Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin included this Certificate of Service with his omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.OO CoS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires that the person signing a court paper certifies that it is true to best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief. TDPK certified to the court that he mailed a copy of his filing to me on the 8th.

This is the address label area of the package I received yesterday …OO Mailing Label,,, and this is the postmark.OO PostmarkThe package was mailed on the 9th and not on the 8th. Kimberlin lied to the court.

Of course, there’s no surprise in that.

25 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. He can’t even say he dropped it off before midnight and they only mailed it the next day- that label was generated on the 9th. At some point, in some motion, some lawyer is going to have to list the various and sundry violations of the FRCP and Maryland rules, and challenge the court: how long, and how many times, must the plaintiff act contemptuously towards this Court before The Court acts? Can this defendant now assume that rules are mere guidelines? If that is the case, why is any party to this action bothering with respecting the rule of law?

    • That, and, to mention the elephant in the room: Brett Kimberlin is a nutter, fruit loops, bonkers and A-1 certifiable.

  2. Echoing the Colonel above… That’s not a postmark, that’s a stamp — dated the day he purchased it. My 8 year old grandkid understands that there’s a difference between an 8 and a 9.

    • The type of “stamp” shown is printed by a postal employee and affixed by the postal employee at the time the mail piece is accepted. It counts as a postmark. It isn’t a kiosk-generated sticker.

      • That was my point. He could walk in to the PO at 4:45 p.m. on the 8th, purchase $5.75 in stamps stick them on the envelope, and at 5:05 p.m. drop the envelope in the collection box that has mail collected from it at 5:00 p.m. and then _claim_ that he mailed it on the 8th, even though the stamps were cancelled and postmarked on the 9th (because he put it in the box after the final collection of the 8th). Because he “mailed it” on the 8th.

        Instead, he stood in line _on the 9th_ to purchase a PVI (Postal Validation Imprint) for $5.75 that is dated 12/9/2014 and then claimed he mailed it on the 8th.

        It’s such a piddly little thing. But so hyper-whatever-itis.

        And the labels created by the ATM machines in the kiosks are dated when printed as well. So you can’t buy one on the 9th and then claim you had mailed it on the 8th. Same problem.

        tl;dr… shorter: He’s a putz

  3. The problem is, he’s trapped into doing this now. If he starts playing honestly, he has to admit that he’s been dishonest all along. He seems to think that consistency is more important than honesty.

    Plus, there’s the thumb-in-the-eye factor at play here. He knows that everyone is on to his little game, but he also knows — or at least believes — that he can continue to get away with it. So he does it just to antagonize his enemies, to flout just how little the rules apply to him.

  4. The first thing I noticed, though, was the address line: CABIN JOHN MD. So much fun.

    “Cabin,” as in “Cabin Boy.”

    “John,” as in “toilet.”

    Dr. Cabin John?

    I gotta Google this and see if this is a real place… yup, it is.

  5. Question for the lawyer types….. In his response Kimberlin includes items that were previously filed under seal in a different case. Is that legal? If they were filed under seal how can he just publish them without permission from the court to unseal them? Or is it ok because he already gave the sealed docs to his most stupid PR flack who already published them?

    • If he was a party to the earlier case and the documents were under seal, then no, he cannot publicly publish them. The other party to that case (Aaron) can file a motion for sanctions against the publisher in the court that granted the seal.

      He can also request, in the instant case, that the documents be once again sealed, and move for sanctions.

      Publication by an independent third party usually destroys the privilege of the documents being under seal. TDPK providing those documents to the third party may preempt that argument.

      Given the judge’s steadfast refusal to require TDPK to abide by court rules and the law of the state, I don’t think Aaron would win sanctions. The order to seal the documents has been so flagrantly flouted by TDPK that they are probably considered “public” by now. It’s infuriating that a person as despicable as TDPK is allowed to abuse the system so much.

      I still think he should send a letter to the judge requesting he be allowed to file a motion to (once again) seal those documents and (once again) sanction TDPK for releasing documents he knew to be under seal, but it’s probably futile.

      • I don’t think the “public” argument would fly if either the person leaking the documents was Brett Kimberlin, or if Brett Kimberlin had sufficient editorial control over to “spike” the story.

