tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80443181766227586922024-03-13T18:04:26.358-04:00Allergic to BullLaw, life and the local spectator sport called politics.A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.comBlogger793125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-80348880439494022021-09-03T23:24:00.000-04:002021-09-03T23:24:28.538-04:00Some Rational Thought on Texas and Abortion<p style="text-align: justify;">So, right now many people are in a meltdown over the abortion law passed in Texas and the recent Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf">decision</a> refusing to block it from going into enforcement. You can read the text of the bill <a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961">here</a>, but I thought I would bring some rationality to this discussion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">First, let me tell you where I come from the issue so you can be aware of any biases. I think <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12334123945835207673&q=roe+v.+wade&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Roe v. Wade</a> is a terrible decision. Whatever you think of abortion, the notion that the founders were attempting to say <i>anything</i> about abortion is simply false. That means that it should have been treated as part of the ordinary political process and, frankly, left to states to figure out. Seriously, read the opinion. It is unpersuasive claptrap. It admits that through American history legislatures have regulated abortion, and concludes from it that it is not up to the legislatures, which makes almost no sense. So my preferred outcome is to see this case and its progeny thrown into the dustbin of history.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I would talk about what I think politically should happen but because my position is different from around 90% of people on both sides, it would take a long blog post to lay it out and I don't want to get bogged down in doing that. I will simply say that I favor an approach that ensures that no <i>sentient</i> being is ever killed, unless it is truly necessary (such as physical danger to the mother) and leave it at that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Second, let me preface this by saying <i>this is not legal advice.</i> I am a lawyer, but I am not <i>your</i> lawyer. If you are seeking to enforce this law or are concerned you might have this law enforced against you, you should seek out your own lawyer. The purpose of this discussion is to educate you about the law because we the people are the ultimate sovereigns of this country and our decisions about policy should be as informed as practical.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">With all that out of the way, let's untangle this a bit, mostly by paraphrasing objections I have been hearing and addressing them, one-by-one.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>1. This law overturns Roe v. Wade!</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">First, <i>Roe v. Wade</i> is actually not quite good law right now. I glossed over this when I talked about <i>Roe</i> and its progeny above, but in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=planned+parenthood+of+southeastern+pa+v+casey&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Planned Parenthood v. Casey</a></i>, a 1992 decision, the Supreme Court by a plurality upheld the core of <i>Roe </i>by saying there was a right to abortion, but changed it to the "viability standard" (meaning when the fetus can live outside of the womb) instead of the three trimester approach of <i>Roe</i>. It took me the longest time to understand why they went for the viability standard because the logic is so counter-intuitive and it just isn't explained well in the opinion. The logic appears to be that in theory at that point, a fetus could be removed from the mother and live, so in theory a woman who wants an abortion can just have a medical procedure to just give birth early and give the kid away to adoptive parents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Which is crazy, because that literally isn't done. No one is ever told, "we won't give you an abortion, but we will take the kid out and try to raise him or her without you." I've talked to health professionals about this and they verified what I suspected: they would never do this.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">But the point is that this is the actual rule right now and that appears to be the logic behind it, such as it is. And it means that far from being a rule that can never change, it is in fact a rule that has changed. Indeed, if viability is the standard, we might anticipate that this might eventually make abortion obsolete. In Lois McMaster Bujold's Sci-Fi novel <i>Barrayar</i>, she imagines that someday all unwanted pregnancies would be transferred to artificial wombs. That technology might be a long way off (though they kind of have that for <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant">sheep</a> already), but it seems likely to become a reality <i>eventually</i> and, when it does, then even the Supreme Court lineup that handed down <i>Casey</i> is likely to uphold all restrictions on abortion. But that could be hundreds of years in the future.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">And the other point about talking about <i>Casey</i> is to make the point that if upholding restrictions greater than allowed under <i>Roe</i> means <i>Roe </i>is overturned, then <i>Roe</i> was overturned in 1991 by <i>Casey</i>. But if you maintain that <i>Roe</i> was still the law of the land on January 1, 2021, then it isn't necessary to overturn <i>Roe </i>to uphold this law. It might simply be modified, just as it was in <i>Casey</i>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Again, I am writing this as a person who would like to any claim there is a constitutional right to abortion to be gone from our legal system. But I know better than to say this is definitely what the ultimate outcome will be. Frankly, I am not sure the Supreme Court has the nerve to do it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>2. But wasn't the Texas law upheld? I heard it was upheld.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well, it wasn't. You can read the opinion above yourself but let me summarize. They said, in short, even if the law is unconstitutional, it is not clear that an injunction is the right remedy, for it, so they can't block the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">But let me back up for a moment. What we are talking about, really, is whether to grant a preliminary injunction--that is, an injunction before a full trial where both sides get a chance to be heard. You see, normally, an injunction is only supposed to be granted after you have a full hearing on the facts and the law, giving both sides a full an fair opportunity to defend their positions. But that might take months and the law recognizes that sometimes in life, you just don't have time for that. So basically you an get a preliminary injunction after a truncated process if you are facing a situation where you or your rights are going to be irreparably harmed, and the court finds you are likely to succeed in the ultimate case as well as other requirements. Then if the preliminary injunction is granted, you go forward until you have that full hearing and the court decides whether to grant a permanent injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">To illustrate, let's pick a radical example. Imagine the College Board, which runs the SAT, announced that from then on they were not going to give the test to black people. Yes, a pretty outlandish hypothetical, but let's pretend just to illustrate. And imagine this was done a month before the next exam, which is the last available date for the scores to be ready in time for timely application to a particular college that requires the SAT for admission. Well, then a black potential applicant could sue the College Board for racial discrimination and seek a preliminary injunction. The court would probably schedule the hearing about a week or two before the test and probably grant it because 1) obviously the black applicant would be likely to win in the case as a whole, and 2) he would be harmed irreparably because it would probably push him back to the next application season. Mind you there are other parts of the test for injunctions that have to be met, but that case would probably meet those requirements, too.