Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


I’m not making this up, you know.

After spending years trying to use the courts to suppress the First Amendment rights of people who have written truthful things about him, Brett Kimberlin included this sentence in his failed motion to unseal his informal opening brief in his appeal of the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit—

Appellant has a right under the First Amendment to appeal in public.

No. He doesn’t. His right to a public trial and, by extension, a public appeal is not secured under the First Amendment. IANAL, but the last time I checked the Bill of Rights, due process rights are secured by the Fifth Amendment.

Patrick Frey’s due process rights are also protected by the Fifth Amendment. His lawyers were able to convince a federal judge that certain information given to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin during discovery in the RICO Remnant LOLsuit should have been sealed in order to protect Frey’s rights (and possibly the rights of third parties). TDPK repeatedly asked the District Court to unseal that information, and he was never able to provide a reason why Patterico’s rights should not have been protected.

TDPK’s motion to unseal is timestamped as being received by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals at 10:06 Monday morning. The order denying his motion was docketed at 12:01:59 Tuesday afternoon. It didn’t take the court long to see through his frivolous argument.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

14 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. “Information exchanged by the parties during discovery is not
    subject to a First Amendment or common-law public right of
    access.” 46

    46. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984) (“pretrial
    depositions and interrogatories are not public components of a civil trial”);
    Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1118–20 (3d Cir. 1986)
    (the standard for issuing a discovery protective order is good cause; First
    Amendment concerns are not a factor); In re Gannett News Serv., Inc., 772
    F.2d 113, 116 (5th Cir. 1985) (“The results of pretrial discovery may be
    restricted from the public.”); Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1066 (7th Cir.
    2009) (“[T]here is no constitutional or common-law right of public access
    to discovery materials exchanged by the parties but not filed with the court.
    Unfiled discovery is private, not public.”); Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Assoc.,
    565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[discovery] documents are not
    part of the judicial record”); United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438,
    1441 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Discovery, whether civil or criminal, is essentially
    a private process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole
    purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation.”).

    Kimberlin mentioned one of those cases by accident in his brief yesterday because it mentioned Seattle Times. The case he used spoke to criminal plea and sentencing hearings only. He would’ve realized it by reading the first and second paragraph of the ruling. His reading comprehension must be really poor or he’s really stupid.

    If I may mansplain it to Kimberlin; the 6th amendment guarantees a right to a speedy and public trial in a criminal trial only. As for a civil case and discovery being unsealed, until Patrick Frey becomes such a public interest news story and you see his name on every news channel and paper in America because he did something wrong or criminal like Bill Cosby, unsealing those docs won’t be happening.

    Btw, if Bill Cosby ever gets convicted I predict an appeals court will toss his conviction because of the way his discovery was released.

    • It’s hard to believe that one’s “comprehension must be really poor or he’s really stupid” when one is already convinced he is the smartest, bestest pro se lawyer/prosecutor in the Universe. So TDPK simply assumes that laws and court decisions mean what he wants them to. He’s the one who taught BlubberBoy after all.

  2. In other words, the “offender” is BS, or VA/bank enacting security protocols, but admitting it would ruin his false victim narrative.

  3. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 10.18.17 : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s