Breaking: Liberal Grouch Threatens Me With Lawfare (Updated)

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 since last December, 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.

Update: Oh my, this is getting comedic.  The Liberal Grouch has emailed me again with even more ALL CAPS.  I think I might have even seen an “eleventy” in there somewhere.  Anyway, most of it is more of the same but a few colorful highlights.

First, he bizarrely claims I said he is faking his disability.  I said no such thing.  I have no doubt he has Parkinson’s but it is obvious that this doesn’t prevent him from blogging and tweeting in any relevant manner.  My post focused on that online behavior and thus doing a disability minstrel show before a court is not likely to elicit sympathy, especially after he threatened to do exactly that.

Second, his email grants me an absolute defense to his charges of defamation.  But first I have to educate this man, who claims to have been a journalist for some three decades, what “actual malice” is in the law.  From NYT v. Sullivan:

with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

So he has to prove that my asserted facts—and not my opinions or conclusions based on acknowledged facts—are written with knowledge that they are false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of it.  And that is important because he also wrote this:

Seventh.  I deleted the post because I thought better of it after I cooled down.  I knew some dickhead would likely misconstrue it, much in the same way as you right wingers lie about everything else.  The fact that you have a screen cap of it is happenstance.

So he just admitted that we would misunderstand his intent.  And now he is mad at me because... I supposedly misunderstood his intent?  Well, that would seem like a complete defense, wouldn’t it?

And of course the only evidence that I misunderstood him is... his word that I have misunderstood him.  He had no good reason to expose Lee’s address.  And I am allowed to conclude that it was a bullying tactic and he is simply upset at me for calling him on it.

We now resume our original post, as is.

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

So today I get an email from Liberal Grouch (hereafter LG) threatening me with lawfare.  This was all related to a post I wrote here, where I said (updates included):

Of course the other day Occupyrebellion threatened Lee Stranahan’s wife—a threat that Joe Brooks documented had started with a monumentally stupid blogger/twitterer, named Liberal Grouch (see here and here), who then carried out Occupyrebellion’s threat.  Update: Liberal Grouch is dishonestly claiming I have said he raped Lee's wife.  Occupyrebellion's precise threat, as demonstrated in all of the links above, was to reveal where Lee lived so that rapists could harm Lee's wife.  Liberal Grouch has done exactly that--reveal where Lee lived.

The only change I made to that language was in adding the update as indicated.  So here’s the email LG wrote to me, with his email address omitted.

Email From Liberal Grouch to Walker Threatening More Lawfare

So let’s break that down, shall we?  First off, my accusation was based on a series of tweets that Occupy Rebellion and Liberal Grouch—who are in constant contact—tweeted out.  These are documented over at Joe Brooks’ blog here and here.  LG doesn’t deny that he said these things and so he is angry at me for... drawing a conclusion about what he said that he doesn’t like.

The fact is in law you can only be defamed by a false statement of fact.  Well, LG, guess what?  If I have my facts right (and I do), if I am quoting you accurately, then I am allowed to draw any conclusion I want about them.  We are entitled to our own opinions under the First Amendment.  The fact is you wrote this:

Then you wrote this:

And then Occupyrebellion wrote this.

And then, and this is important, you defended Occupyrebellion’s conduct on your blog 

as follows:

You deleted that post, LG, but not fast enough.  We have preserved it.

So you got that? You defended Occupyrebellion by saying, “she doesn’t TELL anyone where your wife is.”  And then you go and do precisely that: you tell everyone where his wife is and even suggest that people visit Stranahan’s house.

So in my opinion, you carried out the exact threat Occupyrebellion made.

And you say over and over again, that you didn’t do anything illegal.  Okay, but why did you do it, then?  What purpose did it serve?  You say by doing so you “had some fun with [Stranahan]” (capitalization removed).  That is another way of confessing that your intent was to harass the man.

And, by the way, harassment is against the law in Maryland (which is where he lives).

So if you go to speak with a lawyer tomorrow explain to him or her that 1) I didn’t misquote you once, and 2) I took the writings you do not dispute were yours and shared my opinion that you carried through on Occupyrebellion’s threat to tell everyone where Lee Stranahan lived.  And while you are at it, inform that lawyer that 3) you’re a public figure so that you have to prove that I was not only factually wrong, but that I had actual malice in writing it.

Oh, and while you are at it, 4) bring with you a copy of all the things you have written about me, including the things you deleted, including when you claimed that I was “was assisting Seth Allen in his harassment of Brett Kimberlin.”  That way your lawyer will know that in fact I have a counter-claim against you for defamation.  Which means if you start this fight you will end up owing me money, not the other way around.

In fact, why don’t you just bring a copy of this post with you?

If this lawyer is straight with you, s/he will tell you that your online activities have put you in serious peril and that perhaps you should cool off for a while.

As for your transparent attempt to hide behind your disability, every disabled person I know (including myself) considers that kind of conduct shameful.  Whatever the nature of your disabilities, you plainly have no difficulty blogging and tweeting.  My negative opinions about you revolve around your blogging and tweeting and as such any difficulty with physical mobility is plainly irrelevant.

That’s probably why the cops visited your house, LG.  Because your disability and the distance didn’t prevent you from posting Lee’s address and they probably wanted to know why you would do a thing like that.

And here’s a pro-tip.  If you are going to try to manipulate a jury by eliciting sympathy about your disabilities, don’t tell your opponent ahead of time that you plan to do so in an email that he can show to that same jury.  Typically people don’t like to feel like they are being manipulated.

Of course what all of this really is, in my opinion, is this.  The other day Occupyrebellion screwed up.  The other day she tweeted out what was, in my opinion, an actionable threat.  And I pointed this out.  And so as is the case every time I point out the lawlessness of Team Kimberlin, the written attacks on me have gone back into overdrive.

Indeed, if you look at LG’s tweets and blog posts, you start to think that he is probably on Team Kimberlin, too.  I base that on the fact that 1) he attacks Kimberlin’s favorite targets and 2) demonstrates an extreme pro-Kimberlin bias.  To the second point, LG often makes claims based on nothing more than the word of this convicted perjurer.  So, for instance, if Kimberlin says Norton was on his property, than that is a gospel fact!  Never mind that a judge heard the evidence and decided he didn’t believe Kimberlin.  How could anyone pretending to have any objectivity claim to believe Brett Kimberlin, especially after this?

Finally I am deeply amused by the constant accusations that I am trying to raise donations, usually given by people who themselves survive on donations.  For instance, Kimberlin’s only legal source of income is his “charities.”  And LG has this bit on his website (no linky of course):

The Conservative websites have wealthy benefactors and "donation websites" to keep them in business. Those of us on the other side of the aisle count on help from our readers. There's no charge to register or read anything on this site. But if you could kick in the price of a cup of coffee every now and then, that would be extremely helpful.

But I ask for a little help in dealing with a man whose stated intent is to drain my financial resources, who got me fired from my job, and this somehow reflects badly on me?  Gee, its almost like they are shameless hypocrites or something.

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

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 sounds 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 help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  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.

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

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.