Qapla’


The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. Brett Kimberlin has lost his appeal, so the verdict stands. Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and I win.

79 thoughts on “Qapla’

  1. So the Court of Special Appeals has affirmed that photoshopping Brett Kimberlin’s face onto a pedobear image does not place him in a *false* light as a matter of law.

    You know, if you were curious about that sort of thing… *EG*

  2. John, I might suggest a small correction. You wrote: “Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and I win.” i would add in there somewhere that Freedom of Expression won, too.

  3. Bunny Unread and filthy the boy scout clown are organizing a ten pedo march on the halls of justice in Maryland

      • no Charles, that group has standards and demented filthy, obese, adjudicated serial child stalkers are no longer qualified to hold the position of editor of the weekly “Pedo Supporters Unread” Blog

  4. Point of order:

    “*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other
    document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of
    stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.”

    Can this opinion be cited for reasons not enumerated in the statement above?

    For example, LULZ?

  5. Provably false, failed, false, incorrect, mistaken

    The list of words judges use to describe the puny pedo is growing.

    • In Maryland, one gets one appeal to the next higher court as a matter of right. Appeals to the Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) are by petition for writ of certiorari which that court does not have to grant.

  6. Heh.
    He had been getting an education on defamation per se all over the place. And look, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals or whatever (your court naming confuses me MD) said what everyone had already been saying.
    Expect him to start saying “per quod” instead because it’s latin, so it must mean something.

    • Reminded of a video game review once, where the reviewer used the term ‘in medias res’ (correctly, I might add) — and the caption on the screen displayed ‘HAY GUYS I KNOW LATIN’. Always made me giggle.

  7. But if the statements here were deemed defamation per se (and again, we aren’t holding that they should or shouldn’t be), Mr. Kimberlin still has to prove that they were false as well—a statement that is defamatory but true isn’t actionable.

    Their is another pro se plaintiff who should pay attention to that pull quote.

  8. He would not ever take instruction on the point that defamation per se kicks in not when a statement is defamatory, but when it is defamatory and false. It was explained to him by the court, in pleadings from defendants, and in numerous discussions by legal experts I presume he was very interested in reading, given his close monitoring of anything relevant to his personal interests on the internet.

    I’m left with the question: did he just go through the motions for the sake of vexing people, or is he really that stupid?

      • I don’t mean to imply he can’t be vexing and stupid at the same time, he’s that and much much worse. But this one thing is a real binary. He either was faking his misunderstanding, or he really really didn’t get it.

  9. I feel sorry for the judges who had to wade through this…they made it seem like a poorly written novel. “But then in a plot twist, Mr. Kimberlin decided not to testify after all…”

    Congratulations John, Aaron, Stacey, and Ali!!!!

    This chapter is finally over…now on to victory in the other cases…

    • Let’s make it easy: if you are suing because someone called you a DUMBFUCK, a key step is to prove that you are not, in fact, a DUMBFUCK.

      Good luck with that.

      • This is a quote, by my transcription, of what Brett said at the motions hearing:

        “That case is on appeal, right now, in the Court of Special Appeals. And—you know—there’s issues in that case that are pretty suspect. I mean Judge Jordan even issued an order on a motion for a new trial and made note of the problems with that case. And so I don’t think it would be wise to ever go on res judicata in that case.”

        Heh.

  10. Congratulations to all the defendants and to good sense generally.

    Quite a few of Team Kimberlin never got, no matter how often reiterated, that defamation per se does not mean that certain words are defamatory, regardless of truth or falsity. True statements are never defamatory, no matter what the statement. Nor are false statements necessarily defamatory.

    I believe AW said a while ago that the standard in Maryland is that a statement is not defamatory if it is materially true or was not uttered with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. Even if both those conditions are not met, the statement is still not defamatory unless it damages reputation. For example if I said that “Kimberlin has never lost a lawsuit,” that is a false statement uttered with actual knowledge of falsity, but it is not defamatory. The difference between defamation per se and defamation per quod is that otherwise defamtory statements are defamatory if they are of the type considered defamatory per se and are not considered defamatory without actual proof of damages if they are of the type considered defamatory per quod.

    It’s not that difficult if you only FOCUS.

    • But wait a second, Acme Law volume 2 at page 57 states very clearly that butt hurt in the third degree is defamatory per se. And while the term per se is not explained in the Acme Law volume 2, one can infer that if you are butt hurt in the third degree, that you have been damaged. And therefore, butt hurt is proof of defamation, per se. I rest my case.

      Acme Law, class of 77, suma cum lard

  11. OK, now I’ve read the whole thing and I must say that that was just awesome–the most clear piece of legal writing I’ve ever seen (not that I’m an expert or anything, mind you).

