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 Kimberlin has been harassing me for over a year, 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.
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.
Update: How could I forget to link to Mr. Hoge's coverage?
Those who follow me on twitter
already heard and got the short version. The Final Peace Order was denied. While I disagree with the judge’s reasoning,
it was not radical.
What the judge did was make new
law. What he reasoned was this. Many times when the conduct involved at least
partially speech, and not purely conduct, and the case involves a public figure,
a higher standard applies. This is not a
radical doctrine. For instance,
defamation is not protected speech, but in
NY
Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court felt that there was a danger that
the strict application of defamation law when public figures were involved
would have the effect of chilling a lot of protected speech. That is, you would be afraid to tell the
truth about someone because they could sue you, and you would be afraid that
your evidence would not be considered sufficient.
Consider for example this passage
from Sullivan:
The opinion of the
Court conclusively demonstrates the chilling effect of the Alabama libel laws
on First Amendment freedoms in the area of race relations. The American
Colonists were not willing, nor should we be, to take the risk that "[m]en
who injure and oppress the people under their administration [and] provoke them
to cry out and complain" will also be empowered to "make that very
complaint the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions." The Trial
of John Peter Zenger, 17 Howell's St. Tr. 675, 721-722 (1735) (argument of
counsel to the jury).
So in essence, the Judge read a
First Amendment exception to the harassment statute. The judge said that what Schmalfeldt has been
doing would probably be considered harassment if I was not a public figure and
the judge was careful not to say that it was impossible for a person to harass a
public figure. But it had to reach a
higher level of abuse. It’s not a radical
interpretation.
But I do respectfully
disagree. The concern in the case of
defamation law is that too much of it is fluid.
If you are dragged into court, how much evidence is sufficient to be
proof that what you said is true?
Reasonable people will disagree, and so those who would criticize a public
figure would be afraid of speaking their mind, lest they be unable to prove
their claims. So the court’s idea is to
allow some defamation—as long as it is not malicious (that is either knowingly
untrue, or said with reckless disregard for the truth)—for the higher purpose of
not chilling protected speech, because people might not be sure what would be
protected in a court of law.
By comparison, a strict “no
contact” rule, provides a bright line, especially when you are asked to stop
doing it as Maryland’s laws require.
Telling a person “do not communicate with me” gives the recipient of
that warning a bright line to follow.
There is no reasonable fear that protected speech will be chilled,
because you will know exactly what you have to do. Stop emailing the person, and stop mentioning
them on twitter. It’s not
complicated. Except for providing legal
notices to Mr. Schmalfeldt, I don’t believe I have contacted him in months.
So I respect the judge’s
ruling. I don’t think it was a crazy
lawlessness as we saw with Judge Vaughey deciding he could disregard controlling
legal precedent and forbid me from saying anything bad about Kimberlin to a
general audience for six months. I
always made it clear during my case, Schmalfeldt can say all the bad things he
wants about me, but I believed the
law said he couldn’t say those bad things to
me.
I am not overly upset about how
the hearing turned out. I didn’t say
this beforehand because it would prejudice my case, but my chief goal going in was
to cover the “Ides of March” to provide legal clarity in case Bill Schmalfeldt—or
his self-described “friend” Brett Kimberlin—escalated their conduct in a
dangerous way. So at the moment
Schmalfeldt asked for a continuance, I got what I had wanted the most—a peace
order that applied through the Ides of March.
And I told CPAC security that I interpreted this as applying to any
agents or co-conspirators, such as Kimberlin or Rauhauser. With the specific threat passed, while I would
have preferred a win today in court, it was less important.
And I am not done yet. There is another jurisdiction that will have
a say in this matter. But to say what I
might do there that would be giving away too much...
The one interesting note is that
Schmalfeldt claims he does all of this for fun and not for pay. Which seems to be contradicted by this clip
from his show.
I mean, if he was doing this for
fun, why is he complaining about working on President’s day? I asked him about that on the stand and he
claimed he didn’t complain about working on President’s day. Which yes, is a lie told under oath. I wonder where he learned to do that?
Schmalfeldt is not as brazen as
Brett Kimberlin—I mean, seriously, who could top Kimberlin denying he knew he
was called the Speedway Bomber?—but he is plainly the kind of guy who will lie
whenever he thinks he can get away with it, and it helps his case. He is rationally dishonest, if you will,
while Kimberlin appears to be compulsive about 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 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 Blogger’s Defense Team button 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.
