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...
And I will note that both Ken at Popehat and Patterico have commented on the suit, Popehat being kind enough to try to gather additional attorneys for this case. If you can offer any practical help, go there. If you want to help defray the costs, go to this site.
So yesterday I reviewed Brett Kimberlin’s attempt to use federal law to criminalize pointing out to the FBI the many reasons to suspect that he was involved in the SWATtings that was committed against myself and others. His central theory is that any dishonesty when dealing with the FBI was obstruction of justice that would trigger the RICO statute. Of course I didn’t make a single dishonest statement and he knows that.
And, dear readers, I ask you not to correct any legal errors in that theory. We don’t want to educate Tattoo:
“But,” I said yesterday (paraphrase), “let’s turn that around.” According to Bill Schmalfeldt the very same information was being turned over to the FBI supposedly to trigger an investigation. Assuming Schmalfeldt is telling the truth (a big “if”) and assuming Kimberlin said the same thing to them that he said in the complaint, then it means that he lied to the FBI, indeed in the process of accusing us of lying (he very often is very “meta” this way). And if he didn’t say the same thing to the FBI, he merely lied to the court. And I pledged to show you those lies, half-truths and other mendacity one post at a time.
So here is today’s lie from his RICO Complaint. Going by the Amended Complaint on page two he talks about how we supposedly defamed him by suggestions that he SWATted us. Then in numbered paragraph four, he writes:
None of the Defendants ever contacted Plaintiff for comment or response to these false, slanderous and libelous statements prior to or after their publication.
The first dishonesty is he doesn’t note that many of us could not contact him under the law. He had told me to “stop harassing him.” Never mind that I never started to harass him, that was a command, in part, never to contact him unless I had a legal purpose. And as I told you before even when I did contact him for a legal purpose (serving him process in a civil suit) he claimed that was illegal contact and harassment, even though a court told him specifically that it was not. So he is complaining in part that I have obeyed his own instructions not to contact him.
However, another legal purpose one could have in contacting him was in case of cross-examination. As regular readers know, on July 5, 2012 there was a hearing regarding the second peace order Brett Kimberlin filed against me. I reported on that hearing here, here and here, and you can read the full transcript, here. But I want to highlight one part, starting on page 23 of the transcript when my attorney cross-examined him:
Q [Reginald Bours, my attorney] Are you familiar with the term, SWAT-ing?
A [Brett Kimberlin] Yes.
Q And have you caused Mr. Walker to be SWAT-ed by the Fairfax County or Prince William County Police?
A That is a despicable claim, and, and --
Q Yes or no?
A -- and I resent it.
Q Yes or no?
A I resent it. He knows I didn’t and you know I didn’t, and you’re trying to, again, harass me. You are harassing me just like --
Q I’m asking if you are responsible --
A No, you are harassing me.
Q -- for someone calling --
A This man, this ma, --
Q -- the police --
A -- this man --
Q Excuse me, sir. I am asking you, yes or no, are you responsible --
Q -- directly or indirectly?
A Absolutely not, and it’s despicable.
Q So you didn’t call or ask somebody else to call and tell the police that there had been shots fired at Mr. Walker’s home, so the SWAT Team would show up there? You didn’t do that? You’re not responsible for that?
A Did you do that?
Q Do you know who --
A I did it as much as you did it. I mean, that’s ridiculous.
Q Sir, did you have anything to do with that, or do you know who did?
A No, I don’t.
A few seconds later Brett is allowed to present his case again and says this:
Yes. Since Mr. Bours brought up SWAT-ing, Mr. Walker and a few of his confederates, have falsely, again, accused me of somehow being involving with SWAT-ing him or them, or whatever.
My name has been blasted out across the internet for the last three weeks saying that I’m somehow responsible for SWAT-ing people, without a shred of evidence. I have nothing to do with any kind of SWAT-ing.
They, they went out there and said, well, this person wrote about Mr. Kimberlin and he was all of a sudden SWAT-ed. Oh, my Lord. Well, you know, 346 people have written about Brett Kimberlin as a result of Mr. Walker in the last month, you know. And one of these SWAT-ings occurred June 23rd of 2011. One of them occurred on January, July 1st, 2011. I mean, and for Mr. Walker to suddenly accuse me of, of SWAT-ing him, is, is another form of harassment. And, I mean, it’s really outrageous.
So for the record, he has an additional 324 people to sue in addition to the twenty-two he has already sued. And then he also says this:
It’s not fair to be accused, falsely accused, again, right here in open court, of SWAT-ing, of, of framing people. I don’t do those things, and I ask that I be protected by the Courts.
Once again, dear reader, I wish I could play the audio or better yet to see video of it (sadly they don’t video record these cases as far as I know), as he raged at my attorney for merely asking a question—not accusing him, contrary to what he claimed, but just asking him the reasonable question. He was shaking in rage and wagging his finger at my attorney. And when he claimed that he was being harassed live in court, he was clearly indicating that Bours was harassing him! By asking proper questions in a court of law! Because according to Brett he is supposed to be protected from all criticism and unwanted questions. Because he is a special, fragile little man.
(Oh boy, he really isn’t going to enjoy discovery in this the state case—assuming it survives that long. Heh.)
And so he had a full chance to present evidence that he had never been involved in SWATting myself or anyone else and all he presented was his word. Which is exactly zero evidence one way or the other. Regular readers know that he is an absolutely pathological liar, lying even when there is absolute proof he is lying. So if he is not guilty, he will say that. And if he is guilty he will also say that he is not guilty. So his declaration of innocence is literally no evidence of his guilt or innocence.
And he offered no other evidence. Of course sometimes you can’t prove the negative. But he offered literally no evidence to attempt to prove the negative.
And that means that he indeed was contacted for comment by one of the defendants, me, and it is a lie to say he was not. And besides, numerous other news organizations contacted him for comment and again, all he provided was his bare denial relying on nothing but his own veracity, and we all know exactly what that is worth. It is literally zero evidence, which is precisely why Maryland has categorically prohibited him for testifying in any trial. His denial of guilt is literally no evidence of his guilt or innocence.
So let us review, including the lies from the last post:
Lie #1: claiming I filed anything for Seth Allen or helped Mr. Allen to file anything himself.
Lie #2: claiming that I filed anything “attacking” (including criticizing) any of the judges in Kimberlin v. Allen.
Lie #3: none of the Defendants have never contacted him for comment about the SWATting story.
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?
So three lies, and three mendacious statements, in only two posts and two paragraphs. Brett’s Complaint has over two hundred paragraphs. This might be a very long series...
By the way, Bill Schmalfeldt (now claiming he’s an Official Journalist™) completely ignored yesterday’s specific, factual demonstration that Brett Kimberiln undeniably lied in his complaint. So he doesn’t even try to show it was not dishonest after all, nor does he admit that I have pointed out an outright lie in Brett Kimberlin’s RICO complaint. Instead he continually pretends that 1) a civil complaint is equivalent to being charged and 2) that we should be terrified, terrified I tell you, of the lawsuit. But if Brett Kimberlin has such a strong case, why does he have to lie?
Isn’t the truth good enough for Tattoo?
Expect Part Three to come tomorrow and for this to be updated with a link without noting the update was made. This will be a long ride.
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.
What is the difference between a lie and a mendacity, as you have listed above? I am assuming that there is some legal distinction, but as the saying goes, IANAL.ReplyDelete