This is the second in a series of posts that I introduced, here.
In the first part of this story
, I provided an introduction and then talked a little about the law of peace orders in Maryland. In this part we will talk about the peace order that Brett Kimberlin filed on May 19, 2012. I had mentioned it before
but I didn’t take the time for the true line by line fisking it deserved.
But it is worth looking at a screencap from when the peace order was put into place.
As you can see, this was filed at midnight on Saturday, May 19. Which if they are doing it right, means that he left for the commissioner’s office on Friday evening. And what, pray tell, motivated him to run from his mother’s basement (where he lives) to the commissioner’s office so late on a Friday evening?
Perhaps he witnessed the horror that was... my latest Friday Frivolity post
... and if you look at my twitter feed, it was mainly just the usual stuff. It’s hard to understand why anything I wrote gave him a sudden sense of urgency. In fact one might suspect he went there at that time in the hopes of finding someone less vigilant than normal. Perish the thought.
So let’s fisk this sucker, starting with the handwritten parts. First he writes (his words will be in red and italics, just to keep things easier to follow):
Mr. Walker has engaged in a course of conduct that alarms and seriously annoys me by filing false criminal charges that were quickly dismissed...
Of course the problem with that is two-fold. First, I filed those charges against him on April 17. He filed this petition on May 19, and as I explained in the last part, it can only apply to conduct in the last thirty days, so... that would be April 19-through May 19, and thus the conduct falls completely outside the peace order statute.
But more fundamentally than that, you can’t file a peace order to prevent a person from filing a criminal charge, and he knows that. Judge Eric Johnson of the Circuit Court told him that in the April 11 hearing
If you notice, it does not say here [in the peace order statute] that the respondent may not file a lawsuit, may not press criminal charges. Those things are not prohibited. First of all, they cannot be prohibited. A person has a right if they want to -- because we’re not here to litigate the lawsuit. I know you understand what its contents are, but that civil law case may or may not stand on its own merit even if this proceeding never occurred.
So he was told by Judge Eric Johnson that filing criminal charges was not covered by the peace order statute. Indeed if they were, I would have gotten a peace order against him last January and put an end to this mess.
...retaliating against me for filing a prior peace order...
No, it was because he perjured himself repeatedly and falsified evidence in an attempt to frame me for a crime and imprison me up to ten years, and it’s not retaliation: it’s seeking justice.
...threatening to “make me pay”...
Yes, and given that I had sued him for damages at that point for your outrageous conduct—as well as his co-conspirators, Neal Rauhauser and Ron Brynaert—that was nothing more than a statement of confidence that sooner or later I would get justice in a court as was indicated by the very tweets he is selectively quoting from.
I was responding to the internet persona Breitbart Unmasked’s (who is still working hard to unmask a dead man, apparently) question of why I still cared about Kimberlin and I said replied twice:
(you can see my screencap accidentally caught that my mouse was hovering over the "undo favorite" command.)
In context it is plainly not a threat of violence or any other illegal act. And folks that is the entirety of the evidence I was threatening him.
...for telling the police that he assaulted me...
Well, given that I didn’t assault him—as video evidence showed...
…as outlined in the attached typewritten statement.
This new harassment began when his criminal charges were denied on April 30, 2012. He has continually harassed me since then with alarming posts, tweets, Alerts that arrive in my email box...
Those would be Google alerts. I have covered this before, but it cannot be stressed enough. He is basically saying that if you talk about him anywhere on the internet, that this is equivalent to sending him an email. And remember how I told you about Galloway v. State
in my last post where a man sent 122 letters to a woman he had previously stalked and kidnapped. That is what he is trying to draw a parallel to. He is saying that me talking about him on the internet is equivalent to Galloway sending his victim all of those letters.
...which I consider threats to harm me personally...
Except that none of those blog posts, tweets, etc. contain any threats by me to Kimberlin. The most chartable interpretation is that Kimberlin is jumping at shadows, but he isn’t entitled to have his jumpiness accommodated. And that is the charitable interpretation: I see no reason to be charitable toward him, to assume he is not simply lying.
...and [to harm] my business.
Well, yes, I have suggested that people such as George Soros, Teresa Heinz Kerry and Barbra Streisand all stop donating to Brett Kimberlin’s organization, but in fact that is protected speech. Seriously, are people under the impression that you cannot recommend or recommend against donating to a specific charity?
He keeps saying he will “make me pay”...
