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, October 31, 2013

Some Words on the Shuler Case

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.

So this is further coverage of the Shuler case, which has fascinated me in various ways.  One of the real shortcomings on the liberal side of things is the complete failure to incorporate the views of anyone but Roger Shuler.  Bill Schmalfeldt, for instance, claims that he has an ethical duty as a journalist to contact subjects of his reportage for contact, but he has evidently made no effort to seek out the views of Rob Riley, Liberty Duke, Jessica Garrison, Attorney General Luther Strange, Judge William Pryor or the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department.

Sidebar: Schmalfeldt’s claim that he contacts people in order to get their official comment is also belied by the fact that he regularly insults those persons, and when he is publicly shown to be flat out wrong on a fact, Schmalfeldt refuses to issue a correction.  But more on that later.

So, for the last few days I have been contacting people connected to all of the above and doing other research on Roger Shuler.  You can see where I wrote about order under which he was arrested, here, about Shuler’s status as a crank, here, and his possible unauthorized practice of law, here. There are, of course, two tracks that are keeping my interest: the (in my mind) unlawful detention of Roger Shuler, and the awful reporting of Bill Schmalfeldt.  Let’s start with the Shuler stuff and my own reporting.

Word From the Sheriff’s Office

On Tuesday, I spoke with a source at the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office.  I won’t share his name because Shuler is an extremely litigious man who sometimes mistakes attempts to help him as evidence of a conspiracy, but he explained the following.  First, as you know, Shuler is being charged with contempt and resisting arrest.  Contrary to some claims, there was a facially valid warrant for his arrest based on the judge’s order that he be arrested for contempt.  As it stands now, he has a $1,000 bond set for the resisting arrest.  Reportedly he hasn’t paid it and most likely that is because there is no point in paying it, because no bail has been set for the contempt of court charge.  In other words even if he paid the $1,000, they wouldn’t free him because of the contempt.  So in those circumstances I wouldn’t pay the $1,000: I’d save it for an attorney.  Of course it is an open question whether Shuler will hire an attorney and whether any attorney will be willing to represent him given reports that he tends to sue his own attorneys, claiming they are conspiring against him (see my prior post talking about his paranoia).

Did Roger Shuler Commit Unauthorized Practice of Law?

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.

First, a programming note: for the last ten days I have been doing daily pieces on Brett Kimberlin’s lies in his ridiculous RICO suit called “Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice.”  They have appeared at around seven in the morning most days.  Because of Halloween preparations, today will be an exception.  I might find the time to write about it later today, but in the short term it is put off.  And getting one off for tomorrow will be iffy.  But hey, at least I am giving you this blockbuster, right?

Moving to the subject at hand, as regular readers know I have been fascinated, in a car wreck sort of way by the case of Roger Shuler.  I wrote about my opinion of the order under which he was arrested, here, and about Shuler’s mentality, here. There are, of course, two tracks that are keeping my interest: the (in my mind) unlawful detention of Roger Shuler, and the awful reporting of Bill Schmalfeldt.  I have done some actual reporting, including interviews of subjects with knowledge of the case, but I will post that in a little bit.  First, I want to start with the blockbuster question:

Did Roger Shuler Commit Unauthorized Practice of Law?

An interesting angle to this story is emerging evidence that Roger Shuler might have committed unauthorized practice of law.  Now, let me be clear: I am not saying that he definitely did.  There are a few pieces of this puzzle that have to be proven, before we can assemble a picture of proven unauthorized practice of law, but consider what I have found so far.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 10): Brett Can’t Make Up His Mind

And Bonus: Schmalfeldt Declares that Breitbart was Worse than Hitler!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!  Eleventy!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!1!!!

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.

So this is part of an ongoing series where I have been pointing out all the lies and half-truths in Brett Kimberlin’s amended complaint for RICO and other violations against myself and pretty much half the internet (previously here, here, here, here, here, here here, here and here).  I say this is him accusing himself of obstruction of justice because 1) he has claimed that lying to the FBI is obstruction of justice under various statutes and 2) his self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt has said that he handed over the complaint or substantially similar information to the FBI in the hopes of starting a RICO investigation... against Simon and Schuster (in part)... claiming they are in some kind of mafia...

You know, sometimes all you have to do is repeat an accusation to discredit it.

So we reach the lie of the day.  Today’s lie is contained on page seven, in paragraph thirty six when Kimberlin writes:

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 9): Admiral Ali Akbar says “It’s a Trap!”

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.

So this is part of an ongoing series where I have been pointing out all the lies and half-truths in Brett Kimberlin’s amended complaint for RICO and other violations against myself and pretty much half the internet (previously here, here, here, here, here, here here and here).  I say this is him accusing himself of obstruction of justice because 1) he has claimed that lying to the FBI is obstruction of justice under various statutes and 2) his self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt has said that he handed over the complaint or substantially similar information to the FBI in the hopes of starting a RICO investigation... against Simon and Schuster (in part)... claiming they are in some kind of mafia...

You know, sometimes all you have to do is repeat an accusation to discredit it.

So we reach the lie of the day (and yes, very often the excruciating pun of the day in the subtitle).  Today’s lie is contained on page ten, in paragraph forty-eight when Kimberlin writes:

Monday, October 28, 2013

Down Deep Into Roger Shuler’s Paranoid Mind (And Schmalfeldt’s Terrible “Journalism”) (Update: More on McGarity's Side of Things)

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: See at the end of this post for a major update, that corrects a lot of the facts recited in this post.

