The Franklin Center Replies to Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin

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 two years, 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.

So previously the Franklin Center (“TFC”) filed a motion to dismiss Brett Kimberlin’s silly RICO suit which you can read here.  The way it works in federal court, and in most state courts, is this.  Party A files a motion.  Anyone inclined to oppose it files an opposition.  Party A then has an opportunity to file a Reply.  And it is worth noting that the opposition could be filed by people on the same side.  I could have theoretically filed and argued that it would prejudice my interests to see TFC dismissed.  That does happen in other cases, but I don’t expect it to happen here, and I know you won’t see that coming from me.  I want to see everyone out of the case as soon as possible, even if that ends up meaning I am the only one in it.

So TFC filed its motion to dismiss (“MTD”).  Brett had the right to file an opposition and after pleading he needed more time, he finally did, although he incorrectly calls it a “response.”  And so TFC got to file a reply.  And that is right below the fold:

   Franklin Center Reply by AaronWorthing

But of course it doesn’t mean very much if you can’t see what Brett filed in response, does it?  Here’s where things get a little tricky.  First, of course, is his Opposition to the Franklin Center’s MTD:

   Kimberlin v NBC Franklin Res M2D (OCR) (Redacted)

But a sharp-eyed reader will notice that Brett makes reference to arguments made in other Oppositions.  The truth is Brett’s three separate oppositions filed that day—against me and John’s MTD, against DB Capital Strategies’ MTD, and against TFC’s MTD—all make reference to each other effectively requiring us to respond to all three.  So truthfully, you will not see the whole picture until you see all three, but I want to wait until I present my reply before you see it.  After all, I want his lies rebutted in the same post where they are presented.

Also a reasonable question is whether TFC has been borrowing from us again.  One can never be entirely sure, but their reply was filed two days later than John’s and my own,* and there are certain parallels.  You haven’t seen my reply, but you have seen John’s here.  For instance, there is this passage in the TFC reply:

Furthermore, while the court does give a certain amount of deference to parties litigating pro se, this "does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court." Solomon v. Dawson (D. Md. July 18, 2013) case number PWG-13-1951.

(Pro se is fancy lawyer talk for proceeding without a lawyer.  And technically I am pro se, too, because I am representing myself.)  Both John and I said something similar.  Here’s what John said:

“Liberal construction does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court.” Solomon v.  Dawson, Case No. 13-CV-01951, ECF No. 5. (D. Md. 2013).

And this is what I said (in the Reply I haven’t shared with you yet):

While some deference is ordinarily due to a pro se litigant, this “does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court.”  Solomon v. Dawson (D. Md. July 18, 2013) case number PWG-13-1951.

I think it is fair to say that they seem to be more likely to be borrowing more from my reply.  From the word “this” on, it’s word-for-word in matching my language, including my choice of when to start quoting from the court.

(And I will remind readers that this is not plagiarism or even a cause for complaint on my part.  I consider it to be a sincere compliment.)

And, incidentally, as a matter of inside baseball, you can tell something about this Solomon case just by looking at it.  That “PWG” in the case number?  That stands for Paul W. Grimm, the same judge deciding this case.  So basically what I, John and TFC have done is quote Judge Grimm back to himself, which is wise for all kinds of reasons.

In addition to that, TFC seems to have taken from one of our legal arguments the citation to Carpenters v. Scott and Griffin v. Breckinridge, although the quotation is not so close as to ring any bells and could have come just as easily from the motions to dismiss as any of our replies.  And they likewise seem to have taken my idea that Smith v. Esquire controls on the statute of limitations for False Light claims.  You will see a lot more fireworks on that subject in my reply because Brett tries to lie to the court in relation to that case.

I also find it interesting that they are increasingly relying on the email sent to John Patrick “Patterico” Frey, one of my co-defendants in this mess and making the point that Brett is not even disputing the authenticity of that email.  Brett has remarkably claimed that it was somehow fraud for us to say he had filed one hundred lawsuits, after he bragged to Patterico that he had done that.  Apparently he is operating on the Flounder Principle: “You f---ed up... you trusted us!”

Finally, a notation on redactions.  Normally email addresses are pretty strictly redacted when I publish these things, with the exception of professional contact information for lawyers, because if anything they probably prefer that information to be out there.  But I made an exception for those messages allegedly sent to Kimberlin that crossed the line into a true threat, in my opinion.  I mean I don’t care about a guy who just said, “you’ve been exposed” or said Kimberlin is going back to jail (again).  A threat to expose Kimberlin’s conduct is not actionable.  Neither is a threat to send him back to prison.  I suppose if that person said, “give me $10,000 or I will send you back to prison” that would be extortion, but just stating that he is going back to prison?  A person has a right to want that, even to gloat over the possibility, even if one might find it distasteful.  It’s protected speech.

But if someone allegedly threatened true physical harm, then by redacting that information I am potentially hiding evidence from the world.  And I think more sunlight is better than less in these sorts of cases.  Bluntly, if you have any information about who might have allegedly sent those messages I want it to come out.

But also I don’t think any of them are genuine.  Patterico once documented strong evidence that Team Kimberlin was faking death threats and Kimberlin is a convicted document forger, after all, one of the few people know knows what Presidential Seal tastes like.  And here’s one more thing: why hasn’t Brett made any of these people who allegedly threatened him part of the suit?  He has never been shy about suing anonymous writers on the internet.  Right now he has three actions against the person or persons known as “Kimberlin Unmasked,” and the RICO suit includes “Ace of Spades.”  So why hasn’t he sued, for instance, the person who wrote under the name “Army of Davids” who facially really did send a death threat?  Am I the only person who thinks that he hasn’t sued them, because he knows who sent these messages, and he knows that at its core it is phony?

Still, on the off chance that they are genuine, I am not redacting information like their email address and if you think you know anything about them, let me know.  Or let law enforcement know (for if you don’t tell them I will).

So that is it for today.  The next document dump will be Monday and it will be Brett Kimberlin’s latest attempt to use the courts to shut us up.  Stay tuned!

And then my loose plan is to show you the documents I filed starting Tuesday.  As a preview, I filed three things last Monday.  First, a motion to strike his oppositions.  Second, a motion asking for leave to file a reply in excess of the page limit.  And third, the reply itself, on the assumption that the court will grant that leave (as is commonly done).

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

* It is worth noting—in light of all the shenanigans going on with service—that TFC received service much later than I did even though their address is closer to Kimberlin than my home.

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

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.