Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

I mentioned in an earlier post that the Kimberlins have filed for a motion for summary judgment in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit. It’s an interesting coincidence that their motion was filed almost simultaneously with the Cabin Boy’s™ motion for summary judgment in his LOLsuit VI: The Undiscovered Krendler and that both motions seek summary judgment before discovery has begun in either case.

Aaron Walker has filed an opposition to the motion in his case against the Kimberlins.

Tick, tock.


12 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • It makes you wonder just why he thinks he will get any traction on them. Two court cases have decided the facts were not as Brett said. Sucks to be him?

      • Apparently because one *can* simply lie in a declaration to a court and expect not to get burned.

  1. In the opening of his affidavit, the sawed-off pedo bomber swears “under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct.” Then, in the very next line, asserts as fact an assault that did not happen, is on video as not happening, and at least two courts have declared did not happen.

    While it would be nice for the sawed-off pedo bomber’s entire affidavit to be stricken as he is a convicted perjurer, it would be better if there would be judicial notice of that fresh perjury.

  2. I EXPECT “words have meanings” Bill Schmalfeldt after reading Brett’s motion to write a blog post admonishing Brett Kimberlin for using the phrase sexual predator. If audio child pornography descriptions are evil than wouldn’t Bill in all his righteousness stand up for the truth and loudly declare Brett Kimberlin’s use of sexual predator is also worthy of admonishment?

    A jury is going to read Aaron’s “corruption by blood” post and see it was a post to not attack his family, why does Brett think that’s such a big deal? Oh right, he’s a moron.

    • For the concept “corruption of blood” to apply, wouldn’t the involved parties need to be related? Perhaps the subject touched a nerve?

  3. The amount of lolfails in the Kimberlin doc is astounding. E.g. that because Walker was not convicted, there was no abuse of process because he suffered no harm. As if being summoned to appear in court (or possibly arrested) is not abusive when there is no basis for it. Unsurprisingly, Kimberlin’s “logic” is completely backwards. There is almost never abuse of process if the person is convicted, because the process would have been vindicated by the outcome. In other words, it isn’t abusive if it results in a conviction. That doesn’t make the converse true, but It is ONLY when the conviction is NOT obtained that one could argue an abuse of process has occurred (Barring, perhaps, a conviction based on provable perjury).

Leave a Reply