Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s appeal in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness lolsuit proves one thing: that Brett Kimberlin is an untrustworthy liar. He settled that suit with five of the parties—The American Spectator, The Franklin Center, James O’Keefe, Simon & Schuster, and Lynn Thomas. Now, in spite of agreeing that the matter was settled with those parties, he is including them among the defendants in his appeal.

These folks thought they had come to a final agreement with Kimberlin. Legally, they did, but nothing is final for Kimberlin until he gets his way.

Given this example, it certainly seems that anyone who trusts Brett Kimberlin is a fool.

25 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. Reading your 5:00 p.m.-ish post yesterday, I was hoping he’d be going out with a whimper (since he got in trouble for things that went bang). Now maybe he’ll be leaving with a “huh? what? who? I already did whut?”

  2. Oops. Return too fast.

    And how do those who memory holed their publications on the diddler feel now?

    And will they and their attorneys be more aggressive about collecting the inevitable fees they will be awarded? Might have to trade in the Prius on a used Chevette.

  3. Given this example, it certainly seems that anyone who trusts Brett Kimberlin is a fool.

    Ya know, there is a certain feeble minded person living in a Tincasa that counts Kimberlin as an excellent friend (when he is not denying they are friends for court purposes) who does Kimberlin’s bidding without a second thought and with utmost trust. I guess he could be considered a fool?

  4. I think that Fred fellow who posted yesterday was correct. I don’t think, “The American Spectator, The Franklin Center, James O’Keefe, Simon & Schuster, and Lynn Thomas” are in the appeal. Yes they were listed in the caption, because they were once part of the suit, but they were not designated as appellees, meaning that they are not parties to the appeal. This would mean the Diddler did not break his deal. Of course, I am not certain of this fact, but it seems correct to me.

  5. The American Spectator, The Franklin Center, James O’Keefe, Simon & Schuster, and Lynn Thomas wouldn’t be part of the appeal because they are not part of the Decision and Order appealed from. The Court made no findings regarding those parties as they had been stipulated out of the action – therefore there is nothing to appeal. However, the caption of a lawsuit remains the same regardless of parties being stipulated out or even getting out through a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment – unless the Court issues a specific order changing the caption.

    Kimberlin may be an idiot, a liar, a terrorist and all the rest, but he is not necessarily wrong in including the parties in the caption here.

    • Monkey toe, I don’t necessarily think that is correct. I don’t believe that there is any necessary relationship between the caption at the trial court (here, U.S. District Court) and appellate court (here U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) as to the parties on the appellee side being identical to the parties below. Brett needs to name the party or parties as appellee/appellees that he is taking his appeal against. This is either rank error as to form on his part, or he truly is trying to reopen something.

      • Kimberlin isn’t interested in legal decorum. He’s just trying to create as much havoc as possible. So he just cuts&pastes as many court filings as there are available avenues to do so. It forces courts and defendants to deal with his tantrums. It’s all he knows how to do.

      • “I don’t believe that there is any necessary relationship between the caption at the trial court (here, U.S. District Court) and appellate court (here U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) as to the parties on the appellee side being identical to the parties below.”

        That may be true. I was going off my gut and didn’t actually look at the rule. I have never seen a caption changed on any federal appeals I’ve been involved in, but the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3 isn’t clear. My reading of it is not that the caption changes, but that you clearly have to identify which parties you are taking the appeal against. To me, changing the caption confuses things as you try to follow a case’s subsequent and/or prior history – particularly if you have multiple parties taking different appeals and changing the caption in each case to suit themselves.

        Regardless, this is the type of thing (unfortunately) that the Courts are usually very forgiving about when dealing with a pro se party. But it hardly matters here, as I believe Worthing is correct that this would not be considered a final judgment.

  6. A rule of thumb should now be apparent to all parties going forward. Don’t enter into legal settlements with a sociopathic convicted bomber. He doesn’t respect the rule of law, so no one should expect that he will live up to any legal settlement he signs. The parties that tried to settle with Kimberlin have learned a lesson, hopefully.

  7. Looking at the caption of the appeal, it seems that BK has O’Keefe, Simon & Schuster, and Lynn Thomas listed just as Defendants, but The Franklin Center and the American Spectator are listed as Defendants-Appellees. So he’s making some distinction among the settling parties in terms of how they are being treated for the appeal, but I don’t know why some of them are appellees and others are not appellees.

  8. Well, Joshua, good point. It is an appeal and those on the defending side are appellees. Everyone else BK has listed is just clutter.

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