Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Every once in a while, I find it useful to present a review of some of the names used for Brett Kimberlin and Team Kimberlin and how they have evolved. After all, not all the Gentle Readers have been following The Saga since May, 2012, as I have.

Back in May, 2012, Brett Kimberlin had secured an unconstitutional gag order against Aaron Walker that prohibited Aaron from even speaking or writing about Kimberlin publicly. I began referring to Kimberlin as Lord Voldemort (i.e., “He who must not be named”) and his supporters as Death Eater Wannabes. After the gag order was overturned, it wasn’t long before Kimberlin put up a pirate-themed fundraising website called the Bloggers Offense  Fund. (That was an attempt to play on the name of a site called the Bloggers Defense Fund.) That’s when I began referring to Kimberlin as The Dread Pirate Kimberlin.

TDPKVarious members of Team Kimberlin have earned positions on the crew. These include First Mate Neal Rauhauser, Cabin Boy Bill Schmalfeldt™, Very Ordinary Seaman Ferguson, Chief Pedo Officer Gillette, and 57F Osborne.

In mid 2013, Kimberlin upped the ante in his campaign of lawfare. He filed suit against Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, Kimberlin Unmasked, and me. He sued us in a Maryland state court for $1,000,000 claiming a bunch of stuff that boiled down to defamation and false light invasion of privacy in the end. Following the Team Kimberlin lawfare strategy, TDPK sued us without hiring a lawyer. Self-representation is referred to a acting pro se. Thus, The Dread Pirate Kimberlin morphed into The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin.

TDPK has also been referred to as The Dread Pedo Kimberlin and The Dread Performer Kimberlin in reference to the charges filed against him by his wife and to his singing, respectively.

I’ll conclude with these words which were originally posted in September, 2012—

The Dread Pirate Roberts, so the story goes, is a pirate of near-mythical reputation, someone feared across the seven seas for his ruthlessness and swordfighting prowess, and who is well known for taking no prisoners. Ships immediately surrender and give up their cargos rather than be captured, a fate they imagine to be certain death.

The Dread Pirate Kimberlin is more like a legend in his own mind, a pretender who wishes to be feared for his ruthlessness and legal ability and to be known for vanquishing all comers in court. Critics, he thinks, should immediately stop telling the truth about him and give up their First Amendment rights at his command.

It turns out that Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s legal acumen seems to be as fictional as Dread Pirate Roberts’ existence. And no one will surrender to Dread Pirate Kimberlin.

UPDATE—As Ron Coleman notes in his comment below, some of the defendants in the RICO Madness have surrendered to TDPK. However, most have not. Four of us beat him in state court. The same four and our codefendants will also beat him in federal court.

49 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • Ron,

      There is always the possibility, contractually, they didn’t have a choice, when you have bank loans, lines of credit many financial firms insist that borrowers carry liability insurance, it may not have been up to them.

      • Sometimes when you have liability insurance, with legal representation as part of the deal, you are supposed to “cooperate” or they won’t pay out; however, that doesn’t mean settle a case against your own interests. And often it is prudent to obtain personal or separate counsel to press your own interests because they can conflict with the goals of the insurer. If they did have an insurer effectively calling the shots, obviously they would not want to pay for representation in protracted legal proceedings if there were a simple low cost way to be dropped from the suit.

        But cost is more than dollars, and Franklin Center has trashed its own reputation for integrity in its mission; they lose credibility in knuckling under to wishes of a monster trying to suppress reporting, especially protected opinion and truthful discussion and publications about his past and his curious present.

      • Onlooker,

        Blogs, newspapers, multi new media all need cash and are very vulnerable to lawsuits, anyone with a brain lending them money would ABSOLUTELY insist on such a clause. As more and more news is being disseminated the risk rises, therefore the first thing lenders do is make sure they have coverage.

        When I helped a small dairy sell to Whole Foods, and other select grocery chains, we were required to carry liability insurance and product liability insurance and the clauses for defamation were that we had no choice – we had to let the insurance company settle – when large grocery chains order its structured like a loan, a consignment, with all the accompanying clauses. We were defamed a chef who had a issue with the owners wife made the false complaint that first we were not farmstead, and then she made the complaint we were purchasing and repackaging our products and then sued us when we proved her wrong – she had no chance -but our insurance company denied us the right to counter and the insurance company settled – a small amount but she got some money, probably not enough to even cover her filing fees.

