Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed a motion for a new trial in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit that he lost back in August. After TPDK rested his case, the judge found that he had not presented any evidence that he had been defamed or that he had suffered any false light invasion of privacy. Therefore, the judge entered a directed verdict in the favor of us defendants. TDPK’s new motion is not only frivolous, it contains material that Aaron Walker noticed which further weakens Kimberlin’s case.

Our lawyer will reply to the motion, so I won’t be commenting on it directly. However, while we’re waiting for the court to rule on the motion, we might as well have some fun with it. I’ve decided to run a contest to see if the Gentle Readers can pick up on the worst error in the motion.

res_judicata_mugsI don’t want to tip off TDPK to his amazing blunder. That means I don’t want to publish a list of all the deficiencies in his motion. Please don’t comment publicly on what you find. Instead, send your comments to me at Put the phrase “TDPK Contest” in the subject line. I’ll collect the entries and post the best ones after the judge rules. The first person to spot the same error Aaron found will win a Hogewash! Res Judicata coffee cup. The winner will be determined by the timestamp on his email.

16 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. I will only say that reading the motion for a new trial reminded me of my conclusion that this motion is only to delay the deadline for TDPK to actually appeal and reminded me exactly why I’m positive that TDPK will not actually bother to appeal the case.

    • When Aaron Walker spoke at length as to why he thought Brett Kimberlin was a “pedophile” both the person at the Plaintiff’s table, and the people at the Defendant’s table were all smiles. All had the subjective opinion that they had just won their case. I do not believe that Plaintiff was disabused of that notion when summary judgment was issued against him.

  2. If it is “defamation” to use “Jerry Sandusky” in the same sentence as Michael Mann, then, why haven’t the courts been flooded with cases of people whose name was used in the same sentence as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Joseph McCarthy, or Benedict Arnold?

  3. My head hurts after reading it trying to find the critical error. I suspect I haven’t found it, even though I found a double-handful of other errors. Of course, IANAL.

Leave a Reply