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, January 8, 2015

Confronting Terrorists Opposed to Freedom of Expression—At Home and Abroad

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 convicted terrorist Brett 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, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson,, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  others 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.

Hey, can I go a little off track today?  It seems appropriate, because I have a lot on my mind.  But, dear reader, before I am done you are going to get the latest filings in the Brett Kimberlin RICO case.

As you know by now, about three Islamofascist terrorists went and murdered nearly a dozen people in Paris, France, starting their rampage at Charlie Hebdo, which isn’t a person, but the name of a satirical magazine.  You can read about one of many accounts, here.  The prevailing belief is that this was done because they often published cartoons mocking Mohammed.

Here’s an example of one, allegedly:

I say allegedly, because I don’t read a word of French.  But the overwhelming claim is that this is Mohammed in these pictures.  Certainly they had insulted Mohammed in caricature form now and then.

And so that goes back to something I was reasonably deeply involved in, the first Everyone Draw Mohammed Day, way back on May 20, 2010.  I even started a site called “Everyone Draw Mohammed” that I let go defunct for a number of reasons, and, yes, might be resurrected now.

The reason for that protest, as I saw it, was summed up in the mission statement I wrote , which has been recently recovered and I will update slightly:

Mission Statement

Freedom of speech is at stake here, don’t you all see?  If anything, we should all make cartoons of Mohammed and show the terrorists and the extremists we are united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want.  Look people, it’s been really easy for us to stand up for free speech lately.  For the past few decades, we haven’t had to risk anything to defend it.  One of those times is right now.  And if we aren’t willing to risk what we have now, then we just believe in free speech, but won’t defend it.

--Dialogue from South Park

It is time for we the people to fight for freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech has been under attack much of my life.  It started with Salman Rushdie.  He dared to write a book in which a fictional character said something bad about Mohammed, and for that they put out a fatwah, a decree that he should be murdered.  And many people died bravely to bring that book to market.  It continued when Theo Van Gogh made a movie critiquing how Islamic culture treated women.  They killed him for that.  Then the Danish created cartoons and we didn’t stand with them.  Finally, South Park made a two part episode in which they took on the controversy and Comedy Central censored the image of Mohammed, explicitly citing the fear of violence.  And for their 200th and 201st episodes, the guys at South Park did it again, and under threat from a bunch of idiots called Revolution Islam, Comedy Central censored them again.  They even censored a speech about the need for courage.

This has got to stop.  Someone has to stand up for freedom of speech.

In this the government has failed us.  How is it that Revolution Islam is allowed to threaten these people’s lives, and to extort them into silence, and walk around as free men?  Many reports say that they didn’t “technically” threaten them, but the law of extortion doesn’t rest on whether you technically say, “do this/don’t do that or we will kill you.”  You only have to communicate a threat in language that an ordinary peson would understand to be a threat.  Everyone knows they are threatening them.  So why isn’t the police in New York beating down their doors?

In every stage of this, the government has failed to protect us.  As a generally libertarian guy, this is one of the places where I say that government positively has a role to play—to ensure our freedoms not just by avoiding a violation of our rights, but actively standing between us and anyone who would use violence and threats to take that freedom from us.

So we the people have to step up.

The idea didn’t start here.  Indeed, the person who kicked it off changed her mind, or maybe didn’t seriously mean it.  But it’s not her decision anymore.

The idea is simple.  On May 20, 2010, we will all draw Mohammed cartoons.  And if you would like to publish them, cheap and easy, I am here to help.

Ideally, you should give your real name, and maybe the general town in which you live.  I’ll start.  My name is Aaron Walker.  I live in Manassas, Virginia.  And pretty soon I will inflict upon you my artistic skills.

And if you want to publish your creation here, just send it to me.  If you can give your real name and town, that would be good.  But even just an image would be fine.  There is no censorship in this, except you can’t actually be pornographic.  But otherwise, be as offensive as you want.  And you can include anyone else in the depiction.  But, and this is key, you must depict Mohammed in some clear way, preferably with a label.  So if you show a picture of a toilet and call it “Mohammed” we are good.