  12. Pingback: Two Popular Weapons… | Dave Alexander & Company with Ukuleledave and David Edgren — This is the original Artisan Craft Blog

  13. Despite the victory for the First Amendment, there’s one thing that really bothers me in the trial court’s decision as quoted in this opinion:

    … the trial court ultimately concluded that the language of the statute—which declares that “[a] person convicted of perjury may not testify,” CJP § 9-104, was not absolute, because it used the word “may” rather than “shall,” and that left the trial court with discretion to permit it.

    Um, what? You know, it’s “logic” like this that makes me look askance at lawyers from time to time. The term “may not testify” is quite clear, and permits only one reading. To anyone who’s not trying to twist words into pretzels, that is, which is what the trial court was clearly guilty of.

    • they were correctly characterizing johnson’s initial decision, which he himself reversed on reargument.

      • To be clear, it was the bad decision itself I was objecting to, not the appelate court’s good summary of the bad decision. Good to hear that the judge himself realized it was a bad decision and reversed himself on it later; that’s somewhat reassuring. I had managed to miss that particular bit of information, what with all the various motions, rulings on motions, and hearings in these cases. So I’m glad you mentioned the judge’s reversal; thanks for bringing it up.

    • Aaron or another JD can correct me; but at law, “may” is permissive, and “shall” is requisite. As such “may not” should mean that me may be restricted or otherwise denied the privilege.

      • That’s fair enough. But “may not” should mean the denial of permission, as it does in plain English. See Nix v. Hedden, where the decision rested on whether tomatoes should be considered a fruit or a vegetable. (There was an import tax on vegetables, but not fruit.) The grocer argued that by the dictionary definition, tomatoes were botanically a fruit, and therefore not subject to the tax. The Supreme Court ruled that “[t]here being no evidence that the words ‘fruit’ and ‘vegetables’ have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce, they must receive their ordinary meaning.” The principle, which has been upheld in several other cases according to Wikipedia*, is that the meaning of terms in law should be the plain meaning of the words as commonly understood by most speakers of English, unless that particular phrase has a specific meaning in the relevant industry.

        So based on that principle, “may not” should have the same meaning as in its common usage, when a parent tells a child, “No, you may not have any more candy today.”

        * Note: I did not research those myself and thus cannot vouch for Wikipedia’s accuracy, but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy in this particular case.

        • Or, to put it mathematically:

          “He may not testify” should be read as “He (may not) testify”, not as “He may (not testify)”. The former means that permission to testify is denied. The latter would mean that permission to not testify is granted, which would make no sense in this context.

          • If you look at it as “…may not be allowed…” you can parse it as “…may be not allowed…”; but see below.

        • Well, two things: First ‘may’ and ‘shall’ have acquired special meaning at law; second the parent is electing to deny the child candy. The converse would be when the State says to a child, “No, you shall not have access to alcohol.” Unless there is never a time when the child might be allowed candy it is still permissive; granted it’s an active denial of permission, but still permissive.

          • “May” and “shall” have special and distinct meanings regarding the distinction between permitting and requiring. “”May not” does not have the same place.

  14. Pretty amusing. All he had to do, as the court kept telling him, was testify that the claims were false, or have someone testify that the claims were false. But he didn’t. One might wonder why he didn’t. Maybe he didn’t want another perjury charge. Maybe he just isn’t that smart.

    • He was probably terrified of being cross examined.

      On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM, hogewash wrote:

      > egd commented: “Pretty amusing. All he had to do, as the court kept > telling him, was testify that the claims were false, or have someone > testify that the claims were false. But he didn’t. One might wonder why he > didn’t. Maybe he didn’t want another perjury charge. M” >

    • The answer to egd’s query is simple enough: Brett Kimberlin’s understanding of the law was that he had already won his case. The real question is, “Why didn’t Kimberlin take instruction from Judge Johnson?” To that I would only ask, “When has Brett Kimberlin ever taken instructions from any Court?”

      Brett Kimberlin suffers from the delusion that though he isn’t a member of the Bar he functions as a lawyer. That simply isn’t true. Sure, he is familiar with the forms of legal procedures, he is woefully ignorant of their substance. He can files suits. He can write motions. He can request subpoenas. He can research and cite cases. He, himself, even said to a Judge that he “feels” like a lawyer. But, he can understand how law works. He simply doesn’t “get it,” and, he is in complete denial of that fact.

      • Since I’m in a pedantic posture; I agree with your premise, but I don’t think he understands how the law works. He’s like the chicken that can beat you at tic-tac-toe; it knows when to make certain moves, but has absolutely no idea why.

        He suffers from a complete disconnect. He knows all the mechanisms, very well; but he cannot appreciate the intent of the Law, because at his heart he considers himself above the Law.

        Brett is a sociopath. It’s his world and we are merely pawns to be manipulated to his advantage. Push this piece here and that one responds thus. File this motion and your opponent gives you all the information you want. It’s not that he doesn’t get it; he can’t.

        Alright Kyle, I’m watching those tags…

  15. Pingback: Free Law Advice from Bob Null | Dave Alexander & Company with Ukuleledave and David Edgren — This is the original Artisan Craft Blog

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