23 thoughts on “Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. News


  1. What is it that they call “doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results?”

    “Maryland,” at a guess.


    • And at the point of being charged with contempt (3rd loco motion = 3rd strike = 3rd time’s a charm) Shorty Pro Se will say that’s grounds to claim Mason is biased, in his appeal to a higher court. (Good grief, I’m starting to understand his mind’s logic, I must need more coffee to wake up.)


  2. “What part of, ‘No!,’ do you not understand.” Somehow I get the feeling that there are more then a few very young woman who asked him that same question.


  3. Third time’s the charm!

    …or so I’ve been told. I could be wrong. How many times has Chimpy McDancypants tried to convince law enforcement that the letter he sent to Our Gentle Host in January 2015 was a forgery?

    http://i.imgur.com/GyxZll4.jpg

    This tweet was TWO MONTHS prior to that.

    Unreliable narrator, anyone?


  4. “OK, can I have a new judge now?”

    “No.”

    “…How about now?”

    “No.”

    “OK, how about… Now?”

    “No.”

    “Alright, I get it, I get it.”

    “Can I get a new judge now?”


      • My pappy didn’t even bother with that sort of warning. He gave us a rainbow real fast.

        Unbuckle seatbelt in the VW microbus.
        Reach back, swat a leg real hard, making it turn beet red.
        Put seatbelt back on.
        Never even slowed down.
        Later, beet red mark turns purple and blue.
        Later, purple and blue mark turns green and yellow.

        Yup, we got the rainbow quite often.


  5. They do say, “Give in to temptation, it may not pass your way again.”

    Of course, context matters.

    Giving in to trying a rare single malt is different from, say, cheating on your wife. Both may be one-offs, but one involves much more shame. (In case I’m ambiguous, having a shot of a rare single malt is to be done, cheating on your spouse is _not_ to be done.)

    In your case, give in to the urge to say “What part of ‘NO’ don’t you understand?” It is a perennial joy which will spring forth from the fertile legal grounds upon which Brett (and Bill) have spread so much bullshit. Just because it will come around again does not mean you should deny yourself the joy, today. Winter is coming.


  6. “One is tempted to ask, “What part of, ‘No!,’ do you not understand.””

    If that’s what the judge is asking, I’d respond with “what part of ‘you have never enforced sanctions’ don’t *you* understand”? The courts have the power to correct behaviour (aka, enforce the fricken law), they’re constantly choosing not to do so.

Leave a Reply