Patrick Read’s Prejudice in Favor of Brett Kimberlin

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.

Patrick Read has been a figure in this whole Kimberlin/Rauhauser scandal, a champion of “Twittergate” which, as best as I can tell, involved Rauhauser and his buddies (and likely some of his sockpuppets) saying bad things about people on the internet.  Reprehensible, yes, but no one has explained to me so far why this is supposed to be compelling.

And of course he is a member of Brooks Bayne’s website, the Trenches.  Besides the drubbing I gave Brooks earlier for his shallow and dishonest defense of Brett Kimberlin, he has recently been seen mocking Patrick “Patterico” Frey for having been SWATted (calling him “swatterico”) and cheering the incorrect reports that Brett Kimberlin had won last Friday (see here for more accurate reporting).  And having seen this conduct, Read continues to associate himself with him.

But really all you need to know about Patrick Read can be contained in this stunning broadcast on Lee Stranahan’s Blog Talk Radio show:

Listen to internet radio with Radio Stranahan on Blog Talk Radio

Most of the show is with StevieJ. West, the twitterer formerly known as GucciMama, and former writer at the Trenches.  She tells us about how she had decided she had enough of Brooks and quit his site and has some revealing moments.  I find it particularly interesting when she points out what most guys suspected: Brooks and his crew were giant hypocrites for pretending to be upset with Lee Stranahan for once making photographs that some have called porn and Lee insists is art.  I won’t wade into the art v. porn debate, but she made the simple point that these guys in the Trenches love porn, so for them to pretend they are scandalized by Lee’s pictures is just dishonest.  Heh.

And then at about the 25 minute mark, Patrick Read calls in.  He does a routine claiming to be interested in reconciliation but then begins to defame me.  That's right, he thinks the way to reconcile people is to start attacking their friends.  I mean either that, or his claims to seek reconciliation is false.  It starts when Lee asks him to explain Brooks’ defense of Brett Kimberlin’s lawfare.

Now before I begin transcribing parts of this, let me point out that it is much harder to transcribe based on that recording, because there is no easy way to rewind it.  Add to that the fact that Read is filibustering the entire time, talking over other people, barely letting anyone else get a word in even when he is asking them a question.  So there is bound to be less accuracy than other transcriptions (and I am cutting out a lot of broken conversation), but listen for yourself.  I am getting the key parts down.

Read: Well, I could tell you about Aaron Walker.  I mean we all know about Aaron.  Aaron’s a district... (seems to correct himself) an attorney in Virginia.  Why is he so worried about Maryland?  Why’s... Let Maryland try to serve… [cross talk] no wait, let Maryland try to serve a cease and desist order, or tell him to stop blogging, he’s a resident of Virginia.

Lee: Well, first off, he went to jail, you realize, right? He spent a few hours in jail.

Read: Who did?  Aaron?  Aaron went to jail?

Stevie J. West: Yeah.

Lee: He spent a few hours, locked up.

Read: What for?

Lee: Because Kimberlin lied, and he…

Read: Well, why was he there?  He’s an attorney in Virginia, not qualified to practice law in Maryland.

Notice that he shifts completely away from the claim Kimberlin filed false charges, ignores it entirely.  Isn’t that a problem, Read?  Don’t you have a problem with a person filing false charges against another?  No, apparently he wanted me to be a fugitive, instead and is blaming me for not choosing that route.

Lee: he was called...

Read: Why was he there?

Lee: he was called into court, and if you know, Virginia is about [unintelligible] minutes from Maryland.

Read: He was there to represent Seth Allen, dude.  Why was he trying to represent Seth in a Maryland Court?

Now at about this point, Stranahan tells him he only has a few seconds left in the show.  Which is slightly inaccurate—he only had a few moments left in the live show, but it was still recording, apparently for another fifteen minutes.  Lee corrects the record about two minutes later.

And this is important.  This time I chose to listen by phone on the show.  You hear me much earlier in the show when Lee picks up my line and asks if I had a question and I explain I was just calling in to listen and then Lee puts me back on mute, just listening.  So even after the show stopped being live, I could hear Lee, Read and West talking.  And I asked Lee via twitter to let me on again to challenge this.

Because I don’t think lay persons realize just how serious an allegation he had made against me.  Let me repeat it:

Read: He was there to represent Seth Allen, dude.  Why was he trying to represent Seth in a Maryland Court?

What he was accusing me of was unauthorized practice of law.  I can provide a person out of state with some legal advice related to their case, but I am not allowed to go to a Maryland court and purport to represent someone unless I am admitted to practice by some means.  The admission can be general—that is, getting a law license in the state of Maryland.  Or it can be specific to the case upon motion, known as pro hac vice, and under the constant supervision of a Maryland lawyer.  But what I can’t do is go into a Maryland court, all by myself and with no Maryland license, and purport to represent Seth Allen in those proceedings.  That is unauthorized practice of law, a very serious offense if I committed it.

