost as if the whole thing was vexatious.
But if you filed a yearlong lawsuit to allow your kid’s baseball team to be allowed to play the Yankees — wouldn’t you at least buy the kid a bat?
No doubt his purpose was to vex. But I suspect it was not his only purpose. I suspect that he is so narcissistic that he thought he could get a judge and jury to vindicate him as well. After all, in his solipsism, it must be the gravest of wrongs to hurt him in any way. All he felt that he SHOULD have to do was to show that each defendant had ever said one hurtful thing about him: his gross misunderstanding of defamation per se was illuminating. But a truthful saying is not a legal wrong no matter how hurtful. A vexatious fool.
I don’t see as him being unprepared as much as much as him trying to paint himself and his family as the victims of these terrible men who say mean and untrue things about him and his family. My feeling is that he knew he couldn’t win on the facts so he was trying to get anything out in front of the jury that would appeal to their emotions.
Agreed. But he did it so poorly. I’m betting the lawyers on the other side of the room “war gamed” scenarios in which Kimberlin was clear headed and effective. (Of course, the actual lawyers knew which table to sit at.)
Yes. We war gamed until Stacy wanted to slap the crap out of me.
You are correct. It’s why we adjusted some points of what would be considered “norm” strategy. It’s also why I went pro se, to act as a backstop to his emo appeal.
Reblogged this on That Mr. G Guy's Blog.
Kimberlin has attacked his critics, at times indirectly through puppets like Schmalfeldt. These lawsuits are a farce.
There were a number of times that he just kept talking through objections and the judge just let him go. I think it was simply too tiring to try to keep him within bounds.
For example, read through and see how I many times he is told directly not to use “they” and how many times it is objected to, and how many times he just does it anyway and no one says a thing.
He wants to put negative things about his opponents on the record. Rest assured he will use the transcript as evidence that “they” said terrible things. He can use it because now it is in a legal document. That he said irrelevant or untrue things is unimportant for his cause. By simply stating things, he was “getting them into evidence” at least for his purposes.
Kind of like relying on an article from Breitbart Unmasked to say bad things have been reported about the defendants.
It has been interesting reading the transcripts. I wonder if anyone has counted up how many sustained objections there were? I would not be surprised if it was in the triple digit area.
Judge Johnson sustained 110 objections made either by by my lawyer or by Ali Akbar. He sustained one made by The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin.
Versus how many total objections raised by the respective parties? Beyond volume, I’m sure the batting averages are quite revealing.
Sociopaths are hilarious when they run into a situation where their brazen lies are not even heard. They are always so convinced that their lies will convince others to do their will, that their frustration goes exponential when they run into resistence. And their anger when the world does not automatically bend to their will is great entertainment.
It’s clear he’s a sociopath. It’s almost like hearing a robot break down when you read the transcript of the exchange between him and Judge Johnson during the motion for directed verdict. Johnson flat out points out that Kimberlin doesn’t like answering questions. But in Kimberlin’s mind, he’s answering–he’s just bothered that everyone is seeing that he’s answering a question he wants instead of the one put before him.