Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


While Brett Kimberlin hasn’t won any of the LOLsuits he’s filed since the beginning of 2012, he has managed to escape completely losing several civil suits filed against him. In 2016, he managed to skate by in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. case, but reading the TKPOTD from three years ago today shows it was a pyrrhic victory.

* * * * *

Originally, Judge Mason ruled that information about most of Brett Kimberlin’s criminal record would not come into evidence in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial because in might be more inflammatory than probative. That changed during The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s cross examination of Aaron Walker. This exchange occurred while the jury was out of the courtroom:

THE COURT: Ah, with respect to the bombing, as I discussed yesterday, you have now opened the door to that —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Alright, well I —

THE COURT: — my law clerk went back to the record this morning and listened and confirmed, and, ah, can read into the record if you like, but the record is what it is.

MR. KIMBERLIN: OK. Well, then I’m going to explain that then at the beginning, you know, and you know if we want to get into the bombing case, then I need to explain that.

THE COURT: That’s fine. Well, —

MR. KIMBELIN: You know —

THE COURT: You have opened the door to it —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Alright.

THE COURT: — by telling the jury that you were, what exactly did he say, Ben?

LAW CLERK: Mr. Walker has accused me of criminal charges on his blog or in tweets of many, many crimes. I’ve never been arrested for any of those crimes. I have never been prosecuted for any of those crimes. I’ve never been sentenced for any of those crimes.

THE COURT: OK, and that specificly is not true.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, the way, OK, if you isolate it, but the sentence before that, I believe that I was talking about sex offense.

THE COURT: I don’t believe that the sentence before. At some time before —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Alright —

THE COURT: — you were talking about sex.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m going to clean that up.

THE COURT: Fine.

MR. KIMBERLIN: If you let the bombing case in, I’m going to explain that the bombing case that I sued for false imprisonment, that I had a settlement with the Department of Justice, that I don’t have the case any more. I’m not on parole. That it was the first case ever to, to, I mean that it was the last case in the history of the United States to be allowed to use hypnosis. You want me to —

THE COURT: No.

MR. KIMBERLIN: –this whole —

THE COURT: No, we are not getting into all that.

MR. KIMBERLIN: OK, then don’t get into the conviction.

THE COURT: Don’t tell me what to do. OK? You have made the fact of the bombing case admissible because you have misled the jury by saying you were never prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced for any crime that he blogged about. And one of the primary crimes he blogged about initially, the reason he refers to you as a terrorist has to do with this bombing. I kept it out because I felt that, potentially, it was more inflammatory that it was probative, although, frankly, I felt that probative because I felt that it explained why, as you say, he’s obsessed with you. That’s a fairly unusual crime. But in trying to be fair, I kept it out. You took the stand and told the jury, basically, you had never been convicted, as I say, you’d never been sentenced, never spent time. In addition to which, you volunteered in your statement to the jury when you’re describing yourself for your background that you committed or you had some trouble or you did some things wrong when you were a juvenile. But that’s sort of all, and you referenced the perjury, that’s sort of all behind you. So you leave the jury with the impression that as a young kid you made a false statement and did your time and there’s nothing else there, which also I think is potentially misleading.

The Kimberlins may have won the Walker lawsuit, but at what price? The jury found that they lied. They are now adjudicated liars.

Maybe TDPK should start posting a Breitbart Unmasked Bunny Billy Boy Unread as Pyrrhus of Epirus.

A couple more things … nothing in the verdict or Judge Mason’s ruling based on the jury’s verdict should be interpreted as saying that it is permissible to lie in his courtroom. As a matter of law, he had to strike the statements that the jury found were lies and add the withheld information that jury found should have been present. Given what the jury gave him to work with, his ruling was not unreasonable. Too much of the Applications for Statement of Charges remained intact. I believe the Judge did the best he could with the jury’s verdict. Also, the transcript puts a great deal of admitted and proven facts on the record. While the Walker jury did not pick up on them, I did.

* * * * *

In rereading that post, I noted a couple of lies that The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin told the court. One was his claim to have sued the DoJ for false imprisonment. I can find no record of such a suit. I can find no record of any settlement. If they existed and were sealed, the case captions would still exist on the record. Because I can’t find any evidence to support this perjurer’s testimony, I have concluded he is lying.

It’s also not true that TDPK is not on parole. In 2006, he successfully completed five years of supervised parole, and he was released from supervision. However, according to his parole records which a member of the Vast Hogewash Research Organization obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, Kimberlin’s sentence expires in 2030.

