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.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Transcribing the Trial of Brett Kimberlin v. Walker et. al (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 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.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave him, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson,, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  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.

Always enjoy popcorn while
reading about how Brett
Kimberlin's shuttupery failed.
This is continuing a series I began with this post.

And like last time, I am going to start off by asking for your help in paying for the real, full transcript from this week’s proceedings by donating to Bomber Sues Bloggers!  While I am transcribing some of it, my plan is to leave out large parts of it if only because it is too much work.  If you want to see the whole thing (except for a few redactions), then donate!

And bluntly, we need this transcript, so we can present it in the RICO case.  It will hopefully give us collateral estoppel on numerous issues, especially the ones where he is seeking a preliminary injunction against us, since the primary argument is that we have been calling him a pedophile.  Under collateral estoppel, the court will say “you had your day in court, and we are not litigating these issues twice.”  It might help us dismiss all or part of the action.

Blegging out of the way, let’s continue.  And if you need any background, I suggest you go to the first post in this series, here.

So I am jumping over the entire process of voir dire, which is more or less jury selection, and I am not going to go over again the evidentiary rulings that he made.  I think I adequately explained it, here.  But at the end of a long day of jury selection and ruling on the potential exclusion of evidence, Judge Johnson said this:

Court:              Is there any other ticking time— Well, that’s wrong. [Laughter in the courtroom]  Are there any issues remaining out there that will come up that you can envision.

Kimberlin:       I don’t think so.

Court:              You know, sometimes we have to be very careful in the selection of metaphors.  I always call counsel to task when they tell me about black sheep in the family.  I like black sheep.  [laughter]

That makes my paraphrasing pretty far off in the actual wording, but pretty reasonable in the gist, and pretty funny in either case.  That is it for the first day, so we are going to the second.

Early the next day we revisited the issue of whether Brett should be allowed to testify.  Here’s how Brett opened up about that:

Kimberlin:       Your honor, they’re doing everything to try to get me not to testify.  They don’t want the truth.

Um, yeah, I don’ t think that’s really a problem.

As for the ruling, the key phrase the judge gave in denying the motion to exclude Brett’s testimony is “fundamental fairness.”  Lawyers will know what it means and as for the rest of you nice people, I can’t explain it without a risk that I am educating the midget...

He pities the fool who bombs an entire town... I won’t.

Next up, we get the moment when Patrick Ostronic told the judge that Ali Akbar wanted to go pro se.  The judge immediately called them up.

Court:              Have you thought about this?  I mean, representing yourself.  You have a lawyer that at this point, has done a fine job in representing you.

Akbar:             I think there’s added benefit.  I think one thing, the Plaintiff has benefitted from being pro se.  I think the jury will hear some things from me and arguments that I’ll make that a lawyer and member of the bar wouldn’t.

In that discussion, Johnson made a sage prediction.  Ali had argued that he could put information before the jury that Patrick wouldn’t and Johnson had just asked why Patrick couldn’t put out the same information:

Court:              ...assuming arguendo that it is admissible in the first place.  And this is a problem Mr. Kimberlin is going to run into, squarely into, rules of evidence.

After the judge granted the motion, Kimberlin piped up.  Contrary to what his cheerleaders suggested, Brett evidently didn’t believe for one moment this was a sign that Ali was going to throw any of us under the bus, but was worried about what Ali would say:

Kimberlin:       May I say something?

Court:              I don’t know how you could...

Kimberlin:       I mean it just sounds to me like there’s a conflict in defenses.  [A.W.: There is no such concept in law.]  And I’m concerned that maybe they are trying to finesse this to try and get in something that’s not…

Court:              But whether he is represented by a lawyer is not your call.  It’s up to him.

Kimberlin:       No, its not.  I know.  But I’m just saying that it may be a conflict, it may be a strategy, here, that they are trying to get something in that counsel can’t do, so that’s the reason.  So they try to get it in [unintelligible.]

Court:              Well, if it’s not ethical for counsel, it’s not ethical for him, either, so we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

Next comes the opening statement.  Brett goes on for some 30 minutes talking about his criminal past, trying to claim he was wrongly convicted.  Most of that is not even relevant.  But he did let this slip: “it was a very controversial case.”  Lawyers will know what that means, but again I don’t want to educate the midget.

Later on we get somewhere near relevance when he talks about going back and forth to Ukraine:

Kimberlin:       So one of these trips, I met a girl.  That girl became my wife.  Now, I didn’t go over to get married.  I didn’t want to get married.  You know?  I had been in jail a long time, I wanted some freedom.

He goes on a while.  And then we get to his new story about her.

Kimberlin:       Eventually [his future wife’s] aunt brought her to the United States.  She was 17.  When she turned 18 we got married.

Later on, he gets into my participation in the Everyone Draw Mohammed Day protest and he says this noticeable line.

Kimberlin:       I’m not Muslim.  I’m Christian.  But everybody has a right to believe what they believe, and to do so without being offended.

We now break away form that transcript to remind people what Judge Johnson said the last time Brett was in front of him trying to suppress my freedom of speech:

Court:              [T]he law cannot prohibit all annoying conduct. We’ve reached a point in this society where people 1 think they have a right not to be offended. Where did that come from? You read about it everyday in the paper. Somebody is offended by something and wants somebody to apologize. Where did that come from? Where is the right not to be offended?

So there’s a lot of annoying conduct that perhaps might be rude and would cause Emily Post to turn over in her grave. I don’t know if she’s still alive or not, but manners -- and just for the record, I am not suggesting that the respondent doesn’t have proper manners or anything like that. But what I am saying are examples of annoying conduct, things that people can do that are just annoying.