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case, the Supreme Court said that even if this law is unconstitutional, because it has an unusual enforcement mechanism its not clear that the remedy that was being sought is the right one. But that requires me to talk about the law n more detail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>3. Yeah, I heard that this law criminalizes women.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">You heard wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>But I heard this was a really strange new remedy unheard of in the law.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well, not completely unheard of. Allow me to explain.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">First, this law has no criminal enforcement provisions, period. So no one is being criminalized, at all.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">What it does is say that if a woman gets an abortion made illegal under this law or a person intends to provide or aid and abet abortions made illegal under this law, then any citizen can bring a civil suit against anyone <i>but the woman who actually gets the relevant abortion</i> for performing or aiding and abetting the performance of an abortion. If that plaintiff prevails, then the court must issue an injunction to prevent it in the future and the plaintiff gets $10,000 per abortion performed. It is not clear that the financial liability goes beyond the persons performing it or to the people who merely aid and abet it. Furthermore, the plaintiff gets attorney's fees and court costs if he or she prevails--but not the defendant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So in essence it makes people afraid of being sued. Further, while the law does not create a criminal remedy, if an injunction is issued that injunction is typically enforced threats of incarceration and the like. I mean, to give you an example, when Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he had been arrested for violating an injunction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Second, this is not completely unprecedented in law or even American law. It is true that in most civil suits the claim is "this person committed an unlawful act and harmed me." That's not required here. You don't have to have been harmed at all.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">But there is an entire kind of civil suit that works very similarly to this: <i>Qui Tam</i> actions. It is short for the latin phrase "<i>qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur</i>" which means "he who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself." As that all suggests, this goes back to English common law. In America, naturally the government is substituted for the king.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The most common use of this cause of action under Federal False Claims Act alleging more or less that someone committed fraud against the government. Now, there are a lot of subtleties in the law, but if you as a private citizen become aware of fraud committed against the federal government, you can sue on behalf of the government and if you win, you literally get a percentage of the winnings. These are often called whistleblower suits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Of course, one pretty huge difference is that in False Claims Act cases at least, the government can intervene and take over the case. Indeed, the government can intervene, take over the case, and then dismiss the case, leaving the whistleblower empty-handed. But none of that can happen here, because under this statute state officials are officially prohibited from filing these suits. So where Qui Tam is you acting on behalf of the government when the government <i>chooses</i> not to act, its hard to argue that you are acting on behalf of the government when they <i>can't</i> act. But I am not convinced this difference matters.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So while it is fair to call it unusual, its not completely unprecedented. I've never heard of an approach that cuts out the state like I just described, but otherwise this seems pretty similar to that kind of Qui Tam action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. So this means that a plaintiff an file a frivolous suit, and, even if he or she loses, they don't have to pay attorneys fees?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have seen a few people make that complaint about the attorneys fees and court costs provision--where only the plaintiff can recover those costs and prevail--as being unfair to potential defendants. I have also seen people suggest that people file frivolous suits accusing the lawmakers who voted for this of aiding and abetting abortions without any knowledge of whether or not they did just as a tactic to try to drain their bank accounts. However, any frivolous suit might run afoul of Rule 13, in Texas' Rules of Civil Procedure which is similar to Federal Rule 11, which states in relevant part that:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment. Attorneys or parties who shall bring a fictitious suit as an experiment to get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious pleading in a cause for such a purpose, or shall make statements in pleading which they know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the cause, shall be held guilty of a contempt. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction available under Rule 215-2b, upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I believe every American jurisdiction has a version of this and they are not dependent on who ultimately prevails, so it is not typically seen as being superseded by a prevailing party rule. So anyone filing a frivolous suit as a plaintiff runs a risk of sanctions which typically include attorneys fees and court costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>5. So why does all this create a problem in providing a remedy?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well, injunctions are issued against people (remembering that in law, a person can be an organization such as a corporation). An injunction is an order to or not do an act. Like in my SAT example above, the order probably would read something like "Defendant shall administer the SAT to the Plaintiff under the same conditions as any white applicant on [insert date]." So who do you enjoin to stop this abortion law? Every person in the State of Texas? Hell, people who don't live in Texas can theoretically file suit in Texas as long as Texas has jurisdiction over the claim (in other words, as long as the abortion happened or will happen in Texas), so I guess you'd have to enjoin everyone on earth, or something.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>6. Why not enjoin the courts of Texas from allowing any of these lawsuits?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Actually that appears to be the original idea of the Plaintiffs in this case. I found what appears to be their <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/WWH-v.-Jackson-Complaint.pdf">original Complaint</a> and suggests that clerks in Texas courts be enjoined as well as judges. And actually I agree that this <i>should</i> be available as a remedy when the constitution is violated. I mean a few years ago, <a href="https://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2016/06/judge-vaughey-reprimanded-freedom-of.html">my First Amendment rights were pretty egregiously violated by a state judge</a> and basically the courts have said I can't get compensation for that violation. If a cop had arrested me in violation of the First Amendment (at least if it was this egregious), I could sue that cop and his superiors, but not a judge because, frankly, judges protect other judges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The view the courts typically have is that if a case is filed where the theory of the case violates the constitution itself, the solution is to dismiss the case. So imagine if a John sues Dave because he truthfully called him a thief, claiming that it is illegal to hurt a person's feelings with admittedly truthful statements. Well, that case would be bounced very quickly from the courts on First Amendment grounds--even if some statute purported to make that a crime--and in the view of the courts, no harm is done to the defendants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">And if you don't mind me getting up on a soapbox for a moment, this gets to one of the biggest blind spots the courts have. To the courts and many lawyers, the initiation of a lawsuit is just an ordinary event. But to many defendants, being sued is an upsetting event. No matter how facially frivolous these lawsuits are, they cause upset and often cost the defendant thousands of dollars they aren't getting back. People and companies will often settle patently frivolous lawsuits just to make them go away, rewarding the worst behavior in our society.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It reminds me a bit of a surprisingly good line in a bad movie. In <i>Street Fighter, </i>the evil dictator M. Bison, played brilliantly by the late Raul Julia, tells a woman he doesn't remember meeting her. She is flabbergasted and tells him about he came to her village and committed atrocities. He tells her "For you; The day Bison graced your village was the most important day in your life. But for me... it was Tuesday."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">That lawsuit filed against you can feel like the most important day of your life, but for a judge it was Tuesday. And judges should try harder to remember that for many defendants its not just a Tuesday--to recognize and be sensitive to the harm even filing suit can cause.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">But, getting off that soapbox, whatever you think the law <i>should be</i>, that is not currently what it is. And the plaintiffs in this case had to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits and, frankly, they were not. I cannot say the courts are likely to enjoin every court clerk in Texas or anything like that. It might happen, but it is not <i>likely</i>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>7. Did the state of Texas just do this to frustrate constitutional challenges?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I think so. I haven't heard a better explanation and I can't think of one. I mean, normally when you want to stop people from killing a person, you make it a crime and you throw people in prison or, in Texas, execute them (God bless them). You don't create a civil action out of it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>So we are rewarding Texas for these shenanigans?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In some sense, but the case isn't over. Right now the parties are fighting over a preliminary injunction. So presumably the district court will be allowed to go through the case and after a full opportunity to explore any relevant facts (I wouldn't be surprised if there is live testimony about fetal development, for instance, with dueling experts and so on) and a full briefing on the law, the judge might find that there is a permanent, normal injunction he or she can issue. And probably whatever happens, it will go to the Fifth Circuit (the mid-level court of appeals), and maybe it will even be taken up by the Supreme Court. At the end of the process we will see whether an injunction of some kind is issued and if it is upheld, then that might be the end of that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">But let's say that somehow the result is the Federal Courts saying they can't issue this kind of injunction even if they want to. That's not the end of potential federal involvement. For starters, you might see a case filed in Federal Court trying to enforce this law (state civil suits can be filed in federal court if its between citizens of different states). Further if a case is filed in state court, and damages or an injunction is awarded for an abortion, and that decision survives the state appeals system, then the Supreme Court can hear that appeal and decide whether to overturn it. This doesn't mean the law automatically survives in the long run. It just can't be stopped as quickly as the pro-choice side wants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>8. But if no injunction issues, who would be brave enough to risk that kind of suit?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Actually, some people intentionally break laws just so they can challenge their constitutionality. For instance, if you dig into the history of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17009672765313209145&q=texas+v+johnson+eichman&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">U.S. v. Eichman</a>, it becomes pretty clear that the defendant only burned a U.S. Flag so he could challenge an anti-flag-burning statute on First Amendment grounds. It admittedly takes some courage to do that and risk prison, but I wouldn't be surprised if a doctor in Texas announces he or she is going to defy the law on the hope of creating a challenge to it, if that hasn't happened already. I mean it wouldn't be <i>just Tuesday</i> to him or her, but there are people who will stand up for it. Agree with the law or not, but I have no doubt someone will intentionally break it or at least announce they intend to, in order to challenge it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>9. But I was told this law is really ridiculous, it could even be applied to a taxi driver who is taking a woman to a clinic!</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Right, there are a number of alleged readings, usually by lawyers who don't practice very much or at all, who try to argue that the concept of aiding and abetting reaches out to wholly innocent conduct.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">First, let's discuss a less charged hypothetical. Let's suppose a man hires a taxi to go the bank and then, once there, robs the bank. Is that aiding and abetting? Well, it depends. If all the driver understood was that he was driving a person to the bank, that is not aiding and abetting. I mean, there are many legal reasons to go to a bank.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this statute, you are required to be knowingly aiding and abetting. And since this law doesn't purport to punish all abortions, even knowingly driving a person to an abortion clinic is not enough. Indeed, even if the driver knows the woman is going to an abortion clinic and knows she's eight months pregnant and the baby even is kicking on the way there, you can't say he or she knows she is about to get an illegal abortion--she might only being going there to accompany a friend who is getting a legal abortion, for all the driver knows.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>10. But the statute says it applies "regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter." Doesn't mean that our hypothetical taxi driver could get in trouble just for unknowingly driving a person to be sued just for driving a woman somewhere, not knowing she was going to get an abortion?