Brett Kimberlin Associate Ron Brynaert’s Reckless Disregard for the Truth

First as usual if you have not been following the Brett Kimberlin saga, start here.  But this post is for those of you who have been following along and want to learn more.  So it might be confusing to newcomers--hence why I recommend that newcomers follow that link.

Just the other day I told you about some of the nutty disinformation coming from former reporter Ron Brynaert.  Mr. Brynaert used to be editor of Raw Story but has no visible means of income and will not answer any questions about it, leading me to suspect (but I can’t prove) that he is Brett Kimberlin’s paid agent provocateur.

Certainly Mr. Brynaert hasn’t been acting as a reporter with even the slightest interest in finding the truth in this matter.  Instead not only has Brynaert repeatedly defamed me, but he has done so with “malice” as defined in the law.  “Malice” is one of those concepts in law that I call a “booby trap legal term.”  By this I mean that it is one of those terms that lay people might think they know, but in reality it has a technical legal meaning that can catch people unawares.  I mean if I started talking about “res ipsa loquitur,” “scienter” or “collateral estoppel” most regular people would realize that they are seeing words foreign to their existence and proceed cautiously.  A wise person would track down a law dictionary and look it up.  But malice?  Everyone thinks they know what “malice” is.

But in fact in the law of defamation the word “malice” takes on a meaning only tangentially related to its meaning in plain English.  Hence why I call it a “booby trap legal term” because a lay person would read it and have no fair warning that it was in fact a term of art.  So let me explain what it means.  Specifically in the context of defamation it means making a statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”  New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964).  And Ron Brynaert has certainly shown “reckless disregard.”  And further he has also lied about having done so.

For instance, shortly after the January 9 incident and as Brett Kimberlin began to frame me for a crime in its aftermath, Ron Brynaert tweeted out to the world that I had been arrested.  I glossed this over in my blockbuster post proving how Brett Kimberlin attempted to frame me, but in fact they never arrested me.  Then later he corrects himself as follows on January 18:

I wrongly tweeted @AaronWorthing was "arrested" (which hoaxer @NealRauhauser lied about); It was a summons for 2nd Degree criminal assault

Mr. Brynaert had regularly denounced Neal Rauhauser as a “hoaxer” (anonymized link) well before this day and yet here he was admitting that he believed the word of a person he called a “hoaxer.”  Isn’t that the very definition of “reckless disregard” for the truth?  Reporting the claims of a person you know to be untrustworthy as a fact?

On February 12, I challenged him on this point:

@ronbryn why would you trust a man u call a hoaxer as a source?

He replied:

@AaronWorthing How and when exactly did I ever trust @NealRauhauser? In fact, he lied twice when he first emailed me about your assault.

So he lied about relying on Rauhauser.  On the same day, I challenged him on whether Brett Kimberlin had committed perjury:

@ronbryn btw, still waiting for your investigation into whether Brett Kimberlin obtained his injunction against Seth by perjured testimony.

His reply:

@AaronWorthing I never used Neal as a source & there is zero proof Kimberlin commtted perjury but Seth Allen vowed to leave him alone & lied

You got that?  He never used Neal as a source, except he did when he said I was arrested.  Good to know.  And also notice that he claimed that there was no evidence at all that Kimberlin committed perjury despite the fact that he lied about having his parole revoked.

Brynaert also repeatedly tweeted with certainty that I had assaulted or otherwise attacked Brett Kimberlin, declaring me guilty without so much as a trial, writing for instance on January 11:

Any lawyers friendly with @AndrewBreitbart @Patterico who would cheer an angry lawyer/troll assaulting an imagined "enemy" in a courthouse?

On February 4, he wrote:

@AaronWorthing You attacked someone & face 10 years in prison, lying troll. Please stop distracting me from trying to help @CryingWolfeBlog

By the way, for extra loveliness @CryingWolfeBlog is Mike Stack.  Ron Brynaert is suspected in the SWATting of Mike Stack and in my unprofessional opinion it is his voice on the SWATting tapes.

Indeed, according to him, what I did was an act of terrorism.  Yes, really:

@AaronWorthing I would consider attacking someone in a courthouse an actual terrorist act but you can keep accusing me of paranoid fantasies

That’s from January 14.  So I decided to challenge him on that.  I pointed out that he himself was once, according to him, falsely charged with a crime and wrote on February 4:

@ronbryn @AndrewBreitbart what is your evidence that i committed any crime? or do you trust the word of a convicted perjurer?

His reply:

@AaronWorthing @AndrewBreitbart The evidence is you are charged with 2nd Degree Criminal Assault. I trust the Maryland Judiciary website.

My response:

@ronbryn @AndrewBreitbart so just to verify here, everyone who has been charged, is automatically guilty. is that your position?

His reply:

@AaronWorthing you let @Dust92 smear me as criminal for expunged arrest. You're innocent until proven guilty. But Maryland didn't frame you.

Of course they didn’t.  Instead Brett Kimberlin attempted to frame me and Maryland authorities saw through it, albeit very late in the game.

And let’s compare that to the reportage Mr. Brynaert engaged in with Brett Kimberlin.  At his blog Hackers and Fake Newz, he wrote a post entitled The Ballad of Brett Kimberlin: Hypnosis, Levitation and a 'pot bombing,’ (anonymized link) he engages in one of the most tired tropes of journalism: second-guessing a verdict years after it was delivered and many witnesses died.  So that is right, Ron Brynaert attempted to show that Brett Kimberlin was innocent of The Speedway Bombings—or at least there was not enough evidence to convict him—even after a conviction.  So Brynaert decides that Brett Kimberlin was not proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being The Speedway Bomber, and thus presumptively innocent.  But I was guilty of second degree assault purely because I was charged.

Does anyone else see why we believe Brynaert is a Kimberlin ally?  We have evidence of coordination and stunning bias in his so-called reportage.

And we still don’t know how he makes ends meet.  Inquiring minds and all that.

---------------------------------------

Free tip for other bloggers, reporters, etc. looking into this.  Use an anonymizer as much as possible when going to a website for Brett Kimberlin’s allies.  For instance, I regularly use this one.  Safe surfing!

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sound fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to donate and help my wife and I in this time of need, please go to this donation page.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.