So Roger Shuler was arrested a few days ago for violating what I consider to be an unconstitutional court order saying that he cannot publish anything defamatory about Rob Riley and the improbably named Liberty Duke.  He was also specifically told not to disseminate the claims that Riley and Duke had an extramarital affair (Duke is a woman), that they conceived a child through that affair, and then aborted said child and to take down all materials under their control where they made that allegations.  Again, my gut tells me that Shuler has actually defamed these people, but I suppose it will shake out in the course of a trial.  I will try to reach out to Riley’s attorneys for comment soon and maybe verify some rumors that I heard that would make this story categorically impossible.

But again to me the scary part is the order not to defame.  If it was limited to not telling this specific story that the court found to be defamatory, that would be one thing: then the boundaries of the order would be clear.  I’m not sure I like that, either, but it would trouble me far less.  But to put him under a general anti-defamation order is troubling.

(By the way, Seth Allen remains under a virtually identical “do not defame” order due to his default in Kimberlin’s defamation suit against him.  I am sure Bill Schmalfeldt will denounce that order in 3... 2... 1...)

So in short, Shuler got my attention.  That led me to a little digging and and what I saw was a very paranoid mind at work.  First, a little about his background.  Contrary to what Bill Schmalfeldt has “reported,” Shuler doesn’t appear to be a lawyer, at all.  I mean I looked up his own google profile, and it doesn’t mention any expertise in law or any legal education background.  And his linkedin profile equally says nothing about him being an attorney.  Even in his legal pleadings, he doesn’t refer to himself as a lawyer.  Even when I am filing pro se, I make sure to mention I am a lawyer so the judge is more likely to take me seriously.  And he is not admitted in Alabama.  So besides Schmalfeldt’s word, I see literally no evidence that he is a lawyer.  He is just a blogger who put “legal” in his writing name who presumably focuses on legal issues.  Or at least on his many lawsuits.

(Update: Sources familiar with the case have verified he is not a lawyer.  Which means Schmalfeldt's headline at Digitial Journal was wrong.  Jump to the end for the full story.) 

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 8): Brett Kimberlin's Assault on the Truth

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.

So this is part of an ongoing series where I have been pointing out all the lies and half-truths in Brett Kimberlin’s amended complaint for RICO and other violations against myself and pretty much half the internet (previously here, here, here, here, here, here and here).  I say this is him accusing himself of obstruction of justice because 1) he has claimed that lying to the FBI is obstruction of justice under various statutes and 2) his self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt has said that he handed over the complaint or substantially similar information to the FBI in the hopes of starting a RICO investigation... against Simon and Schuster (in part)... claiming they are in some kind of mafia...

So we reach the lie of the day and as I promised, today is a bigger lie.  It’s the big one that leapt out at anyone who has regularly followed this saga from the beginning: the claim that I assaulted Brett Kimberlin.  One of the key paragraphs in that lie comes on page eight, in paragraph forty-three:

After the hearing was concluded, Defendant Walker followed Plaintiff out of the courtroom in Montgomery Country Maryland [sic], and assaulted him and took his iPad from him.  Courthouse security responded, retrieved the iPad and urged Plaintiff to seek medical assistance.  Petitioner went to the Emergency Room at Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, where he was evaluated, treated and given medicines for his physical injuries, including contusion to the eyes, possible concussion and back pain.  The assault was in retaliation for Plaintiff exercising his right to redress and access to the courts, and it was meant to intimidate him.

Of course regular readers know that no such assault occurred.  If you would like to read the (very long) series of posts where I demonstrate conclusively that this entire episode was a frame up, go here and follow the links.  I give you two options: either reading it as one chunk in probably the longest blog post ever written, or in eight chunks because said possible longest blog post ever written allegedly made people’s computers move like molasses.

Or you could sit and watch this video that sums it up:

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Roger Shuler Gets a Taste of Brett Kimberlin Style Censorship that He Praised (Update: Popehatalanche!)

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 (I): See at the end for a further distinction between this case and other hypotheticals.

Update (II): Popehat links, saying that I have made the point about bipartisan opposition to Shuler’s arrest “more eloquently than I could.”  Um, this is eloquent?  Are we talking about the same post?

Joking aside, do read Popehat’s post.

You know, I admit when I started working on this, I expected to engage in a little bit of schadenfreude, and nothing else.  Over a year ago, Roger Shuler wrote a piece about me, praising the anti-free-speech thuggery of Brett Kimberlin  It was written on June 8, 2012, shortly after I had been prohibited from writing about Brett Kimberlin to a general audience, and had been arrested on false charges that I had threatened Kimberlin (which were quickly dropped).  Here’s a sample of what Shuler wrote about the whole thing:

One of my ongoing concerns with Democrats is that too many of them are timid, distracted, disorganized, and generally wussy.

Liberal activist Brett Kimberlin is none of those things, and that apparently is why the radical right has launched an extraordinary online jihad against him. In a delicious example of "turnabout is fair play," Kimberlin has used right wingers' tactics against them--causing the recent arrest of one thug, the outing of another as a criminal, and the transmission of a notice to others that they face possible legal action...

Key bloggers have written anonymously, but Kimberlin was able to determine their identities and bring legal action against them. That led to the eventual arrest of a blogger/lawyer who posts as Aaron Worthing (real name: Aaron Walker). And that sparked the right-wing blogapalooza against Kimberlin.

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 7): Who’s Complaining?

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.

So this is part of an ongoing series where I have been pointing out all the lies and half-truths in his amended complaint (previously here, here, here, here, here and here).  I say this is him accusing himself of obstruction of justice because 1) he has claimed that lying to the FBI is obstruction of justice under various statutes and 2) his self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt has said that he handed over the complaint or substantially similar information to the FBI in the hopes of starting a RICO investigation... against Simon and Schuster (in part)... claiming they are in some kind of mafia...

