I think so, Brain … but I’d want a lawyer first.
A writer for Teen Vogue tweeted this—I, on the other hand, have been falsely accused of a crime, so I have a different appreciation for the presumption of innocence. Ms. Lindin seems all to willing to take away someone else’s civil rights if that means achieves her desired end. If she thought … oops, wrong word … imagined her own rights were on the line, I doubt that she would be willing to pay that price.
No young women from Salem, Massachusetts, were available for comment.
UPDATE—The lessons of history teach that these folks will be granted all possible due process rights—
I’m not making this up, you know.
After spending years trying to use the courts to suppress the First Amendment rights of people who have written truthful things about him, Brett Kimberlin included this sentence in his failed motion to unseal his informal opening brief in his appeal of the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit—
Appellant has a right under the First Amendment to appeal in public.
No. He doesn’t. His right to a public trial and, by extension, a public appeal is not secured under the First Amendment. IANAL, but the last time I checked the Bill of Rights, due process rights are secured by the Fifth Amendment.
Patrick Frey’s due process rights are also protected by the Fifth Amendment. His lawyers were able to convince a federal judge that certain information given to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin during discovery in the RICO Remnant LOLsuit should have been sealed in order to protect Frey’s rights (and possibly the rights of third parties). TDPK repeatedly asked the District Court to unseal that information, and he was never able to provide a reason why Patterico’s rights should not have been protected.
TDPK’s motion to unseal is timestamped as being received by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals at 10:06 Monday morning. The order denying his motion was docketed at 12:01:59 Tuesday afternoon. It didn’t take the court long to see through his frivolous argument.
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
A deposition of Tetyana Kimberlin had been scheduled for next week, but she has invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege—as is her right.
This particular filing deserves some commentary. IANAL, but I’ve been in communication with some, and I believe I am correctly reporting their analysis.
First, one doesn’t move to quash a deposition. A party seeking to limit or avoid a deposition files for a protective order. The Kimberlins did file for one, and it has not been granted. They are obliged to cooperate fully with discovery until a protective order is issued. A pending order that may never be granted does not stay discovery.
Second, Brett Kimberlin filed the motion along with Tetyana, but he has no standing in the matter.
Third, marital privilege is more limited that the Kimberlins appear to believe. It doesn’t allow on spouse to refuse to testify against everything about the other.
Fourth, pleading the Fifth prevents a deponent from having to answer questions which may tend to incriminate him or her, but dropping the nickel has other significant ramifications in a civil matter.
Fifth, the Kimberlins whining that it is unfair for them to be held to the Rules is getting to be a boringly common refrain. It is not unfair for Aaron Walker to fail to attend a deposition when he was not properly served with notice, and it is would not be unfair to require Tetyana Kimberlin to be deposed when she was given proper notice.
Finally, Tetyana Kimberlin is within her rights to refuse to be deposed because her testimony might incriminate her. The facts alleged against establish the elements of several crimes as well as the civil tort of malicious prosecution.
I’m old enough to remember (now, there’s a line that getting a lot of work these days) when folks on the Left were all for the Bill of Rights. The narrative back then was that it was the Right that opposed free speech or due process. Today, many of the generation that marched in the streets in the ’60s have risen to become part of the Establishment. It seems that many a former “revolutionary” no longer want to stick it to the Man now that he has become the Man. So we have recently had a bunch of geezers sitting in the well of the House of Representatives demonstrating in favor of a bill to suppress the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Somehow, they seemed braver when they were sitting at lunch counters five decades ago.
The First, Second, and Fifth Amendments are now under overt attack. The Fourth Amendment is a target as well. Those of us who still think that the Bill of Rights is worth keeping need to keep hitting back. I suggest that we do not limit ourselves to only twice as hard.
One more thing … why are they going on about rifles now? Fifty years ago, it was all about “Saturday Night Specials,” inexpensive handguns that the wrong people could afford for self-protection. Now, it’s rifles: “Military-style” “weapons of war.” It’s almost as if someone is afraid of an armed populace that would be able to resist …
I think so, Brain … but doesn’t the mime have a right to remain silent?
As part of discovery in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin lost this week, I sought discovery of documents.
You can see from TDPK’s answers beginning with number 13 that he thought that he would control what evidence would be introduced. He wound up being correct only because the case folded before we put on our defense.
I’m sticking by my theory that TDPK didn’t testify because he wanted to avoid being trapped between perjury and the Fifth Amendment when confronted with some of the issues raised in my request for documents.
We shall see.