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.

Monday, August 3, 2015

Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s Unsealed Motion for a Restraining Order

Enjoy every kernel...
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 three 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.  Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost on the issue of truth.  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 sued myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling him a pedophile.  He lost on the issue of truth.  He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan Backer, 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 conspiracy to defame him because we reported 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.

As promised last Thursday, dear reader, today I am giving you the mysterious document mentioned in this docket entry:

Docket Date:               07/21/2015 Docket Number: 25
Docket Description:    MOTION, PROTECTIVE ORDER
Docket Type:              Motion Filed By: Defendant Status: Open

That was filed in Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., the case I filed against Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin designed to 1) enjoin both of them from abusing the civil and criminal justice system and 2) get damages from Brett for basically the last three and a half years of hell.  You can read the complaint filed here, and it might help to read it.  So without further ado, I will present the his dumb motion and then fisk its factual inaccuracies momentarily:

I say that this is Brett’s motion, because bluntly, I would fall over in shock if Tetyana wrote even a single word.  At best, she might have actually signed it, but given his record of forgery, I have little reason to believe that happened, either.

I won’t say the first page is error free, but the errors are minor enough I am going to ignore them.  So let’s start on page 2, first paragraph, where he writes that I am a…

...disgraced and unemployed lawyer...

First, being self-employed is not unemployed.  And I have never been disgraced as the term is commonly meant.  I have not been disciplined in any way whatsoever by a bar association, and I have never been in any scandal.

In the same sentence, Brett states that I have been

...stalking and harassing Defendants for years.

Under Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. §3-802(a), stalking must include “approaching or pursuing another.” I have only ever been in Mr. Kimberlin’s presence in a courtroom setting.  As for Mrs. Kimberlin, the only time I have been around her outside a courtroom setting is when she retained me for counsel, and obviously an attorney-client relationship is not stalking.  Far from being stalked by me, Mrs. Kimberlin once actively sought my aid.

Likewise, I have never done anything that can be called harassment, either.  But of course this piece right here is “harassment” in Brett’s dictionary, which means “writing thing about a person they don’t like,” which you might recall is protected by the First Amendment.  (I know, technicalities!)

Moving on, in the next line, Brett states that

His harassment has also been directed at Defendants’ 16 year-old teenage daughter.

I will refer to her as K. Kimberlin, meaning the eldest daughter of Tetyana Kimberlin, so that there is no ambiguity.  And of course I have done none of the things that constitute harassment, and indeed, I have not even written very much about her.  I am fundamentally not interested in K. and I wouldn’t pay an attention to her at all, except Brett keeps dragging her into the center of this controversy, such as writing a whole motion all about how he has to seal this whole case because he is in the unique position of having children.

In the same paragraph, he claims he filed charges against me and the commissioner found there to be probable cause.  What he doesn’t mention is that the charges contained several provable falsehoods and several other statements that were intentionally misleading, and in any case was false overall.  The criminal charges were ultimately dropped with the stated reason being insufficient evidence.

As for his claims that he is working with various officials to resurrect them, I wouldn’t be surprised if they said they would listen to his evidence to humor him, but I doubt it will go anywhere.  This was just an attempt to scare me, and I am not scared.  I will not be prosecuted because 1) there is no evidence I committed the offense and 2) they might be scared I can get the law declared unconstitutional.

In the next paragraph, Brett claims that

On July 14, 2015, he posted a comment on a website in relation to the Defendants which said, “revenge is a dish best served cold.”

Actually, it was in relation to Bill Schmalfeldt, so unless he is admitting that Schmalfeldt’s conduct is related to his, that is false from the perspective of his official story.  The full comment, actually was “I am told that revenge is a dish best served cold.  I am also told that it is very cold in Alaska.”  The original post where this comment was made is here.  It was not about this suit, but instead in reference to the case of Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al.  I knew that later on that day David Edgren, Esq. was going to file a motion against Mr. Schmalfeldt.  You can read the motion, here.  What gives it away is the reference to Alaska.  Mr. Edgren lives in Alaska.  This is an example of why I believe Mr. Kimberlin wrote the majority of this: because he is in the habit of stating things with certainty, when the most charitable interpretation is that he doesn’t actually know.  This is especially in relation to intent: he always knows the intent behind a person’s actions, and it is always the worst possible interpretation, to hear him tell it.

And the less charitable interpretation is that he knew it wasn’t about this case, but he was lying.  You can make your own mind up on this point.

