After The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin rested his case during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial, we defendants moved for a directed verdict in our favor because he had not presented evidence establishing the element of defamation or false light. Here is a small part of Judge Johnson’s extended colloquy with TDPK on whether he had shown that what we said and wrote about him was false.
THE COURT: I’m not asking you to prove anything. I’m asking you who in this courtroom yesterday or today said that those statements were false?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, in a defamation case —
THE COURT: You hate answering questions —
MR. KIMBERLIN: No, no, I’m just trying to —
THE COURT: Who said it was false?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Who said it was false? They —
THE COURT: Did you want to read this? I mean —
MR. KIMBERLIN: I know what it says —
THE COURT: I didn’t make this up. This is Maryland law.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I think that the jury has to make that call, whether it’s false. And whether —
THE COURT: But there has to be some evidence. They just can’t pull things out of the air. A jury, they just can’t go back there and decide what they want to decide. I have to give them instructions on the law. And the instructions on defamation — Maryland pattern jury instruction 12.1 “a defamatory statement is a false statement about another person that exposes that person to public scorn, hatred” — so nobody in here, in this case said that they hated you, you haven’t put any evidence up that they hated you — “contempt or ridicule” — there’s no evidence of that — “thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of or from associating or dealing with the person. Defamation may result from a statement communicated to a third person either orally or in writing.” And here you have — I’ll call them, well, bloggers, I guess they’re reporters — reporting stories and bantering back and forth regarding stories that, I think it originated, the whole thing started back in Indiana many, many, many years ago. And so what is the jury going to — how are they going to consider whether there was public scorn?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor —
THE COURT: This’ll go lot faster if you try to answer my question. If you don’t have an answer, say you don’t have an answer.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Being called a pedophile is automatically public scorn, I mean —
THE COURT: Look, I’m getting — you’ve said that, I understand it. But I’m focusing on the Maryland law that I have to tell the jury. Now what I’m asking you — let’s take it one by one. The statement has to — you have get to to contempt. Any evidence of that?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I put my daughter on the stand and she testified that we had suffered —
THE COURT: That she had suffered?
MR. KIMBERLIN: No, that our family had suffered. That I had suffered.
THE COURT: Look, you’re the only party in this case.
Narratives are not false just because TDPK doesn’t like them. There were very few possible witnesses that Kimberlin could have produced who could have testified of their firsthand knowledge that he had not engaged in any of the behavior that led folks to be suspicious of him. There were the women who were the girls he was allegedly involved with in Indiana (as reported by Mark Singer). There was his estranged wife who did not come to court to support him. There was the possibility of his own testimony, given that the judge seemed willing to bend the Maryland Rule on perjurers and let him testify. No one else would have been a competent witness.
I suspect that TDPK stayed off the stand because he was afraid of cross examination and being caught in perjury.
Judge Johnson ruled in our favor. TDPK is making noises about an appeal and a second federal lawsuit. It seems that he’s beginning to understand that the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness is doomed. It will be interesting to see what federal issue he might use in a second federal suit.
I’m sure Acme is working overtime.