Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Yesterday’s TKPOTD contained the Government’s opposition memorandum to Brett Kimberlin’s motion to vacate some of this Speedway Bombing convictions. Among the crackpot legal theories that Kimberlin asserted was the idea that he was entitled to DNA analysis of hair samples that were used in one of his trials four decades ago. However, it was Kimberlin who introduced the evidence, and he’s not entitled to a do-over for his own mistakes.

The TKPOTD from three yeas ago today dealt with another bit of evidence that The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin introduced in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. LOLsuit that he probably wishes he’d left out.

* * * * *

For the last couple of days, I’ve been posting examples of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s incompetence structuring his arguments in court. TDPK was foolish enough to call Stacy McCain as a plaintiff’s witness in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. LOLsuit. During his direct examination of Stacy, TDPK tried to introduce evidence from the Southern Poverty Law Center. That resulted in the following exchange among Judge Johnson, Patrick Ostronic (the lawyer representing Aaron Walker, Stacy, and me), and Kimberlin—

THE COURT: 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.

THE COURT: Your objection’s sustained.

The Rules of Evidence are not about virtue signaling.

* * * * *

Facts and Law trump Feelings in a courtroom.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


One of the benefits of following The Saga of Team Kimberlin has been the friendships that I have developed with my various codefendants, some of whom I got to know before we were sued and I was simply covering the First-Amendment-related story of The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s use of lawfare to punish people who told the truth about him. Stacy McCain is one of those friends, and the TKPOTD from four years ago today dealt with TDPK’s foolish attempts to out-crazy Stacy.

* * * * *

Back in June of 2014, Judge Hazel ordered The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin to serve copies of the Second Amended Complaint in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness on all the defendants. He never bothered to serve Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, the National Bloggers Club, or me during the 120 days allowed for service.

Aaron and I have been proactively engaging with TPDK and his court filings. Stacy elected to wait until he was served with the intention of responding within the 14 day window after service. TDPK never served him, so Stacy never responded.

popcorn4bkBrett Kimberlin tired to outcrazy Stacy McCain while he had him on the witness stand during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial. He failed miserably, but he didn’t learn his lesson.

He’s now seeking a default judgment against Stacy when, as Stacy so ably put it “Plaintiff hasn’t even bothered to provide a bad forgery of such alleged service.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) failure to serve within 120 day is grounds for mandatory dismissal. Also, TDPK was ordered by the Court to effect service. Failure to obey that order is grounds for dismissal under Rule 41(b).

All TDPK had to do was mail Stacy a copy of the SAC.

All Stacy had to do was wait.

* * * * *

Going after Stacy was clearly more that Kimberlin could handle, and TDPK dropped Stacy as a defendant in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), the state RICO Retread LOLsuit.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


One of the side effects of The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s legal incompetence has been moments of irony as the TKPOTD from six years ago noted.

* * * * *

RICOMadnessWhile reviewing transcripts and recordings of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s courtroom appearances over the past couple of years, I ran into one particularly ironic exchange. The Gentle Reader may remember that Brett Kimberlin was busted as a juvenile for dealing cocaine. His first jail time was as a result of a perjury conviction for lying to a grand jury about dealing LSD. His first multi-year sentence was for smuggling marijuana. So imagine my amusement when I listened to him try to impeach a witness by suggesting that the witness smoked dope.

You just can’t make stuff like this up.

* * * * *

I could make this stuff up on my own.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Yesterday’s TKPOTD dealt with one the more amusing incidents during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance LOLsuit. I noted in that post that the trial judge bent over backwards to treat Kimberlin fairly. However, The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin finally pushed too far when he put his wife’s elder daughter on the stand. The TKPOTD from five years ago reports what happened. I was not amused.

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

It’s been over five years since that trial, and my disgust and anger over what Brett Kimberlin did to that young girl has not abated one bit.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Only one of the failed LOLsuits that Brett Kimberlin filed against me made it to trial. While it was a pain in the neck (or a couple of feet lower) to have to take the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance suit to court, there were some lighter moments in the process. The TKPOTD for five years ago today dealt with one amusing moment during that trial.

* * * * *

judge_johnsonDuring the preliminary matters of the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial, there was an extended discussion of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s criminal past that might have bearing on the case. Near the end of the first day’s session, Judge Johnson brought up the topic of jury instructions.

THE COURT: Now, there are no non-pattern jury instructions, are there?

MR. OSTRONIC: Not from the defense side, Your Honor.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Not that I know of.

