Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Ever since I became aware of Bret Kimberlin’s campaign of lawfare to silence his critics, I have held a low opinion of him. For a couple of years, I thought it would be impossible for him to slouch lower in my estimation. It turned out I was wrong. His abusive use of Tetyana Kimberlin’s elder daughter as a pawn in his lawfare … I’d better not finish that sentence except to say that it was disturbing.

The TKPOTD from four years ago today presented transcripts of some of the bench conversation between Judge Johnson and The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial. It’s rather long and continues below the fold.

* * * * *

It was fairly clear from the early days of the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s strategy included putting the older Kimberlin daughter on the stand to testify how she had been injured by TDPK’s reputation. He told Judge McGann during the 1 July hearing on summary judgment that

… I’m going to present that at trial. My daughter’s going to testify, she’s going to get up on that stand and she’s going to cry, and she’s going to say that my friends can’t even spend the night at my house because these guys have told their parents that I’m a pedophile.

One major flaw in his plan was that she was not a competent witness to anything that was admissible concerning TDPK’s claims against us defendants. Judge Johnson tried to explain that to him and to persuade him to avoid subjecting the girl to being put on the stand.

BEGIN BENCH CONFERENCE

THE COURT: Who is your first witness?

MR. KIMBERLIN: My daughter.

THE COURT: Now, what — what is her what’s the purpose of calling her?

MR. KIMBERLIN: She’s going to testify —

THE COURT: You are the plaintiff in this case, she’s not a party.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, she’s not a party, but she’s going to testify about things that have occurred to us, things that have occurred to her and the harm that’s occurred to her about —

THE COURT: In terms of —

MR. KIMBERLIN: — and she’s going to talk about —

THE COURT: In terms of what? I mean, that has occurred to her? I mean —

MR. KIMBERLIN: She’s going to talk about my wife and she’s going to talk about the fact that I’m not a pedophile, that I don’t — I mean, she needs to testify. She needs to talk about the harm. She’s been bullied out of two schools because of the things these guys have said.

MR. OSTRONIC: Unless there’s a direct connection, I mean, it’s —

THE COURT: How are you going to prove that, though?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I’m going to put her on the stand and let her testify about the things that have happened at school because of the things that are online.

THE COURT: You mean, things that have been said to her?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Things that have been said to her, things that have been done to her, things that —

THE COURT: That’s total hearsay. How is it admissible under the rules of evidence?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, it’s not hearsay if what happened to her as a result of it occurred.

THE COURT: Look, if it’s an out-of-court statement, and obviously, these were statements that were made out of court, things people said to her — deputy, you can bring somebody out. I don’t care who.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m not going to ask her — your honor, I’m not going to ask her what other people said. I’m going to ask her what she said and what happened to her, and I’m going to ask her about my wife, and I’m going to ask her about —

THE COURT: But what is the segue? How does it connect to these defendants? See, you’re going to have to prove what each one of these individuals did, and what is she going to testify that any one of these men did to her?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, that they posted stuff —

THE COURT: You can’t say they.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay, that — and I will get to that. I’m going to call each one of these defendants as a witness, and I’m going to show that — I mean, I would like to get my daughter done first, you know. If they want me to put them on the stand first, then —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. KIMBERLIN: — and show that they’ve called me a pedophile, and that’s been on the Internet, all over the Internet, every single day for years —

THE COURT: Well, that’s up to you, I mean —

MR. KIMBERLIN: But I would rather put her on the stand —

THE COURT: But I’m concerned about a 15-year-old child.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, she has been through this. She has lived it.

THE COURT: But what I’m saying, what is she going to say that — I’ll just use Mr. Akbar. What is she going to say he did?

MR. KIMBERLIN: She may not say anything that he did, other than that he posted tweets on the Internet that I’m a pedophile.

THE COURT: How can she testify to that?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I’m not saying that she’s going to testify to it. I’ll say she will testify that she was bullied out of two schools in Montgomery County —

THE COURT: Because of him?

MR. KIMBERLIN: — because of these guys.

THE COURT: Because of him?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m not saying because of him, but because of what they said on the Internet, and —

THE COURT: The conspiracy count is gone, so you won’t be able to use they.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Then I won’t say they. I will say, you know, they defendants, they called me a pedophile on the Internet, that this was used and read — I have to show that this was publicly put out there —

THE COURT: You do, but I don’t know how you’re going to do it through your daughter.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I’m not going to do it through my daughter. It’s just that I’m putting her on the stand first. I’m going to do it through them. I’m going to show that they did this —

THE COURT: Maybe you should call them, because what I’m hearing is, I don’t know what it is she can — you need to say — there’s four defendants left, you need to show what each one of them did, not they.

