Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


We’re still waiting for more news from any of the still pending Team-Kimberlin-related court cases, so here’s another post from the past. This TKPOTD ran three years ago—

* * * * *

It was pretty obvious from the load of … ah … junk he gave us in discovery for the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin didn’t understand the rules of evidence or how to properly structure his case. He proved both during the trial. For example, consider this question he was never able to ask of Stacy McCain because it dealt with hearsay.

MR. KIMBERLIN: So do you know what the Southern Poverty Law Center is?

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection Your Honor.

THE COURT: What does the Southern Poverty Law Center have to do with this case?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well Mr. McCain has —

THE COURT: The Southern Poverty Law Center, what does that have to do with this case?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Mr. McCain is considered a neo-confederate — is one —

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. KIMBERLIN: And the Southern Poverty Law Center

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Hold on a second. Counsel I appreciate you objecting to my question but I’m not going to overrule myself. That’s not something I do. So what does the Southern Poverty Law Center have to do with this case? I’m not asking you about Mr. McCain, I’m asking you about why are you asking him about the Southern Poverty Law Center?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m asking him the Southern Poverty Law Center is the leading, one of the leading civil rights organizations in the —

THE COURT: I understand all of that but what does it have to do with this case?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Because —

THE COURT: And the claim that you are making against these gentlemen?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Because Southern Poverty Law Center regularly outs racists —

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: So what if they do. What does that have to do with this case? This case isn’t about racists or racism.

MR. KIMBERLIN: It’s about hate. It’s about hate. These people hate me and they do anything to destroy me.

THE COURT: Well but why are you asking this witness about the Southern Poverty Law Center? First of all he couldn’t testify as to anything they said or did because it wouldn’t be an exception to any hearsay rule. So you would never be able to get that in evidence anyway.

MR. KIMBERLIN: All right.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Mr.—

THE COURT: Your objection’s sustained.

Of course, TDPK was trying to paint Stacy McCain as a racist, and that’s nonsense. Furthermore, given some of the racial epithets that TDPK is on record as have said and written, it was particularly unseemly for him to be trying to tar anyone else with that brush.

Even if Stacy or I or any of our codefendants were racist, that had no bearing on whether or not what we said and wrote was true, and TDPK had to prove that our words were false. Stupid is as stupid does, and TDPK tried to bring up racism a second time.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Have you ever been identified as a member of the hate group League of the South?

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what was that, what group?

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

MR. KIMBERLIN: League of the South.

THE COURT: League of the South?

MR. KIMBERLIN: It’s like an offshoot of the KKK.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, Your Honor.

MR. KIMBERLIN: It believes in —

THE COURT: What’s that relevant to, sir?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well he brought it up.

THE COURT: He didn’t bring up the League of the South.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Huh?

THE COURT: He didn’t bring up the League of the South.

MR. KIMBERLIN: He talked about he’s not a racist.

THE COURT: Well the fact that he brought it up without objection doesn’t make it relevant. I mean what is the jury going to do with this? We’re not here about whether anybody is a racist or not, are we?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well no, but he’s tried —

MR. MCCAIN: You’re white by the way.

Never try to outcrazy Stacy McCain.

* * * * *

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s foolish attempt at direct examination of Stacy McCain is probably my favorite courtroom moment from all the cases.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Only one of the Team Kimberlin LOLsuits ever made it as far as a trial. That was the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance LOLsuit. This TKPOTD ran three years ago today in the aftermath of that trial.

* * * * *

Brett Kimberlin is not a good listener. This exchange is from one of the bench conferences during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit. Judge Johnson was trying to explain to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin about hearsay testimony from the Kimberlin daughter about things she did not witness.

THE COURT: — assume all of that is true, what does this 15-year old have to do with that?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Because she was harmed. She’s been harmed. She’s been run out of two schools and —

THE COURT: She’s not a party.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And they have defamed her. They have —

THE COURT: She’s not a party.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I know, but they have gone on her, she’s a very accomplished musician. They have gone on her websites. They have attacked reporters —

THE COURT: I don’t disagree with any of that, but she is not a party.

MR. KIMBERLIN: It’s not that she’s a party. They are using the pedophilia against me, against her and they’re doing it to harm me.

THE COURT: Sir, but you’ve got to understand something. We have rules here. You can’t just bring people in to just testify when they A, they didn’t witness anything that they’re competent to testify about and B, she is not a party to this lawsuit.

Judge Johnson seemed to care more for Miss Kimberlin that TDPK did.

THE COURT: But see what I’m trying to avoid is having this little girl come up here, objection sustained, objection sustained, objection sustained. And then having, putting her through that and having nothing really come of it. She can testify to —

TDPK put her on the stand any way, resulting in the following objections to questions or testimony that were not allowed by the rules of evidence.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: To him leading the witness, sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE WITNESS: And I know —
THE COURT: Objection is sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, sir, stop leading the witness.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Come up here.
[Bench Conference]
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Has your mom ever done anything hurtful to you? Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: By these defendants?
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection in that this young lady is not a party to this case. She did not sue these men. Or you didn’t sue them in her name which would have to be the case. If a minor child is bringing the case it would have to be brought by her Next Best Friend who is generally the parent. She is not a party in this case.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: — to have sleepovers —
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
MR. KIMBERLIN: — or come to the house or be around you —
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: — because of —
THE COURT: Absolutely hearsay.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: She can answer, overruled.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Hold on, anything else? No, you don’t just get to keep going. You have to ask another question.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sir, you’re going way off base.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: You need to do whatever you need to do with admissible evidence pursuant to the rules of evidence and to the law. And I’ve allowed you some, I’ve given you a long leash.
MR. KIMBERLIN: You have and I appreciate it.
THE COURT: And let you run pretty far out there. But I’m now pulling you back in.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Is it affecting —
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: No further questions.

