In Re Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin wants a second bite at the apple. He’s filed a motion for a new trial in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. The Gentle Reader may remember that the judge stopped the trial and directed a verdict in favor of us defendants after TDPK rested his case.

Our lawyer will file our reply to this motion. For now, all I have to say is that I consider it to be frivolous.

50 thoughts on “In Re Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.

  1. Can we file a complaint for his repeated torturing of both the Law and the English language? He shouldn’t be the Dread Pirate; with all the knots he’s twisting he should be Chief Boatswain.

    Is the Circuit the group that actually applies the law; compared to the District where they apparently make it up on the fly?

  2. So a request for a new trial before asking for an appeal. He really does plan to keep up this lawfare indefinitely.

    If you accuse me of lawfare I will sue you!

    Too bad the system does not have an effective remedy for those who abuse the system this way.

    • I can only assume that the lower echelons of the legal trade (see Brett Coleman Kimberlin) are the drivers to the resistance to a Loser Pays system where false claims are subject to reciprocal judgement.

      • Actually, the discussion of “Loser Pays” rules finds advocates and adversaries across the legal spectrum. Resistance to such a scheme is not confined to the “lower eschelons.”

  3. Based on the complaint, I’m willing to bet that repeat PEDOPHILE Brett Kimberlin does not like it being pointed out that after hanging out with a 10 year old and then having her grandma shot by his drug smuggling colleague William Bowman, he wrote, performed, and recorded two different songs about having sex with teenage girls. In an awkward moment in an interview, he affirmed that he

    Around age 44, serial forger and pedophile Brett Kimberlin also had sex with a 15 year old girl he’d recently brought to the US. He then married her, under the legal age, by forging identification documents. When the relationship went sour, he retaliated against her by making a frivolous call to the state to get her briefly committed to a mental institution. Later he tried this same false imprisonment tactic again, but it immediately failed since the judge saw through it, so he had a bunch of his online friends write posts on his blog claiming she was crazy.

    • Missing some text – *Brett kimberlin’s interview affirmed he thinks it’s normal for older men to be interested in sex with teenage girls. I believe this troubling fact needs a lot more exposure, especially considering Brett’s involvement in the death of a disapproving caretaker of one of the pre-teen girls Brett used to be obsessed with.

      • All of this is well documented, even in Brett Kimberlin’s approved biography. As I recall, the biographer was disturbed (rightly so) by Brett Kimberlin’s admission that the lyrics of a certain “song” were, very thinly veiled, references to Brett Kimberlin’s desire to have sexual relations with underaged girls.

      • I was going to quote Brett’s reference to Black’s Legal Dictionary; but apparently the online version does not have the definition of “pedophilia“… Nevertheless, …sexual gratification…underaged… tons of circumstantial evidence including his own authorized biography… What is a “reasonable person” left to conclude?

      • Ah, yes. I knew there was a clear statement of Brett Kimberlin’s interest in sex with underaged girls, but it’s easy to get sources confused with so many different outlets for Brett Kimberlin to express his fondness for sex with underaged girls. It does lead a “reasonable person” to conclude that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile.

  4. HIs argument is rich. His nominal claim is that accusing someone of being a “pedophile” is by implication accusing that person of sexually assaulting children. His argument is flawed on two levels. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children. There are, presumably, people who are sexually attracted to children, but, for reasons ranging from lack of opportunity, fear of legal consequence and moral objections to acting on their impulses don’t. If nothing else, during his quite public interview in the Washington Post Brett Kimberlin placed himself in that category. What is being suggested is that such people are a protected class of people who cannot be identified publicly for what they are because it would be presumed to be implying other more specific acts. Thus, the mother being called for references states the candidate for baby sitter, “acted kinda creepy around my daughter” would be committing defamation per se.

    The second major flaw in Brett Kimberlin’s argument is that there were specific instances alleged of his engaging in sexual contact with children. In sworn criminal charges, his estranged wife stated Brett Kimberlin repeatedly had sex with her in Maryland when she was fifteen and he was in his forties. That same sworn statement stated she had witnessed him attempting to seduce her twelve year-old cousin. Aaron Walker in his testimony also mentioned his quite creepy relationship with Sandi Barton’s daughter. and, I believe, a cheerleader he was eventually forbidden from contacting. In that context, Brett Kimberlin’s argument boils down to claiming, “It is defamation per se to accuse someone sexually assaulting two children because it infers that there was a third and fourth victim, etc.”

  5. He is forgetting that he presented no evidence that he is not a pedophile at trial. He is arguing like the trial verdict was a pretrial motion.

    • No, he admits that he failed to prove that he is not a pedophile.

      Now certain trolls known to crush their F5 keys to oblivion refreshing this site have a logical style that would suggest that the failure to prove that negative is, in and of itself, proof of the positive; being that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile.

      Now, this is tortured logic and no sane person would draw the conclusion that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile simply because he failed to prove that he is not. However “reasonable persons” might be inclined to conclude that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile based on his own litany of actions and words. That would of course be the opinion of the observer, and not the judgment of a court or jury; because, as of this writing, no Judge or Jury has ever declared that Brett Coleman Kimberlin is a pedophile.

  6. In a lot of states, he would have had to have filed an appeal by now or would have lost his chance. In many of those states, once the appeal is filed, the lower court loses jurisdiction pending the outcome of the appeal. No idea what Maryland does, but if this went down where I live, the court would 1) not be able to hear a motion for a new trial this long after the trial – the trial court would have lost jurisdiction, 2) The trial court would not have jurisdiction if the case had been properly appealed, and 3) If that matter wasn’t appealed by now then it would no longer be eligible for appeal, meaning the case would be over and the results final.

