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, April 20, 2015

Adjudicated Pedophile Brett Kimberlin’s Premature Appeal-ation

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 convicted terrorist Brett 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, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson,, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  others 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.

"Aren't you a little short to be a
government trooper?"
As you might guess, dear reader, I am often faced with a dilemma.  I often see Brett Kimberlin failing, and part of me wants to tell you all about it.  To point, and laugh at his failures.  It has been observed that evil is often banal, but in Brett Kimberlin’s case, it is ridiculous, too.  I mean his evil lair is not some Dr. Evil style mountain facility, but his mother’s basement.  When caught with forged documents in the past, he allegedly attempted to eat them.  And he was caught imitating a DOD official, looking like this (right).

He is evil, but he is also ridiculous.  He is “ridicu-evil,” to coin a term, so there is a desire to point out the latest example of his ridicu-evilness.

But I also have to be mindful that I am not “educating the midget” as I often say.  I mean, I have watched in real time as Brett Kimberlin has learned more and more what he is supposed to do just by reading my legal writing, as well as the writing of various other lawyers who have been involved.  As much as Team Kimberlin calls me an idiot, and similar terms, their respect for me is indicated in the most sincere form of flattery: imitation.  So I have to constantly be careful what I say to the world at large, lest I end up helping Team Kimberlin.

Evil can be banal, ridiculous,
and very, very short 
So a funny thing happened last week, but I couldn’t tell you why I thought it was funny.  I have shared it privately with friends and family, but I haven’t shared it with you, dear reader.  After all, the mantra has been “case first, blog second,” meaning that my first concern is the legal cases and letting you fine folks in on the joke has always taken a back seat to that.  Which sucks occasionally, but what can you do?

Well, at this point, Brett has failed to a point of no return.  He has filed a notice of appeal so frivolous that we wouldn’t even have to lift a finger to get it dismissed.  And he has passed a point of (financial) no return: he has paid the $500 fee for his appeal.  This man who claims to only make $19,500 a year has blown the equivalent of about a third of a month’s salary on it and now is the time to point and laugh at his failure, since it provides him no benefit to be corrected.

What am I driving at?  Well, it is a little thing the appellate courts call the “final judgment rule.”  To quote from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the one that would be hearing the appeal):

We lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s order unless that order constitutes a “final” judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994). This limit on appellate jurisdiction guards against the waste of judicial resources and the unnecessary resolution of issues later rendered moot, reflecting what has been described as an “historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 9, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956)). Ordinarily, a district court order is not “final” until it has resolved all claims as to all parties. See Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 2 F.3d 1331, 1335 (4th Cir.1993).

Go ahead, read it for yourself.  Law is an “open source” profession, after all.  And those following along know that the case doesn’t meet this rule.  As regular readers know, Brett initially claimed that I and around twenty other people and organizations violated RICO, the KKK Act, various state causes of action and that Patrick “Patterico” Frey alone violated pretty much all of that and 42 U.S.C. §1983, which deals with violations of constitutional rights by state actors.  The Court dismissed every single claim, except the §1983 claim against Patrick, which is about to go into discovery.  So therefore the case is not “resolved” in regards to all claims and all parties.

But, dear reader, you might say, “come on, Aaron.  We all know that every rule has an exception.”  And indeed, it does.  There is also the concept of the “interlocutory appeal.”  That refers to an appeal before the final judgment occurs.  So when is that available?

Well, as the Supreme Court said in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay (1978), it is available when it meets the following test:

To come within the "small class" of decisions excepted from the final-judgment rule by Cohen, the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Now, the first two parts—the conclusive determination and the separateness requirement—are there.  But the third factor, that it is “effectively unreviewable” is not.   This factor is about situations where, if the District Court made an error, the aggrieved party would lose before the case is over.

Let me give you some practical examples of that, so you would understand how it works.  In this case, Brett Kimberlin tried to get discovery on the real identity of the blogger known as Ace of Spades.  Imagine if the judge didn’t dismiss all claims against Ace.  Imagine, further, that the judge erroneously granted Brett the right to get discovery of Ace’s real name.  Well, that would be an example of a decision that would be effectively unreviewable from a final judgment.  If Ace had to wait until there was a final judgment to challenge the order granting that discovery, his name could be revealed, the case could go forward, and then eventually an appellate court would correct the District Court and tell them that Brett shouldn’t have gotten that discovery.  But, by then, it would be too late—Brett already got something and Ace would have lost something that couldn’t be given back: his right to anonymity.

Or let me give you another example.  Suppose a woman was challenging several aspects of a state’s law on abortion.  She is in fact pregnant and, for whatever reason, she cannot get an abortion under the laws of her state.  So, she seeks a preliminary injunction allowing her to get an abortion and loses.  Well, the entirety of the case isn’t over, but this would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment—since more than likely she will have given birth by then.  So this might justify not only an interlocutory appeal, but an expedited interlocutory appeal.

"I wonder how many times the
4th Circuit will use the word

"I know, what a loser."
By comparison, none of those special circumstances apply here.  There is simply no reason why he can’t wait until the entire case is over before getting his appeal.

So the ordinary rule bars the appeal at this time, and the exception doesn’t apply.  Eventually, of course, Brett will have his day before the Fourth Circuit, if he cares enough to file his appeal.  But it is not today.  No, he has to wait until he is done losing his case against Patrick Frey.

And in the meantime we can all point and laugh at the loser.


My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated pedophile) 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: