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.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 4): Brett Has Mo’ Problems With the Truth

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.

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?

Over the Hedge

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.



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.

1 comment:

  1. 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?