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.

Monday, February 24, 2014

My Motion to Oppose Adding Twitchy as a Party to Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s Silly RICO Suit

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 two years, 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.

Well, it is Monday and thus it is time for another court document filed in Brett Kimberlin’s silly RICO suit.  Previously, Twitchy’s able counsel, Mike Smith, accused Brett Kimberlin of scheme to trick Twitchy into falsely believing they were a party when they were not.  And in the same post, I showed you Brett’s only reply at that point in time: a motion to supposedly correct the caption, which was in fact a motion for leave to amend.

Since then, Brett has filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss that accused him of criminal acts like forging a summons, but today I am going to show you the first of two oppositions to that attempt to add Twitchy as a party.  Previously, you might have seen where John Hoge had filed his own opposition.  Well, now you can see mine:

One big point you might notice is that I don’t even touch (except in the slightest way) was the subject of prejudice, figuring it was virtually certain that Twitchy would file an opposition and that Mr. Smith would do an able job.  I figured Twitchy could speak better than I could about how they were harmed because I am not them.

Bluntly, I was completely outclassed by what Twitchy filed.  You will see what I mean, probably tomorrow, when I show you.  But really his opposition was much better than mine.

Which doesn’t mean I didn’t still contribute.  My joke is that lawyers are like the Geth...

...we are smarter in groups than the sum of our parts.

(And for those of you who are not fans of Mass Effect, perhaps this Wiki will make you understand the joke.)

So on one hand, I see lawyers very clearly borrowing ideas from me and John, particularly the idea that Brett Kimberlin might be defamation proof, an idea I have floated from literally the first time I even found Brett Kimberlin interesting enough to discuss in a blog post, writing:

[Ron] Brynaert is almost certainly referring to this case, involving the alleged defamation of Brett Kimberlin, the convicted terrorist known as the Speedway Bomber.  I suppose next he will assert that I have defamed bin Laden.  Seriously, defamation is a cause of action for damage to reputation; does Kimberlin even have a public reputation capable of being damaged?

Oh, the idea got beefed up over time with more law supporting it, but the basic intuition of “how the hell do you even defame a guy as scummy as that?” was intact from even that first writing.  It was always the best, most common-sensical argument against liability for any alleged defamation, in my opinion.  And that was the day before Brett Kimberlin first began his campaign of harassment of me.  If it was set off by that post, Kimberlin truly has no sense of proportion, does he?

And meanwhile on the other hand, I borrow from the other lawyers.  And sometimes I say something in document A, and they say something else in document B, and together both of our arguments are stronger for the existence of the other.  Brett will probably see and claim some kind of great conspiracy, here, but 1) there is nothing wrong with defendants coordinating in their defense and 2) we aren’t really doing that anyway.  It’s more like that there is so much wrong with Brett’s documents that it takes multiple lawyers to explain to a court what all is wrong with it.

But otherwise I will let the document speak for itself.  And in any case, I am far too busy with the next fun filings to write a short novella here.  As I tell you good folks regularly, the case comes first, the blog comes second.  I could devote a few minutes to writing a quickie post giving you this document, but a longer essay will have to wait.

Finally, dear reader, to show you that SLAPP suits are not confined to sociopathic convicted terrorists or pedophiles, let me direct you to a post by Popehat discussing a frivolous suit by Steve Stockman.  It deserves more attention than I can give it as a genuine outrage against the First Amendment by a Representative who swore to uphold it.


My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the 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.



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.

No comments:

Post a Comment