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.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Vile: Brett Kimberlin’s Manipulation of His Daughter

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: Please note that I have removed the first name of Ms. Kimberlin at her request and left only her first initial, "T." She is, after all, a victim of sexual abuse and those kinds of reasonable requests will be honored.  While the moral right to privacy of rape victims is not absolute, it seems to be reasonably asserted here.]

 So on Monday we saw the latest round of Brett Kimberlin v. T. Kimberlin.  Both were seeking a protective order against the other.  Brett was technically seeking a protective order against T. on behalf of their children—not supposedly on his own behalf—on the theory that T. abused her daughters.  T. sought a protective order on the theory that Brett had abused her—in part by his statutory rape of her at a young age.  There was a lot that was interesting that happened in the hearing.  A lot of the smaller details will be covered in future posts, but this post will give you a good overview.

The first piece of news was that this time T. had counsel.  Zoa Barnes who previously represented John Hoge in his peace orders against Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt was able to represent T. that day.  John had told me that he selected Zoa Barnes for his cases because she was a family lawyer and thus brought that perspective to the table.  And she quite handily shut Brett Kimberlin down previously.  So when T. looked for a recommendation for an attorney, Zoa was the natural choice.

As I indicated before, I wasn’t there.  But I have listened to the audio recording and I have consulted with William Hoge IV, (John’s son) and I have a pretty good picture of what happened.  Of course, since I wasn’t there, I didn’t get to see the look on Brett’s face when he realized this time his wife had counsel and one who had so stymied him in the past.

You see, the last time Zoa Barnes appeared against him, before he got two words out, she pointed out that under Maryland law, a convicted perjurer cannot testify.  On that occasion Brett looked like he had swallowed a fly and really lost his cool, claiming speciously that the First Amendment forbade that result (there is no First Amendment right to testify).  That judge didn’t take the claim seriously and told him he could not testify, significantly stymieing his defense.

Of course she did the same thing again.  Brett this time claimed that there was some technicality his attorney failed to invoke that might have saved him and so on.  Who knows if it was true, and ultimately the judge didn’t care.  He was a convicted perjurer and therefore he was barred from testifying.

Brett also, once again, proved he didn’t know the first thing about the rules of evidence.  He attempted to introduce all kinds of stuff that he allegedly saw on the internet about Jay Elliott (and remember, everything Brett says is presumptively untrue), for instance, but he had zero comprehension of the necessity of authentication. 

Let me explain the problem in simple terms.  A great man once said the following: “You cannot trust everything you read on the internet.”  And who said that?  Abraham Lincoln, of course.

...which is my joking way of pointing out that just because something is written on the internet doesn’t mean it is true.  How many times have you heard of famous quotes by the founding fathers, that turned out not to actually been said by them?  And do we even have to start with Wikipedia once calling Condi Rice a “concert p---s”?  So if you want to introduce Jay Elliott’s writings on the internet, you have to somehow prove that Jay Elliott wrote them.  And this is doubly true, in this case, because Brett and his team have a history of falsifying evidence.  It is precisely because this possibility exists (as well as more honest misunderstandings) that the rule for authentication exists.

So being prohibited from testifying and having to actually follow the rules of evidence strictly, threw a massive monkey wrench in his case.  For long periods of time, Brett would start to speak and you would hear Zoa go “objection” and the judge say, “sustained,” without missing a beat.

So first Brett called T. to the stand and she seemed to do admirably, standing up to him.  She denied ever hurting her child and denied several allegations to that effect.  I also particularly enjoyed listening to Brett try to get her to say bad things about me and be completely stymied in that way.  Brett is still clinging to the pitiful lie that I supposedly hospitalized him on January 9, 2012.  You can view the actual footage from the security cameras, here:

Unfortunately for me T. was out of the country.  I say that is unfortunate because she could have called him a liar, as he plainly was.  All she could say, was she had no idea if he had been to the hospital.  And when he asked if I had threatened him or his family, she pointedly said that she knew he claimed I had.  In other words, “yeah, you said it, and I don’t believe you anymore.”  That was gratifying.

And then Brett called her teenage daughter to the stand.  I am not going to share her name, but T. has a fourteen year old daughter and a nine-year-old, so you will seen me refer to her as some variation of calling her the “teenager.”

I will not go blow-by-blow as to what the teenage daughter testified to, but I will say that if you believed what she said, it was definitely abuse.  I mean she alleged that once her mother spanked her so hard she was bruised to the point she couldn’t sit, that she couldn’t even walk.  If you believe her, there is no question that it is abuse.

But the judge didn’t believe her.  The story just wasn’t credible.  I mean she was supposedly that badly harmed, and yet child protective services were not informed.  In all frankness, listening to the recording, it sounded like the teenager was repeating a rehearsed answer.  And if she was lying—and plainly the judge believed she was—this was almost certainly the result of Brett’s manipulation.  “Just say these things and Mommy will leave her new boyfriend and come back to us and we’ll be a family again!” It’s not only common, but tediously so in family law cases.  I mean, it’s another example of Brett’s vileness, but it’s a pedestrian one at that, which is almost certainly why Judge Burrell saw right through it: she’s probably seen it a dozen times.

The other highlight was when Brett Kimberlin called John Hoge to the stand.  The judge allowed Brett to do this for the limited purpose of proving bias, as he proffered the wild theory that someone is paying T. to make things up.  Of course Brett’s attempt to “cross-examine” Hoge was the courtroom equivalent of trying to punch a jellyfish or a bag of Play-Doh.  John gave him exactly what the law required, and nothing more.  Sometimes Brett asked the wrong questions, asking him for instance if he ever said he wanted him in prison; John didn’t say those exact words.  And sometimes he inexplicably expected John to confirm his crazy conspiracy theories.  The judge had to allow him the chance to prove them, but he failed utterly at doing so and made himself look even more foolish in the attempt.  He did not gain credibility with the judge in that encounter.

As for T.’s side of it, Brett can claim victory in that the judge didn’t find he had abused her, either.  But it’s not much of a victory because the judge refused to hear the claim that he had sexually abused her prior to the marriage.  Further, the judge refused to hear anything about his violent criminal record so when T. later argued that he had threatened her, the judge wasn’t supplied with the appropriate context so she would see how serious the threat should be taken.

That might have been excluded from that emergency hearing, but it won’t be excluded from the overall divorce and custody fight.  There is no way a judge will not be interested in his sexual deviance, and if the circuit court judges do not hear it, you can bet the Court of Appeals will reverse them.  Really, seriously, I don’t see how Brett can convince a judge to say, “sure, let’s give the kids to the convicted bomber and pedophile.”  Honestly, I would be surprised if he is granted unsupervised visitation every other weekend.  And that is assuming he is a free man after the charges for statutory rape go through.

That isn’t by far all that happened in the hearing, but that is the overall legally important parts.  And in the next few posts, we will pick out large and small revelations from these hearings.



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. Can you explain/guess as to why the judge would not hear about BK's violent criminal record in this hearing. It seems that in an Emergency hearing, there would be factors at play that require immediate action - and yet the judge refuses to hear anything about those factors? Whats the point of an Emergency hearing if the judge isn't going to allow discussion of the very circumstance that requires the Emergency hearing? I'm baffled.