Claims it was an “Honest Mistake”
This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly
call The Kimberlin Saga®. If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not
everyone reads my blog. The short
version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst
conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime. I recognize that this might sound like an
incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in
other words, you don’t have to believe my word.
You only have to believe your eyes.
So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.
This is
breaking as we speak and John Hoge has uploaded document
here,
but here’s the gist of it. As you might
remember, Twitchy and Michelle Malkin’s lawyer Michael Smith accused Brett Kimberlin
of forging a summons for Twitchy.
Specifically of taking a summons originally meant for me, removing my
name and inserting Twitchy onto it.
Brett was given until this Friday for a show cause as to why he shouldn’t
be sanctioned, but he got that response in early. So now you are reasonably caught up, here's the news...
First he admits
to forging it, but claims:
When
the Clerk initially sent Plaintiff 21 summons, Plaintiff spent hours compiling
them with the Complaints, the envelopes and certified cards only to discover
that the summons for Twitchy was missing. At the time, Plaintiff assumed that
the Clerk had inadvertently forgotten to include that summons since Twitchy was
named as a Defendant in the Complaint and Twitchy's address was listed in
paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff typed the address on a
summons and included it with the Complaint to Defendant Twitchy and sent it
certified to that address.
Of course what
he leaves out of that is the he had to
erase my name from that summons and substitute Twitchy. Which kind of undercuts his claims he didn't realize he was doing anything wrong. He also lies toward the end saying:
Plaintiff
urges this Court not to impose sanctions on Plaintiff since this was an honest
mistake, he is proceeding pro se and was unaware of the proper procedure, he
has learned from the mistake, he has apologized to all parties, and Defendant
Twitchy was not prejudiced.
First, show of
hands: how many people think that a guy who was convicted of document
forgery—as we joke, he is one of the few people who know how the Presidential
seal tastes like—and has been caught in three other forgeries in relation to
his present litigation, did this by accident?
Also it
contains a provable lie. He has not
apologized to “all parties.” I never received
any apology. And I think if John, or
Stacy McCain got an apology I would have heard from them (Update: John says he didn’t apologize to him, either). And there might be consequences for this
lie...
As for his “I’m
just a dumb pro se litigant, have mercy on me,” routine, Mr. Smith pre-rebutted
this in his motion to dismiss on behalf of Twitchy and Mrs. Malkin, saying:
And his pro se status is no excuse.
Leaving aside that Mr. Kimberlin's ample litigation experience probably makes
him more knowledgeable of the rules than many lawyers, see R.19-1, p. 1 ("I have filed over
100 lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me"), every schoolchild
knows not to take an official document, alter it, then try to pass it off as
something other than what it is.
And for that
matter, Judge Titus has already noted that Brett is an extremely experienced
litigant who should know the ins and outs of their procedure by now
as does his email to Patrick Frey. Judge Grimm can cite that in whatever ruling
he hands down.
So there you
have it. A convicted document forger
admits to a new document forgery. One
can only guess what the judge will do in response to that. And one can only guess what our criminal
justice system might say as well.
And it
verifies what I have said repeatedly about him.
He hasn’t reformed. He’s the same
criminal he has always been. But then I knew
that the moment he tried to frame me for a crime:
)
So why again should we consider it ridiculous to suspect him in the SWATtings?
Update: Is this the first time he has ever apologized for anything? He certainly never apologized to the widow DeLong. He sued her for trying to collect a lawful judgment against him.