Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin asked remarkably foolish questions during the trial for the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. Consider this exchange with Stacy McCain.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Do you tie me to Neal Rauhauser?

MR. MCCAIN: You’ve tied yourself to Neal Rauhauser. You told a Maryland court that he is your associate. He has claimed you as his client. Neal Rauhauser has represented your other —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Objection. That’s hearsay

MR. MCCAIN: I’m answering your question.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: It’s your question, sir.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I know. But —

MR. MCCAIN: Can I answer the question?

THE COURT: Yes. You may.

MR. MCCAIN: Thank you. Okay. Neal Rauhauser, you stood in court and said that Neal Rauhauser is your associate. He’s attended multiple hearings where he was not a party that you were involved in. Neal Rauhauser has described you as his client. Neal Rauhauser represented himself as an agent of your nonprofit, So he is your associate.

Comparing TDPK to Hamilton Burger would defame Hamilton Burger.


13 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. *snerk* I guess Brett wants everyone to believe they do not know each other. That is belied by Neal’s emails to me in which he CC’s Brett and recommends him to me (famously blogged in their entirety by Lee Stranahan).

    • So here is the question – why does he think association with NR is defamatory?

      Think about it – he already knows he’s a bomber and drug dealer and all that. Yet he thinks tying him to NR harms his reputation.

      What does he know about NR?

  2. Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, It. does.not. make. sense.
    I heard this portion of the audio before…and it was about here that it was perfectly clear Brett Kimberlin isn’t just disorganized, or unprepared at his own lawsuit, but positively mentally ill.

    Did he actually expect his own claim of relationship to Neal Rauhauser, IN COURT, and Neal to him, to be forgotten by folks who wrote about it? For their understanding of that public relationship supported by other facts and evidence, to be excluded because of hearsay?

    Only someone not quite right in the head would expect to have some cloak of invisibility on his own words.

  3. What must sting BK even more than public defeat in front of his own family, a one-time event, is that the well deserved mockery of his assertions of legal competence will long continue. He believes himself clever but has demonstrated himself to be a fool. He was not even competent enough to get his case to the jury because he eviscerated his case through the answers to his own questions. Mr. Scruggs has always been correct that BK’s purpose was to vex, but I greatly doubt that his purpose was to vex while simultaneously proving himself an ass.

  4. What if …. this was some sort of payback to NR after some fallout or Neal trying to distance himself from BK.

    Nah, I don’t think BK was that clever either. But who knows what is going on for sure?

Leave a Reply