The basic purpose of Brett Kimberlin’s lawfare was to censor truthful reporting of his past and present activities. He even tried to have keep sealed some of the false criminal complaints he filed so that he could not be used as evidence in lawsuits alleging he engaged in malicious prosecution. The TKPOTD for seven years ago today dealt with one such Kimberlin filing.

* * * * *

I’ve mention in previous posts that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is trying to keep as much of his past malicious lawfare covered up as possible. Thus far, Aaron Walker and I have had good success getting cases opened up so that their records can be used in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. and Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuits. Earlier this month, Aaron was successful in getting the expungement vacated in the State v. Walker harassment case which resulted from one of TDPK’s perjured Applications for Statement of Charges filed in July, 2013.

Last week, TDPK filed this motion for reconsideration seeking to have the expungement reinstated.

This deserves some fisking.

The statement in paragraph 1 that Kimberlin “is the one who asked for this case to be expunged” is false. According to the case docket, the request for expungement came from the State’s Attorney’s Office simultaneously with their dropping the charge. Judge Wolfe expunged the case before any notice was sent to either Kimberlin or me on the disposition of the case. Indeed, Judge Wolfe stated during the hearing on Aaron’s motion that the State’s Attorney’s Office was the source of the request for expungement.

Also, Kimberlin is wrong that Art. 47 of the Maryland Constitution gives him any rights as the “victim of a crime.” First, the Maryland Constitution only has 19 articles. Second, Art. 47 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights deals with cases proceeding in the Circuit Courts. The 2013 State v. Walker case was in the District Court. Third, Kimberlin isn’t the victim of a crime as far as that case is concerned.

Paragraph 2 repeats the lie about “close to 400 criminal and civil legal actions …” Debunking it is becoming rather tiresome.

The assertion in paragraph 3 that Aaron’s potential use of the documents related to TDPK’s malicious prosecution of him somehow gives him standing to oppose the expungement amounts to an admission against interest.

Paragraph 4 is another lie. Although Kimberlin isn’t a party to the 2013 State v. Walker and wasn’t entitled to be served with a copy of the motion seeking to vacate the expungement, Aaron did serve a copy of the motion on Kimberlin. Moreover, TDPK writes about Aaron’s motion to vacate in the Kimberlins’ opposition to Aaron’s motions for summary judgment.That opposition was filed on 12 August, a week before the hearing on Aaron’s motion. If Kimberlin had not been served, he would have had no way of knowing that a motion had been filed in an expunged case. Note that he lied to the Circuit Court by saying that Aaron had been unsuccessful when the motion had not yet been heard. Further, the case had not been sealed by the Circuit Court; it had been expunged by the District Court.

He’s in over his head.

* * * * *

Of course, Kimberlin came up short with his motion.

Oh, and here’s Vigilans Vindex’s cartoon comment to the original post.