The Team Themis Appeal

Today was the drop dead date for The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin to file his informal brief for his appeal of the dismissal of the Kimberlin v. Team Themis, et al. RICO 2: Electric Boogaloo LOLsuit with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He got it filed this morning.

I have no comment on TDPK’s brief for now. Anything I plan to say publicly about it prior to the court’s ruling on the appeal will be found in the reply brief to be filed by my lawyer.

46 thoughts on “The Team Themis Appeal

  1. Let’s see if I have this right….

    Issues Presented for Review:

    I. The judge didn’t believe me! Me! Doesn’t he know how important I am?
    II. Plus, he wouldn’t allow me to conduct a fishing expedition!
    III. I am a humble pro se,>/i> for whom the judge did not cut enough slack.
    IV. Furthermore, my potential testimony (nevermind my history of perjury) was so important, no one had the nerve to ask me for it. Because… nefarious reasons, I guess.

    Yeah, I think that sums it up.

    • You mean his hearsay testimony? IANAL but hearsay is not allowed.
      The “Stop the Chamber” campaign posted rewards for information from whistleblowers about Mr. Blankenship’s illegal conduct. After receiving that information, Appellant met and communicated with the FBI to disclose that information.

      I wonder if he paid off?

      • I note that the convicted perjuror has frequently _stated_ he was told he was a potential witness, but he has never given any documentary evidence that this is true. Well, I guess a tale of gossamer and hearsay is better than his usual, gossamer and bullshit.

        • The terrified tiny terrorist no doubt relies heavily on the rule mandating every well-pleaded allegation must be considered true. Had he the benefit of law school, or the ability to grasp the information one of the many times it’s been explained, he’d know that judges do not have to accept nonsense as true.

          By the pedoketeer’s logic, if a litigant alleged the presiding judge was a lizard, it would have to be accepted as true. (Some of my favorite people online are former lizards!) Or a litigant could allege the defendant controlled a vast army of space aliens, or drag the entire congress and executive branch through discovery based on their control of space alien army.

          Anyone who wants to practice law should really consider law school. Otherwise, they may end up looking foolish. Repeatedly.

          • I understand Federal Judges have a finely tuned Bullshit detector, and when a Plaintiff says in his brief, “and the court must accept this as true” it blinks. I won’t say what color. But it looks like a sunset. Or a sunburn. Not good, anyway.

    • When I was growing up I was taught, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

      I’m stunned that it’s apparently doctrinal that the Pro Se community is held to a lesser standard than Real Lawyers.

      Flout rules, see what sticks but if called on it always always fall back on, “I’m just a poor pro se. You have to cut me some slack. Says so right here. In the law.”

      Majesty of the Law, my ass-

  2. I imagine some of those claims are well hashed out and settled in the legal world. Being better at research might result in him wasting less time trying to waste the time and money of his victims.

    • Yeah, you’d think that with over four decades of experience with the legal system the terrified tiny terrorist would have a better grasp of how things actually work. It’s clear to me now that he really doesn’t have the aptitude.

      If he doesn’t care and is just throwing anything at the wall and hoping something sticks, then he doesn’t understand that the appellate court isn’t going to take his (perjury convicted) word for what the law requires. This is especially true for a pro se litigant. He’s also failing to understand their decades of experience and familiarity with the law. It’s not like these pleadings are explaining the law to the pedoketeeers, and it would take extreme stupidity to not understand that.

      So, it appears to me that the terrified tiny terrorist is actually trying to make a case but just doesn’t have the ability to understand the law and legal system. I mean, seriously, he really believes the law requires he get discovery to make a claim. By this logic, anyone could get discovery from any entity by claiming they’d be able to make a claim with it. hahahahaha

  3. Doesn’t he know that Themis was a Titaness? Or are we now assigning gender fluidity to ancient mythology? Jeez!

  4. I’m still searching for the original case he copied/pasted this stuff from. Probably from Dumass v. USA, where Dumass was represented by the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

  5. Appellant also filed a Motion for Relief from Judgement under Rule 60(b) to bring to the court’s attention testimony he provided at the sentencing hearing of Donal Blankenship. This was denied.

    Further down he writes,

    Appellant was told that he was a potential witness in the federal grand jury and subsequent trial of Mr. Blankenship.

    He was NOT a witness for either the grand jury or the trial and I’d bet money that he can’t prove that anyone told him he even might be.

    He goes on to lay this whopper

    Following Mr. Blankenship’s conviction in December 2015, the United States Attorneys Office contacted Appellant and told him that he my be called to testify at the sentencing hearing, and to submit a victim letter to the sentencing judge, which he did and which Judge Irene Berger considered at sentencing.

    And again further down in his myriad of lies

    Also, Appellant was not merely a potential witness who had provided discovery to federal officials for use in a federal criminal case, he was an actual witness who “testified” at Mr. Blankenship’s sentencing.

    You got that? The judge considered HIS victim letter during sentencing. He wasn’t a victim in any sense of the word, but the Judge took HIS letter into consideration when leaving out the actual victims. Let’s see what the Judge has to say about “victims” of the mine disaster….

