First, some happy news. Bomber
sues bloggers, the official defense fund of myself, Ali Akbar, Robert Stacy
McCain, John Hoge and whoever Kimberlin Unmasked announced that it met its
immediate fundraising benchmark. That doesn’t
mean we have all the money we need, so keep donating, but it is a good sign of
progress. So if you want to help in the
defense of freedom
of expression and other important values, go here.
This is the fourth part of a
series I have written about the numerous proven lies Brett Kimberlin has told
in his silly
RICO complaint against me and numerous others. You can read the first and second parts here,
here
and here. The reasoning for this exercise is as
follows. Brett Kimberlin has theorized
that lying to the FBI is criminal obstruction of justice under various federal
statutes. Bill Schmalfeldt has claimed
that the complaint or a document substantially similar to the complaint has
been delivered to the FBI for the purpose of opening a RICO investigation. So if 1) lying to the FBI is criminal
obstruction of justice and 2) Brett actually turned over this complaint or
something substantially similar to the FBI, then he provably lied to the FBI
and therefore, according to his own legal theory, committed obstruction of
justice.
And it serves an additional purpose. It helps in the PR “war” over this. After all, if his case was so strong, why
would he lie in provable ways? It gives rise to the quite reasonable (and
correct) deduction that this complaint is ultimately frivolous and filed solely
to harass.
That being said, my usual admonition
to you, dear reader, applies. While I will
discuss the facts endlessly, I do not wish anyone on our side to discuss the
law. We don’t want to educate Mighty
Mouse:
So for today’s dishonesty, I am focusing on what he says on page eight,
paragraph forty in the amended complaint.
Just after telling how he learned of that Aaron Walker is the person who
used the pseudonym “Aaron Worthing,” Brett writes the following:
Plaintiff also discovered
that Aaron Worthing was the publisher of a blog dedicated to attacking,
smearing, mocking and insulting the Muslim faith and the Prophet Mohammed. That blog was called “Everyone Draw Mohammed,”
and it solicited vile, pornographic and insulting depictions of the Prophet
from people all over the world. In
December 2011, Defendant Walker had published more than 800 insulting
depictions of the Prophet.
Later on he refers to the site as
a “Muslim hate blog.”
This is of course a funhouse
depiction of a real event, with several lies sprinkled through.
First, the blog was not dedicated
to attacking, smearing, mocking or insulting any one or any faith, period. It was dedicated to defending freedom of expression. You see for some time the Islamofascists (as
opposed to most ordinary Muslims who loved their faith and also loved freedom),
were trying to use private violence to suppress any expression they considered
blasphemous. The particular issue arose
when several Danish cartoonists drew images of Mohammed, and had fatwahs placed
against them for having done so. They
were told that the mere depiction of Mohammed was verboten and therefore they
deserved death for doing so (moderates believe the rule against depicting
Mohammed only applies to actual Muslims).
Subsequently the creators of South Park decided to depict Mohammed,
innocuously, in an episode and were censored by their own network. When it happened again, a cartoonist in
Seattle suggested an “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day” for May 20, 2010 as a method
of protest. The idea was for so many
people to draw Mohammed that the terrorists literally couldn’t kill us all.
One popular metaphor I and others
relied on often was this key scene in Spartacus:
In that scene the Romans asked
that the conquered slave army identify which among them was Spartacus so that
he could then be singled out for the worst punishment they could dish out. And the slaves refused to let one of their
own be singled out. They all shouted “I am
Spartacus” because what they were really saying is, “what you do to one of us,
you do to all of us.”
Our purpose was to call the
terrorists’ bluff. And it was a
bluff. Because there are too many of us,
and too few of them, to actually kill and terrorize every person who acts to
offend them. We the people simply had to
recognize our own power.
Thousands of people declared they
were going to participate on Facebook but there was concern that Facebook might
sabotage the protest so I decided to create my own blog. In the end over a hundred thousand people
participated on Facebook even before the page was hacked by those sympathetic
to Islamofascists. At my site, around
eight hundred participated. And other
sites were created dedicated to the cause all over the internet.
So it was a lie to say that this
was even slightly an anti-Islam site. At
all times, I made a sharp distinction between the terrorists and Islamofascists
seeking to suppress freedom of expression, and the majority of good Muslims who
believed in freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The only person between myself and Kimberlin who
doesn’t seem to recognize that distinction is Kimberlin. He is the one whom, every time I attack
terrorists and Islamofascists, thinks that I am talking about ordinary Muslims.
