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.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

BREAKING: Judge Hazel Issues a String of Denials in Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s Silly RICO Suit

And Great Minds Think Alike...

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 him, 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.

This is probably going into Brett's
latest filing/butthurt report.
Admittedly, this will not be the most thunderous of news in the case, but still let me go over the latest “dispatches from the front.”

Yesterday, as John reported over at Hogewash, Brett filed another spate of filings.  As you might remember, last time Judge Hazel gave Brett the right to seek a preliminary injunction to try to silence us, again.  Mind you, that is only the right to ask and I think in time the judge will realize this entire thing was a waste of time.  So his first filing was to say to the court, “gee, your honor, can I have more time to file my response?  I kinda have this vacation coming and...”

You cannot make this stuff up, folks:

   ECF 175

So that was the only thing directly implicating me, and once again, I filed a response that I don’t think was even seen by the court before the court ruled.  For what it is worth, here it is:

Now, while one always likes to feel like they are heard by the court, I object far less when the judge still nonetheless does what I was asking him to do (at least to an extent).  So to preview a bit for when I share the order that just came down today, Brett is not going to get what he wants.

Anyway, the next thing he filed was a letter seeking disqualification of Paul Levy as counsel.  But that requires a little background.  As you might remember, when Paul Levy entered the case Brett when into full whine mode and filed an improper motion to have Levy disqualified.  This was just after the court first decided to attempt to restrict the flow of filings in this case (more than 80 documents ago), and rather than obey the court’s order and request leave to file a motion to disqualify, he just filed it, and the judge returned it to him as improper.

But that is not what this is really about.  What this is really about, in my humble opinion, is that Paul Levy wrote a fairly devastating blog post last week about the case.  Really, seriously, read all of it.  Not only was that pretty harmful to Brett’s public reputation (based on facts that cannot be denied), but it was pretty widely read.  For instance, it was Instalanched.  And it was WashingtonPostalanched, via the Volokh Conspiracy.  Long time readers know that Mr. Volokh helped me out last year when Brett obtained a blatantly unconstitutional peace order forbidding me to even mention Brett Kimberlin’s name for six months.  Although he doesn’t cover it with the intensity that many do, I suspect he keeps one eye on developments and he found Mr. Levy’s piece interesting enough to link to it with some minor commentary.  Since the Volokh Conspiracy was bought out by the Washington Post a while back, this meant that those people who read at the Washington Post website were treated to a story about Brett Kimberlin and in turn linked to a story by Mr. Levy that included lines like this:

after he got out of jail, and already in his forties, Kimberlin was allegedly singing rock and roll songs about the joys of sex with teenage girls, and because a DC-area publication that interviewed him about the songs praised him for his honesty about how older men feel about attractive teenagers.

Which really isn’t fair.  Let me quote to you from Levy’s source:

Not all the songs on his album—which Mahern characterizes as minimally produced and “pretty much Brett”—have political overtones, which in some respects may be unfortunate: While tracks like “Life’s a Bitch (For a Government Snitch)” and “Who’s Next” (a song about unfounded sex crime accusations) have a definite edge to them, others, like “Waiting to Meet” and “Teen Dream” (both about having sex with teenage girls) are lacking in subtlety and tend to make one squirm. But this is exactly what Kimberlin wants.

“I say things a lot of people are afraid to say. Yeah, ‘Teen Dream’ is about fucking a teenage girl. Every guy who’s seen a good-looking teenage girl has thought about it.[”]

So I don’t see that as the Washington City Paper praising him for his honesty.  I see that as Brett praising himself for his “daring” honesty.  The writer himself seems genuinely creeped out.  But I could see how Levy could have read it the way he did as praising Brett for his honesty, in his apparent effort to normalize pedophilia.