So we reach the lie of the day and as I said for the next few days I will pick smaller lies just because people are less likely to tune in on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday.  And today’s lie is contained in the entire amended complaint... or at least the copy he delivered to me.

Just like John Hoge, on October 23, I received a purported copy of the complaint in the mail.  Presumably he carried a huge pile of documents in those puny little arms of his.  In any case, when doing so you have a duty as a plaintiff to deliver a true and correct copy of the complaint, exactly like the one you filed with the court.  And he didn’t.  I won’t attempt to catalogue the changes, but it means it is a lie to say he served me with the complaint.  In fact, what he is trying to do is get away with amending the complaint a second time, without leave of court as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For the record, all discussions of the “Amended Complaint” will be based on the one actually filed with the court.  If he wants to amend the complaint, he can go to the court and ask permission like everyone else.


Saturday, October 26, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 6): Oh, Other (McCain), Where Art Thou?

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.

So this is part of an ongoing series where I have been pointing out all the lies and half-truths in his amended complaint (previously here, here, here, here and here).  I say this is him accusing himself of obstruction of justice because 1) he has claimed that lying to the FBI is obstruction of justice under various statutes and 2) his self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt has said that he handed over the complaint or substantially similar information to the FBI in the hopes of starting a RICO investigation... against Simon and Schuster... claiming they are in some kind of mafia...

Yeah, so I am sure the FBI is taking this real seriously.

So we reach the lie of the day and as I said for the next few days I will pick smaller lies just because people are less likely to tune in on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday.  And today’s lie is contained when he states on page four, paragraph seventeen, that:

Friday, October 25, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 5): Lee and Andrew

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: forgot to link to previous installments here, here, here and here.

So this is part of an ongoing series where I have been pointing out all the lies and half-truths in his amended complaint.  I say this is him accusing himself of obstruction of justice because 1) he has claimed that lying to the FBI is obstruction of justice under various statutes and 2) his self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt has said that he handed over the complaint or substantially similar information to the FBI in the hopes of starting a RICO investigation... against Simon and Schuster... claiming they are in some kind of mafia...

Yeah, as you might guess I am practically peeing the bed from concern.

So we reach the lie of the day.  I admit for the next few days I will pick smaller lies just because people are less likely to tune in on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday.  So when we get around to Monday we’ll hit on bigger lies.  So today’s lie is contained when he states on page four, paragraph 16, that:

Both Defendants [Lee] Stranahan and [Mandy] Nagy write for Defendant Breitbart.com, a media group located at 149 South Barrington #735, Los Angeles, California  90049. 

Well, last I checked Mandy was writing for them, but Lee very publicly quit the site.  He blogged about it on September 19, 2013, almost a month before this stupid complaint was filed.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 4): Brett Has Mo’ Problems With the Truth

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.

First, some happy news.  Bomber sues bloggers, the official defense fund of myself, Ali Akbar, Robert Stacy McCain, John Hoge and whoever Kimberlin Unmasked announced that it met its immediate fundraising benchmark.  That doesn’t mean we have all the money we need, so keep donating, but it is a good sign of progress.  So if you want to help in the defense of freedom of expression and other important values, go here.

This is the fourth part of a series I have written about the numerous proven lies Brett Kimberlin has told in his silly RICO complaint against me and numerous others.  You can read the first and second parts here, here and here.  The reasoning for this exercise is as follows.  Brett Kimberlin has theorized that lying to the FBI is criminal obstruction of justice under various federal statutes.  Bill Schmalfeldt has claimed that the complaint or a document substantially similar to the complaint has been delivered to the FBI for the purpose of opening a RICO investigation.  So if 1) lying to the FBI is criminal obstruction of justice and 2) Brett actually turned over this complaint or something substantially similar to the FBI, then he provably lied to the FBI and therefore, according to his own legal theory, committed obstruction of justice.

And it serves an additional purpose.  It helps in the PR “war” over this.  After all, if his case was so strong, why would he lie in provable ways? It gives rise to the quite reasonable (and correct) deduction that this complaint is ultimately frivolous and filed solely to harass.

That being said, my usual admonition to you, dear reader, applies.  While I will discuss the facts endlessly, I do not wish anyone on our side to discuss the law.  We don’t want to educate Mighty Mouse:



So for today’s dishonesty, I am focusing on what he says on page eight, paragraph forty in the amended complaint.  Just after telling how he learned of that Aaron Walker is the person who used the pseudonym “Aaron Worthing,” Brett writes the following:

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 3): Judge Jordan, Time Traveler?

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.

So this is the third part of a series I have written about the numerous proven lies Brett Kimberlin has told in his silly RICO complaint against me and numerous others.  You can read the first and second parts here and here.  The reasoning for this exercise is as follows.  Brett Kimberlin has theorized that lying to the FBI is criminal obstruction of justice under various federal statutes.  Bill Schmalfeldt has claimed that the complaint or a document substantially similar to the complaint has been delivered to the FBI for the purpose of opening a RICO investigation (oddly, no one from the FBI has contacted me about the complaint...).  So if 1) lying to the FBI is criminal obstruction of justice and 2) Brett actually turned over this complaint or something substantially similar to the FBI, then he provably lied to the FBI and therefore, according to his own legal theory, committed obstruction of justice.

Now a few people on twitter and in comments have asked something to the effect of “why are you tipping your hand?”  But the thing is, I am not.  First, these are lies, which means that 1) they are factual assertions, 2) that are untrue, and that 3) Brett knows they are not true.  I mean that is the difference between merely being wrong and lying—that the person knows it is untrue.  So, logically speaking, I am not telling Brett anything he doesn’t already know.