But of course anyone following along knows I did no such thing.  I went into court that day representing myself (which any person, lawyer or not, can do in virtually every court in America), because Brett Kimberlin had filed a wholly improper motion to withdraw putting my public information into the public record.  I came in that day to get that information sealed, and Judge Rupp granted that motion.  Anyone who read my original monster post knows that.

So still being on the line, after it was no longer live, but it was still being recorded, Lee let me on to talk again, at around the 33 minute mark:

Me: Well, excuse me a second here, Patrick, you just lied about what I was doing in Maryland.  You just lied—

Read: What did I lie, I just asked a question, Aaron.  [crosstalk] I asked a question.  What did I lie about?  I said what are you doing in Maryland?

Me: It’s all over my blog.

Read: I said what were you doing in Maryland?  [crosstalk]  Aaron, Aaron, settle down.

Me: Because he was putting my information into a public record.

Read: You were there to represent Seth Allen, were you not?

Me: No, I was not.

Read: Okay, what were you doing there?

Me: I was not.

Read: Were you there as a witness?

Me: Well, will you let me answer?

Read: I am just trying to figure it out, brother.  You’re the one calling me a liar, I’m just asking questions.

(Please note, I am omitting most of Lee’s attempts to break in, just because it is hard to decipher and doesn’t add anything.)

That’s going to be his major defense: “hey, I am just asking questions.  So I wasn’t accusing you of anything, I was asking questions.”  Well, dear reader, listen for yourself.  Did he merely ask questions?  Or did he say this?

Read: He [Walker] was there to represent Seth Allen, dude.  Why was he trying to represent Seth in a Maryland Court?

So the first line is a statement, not a question.  He was stating for a fact I was there to represent Seth Allen.  And even when he asked a question, the premise of it was that I was there to represent Seth Allen, and he was just wondering why I was doing it.  If I say to a man, “why did you beat your wife?” can I really say I am not accusing him of beating his wife?  Of course not.

It goes on after Lee breaks in and tries to let Read let me answer.  (By the way, when you ask questions genuinely seeking answers, don’t you normally wait for a person to answer?)

Me: I was there to represent my own interests.  Brett Kimberlin filed a blatantly improper motion before the court and I was there to put it under seal.  And the court put it under seal.  So you just lied to the whole world.

Read: Wait, Aaron.  You’re calling me a liar for asking a question.

Me: No, you didn’t ask a question.  You made a statement.

Read: The case was not... Brett Kim... the State v. Aaron Walker, it was the state v. Seth Allen.

By the way, it was not the State v. Seth Allen.  It was Brett Kimberlin v. Seth Allen.

Lee: But the point was…  right…

Read: The case is the State v. Seth Allen.

Me: I had a valid purpose in being there, for my own interests and I was there to represent myself.  I did not purport to represent Seth Allen, I did not go in to represent Seth Allen, I went in there to protect myself.

Read: Well, there is conflicting information, then.

Seriously, what is he talking about?  I have published the transcript.  Where is the conflicting information?  Some idiot on the web lying to him?

Me: No, there is not conflicting information.

Read: No, lo-lo-look, Aaron.

Me: No, there is no conflicting information.

Read: I have seen information where you were trying to represent Seth Allen.  That’s why asked a question.  Asking a question is not lying.

Me: I provided him free legal help.  That is not representing a person in court of law.

Read: It’s a criminal suit against Seth Allen, not you, Aaron.

That is right, he also is alleging that Allen was facing criminal charges that day, too.  So if you are paying attention, he just slandered Seth, too.

Read: I understand.  I know how it came about.

Um, no you don’t have a clue.  I mean either that, or you are lying.

Read: Brother, [unintelligible] don’t lie to me.  I know how it came about, Aaron.

That’s right, now he is suggesting I am the dishonest one, here.

And I want to jump ahead because I think this passage is critically revealing:

Lee: And the reason you [Walker] went in was because in that case, Kimberlin was trying to—tell me if I’m wrong on this—release, get your address released, because he already connected you to the Everyone Draw Mohammed Day.

Read: Why would he be named in the…?

Me: He was putting all of my information in there, down to what high school I went to.

Read: But this is a case v. Seth Allen, though.  It’s not, it wasn’t connected to you.

Me: That’s why it didn’t matter.

Lee: Patrick, that’s why it’s an improper motion.  That’s why he’s saying, Patrick, what I think he’s saying is that Brett Kimberlin filed a motion that, you’re right, was completely improper, and that’s why...?

Read: For disclosure, but the judge knew that, the judge knew that.

The judge knew what?  That Aaron Worthing was Aaron Walker?  Where I lived?  Where I worked?  What high school I went to, what college I went to and what law school I went to?  No, the judge didn’t know those things until Brett Kimberlin told him and he was attempting to put that information into a public record because he knew that next his buddies Neal Rauhauser and Ron Brynaert would release that information into the world.