    • I agree – he should send a letter re filing motions on both. And I agree that it is probably futile. But it should be noted. BK knows that information was sealed because he was a party in the case.

      Here is the danger of playing by the rules with people who will not play by the rules, though. That information came from AW providing discovery. By the rules.

    • So if I’m reading you both correctly Kimberlin using sealed docs from a case both he and a defendant in the instant case are party to is, or should be, not allowed. Does that mean that those particular exhibits and any arguments that hinge on them can be tossed? Well assuming the judge had a set of balls and enforced the rules?

      • Ordinarily, a lawyer would not file a document that should have been under seal. If he did file a document that should have been sealed, or was previously subject to a seal, then opposing counsel would contact the lawyer, inform him that the material should have been filed under seal, and ask him to correct the error. The lawyer that filed the offending material would then retract the material, knowing that the sealed information should not have been disclosed.

        This is the ethical thing to do.

        If a lawyer were to not respond to the invitation to correct the filing then opposing counsel would file an emergency motion to strike the confidential material, if possible. If it’s not possible to simply strike the material, then the entire motion should be stricken and the offending party would probably be given a chance to correct the error.

        Opposing counsel would also file a motion for sanctions against the party. They would ask the court to refuse to consider the confidential information, for attorney fees for having to file a motion to strike the (intentional) disclosure of confidential material, and whatever other sanctions the court deems appropriate. Those would be the typical remedies, although the court could do anything up to dismissing the case and/or holding the attorney in contempt (ordering money damages or imprisoning the attorney). While this would be EXTREMELY unusual, it wouldn’t necessarily be outside of the court’s authority.

        If the attorney did disclose sealed materials in an attempt to gain an advantage, he also could be subject to professional discipline. Depending on the severity of the behavior and the attorney’s record, discipline could be anything from an oral reprimand to suspension or disbarment. Attorneys usually aren’t disbarred unless their actions are beyond the pale (see Bill Clinton for an example of outrageous behavior that would get you disbarred).

        But the judge in this case doesn’t seem to care that TDPK is ignoring the rules. He has let TDPK get away with forgeries, refusing to file under seal, ignoring specific instructions from the court, and all sorts of other behavior that would have long since gotten an attorney barred from practice.

        So the short answer is: Yes, ordinarily this information should be stricken from the record and not considered by the court (unless/until it is properly admitted during trial). In reality, TDPK is going to continue to ignore the rules of the court and be rewarded for his unethical behavior.

    • Army Vet – likely BK will argue that they are already made public so he can use them. He can say I did not use the sealed docs, I got them from this website that is totally not mine. (IIRC they were posted on BU, not on Fat Bastard’s site.)

      Here is where there might be some value in actually getting a hearing or at least motions on the sealed docs thing – that part about the site totally not being his. I think there may be some forensic evidence about that fact. And it may be used in this instance.

      However, the exhibit should be thrown out for the more germane reason that it is new to the case. BK is not defending the SAC in so many words, he is supplementing it with new stuff.

      I can see the twisted logic – he is saying here is what I meant when I said they were saying something defamatory – about the loss of a job thing, I have this document which I can’t really use that proves it wasn’t my fault. Well, it doesn’t really, but that is the attempt. But the SAC doesn’t say that AW made this particular untrue statement on this date and that it caused me harm in this way. He said all these crazy Teabaggers are creating a false narrative blah blah blah TEAM THEMIS!!!!11!!eleventy!

      Now he is circling back around and trying to say, well, what I meant to say in that document was this. Except that isn’t the point of this, he should be responding to the MTDs.

      But that isn’t why he prepared this response. What he has now done is put docs sealed in another case on the record in this case. Unless AW asks them to be removed and/or this sealed – and has that request granted – then BK can say this is public now, and will be able to always point to that, and walk away from the fact he leaked them in the first place.

      • Minor point…when they were published on BU, Fat Bastard was the “editor”. He claims they must have been stolen from AW’s lawyer’s office and he has NO idea who gave them to him. In other words, the troll is lying through his teeth as usual.

Leave a Reply