And it serves a valuable purpose.  It helps in the PR “war” over this, because any logical person concludes that “if Brett Kimberlin is lying to us about things we can prove are lies, why should I believe him on the stuff we don’t know, one way or the other?”  And it gives rise to the quite reasonable (and correct) deduction that this complaint is ultimately frivolous and filed solely to harass.

Now, on the other hand, I will not be talking about the quite laughable legal errors in Kimberlin’s document and I ask once again that no one point out his legal errors.  After all, we don’t want to educate Scrappy Doo:



("Let me at 'em!  Let me at 'em!  I'll sue everyone!  I'll sue the entire internet if I have to!")

So let’s get to today’s mendacious language from the complaint.  On page thirteen, paragraph fifty six of the amended complaint he writes (please note that all grammatical errors are in the original):

Defendants conspired to intimidate State Attorneys in Montgomery County and Howard County Maryland, and Judge Richard Jordan and Judge Cornelius Vaughey in Montgomery County after they rejected Defendants’ false narratives.  Specifically, Defendant Walker defendant Walker defended Seth Allen’s online attacks of Judge Jordan, and then Defendant Walker, using the pseudonym Aaron Worthing, filed pleadings for Mr. Allen defending those attacks.

That’s only part of a paragraph (the next line concerns itself with Vaughey), but there are a ton of lies packed in just that part and I don’t want to take on too many lies at once.  There are other lies in that very same paragraph I will address in a future post

Well, first, we have never intimidated state’s attorneys or judges anywhere, period (and thus, logically, didn’t conspire to intimidate them, either).

In regard to the state’s attorneys, we have protested what we considered wrongheaded decisions in choosing not to prosecute Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt for their conduct, asked those officials to change their minds, and asked other people to communicate the same messages if they happened to agree.  That is not only not intimidation but it is conduct that is specifically protected by the First Amendment, guaranteeing the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  We are allowed to tell the government when we think they are doing the wrong thing, including if they are failing to prosecute what we consider to be criminal conduct.  If that is intimidation, then the Trayvon Martin’s family has intimidated officials in Florida (and to my knowledge, they haven’t).*

As for the Judges, as I will show in a moment I have not even criticized Judge Jordan.  As for Vaughey, for the most part I will focus on what Brett claims we did to Vaughey later in another post, but I will say I have only criticized his ruling which ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent by name...  as did Judge Rupp, when he overturned it.  You know, because District Court judges in Maryland can’t ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, especially when it comes to what kinds of speech are protected.  But that is all I did: criticize his ruling, which is something lawyers do in and out of court all the time.  I never said anything that could be remotely characterized as intimidation of the judge.

And as for the proof of that, I ask anyone to show me one word I have written or said that constitutes intimidation of any of these people, let alone conspiracy to intimidate.

Second, he is lying when he says “Judge Richard Jordan... rejected Defendants’ false narratives.”  The allegedly false narratives Brett has cited include 1) that he got me fired from my job, 2) that he tried to frame me for a crime, 3) that he was involved in SWATting. So pretending that all three are false, here is the key: none of those narratives were in front of Judge Jordan.  He didn’t rule up or down on them, because they were not in front of him.  For instance, I was fired effectively on January 9, 2012.  Judge Jordan’s last hearing in Kimberlin v. Allen was on November 14, 2011.  A different judge was involved in the case on January 9, 2012.  And of course January 9 was the first day in Kimberlin’s attempt to frame me for a crime, and my SWATting occurred many months later.  None of our “narratives,” false or not, were before Judge Jordan, period.  Does he think Judge Jordan is a time traveler?  Although he was seen driving around town in this car...



Oh my God...

Third, I have never defended Seth Allen’s online “attacks” of Judge Jordan (and even if I had, it would not be criminal to do so).  First, I am not even fully aware of the breadth of what Seth Allen has said about Judge Jordan, but I have seen him criticize Jordan harshly.  It’s protected speech, but like many things you have a legal right to do, it was a poor decision.  That’s not to say one can never criticize a judge (after all, I just got finished saying that I criticized Vaughey), but if you do, you should almost always make your criticism temperate, and you should back it up with facts and/or the law.  The criticism that I saw from Seth was just angry venting and not persuasive.  I think in all frankness it shouldn’t have been said and risked harming his cause for the cheap thrill of venting online.

Indeed, if you search for “Jordan” on my blog, here are all the references to the Judge (excluding instances where I was merely quoting where Brett was talking about him).

First, in this post discussing a protective order hearing between Brett Kimberlin and his wife, I wrote two passages mentioning Judge Jordan.  First I wrote an analysis of Jordan’s prior encounter with Brett Kimberlin and rather than criticizing him, I opined that I believe the judge had figured out what was really going on, writing:

This suggests—but does not prove—that Judge Jordan didn’t believe that Brett Kimberlin actually had been defamed at all.

For the record, that means I believe that Judge Jordan was demonstrating appropriate insight.  That is actually, technically praise of the judge, not criticism, let alone an “attack” or the defense of an “attack” by another.  In the same post I also wrote this:

[Kimberlin] also falsely stated, again, that I had assaulted him, and he falsely stated that I had threatened Judge Jordan and other wild accusations.  I don’t believe any of this improved Brett’s credibility and that was without me having a chance to speak up for myself.

Second, in this post, I discussed an alleged death threat by Seth Allen (more on that another time) and explaining that it had nothing to do with Kimberlin v. Allen, writing:

That “death threat” was not in fact part of the suit at all as Judge Jordan indicated twice in the November 14, 2011 hearing, first in this exchange...

I go on to quote Judge Jordan explaining to Brett that the alleged death threat was not part of his suit against Mr. Allen.