        I don’t think anyone of these organizations “settled” with Brett rather than the boneless insurance industry

    • I would be very careful of saying anything on the behalf of a convicted perjurer, settlements could also have been a threat to move venue and counter sue as well.

      • All I know is they pulled the articles, and have the impression that this was part of the deal. The one thing they should have refused to do was permanently remove any of that material, and IMO failed their core mission in doing so. A cooperation clause is boilerplate, but there is no obligation to settle in any let alone every case. Retaining private counsel even when defense costs are included in coverage is often a good idea. I have no problem conceding they thought they made a decision that made business sense, but it is so contrary to what they do and what they are supposedly existing for, to cave to empty accusations of a notorious perjuring felon who is trying to strangle information about his crimes that differfrom his tall tales and misrepresentations… I’m ashamed for them. If they couldn’t stand up to this, what do they stand for?

  1. Just an FYI — Our Gentle Host may be curious to know that prior to protecting his Twitter account, the Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt was openly contemplating committing suicide, and then holding Mr. Hoge accountable in a court of law for wrongful death so Gail could have millions of dollars.

    Blob also claimed that his neurologist would gladly testify to all of that.

      • That, plus making some sort of fortune off litigation. You know what’s funny? Thinking that a doctor will testify for free. Expert witnesses, even your own doctor, get paid to testify. The last time I checked, neurologists charge $1,000 per hour for depositions and court appearances. But that was about 15 years ago, so the price may have gone up.

      • Actually no he would not be glad to testify to that. He would testify, if anything to his efforts to help Bill redirect his attention to healthier activity and habits, efforts to deal with mood lability and impulse control, and perhaps to the general cognitive decline taking place. But he wouldn’t really be “glad to testify” at all; most neurologists have much better things to do than give up their valuable time to the courtroom windmill tilts of obsessive, demanding, mentally declining patients; compare to a veterinarian testifying that yes, chasing Buicks has been rather bad for spot and he’s had some toes run over, managing Buick chasing has been difficult with this patient.

  2. Carbon dioxide? When one criticizes someone else for getting something wrong, it’s best not to compound the error and fact check, first. DIOXIDE? Uh huh.

      • I’m not accusing anyone of being stupid, I’m just asking a question: For what reason would a judge issue a subpoena for my workplace computers in order to determine if I have used them to comment ABOUT (not too) Bill Schmalfeldt. I’m not posting a lot anywhere — at least up until this weekend. Would a judge issue a subpoena just to make Bill’s empty threats more threatening? I’ve had several conversations about this with my p/t work, and they’re just trying to keep me safe. The “I want it all Doug” crap probably didn’t work on Doug! I know it won’t work on me.

      • Dave, to answer your question, there is no reason a judge would issue a subpoena in that situation. Mainly because Schmalfeldt would never, EVER get to a subpoena stage in any sort of a lawsuit. He is a bloviating fool, full of bluff and bluster, signifying nothing. And of course he forgets that subpoenas are something that HE would have to pay for.

      • Dave. Bill cannot get a judge to do anything without filing a lawsuit against you. In fact, he has no cause of action to sue you for use of your employers computers. Only your employer can sue you for breach of contract if that was specified in your employment contract.
        Blowhard can’t even get a subpoena issued for your employers computers if he filed criminal charges against you, that is out of his hands and only the prosecutor can make that determination, not Bill.
        He is too stupid and living in a mental fantasy where he is all powerful but the reality is he is as powerful as a worm dead and dried in the sun for a week.

      • For what reason would a judge issue a subpoena for my workplace computers in order to determine if I have used them to comment ABOUT (not too) Bill Schmalfeldt.

        There is no reason. The only person who has any valid interest in that matter is your employer and he doesn’t need Blob Schmalfeldt or an LOLsuit if he wants the answer to that question. All he needs is your work computer which he can presumably access at will.

        Blob mentions that “if Person A can convince a judge” hurdle. As we all know, Blob can’t clear so much as a curb, let alone a hurdle.

  3. Munch, munch, munch… makes more popcorn… wonders when something will happen with the contempt decision or the PO violation charge… reads TMZ blog, requiring LOTS more popcorn… munch, munch, munch…

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s