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">A number of people have made this assertion, but I think the most logical reading of the law is literally the opposite. Let's start with fuller language of the section. It says that there is liability to any person</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Now, first this is not the model of good statutory writing, but "knew or should have known" is the standard for negligence, and I read this as saying that this is not the standard to apply--instead, its a knowing standard. And of course, there is a long-standing tradition that statutory interpretation avoids absurd results and avoids strict liability. Its absurd to say that a taxi driver is liable when he or she has no idea what the person is going to the abortion clinic for, or if he or she is going to have an illegal abortion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, its an affirmative defense if you "reasonably believed, after conducting a reasonable investigation, that the physician performing or inducing the abortion had complied or would comply with this subchapter." So a concerned Taxi driver could simply say to my hypothetical pregnant passenger I mentioned above "you aren't going to get an abortion, are you?"--and if she says "no," or "yes, but only to protect my safety" that probably shields the person entirely.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Finally, even if this part or another assigns liability for behavior that the court finds can't constitutionally give rise to liability, that part can be struck down and severed from the rest--that is, the rest of the law remains in effect as if the unconstitutional parts never existed. The statute is actually very explicit on this point.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>10. So this is vigilantism? The statute is vigilantism!</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">No, by definition vigilantism is done outside of the law. Pretty much by definition, filing a lawsuit is not vigilantism, even if the cause of action is abusive. There are many things wrong with abusive lawsuits but "vigilantism" isn't one of them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>11. But this is putting bounties on women!</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well, first the women who have abortions are exempted from coverage by this law, as laid out above. As in, you can't go after a woman for her abortion, only for the abortions she performs or helps others to perform <i>on others</i>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Second, while in the broadest sense you can argue it is a bounty, it really is pretty far outside of what you normally think of when you talk about bounties. Dog the Bounty Hunter is not going to be busting into anyone's house and taking custody of anyone. It's just a person filing a suit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>12. So, after six weeks, if a woman gets an abortion, everyone who helped her might be sued...</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Actually, about that six weeks...</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Wait, you're saying I'm misinformed about that, too?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's a subtlety people seem to be glossing over, but its not really six weeks. Its actually a requirement that the doctor take various steps to make sure there isn't yet a heartbeat. If there is one, no abortion can be performed. If there isn't, the abortion is legal, even if we are talking eight months in. That's why I mentioned the baby kicking in my hypothetical--because I'm pretty sure that can't happen without a heartbeat. (Mind you, I'm not a doctor, I'm just being logical.) A little googling says that this can be as early as 3-4 weeks after conception or 5-6 weeks since the last period. I have no idea if that is right, but for what its worth. So I'm not quite sure where the six weeks figure is coming from, but not quite what the law says.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>13. This terrible! This makes us into Gilead, the country from the Handmaiden's Tale. This makes Texas into a Soviet Republic!</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Yes, dear reader, people are actually saying this sort of thing. If that's how you feel, you're entitled to feel that way, but I think that is a hard position to maintain. The fact is abortion could be fully banned with no exceptions before 1973 when <i>Roe </i>came down<i>. </i>Were we Gilead or a Soviet Republic before then?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>14. This is undemocratic!</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well, in fact this law was passed by the Texas legislature. More broadly, if the Supreme Court there is no longer a right to abortion, the most likely outcome is to say that this is left up to the democratic process like most issues. That is <i>more</i> democratic than leaving it up to some people in robes. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not everything that you think is a bad idea is unconstitutional.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Of course you are free to reject every word of that, but I will also say this. The worst thing about <i>Roe </i>is that it damaged the idea of an independent judiciary that is above politics. The opinion in <i>Roe </i>is obvious bullshit. The issue of abortion just wasn't something the founders thought about very much, and to the extent that they indicated any thinking on the subject, they generally thought it could be regulated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7985814098766481295&q=dartmouth+college+v+woodward&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Dartmouth College v. Woodward</a></i>, the Supreme Court asked whether school charters were contracts in the meaning of the contract clause under Art. I Section 10 of the Constitution, writing:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">It is not enough to say, that this particular case was not in the mind of the convention, when the article was framed, nor of the American people, when it was adopted. It is necessary to go further, and to say that, had this particular case been suggested, the language would have been so varied, as to exclude it, or it would have been made a special exception. The *case being within the words of the rule, must be within its operation [*645 likewise, unless there be something in the literal construction, so obviously absurd or mischievous, or repugnant to the general spirit of the instrument, as to justify those who expound the constitution in making it an exception.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I think that approach is a little too permissive to "judicial creativity" but it fails even that expansive approach. Like if you zapped back in time to when Congress was writing the Bill of Rights and sending them to the states and you said, "oh good, now abortion is a federal right," they would think you were a crazy person. If you could convince them that this was how the Supreme Court would read that language around two hundred years later, they would have rewritten it to avoid it--most likely to leave the issue up to the democratic process.. And you could say the same thing about the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So its obvious bullshit, and it gives lie to any claim that the Supreme Court is above politics.