Ignoring the fact that I didn’t say I would make myself
pay (which is literally what I would be saying if I said I would “make me pay”) and if I did say I was going to make myself pay that would be of no concern of Kimberlin’s... this is something else Kimberlin does all the time. If you do something once, Kimberlin starts saying you have done it over and over and over and over and over... The point is he always exaggerates.
...and that he has two guns.
The slight of hand he is trying to pull here is two-fold. First, he is saying that I brought up my gun ownership aggressively, as though I was threatening him. In fact what I actually said was that had those guns to defend my wife and I—which is not a threat unless Brett Kimberlin intends to harm me or my loved ones. This is what I wrote:
In the background of all of this, Neal Rauhauser started talking about an event called Kookpocalypse that was supposed to take place on February 6, 2012, placing things on his websites such as videos of beheadings and the promise that “something wicked this way comes.” If you know the reference, you know it is talking about blood. He also posted how to get to Manassas, Virginia, and Boston, Massachusetts—where both I and Seth live. I try my best to keep some of this ugliness from my wife, but she insisted on knowing and at times it reduced her to a crying wreck she was so afraid. I am more stoic as a rule, but I recognized I had a rational reason to be concerned. So we took a few days to prepare for whatever he was up to. I filed for a Temporary Peace Order against him and got it. Given that Rauhauser was being intentionally vague I was pleasantly surprised they granted that much and not actually very shocked when they didn’t grant a permanent one about two weeks later.
I also purchased a handgun. I had owned a shotgun since law school for home defense, but I wanted something I could more easily carry in public. As they say, better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. And I made sure Kimberlin’s crew knew I was armed, to make them realize that I was not defenseless.
None of that is a threat unless Brett Kimberlin intends to harm me. Indeed about half of the supposed threats in his response to my motion for a partial stay
were simply statements that people were ready and willing to defend themselves should this violent bomber threaten them and their loved ones—something that people are allowed to do. And that is forgetting the strong evidence
that Brett Kimberlin or a close associate is manufacturing at least some of these supposed threats.
The other deception is when he implied that the two statements—about making him pay and about owning two guns—are coupled together. In fact, the part about Kimberlin paying for what he did to me (in a court of law) was made on May 5, and the part about the guns came on May 17, almost two weeks later
He sent hundreds of online attacks against me over the past 72 hours.
Of course, none of these were “attacks” so much as criticism, mockery, and so on.
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, he stated that he has two guns...
Well, first off it was Thursday, May 17, and he’s repeating himself.
...and several times this week, he has said that he will “make me pay.”
Not only is he repeating himself, but that simply wasn’t true.
I have repeatedly told Mr. Walker to stop including [sic] during prior Peace Orders. I told the State’s Attorney several times since April 30th that I wanted Mr. Walker to leave me alone and he wrote a letter to Mr. Walker...
Actually it was not the State’s Attorney, but someone under him. And my Freedom of Expression is not subject to his approval.
…making clear that she should leave me alone and that he was invested in me too much.
Yeah, hey look, Brett Kimberlin only manufactured false evidence of a crime in order to put me in prison for up to ten years. Why am I so upset with him? Why won’t I just let it go?
Judge Evergham told Mr. Walker to leave me alone on March 8th.
Actually Evergham said this on February 8. But people get forgetful in old age, I suppose.
I told Mr. Walker at a peace order hearing on April 11th to leave me alone. I told Mr. Walker in an appeal pleading on May 8th to leave me alone.
Do you see why I mocked him in the past as sounding much like this?
So then we move to the typewritten pages. It starts with this:
Aaron Justin Walker has been engaged in a malicious course of conduct that harasses, alarms and seriously annoys me. I have repeatedly warned him to stop, both verbally and in writing, and he has been asked to stop by Judges in this court...
And I was told I didn’t have to by a judge in the Circuit Court.
...and by the State's Attorneys Office. His malicious harassment has been done without legal purpose and for the sale purpose to alarm, annoy and harm me.
Don’t you love how he pretends to know what my purpose is, and it isn’t what I said it was when I launched this campaign for justice? In fact my main purpose is not only legal, but it is specifically enumerated in the First Amendment: I am petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
On or about April 17. 2012, Mr. Walker filed five malicious criminal charges against me in Montgomery County District Court, case number 4D00277939. On November 30, 2012, those charges were nolle prossed by the State's Attorney without even getting past the intake screeners.
