Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Effective 1 October, Maryland’s ban on testimony from convicted perjurers will be repealed, and the Cabin Boy™ is celebrating.MU201606240005ZWorse news for The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin. This means that he can be called as a witness. Better still, it means he can be cross examined if he testifies on his own behalf.


UPDATE—The bill leading to the new law was introduced by the State Senator who represents the district where Kimberlin lives. I was aware of the bill and did not bother to lobby against it because the change will allow TDPK’s testimony to be compelled in a civil suit. (Of course, he still has a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, but invoking that in front of a jury …)

TDPK was aware of the change in the law when he moved to have the trial in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit rescheduled to a date before 1 October. Apparently, short-circuiting discovery in that case was more important to him that being able to testify in his own defense.


44 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • Cabin boy is delusional. Hallucinates, even. And you’re also correct that the puny pedo doesn’t want to testify.

  1. The only reason it would be bad news was if a person convicted of perjury had legally actionable truth on his side. No set of unsupported assertions, fabricated evidence, or complaints of bad feels would do anything useful.

  2. Are we talking about “good luck finding me Brett” or “when is soccer practice over at the middle school” Brett?

  3. Does Brett really think he can keep all the lies straight when there is so much documented that proves he is lying ?

    He is going to get caught in so much perjury, his first stint in prison will seem like a cakewalk.


  4. I don’t think someone understands how useful not being able to be put on the stand has been to a certain perjury convicted someone. He could use it by saying it can’t because of a indiscretion when he was oh so much younger… Now, he is so much wiser and this horrible law is impeding his case… and likely get a benefit of a doubt from a judge or two.

    Now, if he does take the stand he is open to cross examinations of all sorts for awkward questions….

    Let’s just say I could go on. But, I wouldn’t want to educate someone…

  5. Being able to testify does not mean he can commit perjury and get away with it. The facts are that our Graceful Host and his co-defenders of a free America know a whole lot about the dreadful person called Kimberlin. He will fail if he thinks he can make a false claim or statement without being called on it with evidence.

    All things being equal, having DPK testify will be an advantage to his opponents. Every lie he tells, he gets caught in it. If he does this under oath, then he will revisit the cells rather quickly amd taint his testimony.


  6. Seriously, every time I think we’ve hit Peak Stupid DF raises (?) his game. His Stuoidmeter goes way past 11.

  7. He was able to testify before in his first statw lawsuit – the judge allowed it. He declined.

  8. Oh noes, Brett will be able to take the stand. Whatever shall we do?

    Yep, that briar patch is pretty dangerous, best stay away from there.

  9. I assume that bringing up the fact that someone has been convicted of perjury is allowable, so the jury can use that information in evaluating the credibility of the testimony?

  10. Defendant Bill Schmalfeldt just can’t seem to grasp the very basics of jurisprudence. He desperately seeks to be seen as an equal, but his limited intellect along with his lack of education makes that impossible. To make matters worse, he truly believes he is on the level with Aaron(Yale educated, bar member lawyer) and Mr Hoge(NASA rocket scientist). Bill you should find a new hobby and resign as the Twitter Attorney at Law with Acme Legal LLC.

      • Every time he posts it’s like someone opened a 55 gallon barrel of stupid and spilled it all over the innerwebz.

    • Hope law enforcement and Canticle and Juniper Courts are apprised of Bill Schmalfeldt’s violent fantasies and thinly-veiled threats. It will make it easier for Billy’s future victim-neighbors to sue the Canticle and Juniper Courts for continuing to house and feed and enable that psychotic animal.

  11. Maryland – For the person who can never have enough perjury convictions!

    • No, but not for the reason you think. The basis for his appeal because he couldn’t testify was killed because the judge told him he *could* testify, well before this law was signed into being.

      No matter what, Brett can’t get out of the pesky little fact that he decided not to testify AFTER he was told he could. HE MADE THE MOTION! Did he make it not being prepared that it might be granted? If so, that’s on him, and is not a basis for appeal. Too bad, so sad.

      • Yeah, when you appeal, the courts require that you appeal decisions that went against you …. for some odd reason, you can’t appeal decisions that you won.

      • Plaintiff: “Even though I’m a convicted perjurer, I demand the right to testify!”
        Court: “Ok, you can testify.”
        Plaintiff: “Errr… what?”

  12. Of course, being able to once again testify means that they can be convicted of it -again-. Really it places him in greater jeopardy; a further perjury in a case would only be a further push to a vexatious finding.

  13. I put this in a post from yesterday but I’ll drop it here as well since Defendant William “Stolen Valor” Schmalfeldt has a documented history of having trouble reading things.

    Do you think DUMBFUCK remembers that his Pedo associate was offered the opportunity to testify in his only case to make it to trial and he declined? Maybe he didn’t want to answer questions under oath about little girls perhaps? But he certainly did have the chance to testify, he just didn’t have the balls. So DUMBFUCK please explain exactly what do you think will change because of this bill? Will your Pedo associate suddenly grow a sack and get on the stand?

  14. ” I was aware of the bill …”

    So you’re saying you foresaw this?
    Then I guess this kind of validates the whole foreseeing thing right back in the face of every idiot trying to denigrate it.
    Hmmm, how queer.

  15. I have a question. If a guy on parole lied under oath, and got totally caught by individuals who have studied his moves over the last few years, could he really be re-incarcerated? I would understand pulling him back in for a violent crime, but I hear perjury is rarely prosecuted. Also, would his re-incarceration on a new perjury conviction mean he serves the balance of his previous sentence for making 8 bombs, causing a man’s death and conspiring to kill a prosecutor? Asking for an enemy.

  16. Although useful to our host, this ranks right up there with re-enfranchising felons on the dumbometer

Leave a Reply