    Anyone familiar with Maryland appeal process and motions for new trials? I am curious how they do things there.

    • Perhaps that is why he wanted the written order? To buy time for this pleading? He notes that the clerk only filed the order at the beginning of this month.

      You have to appreciate that he doesn’t want it to appear that the courts allowed it to be said that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile.

    • The case was still alive because of the lingering claims against Thomas and Malone that weren’t handled at the trial, so he still has a little time to file an appeal.

      Complicating matters, though. he has already filed an interlocutory appeal on some of his issues, so at this point the appeals court has jurisdiction over some (but not all) of the case.

      As usual, a mess.

      • On 14 November, the court entered an order dismissing the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. suit with prejudice with respect to Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Malone. While I have no knowledge of the terms of any settlement in the copyright case that was dropped earlier, it would make sense that the parties would have settled all of the cases at once. If that’s correct, we should see a dismissal of the RICO Madness against Mrs. Thomas soon.

  7. “This Court did not resolve a single issue in favor of Plaintiff, as required by Maryland law”

    Entitled much Kimby?

  8. And by continuing to press this case, he forces more speculation into whether Brett Kimberin is a pedophile. Personaslly I have no solid evidence, other than his authorised biography, testimony of his wife, creepy songs and quotes in a magazine interview, and maybe I’m forgetting something. Oh yeah. The Speedway Police considered him a suspect in the death of a grandmother who forbade him from seeing a very young girl who Brett Kimberlin called his “girlfriend.”

    If Brett Kimberlin did NOT plant bombs to distract the police from the murder/pedophilia investigation, WHY did he plant the bombs? And heavens knows, he planted them.

  9. “The Defendants admitted that they said these things in order to injure Plaintiff.”

    Sure they did. /sarc

    It should be interesting to see how the sawed-off, domestic-terrorist Brett Kimberlin proves this bogus accusation (amongst many others).

    #LyingLiarsLie

  10. Like many others, BK does not appear to understand the meaning of “per se” in the context of defamation. It does NOT mean a statement is “automatically defamatory so I win.” I will say no more … here.

  11. Sing it for us Babs:
    People,
    People who (continually) sue people,
    Are the (bat s**t) craziest people in the world

    With apologies to Merrill and Styne, but nobody else.

  12. Interesting writing. Look at #8. (Sorry for the shortened version.) The Defendents…testified that they appeared at court hearings involving Plaintif’ private family matters…and that they recklessly published statements that placed Plaintif in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

    I read the transcript. Nobody testified about recklessly publishing documents. Every one of y’all testified about observing, then writing about the matters in a factual way. Brett had a chance to testify but didn’t. He shouldn’t twist around the words of others.

  13. Wait a minute…

    “Maryland law states that in the case of words or conduct actionable as defamation per se, ‘The injurious character of the words is a self-evident fact of common knowledge of which the court takes judicial notice and need not be pleaded or proved.’ Haskins v. Bayliss, 440 F.Supp.2d 445, 461 (D. Md. 2006). Under Maryland law, statements are defamatory per se when the statements possess innately injurious characteristics. Bouie v. Rugged Wearhouse, Inc, 2007 WL 430752 (D. Md. 2007); Hearst Corp. v. Hughes, 297 Md. 112, 125, 121 A.2d 466, 492 (1983). Accusing an individual of committing a crime is an example of a statement that is defamatory per se.”

    So if someone were to say (or publish) that a friend of mine from Illinois is guilty of perjury, that would be defamation per se, simply on the strength of the fact that the words were said and/or published and screencapped for posterity?

    Hmm…

  14. “Plaintiff did not have to prove falsity, harm or damages. Instead, he only had to present evidence that the Defendants said the defamatory statements accusing Plaintiff of being a pedophile, rape, abuse, and engaging in pedophilia. Once he made that showing, Plaintiff was entitled to have the case submitted to the jury to determine the amount of damages.”

    Here’s the thing Brett: YOU DIDN’T PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANTS SAID THE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS. That’s why your case was dismissed. You made allegations in your complaint and followed those up with allegations (and maybe even provided some factual basis) in your various motions to the court.

    THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE. The documents were never entered into evidence, you never asked the defendants to testify about what they said, and you FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF YOUR CLAIMS.

    If you don’t present evidence for your claims, even when damages are presumed, you are NOT entitled to have the matter sent to a jury. If you had proven that the defendants had engaged in defamation per se (and they didn’t have a good defense, like the truth of their statements), then maybe you would have gotten to the jury.

    That is, of course, assuming that Kimberlin’s ramblings are not seriously misrepresenting the state of the law. Given how the past cases have progressed, I think it is reasonable to assume TDPK is violating (at least in spirit) the obligation of candor to the tribunal with every filing.

      • Crap, sorry. Anyway, I think TDPK has failed to follow the strict requirement of Rule 11 (or whatever the Maryland equivalent is) by failing to attest that the statements made in the filing are true and not presented for an improper purpose.

      • I noticed the same thing, egd…

        And if it takes longer than a day past the deadline to file the motion for a new trial and gets kicked on the grounds that he didn’t certify, I think he’s SOL after that besides appealing the dismissal. It doesn’t pause the timer.

        What a pity.

    • It’s even more fundamental than that – the first paragraph completely misstates the law. Completely and utterly and failingly misstates it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s