And of course people who look at the evidence that Brett Kimberlin tried to frame me for a crime have generally concluded that this is more a reflection on those authorizes than on me. And that is not just my opinion either. Here’s what law professor Jonathan Adler
wrote about it: “it is unconscionable the local authorities in Montgomery County, Maryland would sit by and allow the continued abuse of legal process that has victimized Worthing.” (Worthing is my pen name; Walker is my real name.)
Before during [sic] and after the filing of the above charges. Mr. Wa1ker has repeatedly posted on his personal blog and/or Twitter account that I am a liar and a perjurer...
Well, he was convicted of perjury, and he has repeatedly lied under oath in his encounters with me. So yes, I did, and I am allowed to.
...because I stated that he assaulted me on January 9, 2012.
And because he lied when he said that. I mean there is that.
Judge Eric Johnson ruled that Mr. Walker did assault me.
Once again he did not. He specifically said he was not considering any defenses. As a matter of due process of law, the judge cannot find assault occurred without considering any defenses.
Think of it this way. Ordinarily you are not allowed to shoot someone. So if the state can prove that you intentionally shot a gun at a person and caused their death ordinarily that would be murder if no defenses apply
. But of course numerous defense do apply, the most obvious being self-defense. So can a court find a person murdered another without considering evidence ready to be offered by the defendant that he was acting in self-defense? Of course not. So the idea that the judge can “find” I committed assault without considering any defenses I had to offer is simply wrong as a matter of law.
Mr. Walker has posted hundreds of tweets, directed at me personally...
How can I be directing tweets to him personally if he doesn’t tweet?
...and by name, stating that I am mentally ill...
Actually I didn’t quite say, but I suggested, that Kimberlin was a sociopath. And given that he is The Speedway Bomber and has actually caused a man's death, that seems like a very reasonable assessment.
Actually I have never said he was a pedophile for certain, just that Mark Singer and others had presented evidence strongly suggesting that he was one and thus he was a suspected pedophile.
Again, he’s The Speedway Bomber. So it is actually quite factual to refer to him as a convicted terrorist who has actually killed a man.
Actually I don’t believe I ever directly said Kimberlin was an anti-Semite. What I have said is that I believe Brett Kimberlin is the Breitbart Unmasked character, and that character is pretty blatantly anti-Semitic even going as far as to suggest I was acting like a “typical jew” and trolling blatantly anti-Semitic websites to obtain a mistaken claim that I was Jewish. So while I don’t believe I ever said directly that Brett Kimberlin was anti-Semitic, I have said that Breitbart Unmasked is, and that Brett Kimberlin is Breitbart Unmasked, so you can see the syllogism.
We’ll let the evidence speak for itself on that one.
…who commits horrible acts.
And indeed he has, the most recently being to attempt to frame me for a crime and to do his level best to get me and my wife killed (I’ll give you a citation for that in just a moment).
He has asked others to target me...
Notice that he always uses the language of violence... target
, and so on. However, I have never asked anyone to do anything violent and he knows it. So the charitable interpretation is that when he says “target” he means “focus,” when he says “attack” he means “criticize,” “expose,” or “mock” all peaceable expression that is protected under the Constitution. That’s the charitable interpretation; the less charitable interpretation is that he is hoping to be misunderstood, so it sounds like I am being violent, when I am not.
Go ahead dear reader and read the post
he is complaining about. Look at the primary documents I offer and the video evidence, and ask yourself if I have told any lies.
...to incite them against me.
Except as a matter of law, it is not incitement. As I said
just the other day:
What the court held below and Brett Kimberlin believes is that we are not allowed to say anything bad about him on the internet, or else we are automatically responsible for any unlawful conduct by any third parties. Folks, if that is the rule, that is the death of journalism. By that logic, Woodward and Bernstein could have been enjoined from covering Watergate if Richard Nixon started getting death threats. Under that rule, the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle could be enjoined from reporting on Enron if Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were getting death threats—and it seems safe to assume they were. Likewise Attorney General Eric Holder can get a peace order against Brian Terry’s parents, Kent and Josephine, from speaking out about the death of their son
if he gets death threats, if the Vaughey/Kimberlin rule is upheld.
That’s not just my opinion, but that of the Supreme Court, in Near v. Minnesota
. As much as I cited Brandenburg v. Ohio
in dealing with this stuff, Near v. Minnesota
is even more on point. In Near
, The Saturday Press was deemed a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper” and therefore further publication was prohibited: it falsely alleged that a local man was engaged in criminal conduct and local officials were not putting a stop to it—you know, just like I have. And therefore the state asserted that they had a right to stop it because such materials tended “‘to disturb the peace of the community’ and ‘to provoke assaults and the commission of crime.’”
