I’m Not Making This Up, You Know


The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed his informal reply brief in his appeal of the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit, and it actually includes a bit of whining about an alleged ad hominem attack in the Frey response brief, i.e., truthful statements by Frey’s counsel Ron Coleman that relate to the facts of the LOLsuit.

TDPK also seems upset that Frey’s brief didn’t bother to address the case law cited in Kimberlin’s opening brief. I suspect that Ron Coleman didn’t bother because Kimberlin’s arguments are so patently wrong.

Stay tuned.

13 thoughts on “I’m Not Making This Up, You Know

  1. Brett is concerned with what he claims is unethical behavior? Isn’t this the guy that forged both green cards and a summons? His lack of self awareness rivals that of the homeless pathetic excuse of a man Schmalfeldt.

    • Forget it, TOLF, it’s Kimbytown.

      Why is it every time I read through one of his filings, I keep going to the term “whiny bitch” to describe him?

  2. Kimberlin says this:

    “The entire opening paragraph of Frey’s response is an improper ad hominem attack on Appellant with no reference to the record because there is none. The only reason for Frey to make such a prejudicial opening was to attempt to poison or influence this Court’s decision on the legal merits. This violates numerous rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.”

    This was the First Paragraph:

    Appellant Brett Kimberlin is a convicted bomber and perjurer who became upset at Appellee Patrick Frey when Mr. Frey wrote about Kimberlin’s criminal history on a blog. Kimberlin is a serial pro se litigant, who has said of his critics, “It’s going to be endless lawsuits for the rest of their lives.” 1 In fact, Kimberlin has boasted of filing over a hundred lawsuits, one of which was against judges of this Court. (See Kimberlin v. Judges of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals , 188 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 1999).) In this case, the court below correctly rejected Kimberlin’s claim against Mr. Frey.

    I must’ve missed the ad hominem due to all that factual shrapnel flying by….

    • The first part isn’t ad hominem, it’s the theory of the case. “Our argument is that he sued originally because he got angry we said these things, which are true as far as every court so far has been concerned.” There is no way that a lawyer wouldn’t be able to state his theory of the case. The second part might be ad hominem, but questioning a person’s character and behavior is only wrong when it is irrelevant. A person’s marital history (divorce, affairs, etc) might not have bearing on his theories about global warming, but is highly relevant to any future potential mates. Ad hominem is only a fallacy when irrelevant. In any case, the second part is pretty much their theory of the appeal. “He publicly stated more or less he’d use the court’s process to punish his enemies.”

      I REALLY don’t see a reprimand coming.

      Also, he’s weirdly obsessive about repeating “..in the light most favorable to the appellant.” I don’t really feel it requires repeating?

  3. That was hilarious. Especially when he cites a case about objecting to a magistrate’s ruling in an appellate case …. completely hilarious.

    The Dread Pedo also fails to understand what’s required in an informal brief and his frivolous demand to reprimand Coleman will be greeting with much laughter in chambers.

  4. Kimberlin’s informal brief was composed of solely slinging excrement at the wall to see what stuck. Since it stuck to the wall and not Frey, now he’s pointing at the excrement and screaming, “Mommy Appeals Court, I missed and made a mess! Make the big meany stop with the pointing and laughing and talking calmly. I want him to wallow in the stuff I threw at the wall!”

    As usual, It’s not going to work. At all.

    Brett, you’d have better luck working as an under-the-furniture-cleaner. Unlike the rest of us, you won’t have to bend over, at all.

  5. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 11.07.17 : The Other McCain

  6. I was reading the case Coleman cited after reading Kimberlin’s response to it. I can’t say that I’m shocked Kimberlin didn’t realize that Raub is exactly like this case. Surely Kimberlin has a GS-13 friend with remarkable legal and reading comprehension skills that could.. wait..

    *munches more popcorn..

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