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.
So as you might
have seen over at Hogewash
or the
Other McCain, Brett Kimberlin had a terrible no good very bad day in court
today. On the docket were three motions
for sanctions. The first two were
Brett’s. One was against Patrick
Ostronic claiming that Akbar is not a Virginia resident (and as I understand
it, Ali isn’t a resident of the Commonwealth). The second was against me for filing
a motion in as another party in support of Kimberlin Unmasked. Both of those were so frivolous that Brett
voluntarily withdrew them at the beginning of the hearing.
This was not
the case for our attorney, Patrick Ostronic, Esq. seeking sanctions for the
alteration of a certified mail green card.
To see an example of the crushing evidence against Brett on this point,
go here. Namely he keeps adding a checkmark to the
green card indicating restricted delivery, after it had been sent and returned
without that option chosen. This is
important because under Maryland law, the initial service has to be restricted
delivery—that is, they want to make extra sure you actually know about the suit
before they can do things like find you in default judgment if you don’t
respond.
Judge Joan
Ryan presided. Brett showed up looking
entirely too casual, with hair that had overgrown into an ugly mullet, a suit
but no tie, and loafers with white socks.
Also he wore a Yale jacket as an overcoat when he came in, probably as a
way of irritating me since I actually graduated from their law school, or
something.
And so Judge
Ryon drilled down into the central question: did you alter this green card? I plan to listen to the audio again tonight
and report in more detail when I do, but going by notes plus memory he first
denied that any document was altered.
Then he backed off a little and said he didn’t change them “intentionally.” The judge finally backed him into a corner
and asked him if he changed it at all and he admitted he did.
Brett then
started doing his “I’m just an ignorant pro se” routine. He had done it before in the hearing and got
shot down but this time the judge lost her temper, saying, “don’t even use that
with me.” She went on to say, in
paraphrase, that this isn’t a case of Brett getting confused about procedure,
but he actively presented false evidence to this court. It was the same point we have been making in
the federal court: you don’t need to go to law school to know you aren’t
supposed to do this.
Brett’s excuse
was novel. You see according to him he
had told the post office they were supposed to have restricted delivery and
when he saw the checkmark wasn’t made, well, he just fixed it. After it was mailed and came back, that
is. To reflect what he wanted them to
do.
Yes, that is a
sarcastic description of what he argued, but there you go. So for those keeping track, first in the
Federal case he just assumed that the clerk made a mistake and didn’t give him
the summons. And then I guess he assumed
the post office made a mistake?
Which is load
of manure. He is just such a compulsive
criminal that he didn’t even want to bother to spend the money. Yes, it’s a couple bucks, but how is that out
of character for him? How is it
different, for instance, than him claiming ludicrously that he didn’t know he
was called The Speedway Bomber? He is
not only a serious criminal but he is also engaged in constant, petty
criminality.
So after the
judge had decided that he had done this—either before or after the hearing she
referred to it as a “fraud on the court”—she had to decide on punishment. Mr. Ostronic was pushing for the case to be
dismissed at least for Ali Akbar.
Unfortunately, she was not willing to do that because she felt that the
issue of service was no longer “live.”
So she literally said that she wanted to fine Brett but wasn’t sure if
she had the statutory authority. So she
called a recess of about ten minutes as she went back to check on the legal
issue and unfortunately when she came back she said that she did not. So instead she read him the riot act.
“Oh!” you
might say, “so he gets away with it!”
Yes, you can look at it that way, but now we have a record of his
misconduct we can take to the federal court where they are contemplating
sanctions against him. And yes, in
Federal Court they can definitely sanction him not only with dismissal (cross
fingers) but with monetary fines.
Sometimes it takes several bricks to build a wall.
So a bad day
in court for Brett where he is lucky that he didn’t leave the court with a
fine. A convicted document forger has admitted
to forging a summons and now altering a green card. Does anyone else think that it is credible
that he has reformed?
---------------------------------------
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.
I think the "hapless pro se" fashion was carefully chosen.
ReplyDeleteHe is not only a serious criminal but he is also engaged in constant, petty criminality.
ReplyDeleteI want to say he is both a serious criminal, and at the same time also a ... petty ... criminal.
A convicted document forger has admitted to forging a summons and now altering a green card. Does anyone else think that it is credible that he has reformed?
That's a good question. It depends: can he get partial credit for not bombing people?
Have you contacted the USPS and Federal prosecutors? Or whoever is in charge of dealing with unsupervised parolees?
ReplyDeleteHe literally admitted in court to committing a crime. That should be relevant to someone.
Sadly, it appears that that is so only if your activities go against the people in positions of power. If you are someone who has performed deeds for the elites, no so much.
Delete