And yet this appalled the Supreme Court:
If we cut through mere details of procedure, the operation and effect of the statute in substance is that public authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a newspaper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defamatory matter — in particular that the matter consists of charges against public officers of official dereliction — and unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring competent evidence to satisfy the judge that the charges are true and are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as a contempt. This is of the essence of censorship.
Gee, does that sound familiar?
Nor was the Supreme Court terribly impressed with the argument that this might lead to vigilantism:
There is nothing new in the fact that charges of reprehensible conduct may create resentment and the disposition to resort to violent means of redress, but this well-understood tendency did not alter the determination to protect the press against censorship and restraint upon publication.
And the court indeed essentially agreed that the Vaughey/Kimberlin approach would be the death of journalism, saying that “if this consideration warranted legislative interference with the initial freedom of publication, the constitutional protection [for Freedom of the Press] would be reduced to a mere form of words.”
So the court found that prior restraints were only justified under fairly extreme circumstances:
On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government. The constitutional guaranty of free speech does not "protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439." Schenck v. United States, supra.
Aha!—Kimberlin’s defenders might say—but here we have incitement. Well, except that like in Near
, all I have said is that Brett Kimberlin has engaged in “reprehensible conduct,” and if that was not enough to be considered incitement in Near
, that isn’t enough here. Indeed in some ways the accusations were worse in Near
than in this case: in Near
the newspaper had alleged that a man was an actual gangster engaged in a current criminal enterprise. Here I am just saying that Brett Kimberlin has committed a few crimes against me. Whether he is engaged in a criminal enterprise is yet to be determined.
(And now you know why I keep saying I am accusing Kimberlin of “reprehensible conduct”—to hit everyone over the head how much the facts in this case mimic’s those in Near
So what makes a statement a true incitement? Well, I have cited the legal standard in Brandenburg
several times, namely:
[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
Since I have never advocated the use of force or any violation of the law in regards to Kimberlin (let alone aiming it at creating “imminent lawless action” under circumstances where it was likely to occur), my conduct simply can’t be prohibited as incitement, period. And to give you a sense of how high the bar is, consider the facts in Brandenburg
. Brandenburg himself was some kind of mucky-muck in the Klan. I don’t care enough to bother to figure out if he was a Grand Cyclops, Wizard or whatever. (Seriously, was the Klan founded by D&D nerds? Just wondering.*) Anyway, Brandenburg was infuriated with all this progress toward racial equality and justice, being a racist terrorist and all. So he held a meeting where he said the following:
This is an organizers' meeting. We have had quite a few members here today which are—we have hundreds, hundreds of members throughout the State of Ohio. I can quote from a newspaper clipping from the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch, five weeks ago Sunday morning. The Klan has more members in the State of Ohio than does any other organization. We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.
And bear in mind, as much as I mock the Klan, they were a dangerous terrorist organization
, so these were not necessarily idle boasts. A good metaphor is imagining if the head of al Qaeda said this. So if that
doesn’t pass the test, then certainly my complete non-advocacy of “revengence” passes the test, too.
He falsely tweeted that I tried to get him killed and framed him for a crime...
Well, dear reader, why don’t you read my post
for yourself, look at the documents and look at the videos and decide if that is true or not.
...and then warned that I am “going to pay for doing both.” He stated that he bought a hand gun.
Of course the deceptions involved here—including the false linking of the statements that he is going to pay in a court of law with statement I purchased a handgun—have been covered before. This is also the first time he actually correctly quoted what I said, but still as usual he is taking me out of context.
He has falsely accused me of being the publisher of various blogs and to tweeting to him...
Actually I accused him of being the publisher of a
blog, related to this Breitbart Unmasked character. And as for proof, well... some things will have to be held back for litigation...
What it has to do with any kind of peace order is beyond me.
...when I have never used Twitter...
Again, I will have to save what I know for litigation.
...and I don’t publish any blogs other than those directly related to my work as the director of a national non-profit organization.
Which means that he has confessed to lying under oath, again. Here’s what he said in his April 11, 2012 testimony: “I don’t blog myself. I don’t Tweet myself. I don’t comment on blogs myself.”
Mr. Walker posted a massive blog post accusing me of framing him...
Actually it was an attempted framing. It was thankfully unsuccessful.
...for a previous peace order...
...and for a crime for which I could have been imprisoned up to ten years. Let’s not forget that part.
…after Mr. Walker assaulted me...
...except I didn’t, and he knows it...
...on January 9, 2012. He stated falsely that I forged medical records and photographs...
Actually this is what I precisely wrote. First, I said this in the main text:
This convicted document forger went as far as to produce fake photographs and fake medical records in an attempt to convince law enforcement that I had so brutally beat him that I put him in the hospital.*
Then at the end I wrote this:
* I say that his medical records and photographs were fakes, as a matter of logic. I know I didn’t strike the man once and hopefully by the end of this story you will believe me. So there is no way he was actually injured the way he claimed. So when he produced photographs there are only three logical possibilities, as far as I can see: 1) the photographs are fakes—where he put on makeup or used software Photoshop—to make himself appear bruised when he was not, 2) the photographs are real but were from a prior injury or 3) he was really bruised that day, but not by me
. Either way, they are fakes. Likewise, Kimberlin’s medical records cannot genuinely reflect injuries I gave him, so therefore there are only two possibilities: either this convicted document forger forged medical records, or he was genuinely injured that day, but not by me.
And in both cases there is the possibility that he had someone beat him up for him, or even caused himself harm. But bluntly, I think it is more likely that the documents were just phony in some fashion. It better fits with the criminal conduct he has engaged in, in the past.
You can decide for yourself whether my statement rings true or not.
He stated that I testified falsely even though the Courts found me credible...
Again, dear reader, read the massive post, look at the video of the January 9 incident and then read what he said about it, under oath, and tell me if he testified falsely.
...and found that he assaulted me.
He’s repeating himself (he does this a lot), and yes, lying.
He registered the Twitter hashtag “#war”...
Registered it? Is he under the impression that there is an official registry of hashtags? I know certainly the White House wishes it could register a hashtag and prevent sarcastic conservatives from hijacking it.
And as people know the hashtag refers to a metaphorical “war” not a real one. There won’t be tanks driving up on his lawn.
...to promote this blog post and included a threatening video called “God of War Hydra.”
Actually the title of the video is “God of War Gameplay
Hydra,”(emphasis added) which is your first hint that I am talking about a videogame. I guess I should give out the obligatory *spoiler alert*
before explaining, but God of War is about Kratos, the Spartan warrior and son of Zeus, who battles undead soldiers, gorgons, cyclopes (that is the plural of cyclops, I looked it up!
), sirens, satyrs, minotaurs, wraiths, the god Ares (from which the title comes) and the aforementioned hydra. If you are having trouble figuring out what any of this has to do with Brett Kimberlin, the answer is it doesn’t.
Indeed, look at the video itself. Do you see any suggestion of a threat?
And you can examine the post
from which it came. There isn’t the slightest hint of a threat toward Brett Kimberlin. It’s all fantasy.
He has stated that he wants people to read his blog post in order to stop them from donating to my non profit [sic] and drive me out of business.
Yes, among other things. Also to put pressure on the State’s Attorney in Montgomery County to prosecute him for the crimes he committed against me, but I have absolutely asked people to stop supporting this charities because they clearly support a lifestyle that allows him to go around tormenting the people on his enemies list. Besides would you trust a felon with an admitted history of tax evasion with that kind of money?
Mr. Walker has used his blog and Twitter account to attack the State’s Attorney for dismissing his malicious criminal charge against me.
By “attack” he means “criticize.”
He posted the State’s Attorneys [sic] letter to him and mocked him in essence as corrupt and incompetent.
Actually I have not mocked him, or otherwise suggested that he was corrupt or incompetant. I have said simply that the decision is wrong. And in radio interviews I have said that I believed they knew Kimberlin committed all of the crimes I have accused him of, but have decided to exercise prosecutorial discretion. And that is their right, but it is my right to say they are exercising that discretion unwisely. But I have never suggested that they were corrupt and incompetent, nor have I mocked them. Which is really amazing, because I mock people on a regular basis.
And, by the way, what on earth does this have to do with Brett Kimberlin and his supposed need for protection against me? Nothing, of course, but he wants to try to poison the State’s Attorney’s office against me.
Mr. Walker is using his blog and Twitter account to incite others to attack me...
Really? He’s been physically attacked? Because I find it hard to believe that could have happened without him drawing a b-line to file charges against them. Or does he mean “criticized” because if that is what he means, then welcome to America where people can freely criticize public figures, like Brett Kimberlin.
...with other vile comments accusing me of deplorable acts and other false criminal acts.
