16 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


  1. Anyone know off-hand what the SOLs are on civil rights claims in MD? I don’t recognize some of these names, but it seems like the deceased could not possibly have even attempted to prevent Kimberlin from testifying in a case filed after they died. Is he going to allege these other folks appeared on a highway in disguise? Maybe they trick or treated at his house in a particularly scary way, some recent Halloween. Conspired to do so via email?

    Does he think pedophiles are a protected class? Perjurers? Drug dealers? Pipsqueaks?


  2. Anne Ingalls – Deputy District Attorney
    Stephen Cooley – Former District Attorney of LA County
    Estate of Jerry Barnes – Carroll County State’s Attorney
    Kenneth Tregoning – Former Sheriff of Carroll County, MD
    Estate of Andrew Brietbart – self-explanatory. Obviously suing his wife.
    Stephen Bannon – Duh
    Larry Solov – Author at Brietbart
    Larry O’Conner – Talk Radio Host
    Chuck DeFeo – Former Deputy Chief of Staff / Chief Digital Officer for the RNC
    Alexander Marlow – Editor-in-Chief of Brietbart
    Brandon Darby – Director of Brietbart Texas / Former Informant for FBI (a real one) unlike the midget pedophile.
    Elizabeth Sheld – Author at Brietbarta


  3. So filing under seal was a request from Frey’s attorney? If true, it kind of undercuts the assumption some leapt to that the sealing was just “unethical” Hazel running amok. Instead, it’s Frey’s counsel getting their way. If it’s not true, I expect Frey’s counsel will file an opposition calling him a liar. Either works for me.


    • It’s not and was not argued to be the sealing. It’s allowing the case to still be in existence for a month already. It’s allowing this very familiar plaintiff to abuse the court system as political activism. Hazel was quite prompt about dismissing a Kimberlin case sua sponte when the defendants had the power to hold his tolerance for lawfare against him. That Kimberlin complied with a protective order already in place, is not some big favor to Frey.


      • “It’s not and was not argued to be the sealing.” Categorically false. Rightly or wrongly, people on the other thread’s comments complained about the sealing. Not everything is about you, so perhaps read Proverbs 28:1?
        Also, who said this was a big favor? Was he from Oz and singing “If I only had a brain?” You really do enjoy your straw men… /ignore


        • There’s exactly one commenter, A Reader, who criticized the seal, not realizing why it was in place before the motion to seal was posted.
          A Reader is multitalented, but not plural.

          You’re a liar, as well as ignorant of logic, and unable to tell a statement if fact from an argument, much less a straw man.


          • There were exactly three commenters, A Reader, W, and Canuckamuck who all expressed their displeasure with the sealing, not that there’s anything wrong with their opinions, just that they might change some now that we know more about why. I know you can count that high, but the difference between us is I choose to assume you made a simple mistake, not that you blatantly lied about it to try to smear me. Of course leaping to yet another faulty conclusion of mala fides didn’t help vindicate your last decision to do so either. The gentle reader can draw their own conclusion as to who’s consistently making sense, and who’s pounding the table.

            Look, I’m sorry the logic eluded you, and maybe that’s my fault for somehow being syntactically inscrutable, I won’t rule it out. So maybe let’s try a metaphor instead: Pretend I operate a soup kitchen that feeds the hungry… would you insist that, by not feeding people who aren’t hungry, I must secretly hate them? Hopefully not. Now IF I went around intentionally starving the people who wouldn’t otherwise be hungry, THEN you might safely assume I have a bias against satiated people. See the difference? So if someone who needs leniency receives indulgence, and someone who DOES NOT NEED leniency receives no spontaneous indulgence. that does not demonstrate a prejudice against the competent person…. they might very well have received indulgence had they needed leniency, the opportunity never arose to find out. Now IF the competent person was being persecuted with unreasonable strictness that wasn’t applied to the incompetent person, THEN you’d have a legitimate concern. But that never happened. The judge never, for example, gave TDPK an extension on discovery, and then turned around to say “But yours is still due immediately Hoge! Bwahaha!” If Mr. Hoge had violated the FRCP in the same way, but was instantly sanctioned while TDPK walked, that would be convincing evidence, but that never happened either. See the difference? The judge exercising leniency WITHOUT exercising malice doesn’t demonstrate maliciousness, JUST leniency. This is tautological.

            You can disagree with the decision to be lenient with TDPK; great! We’re actually on the same page there. If you want to read more nefarious motives into it, be my guest! You may even be completely right! Just don’t pretend that’s ironclad reasoning, that there’s something wrong with those who aren’t buying what you’re selling, nor that what I just laid out for you is somehow logically incomprehensible to anyone who wasn’t instantly defensive to begin with. Even if you still disagree with all of it for whatever reason, it doesn’t matter because the difference is I calmly and rationally laid it out, which is going to persuade a lot more reasonable readers than a name-calling tantrum.

            Now take that whole argument and throw it out the window, because that wasn’t the original discussion anyway. That alleged “illogic” and “lying” (which we’ve shown was neither) was just the strawman (plain for everyone to see) you chose to pummel in place of the actual salient point that “antagonizing the judge helps no one.” No idea why you chose to take exception to that innocuous statement in the first place, maybe it made you self-conscious about the sanctimonious high-dudgeon in which you apparently enjoy indulging? Maybe railing about the judge in public, however justifiably so, just wouldn’t be the same if you actually had to consider there might be consequences, so you’d rather pretend otherwise? I don’t know, and more importantly, I DON’T CARE. It was amusing at first, but if you keep digging like this, piling on the righteous indignation without ever entertaining the notion that you might actually have misread something, you’re going to go Full Schmalfeldt. The world doesn’t need two of them, so head back to the light.


          • AR was the only one of the three whose criticism of the seal was directed toward the judge for allowing it. That was the criterion you established. So yeah, you’re still full of shit. You’re not inscrutable, confusing, or even slightly subtle. Just unable to support any of your points with even one actual fact. Bad analogies don’t cut it. Kimberlin isn’t a soup kitchen client in the court room. He’s often the most experienced litigator before the bench. Since you’ve been following the entire saga so much longer than anyone else, maybe you should be aware of that.


          • You should be the NFL commissioner for how much you enjoy moving goal posts. I apologize, you just demonstrated you also don’t understand how metaphors work, so I really shouldn’t have used another one. If you are unhappy with an action, and a person performed that action, you are inherently or implicitly unhappy that the person who performed that action. This is not rocket science. You said no one, you were wrong. You tried to qualify not multiple (as if that mattered), you were still wrong. You tried to qualify how direct the criticism was (as if that mattered), you were still wrong. Weasel-wording your way out of another categorical falsehood isn’t fooling or impressing anyone, Brett.

            I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and take the trouble to explain why you were failing to grasp the basic logic… leading you to bitch and moan about my use of the words strict/lenient because you STILL don’t understand it. But I guess there are none so blind as he who just refuses to see. Golly Miss Cleo, we sure are glad you’re here to divine what everyone else means and intends rather than reading their plain language. Why don’t you divine what I actually mean when I tell you to have a nice day?


    • Yeah. I’d wager Trump’s victory was not something the Domestic Terrorist Brett “The Speedway Bomber” Kimberlin was counting on.

      Heh.


  4. I have said it before . Some judge needs to have the guts to stop,him and declare him a vexatious litigant. He harms people just by filing and pressing lawsuits.

Leave a Reply