And Read plainly had no idea about any of this.  This was plainly the first time he heard it, but let’s notice something important here: he instinctively justified Kimberlin’s conduct, without information.  What he is demonstrating, then, is a pro-Brett-Kimberlin prejudice, remembering what the term “prejudice” actually means.  As I wrote over at Patterico’s:

To pre-judge a person is to literally “judge before.”  Before what?  Before it is appropriate, before you have all the facts.  Of course normally we think of prejudice as being based on specific traits.  Racial prejudice is to judge a man by his skin color, rather than getting enough facts to judge him as an individual.  But it can be based on anything.

Take for instance, Sarah Palin.  Liberals have convinced themselves that Palin is a moron.  So when Sarah Palin told a crowd of Tea Partiers that it was too soon to “party like its 1773” liberals freaked out.  OMG, she is so stupid.  Doesn’t she know the American Revolution was in 1776? As well documented by Cuffy Meigs, Markos Moulitsas, Gwen Ifil (who moderated Palin’s debate with Joe Biden) and others mocked her in that fashion.

One guy, Steve Paulo showed enough introspection to wonder “WTF happened in 1773?!”  Well, hey, I was a history major, but I couldn’t rattle off every event of any year, 1773 or otherwise.  But I can google.  As of this moment the first link I get is this.  You only have to page down once to discover that in December of that year was the original Boston Tea Party.  You know, the event that the Tea Party is self-consciously invoking with its very name?  Yeah, that one.

So Read plainly didn’t have enough information to go on, but rather than believing us (and the judge) when we said it was improper, or just saying, “I don’t know” he assumes that Kimberlin had a proper purpose, without any information.  That is an expression of prejudice, pure and simple, in favor of Brett Kimberlin.

And then he goes on, just making stuff up:

Read: From what I understand, Aaron showed up and the judge tossed him out of court, said you’re not even supposed to be here.

And you, dear reader, know that was a lie, too.  I have never been thrown out of any court.

Me: That’s not true.

Read: Out in the hallway.

Me: Well, that’s not true either.  That’s not true.

Read: Well, that’s just what I heard.  Well, Aaron, that doesn’t make me a f---ing liar.  [Curse words in the original.]  I’m asking questions here.

Me: You’re somebody who didn’t pay any attention to any of the evidence—

Read: Why would I?

You got that?  So he has admitted he didn’t pay attention to the evidence.  As I have pointed out before, that fits the legal definition of malice, as well as the ordinary definition of prejudice in Brett Kimberlin’s favor.

As I said on Twitter, if you don't care about my story, fine.  You don't want to learn what happened to me, fine.  But don't ignore the evidence that is all over my site and pretend you know what happened.

Skipping ahead a little:

Me: Then don’t go saying you know what happened, if you didn’t do due diligence.

Read: I’m asking.  That’s why I asked.  It’s not considered a lie to ask a damn question.

He goes on to claim that I could simply ignore court orders (yes, really), apparently unaware of things like the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.  Then when I pointed out he is clueless, he claimed I was accusing him of lying on this point, too, for asking a question.  (And as a matter of fact I didn’t accuse him of lying about this particular issue—one’s ability to just ignore court orders—only of being clueless.  And he is.)

Me: You didn’t ask a question.  You made a statement.  [I say this at two points, I am skipping to the latter one.]

Read: Go back and listen to the show, Aaron.

Stevie West: [unintelligible] You said he was there to represent Seth, you said it.

So he was lying about his own words.

He goes on pretending he was asking a question, and then retreating to claiming he was just saying what he had been told.  You know, apparently without examining the, you know, evidence.  Then Lee breaks in again:

Lee: I haven’t heard you say a single thing in this case, where you are not taking Brett Kimberlin’s side

Read: Buddy, you can go f--- yourself with that theory, too.  [Again, curse words in the original.] Honestly, I called to say it was time to bury the hatch, I get called a liar, you know, that’s fine.

Lee: Not by me.

Read: That’s fine, Lee, do you honestly believe anyone on the right wing is comparable to Neal Rauhauser, or Brett Kimberlin, especially me?

Lee: I didn’t say that.

Me: Do you think everyone on the right is an angel?

Read: Do you think I agree with Brett Kimberlin on anything?

Lee: Yes, I do, because you are making his argument.

And finally the $60,000 question:

Lee: Let me ask you, Patrick, do you think Aaron has suffered at the hands of Brett Kimberlin, yes or no?

Read: Nah, I don’t really think so.  I don’t.

What more is there to say?  There is more in the interview, but those are the highlights.

Of course after that, Read declared that because he was a veteran he got automatic immunity from the natural surmise that he is on Kimberlin’s side.  Yes, really.  And then he said this about me, today:

That’s right, he is pretending not to know even after I told him why I was there.  At least this time he managed to frame it as a question, but it is still false, because the question has been answered and if he still doesn’t know, it is due to his willful ignorance alone.  All of the evidence is there to answer.  But he feigns interest and simultaneously feigns ignorance.

All to benefit Brett Kimberlin.

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

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.