Legal LULZ Du Jour

Here’s a snippet from The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s cross examination of me in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial that shows the difficulty he has in presenting a coherent case.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m going to show you Exhibit 31.

MR. HOGE: Oh, yeah. These are the forged comments that you, ah, tried to introduce in the, ah, peace order hearing back in March, of, ah, 2015.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Do you recognize that [unintelligible]?

THE COURT: He says that they’re forged, so he cannot authenticate them.

20 thoughts on “Legal LULZ Du Jour

  1. Did the court provide a step stool for him to pass documents? I’m having a little trouble imagining how documents were getting introduced by him.

  2. First rule for pro-se pedo-bombers: Don’t ask a question for which your hostile witness already has a brilliant retort.

      • In the first actual trial w/Kimberlin v. McCain, Hoge, Akbar and Walker…Brett INSISTED on asking “why do you think I’m a pedophile?”
        This was not the correct question to ask, of people who’d read Citizen K, heard his music and knew the relative ages of Kimberlin and Mrs. Kimberlin.

  3. I’m still waiting on the trial write up from BU showing how the jury carefully considered everything and found Mr. and Mrs. Pedo to be big fat liar heads.

  4. when the only one learning from your mistakes are your opponents, it’s already past time to hang it up.

Leave a Reply