Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Brett Kimberlin tried to use discovery in his various LOLsuits as fishing expeditions to dig up dirt on his perceived enemies, and he was frustrated when most of the cases were terminated before discovery began. OTOH, he routinely failed to live up to his obligations during the discovery phase of the LOLsuits he filed. The TKPOTD for for eight years ago today dealt with one of his attempts to avoid responding to interrogatories.

* * * * *

Here’s the answer that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin provided for the interrogatories I sent him through my counsel as a part of discovery in his Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit.Won'tAnswerBrett Kimberlin is convicted perjurer. Maryland is one of several states that does not permit anyone who has been convicted of perjury for testifying in court. (Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 9-104.) However, under the Maryland Rules relating to civil actions in the Circuit Court, Kimberlin is obligated to provide answers to my interrogatories under penalty of perjury unless he can convince a judge to issue a protective order relating to one or more particular questions.

While given under oath, answers to discovery interrogatories are not testimony. They are not covered by § 9-104 per se. Rule 2-421(d) says, “Answers to interrogatories may be used at the trial or a hearing to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence.” In the case of TDPK’s answers, § 9-104 would disallow any of his answers being used as testimony, but one of the uses of discovery is to develop information that will lead to useable evidence. It can show me and my codefendants which rocks to turn over.

TDPK’s vexatious lawsuits—Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.; Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al; and Kimberlin v. Kimberlin Unmasked—are all exercises in anti-First-Amendment shutuppery. He’s afraid of the truth being told about him. He afraid that more truth will be known about him.


UPDATE—Running Wolf clarifies TDPK’s statement.

* * * * *

The court didn’t buy Kimberlin’s argument, and he was ordered to answer or not be able to offer evidence related to the interrogatories.

Also, I should correct on item. At the time of the LOLsuits mentioned in the post, Maryland was the last state prohibiting testimony from convicted felons. However, the state senator representing Kimberlin’s district proposed a bill to remove that disability, and the bill became law. This backfired on Kimberlin, because he could then be forced to either testify or invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Leave a Reply