Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

During the middle of the afternoon yesterday, I received an email from my lawyer forwarding The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s opposition to the motions to dismiss filed by Aaron Walker, Breitbart Holdings, Michelle Malkin, Twitchy, Erick Erickson, RedState, Glenn Beck, Mercury Radio Arts, The Blaze, and me in the Kimberlin v. Most of the Universe, et al. RICO Retread LOLsuit. Reading it has been slow going because of the amount of time it takes to recover from the laughter induced by almost every paragraph. I won’t share it with the Gentle Readers until I get to end and catch my breath.

Before I got started, I spot checked the Certificate of Service. You’ll note that TDPK tells the court he served my lawyer on the 6th.BKCert20150806The date/time stamp on the email he used to serve my lawyer shows that he sent it just before noon ET on the 8th (15:59:13 GMT).BKdatetime20150808Does he think Judge Mason will let him get away with his usual bullshit?

One more thing … a word search shows that the term false narrative(s) appears 25 time in the 28 page filing.


24 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. A weird coincidence happened today. I made a couple of twitter posts condemning the poor post-prison performance of Craig Richard Gillette. For those who don’t remember, Mr. Gillette ended up in prison some years ago after pleading guilty to possessing child porn. In prison, he met Brett Kimberlin and they became friends (shared interest, I guess).

    After getting out of prison, Gillette is supposed to be reforming his life, but instead he’s spitting in the face of Kimberlin’s many victims by performing harassment errands for him, as explained here:

    Anyway, it struck me as odd that after I posted condemnation of this disappointing track record of Mr. Gillette, the @WhoIsNumberNone twitter account tweeted at me for the first time in maybe a year. He seemed agitated. I wonder why anyone would be so quick to notice such criticisms, and even more oddly, be upset that the criticisms are being made in the first place.

  2. Ooooh! Ooooh! Was there a snow day? Planning a family vacation? Did that interfere with (apparent) perjered delivery?
    Asking for a friend.

  3. There is nothing good about a diddler lying about when he served his response to the pending motions to dismiss. He is trying cheat the defendants out 2 days of their time to reply.
    Thumbs down to the lying diddler.

  4. How is it that the email to your lawyer came from jtmp? His “employer” is not even a party to the case.

    Isn’t using the resources of one’s employer to conduct personal business something that most businesses generally discourage?

    • Back in 1986 I was working for a defense contractor we had a head office lawyer come in and he spent an hour telling us what not to use company email for. After he left the sysadmin for the email system asked if everybody had understood what the lawyer had just said. He looked at all the blank looks, then told us “Do not put anything in an email that you would not want to explain to a jury, your wife/girl friend or husband/boyfriend.”

      • I was working on a case recently where we had to review a number of emails from the principals of a company, including the General Counsel. The GC had been using his email to have an affair (it didn’t end well either).

        Those were some uncomfortable emails to read.

    • Using Billogic, it’s enough to warrant calling or emailing the employer to attempt to get the employee fired. It’s in the TK handbook. I wonder how Kimby would like having his own tactics turned against him. Does Jeffery Cohen know Brett is misusing the charities resources? Do the donors?

      • If the donors know, it might bother them, or they might not grasp the issue.

        I haven’t had time to dig into annual reports to see what grants jtmp received, recently, but in the past, they’ve been smaller grants for operating support. There’s a lot of wiggle room in operating support.

    • Minor personal use is often tolerated by employers.

      JTMP’s Acceptable Use Policy is one of many documents that should be requested of them.

      • You are fooling yourself if you think they actually have a policy. Lol. They are a flyby night organization in many aspects.

  5. I think I saw a copy of this online. It appears that BK thinks that the well-reasoned legal arguments presented by actual lawyers amount to technicalities (or some such.) He also pointed out that no one had used truth as a defense — as in demonstrating the idea that “Brett Kimberlin Swatted people” is fact. The truth is — nobody actually said that. Some said they did NOT think Kimberlin Swatted people. Some noted of course that a handful of people were Swatted immediately after writing about Brett Kimberlin. Aaron Walker was Swatted the same night he won a court victory over Kimberlin. Still, NOBODY being sued has to prove that a statement they did NOT make is true. Silly ACME Law.

    • This is the motion to dismiss stage. Parties don’t have to raise defenses at this point. If the complaint survives a motion to dismiss, then parties can file a response. The response is the proper place to assert the defense of truth: that TDPK acted, conspired, directed, or was otherwise involved in the swatting. And therefore even assuming the Plaintiff’s assertion is true (that the Defendants implied TDPK was involved in swatting), Plaintiff is unable to recover.

      Assuming, of course, that there is some basis for that defense. Either evidence in the parties’ hands, or discoverable evidence from TDPK. Evidence, for example, contained in JTMP’s emails. Discoverable because TDPK has been using the foundation’s email for personal correspondence.

      • Complaining about lack of response in an MTD is something that Schmalfeldt has been bitching about of late. I have to wonder if there isn’t something to the ‘ACME Law’ thing after all?

      • Plaintiff is unable to recover even if he personally had no before or after the fact knowledge that some other person did it or arranged it or solicited it to punish people who had shared information about Brett’s sordid criminal past,( including all his convictions, punishments, and crimes he has been suspected of), whether they waited about him in order to diminish his own false narratives of double secret exoneration, or put an end to his attempts to leverage his convictions for terrible crimes into some kind of prominence or success for himself, or to stop him drawing off donations to persons on the left who might be more deserving (not being hoaxy con-jobbers with self-aggrandizing and self serving missions), or to stop a phony guy peddling conspiracies from having any undeserved credibility,it or influence .

        No one has accused Brett of swatting anyone. He’ll never win on that “false narrative e” pt because all have reasonable suspicion that he or a fan or associate of his might have had a hand in them. All have allowed that if “writing about Brett’s crimes” was a motivation, that might be limited to someone who has just taken it upon themselves to show interest in Brett’s concerns or the concerns of one of his close associates. brett might personally have had nothing directly to do with it. But he did other things that are terrible.

        Many were more alarmed about misuse of the courts to shut down protected critical speech related to Kimberlin’s attempts to blur and elide his crimes from his CV.
        He’s not going to win on the point, his old secrets are open to view and they are not going back in the bottle. Redemption is impossible because he can’t ever admit what he did or why. He knows he can make people who cross him suffer, but that’s the extent of his powers, one any ordinary man has. If he cheats, he can get away with things. That’s his mighty legacy.

  6. BKdatetime20150808Does he think Judge Mason will let him get away with his usual bullshit?

    Absolutely. If the judge catches it himself, all that will happen is you’re given a couple of extra days to respond and he’s given a verbal warning. If you filed a motion for those few extra days you might get fees under Rule 11, but that’s the absolute best you can hope for.

    No judge is going to afford meaningful sanctions for misstating when a document was served on the opposing party by 2 days, even if there is a history of such behavior.

    The rules of ethics are for lawyers. Pro se parties don’t have anything to lose for behaving unethically.

    • Does he think Judge Mason will let him get away with his usual bullshit?

      More to the point: does he have any reason to think otherwise? The man forged evidence of service in Maryland courts, and the worst thing that happened was the judge stomped her little feet because she was so mad.

      A system that does not care for its rules is to the advantage of those who will not abide by its rules, and to the disadvantage of those who must.

Leave a Reply