Still, you have to think Brett is not pleased to see readers of the Washington post reading about all of this, and I believe that that was the motivation for his filing this:

   ECF 174

Brett’s argument is itself frivolous.  The rules allow lawyers who represented clients in unrelated matters to take on people they are suing later as clients.  And you can work with an entity that a person is associated with, without being conflicted out in representing someone adverse to him.  Levy is bound, of course, not to reveal any privileged information Brett shared back when he actually did represent him.  So if Brett hypothetically confessed to Levy that he actually was behind the murder of Julia Scyphers, or that he has repeatedly had sex with underage girls, or that he and convicted pedophile Craig Gillette liked to exchange child porn, Levy is bound to keep that to himself, and not even tell Ace of Spades about it.  There are some thin exceptions allowing attorney-client privilege to be breached with an immediate public danger, but they are more likely to appear on a law school exam than in reality.

But what this is really about, I submit, is Brett’s anger at Levy publishing that piece.  Really, it is utterly irrelevant to any motion to disqualify, based on conflict of interest.  And when he writes something as lame as “Judge Hazel, enough is enough from Mr. Levy,” just after quoting extensively from the same piece Levy wrote, the exasperation is palpable.

And you should by now be well aware of his lie about the “corruption of blood,” that he now smears on Mr. Levy.  I said nothing of the sort.  I doubt the court will be fooled, given that the court called him out for lying last time.

The third thing Brett filed yesterday was this response to Levy’s opposition to substituted service.

What is interesting, here, is just how scattered his thinking is.  But otherwise I’ll let Levy speak up about it, in court documents (and potentially on his blog).  After all, we don’t want to educate the midget...

He's macking... all that is set up for today’s new order, which you can read here and I will summarize afterward:

Basically the judge refused the request for an extension based on this logic:

A preliminary injunction is either needed or it is not. If a preliminary injunction is needed, as Plaintiff contends (see ECF No. 165), it ought to be pursued with the degree of diligence and urgency for which it was intended to serve i.e. the prevention of irreparable harm.

That’s the official logic.  I think the judge’s actual thinking was “who the hell does he think he is?  I gave him a whole month to file and he asks for more time?”  That’s just my guess, not based on very much evidence, but take it for what it is worth.

And to parse things out a little more, notice that he refers to the state case as “related.”  That is significant because Brett has gone back and forth about whether the state case is related, or not.  When he won on the motion to dismiss we filed, he informed the court of the “related” ruling.  But when Twitchy and Michelle Malkin’s counsel wanted to use his conduct in that case as evidence of his intent when forging documents in this case, Brett claimed the two cases were not related.  The judge had apparently rejected that claim.

Next up, the judge denies a request from Mr. Hoge that was frankly mooted by now.  So we’ll leave that where it is.

Acme law files another
successful motion!
Finally, the judge correctly noted that Brett doesn’t have a properly pending motion to disqualify Mr. Levy as counsel, so there was no issue to rule on.  Which is part of Brett’s genius strategy of reminding Judge Hazel that he violated the order when Judge Grimm was presiding.  So, hey, at least Hazel knows it is not personal!

(Note: I am engaged in sarcasm.)

Judge Hazel left open the door to Brett filing for such a motion if he makes a proper request, but overall Brett’s latest burst of activity has been to whiff a few balls.  I doubt he is impressing the judge right now.

Moreover, it should be noted that I have said I don’t think Judge Hazel even read my response on the issue of the extension before ruling.  Here, at least my response was docketed before Judge Hazel’s order but I still see no sign that the judge read a word of it, and, bluntly, I doubt that Hazel wrote this today: he might have put the finishing touches on today, but the main writing was probably done yesterday.  Maybe at most he looked at mine to see if it changed his mind on anything before filing the order.  Who knows?

Still, for those keeping track, this is the third time the judge has echoed my arguments, without evidently reading them.  The first time was when Judge Hazel struck two of Brett’s requests before reading where I asked him to strike the same two.  We know for a fact that Judge Hazel didn’t read those because afterward he denied them as moot.  The second time was when I suggested that Brett’s claim that we had violated the Case Management Order was itself a violation of the Case Management Order.  And here, the judge’s reason for denying the extension is similar to mine: the idea of asking for an extension is directly contrary to the claim one has an urgent need for relief.