I cannot find the words to adequately express my disgust with someone who would needlessly inflict that on a child.

* * * * *

The defendants did not question Miss Kimberlin. We had agreed among ourselves that we would not do so—even if she could have offered probative testimony—because we did not want to compound what we believed was abuse of the young girl.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The following is from the TKPOTD published three years ago today.

* * * * *

res_judicata_mugsOf course, one of TDPK’s claims is that I’ve been using my reporting on his activities to raise money by defrauding the Gentle Readers who hit my Tip Jar. He has yet to explain how that injures him. In any event, I’m always thankful for reader support.

You can also support the blog by shopping at The Hogewash Store or shopping via the Amazon link on the Home page.

Whichever means you chose, your support helps keep this blog an the air.

* * * * *

And your support is greatly appreciated!

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Here’s another vintage TKPOTD. It ran three years ago today.

* * * * *

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has apparently had the record of the third degree sexual offense charges filed by his wife and that were nolle prossed by the Montgomery State’s Attorney’s Office sealed or expunged. However, before that happened, I obtained a certified copy of the charging document from the court and published it. While it can’t be used in court, it is still available on the Internet. That was straightforward reporting of a crime story. TDPK tried to spin that truthful reporting into defamation as part of his Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit.

MR. KIMBERLIN: After those charges were nolle pros, did you take a trip down to this courthouse and get a certified copy of those charges, and post them on your Scribd account?

MR. HOGE: No. Not this courthouse. They’re not kept here.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, whatever courthouse?

MR. HOGE: Across the street. District Court —

MR. KIMBERLIN: But — so the charges are dismissed, you come down and get a certified copy, and post them on Scribd.

MR. HOGE: Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And are those charges — do you know whether those charges were not only nolle pros, but expunged and sealed by the court?

MR. HOGE: The charges are not on the Maryland Judiciary Case Search right now, so I can’t tell you what the court may have done with them.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well —

MR. HOGE: I can’t tell you what the court did.

It wasn’t very smart of TDPK to bring up those charges. A prosecutor entering a nolle prosequi on a charge does not mean that the accused is innocent. Here’s how, first, Judge Johnson, and, second, Stacy McCain, explained nolle prosequi at various points during the trial.

The objection was sustained to that question. How is it relevant if the State entered a nolle prosequi? All that means is that the State elected not to go forward. It doesn’t mean anything to do with the substance of the charges.

Nolle pros does not mean you were falsely accused. I’ve had traffic tickets that were nolle pros. That didn’t mean I wasn’t going 85 miles an hour.

However, it did bring up the question of why, if they were bogus charges, wasn’t his wife in court to support him by testifying that we had suborned perjury and that he had not had sex with her when she was 15—was he innocent, or did he simply get away with something? That was not a good question for him to plant in the minds of the jurors.

* * * * *

Of course, the case never got to the jury. Judge Johnson put it out of its misery when TDPK rested his case by granting judgment for the defendants under Rule 2-519 because Kimberlin had failed to present any evidence that we had made any false statements about him. Considering what we were prepared to offer in out defense, TDPK was lucky. He really didn’t want any of it in the record.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


One of the silliest claims that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has made in his various LOLsuits is that making truthful statements about him based on his own writings is defamatory. For example, in his second amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II) RICO Retread LOLsuit, TDPK alleged this—The statement that Kimberlin has filed over 100 lawsuits is based on Kimberlin’s own words contained in an email he sent to Patrick Frey. The opinion that they were frivolous is based on the fact that he lost almost all of them. And as a blogger on the receiving in of TDPK’s lawfare, I agree that his attacks were vicious.

I’ve seen it suggested in some quarters that Patterico wasn’t telling the truth about receiving such an email from Kimberlin. However, in his order granting summary judgment in Patrick Frey’s favor in the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit, Judge Hazel found this—By my reckoning, TDPK’s filed another dozen or so civil actions in the past five years. Perhaps the next time he threatens someone he should claim to have filed “over a hundred-and-twelve lawsuits,” but given the way he’s been beaten over the past five years, he may not want to claim that his pro se lawfare is no sweat.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Day before yesterday, I published a copy of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s order denying The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s motion to unseal discovery in the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit so that he could use it in public documents filed in his appeal of that case. TDPK had originally asked the District Court to unseal that discovery, and Patrick Frey’s lawyers opposed that motion.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 get to the heart of the matter. Kimberlin wants to use information that was sealed in the Frey case to try to smear his perceived enemies. He tried to do so in the recent Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. trial but chickened out when Judge Hecker explained that if  he offered sealed discovery from the Frey case, he could be subject to sanction by the federal court. (BTW, the email he wanted to introduce actually would have helped my case, but I couldn’t use it either because I’m also bound by the protective order sealing the Frey discovery.)

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s use of lawfare for brass knuckles reputation management was initially successful. He was able to get a default judgment against Seth Allen, but he was only awarded a hundred bucks instead of the $2,250,000 he asked for in his LOLsuit. Since then, he hasn’t done as well—

“Kimberlin has failed …”