In the next paragraph (same page), he writes

Plaintiff attributes pages 25-27 of the complaint to Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin but that information was fabricated and written by Plaintiff.

In fact, that information was Tetyana’s story, as she told to William Hoge III, her attorney Zoa Barnes, my wife and myself.  She has told too many people this story to disown it, at least not while retaining any credibility.  He also ignores that Tetyana filed charges to the same effect as that part of the complaint, “under penalty of perjury.”

In the same paragraph:

Plaintiff falsely calls Defendant Brett Kimberlin a ‘pedophile’...

After that line, I blacked out something.  I have decided not to share his denial of something else that I know to be true, but private.  Bluntly, it’s the same thing I have been debating whether to reveal and I have decided not to at this time.  Why not?  Honestly, my answer is something I shouldn’t say.  Which I am sure is frustrating to you, the reader, but at all times the mantra has to be “case first, blog second.”  Someday the story is likely to come out—I was very close to revealing it today—but I am not going to talk about it yet.

As for the first part of the sentence, he an adjudicated pedophile, contrary to his denials.

Same paragraph, same page:

He falsely states that Brett Kimberlin forged documents to bring a minor to the United States for sex, and falsely states that Tetyana Kimberlin is a victim of human trafficking...

Actually, that is what Tetyana said at one time.  And I still believe it to be the truth.  And when he sued me for repeating the story, I won on the issue of truth.

Same sentence:

…and is acting under duress and threats from Defendant Brett Kimberlin.

This is false.  I have not stated as a certainty, only that I believe it might the case under information and belief, given that she has stated in the past that this convicted serial bomber has threatened her (according to her), which is why I am only seeking an injunction against her, instead of monetary damages.

Same paragraph, now on page 3, he says that the Complalint is

...meant to cause maximum harm to Defendants and their daughter.

This is incorrect, and this is one of many statements where one has to wonder why he pretends to know for a fact otherwise.  The purpose of these statements is state a claim for which relief can be granted in sufficient detail to survive a motion to dismiss, something Brett admittedly doesn’t have a lot of experience with.

Same page, next paragraph:

Defendants have repeatedly told Plaintiff to leave them alone both orally and in writing....  However, he will not do so.

Since, I am manually typing this, I am not going to type every repetitive bit.  In any case, to a degree that is true, although they overestimate how much they’ve said, “leave me alone.”  But the lie is claiming I have not done so.  Aside from writing about them to a general audience (which the Constitution allows me to do), I have left them alone.  And what I am doing is not seen in the law as harassment or anything else the constitutes not “leaving them alone.”

In the next paragraph he gets very upset about my alleged “moralizing.”  I wasn't moralizing there, but I will, here.  First he was annoyed that I explained to the court why I am not suing Tetyana for money.  This is another example of why I think Brett wrote it, because why would Tetyana object to this?  I am not suing her for money... oh no!  How terrible!

He also gets upset that I mentioned how he had his daughter show her breasts in a music video, writing that

He says that Defendants’ minor daughter showed her ‘”cleavage” in a YouTube music video and accuses Defendant of “sexualizing his underage daughter” while falsely stating that Defendant Brett Kimberlin is “an adjudicated pedophile.”

First, it is interesting that he doesn’t state that the claim that K.K. showed her cleavage in a music video and that he is sexualizing his underage daughter is false.  The only thing he says in that sentence is false is that he is an adjudicated pedophile.  On the other hand, he can’t really deny that the part he is not denying.  I mean this is a screencap from that video, with her face obscured:

Embiggen as necessary

That clearly shows her cleavage, and that is a fifteen year old girl.  A normal father would want his daughter wearing something more conservative in that context.  There, I am (gasp!) moralizing.

Second, he falsely claims that I stated that he was “sexualizing his underage daughter” when in fact the full quote in the Second Amended Complaint was actually this:

Because the video was published when K.K. was only fifteen years old, one commenter quite reasonably was repulsed by what they called a “titty shot” and others voiced the concern that an adjudicated pedophile was sexualizing his underage daughter.

So, in that passage, I was not accusing him of sexualizing his underage daughter, but rather pointing out that others had felt that way.  Further, the passage was not about “moraliz[ing] with righteous indignation” as stated earlier in the same paragraph.  Rather, it was about rebutting the false suggestion in Tetyana Kimberlin’s criminal charges that various people were salaciously discussing K. Kimberlin’s breasts, implying they were attracted to her.  What the Kimberlins tried to portray as prurient interest in an underage girl was in fact criticism of the Kimberlin for allowing this little girl to blatantly appeal to the prurient interest.