Third, in this post, I responded to Brett Kimberlin’s mischaracterization of Judge Jordan’s ruling.  The judge issued an injunction against Seth Allen telling him not to defame Brett Kimberlin and tortuously interfere with his business.  But before he issued that injunction, he made an off-the-cuff remark where he recommended that Seth just leave Brett alone and blog about other things.  But Brett repeatedly and falsely claimed that this advice was part of the order.  So first I quoted from a letter where Brett said:

I want to be left alone.  That’s what Judge Jordan told Seth Allen to do, but he refused to comply with that order...

And then in my fisking response, I wrote:

Really, Brett?  That was an order and not just a recommendation?  Can you prove that?  Because I don’t trust you to even know the difference let alone to be honest about it.

And indeed I am not the only one who interpreted Jordan’s remarks as merely a recommendation and not an order.  This is an exchange between Judge Rupp and Brett Kimberlin, on the January 9, 2012 hearing:

THE COURT: Well, the order says he's to enjoin permanently from engaging in tortious conduct constituting defamation of or interference with business relations of the plaintiff, Brett Kimberlin.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Right. Uh-huh. And so --

THE COURT: So what is it that he's done that leads you to believe he's violated this order?

MR. KIMBERLIN: And, you know, at the time, Judge Jordan was very clear to him. He said “I want you to leave this man alone. I want you to quit blogging about him. I want you to quit talking about him.” And I can read you from the transcript, if you want. It's on page 7.

THE COURT: It's one thing to say that --

MR. KIMBERLIN: No.

THE COURT: -- but this is what's ordered here.

MR. KIMBERLIN: 1 I know, but I --

THE COURT: Defamation, interference of business relations.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Right.

THE COURT: And to talk about somebody doesn't constitute[e] defamation.

In other words, if it wasn’t in the order, Judge Rupp wasn’t going to enforce it.  And Judge Jordan wouldn’t have either.

So where in any of that is my supposed defense of Seth’s “attacks” (which presumably merely means “criticisms”) on Judge Jordan?

Nor did any of my filings (which I pointed out in part one were not submitted for Seth Allen but for myself and to protect my own interests) even talk about Judge Jordan.  The only appearance Judge Jordan makes is in any of them is in my motion to quash as an unnamed judge in the transcripts of the November 14, 2011 hearing and those were only quoted to show evidence that Brett Kimberlin had lied to the court.

Because the truth is I don’t have very much of a problem with anything Judge Jordan did in that case.  To the extent that I have investigated what he did in this case, he didn’t do anything radical or wrong.  I didn’t say that out loud before now, because it is uncomfortable to criticize a former client.  But it has always been my assessment and I suggest that any lawyer reading what Seth wrote would think the same thing: that his criticism was unjustified.  The reality is that Seth Allen always wrongly scapegoated Judge Jordan for Seth’s own failure to protect his own legal interests.  Once Seth Allen defaulted, Judge Jordan didn’t have many options and as I indicated above, I believe Judge Jordan did decide by the end of the case that Seth probably hadn’t defamed Brett Kimberlin at all and thus only awarded nominal damages.  Seth Allen’s anger was entirely misplaced, which is a recurring theme with him, being angry at those who tried to help him as best they could, instead of the people who were doing everything they could to harm him.

Oh and of course he mendaciously states that I was filing briefs anonymously, without noting that the judge had given me permission to do exactly that, and thus trying to make the judge believe I did something improper.

So let’s review, including the lies from the previous posts, with the new lies being underlined:

Lie #1: claiming I filed anything for Seth Allen or helped Mr. Allen to file anything himself (repeated in the passage featured today.)

Lie #2: claiming that I filed anything “attacking” (including criticizing) any of the judges in Kimberlin v. Allen.

Lie #3: claiming none of the Defendants have ever contacted him for comment about the SWATting story.

Lie #4: claiming I have intimidated anyone, ever (and necessarily that anyone “conspired” with me to intimidate anyone).

Lie #5: claiming that Judge Jordan rejected our allegedly false narratives.

Lie #6: claiming I have defended Seth Allen’s “attacks” on Judge Jordan (which as best as I can tell were just criticisms, albeit intemperate, ineffective and ill-advised ones).

Mendacity  #1: when he gives the impression that I intervened in Kimberlin v. Allen out of the blue and motions on my own initiative when in fact each and every one of them were filed in response to some action Brett took directed at me.  I have no standing to intervene, otherwise.

Mendacity  #2: when he fails to note that he instructed many of the defendants not to harass him, which includes unwanted contact making it more difficult to contact him for a response to the SWATting story.

Mendacity  #3: when he pretends his denials have any value whatsoever.  If his denials are meaningless then why is it even relevant whether we contacted him to obtain it?

Mendacity #4: when he pretends that I did anything improper by filing motions in Maryland anonymously, when I was given specific permission by the court to do exactly that.

Be sure to tune in tomorrow for part four.

---------------------------------------

* As I have often said, while I do not agree with the decision to prosecute George Zimmerman in the first place, and I don’t agree with the Martin family putting pressure on Florida officials to seek such prosecution, I have always recognized the family’s God-given right to do so.

---------------------------------------

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 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.

---------------------------------------

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.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Reille Hunter Is Really Sorry and Will You Buy Her Book to Find Out How Sorry She Really is?

You know this essay by Reille Hunter, the woman who had the affair with John Edwards a couple of years ago, started out okay.  The title was “I, Reille Hunter, Apologisze,” and the opening paragraphs are pretty good:

I behaved badly. That may seem obvious to you but it's taken me a long time to admit that, even to myself. For years I was so viciously attacked by the media and the world that I felt like a victim. I now realize that the attacks are actually beside the point. The point is: I behaved badly.

