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, Breitbart.com, 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.
So the Brett
Kimberlin’s RICO suit against me is still dead, and so is General Francisco
Franco...
Sorry for the
comedic interruption, but that clip is too funny not to have embedded it.
And since we
are interrupting, I wanted to thank Newsmax for naming this site one of the Top
50 Conservative Blogs. This is a
truly unexpected honor and... oh, crap,
this means I have standards I must live up to!
It’s a disaster!
"Brett's such a loser." "Glad I didn't go to that sleepover." "This is good popcorn." |
Joking aside, last
time I told you how Judge Hazel dismissed nearly the entire the RICO suit,
transforming it into a Civil Rights suit.
And you know what comes next.
First, Brett asks for a motion to reconsider, and then he appeals. Never mind that there is no basis for it: it’s
just what he does. I suppose next he
will start defaming Judge Hazel as corrupt through his mouthpieces. It is a sadly predictable pattern.
So if you have
been following along at Hogewash, you would know Brett filed a request to file motion
to reconsider that we learned of Monday (it was actually filed last Wednesday). And by coincidence, I, John, Stacy McCain and
Lee Stranahan filed for a request to file a motion for sanctions on Brett on
the same day. You can read both, here, and I suggest
you do read it and come back.
So are you
back?
I haven’t
talked about that request to file for sanctions. To the extent that it doesn’t just speak for
itself, I will add this. I think the
timing of events works in our favor. As I
noted last
time, the judge very likely found out about the new RICO suit within
minutes of him filing his memorandum dismissing the last one. That is, either right as he was putting the
final touches on his opinion or right after he put it into the system, this new
suit pops up. I speculated last time
that this probably annoyed the judge, that if you were a fly on the wall in his
chambers, you would have heard something to the effect of “you’ve got to be
kidding me!” And indeed, that is the PG
version of the range of reactions.
My point is
this. If Judge Hazel had only handed
down his memorandum opinion and there was no new RICO suit, I feel like our
chances of being allowed to file for sanctions was low. The judge would be likely to assume he is
dealing with a relatively ordinary plaintiff, who will accept his loss with
relative grace and most of all accept it,
and stop suing these people and so on.
He might assume that the thumping his opinion gave would sufficiently
chasten Brett. But instead, with Brett
filing another RICO suit so quickly, the judge is more likely to conclude that “this
guy doesn’t learn.” And that makes sanctions
more likely to be granted, so that Brett might actually learn.
I would have
asked for sanctions whether I felt our chances were good or bad. What’s the worst that can happen? The judge says no. I suppose the judge can get annoyed, except he
has called Brett out for his dishonesty.
So the judge is likely to understand where we are coming from, even if
he disagrees, and that mental state is unlikely to give rise to true ire.
Of course Judge
Hazel might have another, simpler, reasons for denying sanctions: he might feel
we should wait until every claim is resolved, and Brett still has a claim
against Patrick Frey for alleged violation of his civil rights. As I said in the letter, the court seemed to
want to put off sanctions until the merits are resolved and the judge might
feel that this means “resolved for all parties” not just for the four
signatories. We shall see.
As for Brett’s
motion to reconsider, well, I already had my answer to that. Yesterday I filed this letter with the court:
It hasn’t
appeared on PACER (the federal docket database) as of this writing, but you
will see that the letter is moot anyway.
Still, it says what I thought on the subject...
...which is
actually pretty similar to what the judge thinks. You see, the big news today is that Judge
Hazel issued a second memorandum opinion slapping down Brett’s request to file
a motion to reconsider. You can read the
whole thing over at Hogewash, and I
suggest you do so right now before continuing.
Are you
back? Good.
So as you can
see the judge essentially agreed with me about how to read the first part of 42
U.S.C. §1985, colloquially known as the KKK Act. Now, in my last post, I made the argument
that I had an influence over Judge Hazel.
Did that happen again?
Probably
not. I base that assessment on two
factors. First, my letter hasn’t
appeared on PACER yet, and I am willing to bet Hazel wouldn’t pay attention to it
until it does. Second, the logic just
isn’t similar enough. Yes, we agree, but
we are getting to it by slightly different paths. I took the simple path of citing the Supreme
Court’s language in Kush, and the
judge cited a few additional cases.
What this is, I
think is simply this. I may have used
this metaphor before, but imagine that one mathematician says 2 + 2 = 4. And then a second mathematician also says 2 +
2 = 4. Well are they both saying that
two added to two equals four because one is being influenced by the other? Or is it because that’s the correct answer?
Law, of
course, is not typically as clear as math, but sometimes there is a definite
right answer and a definite wrong answer.
This is one of those times.
I will also
note the judge all but seems to be accusing Brett of reading him in bad
faith. The judge’s argument seems to go
like this: “I already told you when discussing 18 U.S.C. §1503 that you had not
alleged obstruction of a federal court.
I wasn’t going to repeat myself in relation to 42 U.S.C. §1985(2). So I dealt with the only part of §1985(2)
that I hadn’t already disposed of.” I
admit I didn’t see it when I wrote my letter, but then again I wasn’t the one
asking for reconsideration.
So what is the
fallout from this today’s ruling? Well,
first, notice that the judge said “no” pretty quickly to Brett’s request to
file a motion for reconsideration, but hasn’t responded to our request for
sanctions. I don’t think the judge would
say “yes” to us without giving Brett a chance to respond, first, and so maybe
that is what he is waiting for? But that
is idle speculation.
Certainly our
chances of being allowed to file that motion went up. It is hard to put my finger on why I feel
this, but I get the sense reading Hazel’s opinion that he was annoyed. And if I am right, that will probably help us
in our quest for sanctions. Likewise,
Judge Hazel, who is also overseeing the new RICO suit, is likely to be even
less disposed to entertaining Brett for very long in that suit. As with last time, Brett’s timing couldn’t be
much worse, annoying the judge right as we asked him for a motion for
sanctions.
---------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------
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.
I don't mind the SNL clip. First, it was from when the show was actually funny. Second, when I first saw the title of this entry, the first thing that came to mind was making a reference to Francisco Franco in a comment. You beat me to it!
ReplyDeleteI work in the legal arena, and I agree with you, this judge is seriously annoyed. No judge slaps down a motion that quickly unless they are.
ReplyDelete