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">And as we saw in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2298973060085224552&q=bush+v+gore&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Bush v. Gore</a>, we need an institution that is above politics. We need an institution we can go to in a dispute that can decide things with credibility, not as partisans but simply following the rules. I remember being at Yale Law School during that controversy and hearing people complain that they didn't believe the conservatives were following the constitution, and saying something like:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">I don't agree that they aren't following the constitution, but if you think they aren't... well, what the hell did you expect? This school is ground zero for the philosophy that judges should ignore the actual law and seek instead outcomes you like. Well, once you let that genie out of the bottle, then a judge might disregard the law and seek an outcome <i>they</i> like, but <i>you</i> hate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I kept things interesting there.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In any case, if democracy is your concern, you shouldn't be farming our policy about to nine unelected justices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>15. This means women are no longer full citizens under the law.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">First, prior to this, the Supreme Court has blessed many restrictions on abortion, even since <i>Roe </i>and <i>Roe</i> itself explicitly endorsed many restrictions on abortion. Did those make women second class citizens? You're entitled to think so, but I don't think that is sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Second, what you have to understand--even if you don't agree with it--is that to these people abortion is murder. If you think abortion is murder, then why should women get a special privilege to murder another just because that person is in the womb? If you can imagine yourself subscribing to that worldview, it would actually be giving women a privilege to murder men never have.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">What women are seeking, then, is similar to a disability accommodation. I don't write that negatively--I am a disabled person, and that SAT hypothetical I wrote above was based on a lawsuit I had to file in real life, only the discrimination was based on disability and the test was the LSAT. But if you look at it like a sought after disability accommodation, I think that sheds some light.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sometimes in law, a general, neutral rule impacts someone--sometimes an entire group--differently than the general population. For instance, I know a guy who is deaf and reads lips and speaks. Throughout his entire life he had never lived on his own. He lived with his family until college, he lived with a roommate in college, and married while in college to the love of his life. And she died about two years ago, and suddenly he was on his own, for the first time in his life. And as tough as that was, then the Wuhan Flu hit and suddenly people were required by law to mask up. So he's trying to navigate a hearing world and suddenly he can't read anyone's lips. Yet most of the time when there are mask mandates, people act like there are no costs. Well, there are costs and they are not evenly distributed. It is one of the reasons why I oppose mask mandates--because it screws over deaf people who can read lips like my friend. Masks do <i>some</i> good, but their costs to outweigh the benefits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Obviously biology put the costs of child bearing on women to a much greater degree than men. I mean every time a man says to me, about him and his wife, "we are having a baby," I correct him. "No, <i>she's </i>having a baby. She's doing the heavy lifting. You're just trying to help." And I get that for women, the fear is that men are not properly accounting for the costs women bear. I mean I wish women who can legally abort would consider adoption more as an option, but I recognize that even just carrying a child to term and giving it away is a burden.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">(Now, you could turn that around and say "why are women like disabled people in this? Men are unable to have babies. That sounds more like a disability to me!" And that is fair, but the reason why I draw the metaphor to disability regards to child bearing is two fold. First, while a woman is carrying the child is often literally unable to do many of the things she normally does. And second, because there is no obvious cost to being unable to have children yourself (except perhaps psychologically), but there is a cost to women having children.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So I get in a deep way the suspicion women have about this, but in all frankness, they need to stop seeing things in a paranoid manner. The men are not conspiring to make women into sex slaves or some nonsense no more than the governors who impose mask mandates conspiring to screw over deaf people. The people--which includes many women--who don't want abortion to be available on demand simply believe that the fetus is a human being with value. And if you understand that--even if you don't agree with it--the pro-life position makes much more sense than some Handmaiden fever dream.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>16. Does this mean that a fetus in America is an American citizen? Does this mean that you can't deport an immigrant who got pregnant in America until she gives birth?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Now, you might also ask: "wait, no one is actually saying that." In fact, Charliss Chatman, an associate professor at Washington and Lee Law School asked pretty much exactly that. <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/carlissc/status/1126441510063542272">Read for yourself</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">And the Fourteenth Amendment answers this question: "All persons <i>born</i> or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (emphasis added). Your birthright citizenship depends on where you are <i>born.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>17. But if an unborn person is not a citizen, then they have no rights!</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Actually I see this mistake with regards to many rights and on both sides of the aisle. But the constitution is very clear that while citizens have some special rights, all persons have rights, regardless of whether they are citizens. For instance, in the same fourteenth amendment "persons"--not citizens--are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and property, and it says the state cannot deprive you of those rights without due process of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>18. Does this mean that if a man gets a woman pregnant, he has to support her?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well, you can't force a man to remain in a relationship, but many states do require the biological father to pay his share of the costs of prenatal care. You should check your local laws, and, in my opinion, if your locality doesn't do this, it should. And that should include back pay when appropriate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>19. Does this mean child support begins at the first heartbeat?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I would think that a rational regime where a man is required to support a woman throughout pregnancy, would cover these costs. I mean, to the extent that a woman eats for two, for instance, he should be helping her out with those costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">---------------</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">And that, dear reader, is all the concerns I can think of. I'm sure there are more out there, but hopefully I cleared up some misconceptions about this law. If you continue to oppose it, at least you will do so in a more informed manner. I mean, frankly, this is not quite my policy preference either, although I am more pro-life than current precedent allows.