Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

I’ve been reviewing the transcripts of various trials and hearings involving The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin. One of the main weaknesses in his cases is his apparent inability to construct logical arguments showing a cause-and-effect relationship between the damages he claims to have suffered and imagined actions of the adverse parties in the cases.

This exchange from TDPK’s testimony during the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial last year is a good example of the sort of unsubstantiated claims he makes. Kimberlin had been trying to tell the jury about how Aaron Walker had placed the Kimberlin family under siege, and Judge Mason as been sustaining objection after objection because no factual basis is being offered for TDPK’s testimony. (Note: Aaron Walker was not one of the founders of the National Bloggers Club, and it was founded and operating before Kimberlin began attacking bloggers such as Aaron Walker.)

THE COURT: Again, Mr. Kimberlin, until you link it to Mr. Walker, I sustain the objection. So, you can tell us about anything that Mr. Walker did, or something that somebody else has acknowledged that they did in concert with Mr. Walker. That is, Mr. Hoge’s the only person we heard from, so Mr. Hoge acknowledged.

MR. KIMBERLIN: All right. Mr. Walker is a founding or a member of a group called the National Bloggers’ Club. The National Blogger’s Club is a group of conservative bloggers. It was formed to target me.

MR. WALKER: Does he have —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Mr. Walker has already —

THE COURT: Wait one sec.

MR. WALKER: What is the foundation?

MR. KIMBERLIN: — testified about this —

THE COURT: Wait one second.

MR. WALKER: What is the foundation?

THE COURT: Wait one second.

MR. WALKER: What is the foundation for that claim?

THE COURT: Okay. So, you’re saying that Mr. Walker formed National Blogger’s Club?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Mr., Mr. Walker has already testified on —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Did he testify here in court?

MR. KIMBERLIN: — in court today, you know, that he received at least $5,000, I believe he said, or —


MR. KIMBERLIN: — thousands of dollars.

THE COURT: $2,000, I believe he said.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Whatever.

MR. WALKER: No, not on that.

MR. KIMBERLIN: From the National Blogger’s Club, and that he has a donate button on his front page —

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. KIMBERLIN: — that donates to the National Blogger’s Club.

THE COURT: Correct.


THE COURT: Okay. But if that’s the foundation, I sustain the objection.

TDPK is correct about one thing. All of the cases involving him deal with false narratives. But he’s wrong about who created them.

16 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. Or at least who tries (futilely) to create them. There’s a simpler word for a person who does that: Liar.

    But we know that about you already as a judicially determined fact, don’t we, Brett?

    • Generally such psychopaths don’t have the same audience over time and are not held to a verifying process. They get used to not getting caught and rely on sounding emotionally plausible. Too bad for them that they tried that crap on a couple of people who won’t give in. Not.

      • In the Circuit Court for Montgomery County most pre-trial motions are heard by the duty judge for the court on the day the motion is heard. Thus, seven different judges heard motions in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. case before a eighth judge tried the case, so none of the judges were able to hear TDPK more than once.

        Now, a single judge hears everything related to Brett Kimberlin in that court, and much of TDPK’s inconsistency is being caught.

    • I do not think psychopaths lie in the traditional sense. They say things that are false but in their thoughts these are not lies. Anything that promotes their cause is the truth and anything that opposes their cause is a lie. So when Aaron claims not to have beaten up Bret after court (famous iPad fight) that’s is a lie to Bret even if it is true. If Bret makes false statements in court they are the truth as long as they support his case. Logic and reasoning will never convince him otherwise, nor any type of punishment.

      • I don’t know about that last. I can think of a few medieval-type punishments that neither tiny terrorists nor fail whales would want to experience more than once. Granted, the Eighth Amendment prohibits such punishments but since we’re not using that old Constitution much anymore (it’s over a hundred years old, y’know) that protection might not really be there.

  2. He’s a Lib. In Liberally do emotion carries the day, and He who out-shouts his opponent wins the contest. Logic is science fiction like Star Trek. He is honestly stunned and bewildered that he can’t win a case through trickery, deceit, and emotion.


  3. It is sop for the left to first postulate a convenient and self-serving standard and then try to restrict the debate to precisely that standard. One should never allow oneself to be drawn into such a rhetorical box, and, instead, note what all the relevant issues are. The Judge answered Kimberlin with “So what?” Kimberlin, like leftists came back with preening, posturing, and condescension.

  4. One of the main weaknesses in his cases is his apparent inability to construct logical arguments …

    One of the weaknesses?! That is his persistent fatal flaw. All I can figure is those drugs, back in the ’80s, must have scrambled his brains; the boy can’t rub two ideas together to save a nickle, much less his cases.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s