You say that things have been written about you that are not right. It is a dangerous, dangerous argument to make that a sanction should be entered against people when they choose to exercise their First Amendment constitutional rights just because it’s annoying.

And of course, Judge Johnson is right.  Are you offended when the American flag is burned, or Christ is submerged in a jar of urine.  Feel free to protest, but you have no legal right to stop it.

Kimberlin:       So [Aaron] took his jihad against Mohammed, the Prophet Mohammed, against me.  I now... the Prophet Mohammed is no longer the pedophile, I’m the pedophile.  Why am I a pedophile?  Because I married my wife when she was 18 years old.

Oy, there is so much wrong with that statement, it makes my head hurt.  First, I thought it was liberal dogma that there was nothing wrong with Jihad?  And in actuality, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Let me give you an example.  I read a story a few years back about the first big election in Iraq.  On that day some of the terrorists found a man suffering from down’s syndrome.  Now, I will not assume that the man with down’s syndrome had any idea what was actually happening.  When they put a bomb belt on him, for all I know, they told him it was a Batman utility belt.  And when they sent him toward a line of voters, maybe they told him it was the line for free candy.  My base assumption is that the man with down’s syndrome was as much a victim as anyone else.  But they did get a bomb on him and sent him toward a group of voters to kill them.

And an Iraqi police officer saw this man coming, saw the bomb and decided to intervene.  He went up to the man with down’s syndrome and literally hugged him, holding him in place until they both blew up.  And at his funeral, the police man’s father spoke and said that he knew his son was in paradise, because he died in Jihad.  Jihad, to him, meant fighting for freedom and democracy.

As best as I can tell, Jihad is just their word for “crusade.”  The actual crusades were often very negative events, where they would slaughter every Jew they could get their hands on just because.  On the other hand, what do we often call Batman?  The Caped Crusader.  It’s not wrong to fight for things.  It’s not wrong to give your life for a cause.  It all depends on what you fight for, and whether your good cause is fought for in a moral fashion.

So that is one point.  Second, I will note that I never stopped calling Mohammed a pedophile, given that Islamic doctrine said he slept married Aisha when she was six, and consummated their married when she was nine.  And I have talked to people about this and Muslims and non-Muslims have defended it as saying, “well, it was a different time.”  And if I was talking about anyone else, you might have an argument.  But we are talking about the alleged main prophet of God, and God is not subject to moral relativism.

And all that being said, even as I disagree strongly with the Islamic faith, I don’t think this reflects on individual Muslims.  The Muslims I have spoken to about this are in a state of denial about the whole subject in a way that suggests they aren’t cool with it, but they aren’t ready to quit the faith over it, either (though some I know have).  And as long as they don’t think they should follow Mohammed’s example on this point, I have no problem with that.

And finally and most fundamentally I have never said that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile because his wife was 18 when he married her, because she was not.  Go read my post Brett Kimberlin is a Pedophile and see exactly what my logic is.  I would never call someone a pedophile just for having sex with an 18 year old, no matter how much older the other partner is.

He goes on a bit, but I think the most interesting part is the closing:

Kimberlin:       And I ask you as jurors, to stop this.  To send a message that this kind of conduct by people is not acceptable in today’s society.  It’s what’s causing all this grief.

And this is where he somehow dragged in the death of Robin Williams.

Kimberlin:       You know, yesterday Robin Williams died because of depression, killed himself, I don’t want that to happen to my wife.

Ostronic:         Objection.

Court:              Sustained.

We heard that refrain—“objection” “sustained”—a lot.  He goes on, in full shutuppery mode:

Kimberlin:       I want this to stop.  I want my kids to be able to go to school without being bullied with this stuff.  I want my wife to feel like she’s safe.  She doesn’t have to pick up, go on the internet and see this terrible...

Ostronic:         Objection.

Court:              Sustained.

Kimberlin:       So I’m going to ask you from the bottom of my heart to do what judges have been unable to do.  They... [huffs a laugh] Mr. Walker and Mr. Hoge has filed...

Ostronic:         Objection.

Kimberlin:       …criminal charges against me.

Court:              Sustained.

Kimberlin:       It’s got to stop, and it can stop with you.  We deserve it.  My family deserves it.  My mother, who’s here, deserves it.  [unintelligible]  ...society deserves it!

Shut up, he explains.  Ostronic’s opening is given next, but frankly I see no greater insight than the usual platitude that free speech protects unpopular ideas.  That’s true, but I guess I have talked about that so long it isn’t interesting enough to transcribe.  So let me jump to Akbar, where he explains why he had gone pro se:

Akbar:             That’s why I am self-representing today, because it would have been easy to just let this case fall, but I thought that this would have been a wasted opportunity to speak the truth about Brett Kimberlin and his past.

After that, there was a bench conference where the judge asked Kimberlin who his first witness was.  He said it was his eldest daughter, who is not going to be named by me.  The gist of the discussion is the judge kept asking Brett what she could possibly testify.  There is some discussion later on this topic that is interesting, but right at the moment the judge was just trying to reason with Brett, arguing that he should not be putting his daughter in the middle of all of this.

Aaaaaand that seems as good a place to stop as any.  Next up...  my testimony.  Oooh, that should be Popcorn Worthy!®

In fact, it will be popcorn on trial!

(I wish that last part was more of a joke than it was.)

So stay tuned.  And donate to BomberSuesBloggers!


* I am redacting the names of his family, to protect the innocent.  When I say “T.” that is his wife.


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.

1 comment:

  1. Re-blogged at A Conservative Christian Man: