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.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Aaron “Worthing” Walker v. Sally Kohn on the Law and the Constitution

So I had a lot of fun last night.  I even made Twitchy, which is always cool.  But the problem with twitter is that it is like a river of thought and if you miss what someone says, it floats away from you and it is hard to retrieve later.  And I suspect a few people want this preserved for posterity, if only to know that Sally Kohn is clueless.  And read all the way to the end to see how bad it is.

So yesterday Kohn was debating with various people on the right, mainly lawyers, and she was going very, very wrong on the law.  I replied a few times trying to correct her, was ignored, and then kind of throwing up my hands in amusement, I wrote this:


Which might seem mean at first glance, but give me a moment.  I make my case.

So she deems to respond to that, and then she deleted that response, which led to this…


And to be fair to her, much later she gave me an answer to that question:


Which is fine with me...


But that is getting ahead of ourselves.  At the time, I didn’t know why she deleted it, but... you ever have someone ask you the wrong question?  I had a moment like that about a month ago.  Brett Kimberlin had sued me, in part, because I said I thought he was a pedophile.  At one point in the trial, he had me on the stand and asked me why I thought he was a pedophile.  I then gave a recitation of about five minutes explaining in detail why I believed this to be the case, and by the time I was done, I am pretty sure the jury thought he was one, too.  (You can read the transcript from that trial, here.)  I decided to have a similar level of fun with Ms. Kohn.

Or as one tweeter put it succinctly:


Strap yourself in.  This is going to be fun.

So I began:


Now most of the time I linked to her tweets and then pointed out her errors.  So in most cases I will show you the tweet I am responding to, and then my critique.  Thus, first, I linked to this tweet:


And then I responded, thusly:


(So, the link in that tweet is back to the tweet I was critiquing...)


Next I linked to this tweet:


And my critique:


Next, her tweet:



I should say “viewpoint discrimination by the government.”


This time I used a picture of a pair of tweets to show what I was responding to:



For instance, I wrote a piece about how Ariel Castro might have violated the Thirteenth Amendment, here, although much of my analysis was mooted by Castro’s subsequent suicide and burning in hell.  I don’t think any other part of the constitution can be violated by private conduct, but I could be wrong.




Similarly my next critique used photos of tweets:





Next I critiqued this tweet:


My critique:



It would have had better logical symmetry if I pointed out that you can name something specifically that protects freedom of religion, but oh well.







Typo: "buying" should be "buy."







I went on to quibble with whether she understood what “semi-automatic” means, but she claimed she did.  Which makes the reference to semi-automatic weapons, weird, but oh well.  Moving on:



Besides responding to my explanation of what semi-automatic means, claiming she did know after all, she responded to my claim that there is no right to gay sex:


My reply:


Lest you think I am exaggerating, read for yourself.  If you think that the Dred Scott case was just about the Missouri Compromise, you are in for a nasty surprise.  To quote its vile opinion:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit

If you need a shower now, I won’t blame you.  I will note that it has been repudiated by the Fourteenth Amendment as thoroughly as any decision has been, as discussed in my post, here.

Kohn is also kind of missing the point.  Conservative reject, as a rule, the theory of living constitutionalism referred to above.

She also laid down a pair of challenges.  First she asked this:


I replied:


Then her second challenge:


That linked to this tweet (which she had responded to, before):


I replied:




Just so you don’t strain your eyes, let me rewrite it here in normal text.  I said (with slightly improved grammar):

There are many kinds of business that are engaged in expression: newspapers, radio stations, movie studios, printshops and even wedding photographers.

I believe the correct reading of the First Amendment says that if any anti-discrimination law has the effect of treading on these kinds of companies’ First Amendment rights, that such laws are unconstitutional as applied.

But suppose the courts don’t agree with me?  Then tomorrow states could pass laws forbidding discrimination based on viewpoint.  And thus a gay printshop business owner could be forced to help the Westborough Baptist Church make anti-gay signs.

Indeed, right now in New York, there is a statute prohibiting employers from discriminating against people for participating in political campaigns and engaging in any other lawful activity, off-hours and off-premises.  You can read it, here.  Is it very much of a stretch to say that a state might make it illegal, say, for McDonalds to refuse service to someone because they are a Democrat, or a Republican?

Anyway, two minutes later, she posted this to the world at large:


And my response:


“Rage quit” is a term from gaming.  It comes from when someone does so badly playing that they quit the game, typically in anger.

And moments later she retweeted this bit of passive aggressiveness.


One can’t be sure that Ms. Filipovic was referring to me.  There were a lot of people disagreeing with Kohn.  Some were lawyers, some were not.  But as I said a moment ago, most of what I said was not obscure legal doctrine: they were what I considered common knowledge.  Although to mangle Chuck D’s words, common knowledge ain’t all that common.  For instance:


But one nice thing about my credentials is that whenever a person tries to intellectually “pull rank” on me, or others, I can often “one up” them:


But as I noted subsequently:


Indeed, as I am writing this, I see she says it wasn’t directed at me.


As I replied:


Ms. Filipovic is a lawyer, after all.  While we might debate how common “common knowledge” actually is, surely she recognizes how clueless Kohn is, right?  I mean it isn’t necessary to get a law degree to know how clueless Kohn’s claims were, but if you have a law degree, how can you not know this?  How could a person be a lawyer and not know this, or even get a law degree and not get this?

I mean obviously Ms. Kohn can’t have had any legal education because her knowledge of the law falls below what I consider to be common knowledge of the general public who don’t have law degrees.  So she can’t possibly have a law degree, right?  Right?

Um, with apologies for the language, I found out that this wasn’t completely true (update: bad link in tweet, but this is the correct one):




I had a private conversation during all of this, and originally I said to that person that I thought Kohn’s problem was she lacked the humility to know what she didn’t know.  But with this additional information, God Lord, I don’t know how she can write this stuff.

Seriously, I have no explanation for the display she put on.  Is she actually this clueless?  NYU is a good law school, and frankly I can’t think of a single law school that would let students graduate without this basic understanding of the law.  Hell, her bio states that she was a “Root Tilden public service scholar,” which is given to “outstanding” law students.  And yet, she doesn’t know this?  Maybe she once did and doesn’t now?  Or maybe she is lying, playing “stupid like a fox”?  But the lie is so dumb and so obvious I don’t think even most liberals would buy it and for what purpose would she lie?

Seriously, I am at a loss.

Anyway, read for yourself and decide for yourself, as always.

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

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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)