Also if you know if anyone else creating their own cartoon, send me a link to their site.  If anyone else does this, I want to know.  Let’s all create a nice little network of sites.   Let’s in a virtual way, lock arms together and sing, “we shall overcome.”  As Benjamin Franklin once said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

But Ann Althouse and James Taranto [links lost] (who gives a nice backgrounder) reply (in paraphrase) “but you will offend moderate Muslims.”  Indeed we will and I want to be very clear.  If I could think of any other way to do this, I would do it.  I berated Althouse on her blog over and over, “what is the alternative.”  No one has offered anything.

But they are correct that there is a cost to this approach.  We will be posting messages that are dang near guaranteed to offend good Muslims who both respect their prophet and the freedom of speech.  To them I say your sensibilities are collateral damage in the fight for freedom.  To them I say it is a necessary evil.

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then.  At the time Revolution Islam was walking around free, but after that, they were busted and eventually forced to plead guilty to a multitude of crimes, including threatening the creators of South Park.  Still most of it remains true.

And in other posts, I talked about the idea that this was like this great scene from Spartacus:

If you haven’t watched the movie, Spartacus is about a Roman slave, forced to be a gladiator who leads a rebellion of slaves against their Roman masters.  In this scene, close to the end, their rebellion had been defeated, and the Romans were saying to the slaves: we’ll go easy on you, if you just tell us which of you is Spartacus.  On one hand, Spartacus would then get the worst of it.  On the other hand, if they didn’t turn him over, they would all be killed—and not just killed, but crucified.

So Spartacus, played by Kirk Douglas, tries to identify himself.  But just as he stands up, a man next to him falsely says “I am Spartacus!”  And then another and another, until pretty much his whole his army was saying it: “I am Spartacus.”  It means a lot in that moment.  It meant each of them were volunteering to suffer the worst of the punishment, and eventually the entire slave army was saying, “you are not going to single any of us out.  If you are going to kill one of us, you will have to kill all of us.”  And it was a democratizing moment, too.  The Romans believed Spartacus deserved the greatest punishment as their leader, but what they were also saying was, “don’t go thinking we only did this because Spartacus told us to.  We rebelled because we wanted to.  We each decided to.  We are as responsible as he is.”  I can’t tell you if that scene is based on anything real, but it is powerful, for all of those reasons and Douglas’ performance is exquisite.

So by drawing Mohammed, each of us were saying, “if you are going to kill everyone who draws Mohammed, you are going to have to kill all of us.”  The idea was in part to flood the zone with so many targets we would hope the terrorists would despair at trying to kill all of us and give up this foolishness.  Yes, saying “We are all Charlie Hebdo” or “Je Suis Charlie Hebdo” in French is nice (which I understand to mean the same thing).  But if you really want to show solidarity with the men who were butchered today, you do the very same thing, draw Mohammed, and say to the terrorists “you are not going to intimidate me.”

Anyway, so that was the idea behind the original Everyone Draw Mohammed Day, and it came and went and honestly, I thought we had partially accomplished our mission.  I want to be clear that I was only one of literally hundreds of thousands of people who participated in it, so I don’t want to sound like I am taking credit for others.  But I had two goals in my participation: 1) reduce the danger by spreading it around and 2) make the major media stop being afraid of the terrorists, or at least embarrass them into showing courage.  And while the second goal wasn’t accomplished, I believed the first had been.  Indeed even today we have see both the New York Daily News and the AP blur out images of Mohammed when showing the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published, an act of cowardice.  The Daily Caller has a complete list of cowardly news organizations and has this amusing note:

NOTE: For the record, The Daily Caller has decided to publish the photos when necessary — partly as a stand for free speech, but mostly out of a complete disregard for staff safety. Look, here’s one now!

When I was arrested for engaging in free
speech, manypeople made this their avatar.
I don't know if I ever told them how much
I was moved by that.
In the meantime, I became Spartacus.  I tangled with a convicted domestic terrorist named Brett Kimberlin who also had a hang up about free speech.  In short, he wanted to silence all of his critics for the more practical reason that speaking freely about his past and recent criminal conduct hurt his “charities’” ability to get funding.  For instance, up until people like me started writing about him, his Justice Through Music Project was allegedly getting State Department Funding so this convicted serial bomber could train “activists” from Iran.  But when people started noticing how questionable it was to have a terrorist training activists from Iran, the State Department allegedly stopped funding this group.

So this terrorist, Brett Kimberlin, started a campaign of harassment against me.  If you are new to the story and you want to start to get some idea of what all has been going on, go to the sidebar for a partial overview of the last three years’ events, although that page is in need of update.  But he has sued me four times, he has succeeded in getting me fired from my job, he tried to frame me for a crime after he committed a slow-motion SWATting of my wife and I, and he is the lead suspect in the normal-speed SWATting I suffered, coincidentally on the same day my freedom of speech was restored to me.

Toward the beginning of all of that, Lee Stranahan announced an Everyone Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day.  The idea was similar to the Everyone Draw Mohammed protest and I noted it at the time:

Obviously, the comparison is to Everyone Draw Mohammed Day (EDMD).  As you know, EDMD arose from the failure of the institutions that normally were supposed to stand up for freedom of speech.  First, our governments were supposed to intervene.  As our Declaration of Independence tells us, we have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And it says something else that is crucial but often overlooked: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."  In other words government exists not for its own benefit, but for the purpose of securing our sacred rights, not the least of which is freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.

And when our government failed to deal appropriately with the use of terrorist threats to silence others—saying they would murder anyone who dared to draw Mohammed—this was a failure of our government to perform one of its most basic functions.  And I thought, "well, at least the press will probably stand up against this.  After all, freedom of expression is what they are all about."  But instead the press did not.  They refused to show the cartoons in the Danish cartoon controversy, even though basic reporting almost demanded it.  Can you think of any other controversy over any other work of art (defined loosely), where they didn't start by showing you the item that is creating all the fuss?  Whether you are talking about the infamous Piss Christ or the painting of the Holy Virgin Mary made with elephant dung, they always showed you the artwork in question.  Here is one example and here is another. But suddenly in this case, no one was willing to show the cartoons even in a news story.  I even saw a shameful article on Cnn, where they showed one of the Mohammed cartoons but blurred out Mohammed himself, which meant that they showed a blurry piece of paper on television.  I mean, why bother?  So the institutional press failed us.

So We the People had to step up.  But I always felt it was a second-best solution.  The best would be for the Federal Government to have done its duty, but it didn't.  And the reason why it was a "second best" solution, is that EDMD necessarily offended the vast majority of Muslims who 1) hate terrorism, 2) love freedom of speech and religion, but also 3) don't enjoy seeing their prophet insulted.  I said to them that the offense to their reasonable sensibilities was collateral damage that sadly we could not avoid as we secured our God-given (or perhaps Allah-given) right to choose what we say and believe freely.  It was a dilemma that led people of good conscience who probably normally would have supported EDMD to refuse to do so, such as James Taranto and Ann Althouse.  And if someone had another solution that didn't offend those good Muslims and still protected our sacred freedoms, I would have happily done that.

(I mean I suppose vigilantism would have worked, but I am opposed to that.)

And that is the beautiful part of this current protest.  The only person who is offended, is the person actually attempting to suppress free speech.

So the philosophy behind Lee Stranahan’s idea was easy for me to grasp, but I couldn’t quite ask my readers to participate.  I explained how I felt as follows:

I can’t ask you to do this.  It’s not because of this peace order against me—Judge Johnson has made it clear that the peace order statute cannot forbid protected speech.  And this is protected speech.  But as much as we use the “I am Spartacus” concept in this situation I am the guy who really is Spartacus.  I'm Kirk Douglas, more or less.  Watch this clip again:

[I embedded the same clip from Spartacus]

If you watch closely, the real Spartacus was ready to identify himself.  So he didn’t ask his fellow slaves to stand up beside him.  They just did.  So I’m not going to ask.  Perhaps the truly courageous thing would be to say, “No, don’t do this.”  But I won’t do that, either.  I’ll just say... decide for yourselves.

The idea obviously was, at the very least, “Brett Kimberlin can’t sue all of us.”  And then...  Brett tried to prove us wrong.  In October of 2013, he sued around twenty bloggers and prominent conservatives, including myself, in federal court, claiming that we constituted an unlawful mafia against him.  And that is separate from his lawsuit where he tried to punish me, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar and the blogger or bloggers known as KimberlinUnmasked for calling him a pedophile.  That case was recently resolved with him becoming an adjudicated pedophile.  As we often jokingly say, “how is that brass-knuckle reputation management going for him now?”

No, at the same time he was suing me in Maryland state court and rendering himself an adjudicated pedophile, this RICO case was slowly lumbering forward.  Brett was allowed to amend his complaint and then we were off to the races, filing our new Motions to Dismiss.  You can read mine, here.  And Brett got to file his opposition, which was really pretty poor even by his standards.  And today, I filed my reply.  Normally I wait to share this with you, dear reader, until it appears on PACER (the electronic database for the Federal Court system), but what is the point in waiting?  I normally do this to avoid giving Brett additional time to respond, but this is it, he gets no further response.  So it doesn’t help him one whit to see it sooner rather than later.

So here you go, with only minor redactions:

And you see two exhibits talked about, too.  The first is simply a list of the acronyms used in the filing, so, here’s that (sorry for the formatting problems):

H&WOpp:              The Plaintiff’s first Opposition to Mr. Walker’s first Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 29.

H. Reply:                  Mr. Hoge reply to Plaintiff’s Second Opposition to Mr. Hoge’s second Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 236.
MTD:                         refers to any motion to dismiss.

Omnibus Opp.:         The Omnibus Opposition filed by the Plaintiff, ECF No. 231.

SAC:                           Second Amended Complaint in the instant case, ECF No. 135.

TOpp.:                     The Plaintiff first Opposition to Defendant Malkin and Twitchy’s first Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 29.

W. Reply:                 Mr. Walker’s reply to Plaintiff’s first Opposition to Mr. Walker’s first Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 55.

And the second exhibit, is just a declaration, which I will embed here:

As per usual, the only differences between the original and the final is 1) no signatures and 2) personal information was redacted.  I will say that I am less witty than usual because I didn’t have the space to be funny.  But I think I got a few good zings to spice things up.

But one thing worth talking about for a moment, is also the settlements in that case.  A number of people, such as Patrick “Patterico” Frey and Lee Stranahan called out Simon and Schuster and the American Spectator for settling, being quite angry about the matter.  For instance, this is what Mr. Frey wrote about the Franklin Center caving.

Now, if you scroll back and look at all I said about Everyone Draw Mohammed Day, you might think I am about to say something similar.  I have nothing but scorn, for instance, for a news outfit that refuses in the wake of what happened in Paris to show the offending cartoons, especially if they go on and on about the courage of the editors of Charlie Hebdo.

But then if you read what I wrote about Everyone Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day, you might realize that however valid I might find their logic, I can’t bring myself to say what they said.  There is a world of difference between saying, “we should rise up to protect this stranger I never met” and “you should rise up to protect me.”  And just as I couldn’t ask you to join in at the beginning, I can’t chide anyone for leaving.  What am I supposed to say, “come back!  You’re supposed to be protecting me!”  I’m not saying Patrick, Lee or anyone else calling them out for caving are wrong.  I am just saying I personally can’t say what they are saying.  I don’t have the heart for it.

Of course the irony of all of this is that in my opinion the strongest argument for dismissing the case is res judicata.  If you haven’t read my reply, I think this part is really, really important, so I will cut and paste from my reply, here:


This court has probably noticed that between the filing of Mr. Walker’s original motion to dismiss and today, Mr. Kimberlin was able to bring his “related” state case, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., to trial against four of the same Defendants: Messrs. Walker, McCain, Akbar and Hoge.  The suit had counts alleging harassment, stalking, malicious prosecution (involving the same suits he complains about, here), abuse of legal process, defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  All but the counts for defamation and false light were dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.  Those remaining counts went to trial, and at the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s case, the judge issued a directed verdict in the Defendants’ favor.  A certified copy of the complaint is attached as Exhibit C to “Defendant Hoge’s Reply to ECF No. 231, Plaintiff’ Omnibus Opposition to Motions to Dismiss” (ECF No. 236) (“H. Reply”).  A certified copy of the entire trial transcript is attached as Exhibits B-1 and 2 to H. Reply.  There is a great deal of overlap between the two cases.

As stated in J. Aron and Co., Inc. v. Service Transp. Co., 515 F.Supp. 428, 438 (D. Md., 1981), “the federal court for the District of Maryland must give to a prior Maryland state court judgment whatever res judicata effect Maryland law or usage provides[.]”  Meanwhile, Cochran v. Griffith Energy, 426 Md. 134, 43 A. 3d 999, 1002 (2012) provides the test for when res judicata applies under Maryland law, requiring that:

(1) the parties in the present litigation are the same or in privity with the parties to the earlier litigation; (2) the claim presented in the current action is identical to that determined or that which could have been raised and determined in the prior litigation; and (3) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior litigation.

