Author Archives: wjjhoge

About wjjhoge

An expert on nothing with opinions on everything.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Posted on by
1

Yesterday’s TKPOTD dealt with one of The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s failure to pay attention to details. So does today’s which originally ran five years ago. This was one of my favorites of his screwups.

* * * * *

Here’ another example of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s carelessness in his pleadings. It’s from the prayer for relief in his proposed second amended complaint.ECF 100-2k$2,000.000 is two-thousand dollars. The last time I checked, $2,000 does not exceed $75,000.

That math error is not the only consequential problem with that claim.

#Fail

* * * * *

Math is hard.

I’m Old Enough to Remember When …

Posted on by
2

… Democrats thought that government spying on political campaigns was a bad idea. Attorney General Barr is about my age, and he seems to have similar memories of the ’60s and ’70s. K. S. Bruce has a post at InsideHook about Barr’s answer to a senator’s question about why he thought he should investigate such spying.

“The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam War period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government, and there were a lot of rules in place to make sure that there’s an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance.”

I remember COINTELPRO and Watergate.

The Vietnam War generation — the Woodstock generation — having seen J. Edgar Hoover and an out of control CIA, would have concerns over a J. Edgar Comey, a J. Edgar McCabe, a J. Edgar Brennan, a J. Edgar Strozk, if they carelessly or with bias began improper surveillance on election campaign teams of ANY party or cause.

J. Edgar Mueller?

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Posted on by
3

Shoddy workmanship is a characteristic of almost everything Brett Kimberlin does. One obvious example is his “music.” Another example is his failure to attend to such a simple requirement as sequentially numbering paragraphs in a court paper. This TKPOTD is from four years ago today.

* * * * *

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) states: “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs …” Here’s how The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin numbered the paragraphs in his Kimberlin v. Team Themis, et al. RICO2 Electric Boogaloo suit.

Unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, unnumbered, unnumbered, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, unnumbered, unnumbered, unnumbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 ,130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141

popcorn4bkThe “reasoning” presented in those paragraphs is even more poorly organized that their numbering.

Meanwhile, the time to file an amended complaint without first seeking the court’s permission has passed. So has the time to file an opposition to my motion to dismiss the suit against me.

Tick, tock.

* * * * *

It took a while, but the District Court eventually granted both my motions to dismiss, one for lack of jurisdiction and the other for failure to state a claim. The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal which wound up awarding me a $600 sanction against Kimberlin “for filing a frivolous appeal in violation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.”