Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Perhaps one of the reasons that The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin has been slacking off on his promise of lawsuits “for the rest of their lives” against the original defendants in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance LOLsuit is that he’s figured out that he can’t beat us. After he made the mistake of calling Stacy McCain as witness in the first LOLsuit (never try to outcrazy Stacy McCain), he dropped Stacy from the cases filed after August, 2014. After he lost both the federal and state Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. RICO Madness and RICO Retread LOLsuits, he dropped Ali Alexander and Aaron Walker from further cases. Finally, after losing the Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams, et al. RICO 2: Electric Boogaloo LOLsuit, he dropped me from the follow-on RICO 2 Retread state case.

The RICO 2 Retread LOLsuit sputtered, and by this time a couple of years ago, it was on its last leg as was reported in the TKPOTD from two years ago today.

* * * * *

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has filed a motion seeking a postponement of the motions hearing scheduled for 15 November in the Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et al. (II) RICO 2 Retread LOLsuit. That’s the state version of the Team Themis LOLsuit filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The only remaining defendants are Bill Nickless, Battelle (the not-for-profit that runs Pacific Northwest National Labs for the Department of Energy), and some John Does. Judge Mason hasn’t granted his motion yet, so it looks as if the remaining motions to dismiss will be heard next week, and another of TDPK’s LOLsuits should bite the dust.

We’ll see.

* * * * *

We didn’t have to wait long. Not long thereafter, the case docket showed that Kimberlin had voluntarily dismissed the LOLsuit against those defendants. And then he failed to follow through with an appeal.

Maybe he was lying when he promised lawsuits “for the rest of their lives.” He is a convicted perjurer, you know.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Team Kimberlin is really just a collection of inept, untalented losers. Their efforts to spin false narratives to support their cause invariably wind up be sources of pointage, laughery, and mockification when confronted with the facts. This Prevarication Du Jour from four years ago today is a fairly typical example.

* * * * *

@wmsdb201410080009ZThe Cabin Boy is almost correct—in one sense. The metaphorical beatdown that we administered to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit was delivered without our having to bestir ourselves to put on a defense. All we had to do was let TDPK engaged in self-destruction.
Docket 235_236

* * * * *

The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s level of desperation is summed up by his having to rely on the likes of Bill Schmalfeldt or Matt Osborne as his PR flacks.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The following is from the TKPOTD published four years ago today. That post dealt with a codefendant’s court filing noting that the doctrine of res judicata should require the federal court to dismiss The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s RICO Madness LOLsuit because of his loss in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. LOLsuit in state court.

* * * * *

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


Most of the time I’ve spent as a defendant in The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s LOLsuits has been rather dreary, but there have been amusing moments. One good time that stands out in my memory was Brett Kimberlin’s futile attempt to out-crazy Stacy McCain on the witness stand during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial. The TKPOTD four years ago today recalled part of Stacy’s testimony.

* * * * *

The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin was utterly disorganized in his approach to getting things into evidence during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial. The only way he had to get the defendants’ allegedly defamatory writings into evidence was to show us copies for us to authenticate. Nothing that he showed me for authentication was an accurate copy of anything that I had posted. It was either incomplete or altered. Stacy McCain had the same experience. For example—

MR. KIMBERLIN: Can you identify this article?

MR. MCCAIN: No. No. This is an altered version. This has material that’s extraneous to the article.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Did you write an article attacking a reporter named Monica Hesse.

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, your honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Challenging.

THE COURT: The objection’s sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Do you know Monica Hesse?

MR. MCCAIN: I don’t. I have never met her.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Do you know that she wrote an article about my daughter in the Washington Post?

MR. MCCAIN: No. She wrote an article about you in the Washington Post.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Did you tweet that Monica Hesse works for a newspaper that’s hostile to the — Washington Post?

MR. MCCAIN: Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Did you tweet that my daughter is a girl who can’t sing a lick?

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What’s the relevance of that, sir? You are the party in this case. Not your daughter.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, these people —

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection to the “these people” thing.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. Mr. McCain wants to harm me —

THE COURT: Hold on a second. You are the party in this case, so I sustain the objection as to any questions having to do with someone not party in this case.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I just want to ask him if he wrote this.

THE COURT: You can ask him if he wrote that tweet, and he can answer that a yes or no.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Did you write that tweet? Just that tweet?

MR. MCCAIN: No. That’s not — that’s different than what I wrote. That’s not —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay —

THE COURT: What is that? Is that number 20? What? Twenty-four?

MR. MCCAIN: Your Honor —

THE COURT: That’s okay. It’s not in evidence.

TDPK got very little into evidence, and what he did get in was insufficient for the judge to allow the case to go to the jury. That’s why he gave us defendants a directed verdict in our favor without our having to put on a defense.

TDPK’s strategy and his execution of it during the trial was truly ACME Legal at its finest.

Meep, meep!

* * * * *

So TDPK’s inept attempt at brass knuckles reputation management failed. As did his career as a musician. As did his career as a drug smuggler. As did …

One wonders: will he ever notice a pattern in his life?

