Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s second amended complaint for his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness simply doesn’t stand up to fact checking. Consider this paragraph.ECF 135-143There are at least two falsehoods concerning me in that paragraph.

First, I have never raised any money by accusing TDPK of SWATting. I have noted the curious coincidence of my codefendants Patterico, Erick Erickson, and Aaron Walker being SWATted immediately after writing or speaking about TDPK, or, in Aaron’s case, beating Kimberlin in court. However, I have never accused Brett Kimberlin of SWATting anyone.

Tip_JarSecond, it’s interesting that TDPK claims to be aware of the financial arrangement that I have for processing money coming in via my Tip Jar. He’s dead wrong about how those funds are routed. Neither financial institution involved is a bank. Neither is insured by the FDIC.

BTW, feel free to annoy TDPK by hitting my Tip Jar.

#Loser

 

4 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


  1. Factual stuff is easy to prove. Once you get to trial. Of course you have to go through the motions phase to get there.

    I suspect the judge is not going to dismiss the case based on the MTD’s. Not because they are not relevant nor well crafted or any of that or because there is any merit in the case – but because, well, that’s how it works.

    So, I would say that maybe start arguing that stuff in letters and requests for motions and in motions – use it as the basis of a request to file a motion to get verified pleadings from the plaintiff.

    Point out major factual errors like the contradictory dates that don’t need any evidentiary support. Just things that are self-contradictory and appear in BKs case – like misquoting his own exhibits. And then tie that to his forgery in the Federal and state cases – it is all before the court – and use that to say these self-contradictory things are not mere sloppiness but of a piece with the plaintiffs other dishonest, bad faith actions.

    Ask for it this way. This will make him have to respond at a minimum.


    • You could even make a judicial economy argument, saying we want to bring up the verified pleadings because historically he has made all of these false statements and then we are just going to have to respond to that so, really, your honor, just make him swear to what he submits, that will really streamline things.

      Also, it might be a good time to ask to file Rule 11 sanctions. It was Judge Grimm, not Hazel, who denied BKs Rule 11 filing before. So first, let’s go by Hazel now. And second, Grimm conditioned his denial on the fact that the matter at hand – the forgery – was already before the court, so why don’t we just wait and see how that pans out. Since it has been about 6 months since the matter came before the court, and there has been no word on it, it is time to file for Rule 11.

      Plus an argument could be made that his blatant falsehoods are themselves violations of Rule 11, as they are presented for “improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”

      The self-contradictions are self-refuting. It isn’t just sloppiness. Purposeful lying is purposeful.

      What is the worst that could happen? That Hazel will say “no?” That isn’t any different than it is now. It is possible that if he allows it that would make BK defend his actions. Of course he would lie about it, cry oh poor me I am just a pro se litigant and am beset by all these tormentors blah blah blah.

      But that means he would have to spend time to do that.

Leave a Reply