Dread Pirate Kimberlin has been engaging in lawfare by bringing frivolous legal action against people who have the effrontery to write the truth about him and his background. Fortunately, no one seems disposed to surrender, and some folks are pushing back. Of course, Brett Kimberlin views being on the receiving end of a lawsuit as unfair. He reminds me of a bully who whines when he gets hit back.
The most vigorous pushback is coming from Aaron Walker who is suing Mr. Kimberlin in both Virginia and federal courts. Mr. Kimberlin has made it clear that he does not intend to cooperate with discovery in these cases. On Tuesday, I posted the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by Mr. Walker’s lawyer Dan Backer in the Virginia case. It referred to several exhibits. On Wednesday, we looked at Exhibits A through D. Exhibit E, which we skipped over, consists of Certified Mail Receipts. Yesterday, we looked at Exhibits F through K.
Today, we’ll examine Mr. Kimberlin’s Motion for Continuance of Plantiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. IANAL, but I want to make a few comments on the motion. My numbers below track with the numbered paragraphs in the motion.
1. “Defendant will be out of state on September 14, 2012 for a previously scheduled meeting and so will not be available for the hearing.” So what? It has been my experience that, except in cases involving hospitalization, incarceration, appearance before another court, or other government business, most courts expect one to reschedule other activities and to show up as called.
2. The hearing on 14 September (that’s today) is the opportunity to “vigorously oppose” the Plaintiff’s motion.
3. “… working with law enforcement …” If a legitimate law enforcement agency were to want the hearing delayed because of possible impact on an ongoing investigation, that agency would contact the court. [Cue the crickets.]
4. “.. virtually all the discovery requests demand some admission of criminal liability.” This would only be correct if truthful answers to the questions would be incriminating. Well? Is this a tacit admission of wrongdoing?
5. One of the complaints filed in Maryland relates to apparent discrepancies between Mr. Kimberlin’s sworn statements and video evidence of the event in question. More info here and here.
6. Whether or not someone believes Mr. Kimberlin should be back in prison has no bearing on whether or not Mr. Kimberlin engaged in any of the tortious acts alleged.
7. Once again, IANAL, but Mr. Kimberlin’s assertion of absolute immunity from discovery under the Fifth Amendment is not in line with what lawyers have told me. They tell me that in order to invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil case a witness must have “reasonable cause to apprehend danger” of criminal liability. An assertion of absolute immunity would seem to be an admission that truthful answers to almost every question would tend to expose illegal activity by Mr. Kimberlin.
8. If Mr. Kimberlin wants to file motions that he thinks will stop discovery, he should file them in a timely manner. If he needs a bit more time because he is proceeding pro se (that’s legal Latin for on his own, i.e., without a lawyer), fine. But three more months?
Brett Kimberlin seems to be trying to delay justice. That doesn’t surprise some folks—given, for instance, his history of failure to pay the DeLong judgment.
We’ll see how the hearing goes in Virginia today.
Meanwhile, this post and the others over the past few days contain several interesting bits of information that I haven’t discussed yet. If you’ve noticed something, feel free to discuss it among yourselves. Comments are open but moderated.
I will be posting more documents related to the case tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Tick, tick, tick, tick, …