Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Posted on by

Witness impeachment is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. A party may impeach a witness by cross-examining the witness about facts which reflect poorly on the witness’s credibility. One does not impeach one’s own witnesses on direct examination—unless, of course, you are The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin. This is from his direct examination of Ali Akbar during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Mr. Akbar, have you ever been convicted of a felony?

MR. AKBAR: Yes.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, I believe it goes to his honesty.

MR. AKBAR: Going to impeach me?

THE COURT: Well —

MR. OSTRONIC: You called the witness.

THE COURT: What are you impeaching him for? It’s your witness. You’re calling your own witness and impeaching him?

I’m not making this up. TDPK expected to use Ali Akbar’s testimony to get evidence into the record after attempting to impeach him as an unreliable witness. Go figure.

I’ve mentioned in an earlier post that one of the basic rules of examining a witness in court is to never ask a question unless you know what the answer will be. TDPK repeatedly violated that rule.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m not asking you to give me a mission statement. I’m asking you —

MR. AKBAR: All right. What was the question again?

MR. KIMBERLIN: — a simple question. You know — have you ever raised, through the National Bloggers Club, or Bomber Sues Bloggers, or Rally.org, any money for any purpose to deal with me, my name, or any of these legal issues?

MR. AKBAR: I’d like to answer no, but clarify, if I may. We’ve raised relief funds for bloggers who have lost their jobs, families who have been attacked, families like mine. My mother and my brother have been attacked by your blog, BreitbartUnmasked.com, and —

MR. KIMBERLIN: I object. I object.

MR. AKBAR: — we’ve raised money. We’ve raised relief money.

THE COURT: Well, this is your question. You wanted to know if he raised any money —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, but he’s saying it’s my blog. I didn’t have a blog.

MR. AKBAR: Breitbartunmasked.com.

THE COURT: You can’t — if you think you’re not going to like the answer, don’t ask the question. You asked him if he’d raised the money —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, I’m just saying, you know, he’s making a statement that’s false.

Accuse the accuser.

So TDPK has said that Bretbart Unmasked isn’t his blog. We’ll see about that.

 

15 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day”


  3. Team Kimberlin’s plan: Let’s call the small group of guys to the stand who have made it a hobby to know all of Kimberlin’s history and present-day scams. Then, let’s ask open ended questions. You know, the kind which allow them to monologue. Acme Law.

    Reply ↓

  4. So the man spends an enormous amount of energy to convince the judge that his past multiple felony convictions, especially the one for perjury, have no bearing on his honesty should he wish to testify, but then seeks to paint Ali as a dishonest person because he was convicted of a felony. There are no amount mental gymnastics you could perform that would allow that to make sense.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply