The core claim at the center of all of Brett Kimberlin’s LOLsuits against me was defamation, and a statement must be false in order to be defamatory. Kimberlin claimed that it was false to refer to him as a pedophile. During discovery in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. suit, the only one of his cases to get that far, I asked him what evidence he had to show what I had reported was false. The TKPOTD for seven years ago today dealt with his effort to dodge those interrogatories.
* * * * *
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin doesn’t want to answer the interrogatories that I sent him as part of discovery in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance suit. For example—Irrelevant to the case? Really? I thought TDPK was suing me because he says I have called him a pedophile. This is from his complaint—
This is found on page 78 of Citizen K:
His [Kimberlin’s] attachment to Jessica was quite a different matter. Their weekly after-school outings, Kimberlin said, were “very special days” for her. … For three consecutive summers, 1974 through 1976, they took vacations for a week or longer in Disney World, Mexico, and Hawaii. Sandi [“Jessica’s” mother] couldn’t get time off from work, so on these summer trips it was just the two of them—Brett and Jessica.
Eyebrows levitated. A drug-dealing colleague had memories of conversations with Kimberlin that struck him as odd: “We’d see a girl who was pubescent or prepubescent, and Brett would get this smile and say, ‘Hey, what do you think? Isn’t she great?’ It made me very uncomfortable.” Another recalled Kimberlin introducing Jessica as “my girlfriend,” and if irony was intended, it was too subtile to register.
<sarc>Nothing to see here. Move along.</sarc>
* * * * *
Kimberlin lost that case because he failed to present any evidence that anything I or my codefendants has written or said about him was false.