(As if the independent actions of third parties is my problem anyway.)
He has written on his blog and Twitter [sic] that other people are helping with his harassment campaign against me.
If one defines “telling unpleasant truths” as harassment, that seems reasonably true. But that’s the rub, isn’t it? Lots of people have read my story and decided to help raise awareness of it. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s people deciding independently to take action to help bring about justice, for which I am of course thankful.
Mr. Walker’s conduct has been so threatening, alarming, annoying and unethical that I filed a Bar Complaint against him and, on May 1, 2012, the Virginia State Bar opened an investigation and ordered him to respond within 21 days.
Yes, which proves Brett can tell enough lies to get people to look into it, but his lies won’t actually survive scrutiny. The complaint will go nowhere. But this is yet another example of how he uses his accusations as evidence of the validity of other accusations. I guess he figures if he kicks up enough smoke, someone will think there is a fire. But let’s not forget that this is the same guy who claimed that his felony record was a disability, and thus Patrick Frey writing about him amounted to disability discrimination.
Which is going to be really ironic, in the next segment.
I am alarmed, annoyed, frightened and harassed by Mr. Walker’s conduct.
It’s not conduct. It’s expression—and protected expression at that. And if he is really scared of me, it is a reflection of his own hallucinations, not reality.
Mr. Walker is using his blog and Twitter in the same way stalkers and harassers use mail and email to harass and stalk a victim.
Do you see what I mean about saying he is trying to make this sound like Galloway
? But by his logic, anyone writing unpleasant things about anyone is harassing that person.
Mr. Walker knows that my non-profit work requires the use of the Internet and social media...
No, I had no idea and now he has said it... I still don’t know it is true. Seriously, what exactly does he do that requires him to be on the internet at all? Lots of people do charity without going on the internet—as evidenced by the fact that lots of charities existed before there was such a thing as an internet. And even if his charity has to do some internet stuff, why not give that job to an underling? He has employees—that is what they are for: to do the things he would rather not do.
...and that his attacks...
Again “attacks” = “criticism.”
I have made no threats against him.
...against me on the Internet and through social media are intended to cause me harm and alarm.
Defining “harm” as encouraging the prosecution of a person for crimes committed and discouraging donations to the non-profits that enable his criminal conduct, all of which I am allowed to do.
And I think we can all tell that he is really worried that the law might finally catch up to his reprehensible and indeed criminal conduct. Hence all this lashing out and attempts to silence me. He wouldn’t do this if he wasn’t worried.
He knows that his threatening blog posts and alarming tweets will be directed to my email account and that this will cause me alarm, harass and annoy me more.
Ignoring that I have never threatened him, this is all by his own choice and he can make it stop at any time.
So he filed that on a midnight, just after Friday turned into Saturday. That went to a commissioner who, without giving me a chance to be heard, granted an interim peace order. The next stop was a temporary peace order hearing on May 22. I didn’t go, because my answer to the bar was due that week and I was finishing it up, and there was a danger if I went that day that it would turn into a final peace order hearing and I wasn’t ready for that.
* I know the KKK was at one time a dangerous terrorist group and for all I know, still is. But they are also so goofy as to make me laugh out loud. For my money, the funniest thing I ever saw them say was when they introduced themselves on some talk show (courtesy of the late, great Talk Soup
) and it was two guys and a woman, and they guys introduce themselves as the usual Wizards and Cyclopes, and then they get to the woman, and she says she is an “Imperial Secretary.” I couldn’t get enough: “Oh no! She is going to do white supremacist typing!” Indeed white supremacist typing uses white ink on white paper. Like this: oh noes! I have infuriated even more terrorists!
(Yes, there is a secret message there. Can you read it?)
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 sound 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 donate and help my wife and I in this time of need, please go to this donation page
or use the PayPal buttons 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 been 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. As you will see by the time I am done telling my story 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'd like to point out a typo in your disclaimer:ReplyDelete
Frankly try not to even BEEN within his field of vision.
I think you want been to be, be.
Just something I noticed while re-reading your disclaimer.
Great work on this story. I am riveted. I look forward to reading the next section.
Did you post the whole complaint? Kinda hard to get the whole thing all Fisky-like.ReplyDelete
Seriously, was the Klan founded by D&D nerds?ReplyDelete
Be careful what you say about D&D nerds. Didn't you ever read Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons"?
A lesson in Clintonspeak:ReplyDelete
"...when I have never used twitter..."
can simply mean he has not tweeted eponymously.