Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Almost two years ago, there was a motions hearing in the Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II) RICO Retread LOLsuit. One of my codefendants was Mandy Nagy, and Mandy had recently suffered a debilitating stroke. Judge Mason engaged in the following exchange with The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin during that hearing.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this as a practical matter if what you want to do is to stop this, why sue an incompetent person? Why don’t you just dismiss her and let’s get rid of this piece of it?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I have, I’ve been in discussions about doing that over the last couple of weeks.

THE COURT: Okay, well let’s bring them to an end. Why are you going to pursue an incompetent person? Strategically how does that help you?

Eventually, TDPK did dismiss Mandy from the RICO Retread LOLsuit in order to bring the case to an end in the Circuit Court so that he could file his appeal. He then included her as one of the appellees.


43 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • There is not the word that accurately describes how much I agree with you. Adjudicated pedo bomber is one of the great stains on humanity. Suing Hoge or Aaron, or anyone else on team free speech to shut them up is horrible but at least the can fight back. Suing someone, who brought the truth to light about pedobomber and can no longer defend herself is personification of evil.

      Mac virtual machine running 10.13 beta, Office.

      • I run a Mac with multiple VMs too. But I can’t figure out how to get a OS X image that I can load into virtual box.

        Insights, WWFD?


        • It looks like you found the answer but after you download any OS from the Mac App Store the installer will sit in the application folder. It will be titled Install Mac OS (macOS Name)

  1. Kimberlin was hoping for a settlement. No cash, just something he could point to and say “Look she settled with me rather then face me in court”. Because Tiny Pedo has a VERY fragile ego and likes for people to think he’s tough. Probably why he has a thing for little girls too. Easier to threaten and physically overpower.

        • Click to embiggen; definitely to tame. Who was that pre-renaissance dude that ate mushrooms?

          Ah, yes; Bosch. I think he understood.

          • two “o”s in too… derp.

            Nurse! Get me 35 mg of C₈H₁₀N₄O₂ in solution! Stat!

    • That and he uses the settlements as some sort of narrative bargaining chip later. “well A, B, and C settled with me so clearly they were guilty and so you must be too.”
      It’s a brazen lie on multiple levels. I stopped going to the spectator after they settled. Been there maybe twice since then. I wanted to stop going to Ace’s place, but I like the horde to much. (I understand why he folded, his anonymity means a lot to him)

  2. If he dismissed her from his action, what is he trying to overturn concerning her? As far I can tell, “.Look what you made me do” is his strategy. That might work on Ukranian child brides but it doesn’t seem likely to do anything but make him look bad to the rest of the world.

  3. I mean I’m no lawyer but how can the court allow someone to be sued who is disabled to the point they can’t defend themselves and has no assets to recover as any assets or funds would be needed for her basic care? I just don’t get it. I don’t get why he should even have the option to do that.

    • There are two answers to your question.

      Let’s give one answer to your question through a hypothetical. Suppose A, who is a multimillionaire, gives toddler B a loaded pistol to play cops-and-robbers, and B shoots toddler C, who is now paralyzed for life. The parents of C sue A, who dies before trial. Do you think it unjust for the suit to continue so as to get funds to care for C from the property of A? Can you be more incompetent than being dead? If you have been wrongfully damaged, the damages don’t go away because the wrongdoer has died or beome incompetent. Civil cases are (supposed to be) about compensation for victims, not punishment. That’s the legal answer.

      Let’s give a second answer also through a hypothetical. Suppose K knowingly brings a spurious suit against N. N has a stroke and must be cared for by her elderly mother M. K continues the spurious suit to deprive N of the funds needed for N’s care and forces M to act as legal representative for N while M must also tend to the physical care of N. What is the moral status of K?

      The problem is not with the legal doctrine that civil suits can continue for damages after a defendant dies or becomes incompetent: the person damaged is still damaged until compensation is made. The problem is that the US legal system seldom imposes penalties for frivolous suits, and when penalties are imposed they are usually trivial. What is laughingly called the US justice system is a paradise for unscrupulous plaintiffs and prosecutors and a torture chamber for innocent defendants.

      • Theoretically, we have a separation of powers, providing checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches. In reality, the legislative and judiciary branches have effectively merged, through the advantages which lawyers have in seeking elective office. This could, of course, be remedied by truly a life-ban on officers of the courts being elected to the legislatures (a bar upon the bar, pun intended) and a like bar on legislators ever being called to the bar; a constitutional amendment. Without such a purge, civil-law reform through legislation is well-nigh impossible.

  4. Jerk? You’re too nice. We know there are better descriptions of him especially in relations to Julia Scyphers.

  5. IMO, the tiny pedobomber’s default setting as a person is ASSHOLE

    He can’t change it, he is an asshole all of the time

  6. “Very helpful to my case when the defendants continue to publish their defamatory remarks.”

    Nervous much, Cousin?

    Oh, and our protected opinions are not defamatory, moron.

    We are not going to shut up any time soon, so you can just keep huffing and puffing about the legal hurt you’re going to bring.

    Big talk, no (effective) action, that’s Cousin Bill the blowhard bully.

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