And of course you know by now that he is an adjudicated pedophile.

Same page, next paragraph:

Clearly, Plaintiff  is obsessed with Defendants’ daughter.

Really, based on what he just said?  He thinks he has convinced anyone this is the case?  This is how it always is with Brett Kimberlin: I am crazy, John Hoge is crazy, his own wife is crazy... everyone is crazy except the guy who terrorized a town with bombs for nearly a week.

He is using this complaint to torment her so he can get attention, so he can come to court and see her as he has done so in the past.

As for the specific allegation that I am hoping this lawsuit will give me a chance to see K.K. I don’t see how it her testimony is likely to be relevant.  The claims for malicious prosecution relate primarily to whether I did anything to merit the charges and whether the Defendants actually believed I had done so; the same can be said for the claim for false imprisonment.  The claim related to abuse of process relates to Brett’s behavior in court.  And the injunction is solely sought against Mr. and Mrs. Kimberlin and not their daughter.  It is hard to understand, therefore, why there is any need for K. Kimberln to be involved at all.  I suppose, given Brett’s litigation history he might try to bring K. Kimberlin in to provide some barely-relevant testimony, but that will be their decision.  In fact, I will happily agree to a motion in limine excluding her from being called as a witness for either side.

I will skip over his legal arguments—they will be addressed after I serve the complaint on Brett and Tetyana, and after they file their likely motion to dismiss.  There is no reason to address it before then.  I will note that he is lying about both previous cases, in verifiable ways.

So next on page five, the first paragraph after the header, he writes:

Plaintiff knows that she has suffered severe emotional distress because he has heard her testify, and seen her weep and get angry in court while pointing at him and telling him to leave her alone.

Actually, first, that actual moment—she points angrily at me and says something like “leave me alone!”—has never happened to my recollection.

Second, I don’t know she actually has suffered any emotional distress at all.  The girl has not always told the truth on the stand (although it is possible that she is being lied to).

Third, even assuming she really is upset, she’s not upset at what I have done.  I don’t believe K Kimberlin is being traumatized by anything but a series of lies Brett has told her.  I have done nothing to harm this young woman and indeed have taken steps to prevent her from suffering collateral damage from her father’s illegal and immoral conduct.  For instance, I have published many public documents on my blog to expose Brett’s criminal and immoral conduct, but I have always redacted her name from it (as well as some private information relating to Brett himself).  And when I explain that I do this because I do not believe in she should suffer because of what he did, Brett lies and says that I said the opposite.

Going past some more legal arguments, on page nine, Brett writes that

He lists her address on the very caption of the complaint...

By which he means Brett’s home address, as I am required to.  As Brett did on the first page of his complaint against me in the current case of Kimbelin v. National Bloggers Club, et al.

...and he lists her age.

Actually, I didn’t.  But you know who did?  Brett, in this motion.

In fact, the minor child has stated that she worries about being kidnapped by Plaintiff and his associates because he has discussed ‘vigilante’ action to ‘protect’ her.

Oh yes, I have “discussed” vigilante action... in order to reject it.  So I have discussed vigilante action in the same sense that Ghandi discussed violence, Al Gore discussed destroying the environment and Ruth Bader Ginsberg discussed banning all abortion.  What utter dishonesty.

The actual post he is apparently selectively quoting from is  here and you can read it for yourself, dear reader.  It includes the following two passages discussing a false peace order Brett filed against John Hoge:

And then [Kimberlin] ends with the allegation that John will try to kidnap his daughter.  Do I have to tell you that while nothing would make us happier than those children getting away from Brett, the only way we envision it is either by their mother, or by child protective services?  Do we have to say that such vigilantism is not on the table?

Lest there by any ambiguity on this point, I also wrote:

we have never spoke of anyone saving his daughters, except either their mother or child protective services.  We are not, and never will be, vigilantes.  We obey the law, for the simple reason that it is the law.

So in other words the discussion of vigilante action to protect her was in the context of ruling it out.  I cannot say whether my declaration that I would never try to kidnap her somehow made her afraid that I would kidnap her, but I can say that if K.K. is truly afraid I might kidnap her, it is an unreasonable fear.

He has stated that if she “only knew the truth,” she would turn against Defendants.

No, that is not what I said, and you can read that whole discussion, here.  I posited that she was being lied to as an explanation for why I was trying to limit collateral damage to her.

Same paragraph:

He has tried to follow her on twitter in order to make secret contact with her.