I am very sorry for my wrong, selfish behavior. Back in 2006, I did not think about the scope of my actions, how my falling in love with John Edwards, and acting on that love, could hurt so many people. I hurt Elizabeth and her kids. I hurt her family. I hurt John's family. I hurt people that knew Elizabeth. I hurt people who didn't know Elizabeth but loved her from afar. I hurt people who gave their hard earned dollars to a campaign -- a cause they believed in. I hurt people who are married and believe in marriage. Many of these people have let me know that I hurt them. Unfortunately, I was not thinking about anyone but myself. I was selfish. I fell in love with John Edwards and wanted to be with him and that desire trumped everything else.

And then instead of apologizing when I should have, I went on to hurt more people by writing a book. I truly did not realize at that time how damaged I was and because of that, when I wrote my book I made more mistakes, ones I feel horrible about.

Okay, yeah.  Mind you, I think she is letting John Edwards off the hook too easily—it takes two to cheat, after all—and it is a bit late for Elizabeth Edwards, but okay, better late than never.  Now, go creep off away from the limelight and...

My publisher came up with the idea of me going through my book and annotating all of my regrets and mistakes. I liked that idea. I thought it was innovative and interesting, but of course the actual execution of that idea turned out to be excruciating. Owning your past mistakes is no day at the beach but I do believe it is an important endeavor to undertake.

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 2)

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.

So last week Brett Kimberlin sued pretty much half of the conservative rightosphere.  I mean I am joking, but he included twenty two defendants including Michelle Malkin, Breitbart.com, Patrick Frey, me (of course, because he hates me most of all these days), and Simon and Schuster claiming that we are all some kind of mafia.  Let me repeat that for emphasis.  He is claiming that Simon and Schuster is part of a mafia.  Apparently a very nerdy mafia:



This would make it a very lame complaint although I can say with confidence that his suit is not the lamest RICO our nation has ever suffered through...

Monday, October 21, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 1 of a New Series)

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.

As regular readers know, Brett Kimberlin has filed a mendacious and paranoid RICO complaint against pretty much everyone on the right.  I mean, that is a comic exaggeration, but just look at this thing and the long list of defendants:

Friday, October 18, 2013

The Myth of the Narrow Fourteenth Amendment: A Correction for James Taranto

Buckle up folks, because this is a long one.

So the other day the Supreme Court heard argument in arguments in Schutte v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.  You can read a great deal about the case, here, but the short version is Michigan amended its Constitution by ballot initiative so that affirmative action—termed as racial preferences—was banned across the state.  I haven’t looked very deep into the temperature of the justices on this, so I won’t predict any outcomes but the case has gotten a bit of noise in the last few days because one of the pro-affirmative action side’s lawyers, Shanta Driver, had this exchange with Scalia:

Driver: We ask this Court ... to bring the 14th Amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority, which did not occur in this case.

Scalia: My goodness, I thought we've--we've held that the 14th Amendment protects all races. I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only--only the blacks. But I thought we rejected that. You--you say now that we have to proceed as though its purpose is not to protect whites, only to protect minorities?

Driver: I think it is--it's a measure that's an antidiscrimination measure.

Scalia: Right.

Driver: And it's a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined not just by--by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority.

Scalia: And unless that exists, the 14th Amendment is not violated; is that right? So if you have a banding together of various minority groups who discriminate against--against whites, that's okay?

Driver: I think that--

Scalia: Do you have any case of ours that propounds that view of the 14th Amendment, that it protects only minorities? Any case?

Driver: No case of yours.

So in short, according to Driver the Fourteenth Amendment is not designed to protect white people, at least as long as they are in the majority.  As Josh Blackman noted dryly, “This is what proponents of affirmative action think but aren’t supposed to say at the Supreme Court.”  (Hat tip to Overlawyered on that quote.)

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Does Brett Kimberlin Want to Put Cory Booker in Prison?

Or “Brett Kimberlin’s Latest Attempt to Criminalize Disagreement

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.

As regular readers know, Brett Kimberlin has sued... pretty much half the conservative internet.  This is a federal case, in addition to the Maryland state case where he sued myself, Ali Akbar, Robert Stacy McCain, John Hoge and the anonymous blogger known as “Kimberlin Unmasked.”.  He has sued a large number of organizations and individuals, mostly on the right, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), claiming that we are in essence the equivalent of the Yakuza...



...and the people and/or organizations that Kimberlin claims are involved in this mafia (Japanese or otherwise) includes the National Blogger’s Club, Ali Akbar, Patrick Frey (a Deputy D.A.), Erick Erickson, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, me (of course), John Hoge, Lee Stranahan, Robert Stacy McCain, James O’Keefe, Mandy Nagy, Breitbart.com, the Franklin Center, the anonymous bloggers “Kimberlin Unmasked” and “Ace of Spades,” Mercury Radio Arts, The Blaze, RedState, Twitchy.com, DB Capital Strategies (the law firm that represented me) and Simon and Schuster.

Let me repeat that for emphasis: they are suing book publisher Simon and Schuster, claiming that they are part of organized crime.  I mean just what would a book nerd Mafioso look like anyway?



Um...

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Brett Kimberlin’s Dumbest RICO Suit...

And Scroll Down to the End to Read the New Dumb Suit Yourself

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.

So earlier today I reported that Brett Kimberlin is suing pretty much the right half of the internet: me, Michelle Malkin, James O’Keefe III, Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck and numerous others, including Simon and Schuster, the publishing house.  I mean you can gauge just how loony his theory is: he thinks he can claim that Simon and Schuster is part of an ongoing criminal organization like the Mafia or the Bloods and the Crips and not be laughed out of court.  Truthfully a criminal enterprise polluted with my nerdiness will look about as tough as this...

