Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin tried to bring up his double secret exoneration during the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial. He tried to claim that he has successfully sued the federal government for false imprisonment and has used part of the settlement for the initial funding of Justice Through Music Project.

MR. KIMBERLIN: The settlement that I received from the Department of Justice —

MR. WALKER: Objection.

THE COURT: [Addressing the Jury] Ladies and gentlemen, if you’ll please wait outside for just a moment.

Jury Exits.

THE COURT: I have told you twice now we are not retrying that case, and we are not getting into any collateral action you may have brought against the federal government about your conviction in that case. The relevance of that conviction, it was only offered to show why he refers to you as a terrorist, why he’s perhaps obsessed with you [unintelligible] nature of that offense, and I would have permitted him to introduce it if you hadn’t because you sat here and told the jury that you had never been convicted of anything he had blogged about. That is the only reason that it is being admitted. We are not retrying that case. I do not want you to go into it in any more detail. —


THE COURT: — I do not want talk about any collateral civil suit thereafter, ah, sued the federal government for false imprisonment. And I’ve told you that twice. If you do it again, I will find you in contempt.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, the reason I was talking about the settlement from that case was partially used to start Justice Through Music.

THE COURT: It makes absolutely no difference and has no relevance to this particular case —


THE COURT: — how you started and how you funded Justice Through Music.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Alright, I won’t talk about it anymore.

THE COURT: Get the jury back in.

FWIW, Justice Through Music Project was founded in 2003. The JTMP 2005 Form 990 Schedule A shows that the corporation had no income that year and took in $121,450 in 2004.

Here are the cases styled Kimberlin v. U.S. Department of Justice that are reported cases (all have other citations at lower court levels)—

Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1986) was a bogus Privacy Act claim aimed at keeping Carl DeLong’s widow from collecting funds from his prison commissary.

Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 921 F.Supp. 833 (D.D.C. 1996) involved a FOIA request for DEA documents about Dan Quayle.

Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) was an FOIA request remanded by to the District Court.

Kimberlin, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 318 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) was his unsuccessful LOLsuit seeking to be able to possess an electric guitar while in prison.

None of these seem to represent a double secret exoneration.

Bonus Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

This exchange at the bench occurred between Judge Mason and The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin while Kimberlin was trying to keep information about his bombing convictions away from the jury during the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, you are being very unfair to me —


MR. KIMBERLIN: This man has, this, this —

THE COURT: Mr. Kimberlin, I’m not going to listen to this. As I’ve explained, you may think I’m being very unfair to you, I have bent over backwards to be fair to both sides in this case, including not granting the motion for summary judgment, probably at a time when I should have, because you had violated and your wife had violated the Rules left and right. But as a matter of discretion, and I think I said in fairness, even though he is probably entitled to a motion for summary judgment, this is a case that should be tried by jury, and the jury should hear this, and let them decide.


THE COURT: So I do not —


THE COURT: — wish to hear that I’ve been unfair to you. I kept this out, this information out entirely, although I thought it was probative, until you opened the door by lying to the jury.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I didn’t lie.

THE COURT: You did lie, sir. Let’s get the jury.

Lying liars gotta lie.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

One of the allegations The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin made in the Application for Statement of Charges filed against Aaron Walker in 2013 was that Aaron had falsely accused Kimberlin of being a rapist. The jury found that allegation by Kimberlin to be false. In other words, they found that Aaron did not falsely accuse Kimberlin of being a rapist. Now, the evidence before the jury included a blog post from Aaron that discussed the Application for Statement of Charges filed by Tetyana Kimberlin against her husband. That Application alleged that he had committed what in Maryland is called Third-Degree Sexual Offense and is commonly called “statutory rape.” Thus, the jury did not find that Aaron never made the accusation against TDPK. They found that Brett Kimberlin lied by saying Aaron’s statement was false.

That appears to be an finding on the merits.

The Gentle Reader may make of it what he will.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Originally, Judge Mason ruled that information about most of Brett Kimberlin’s criminal record would not come into evidence in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial because in might be more inflammatory than probative. That changed during The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s cross examination of Aaron Walker. This exchange occurred while the jury was out of the courtroom:

THE COURT: Ah, with respect to the bombing, as I discussed yesterday, you have now opened the door to that —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Alright, well I —

THE COURT: — my law clerk went back to the record this morning and listened and confirmed, and, ah, can read into the record if you like, but the record is what it is.

MR. KIMBERLIN: OK. Well, then I’m going to explain that then at the beginning, you know, and you know if we want to get into the bombing case, then I need to explain that.

THE COURT: That’s fine. Well, —

MR. KIMBELIN: You know —

THE COURT: You have opened the door to it —


THE COURT: — by telling the jury that you were, what exactly did he say, Ben?

LAW CLERK: Mr. Walker has accused me of criminal charges on his blog or in tweets of many, many crimes. I’ve never been arrested for any of those crimes. I have never been prosecuted for any of those crimes. I’ve never been sentenced for any of those crimes.

THE COURT: OK, and that specificly is not true.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, the way, OK, if you isolate it, but the sentence before that, I believe that I was talking about sex offense.

THE COURT: I don’t believe that the sentence before. At some time before —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Alright —

THE COURT: — you were talking about sex.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m going to clean that up.


MR. KIMBERLIN: If you let the bombing case in, I’m going to explain that the bombing case that I sued for false imprisonment, that I had a settlement with the Department of Justice, that I don’t have the case any more. I’m not on parole. That it was the first case ever to, to, I mean that it was the last case in the history of the United States to be allowed to use hypnosis. You want me to —


MR. KIMBERLIN: –this whole —

THE COURT: No, we are not getting into all that.

MR. KIMBERLIN: OK, then don’t get into the conviction.

THE COURT: Don’t tell me what to do. OK? You have made the fact of the bombing case admissible because you have misled the jury by saying you were never prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced for any crime that he blogged about. And one of the primary crimes he blogged about initially, the reason he refers to you as a terrorist has to do with this bombing. I kept it out because I felt that, potentially, it was more inflammatory that it was probative, although, frankly, I felt that probative because I felt that it explained why, as you say, he’s obsessed with you. That’s a fairly unusual crime. But in trying to be fair, I kept it out. You took the stand and told the jury, basically, you had never been convicted, as I say, you’d never been sentenced, never spent time. In addition to which, you volunteered in your statement to the jury when you’re describing yourself for your background that you committed or you had some trouble or you did some things wrong when you were a juvenile. But that’s sort of all, and you referenced the perjury, that’s sort of all behind you. So you leave the jury with the impression that as a young kid you made a false statement and did your time and there’s nothing else there, which also I think is potentially misleading.

The Kimberlin’s may have won the Walker lawsuit, but at what price. The jury found that they lied. Adjudicated Liars?

Maybe TDPK should start posting a Breitbart Unmasked Bunny Billy Boy Unread as Pyrrhus of Epirus.

A couple more things … nothing in the verdict or Judge Mason’s ruling based on the jury’s verdict should be interpreted as saying that it is permissible to lie in his courtroom. As a matter of law, he had to strike the statements that the jury found were lies and add the withheld information that jury found should have been present. Given what the jury gave him to work with, his ruling was not unreasonable. Too much of the Applications for Statement of Charges remained intact. I believe the Judge did the best he could with the jury’s verdict. Also, the transcript puts a great deal of admitted and proven facts on the record. While the Walker jury did not pick up on them, I did.