</p>A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-49470665119844433672021-08-31T00:09:00.000-04:002021-08-31T00:09:19.992-04:00Why Denying Hospital Beds to the Unvaccinated is a Terrible Idea<p style="text-align: justify;">Several times on Twitter I have seen the notion that in emergency medicine people who have not received one of the Wuhan Flu* vaccines either should not receive treatment, or should be demoted in triage. For instance, Allapundit once reacted to a <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2021/08/19/if-north-texas-runs-out-of-icu-hospital-beds-doctors-can-consider-a-patients-vaccination-status/">story</a> that this was happening in North Texas--before they declared it would not occur--by <a href="https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/1428467054630391810">writing</a>: "why shouldn’t a grandma who got her shots lose a bed to someone who convinced themselves that the vaccine has a microchip in it[?]" But he is hardly the only one, and I thought it was important to explain why this is a monumentally bad idea.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Now, before I begin, let me tell you where I come from on the WuFlu vaccine. I have taken it. I believe in most cases, you should probably take it if you doctor recommends this. In all frankness, I am a lawyer, not a doctor and all I can say with reasonable certainty is that your doctor is probably the best person to advise you. But I believe that for most of you dear readers, your doctor will tell you the benefits outweigh the risks of getting the vaccine. But I am also against coercion when it comes to the vaccine--no one should be forced to get it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">My first problem with this is wondering why are we singling out this one issue? People engage in risky behavior that endanger themselves and others all the time. Do you smoke? Then you increase your chances of lung cancer, heart problems and a bunch of other health problems . Plainly cigarette smokers have decided to risk their health for the pleasure of smoking (I say as a non-smoker but also without judgement). And most people drive and by driving you expose yourself constantly to severe risks of accidents. Even if you are a good driver, not everyone is. Furthermore, most people drink, risking harm to themselves and others for the pleasure of that substance. And of course if you not only drink but own a car, statistically speaking, your risk of getting hurt go up even further. Or perhaps you have unprotected sex? Well, then if you get AIDS, are we going to deny you treatment for that? And really, there are hundreds of things we do that might have an effect on our risk of harm to ourselves and others.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have seen at least one person say that the Wuhan Virus is different because it is contagious. First, when discussing whether or not a person should be denied treatment because he or she refused to take the vaccine, that has nothing to do with the question. The theory is that that he or she is in the hospital because of their own allegedly poor choices, and so they should be denied care or demoted in triage.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Second, while a car accident is not contagious, it can still hurt third parties--many of whom do not in any sense consent to the risk. So do the harms that flow from smoking or drinking. Third, obviously, AIDS is a communicable disease--just not as easily communicable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">But even if we accept that we should consider whether or not a person is vaccinated, surely we are not going to punish people who, for medical reasons, <i>should not</i> take the vaccine, right?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">For instance, earlier this month, Pete Parada, the drummer for the punk band The Offspring, was fired because he refused to get vaccinated. He explained why not as <a href="https://variety.com/2021/music/news/offspring-drummer-vaccinated-tour-1235033959/">follows</a>:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">Given my personal medical history and the side-effect profile of these jabs, my doctor has advised me not to get a shot at this time. I caught the virus over a year ago, it was mild for me — so I am confident I’d be able to handle it again, but I’m not so certain I’d survive another post-vaccination round of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which dates back to my childhood and has evolved to be progressively worse over my lifetime. Unfortunately for me (and my family — who is hoping to keep me around a bit longer) the risks far outweigh the benefits.”</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I mean, you can read about what the CDC says about Guillain-Barré Syndrome, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/campylobacter/guillain-barre.html#:~:text=Guillain%2DBarr%C3%A9%20(Ghee%2DYAN,some%20have%20permanent%20nerve%20damage.">here</a>, but if this is true, this sounds like an entirely reasonable reason not to take the vaccine, right? Surely we wouldn't want to punish him for this utterly reasonable decision--especially since he had the disease before and is likely to have natural immunity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So if you agree that a man like Mr. Parada shouldn't face this discrimination, then what exactly are you picturing in the E.R.? How do you expect to separate the vaccinated, from the reasonably unvaccinated and the unreasonably vaccinated?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Do we expect a vaccine passport <i>in the E.R.</i>, with exemptions. So here the person is, sick enough that they have come to the hospital. I don't know about you, but I don't go to the hospital lightly. When I go, I go in because I am in really bad shape. And at a moment like that you expect me to have proof of vaccination, or a valid excuse not to get vaccinated? Right now, I have a piece of paper saying that I have been vaccinated. Frankly, would be child's play to forge it--and if you don't think people will forge them if they matter, you are kidding yourself. Moreover, I don't keep it with me--I keep it in a safe place where I don't worry about it being destroyed--but that means I might find myself in a situation where I am sick enough to go to the hospital and too sick to retrieve it. And, moreover, it would be very easy for a genuinely vaccinated person to accidentally destroy it--for instance, if you are caught out in a downpour when it is in your pockets.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So, what would they do? Turn it into miniature trial in the E.R.? "Mr. Walker, you stand accused of not having been vaccinated without valid excuse. How do you plea?" If I have it at home, will life saving treatment be denied to me while I am forced to retrieve it? And what if I am too sick to drive? Surely no cab company would want to pick up a person who actually has the WuFlu, even if they are masking and socially distancing in the cab.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The fact is if you are sick enough to go to the hospital, you are rarely in the best state to gather evidence and make a case for yourself. Alternatively, I guess we could give you a free lawyer--your life is on the line, after all--which would be great for my profession (more work!), but its pretty incompatible with providing timely care. We try not to delay justice too long in the legal profession, but "speedy" in the law, and "speedy" in medicine are two very different concepts. And even then, the lawyer would have to be willing to expose him or herself to the danger of catching the Wuhan Virus and that lawyer still might not be capable of locating the relevant evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">And that's just for vaccinations. If we decide to judge you for all of the life choices that might have put you in the hospital--drinking, smoking, unprotected sex and so on--this could end up being very complicated at a time when decisions on treatment need to be made quickly. