40 thoughts on “Intervening in Kimberlin v. McConnell, et al.

  1. Very well done, Aaron and WJJH. Captivating read all of the way through. I especially enjoyed the part about ‘terrified tiny terrorist wants so badly to be a real lawyer, but isn’t and never will be.‘ hahahaha

  2. I don’t think it’s very fair of Aaron to use logic, and cite cases that are germane and actually back up what he is arguing. So not fair. The other guy is just a poor pitiful pro se with the mind of a 12 year old.

    Sorry, that should have read “has his mind on 12 year olds”.

    • If you take as a given (no certain thing) that Kimberlin has standing to appeal for the reasons he states, I believe it does follow that Our Gracious Host has a right to intervene.

      But I don’t think Kimberlin has standing to appeal, so taken with that caveat, I stand with you in fact.

      I think what we are seeing here is a highlighting of the ridiculous by use of the absurd, by which I mean deadpan serious, response.

      • How does it follow? I’m open to arguments, but I just don’t see it. I don’t really want to offer the counter argument for fear of educating the midget. But briefly, simply having an interest doesn’t give you the right to intervene.

        I also disagree that he doesn’t have standing to appeal. He filed a case and there was a final verdict on the case. He should have standing to appeal as a matter of right.

        That’s separate from his standing to file the case in the first place. He doesn’t have standing in the original case and I’m not even sure the court has jurisdiction. The idea that a lower court can declare someone appointed to the Supreme Court stinks of hubris.


          I think it goes like this:

          Again assuming that Kimberlin has standing to appeal, I think that standing stems from his interest in the possible but highly unlikely event that his cases currently on appeal would be heard by SCOTUS. If that is the case, then other parties to those cases with the potential to be heard would ALSO have the same interest.

          I think we diverge here, where you don’t think that gives a right to intervene, and I think it does.

          I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again. It’s why I pay experts, so I have someone to blame!

    • Mr. Hoge has as much interest in the outcome of this case as Mr. Kimberlin does.

      • I remember overhearing a high-school freshman prank:

        A group of female upperclassmen were doing everything they could to make a freshman son of a preacher turn beet red. Another bystander (male) decides to join in the prank and ramps the embarrassment factor up to 11.

        The original ringleader, who is now starting to get red-faced herself asks: “Are you being serious?”

        The guy’s response was deadpan, “I’m as serious as you are”.

      • What can you tell about his posture when all you can see of him above the table os eyebrows, forehead, and a bit of hair? His posture could be terrible and the judge would never know.

    • INDEED!

      III. was particularly outstanding and entertaining!


      “… in an extraordinary display of chutzpah…”


      “Undersigned counsel has squared off against Mr. Kimberlin in court for over four years and cannot think of the last time Mr. Kimberlin HASN’T begged some court for some special dispensation because he is a pro se litigant.”


      FORGING a summons. Altering evidence of initial service of process via FORGING a certified mail “green card.” – ALL before the (another!) court now.


      “Apparently, he believes that one must go to law school to learn not to forge documents.”

      BOOM! AGAIN! 😂

      The “Worst Attorney in the World” just owned the sawed-off Domestic Terrorist Brett “The Speedway Bomber” Kimberlin… AGAIN!


      • Forging a summons, forging a green card-

        Did ‘Brett The Speedway Bomber Kimberlin’ skate on these? Or are these issues the court will deal with (or not) at some later point?

  3. It seems that wherever The Sawed-Off Pedo Bomber turns, there is Aaron, making sure The Sawed-Off Pedo Bomber’s baggage follows him…

  4. If I may offer one piece of advice, plus a story, to Aaron and our Gracious Host.

    One summer, I interned for my local district attorney. The DA’s office was responsible for, among other things, preparing response briefs to habeas corpus petitions by the prisoners in the local maximum security prison. 99.9%, these petitions are frivolous, and are often filled with “creative” interpretations of the facts or case law. The attorney who asked me to write the responses gave me the one piece of advice: “Have fun, but don’t be too sarcastic. Sometimes the judges read actually these.”

    I would give the same advice to you guys. You’re winning; don’t blow it for the sake of a few (admittedly, really good) one-liners.

    • Sorry about the typos in that. It should read: “Sometimes the judges actually read these.”

      That’s what I get for editing.

      • I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. Spending too much word count on snark makes the judge wonder why you are wasting his or her limited time with your comedic musings, instead of citing and applying relevant case law. Plus, judges have very limited tolerance for any form of rowdiness–including personal attacks, even if they’re funny–past a certain point; you cross that line at your peril. Usually, TFS has kept the snark to a reasonable level, but IMHO recent briefs show they needed a little nudge to correct the trajectory.

        Just my 2 cents.

    • “Apparently, he believes that one must go to law school to learn not to forge documents.”

      More snark!

  5. Another painful fisking of a BK legal argument. He will be enraged that Mr Hoge intervened. Bwa-ha-ha

  6. “However, if Mr. Kimberlin claims that such a string of defeats were inevitable, how can he simultaneously claim that those cases have merit?”

    I’ll bet TDPK didn’t think that one through before filing this case.

    Yep, “doomed to fail” — I love that phrase.

Leave a Reply