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.

Friday, March 22, 2013

What Happened Today at the Schmalfeldt Hearing

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.



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. So sorry that once again an institution we count on to stop evil conduct by the few has failed you. Had the politics of the parties been reversed the odds are the harasser would have been better dealt with.

    I hope that another jurisdiction/judge finally does the right thing.

  2. Aaron, no disrespect intended, but in what way are you considered a "public figure"? Granted, I only know of you through this and other blogs that have touched on the continuing saga, but fail to see how that would place you into "public figure" status.

    Seems like this is really stretching the 'public figure' definition and can easily make it to be able to be applied to anyone and everyone.

  3. Hi, what a great web blog. I usually spend hours on the net reading blogs on Property in chandigarh . And, I really would like to praise you for writing such a fabulous article. I honestly believe there is a skill to writing articles that only very few posses and yes, you got it. This is really informative and I will for sure refer my friends the same. Thanks.