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, April 10, 2014

EXCLUSIVE: Transcribing the April 9 Hearing Against Convicted Document Forger 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.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave her, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson,, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  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.

Dear reader, this is a supplemental post to yesterday’s post on the hearing where Brett admitted to a second act of document forgery.  Normally I just report and figure my reputation is good enough.  Seriously, although Schmalfeldt has repeatedly called me a liar in my legal reporting has he ever produced a transcript that showed I lied about what went on in a hearing?

But in this case it is worth transcribing large portions of the audio because... well, it’s just good stuff.  And by the way, this is also a way of mass communicating this data to my co-defendants.  And while we have ordered a transcript and I suspect it will be posted when it is available, it is just too juicy to wait.

Like the last time I did this sort of thing, a few caveats apply.  To quote from a much earlier post:

Now, first, court rules prevent me from just uploading the audio and letting you listen.  This is unfortunate, because mere text will never convey just how angry Brett Kimberlin was at one key moment.  Indeed I really wish we had courtroom video so you could see his body language.
There it was Brett’s anger I wish I could convey to you.  Here, it will be the judge’s anger, and Brett looking like a whipped dog by the end.  But still you can read and get some sense of it.  The caveats continue:

Second, I am not crazy enough to transcribe every word, but I will give you some important parts.  I transcribe a lot of it, but not all of it.

Third, I will note that I am not a professional transcriptionist.  I am just a guy listening and doing his best to capture what is heard.  There might be subtle conventions of how transcripts are made that I miss, and I simply might hear things differently.  For instance at a key moment there is so much cross talk, I didn’t know how to capture it....

And I will note that I generally left out the ums and ahs and just plain stuttering that occurs, in everyone’s speech involved, making this a relatively clean read.  Sometimes a person would say fully formed words in very incomplete ways, and I captured that as best I could so you could decide for yourself what you think they were trying to say, because it does create some ambiguity.  But other than that I cleaned up everyone’s speech, including Brett Kimberlin’s.  And on very rare occasions, I will add words in brackets to further clarify what I think is being said.  I will not delete or substitute words in that fashion, though.

So still with me?  Just to review, my attorney Patrick Ostronic made a presentation walking the judge through the evidence that Brett had forged a certified mail green card.  That is he took the green card and added a checkmark indicating it had been sent restricted delivery as required by the Maryland rules.  This is not a mere technicality.  It is designed to ensure the court that the document was sent so that only the recipient—in this case Ali Akbar—could receive it, so that he would definitely have notice that the suit existed.  I’m not going to belabor how Ostronic made that presentation that point because John Hoge already captured it in a pair of visuals I will proceed to rip off from him.


That is, he filed the unchecked version at one point in the case, and then re-filed the supposedly same green card, with a checkmark magically appearing.

So basically Mr. Ostronic’s excellent presentation was simply walking the judge through it.  And once she saw it, it is what it is.  Ostronic did add that Brett had recently confessed to another forgery in federal court, but otherwise he didn’t have to say very much.

So then it came time for the judge to hear from Brett.  Here’s the opening of that presentation, with “BK” being our litigious friend and “J” being the judge:

BK: Your honor, I’m a pro se litigant.  I apologize if I made some errors in this case.

J: Well if you falsified a document that has nothing to do with being a pro se litigant.

BK: Well, I didn’t falsify a document.  But Judge Burrell heard this issue...

Brett goes on to claim that Judge Burrell already heard the issue, which Ostronic contradicted, and led the judge to listen to the recording from that prior hearing and determine that this issue was not already settled.  Putting that aside the judge cut to the chase:

J: Let’s get to the crux of it, did you alter the certificates?

BK: These are… When I go to the post office, I asked for…

J: Did you alter the return receipts between docket entry 38 and docket entry 50-whatever, did you change them?

BK: I did not change them intentionally.

Sure, he accidentally forged the documents!

Continuing right in the same soliloquy from Brett:

BK: When I go to the post office, I ask them to do a registered, um...  whatever it’s called, restricted delivery and they did not do it.  He’s saying that there’s an extra fee.  I have never paid an extra fee for restricted delivery.  I’ve sent literally fifty or a hundred of these things and I have never once paid for restricted delivery.  [holding up other documents] You know, Mr. Akbar, here, right there, this was sent in January 2, to Mr. Akbar, it came back, its restricted delivery.  This one here is January 25, again, Mr. Akbar, it came back restricted delivery.  You know, undeliverable.  And he keeps accusing me of not paying the extra fee.

J: This isn’t about paying a fee.

BK: [cross talk. Something like “it’s what he says” but I can’t be sure.]

J: This is about the exact same green card being filed with... to support motions you filed at different docket entries, one showing a restricted delivery box checked and one not.

BK: Your honor, like I said, I asked the post office to send it restricted delivery…

J: You’re not answering my question.

BK: Yes, I changed—

J: Did you change it?

BK: [cross talk] Yes, I did.

J: And then you filed it.  And then you filed it representing it accurately represented the green card that had been filled out?