In relation to the first factor, the same Mr. Walker and Mr. Kimberlin are present in both cases.  With respect to the final factor, the directed verdict represented a final judgment on the merits.

In the relation to the second factor, nothing prevented the Plaintiff from amending his complaint in the state case to include every single cause of action asserted in the instant suit.    As this court can see, the final amendment in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., was entered on April 1, 2014, nearly a month after the final amendment in the instant case.  Obviously, a Maryland state court can hear any claim based on Maryland common law, and Maryland state courts routinely hear cases involving 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1985, and RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.).  Therefore, these claims “could have been raised and determined in the prior litigation” and the Plaintiff is barred from re-litigating them now.

This is sufficient reason to dismiss the case for Mr. Walker, and, in the name of judicial economy, Messrs. Hoge, McCain, Akbar, and every other defendant in this case.  This is because courts have regularly held that when defendants are alleged to be in a conspiracy with each other by a Plaintiff, they are in privity for the purpose of defensive res judicata.  In other words, while the Plaintiff has not made proper, non-conclusory allegations that some or all of the Defendants have conspired together for the purpose of stating a claim for which relief can be granted, the mere fact that he alleged one exists estops him from denying it for res judicata purposes.  Every remaining Defendant is alleged to be in a civil conspiracy together, and therefore dismissal is appropriate for all defendants under res judicata.

I am cutting out the footnotes, which includes some case law backing it up that doesn’t appear in the text, but the irony of the whole thing is that Brett’s half-baked claim of conspiracy, designed to vex the Defendants as much as possible, might end up getting everyone out of the case, not just the four defendants in common.

As for the events in Paris, the obvious question is whether we should have another “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day” and whether I will resurrect my old site.  Of course, this has always been a grassroots protest and they will make their own decision regarding whether there will be a single day or not.  I tend to think that it would be hard in the viral organization of these protests to agree on a day other than May 20, 2015, which is the fifth anniversary of the original one.  And bluntly, I don’t think we should wait that long.  I have urged people on twitter today to do I right now and have contributed this atrocities on the world of art:

(Embiggen as necessary.)  Yep, that is terrible.  But really artistic quality is beside the point.  The point is to commit the same “offense” that got these men killed today and any depiction of Mohamed, however benign, however inoffensive, will do that.  It is fatwa-worthy!®

As for restarting the blog, I will sleep on it and think about it.  Part of me prefers this to remain a social media phenomenon, regular folks putting it on their facebook pages, or in their twitter feeds, making hashtags like #EveryoneDrawMohammed #EverybodyDrawMohammed #DrawMohammedDay and #DrawMohammadDay.  Centralization to any degree seems like a bad idea.  But it might prove to be useful.  Still, I recommend that you draw Mohammed, as I did, even if you lack any artistic talent.  Unleash the Dreaded Stick Figures of Blasphemy.  And yes, feel free to call it that.  The very term

Here are a few more examples of people drawing Mohammed:

When I decided to draw that last one, I looked around for a blank sheet of paper.  With a writing disability, I don’t keep much around.  But then I found the perfect sheet: the back side of a copy of the first page of Brett Kimberlin’s RICO complaint.  If you look real close, you can see the writing see through from the other side.  Sometimes things in life dovetail together very nicely.

In the end, the real battleground isn’t the streets of Paris, a courtroom in Maryland, or some desert in some kleptocracy.  While there is an appropriate role for law enforcement and the generous use of drone strikes, the real battle is in our hearts.  We have to live brave lives.  We have to look terrorists in the eye and say, “you might take my life, but you will never make me bow to you.”  We might or might not be killed for what we say, but if we refuse to bow to them, we will never be defeated.

Or consider a perfect story of defiance from the life of Kurt Cobain:*

A more important lens through which to remember Cobain and his band is a story relayed by his uncle at a public memorial service.  As happened often, a neighborhood bully was beating up a young Cobain, knocking him to the ground over and over again.  But rather than punching the bully back or cowering in fear, Cobain instead, after each knock down, simply extended his middle finger in defiance.

Source.  They can knock you down as many times as they want, but don’t let them silence you.  Don’t ever let them silence you.

Take us out, Tom Petty:


* If you don’t who Kurt Cobain is, immediately download/buy/borrow a copy of Nirvana’s album “Nevermind.”  You will thank me for it.


My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated pedophile) 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment