Convicted Perjurer Brett Kimberlin’s Dishonest (Partial) Victory and My Punch Back

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.

Well, dear reader, as often happens, blogging had to take a back seat to legal work, but now I have a few minutes to catch you up, even before I set up an evening of New Years revelry.  So get out the popcorn and, yes, there are going to be many Scribd embeds here.  Sorry.

But to celebrate the New Years the way they do in China, there will also be fireworks.

So last Monday, December 23, Kimberlin filed this motion in the RICO case.

   Docket Item 18

I suggest you read it for yourself, but the gist of it was that Brett was asking for about two months extra time because gosh, he needs a lawyer, and he didn’t realize that if he filed in October, we would be responding in December.  And of course he lies because this is Brett Kimberlin, whom Slate once described as a “convicted bomber, habitual liar, and all-around sociopath.”

So as you will see in a moment in my response, Brett Kimberlin jacked around with service.  Why?  See that quote from Slate above.  But I filed a response as soon as I could, on early Monday afternoon.  You can read that motion here:

   RICO Motion to Strike (OCR) by AaronWorthing

So it mostly speaks for itself.  Meanwhile, unbeknownst to us, the judge had already considered and partially granted Kimberlin’s motion for an extension, and also denied John Hoge and my motions to require verification.  You can read the letter order here:

   Letter Order More Time

I say that the judge had already considered it without looking my motion to strike, because if the judge had looked at it, he would have said that he had done so.  Its standard operating procedure when granting and denying motions: you say what you looked at, you might give some reasons as Judge Grimm did here, and then you put down your order.  Besides, my motion to strike, and John Hoge’s, both appeared on PACER after the judge’s order, so there is that.

I would say that I concur with John’s analysis, here, but I would add that in relation to the motion to require verification, that this is one of those times when I just can’t tell you, dear reader, about all of the strategy involved, and therefore I cannot tell why it really, truly doesn’t bother me overly much that the motion to require verification was denied.  I figured it was a long shot (at least at this stage of the game), but even if it failed, it would likely further other important goals, setting the stage for other motions down the road.

It is interesting that Brett doesn’t even bother to dispute any of the damning factual allegations I made against him, including that he attempted to frame me for a crime.  I mean now was the time to prove I really did what he claimed... so where was that proof?  Hell, why can’t he simply tell us exactly when I supposedly decked him?

But I digress.

So, dear reader, you might say this, “Gosh, Aaron, it doesn’t seem fair for the judge to grant Kimberlin the relief he was seeking without you having a fair chance to respond.”  I mean the whole purpose of service of process is to give you fair opportunity to be heard.  As the Supreme Court said in Powell v. Alabama

[i]n Holden v.Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 389, the necessity of due notice and an opportunity of being heard is described as among the "immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the Union may disregard."

In America we have an adversarial justice system, built on the idea that if you have two sides arguing their case, that the truth will be most likely to be discovered.  I won’t say that the truth is found in the middle, because obviously sometimes one side is 100% in the right and the other is 100% in the wrong.  There are times when a lawyer goes into court and comes out with exactly what she was seeking for her client, and rightfully so.  But the idea is that it is in the struggle between those opposing forces that justice emerges.  So when only one side is heard, justice is likely to be distorted.

“So, Aaron,” you might ask, “is there any chance of reversing this injustice where Brett jacked around with service denying your opportunity to be heard on the matter, and then obtained the relief he sought without giving you a chance to be heard?”  Gosh, dear reader, you ask some really good questions.  And with that attempt at humor aside, here is my motion to reconsider.  Or, in some sense, my motion to actually consider what I wrote, but of course that is not how I style it.

   Walker RICO Motion to Reconsider (OCR) by AaronWorthing

Of course given past behavior, I am sure Brett and his “Baghdad Blob” Bill Schmalfeldt will claim I have attacked the judge.  But I have not.  As I say in my motion, Brett has committed a fraud upon the court, claiming to have served people he had not, and then taking advantage of their lack of response.  He not only robbed me of the opportunity to be heard on this question, he also robbed the judge of the benefit of my analysis.  After all, the adversarial process is not there just for the fun of arguing but to aid the judge in reaching the right conclusion.  If I was a judge I would be very angry at Kimberlin right about now.  But we will see if Judge Grimm is as angry as I would have been in his shoes.

(Psst: John has filed a similar motion, which he shares here.)

Of course my motion to reconsider leaves Brett in a dilemma.  Does he attempt to file his own response with the court?  Or does he actually try to respond to my Motion to Dismiss, given that I am asking that the original due date be for that response be restored to... the day after New Year’s.   Or does he blow it off, as he has been many motions recently?

Stay tuned and keep the popcorn handy, folks.

But I anticipate that we will not know the outcome of the case this year.

(I can only use this lame joke once a year.  Don’t begrudge me for it.)

Always be happy warriors, folks.

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

Sidebar: Please note, dear reader, that I am using justification (formatting wise, and legal-wise) on this post.  I preferred to use it but users of Google reader complained that it looked like it was a mess.  But now Google reader is gone, let me ask you, does this still make sense?  Let me know by comment or by email, twitter, etc. what you think.

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

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.