Some have taken these kinds of coincidings and said, more or less, “this can’t be just a coincidence.”  But the metaphor I use is this.  Suppose I asked two different people what 2 + 2 is.  If they both say “4” is that evidence that one person influenced the other?  Obviously not.  What it is evidence of is that this is the correct answer is four.  Now law is not given to quite the cut and dried certainties of math, but often two people coming up with the same answer doesn’t mean that one is influencing the other or even in communication with the other: sometimes it’s just because it is the most correct answer.

Still, it never hurts for the judge to see me and him thinking alike.

Finally, last time I promised to actually upload the Case Management Order for future reference.  So apropos of nothing, here you go:

And while that doesn’t help with the analysis of pretty much anything today, it does inform you of the analysis of the last order from Hazel and Brett’s silly claim that the Case Management Order operated to limit speech outside of the courthouse.  You can see for yourself: Brett was taking the quotes from the Case Management Order so far out of context, it is hard to believe that intentional deception wasn’t the goal.

Really, what seems to be happening is that Brett is in a mode he gets into, at times.  I don’t share everything communicated between him and our lawyer, but Brett apparently obsessively reads our blogs, follows every word on Twitter (in fact, pays people to follow it for him, evidently), and then whines on a daily basis to... someone.  Often it is whoever happens to be representing us right now, and since many of us have no lawyers in the RICO case, he is now whining as often as possible to the judge.  So that is what is happening here: every time someone writes about him, he has to run screaming to the judge “they’re making fun of me.”  Whether that is a winning strategy or not, I will let you judge for yourself.

Seriously, guess what?  That is life.  Years ago, Jerry Falwell couldn’t accept that mockery just comes with the job description and threw a “constitutional hissy fit” over this ad:

Why don't we call this the "Falwell Effect?"

Seriously, enlarge that as needed and read this thing.  It’s a piece of crap.  There is no way that some decades-old bad joke would be remembered today, at all.  It was in a magazine that most men are ashamed to admit that they look at, and the ones that do could give a crap about the words written in them.  It’s barely more than a potty joke, and not a particularly funny one at that.

But Falwell got a burr up his keister about it and sued them and it became nothing less than a landmark Supreme Court case, affirming that you have a constitutional right to make fun of people.  And so this lame, otherwise forgettable joke shows up in Constitutional Law casebooks and even becomes the subject of a Hollywood movie.  Falwell didn’t like people talking that way about his mother?  Hey, that is totally understandable, but his response has given more publicity to it than it would have received otherwise.  Again, read that crappy ad parody.  It is not funny, and it is not memorable, except in its historical significance.  And Falwell gave it that publicity.

And likewise Brett is only making this worse for himself.  Americans are jealous of their First Amendment.  When someone is silenced, we ask ourselves “what did he say that was supposedly so awful in the first place?”  And by that means suppressing free speech calls attention to what you are trying to suppress.  And that is what Brett refuses to see.

So, no thunderous revelations today.  But still a small victory for Team Free Speech.  And Brett now has to decide whether chasing his doomed motion for a preliminary injunction is worth ruining his vacation.

And of course there is a hearing in the state case this coming Thursday.  I can say that the law is clearly on our side: the state case should end Thursday with a finding, as a matter of law, that no defamation occurred.  And the only reason why I am not sure if we will win is because Maryland courts have already done many things that the law says that they shouldn’t.  But if we do not win Thursday, we will win next week.


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. Happy Happy Joy Joy ... Praying for all involved.

  2. Looks like the Judge is up to full speed on this case. That does not bode will for Plaintiff.

  3. So if a judge is thinking like AW, does that imply we should see AW up for a judgeship in the future?


  4. Congratulations on yesterday's victory over the Dread Troll Kimberlin.