Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

False narratives. That’s what Brett Kimberlin called truthful reporting about him and his activities. As the TKPOTD for five years ago today noted, he used that term quite a bit in the false claims he made in his various LOLsuits.

* * * * *

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin sure does like the phrase “false narrative(s).” For example, …false narrativesNot once does he follow up on any claim that a “narrative” is “false” with specific facts proving his allegation.

* * * * *

The one time The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin managed to get a case to trial, he lost because he had no specific facts to place in evidence in support of his allegations.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Throughout his campaign of lawfare, The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has made stunningly foolish claims. This is from his opposition that he filed to my motion to dismiss his first amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness LOLsuit. The “they” it refers to are Aaron Walker and me.ECF 29-10Let’s take a look at what TDPK is alleging and how those exhibits relate to it.

Taking Exhibit E first, we see that it is from Aaron Walker’s Allergic to Bull website.ECF 29-ExEThe only thing in the post that is remotely similar to the alleged contents might be the link to the video showing that TDPK was lying about being assaulted. I supposed that could be stretched to being an intimidating graphic if someone were afraid of being caught filing a false complaint. Additionally, the two DONATE buttons led to legal defense funds and not to Aaron’s pockets.

ECF 29-ExDExhibit D goes even further astray. It is a repost of a TKPOTD at Paul Lemmen’s old Dead Citizen’s Rights Society site. Paul had faithfully reposted my text, and he included something that Hogewash! did not have and has never has had—a DONATE button for Bomber Sues Bloggers. There’s nothing in the except of the post that is presented in the exhibit that is threatening or intimidating—unless one is afraid that an error in a claim could be traced to perjury.

So the evidence TDPK submitted to the court with his opposition did not support his allegations against either Aaron or me.

At the risk of educating the midget, it seems obvious that one should present evidence is on point and that supports one’s claims. TDPK has yet to learn that lesson.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

After The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin rested his case during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial, we defendants moved for a directed verdict in our favor because he had not presented evidence establishing the element of defamation or false light. Here is a small part of Judge Johnson’s extended colloquy with TDPK on whether he had shown that what we said and wrote about him was false.

THE COURT: I’m not asking you to prove anything. I’m asking you who in this courtroom yesterday or today said that those statements were false?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, in a defamation case —

THE COURT: You hate answering questions —

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, no, I’m just trying to —

THE COURT: Who said it was false?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Who said it was false? They —

THE COURT: Did you want to read this? I mean —

MR. KIMBERLIN: I know what it says —

THE COURT: I didn’t make this up. This is Maryland law.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I think that the jury has to make that call, whether it’s false. And whether —

THE COURT: But there has to be some evidence. They just can’t pull things out of the air. A jury, they just can’t go back there and decide what they want to decide. I have to give them instructions on the law. And the instructions on defamation — Maryland pattern jury instruction 12.1 “a defamatory statement is a false statement about another person that exposes that person to public scorn, hatred” — so nobody in here, in this case said that they hated you, you haven’t put any evidence up that they hated you — “contempt or ridicule” — there’s no evidence of that — “thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of or from associating or dealing with the person. Defamation may result from a statement communicated to a third person either orally or in writing.” And here you have — I’ll call them, well, bloggers, I guess they’re reporters — reporting stories and bantering back and forth regarding stories that, I think it originated, the whole thing started back in Indiana many, many, many years ago. And so what is the jury going to — how are they going to consider whether there was public scorn?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor —

THE COURT: This’ll go lot faster if you try to answer my question. If you don’t have an answer, say you don’t have an answer.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Being called a pedophile is automatically public scorn, I mean —

THE COURT: Look, I’m getting — you’ve said that, I understand it. But I’m focusing on the Maryland law that I have to tell the jury. Now what I’m asking you — let’s take it one by one. The statement has to — you have get to to contempt. Any evidence of that?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I put my daughter on the stand and she testified that we had suffered —

THE COURT: That she had suffered?

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, that our family had suffered. That I had suffered.

THE COURT: Look, you’re the only party in this case.

Narratives are not false just because TDPK doesn’t like them. There were very few possible witnesses that Kimberlin could have produced who could have testified of their firsthand knowledge that he had not engaged in any of the behavior that led folks to be suspicious of him. There were the women who were the girls he was allegedly involved with in Indiana (as reported by Mark Singer). There was his estranged wife who did not come to court to support him. There was the possibility of his own testimony, given that the judge seemed willing to bend the Maryland Rule on perjurers and let him testify. No one else would have been a competent witness.

I suspect that TDPK stayed off the stand because he was afraid of cross examination and being caught in perjury.

popcorn4bkJudge Johnson ruled in our favor. TDPK is making noises about an appeal and a second federal lawsuit. It seems that he’s beginning to understand that the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness is doomed. It will be interesting to see what federal issue he might use in a second federal suit.

I’m sure Acme is working overtime.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Probably the biggest obstacle to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s conduct of the trial in his Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit was that he didn’t understand that he had to prove that what we has said and written was false. We did not have to offer a defense of truth, although what we said and wrote was true; the entire burden of proof was on him.

THE COURT: But what evidence is there that any of these — that first of all, in terms of false light, tell me how you can make that argument when you yourself were questioning the witness, and you said it — you said it at least two or three times. You said “nobody has ever bought into that, nobody has ever bought into it.” So you’re saying that they said bad things about you, but nobody believed them.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, I said no judge, no State’s attorney bought into it.

THE COURT: Who did buy into it?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Obviously their readers.

THE COURT: How do you know? You can’t just say — you just can’t come in – there are very few things in court that are obvious. Now you’re saying the readers bought into it. What evidence is there of that? See, we use evidence in court.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I understand that, but under Shapiro, the defamatory statement of crime is automatically damaging. I don’t have to prove that there’s damage, you know. I wanted to prove that —

THE COURT: I’m talking about the defendants.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay, the defendants. Mr. Walker called me a pedophile hundreds of times, if not thousands, created the — used the Pedobear graphic to superimpose my photo on.

<fisking>TDPK never offered any evidence that Aaron Walker or any other defendant created the PedoBrett image.</fisking>

THE COURT: Are you suggesting that a person could file a lawsuit, just go into a court and say that “the defendant called me a pedophile” and rest?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m not saying that.

THE COURT: Well, then —

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m saying that they called me a pedophile, it was false, that they did it maliciously, and once it was —

THE COURT: Well what evidence is there that it was false?

MR. KIMBERLIN: What evidence that it’s false? It’s — when you ask what evidence that it’s false, it’s a crime. They said I committed a crime —

<fisking>As Judge Johnson pointed out along the way, pedophilia is not a crime. We never said that TDPK had committed a crime. We reported that he had been charged with third degree sexual offense (aka statutory rape).</fisking>

THE COURT: You just said that — hold on a sec — you just said “they called me a pedophile, and it was false.” My question to you — well, let me ask you another way — why did you say that it was false? I understand that you’re saying you’re not a pedophile, but you’ve only argued that. Who has testified to that?

TDPK could not tell the judge who had testified that what we said and wrote was false because there was no such testimony. After a brief recess, the judge gave his ruling.

THE COURT: … [T]here was absolutely no scintilla of evidence in this case of exactly to wit what the defendant is alleged to have done. And so I think the case falls short of rising to the level that it should go to the jury. And for those reasons, the court makes a judgment in favor of the defendants.

Game over.