Oh Noes! Brett Kimberlin Sues the Entire Right Side of the Blogosphere!

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.

So you might have seen the news over at Viral Read.  Brett Kimberlin is suing... pretty much everyone on the right side of the blogosphere, accusing them of being involved a violation of RICO, essentially claiming they are a literal mafia.  I mean that comment that he is suing the entire right half of the blogosphere is a comic exaggeration but not by much.  The list of defendants includes that we can verify so far...

Myself (of course—he’s always going to blame me),
Michelle Malkin,
Glenn Beck,
James O’Keefe III,
Patrick “Patterico” Frey,
Ali Akbar,
Robert Stacy McCain,
John Hoge,
Lee Stranahan,
Mandy Nagy,
The Franklin Center,
Simon and Schuster,
The Blaze,
Ace of Spades,
Kimberlin Unmasked,
Erick Erickson,
Breitbart.com

…and more (which will be determined when I read the complaint).  There is no word on whether he has sued:

The Freemasons,
The Saucer People,
The Skull and Bones Society, or
The Lizard People

Hey, don’t laugh.  Those Freemasons are not to be trifled with:

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Tommy Christopher Fundamentally Misunderstands the Role of a Journalist (Update: Grilled?)

Update: See below for Mediaite’s reporting on this “question.”

So via Jeff Poor we get this video of Tommy Christopher asking a question during today’s White House press briefing with White House spokesmodel Jay Carney:

Searches... We Have Searches

One small feature that blogger includes is the ability to see where you are getting your referrals.  It’s a good way to figure out where my hits are coming from and to thank people for linking to me.  It doesn’t work perfectly 100% of the time, but it works pretty darn well.

It also tells me what google searches have led them to my site.  Mind you it doesn’t tell me who reached my site with that search, only that someone did.  And sometimes that can be interesting.  As of this minute, this is what I am getting.  First we have:

Allergic to Bull

Well, that makes sense.  It is, after all, the name of the blog.  Next up:

Andrew Breitbart

Another perfectly logical search.  I just wrote a piece on what I called the malicious lawsuit of Shirley Sherrod, so it only makes sense.  Next up:

Case law great bodily injury.

Ah, cool!  This means someone was probably researching the legal question of what constitutes great bodily injury and my analysis of how “great bodily harm” applies to the Zimmerman case probably helped them out.  Good joss!  Next up:

Bomber Sues Bloggers

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.

That is the name of the site set up by Ali Akbar as my officially endorsed™ legal defense fund as we get ready to fight the latest frivolous legal action by Brett Kimberlin.  As regular readers know, Brett Kimberlin has sued me, Ali Akbar, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and the blogger known as “Kimberlin Unmasked” for supposed defamation, stalking, and malicious prosecution.  It is an utterly frivolous lawsuit and Brett Kimberlin knows it and we are asking for your donations to help.

How frivolous is it?  So much so that he is suing Robert Stacy McCain for defamation for calling him “evil.”

I mean first, Stacy has a lot of good reasons to call Kimberlin evil given his terrorist bombing campaign has cost one man his life, to name but one example of the downright evil things Brett Kimberlin has done over the years.

But even before you shout “truth is a defense!” even more fundamentally, it cannot be defamation to call someone evil.  I don’t care who you call “evil,” I don’t care how undeserving that person is, it is not defamation.  If Mother Teresa was still among us and a person called her evil, even putting aside that she is a public figure, that would not be defamation.  The exact same thing can be said to the others revered figures in history—Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower—if you called them evil, and they were still alive, even forgetting that they are public figures, it is not defamation, because it is a legally subjective opinion.  I mean morally, I believe like Dr. King that there is such a thing as objective good and evil, and Brett Kimberlin is evil, but in the eyes of the law, there are simply no standards by which to judge if a person is evil and therefore it cannot be not defamation.  It’s like calling a person “unfashionable” or “ugly”—there is no way to prove a person right or wrong on that subject, therefore it is not possible to sue for defamation.

How frivolous is it?  Brett Kimberlin has claimed it was defamation for Stacy and Ali to truthfully report that charges had been filed against him for, more or less, statutory rape.  The technical term is sexual offense in the third degree, and no, it is not defamation to report he was charged with it.  It is a fact.  He may protest he was innocent (I personally think he was guilty but for now he has gotten away with it), but even if he proved himself absolutely innocent, that doesn’t change the fact that he was charged: it could only change what we should think of the fact he was charged.

For instance, Brett Kimberlin filed charges against me for assault.  It is not defamation for a person to say that, even though you and I both know the charges were false:


The fact they were false then reflects poorly on Brett Kimberlin.  The fact he produced medical records and photographs purporting to prove he was injured suggests some serious wrongdoing on his part.  That is why I say to this day that Brett Kimberlin attempted to frame me for a crime: because, logically, he was not injured and therefore that evidence is false.  I won’t say if he forged that evidence, or really hurt himself or had himself hurt, but one way or the other the evidence he produced was not what he purported it to be: the result of any injury caused by me (because in fact I have never harmed him).  One way or the other, that evidence was falsified and he tried to actually frame me.

And none of that makes it defamation to say I was charged with assault.  It just changes what you think about that fact, from being something potentially negative about me, to being something damning about Brett Kimberlin for his false charges.

And bear in mind, he is suing me for malicious prosecution.  Sigh.

How frivolous is it?  He is suing me for offering free legal help to his wife.  But it also reflects what a thug he is.  My entire involvement with him started with Brett Kimberlin seeking to punish me for helping Seth Allen and now he is trying to punish me for helping his wife as a lawyer.  After he caused the House of Ruth to be unable to help her, he now seeks to punish one of the last people she could turn to.  That should enrage any feminist.