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So maybe you are starting to understand that independent determination of vaccinated status is a terrible idea, but maybe you would retreat to "what if they just admitted it? What if they admitted they didn't have the vaccine, and didn't have a good excuse for not getting it?" That would eliminate the due process problems of such an approach, but it creates a new problem. You see if the patient thinks he or she might be denied care based on their answer, <i>they might not tell the truth.</i> And in a life or death situation, the people treating the patient need the most accurate answer as quickly as possible. It is precisely for this reason that we can't force your doctor to testify against you most of the time**--so that you can tell your doctor the truth about your health without worrying about it coming out in court. The vaccines not only reduce the chances you will get the WuFlu, but allegedly reduce its severity, so it seems logical to think a truthful answer to the question "did you get a vaccine?" might be vital.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In short, denying treatment to the unvaccinated is a bad idea through and through. We should not be adding judgmentalism to emergency medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">------------------</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* I refuse to call this plague anything that doesn't call attention to the <i>fact</i> that this came from China, and, judging by the regime's attempt to cover up the disease and its refusal to cooperate in the investigation of its origins, the high probability that it is somehow the fault of this murderous regime.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">** Of course, I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice. I believe the doctor-patient privilege exists throughout the United States, but you should consult your local law and possibly even a lawyer to determine 1) whether it exists, 2) what requirements are necessary to invoke it, and 3) what exceptions might apply.</p>A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-62250850028129981042020-10-27T21:06:00.003-04:002020-10-27T22:01:07.029-04:00Evidence That Joe Biden Has a Serious Cognitive Problem<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">About a month ago on Twitter, I
started a thread that I called in a tongue-in-cheek manner #Bidementia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here’s the tweet that started it:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Okay, guys, I’m going to start a NEW FEATURE in my feed, which I am going to call <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bidementia?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Bidementia</a><br /><br />It is going to be a thread I’m going to try to keep going until the election showing moments where <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> appears to not know where he is and what he is doing.<br /><br />Thread</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1305600615524052995?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> <span></span></o:p></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The purpose of that thread was to
gather strong evidence of a simple point: something is wrong with Joe Biden,
mentally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have kept that up for well
over a month, and intend to keep it up until at least election day, adding new
information daily with only a few missed days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But as I went on, I realized that the information I was presenting was
chaotic and disorganized, because I couldn’t do things like go back and put
information closer together that relates to each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So the purpose of this post is to organize
that information, to give you a “cleaner” presentation of the same evidence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Before I begin, let me set a few
ground rules for how I am proceeding:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I AM SPEAKING AS A LAY
PERSON</b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although I used the term
#Bidementia, alluding to dementia, I repeatedly said I was not making a
diagnosis and I wasn’t qualified to make such a diagnosis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have no training in any medical field.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But lay people can see when
something is seriously wrong with another person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any person who has cared for an elderly person
can start to see when it is clear that they are not remembering something or
they don’t know exactly where they are and what they are doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, as a lawyer, I have been required
sometimes to determine when it was appropriate to refer a criminal defendant
client of mine to psychological evaluation, possibly as a defense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That requires me to make a lay assessment
that this person has something wrong with him or her.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, I might not know what exactly
is wrong with Joe Biden, and you, dear reader, might not be qualified to guess,
but ordinary people can look at the behavior of others and say “I think
something is wrong with him or her.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
that person is family, you try to get that person to a doctor qualified to
treat him or her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the case of a
presidential candidate, it means we need an independent cognitive examination,
with the results disclosed to the public.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">That, frankly, should have
happened months ago with Joe Biden, but the media has failed to do its
job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A fair and honest media would have
held his feet to the fire on this topic until he committed to such an
independent analysis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, I
believe, frankly, that we have to reject Biden on principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cannot take the risk that we will end up
with fundamentally incompetent person in office.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">2. MY TARGET AUDIENCE IS PERSUADABLE VOTERS. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>I am hoping that this will be seen
primarily by undecided voters, people leaning toward Biden, even people who
feel pretty confident that they are voting for Biden—as long as those people
are open to new information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you are
a committed Trump voter, this is not for you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>At least not directly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, I
would ask people who have committed to Trump to share this information with
friends, family and neighbors who might be persuaded not to vote for Biden.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">3. I WILL LIMIT MYSELF TO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE</b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the purpose of this discussion is to
persuade, we need evidence that is, at the very least, hard to deny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In most cases, I will be using video clips,