MR. KIMBERLIN: All right. But can —

THE COURT: You’re going to have to connect the conduct to each individual man.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I understand, and that’s why I’m just trying to lay the foundation first, and then let her go and —

THE COURT: But you’re going to have to do it through admissible testimony. I mean —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay, I will.

THE COURT: — she can’t just get up there and testify about what was going on in the family or any of that. Because, first of all, how do you connect that to — it’s like saying, you sat next to somebody and they had a cold, and you caught a cold. You can’t — there’s no segue there.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, because they’re the only ones that were on the Internet — I mean, not they. These defendants were on the Internet promoting this false meme, this false narrative of pedophilia. I mean, defamatory.

THE COURT: Well, my question still is: How does your daughter testify to that?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, she testifies to what happened to her because of this. I have to prove some harm and show some harm.

THE COURT: What’s the segue? How can you prove that what happened to her is a direct result of — I’m using this gentleman because he had the — how do you prove that?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, if she was bullied out of two schools, if she suffered out of two schools because of people going on the Internet and reading the fact that I’m a pedophile, then that’s harm. That is absolute harm, and I need to show that.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. OSTRONIC: Your honor, I’ll also point out that there’s two other defendants in this case which also he’s alleging the same thing against, so they’re not part of this whole thing, either.

THE COURT: You’re going to have to connect the testimony to a particular defendant, not just broad generalities, okay?

END BENCH CONFERENCE

There was another, much longer, exchange between Judge Johnson and TDPK during which the judge tried to dissuade Kimberlin from putting a 15 year old girl on the stand. He did it anyway, and her testimony was not germane to the case. After she had been on the stand for a while, our lawyer intervened.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, your honor. This is —

THE COURT: Come up here.

BEGIN BENCH CONFERENCE

THE COURT: I’ve asked you this question. What does that have to do with the cause of action that you have filed claiming that you, not your daughter, you, were defamed, and that you were shown in a false light? Now, if she was a party, and was alleging that they had said things about her, that would be one thing. But what does she have to do with this?

MR. KIMBERLIN: She was bullied —

THE COURT: Come up.

MR. KIMBERLIN: She was —

THE COURT: Let’s assume everything you say is true. What does that have to do with what you have filed in your lawsuit? You just can’t bring in anything you want to bring in because —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Because these guys defamed me and said I was a pedophile, and it went down to her, and caused her problems.

THE COURT: But you have no cause of action for that. That’s the problem.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well — then I’ll —

THE COURT: She’s not a party.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’ll stay away from —

THE COURT: Sustained.

END BENCH CONFERENCE

TDPK kept trying to use her to introduce evidence, but she could not testify from her personal knowledge and experience to anything that was relevant. Finally, Judge Johnson had had enough, and he shutdown the questioning—but not before TDPK tried to sneak in a few more questions about the girl’s music career.

THE COURT: You need to do whatever you need to do with admissible evidence pursuant to the rules of evidence and to the law, and I’ve allowed you some — I’ve given you a long leash —

MR. KIMBERLIN: You have —

THE COURT: — I’ve let you run pretty far out there. But I’m not pulling you back in.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Do you want this to stop?

WITNESS: Definitely. Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Is it — do you think it’s hurting you and your career?

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Is it affecting —

THE COURT:  Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No further questions.

MR. OSTRONIC: Thank you, your honor. No questions here, your honor.

MR. AKBAR: None at all.

And with that TDPK rested his case.

* * * * *

And then the judge granted judgment in favor of us defendants because Kimberlin hadn’t put on any evidence that we had defamed him or presented him in a false light.

But he wasn’t smart enough to cut his losses. He kept his RICO Madness LOLsuit alive, filed the RICO II: Electric Boogaloo and RICO Retread LOLsuits, lost all of them, appealed all his losses, and lost all his appeals.

And he wasn’t through using Tetyana’s daughter as a pawn. He filed and lost a peace order petition against me in her name, and she wound up having to represent herself in court in that case. Then he filed a false criminal complaint against me based on the bogus allegations of that denied peace order.

How he’s used her has been horrible to watch.

4 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. I really hope the daughter’s real father is in her life, because she desperately needs a positive father/male figure. She needs to know that her stepfather Brett’s behavior is not normal or healthy.

  2. I really hope his losses are eating away at Kimberlin the way the eagle eats away at Prometheus’ liver. Psychic pain, for sure, but I’ll settle for that. For now.

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 )

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