Because Ms. Kimberlin came to me as a woman who said she had been sexually abused and she feared that the same might happen to her daughters.  And she said that Kimberlin had been using the courts to try to stop her from leaving him.  And I believed her.  In the case of his abuse of the courts, I saw it firsthand.

Indeed I am confident that the most likely outcome of this case is that the court will find that Brett Kimberlin is in fact a pedophile who had sex with his wife when she was underage.

How frivolous is it?  He is claiming I am stalking him by peacefully coming to court when I was not “invited” ignoring all the times he came to court when he wasn’t invited, either.  For instance, he attempted to intervene when I sought a peace order against Neal Rauhauser, to play lawyer for him.  Even though the court told him he had no right to intervene, at the next hearing he showed up anyway, and tried to intervene again, using the very same written motion that was previously rejected.  And let’s not forget the time he showed up at the courthouse when I sought a peace order against his self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt and then stalked my wife in the parking lot.  And he is suing me, again,* for stalking.  Like all of his previous claims, this one will fail.

But we do need your help.  I believe Brett is pursuing a strategy of “victory through attrition.”  You don’t believe me?  Let me quote the exact words he wrote to Patrick Frey when threatening him with a defamation suit:

I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money[.]

This was a threat of a frivolous suit.  Everything Patrick wrote was sourced either in criminal cases, or publicly available articles.  Just as it is not defamation to say he was charged with, more or less, statutory rape, it is not defamation to note that Slate once called him “convicted bomber, habitual liar, and all-around sociopath[.]”  Or more precisely, if that was defamation, it is Slate that committed it, not the person who reported that Slate called him that.

So the message was clear: if you don’t take down what you said about me, I will file a frivolous suit and even if you “win” you will still lose because you will have to travel and even potentially hire a lawyer.  And you might even screw up the way Seth Allen did and default and lose even though you were right all along.  It is pure, unadulterated, anti-free-speech bullying.  And I submit that is what he is doing here, too.

You can directly counteract this.  Donate to the cause, help with our costs, and show him that this is not a winning strategy.  As you can see I have replaced the previous donation buttons with a link to our page.

Besides, don’t you want to see a vigorous defense, with extensive discovery?  (Yes, yes, he might not comply with discovery, but plaintiffs who do not comply with discovery lose their cases by default.)

And there is another reason to help.  One of the defendants is the blogger known only as Kimberlin Unmasked.  As a first step, he is seeking to argue that this person should be “unmasked”—that is google should be required to reveal his identity.  We all know what will happen to this person if Brett succeeds.  The harassment and stalking I, my friends, and even my wife have faced, will be likely to be visited upon this person.  You know because Brett Kimberlin is evil, and so is the cabal we call “Team Kimberlin.”

So if you believe in freedom of speech, then donate.  If you believe in helping a woman to escape a man she says sexually abused her, then donate.  Or if you just want to prevent Brett and company from victimizing another person, “Kimberlin Unmasked,” then donate.

Or for that matter, if you want to see Brett Kimberlin actually adjudicated to be a pedophile, then donate!!!

And know you have my thanks when you do.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

The Scene That MUST be in a Justice League Movie...

Update: So now we are getting a Jawalanche!  But they entitled the post, Ministry of Boobies: Marvel Edition.

Marvel edition?!?!?!?!?  Everyone knows that Wonder Woman is a DC character.  Shame!  Shame!  They are hereby losing their nerd card!

Still the post did make me laugh, so there is that.

The original post shall resume as before. 

---------------------------------------

So, dear reader, this will be a frivolous post, because we can’t always make things deep or serious or whatever.

I am going to introduce you to the luckiest superhero in the entire D.C. or Marvel universe.  Who would that be?  Superman, born to be nearly invincible?  Or Wonder Woman, or Martian Manhunter, who is also nearly invincible?  Or Aquaman, who...  is kind of useless...?

Nay, dear reader, it is The Atom (pictured right)...

...who has the ability to shrink.  According to this Wikipedia page, when shrunken down he retains the strength of a full sized human being and can scramble his molecules to make him extra strong, invisible or any number of cool things.  On the other hand in Justice League Unlimited, he just appears to have the ability to shrink down.

Justice League Unlimited, of course, was where the run that had been going since Batman: The Animated Series finally jumped the shark.  Previously, Batman: The Animated Series had actually won Emmys for the quality of its work and then Superman: The Animated Series came out, which was still good.  And then a Justice League show.  Unlike the recent and very excellent The Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, which typically wrapped each episode up in half an hour, but also featured elements of a continuing storyline for its entire two year run to add depth, the Justice League made things deeper by making each episode a multi-part affair that would wrap up in typically three or four episodes and further you got to know a very small cast of characters pretty well.

And then Justice League Unlimited came out, with a cast of seemingly every DC superhero and storylines like when the characters were all turned into children.  Including Batman.  You know, because that wouldn’t wreck his coolness or anything like that.  And each episode was only half an hour, standing alone, with almost no continuity, so really there was no time for anything but the simplest plots.  So the show wasn’t very good...

...except for having in it the most awesome scene in any superhero show, movie or comic, ever.  It came in the episode entitled Dark Heart (season 1, episode 10, just after the fifteen minute mark for reference purposes).  The story was about how an alien super weapon landed on Earth which would consume the entire planet and every person on it, if left unchecked.  So Ray Palmer, a.k.a. the Atom, needed to get to the “dark heart” of this super weapon in shrunken form to destroy it.  And standing in his way is a swarm of robotic monsters of various kinds.