The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

A Moment I Shared With George Zimmerman

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 a year, 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.

Regular readers know I have been following the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial from the beginning.  I wrote an appropriately nerdy analysis of how self-defense law applied to the case entitled Reasonable Beliefs: Prejudice, Myth and Reality in the Trayvon Martin Shooting (Or “Why Han Solo Had the Right to Shoot Greedo First”) that has proven fairly durable, although there might be more evidence besides Zimmerman’s word (and so far that evidence has all collaborated his word).  And regular readers know that I also identified strongly with Zimmerman in this situation because 1) I myself had to exercise force in self-defense (though it consisted of taking an electronic device away from a convicted terrorist without harming him), and 2) it seemed like George Zimmerman was being charged with no good reason.  The parallels to my life seemed obvious and if you think it colored my analysis, fair enough.

But let me suggest another possibility. Maybe it is instead an educational experience.  Maybe I am enjoying the benefit of an experience that a lot of you don’t have.  I doubt anyone would envy how Brett Kimberlin attempted to frame me for a crime, how he and his compatriots have stalked my wife and I, and so on, but wise people can at least learn from even the most negative experiences, and enrich their understanding of life.  I strive to be wise in this way.

So since the trial has begun, I made it a daily ritual to read the excellent writing of Andrew Branca, guest blogging over at Legal Insurrection.  Mr. Branca is an expert in self-defense law and his writings at both Mr. Jacobson’s blog and twitter have been required daily reading.  I will critique that often the pieces need an extra bit of polish, but the analysis has been excellent.

So I found one portion on Monday’s warp up and analysis post on the trial to be pretty stunning.  To give a little background, Defense Council Mark O’Mara was discussing the practice he described as “challenge interviews” with Lead Investigator Chris Serino (pictured).  A challenge interview is when an investigator leans on inconsistencies in the story to put some stress on the witness: “You said X, but the physical evidence says Y, how do you explain that Mr. Z?”  The idea is to break down the witness’ story and maybe get at a truth that person is hiding—if they are hiding something.  The description Andrew gives is a little inaccurate, but what happened was that Serino suggested to Zimmerman that there might be video of the incident.

Perhaps you would enjoy watching it.  The good stuff starts at around the 30 minute mark, when he says “Generally speaking...”

Whether you watched it or not, O’Mara pointed out that Mr. Martin’s phone was retrieved.  It was dead at the moment, but O’Mara suggested that when they charged it and could start retrieving data from it, that there was a strong probability that there was video footage of the whole thing.  The idea was to make it clear to Zimmerman that if there was something he needed to say, that now was the time to say it.

This was a line of questioning designed to panic a guilty man.  But that was not what happened in this case.  According to Serino, Zimmerman said, “Thank God.  I was hoping someone would videotape it.”

I know exactly how Zimmerman felt.  Or more precisely one way he might have felt.

Regular readers know that Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist, and perjurer with a history of attempting to frame others for crimes, had attempted to frame me for assault in Montgomery County.  He basically claimed I beat him up in a courtroom.  You can read that original and massive post (with video and documentary evidence) here, or if you don’t have that much time, you can look at this video that sums it up:

But that video and that post might have been misleading, in that you know now that video exonerating me would emerge.  It might make you forget what it was like for me before I knew such video existed—indeed when I was erroneously told that no such footage existed.  So let me take you back to when it first happened.  On the morning of January 9, 2012, the now-infamous iPad incident occurred in which Kimberlin went to use his device and I peacefully took it from him, in fear of what this convicted terrorist might do with it.  Within hours, Kimberlin was writing to my then-attorney Beth Kingsley telling her falsely that I beat him up in the courthouse.  I remembering thinking that Kimberlin was going to tell his false story and I worried that two other people would, too.  First Kimberlin was accompanied by a woman we believed to be his mother, and, second, there was another person we assumed to be another Kimberlin associate.

(Later that second person turned out to be just an old man who enjoyed watching what happened in court, but I didn’t know this at the time.)

But I immediately thought there might be security footage: this was just outside a very modern courtroom.  I contacted a man in the Sheriff’s office and he told me that there was no footage at all.  So I was afraid that it would be nothing but my own word against potentially three liars.  And that fear only grew as Mr. Kimberlin, a convicted document forger, started producing fake photographs and fake medical records purporting to prove I had beaten him up.

And then one day, my then-attorney, Reginald Bours III told me some stunning news.  It turned out there was footage after all.  My immediate reaction was a verbal “thank God,” which was quickly tempered by Bours’ warning that the footage would not be a continuous feed.  You have seen what it is, but what Bours described to me, second hand from a gentleman in the Sheriff’s office, was that the gaps were of about three or four seconds between images.  If that description held, it might not be the slam dunk I had initially hoped for.

It wasn’t until several weeks after the charges for assault were dropped that I finally saw the footage.  Indeed in a Murphy’s law sort of way, obstacles found themselves in our way.  Several computers couldn’t read the video’s format at all, and I had to bring in an old Toshiba with a crack down the center to read it.  And then when I saw it, I wanted to shout.  I mean the real thing is even clearer than this YouTube copy and it makes it even clearer that Kimberlin had tried to frame me.