While I once pressed the follow button, it was an accident.  As I stated in uncontradicted testimony, I use an Apple iPhone app to interact with Twitter.  One day someone told me to look at something in her feed, and after I did, I picked up the phone the wrong way and accidentally hit the follow button.  Within seconds I clicked it again to unfollow.  As for the claim that it was designed to secretly communicate with her, pressing follow only tells Twitter that you wish to have an account sent into your twitter feed.  For instance, I follow Cnn’s twitter account to get news, and I follow the Washington Post’s Dr. Gridlock twitter feed to keep up with area traffic.  I do not secretly communicate with them.  Judge Williams observed that it was not proof of an intent to communicate.

But once again, Brett knows why a persons does what he does, and it is always for the worst reasons possible.  Because he is psychic, I guess.  (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

Page ten, first full paragraph:

Plaintiff wants to cause harm to the minor child, both emotionally and physically.

I have said the opposite, and indeed how will any of this cause her physical harm?

Plaintiff, as he admits, has engaged in a multi-year campaign of cyber bullying against Defendants and their minor child.

Oy, there is so much bullsh*t in that sentence, it is hard to know where to begin.  First, as I have admitted?  What exactly is he smoking?  No, I have never admitted to doing anything wrong.

Second, what exactly is cyber bullying?  He keeps throwing that word around like anyone is supposed to know what it means.  As best I can tell, he thinks it is writing negative things about him to a general audience, which is my constitutional right.  Did Woodward and Bernstein bully Richard Nixon?

He abuses the court system by filing false and scurrilous pleadings in court and then publishing them on the Internet for the world to see as if they are gospel.  He will do the same here if records are not sealed.

Actually, publishing false statements in legal documents to that your buddies can publish them as gospel is Brett’s tactic.  But yes, I do tend to do what I do openly.

Then jumping to the conclusion, still on page nine:

Plaintiff is a 44 year old man...

Forty-two, actually, which means that Brett has been a convicted felon for pretty much my entire life.  But math, like the rules of evidence, is a harsh mistress for Brett.

...who spends every waking hour of his life obsessing over Defendants and their 16 year-old daughter.

One would be tempted to ask how he claims to know what is on my mind.  In any case, it is not all that is on my mind, or even all that I write about.  Read my twitter feed, for instance, on virtually any day.  It is probably reasonably close to a “stream of consciousness.”  Unless there is major news on the Kimberlin front, I am discussing politics, comic book nerdiness, history nerdy stuff, smacking down racists of all colors, and so on.  And that ignores the work I am doing for paying clients, attending to my lovely wife and so on, which doesn’t make it onto twitter.  Hey, dear reader, I love communicating with the nice people on the Internet, but that isn’t all there is in my life.

Page ten, same paragraph:

Judge after judge in this courthouse have told Plaintiff to leave Defendants alone.

Actually, no judge in the Montgomery County Circuit Court has told me to leave him alone, because none of them found I wasn’t doing so in the first place.  In the same paragraph, he claims that “one judge” (Judge Creighton, most likely), berated me in court, in a case I was not a party or a participant in.  Although Creighton’s performance went far astray of how a judge should conduct a hearing, she did not say that about me.

So that is it for the injunction.  Next we have the K. Kimberlin’s dumb little affidavit. Now, first just about all of this would be stricken for various evidentiary shortcomings.  I won’t detail all of them, but the most obvious is you don’t get to testify to things you don’t witness.  You know, with your eyes.

Skipping over allegations I have already refuted, paragraph four of her affidavit:

[John Hoge and I] are the ringleaders of an online gang of bullies who have attacked me mercilessly and this has caused me serious emotional distress.

First, we are the ringleaders of nothing.  For three years, the Kimberlins have accused me of controlling everyone on the planet with absolutely no evidence of it.

Second, I have never attacked the girl, even under the “Brett Kimberlin” definition of “attack” which includes mere criticism.  At worst I have suggested she was being manipulated by her father, as I have here.  None of that is an attack on her.  As for others, of course I can never claim to know everything anyone else does, but I have not witnessed any attacks on her, and I would reprimand anyone who did do so.

Paragraph seven:

However, Mr. Hoge and Walker have trolled my social media accounts, which caused me severe emotional distress.

No, we didn’t.  Aside accidentally hitting the follow button, I have done nothing that can be called “trolling” or even contact with her social media account.

Mr. Hoge tried to friend me on Facebook, which I declined.

He says he hasn’t and I believe him (and Brett has never produced any evidence to the contrary).