    Berger announced the sentence to a courtroom full of mine disaster victims’ family members, many of whom sat through day after day of the trial, and some Upper Big Branch miners who survived the explosion and then testified against Blankenship about working day after day with inadequate fresh air, high levels of dust and other problems and still being ordered to keep “running coal.”

    The judge, though, refused requests from about a dozen of those miners and family members to speak at the hearing. Berger ruled that they were not “victims” for the purposes of a law that affords victims the right to be “reasonably heard” at sentencing, because Blankenship was not charged with or convicted of causing the explosion.

    So the miners who were hurt were not victims but somehow a tiny pedophile with no first hand knowledge of Blankenship or his actions IS a victim and is heard, by letter, at the hearing. What’s queer is that there is no record of this victim letter in any accounts of the sentencing hearing. Very queer. When I have some free time I’ll have to see if PACER has anything. I’m betting the tiny pedo is just making shit up hoping the judge won’t take the time to check that actual court records to see if the perjuring pedo is lying again.

    • This is yet another example of how law school comes in handy for actual lawyers. Based on the terrified tiny terrorist’s description, these judges know he had no admissible evidence to present. And they know they don’t have to pretend to believe something they know is impossible.

      Glad you’re going to look it up, TOLF, not that it will cause him to drop this silly claim even once.

    • Exactly so. This is what I’m trying to get at in my comment below.

      Any written doc showing what the US Attorneys office sent? Got a name, Brett?

      Dude’s making this shit up and doesn’t get called on it.

  6. Can y’all explain something to me?

    Can you ALLEGE anything in a brief that you want? Reason I ask is that most of the time the parties have been meticulous about providing supporting documentation in the appendices. But sometimes not.

    Since BK attests he’s been victimized by “… tens of thousands of Twitter tweets, blog posts and articles by this gang of right wing scoundrels” is he, at any point, required to show tens of thousands of something? Twitter tweets? At min, tens of thousands of tweets? The lowest multiple of tens would be two (because plural) so 20,000 tweets would do. Blog posts and articles can just be multiple (because, again, plural).

    Would the court see things differently if TDPK produced 37 tweets? Or 370? Versus the 20,000 noted in his brief? Does degree matter at all? Is there any point which determines the court has been facially lied to in a sworn brief? Consequences of same? Not that there have been any to date; but Maryland-

    Ah. This is just pounding the table. Right?

    Also. I notice Thumbelina Pro Se Kimberlin does NOT provide a affidavit indicating “… affirm under penalties of perjury contents of the foregoing paper are true…” like WJJH does. Is this a stylistic thing specific to our gentle host? Superfluous but in hopes of gaining the courts favor? Or is it a requirement?

    Or is it another case of some Pro Ses are more equal (accountable?) than others? No bright-line standards in the Pro Se world and all that…

    Asking for a friend.

  7. Especially amusing is the parts where Kimberlin’s claims about Judge Hazel are directly contradicted by the memorandum of opinion he attached.

    Nothing more amusing than an incompetent liar.

  8. Ladies and Gentlemen. May I remind you that your fisking of Brett’s diatribe is pointless. Yes, he has dallied with the judicial system for the past forty years. As a result he is very familiar with the necessary manipulations required to achieve his goals.

    The process is the punishment. Hit Mr. H’s tip jar.

  9. Issues I and II are pretty easily sustained, lawsuits are not fishing expeditions. Issue III is actually a misstatement of the holding of the court below, and issue IV is black letter law.

    So I don’t see the appeal getting very far.

  10. No wonder judges are so uptight. If I had to read 36 more pages of TDPK’s insane pleadings I’d probably lose it too.

    I’ll wait for the crib notes….

  11. Translations Courtesy Blacks Encyclopedia Idiotica
    1) The rules don’t apply to me because I am a special snowflake and the Court erred for not recognizing my privileged status and expecting me to follow ANY rules ever.
    2) The Court erred for not allowing my fishing expedition to go forth unimpeded. How can I be expected to know why I am suing them for until I find evidence first of their wrongdoing? Clearly this was error. Discovery first, then we amend the complaint to fit the facts.
    3) The Court erred by not letting me use discovery to claim that I just learned of the wrongs that I have already plead occurred years ago. Also, statutes of limitations run from when I learn of things, and since I was denied discovery, statute of limitations have not run. My special snowflake status is why statutes of limitations do not run from when incidents actually occur.
    4) Conspiracy does not require that I plead a plausible theory, only that I say the defendants “conspired” to do something prohibited by statute. The Court erred in requiring my theory to be even remotely plausible and when stating in dicta that I was not actually prohibited from doing anything. Dicta, of course, is clear grounds for appeal according to the law of the Supreme Court of Special Snowflakes.

  12. Let me get something straight here. His NEWEST theory as to why the clock didn’t start with the disclosure of the emails by Anonymous is because this “Team Two bevy of gangsters and criminals began implementing the playbook.” He keeps embroidering on this more and more and more and more.

    • As I recall, the courts have already ruled that Team Two never existed anyway.

      Funny how many “facts” of Kimberlin’s end up being things that a judge ruled were just not so.

  13. Anyone else find it interesting that the document entry timestamp is the 6th of June and yet he has signed it stating that he has sent the documents to those affected on the 7th of June.

    Is this a false statement? or is there some timecode inconsistency that I am missing.

Leave a Reply