This is, indeed, why many self-identified
Muslims actually submitted cartoons to the site, because I made it clear that I
myself did not thing anything negative about Muslims generally, only the
terrorists.
Further, it is not dedicated to “attacking,
smearing, mocking and insulting... Mohammed.”
I made it plain in my Mission Statement (recovered here)
that one could be as offensive as one chose, but it was not necessary to be
offensive. Indeed, I dedicated an entire
section of the site to what I called “Happy Mohammed” cartoons, where the
cartoons were not offensive at all. Here
are two of my favorite among them:
Even the creators of Over the
Hedge participated. Is Brett going
to claim they hate all Muslims, too?
After all, as noted above, to the
Islamofascists any depiction of
Mohammed was offensive. Any mere
depiction was enough to make one “fatwah-worthy”—as I mockingly called when you
offended the perpetually offendable. So there was no need for the cartoon to do more to join the protest.
And that takes care of the claim
that I “solicited vile, pornographic, and insulting depictions of the Prophet.” Indeed my mission statement specifically said
I would not accept actual porn. Of
course many of the cartoons were arguably vile, and were definitely insulting,
but I didn’t solicit anything like that and honestly I had no idea how many
would be insulting and how many would not.
Finally, since many of the
cartoons were innocuous it is false to say that all of 800 or so were “insulting
depictions.”
Oh, and by the way, why did he
bring up this irrelevancy? Why not
simply say “Walker’s online activities upset Islamofascist terrorists” and
leave it at that? Because he was hoping
to prejudice the judge against me. But
what he doesn’t know is that including irrelevant facts like that simply angers
a judge and if anything it prejudices the judge against the person who tried
that cheap trick.
So let’s review, including the
lies from the previous posts, with the new lies being underlined:
Lie #1: claiming I filed anything for Seth Allen or helped Mr. Allen to file anything himself (repeated
in the passage featured today.)
Lie #2: claiming that I filed anything “attacking” (including
criticizing) any of the judges in Kimberlin
v. Allen.
Lie #3: claiming none of the Defendants have ever contacted him for
comment about the SWATting story.
Lie #4: claiming I have intimidated anyone, ever (and necessarily
that anyone “conspired” with me to intimidate anyone).
Lie #5: claiming that Judge Jordan rejected our allegedly false
narratives.
Lie #6: claiming I have defended Seth Allen’s “attacks” on Judge
Jordan (which as best as I can tell were just criticisms, albeit intemperate,
ineffective and ill-advised ones).
Lie #7: claiming that my blog, Everyone Draw Mohammed was dedicated
to “attacking, smearing, mocking and insulting” Islam or Mohammed. (And really that is kind of a two-fer, isn’t
it?)
Lie #8: claiming that my blog solicited “vile, pornographic and
insulting depictions of Mohammed.”
Lie #9: claiming that my blog published over 800 insulting
depictions of Mohammed. Looking back, I would
say about 60% were insulting to Mohammed or Islam, given that I promised I would
not censor my submissions as long as they adhered to two rules 1) they must
depict mohammed in some clear way (including drawing an arrow to a thing and
calling it Mohammed) and 2) no porn.
Mendacity #1: when he gives
the impression that I intervened in Kimberlin
v. Allen out of the blue and motions on my own initiative when in fact each
and every one of them were filed in response to some action Brett took directed
at me. I have no standing to intervene,
otherwise.
Mendacity #2: when he fails
to note that he instructed many of the defendants not to harass him, which
includes unwanted contact making it more difficult to contact him for a response
to the SWATting story.
Mendacity #3: when he
pretends his denials have any value whatsoever.
If his denials are meaningless then why is it even relevant whether we
contacted him to obtain it?
Mendacity #4: when he pretends that I did anything improper by
filing motions in Maryland anonymously, when I was given specific permission by
the court to do exactly that.
So that is now nine lies and four
merely misleading statements in less than four paragraphs. Be sure to tune in tomorrow for part five.
---------------------------------------
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 donation link 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.
In Kimberlin's complaint, he seems to imply that your civil case against him in Virginia was dismissed. Is that true, or was I misreading his complaint?
ReplyDelete