Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Here’s another bit of nonsense from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.ECF 231-97res_judicata_mugsIn noting that TDPK has not demonstrated that he had been subject to any infliction of emotional distress by me, I’m not merely expressing my opinion. I’m reporting the finding of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. At the end of TDPK’s presentation of his case in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance suit, Judge Johnson found that TDPK had not presented a “scintilla” of evidence to support his claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The fact that Brett Kimberlin did not suffer any emotional distress because of anything I did is now a settled matter. It isn’t subject to being litigated again. And so I invoke the legal doctrine of res judicata.

TDPK says that I do so “callously.”

callous adj. \ˈka-ləs\ : not feeling or showing any concern about the problems or suffering of other people.

Hmmmm. TDPK may be right there. I really don’t care how much of a problem he’s made for himself by suing me. In any case, given his expertise with callousness, perhaps I should defer to his judgment just this once.

UPDATE—A correction: Actually, Judge Johnson never ruled on whether TDPK had any evidence of emotional distress. He didn’t have to. Judge McGann had already thrown that claim out for lack of evidence at the summary judgment stage.

9 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. I would suggest Brett confer with the widow DeLong on the definition of “callously” before he arbitrarily tosses it around in a court filing.

    I have no doubt a professional would list “callousness” as symptom when describing Mr. Kimberlin. The projection is large there.

  2. His argument is your noticing he didn’t actually make any specific allegation is so callous as to negate the fact he didn’t make any specific allegation?

    Why, you brute!

    If the living-off-gullible-leftists-and-their-foundations gig ever goes queer, TDPK should look into career opportunities with Sociopaths On Parade. I wonder if he can ice skate?

  3. I’m sure adverbs really don’t help legal arguments as much as he thinks. You have also been accused of “breathlessly” dashing off to get documents. When an argument has no merits on its face, Team Kimberlin moves the goalposts and attributes malice because the good guys are motivated. Didn’t it work w/one judge who asked “Why do you hate this guy so much?”

    Stay motivated. The bomber and his henchmen are the clear villains.

  4. If you spend any time in court – and BK has spent way more than most – you learn that it ain’t like it is on TV. Very often the attorneys are engaged in trying to make the other party look worse than their client. This is sort of tried and true. As pointed out in some recent stories on the rape culture, Atticus Finch engages in it.

    So BK says that the extremist Tea Partiers are callous. The correct response is not to be above it but to point out the bad things that he has done. And there is no reason why the defendants can’t coordinate their responses. They each get to respond, they each have a limitation on the length, so they should split up the wealth of material so that it isn’t a bunch of repetitive stuff.

    • Well, yeah, kind of.

      But like I said, its a tried and true methodology. If you recall the Zimmerman trial, the two sides spent a lot of time trying to point out that the other side was bad. They did not talk a whole bunch about the circumstances at the time and how the law applied – the State was trying to make Zimmerman out to be a racist, and Zimmerman’s team wanted to portray Trayvon as a thug.

      If you look at the filings for BK, a lot of it is these meany Tea Party crazies are being mean to me. For example, BK pointed out that Ace of Spades (the blog) had won an award as the most obscene conservative site. Now, what does that have to do with the torts he is alleging? Nothing. Just puts it in there to muddy the water, make ace (the person) be connected to something negative.

      For the defendants, pointing out what an awful person the plaintiff is and what awful things he has done not only has that effect, but it is actually what the case is about. BK says “they say I did a terrible thing” and then the response is “because he did a terrible thing!”

      And, so, if plaintiff says the defendants are callous, they can point out that BK sued his victim’s widow for trying to collect awarded damages. That’s pretty callous.

      • Re: your last paragraph:

        I believe one of our “stretch goals” should be to get Brett Kimberlin to correct that injustice. Clearly it would take more help and effort to get it done, but it always sounded like an exceptionally worthy goal to me.

Leave a Reply