BTW, I wish he had made that claim about his parole status in front of the jury. His parole records were on hand in the courthouse for rebut his claim.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


I first published this bit of Brett Kimberlin’s testimony under oath during the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial in the TKPOTD two years ago today.

* * * * *

This was part of Aaron Walker’s cross examination of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin during the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial.

MR. WALKER: Now, remind me, if you will, what you do for your charities.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I run a non-profit Justice Through Music, and we work with, ah, famous bands and artist to get young people involved with civic participation. We, ah, we also work with, ah, dissidents around the workd to get them, um, their message out to the general public. We work with, um, a lot of voting registration groups. We, um, registered literally hundreds of thousands of young people to vote over the years. Um, we have been very much involved, um, with making sure that voting machines are, are not hackable and that their, um, they provide and accurate reading. We were very involved with making sure that, ah, Maryland, ah, got away from the electronic voting machines and changed over to the paper ballots, ah, that I believe they used this year for the first time in, um, Maryland. And, um, we have, ah, we have a lot of [unintelligible] campaigns. For example, we had a campaign called “Iran“, um, “Iran Now”, um, during the Green Revolutionin, in Iran. Ah, We’re doing a lot of, of, because my wife’s from Ukraine, we’re doing a lot of, ah, work with Ukraine. Right now, I’m working with, ah, Congressmembers, um, on legislation to protect the vote. I’m working with the Department of Justice right now to, ah, to protect, ah, this coming election. There’s a lot of information about hacking by Russian, and our team that works for me are, are specialists in hacking and, ah, electronic cyberhacking and things like that. So we are probably one of the foremost groups in, in the country on that.

Hmmmm.

* * * * *

Now, the Gentle Reader may want to take The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin’s claims about working with the DoJ with a grain of salt. He’s been know to lie. OTOH, he offered that testimony in October, 2016, just before he filed his Kimberlin v. Breitbart, et al. RICO 3 LOLsuit and just before the election he probably expected Hillary Clinton to win.

What would be the significance of Brett Kimberlin’s telling the truth about working with the DoJ to “protect” the 2016 elections?

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


The appeal of the Walker v. Maryland, et al. lawsuit is before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. I have not done much reporting on the course of that appeal because I have been working with Aaron Walker as his paralegal. I know too much about the case, and I did not want to divulge too much to the adverse parties with a slip of the keyboard. There will be no more briefing on the case after today, so I’m going to begin reporting what I know.

The appellees in the case are the State of Maryland and Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin. Originally, Aaron sued the State seeking to have the laws that he had been falsely charged under declared unconstitutional. The Kimberlins were added as defendants in devolved into a malicious prosecution claim. When Judge Mason found the laws constitutional and dismissed the case against the State, he ordered the case severed into two separate cases so that the claim against the Kimberlins could continue, but the Clerk of the Circuit Court has refused to obey that order. Thus, what should have been two separate appeals is one.

Today, we’ll take a look at the underlying facts of the case. Tomorrow and the next day, we’ll take a look at the cases against the two sets of appellees.

In July, 2013, Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin were estranged from each other. After Brett (I will refer to the Kimberlins by their first names for simplicity) sought a protective order against his wife and filed a bogus petition for an involuntary psych evaluation of her, Aaron Walker offered her pro bono legal assistance and, working with me, arranged for her to have representation by a Maryland lawyer. In an apparent attempt at revenge for Aaron’s helping Tetyana, Brett filed a false Application for Statement of Charges which resulted in Aaron being charged with harassment under Maryland Criminal Law § 3-803. The basis of the charge was that Aaron had written about Brett on Twitter and his blog. The charge was dropped.

As the Gentle Reader who has followed this blog for a while knows, Brett continued his lawfare against Aaron and others, including me. In March, 2015, he filed a bogus peace order petition against me which was denied by both the District and Circuit Courts. The basis of his petition was that I had allegedly harassed Tetyana’s elder daughter by writing about Brett on this blog. Rather than appeal that petition further, he drafted and Tetyana filed false Applications for Statement of Charges against Aaron and me which resulted in our being charged with online harassment of a minor under Maryland Criminal Law § 3-805(b)(2). Those charges were dropped.

Aaron sued the State of Maryland, claiming that the State was acting as Brett’s catspaw in the suppression of his First Amendment rights and that the laws being used were unconstitutional. The Circuit Court ruled that Aaron did not have standing his suit as it was originally drafted, but allowed him to amend his complaint. The Kimberlins were added as defendants. As noted above, Judge Mason found the laws constitutional and dismissed the case against the State. The case went to trial against the Kimberlins, and the Court found that they had probable cause to file their complaints. Aaron is appealing the finding that §§ 3-803 and 3-805 are constitutional and certain procedural errors during the trial.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at Aaron’s constitutional challenge to Maryland’s harassment statutes and how they can have the effect of chilling free speech on the Internet.