THE COURT: They’re normal Maryland civil pattern jury instructions.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And we listed those I believe in our pre-trial.

THE COURT: You did list them in your pre-trial statements. Is there any other ticking time bomb — well, that’s a wrong metaphor. Are there any issues laying out there that are going to come up that you can envision?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I don’t think so.

THE COURT: Sometimes we have to be very careful in our selection of metaphors. I always call counsel to task when they tell me about black sheep in the family. I like black sheep. All right.

I hate to disagree with a judge who ruled in my favor, but I thought his metaphor was quite appropriate.

* * * * *

I was sitting next to my codefendant Stacy McCain just behind the defense table. (There were too many defendants for all of us to sit there.) We both had trouble keeping ourselves from laughing. It was at that moment that I figured out that Judge Johnson, who had previous experience with The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin, understood who he was dealing with. Reading the transcripts of the bench conferences that occurred during the trial (I wasn’t able to hear them as they happened), it’s clear that the judge bent over backwards to treat Kimberlin fairly, but Kimberlin’s pigheadedness about how he wanted to present his case led to his loss and our win.

The trial was more of a fizzle than an earth-shattering kaboom.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Six years ago today, I ran this post, In Re Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.

* * * * *

Convicted perjurer, drug smuggler, and bomber Brett Kimberlin has filed a Maryland lawsuit naming bloggers Aaron Walker, W. J. J. Hoge, and Robert Stacy McCain; National Bloggers Club President Ali A. Akbar; and the anonymous blogger Kimberlin Unmasked as defendants.

The defendants believe that the suit is without merit and is part of Kimberlin’s continued effort to use lawfare to silence journalists and bloggers who have written truthfully about Kimberlin’s criminal past and recent conduct. The defendants will not make any further comments until they have finished initial consultations their respective legal counsel.

UPDATE—Stacy McCain’s statement is here.

UPDATE 2—Kimberlin Unmasked’s statement is here. [Broken link]

* * * * *

The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin made countless errors during his ill-fated attempts at pro se litigation. His worst mistake was suing me.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Five years ago, The Saga of Team Kimberlin had taken a decisive turn away from The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s version of the narrative after his loss in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial. That was the first of many LOLsuit he would lose over the next couple of years. The TKPOTD from five years ago today dealt with TDPK’s futile attempt to get a preliminary injunction against several of my codefendants and me in the RICO Madness LOLsuit.

* * * * *

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is so disturbed and so desperately injured by the terrible things that Aaron Walker, Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, Lynn Thomas, and I are publishing about him that he has gone on vacation to Hawaii when his motion for a preliminary injunction against us in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness is due to Judge Hazel on the 28th.

The judge has imposed some specific limits on what TDPK can file.

First, Plaintiff’s motion must be limited to the specific defendants identified in his request i.e., defendants Walker, Hoge, McCain, Thomas, and Akbar. …

 

Second, Plaintiff’s motion must be limited to specific conduct that has occurred since the filing of his SAC on June 24, 2014 and must describe with sufficient detail the exact harm caused by each specific defendant and the irreparable harm sought to be prevented by way of immediate injunctive relief.

 

Third, Plaintiff’s motion and accompanying memorandum may not exceed fifteen (15) pages, double spaced. See ECF No. 97 at 3. Plaintiff must file his motion by August 28, 2014. …

 

Fourth, Plaintiff’s motion must strictly comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, including the requirements for signatures and other identifying information contained in Rule 11(a), as well as the requirements of 11(b). Failure to comply with Rule 11(b) could result in sanctions issued by the Court sua sponte. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3).

Perhaps, TDPK has figured out that he can’t come up with anything that can be filed within those limitations. We’ll see. Meanwhile, Judge Hazel noted when TDPK asked for more time to file his motion that

[a] preliminary injunction is either needed or it is not. If a preliminary injunction is needed, as Plaintiff contends …, it ought to be pursued with the degree of diligence and urgency for which it was intended to serve i.e. the prevention of irreparable harm. Because Plaintiff’s proposed “wait-and-see” approach is antithetical to that purpose, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request. Plaintiff must file his Motion for Preliminary Injunction no later than August 28, 2014 and in strict accordance with the requirements set forth in the Court’s July 28, 2014 Letter Order, or notify the Court that he is withdrawing his request for leave to file the motion.

Stay tuned.

* * * * *

I suppose that Kimberlin would have found a way to file his motion for a preliminary injunction if he had wanted it badly enough. I didn’t think he would file, and everything proceeded as I had foreseen.