I’ll just leave this right here.
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
UPDATE—After I wrote this post and set the timer for it to go up just after midnight, I decided that I’d comment on the Kimberlins’ motions now that the Court has ruled on them. Let’s look at the “Corrected” Motion for Summary Judgement first.
The Kimberlins tried to argue that because they won the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit, they were entitled to a free pass in mine. However, I was not a party to that lawsuit and did not have an opportunity to present my side of my case to that judge and jury. The right to be heard and present one’s evidence is a fundamental part of due process. Thus, the findings the Walker case should not estop me from making claims, and they should not provide a res judicata shield to the Kimberlins. Also, I believe that the actual admissible evidence in the record showed that the Kimberlins were misrepresenting the findings in both the Walker lawsuit and the 2015 peace order petition hearings.
It seems that the court also wasn’t buying Brett Kimberlin’s specious claims that litigation privilege covered his emails that form the basis of my defamation claims against him.
Given all the defamation lawsuits he’s lost because of dismissals for failure to state a claim, it shouldn’t be surprising that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin would incorrectly claim that I have not alleged damages in my complaint—or that the court would disagree with him and side with me on that point. (Perhaps the Cabin Boy™ should take note of the court’s multiple refusals to find that I have not properly alleged damages.)
There seemed to be a great many technical problems with the motion as well, but IANAL, and I don’t want to educate the midget any more than necessary.
Now, let’s consider the motion to sanction me for writing to Judge Mason to inform him that the Kimberlins had listed him as a witness they intended to call. The motion was purely frivolous. Moreover, it was stupid, and that stupidity was compounded by the Kimberlins attaching a copy of my letter that showed that they were misrepresenting what I told the judge. I find it interesting that Judge Hecker ruled on the motion so quickly, only a week after I filed my opposition.
I don’t yet know the reason why my motion to strike the Kimberlins’ “corrected” motion was denied. One obvious reason could be that my motion became moot once the Kimberlins’ motion failed.