Yesterday and the day before, I wrote about Aaron Walker’s appeal of the Walker v Maryland, et al. lawsuit that is before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Two days ago, I summarized the background of the case. Yesterday, I dealt with Aaron’s appeal of the constitutionality of the Maryland laws used by the Kimberlins to bring the false criminal charges underlying the civil suit. Today, I’ll take a look at the case as it relates to the Kimberlins.
I’m not going to go into much detail about Aaron’s appeal. It’s based on errors Aaron says were made by the Circuit Court during the trail; he’s seeking a new trial.
However, I am going to present an overview of the Kimberlins’ cross appeal. Yes, they are appealing their victory. Here are the main points they make in their cross appeal.
First, they argue that the Maryland statutes Aaron was charged under are constitutional. So what? Even if they had standing to argue on behalf to the State, the constitutionality of a law has nothing to do with whether it was used to maliciously prosecute someone.
Second, the Kimberlins argue that they should be immune from suit because of “victim’s litigation privilege.” As Judge Mason told them when they brought up that bogus defense during a hearing in the Circuit Court, if that if such a defense were proper, the tort of malicious prosecution could not exist. Even if it did, litigation privilege applies to the parties in a court action, and the Kimberlins were not parties in either of the State v. Walker cases.
Third, they argue that the Circuit court erred by not granting summary judgment in their favor. So what? They won at trial, so any such error is moot. Further, Judge Mason found that there were material facts in dispute which need to be presented to a jury, so summary judgment would have been improper.
Fourth, the Kimberlins argue that the Circuit Court erred when it sealed certain documents the they filed. Those documents made false and salacious claims about a third party who was not involved in the case. Sealing them was proper. Indeed, if the Court erred with respect to those documents, it was by failing to sanction the Kimberlins for filing them in violation of the Maryland Rules.
Fifth, they argue that the Circuit Court erred “by denying costs to the Kimberlins while granting costs to Walker.” That claim is, quite simply, a lie. The Circuit Court denied costs to both parties. Period. It did sanction Tetyana Kimberlin for failing to be deposed, and she has not yet paid that sanction.
Sixth, they argue that the Circuit Court erred by failing to correct the judgment to reflect the jury’s verdict sheet. The judgement states: “Specifically, Mr. Walker represented Tetyana Kimberlin as a lawyer on a pro bono basis and a legal defense fund was established originally with her consent.” The jury found that: “Kimberlin withheld that his wife was offered a defense fund and pro bono legal help.” So, The
Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin wants the judgment to be amended to point out how he lied by omission on one of the Applications for Statement of Charges. OK, maybe he should get that one.
Seventh, they claim that the Circuit Court erred by prohibiting them “from introducing evidence during the trial to establish motive and present a robust defense.” So what? They won. Any such error, if it happened (and it didn’t), is moot.
I’ve noted that the outcomes of this appeal and Schmalfeldt’s LOLsuit VIII would affect the next steps in my response to Team Kimberlin’s lawfare. Now, that the Cabin Boy’s™ frivolous suit is dead, we have only to wait for to see how the Court of Special Appeals rules before …
UPDATE—2018 JAN 05 05:12:00 UTC tag/brett-kimberlin
2018 JAN 05 05:25:00 UTC tag/walker-v-kimberlin-et-aal-appeal