BK: No-no-no-no, I filed it and accurately said it accurately reflected what I told the post office to do.  And that’s what it is.  You know, like I said, I am a pro-se litigant.

J: [audible scoff] Don’t even use that with me.  You know, it’s one thing to say I am pro se so I don’t understand rules or I don’t understand how to get something in, in the rules of evidence, it’s another thing to alter something and file it.  I’m reading your motion right now to see exactly what you represented it to be when you filed it again at docket entry 59.

BK: Okay, go ahead.

It’s nice of him to give her permission, isn’t it?  So the judge then spends a few minutes reading silently and so this is a good time to say that one thing those words don’t capture is how angry and loud the judge was getting.  This was naturally because Brett kept dancing around the issue and not answering the question and then offering that lame I’m-just-a-poor-ignorant-pro-se-woe-is-me routine which the judge had already said was no defense to document forgery.

After reading silently for at least a minute, she says:

J: So in your motion, docket entry 59 and 60, at paragraph 7, you say, “Plaintiff does not need to provide an affidavit because the documents on which this motion is based are prima facie evidence, slash, an official ticket from the Fairfax County Sheriff, official US postal service envelopes with tracking numbers, and a statement by defendant Akbar himself sworn under penalties of perjury.”  So you’re telling me that when you attached these copies of the green cards you weren’t intending to represent that those were accurate?

BK: Um, they were accurate for what I intended the post office to do.  And the judge, Judge Burrell, had those in front of her.  She denied this motion.  She denied that motion.  She said, “you have to re-do it, because it’s unclear.”

He kept going on about how Burrell supposedly already ruled but I don’t think the judge was even listening at this point.  He certainly wasn’t saying anything worth listening to.  Then at one point she cut him off, saying:

J: Alright, I am not going to dismiss this case because it’s just going to be a way to start this all over again and at this point there has been another method of service.  But I am taking a recess, because if I can do what I want to do, sir, I’m going to fine you.  But I’m not sure I have the authority, so I’m going to go find out.

So the judge went back into her chambers, and looked for the legal authority to fine him.  She came back, I’d say about 10 minutes later with the bad news:

J: We’re back on the record.  So... much as I want, very much, Mr. Kimberlin, to fine you for what... for altering the receipts, I can’t find any authority in the rules for that.  Given the posture in which we are here, which is a motion for sanctions not for contempt.  Under the discovery rules, they don’t apply.  So I am going to deny the request to dismiss I think that Judge Burrell has sort of passed this, there’s been another attempt, she’s determined there’s been service...  I know that’s disputed and you can still maintain that with her but um, I’m going to deny the motion.

BK: Thank you.

She disposed of a few other issues, and then gave Brett one final warning:

J: Mr. Kimberlin, I... I hope you’re aware, if you weren’t before, you are aware now, and you do not alter anything you file with this court, because by filing it, you are representing to this court that that document is as it was and has been in its unaltered state to back up whatever you’re alleging.

Funny judges keep using phrases like that, “if you weren’t aware before, you are aware now...”  and so on when dealing with Brett. 

So we walk away with a clear finding—hell, an admission—that he forged documents before the court.  The judge just didn’t think she had the authority under the statutes and the rules to fine him.  On twitter Schmalfeldt called it a humiliating defeat.  More like a humiliating victory for Brett, and one that still might bite him in the behind.  After all, do you think there might be criminal sanctions for doing this sort of thing?

Why it’s a thing that would make you say...

Stay tuned.  Stock up on the popcorn.  And always be happy warriors, folks.


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. People have asked in a few places if Brett is still on parole. If he is, would this not be a blatant violation? Should the federal parole board be made aware of his penchant for trying to foist admitted forgeries upon the courts?

  2. He could get over that line someday, but this by itself will not affect his parole status.

  3. Thanks Aaron, you're doing the Lord's work here slogging through the much. This gives a very different take on the matter. I agree with you, it looks bad for Kimberlin.

    What the next step in all the hearings?

  4. This IS a saga, and my sympathies are with you, McCain and the rest of the folks who are not afraid to confront evil and who stand for what is right and honorable.

    Best Regards,

    Colonel Haiku

  5. A judge in Maryland has no authority to fine someone who admits to forging documents submitted in a legal document?

    But they can overturn the will of tens of millions of Americans who have voted on the issue of same-sex 'marriage?'"

    Does anyone else here see a slight problem with the judiciary in America?

  6. If I am reading that correctly, the judge is saying she cannot fine him on the motion for sanctions. The motion was seeking dismissal of the case, the judge choise not do that, if there were no other requests for relief then there was nothing else she could do. What amazes me, though, is that the Judge did not immediately have him served to show cause why he should not be held in contempt now that he has admitted (again) to forging documents submitted to court. She could jail him and fine him on a show cause for criminal contempt, and she can do this of her own accord... unless the laws of Maryland are wonky and do not permit judges the same powers they seem to have elsewhere else.

    1. As a convicted perjurer, he's not allowed to testify, but he apparently can submit forgeries (thus committing perjury) all he wants.