I remember telling all of my friends and family the good news, using the same joke over and over, “the video is real and it’s spectacular” but I told them to keep it under their hats until we were able to use it at a hearing the next day.  A friend of mine cryptically tweeted to me a version of this footage:

I had in my hands more than merely evidence casting doubt on my guilt, but evidence utterly proving my innocence and the fact Brett Kimberlin was guilty of a vile attempt to frame me for a crime.

Of course for George Zimmerman things went another way.  They never did find video from the altercation on Martin’s phone (unless it was destroyed).  But it is here where, yes, I think my experiences are educational.  I understand, just like Investigator Serino, what an innocent man says at the hope that his actions were videoed.  He hopes you can see everything.  He might even assume it will be his salvation before he learns about the quality of the thing.  He will believe the truth shall set him free.

Investigator Serino is also right to point out that this is how a sociopath might pretend to feel.  For instance, even before I posted the video, Brett Kimberlin did, claiming that somehow it proved him right.  Wrap your head around that fact.

And even if we assume he is not a sociopath, this only means that Zimmerman would believe the truth would set him free.  But if he misunderstood when force was justified, it might have still indicted him.

Still his reaction, as recounted by Investigator Serino, is extremely powerful evidence presented by a defense witness that is...

Wait, whaaaaa?!  This is a witness for the state?

Of course I am joking.  I told a similar joke on twitter a few days ago, but there have been so many times when prosecutorial witnesses ended up helping the defense score points that it has given rise to the theory that the state is intentionally bricking the case.

If true, this would seem to be highly unethical.  A prosecutor should not bring a case unless 1) they actually think the defendant is guilty and 2) they have a reasonable chance of success.  A prosecutor’s job isn’t to convict people, but to do justice, striking their sword ruthlessly at the guilty but sparing the innocent.  But I could picture one scenario where I could see a prosecutor rationalizing trying Zimmerman when they feel they will inevitably lose.

There is, after all, some concern that there might be a riot if Zimmerman is acquitted.  I am not sure how realistic that fear is, but it definitely exists and the prosecutors in this case might share it.  Further, Zimmerman himself probably would have to worry about vigilante violence if he is set free.  One has to wonder if he will ever be able to get back to something like normal life at this point.  So prosecutors might rationally believe that if they simply announce they are not charging him, that a riot will explode.  On the other hand, if the trial drags on for weeks with witness after witness demonstrating that Zimmerman is innocent—or at the very least he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—there can be hope that the anger will be blunted, for two reasons.

First, facts do matter.  For instance, it was long alleged that the Birthers—those convinced that Barrack Obama was born in a foreign country and thus ineligible to be president—would always believe their theories.  People commonly believed they were immune to facts.  And then Obama released his long-form birth certificate, and birtherism was cut in half overnight.  So it turned out that a large number of people really were waiting for that piece of evidence.  “Facts are stubborn things” as our Second President once said, as a defense attorney, and if most Americans cannot be convinced by facts, then we might as well give up on this democracy concept.

Second, even for that hard core that cannot accept Zimmerman’s innocence, they are going to see the verdict coming a mile away which might blunt the blow when it comes.

So a prosecutor who thinks similarly might believe that a full trial might have a positive effect on public order, otherwise justifying a trial when that person knows they are going to lose.

I will admit I don’t buy the theory I have just outlined, but the incompetence of their presentation so far makes me wonder if it might be true.

Still, unless I am suddenly surprised by some testimony or evidence thus far unheard of, I don’t see how the state can believe for one moment it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn’t act in lawful self-defense.  This is not to say he is necessarily innocent.  Because OJ Simpson was found to be liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman I can write that he was guilty of their murder without fear of a defamation suit.  But while the evidence was sufficient to meet the burden of proof in civil suits, it was not enough for criminal law, so he was found not “innocent” but simply “not guilty” which is shorthand for “not guilty beyond a reasonable dount.”  Our system is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty go free over the innocent, because we fear government oppression more than criminal conduct by our fellow citizens.  So I can believe he should go free, while not being convinced that he is innocent.  I don’t know the man and therefore I cannot say what is in his heart.

But unless you believe George Zimmerman is actually a sociopath—and I would have to ask what you would base that assessment on—there can be little doubt today that Zimmerman at least had an “innocent heart.”  He genuinely believes he did nothing wrong.


Sidebar: Regular readers might wonder if I have anything to say about the latest charges I have filed against Bill Schmalfeldt.  I will simply say that I have filed charges against Schmalfeldt for harassment and the commissioner has accepted the charges.  I will also say that while unlawful contact makes up part of my complaint, there is more to it than that alone.  Beyond that I will be refraining from discussing the matter at this point in time.

And, by the way, there might be news in another case coming as early as today.  But we will have to see.



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.