Bomber Sues Bloggers

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.

That is the name of the site set up by Ali Akbar as my officially endorsed™ legal defense fund as we get ready to fight the latest frivolous legal action by Brett Kimberlin.  As regular readers know, Brett Kimberlin has sued me, Ali Akbar, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and the blogger known as “Kimberlin Unmasked” for supposed defamation, stalking, and malicious prosecution.  It is an utterly frivolous lawsuit and Brett Kimberlin knows it and we are asking for your donations to help.

How frivolous is it?  So much so that he is suing Robert Stacy McCain for defamation for calling him “evil.”

I mean first, Stacy has a lot of good reasons to call Kimberlin evil given his terrorist bombing campaign has cost one man his life, to name but one example of the downright evil things Brett Kimberlin has done over the years.

But even before you shout “truth is a defense!” even more fundamentally, it cannot be defamation to call someone evil.  I don’t care who you call “evil,” I don’t care how undeserving that person is, it is not defamation.  If Mother Teresa was still among us and a person called her evil, even putting aside that she is a public figure, that would not be defamation.  The exact same thing can be said to the others revered figures in history—Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower—if you called them evil, and they were still alive, even forgetting that they are public figures, it is not defamation, because it is a legally subjective opinion.  I mean morally, I believe like Dr. King that there is such a thing as objective good and evil, and Brett Kimberlin is evil, but in the eyes of the law, there are simply no standards by which to judge if a person is evil and therefore it cannot be not defamation.  It’s like calling a person “unfashionable” or “ugly”—there is no way to prove a person right or wrong on that subject, therefore it is not possible to sue for defamation.

How frivolous is it?  Brett Kimberlin has claimed it was defamation for Stacy and Ali to truthfully report that charges had been filed against him for, more or less, statutory rape.  The technical term is sexual offense in the third degree, and no, it is not defamation to report he was charged with it.  It is a fact.  He may protest he was innocent (I personally think he was guilty but for now he has gotten away with it), but even if he proved himself absolutely innocent, that doesn’t change the fact that he was charged: it could only change what we should think of the fact he was charged.

For instance, Brett Kimberlin filed charges against me for assault.  It is not defamation for a person to say that, even though you and I both know the charges were false:

The fact they were false then reflects poorly on Brett Kimberlin.  The fact he produced medical records and photographs purporting to prove he was injured suggests some serious wrongdoing on his part.  That is why I say to this day that Brett Kimberlin attempted to frame me for a crime: because, logically, he was not injured and therefore that evidence is false.  I won’t say if he forged that evidence, or really hurt himself or had himself hurt, but one way or the other the evidence he produced was not what he purported it to be: the result of any injury caused by me (because in fact I have never harmed him).  One way or the other, that evidence was falsified and he tried to actually frame me.

And none of that makes it defamation to say I was charged with assault.  It just changes what you think about that fact, from being something potentially negative about me, to being something damning about Brett Kimberlin for his false charges.

And bear in mind, he is suing me for malicious prosecution.  Sigh.

How frivolous is it?  He is suing me for offering free legal help to his wife.  But it also reflects what a thug he is.  My entire involvement with him started with Brett Kimberlin seeking to punish me for helping Seth Allen and now he is trying to punish me for helping his wife as a lawyer.  After he caused the House of Ruth to be unable to help her, he now seeks to punish one of the last people she could turn to.  That should enrage any feminist.

Because Ms. Kimberlin came to me as a woman who said she had been sexually abused and she feared that the same might happen to her daughters.  And she said that Kimberlin had been using the courts to try to stop her from leaving him.  And I believed her.  In the case of his abuse of the courts, I saw it firsthand.

Indeed I am confident that the most likely outcome of this case is that the court will find that Brett Kimberlin is in fact a pedophile who had sex with his wife when she was underage.

How frivolous is it?  He is claiming I am stalking him by peacefully coming to court when I was not “invited” ignoring all the times he came to court when he wasn’t invited, either.  For instance, he attempted to intervene when I sought a peace order against Neal Rauhauser, to play lawyer for him.  Even though the court told him he had no right to intervene, at the next hearing he showed up anyway, and tried to intervene again, using the very same written motion that was previously rejected.  And let’s not forget the time he showed up at the courthouse when I sought a peace order against his self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt and then stalked my wife in the parking lot.  And he is suing me, again,* for stalking.  Like all of his previous claims, this one will fail.

But we do need your help.  I believe Brett is pursuing a strategy of “victory through attrition.”  You don’t believe me?  Let me quote the exact words he wrote to Patrick Frey when threatening him with a defamation suit:

I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money[.]

This was a threat of a frivolous suit.  Everything Patrick wrote was sourced either in criminal cases, or publicly available articles.  Just as it is not defamation to say he was charged with, more or less, statutory rape, it is not defamation to note that Slate once called him “convicted bomber, habitual liar, and all-around sociopath[.]”  Or more precisely, if that was defamation, it is Slate that committed it, not the person who reported that Slate called him that.

So the message was clear: if you don’t take down what you said about me, I will file a frivolous suit and even if you “win” you will still lose because you will have to travel and even potentially hire a lawyer.  And you might even screw up the way Seth Allen did and default and lose even though you were right all along.  It is pure, unadulterated, anti-free-speech bullying.  And I submit that is what he is doing here, too.

You can directly counteract this.  Donate to the cause, help with our costs, and show him that this is not a winning strategy.  As you can see I have replaced the previous donation buttons with a link to our page.

Besides, don’t you want to see a vigorous defense, with extensive discovery?  (Yes, yes, he might not comply with discovery, but plaintiffs who do not comply with discovery lose their cases by default.)

And there is another reason to help.  One of the defendants is the blogger known only as Kimberlin Unmasked.  As a first step, he is seeking to argue that this person should be “unmasked”—that is google should be required to reveal his identity.  We all know what will happen to this person if Brett succeeds.  The harassment and stalking I, my friends, and even my wife have faced, will be likely to be visited upon this person.  You know because Brett Kimberlin is evil, and so is the cabal we call “Team Kimberlin.”

So if you believe in freedom of speech, then donate.  If you believe in helping a woman to escape a man she says sexually abused her, then donate.  Or if you just want to prevent Brett and company from victimizing another person, “Kimberlin Unmasked,” then donate.

Or for that matter, if you want to see Brett Kimberlin actually adjudicated to be a pedophile, then donate!!!

And know you have my thanks when you do.

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

* Brett has previously accused me of stalking in the second peace order he took out against me.  Judge Rupp stated in his wonderfully matter-of-fact style that this claim was meritless:

Mr. Kimberlin is requesting that a, the issuance of a peace order against Mr. Walker on the basis of harassment and/or stalking. There certainly is no evidence to support stalking.

(And he went on to find against him on harassment, as well.) That is, it wasn't just that there was some evidence but not enough.  Instead, there was no reason whatsoever for Brett Kimberlin to believe I had engaged in a course of conduct that would make him reasonably fear that I would harm him.  So he has falsely accused me (and others) of stalking before.

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

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.