UPDATE—2018 JAN 03 05:03:33 UTC tag/walker-v-kimberlin-et-al
2018 JAN 03 05:03:48 UTC tag/graces-law
2018 JAN 03 05:13:39 UTC tag/tetyana-kimberlin

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


In the false Applications for Statement of Charges that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin filed against Aaron Walker and me in 2013, he stated that Tetyana Kimberlin has “a long history of mental illness,” and it appears from the transcript of one of the bench conferences during the the 2014 Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial that he intended to have Tetyana’s daughter testify to her mother’s alleged mental problems.

THE COURT: … but you’ve got to understand something, you are the party in this case, not your daughter. She’s not a party here.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I understand, but I need to put on, I need tho put this information on and I ask you to let me put this information on. She was listed as a witness.

THE COURT: The problem is what did she witness?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well she witnessed the bipolar and present activity of my wife.

THE COURT: A 15-year old is not competent to testify about any bipolar —

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well she can testify —

THE COURT: That’s subject to an expert witness.

Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V, Transcript (Md. Cir.Ct Mont. Co. Aug. 12, 2104) at 48.

Of course, he wasn’t able to get away with that sort of claim when he and his wife were codefendants in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh, the July 30th charges against you? I don’t believe that made any false statements. You know, in retrospect, I regret using the term mental illness. I’m not a doctor.

MR. WALKER: With regards to who, sir?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m not a doctor.

MR. WALKER: With regards to who? Who were you calling mentally ill?

MR. KIMBERLIN: My wife.

Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V, Transcript (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Oct. 13, 2016) at 78.

[redacted]

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


I’ve been going through the evidence that Brett Kimberlin introduced in his defense during the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit. (Tetyana Kimberlin did not introduce any evidence during that trial.) The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has mentioned a “hundred page” report “requested by the Montgomery State’s Attorney’s Office in several of the papers he’s filed in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit. I turns out that he introduced a copy in Aaron Walker’s case.

I’m not going to post the whole thing. First, there are things in it that would invade the privacy of one or more third parties. Second, it would be a colossal waste of bandwidth.

I did find that the Kimberlins raised one important question on page 10 of their report—

What More Does This [States’s Attorney’s] Office Need To Prosecute Hoge and Walker?

Reading their report, it’s pretty obvious what was missing, evidence showing that there was probable cause that a crime was committed. That’s the same thing that was missing from their Applications for Statement of Charges.

Meanwhile, we’re at T-minus 12 days and counting.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Here’s one more example of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s ineptitude in the courtroom. During the District Court hearing for the peace order petition he filed against me in 2015, he tried to use tweets sent by someone else with my name attached to them as evidence that I had commented on a post about Tetyana Kimberlin’s elder daughter. I didn’t authenticate the tweets during the District Court trial, and he tried to recycle them during the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial last year.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m going to show you Exhibit 31.

MR. HOGE: Oh, yeah, these are the forged comments that you tried to introduce in the peace order hearing back in March of 2015.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Do you recognize that one?

MR. HOGE:  I–

THE COURT: He just said that they’re forged, so he can’t authenticate them.

MR. HOGE: I cannot authenticate it; they’re forged.

THE COURT: Give them to the clerk, please, they’ve been marked.

Failing failures gotta fail.

T-minus 6 days and counting.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


Yesterday, I gave the Gentle Reader an example of The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s courtroom incompetence that showed his routine failure to be able to tie the imagined causes to fantasized effects. Today, will look a one of the kinds of problems he has getting documents admitted into evidence.

This exchange occurred during the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial last October when TDPK tried to introduce a blog post by Aaron Walker into evidence:

MR. KIMBERLIN: May 20th — this is Exhibit 49 — May 20th, 2012, Brett Kimberlin news roundup, documenting the Streisand effect. I’d like to explain the Streisand effect.

MR. WALKER: Objection. Is he an expert witness on this?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.

Now, if anyone can be an expert on the Streisand Effect, Brett Kimberlin should be qualified, but by bring it up in the way he did, he painted himself into a corner. By showing that Aaron was writing about the Streisand Effect blowback that TDPK was experience as a result of his attempts to use the courts to censor information on the Internet, Kimberlin was opening himself up for a line of cross examination which might have been quite fruitful. He was lucky that the court sustained Aaron’s objection and that he didn’t try to argue to get the post in.

OTOH, it was probably good for Aaron to object as a way of keeping one of Kimberlin’s distraction out of the sight of the jury.

T-minus 11 days and counting.