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


One the most basic rules of examining a witness is to never ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to. Senator Harris’ asking Judge Kavanaugh whether he had discussed the Mueller investigation with anyone from a law firm representing President Trump blew up in her face when she violated that rule. As the TKPOTD from four years ago today documented, Brett Kimberlin tripped over the same rule during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. LOLsuit.

* * * * *

A good trial lawyer never asks a question of a witness unless he knows what the answer should be. A corollary of that is that a good trail lawyer will avoid asking certain questions because he knows what the answer should be. The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin repeatedly violated both those rules in his conduct of the trail in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit.

This question may have been his most spectacular blunder. He asked it of Aaron Walker.

MR: KIMBERLIN: Okay, now when you call me a pedophile, you must have some basis for that, so I’m going to let you tell the jury why you — you know, why you think that’s true, and where is the truth? Where is the evidence?

Aaron responded at length with a detailed explanation of the evidence that led him to view TDPK as a pedophile. At the end of TDPK’s examination, it was our lawyer’s turn to ask questions.

THE COURT: — oh, do you have questions you want to ask him? No?

MR. OSTRONIC: No, your honor. I think Mr. Kimberlin asked every question I wanted.

Heh.

* * * * *

It’s usually the case that asking the wrong question will result in getting a wrong answer, but The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin is so inept at litigation that he can ask stupid questions that make the other side’s case for them.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Feelz v. Logic. That’s what has doomed all of The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s LOLsuits. He’s never been able to offer any evidence to support his claims against the defendants he’s sued. As the TKPOTD from four years ago shows, Judge Johnson tried to explain to TDPK why he was failing, but Kimberlin doesn’t appear to have understood.

* * * * *

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.

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

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 —

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).

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.

* * * * *

Butthurt isn’t a tort.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


For the past few days, we’ve been looking at The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s inept presentation of his case during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. LOLsuit. He kept trying to bring in non-germane topics. The TKPOTD from four years ago today dealt with his attempt to bring up the legal assistance fund I started to help Tetyana Kimberlin, something that had nothing to do with alleged defamation of TDPK.

* * * * *

During last month’s Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial, The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin seemed particularly interested in the help that Aaron Walker and I had provided to Mrs. Kimberlin. This was part of his questioning of Aaron Walker.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Now, you — after you helped my wife file these things, you create with Mr. Hoge, am I correct? A defense fund for my wife, to raise money for her?

MR. WALKER: That is correct.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And you hired — you raised how much? A thousand? $100 —

MR. WALKER: I don’t know. I did not — personally control the funds.

MR. KIMBERLIN: But suffice it to say, it was a fairly significant amount.

MR. WALKER: Well —

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And you used that money to hire an attorney, another attorney, to represent my wife.

MR. WALKER: I did not use the money. As I recall, John Hoge decided to loan several thousand dollars to your wife to help her get an attorney, and as of last I heard, he’s still in the red on that.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh, he loaned it to her? Okay —

MR. WALKER: Well, I don’t — no. It’s not a loan to her. We were hoping that he would get it back from donors.

When he got me on the witness stand he asked me about the fund as well.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And as a result of that email thread, did you terminate the defense fund that you had raised, or started for her?

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, your honor. I —

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. OSTRONIC: Thank you.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Did you take any action after you received that email?

MR. HOGE: I don’t know which email you’re talking about, so I — you would have to show me the email, and then I can tell you what action I might have taken as a result of it.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Now, you with my wife after the hearing. Am I correct?

MR. HOGE: Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And as a result of that meeting, you created a defense fund. Am I correct?

MR. HOGE: Not as an immediate result of that meeting. Not our first meeting. No.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Did my wife ever tell you —

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Did you stop that defense fund at some point in time?

MR. HOGE: Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And was that on account of her?

MR. HOGE: At her request.

MR. KIMBERLIN: And at that time, did she ask you to remove any post about —

MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The objection’s sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, it goes to malice.

THE COURT: Well, it’s hearsay. He can’t testify what she said. She’s not part in this case.

He got back around to the topic of the legal fund for his wife on redirect examination.

MR. KIMBERLIN: You’ve been to events with Mr. Akbar?

MR. HOGE: Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: You’ve been nominated for awards by the National Blogger’s club for writing about me. Right?

MR. HOGE: Yes.

MR. KIMBERLIN: You coordinated with Mr. Akbar to raise funds for this Tetyana defense fund. Am I correct?

MR. HOGE: He volunteered to be a contributor. He wasn’t involved in starting the fund.

Gentle Reader, I suspect that what triggered the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. vexatious lawsuit was the help we offered Mrs. Kimberlin. Brett Kimberlin made his family issues public when he sought a protective order against his estranged wife and a peace order and criminal charges against her boyfriend. His lawfare against them backfired, and his attempt at brass knuckles reputation management by suing Aaron, Stacy, Ali, KU, and me has resulted in an extra helping of Streisand Effect.

Just wait till he sees what’s coming in the RICO Madness.

* * * * *

He did even worse in the RICO Madness case. The federal counts were thrown out for failure to state a claim, and when he refiled the state law claims in state court, he wound up being adjudicated defamation proof.

Everything proceeded as I had foreseen.