They have posted and urged others in their orbit to post nasty comments on articles about me and the videos I have uploaded.

If she means we have posted comments in the comment section of the articles in question and on any YouTube video, we have not.  If she means that I have discussed those things, the only time I have discussed those articles is to note 1) how her father keeps using them as a platform to defame me, and 2) that her father is the one who led students at her school to associate her with him.  In regard to the second point, I have never used K.’s real name on my website and thus you would never know that the Speedway Bomber was K.’s father.  But you would know it from news articles about K. Kimberlin’s achievements where Brett then uses her success as an opportunity to promote himself or defame others.  I don’t think John has discussed them at all.  Similarly, we have never placed a comment in the comment section below any YouTube posting of her videos at all.  And the only comment I made about any of them was what I said here: that others were disturbed by the sexualization of this underage girl.

In paragraph 8, she states that John’s twitter account was permanently suspended, while neglecting to mention that they unsuspended him and apologized.

Paragraph 9:

Mr. Walker has threatened to take depositions of my friends and me to ask questions about sexual matters and this has caused great embarrassment.

Actually, it was not a threat, so much as an explanation of why I didn’t think Brett would dare to sue me for calling him a pedophile.  I stated that Mr. Kimberlin probably wouldn’t sue because he would be afraid that I would depose his daughter and her friends, and he would be terrified about what her friends might say.  Which, admittedly turned out to be wrong—he did sue me after all—but there you go.

She also neglects to mention that Brett put her on the stand to ask her about sexual matters.  I have no idea if that caused any embarrassment, but he actually did what she falsely accuses me of threatening to do.

Paragraph 10:

I have received Google Alerts of things these men have posted online about my family and me.

And if she doesn’t like it, she can turn them off.

Paragraph 11:

Mr. Hoge posted my age and birthday in a post by a man “hungering” over me at a middle school basketball game.

The post in question is here, and while it is not something I would have said, the author (“Paul Krendler”) was not saying he was hungering over her.  He was saying that Brett’s would be driven mad with guilt and fear that some guy might hunger over her the way he said he does for teenage girls.  (I also disagree with Krendler’s assessment of Brett’s conscience in the sense that he seems to think Brett has any.)  As for John’s part, Gus Bailey said that he believed she was only fourteen years old and John, being his nerdy self, felt the need to correct the record.  Judge Williams believed him when he said his only purpose was to correct the record, and that he did not intend to harass her.

Also, the only reason why she knows any of that was written was because her father brought her a copy.

Same paragraph:

He and Mr. Walker  have said that since I have told them to stop harassing me, that I am no longer “off limits.”

We have said nothing of the sort.  Indeed, we have not said she is not “off limits” for any reason.

Paragraph 12:

Mr. Walker and Mr[.] Hoge have contacted my mother and told her to save me.

No, we have helped her mother in her quest to get custody from her father, because we are worried about both daughters being in the presence of this adjudicated pedophile.  And her mother agreed.

Mr. Walker has called the FBI and other officials with false information to have them raid our home in search of non-existent child pornography.

Um, no, that didn’t happen.

Skipping over other stuff I have already refuted, paragraph 15:

Sometimes [John and I] use proxies to attack me, or use code words in their posts to have other bullies they control attack me.

Do I have to tell you how dumb and paranoid it is to say we have code words?  Well, the answer is very.  And mind you, I don’t think a word of this is actually K. Kimberlin’s.  I think Brett wrote it for her, just like I think he wrote the motion.  I could be wrong, but I report, you decide, right?

And that is about it.  And the irony is that while this motion has already been denied—and thus it has not done the work Brett was hoping to do—I can use every word of it against them, including the provable lies or the parts that are merely deceptive.  But that will have to wait for the future.

Finally, as a preview of upcoming events, last Friday a whole lot of motions were filed in the case of Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al.  And I believe John is going to dribble them out most of the week.  In fact, he put one out last night...  So, stay tuned and keep lots of popcorn!


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.

1 comment:

  1. Yes, I did state (incorrectly) that I thought she was fourteen; and I regret that it has caused Mr. Hoge such grief. That does not change the fact that in context she was more or less the age that Brett Kimberlin seems to find sexually attractive; (this based on his approved biography wherein he was shown to have relationship with a girl about that age in the seventies, and again in court documents wherein it appears that he began his relationship with his current wife when she was about fourteen. It's not hard to find further admissions from Brett that he finds himself attracted to trans-pubescent girls.)