so it will be a matter of believing what you see and hear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, in some cases, I will also use very
credible reporting—meaning reporting I expect to be credible to anyone who
leans left.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Finally, generally, I am not
going to talk here about his history of racism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So him telling a black man that if he doesn’t know to vote for him he
ain’t black isn’t going to make it into this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I am increasingly tempted to put that kind of information in another
post or thread, but it doesn’t belong here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">4. WE SHOULD HAVE COMPASSION FOR BIDEN.</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further, while I often engage in humor, in
the end the issue is actually sad.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
haven’t always agreed with Joe Biden—in fact, I rarely did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I never hated the man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And seeing what time has done to him is
simply sad.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I never wish harm on mere political
opponents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I always say that I pray that
my political opponents have a long and healthy life, increased wisdom, and,
failing that, an early retirement from politics or office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Biden’s case, he needs to retire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He’s worked for a long time and he deserves
to rest and unplug from politics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">5. I AM GOING TO AVOID ORDINARY GAFFES. </b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As long as I have been aware of Joe Biden, he
has been a “gaffe machine.” So, he might ask a man to stand up only to realize
belatedly he is in a wheelchair, but honestly, that could happen to any of us. He
might mispronounce a word—who hasn’t done that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And he often made what was known as Kinsley gaffes, defined as when a
politician accidentally tells us what he or she thinks is the truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But what I pay attention to is instances
where it suggests there is really something wrong with him.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">6. FOLLOW HYPERLINKS FOR SOURCES, USUALLY VIDEO. </b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I was tempted to embed every video I link to,
but, bluntly, I do not want to torture your computer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am going to embed the tweet videos hoping
not to make your computer groan too much, because people might have trouble
seeing tweet videos if they are not in Twitter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The rest of the time, I am going to include hyperlinks in the text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Also, please, if this post is too
hard to read because it asks too much of your computer, reach out to me and let
me know, preferably by twitter or parler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I am happy to create a version that is more digestible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So with those ground rules set,
let’s dive in.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>JOE BIDEN FORGETS THE NAMES OF VERY SIGNIFICANT PEOPLE IN HIS LIFE.<o:p></o:p></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Several times, Joe Biden has
forgotten the names of people he really shouldn’t ever forget.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Joe Biden has recently forgotten
Mitt Romney’s name.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You know, the guy
who ran against Obama in 2012, and was the only Republican to vote for Donald
Trump’s removal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here Biden is forgetting
Romeny’s name on October 12:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Biden forgets Romney’s name<br /><br />“I got in trouble when we were running against that senator who was a Mormon, the governor” <a href="https://t.co/h2oE4IBw4G">pic.twitter.com/h2oE4IBw4G</a></p>— Jewish Deplorable 🇺🇸 (@TrumpJew) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpJew/status/1315685979668312070?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And here he is doing it again nine
days later:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Biden to <a href="https://twitter.com/WISN12News?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WISN12News</a> on <a href="https://twitter.com/RonJohnsonWI?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RonJohnsonWI</a>'s Hunter Biden investigation<br /><br />"This is the same garbage -- Rudy Giuliani Trump's henchmen. It's a last-ditch effort in this desperate campaign to smear me and my family."<br /><br />"Ron should be ashamed of himself." <a href="https://t.co/cZ2vcKSh2r">pic.twitter.com/cZ2vcKSh2r</a></p>— Johnny Verhovek (@JTHVerhovek) <a href="https://twitter.com/JTHVerhovek/status/1318747300404002823?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And I don’t want to get
sidetracked, but he also says that there is no basis to believe that anyone in
his family has profited off of the Biden name, apparently forgetting that his
son admitted that this was true:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">FLASHBACK: Hunter Biden said he would “probably not” be on any foreign company boards if Joe Biden was not VP.<a href="https://t.co/cGPyXJ4sqW">pic.twitter.com/cGPyXJ4sqW</a> <a href="https://t.co/EBJrXfg524">https://t.co/EBJrXfg524</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1318934808039489536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And, really, claiming that Hunter
Biden got these sweetheart deals without any benefit from his family name never
passed the laugh test.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would have
assumed it was true even without evidence just based on how the world works.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But if you thought it was bad
that he forgot Mitt Romney’s name, then watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=DuMR1wdBFDI&feature=emb_title">this
video</a> and you will see him forget Barrack Obama’s name.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Twice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Mind you, you have to get through a few minutes of commentary to see
both clips, but they are there.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, he has forgotten Mitt
Romney’s name, he has forgotten Barrack Obama’s name and he seems to have
forgotten Donald Trump’s name, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First, we have him calling the president “John” and railing against him:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">WATCH: Joe Biden suddenly brings up a person name "John" and accuses him of avoiding what needs to be done <a href="https://t.co/p2JkYPzssh">pic.twitter.com/p2JkYPzssh</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1310005400171876353?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And then we have a more
controversial example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here he seems to
think the President is someone named George:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden confuses President Trump with George W. Bush: “because of who I’m running against…George, ah, George” <a href="https://t.co/ujAni2Q7Gh">pic.twitter.com/ujAni2Q7Gh</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1320546729503137794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I pointed out at the time that we
can’t assume he meant George W. Bush.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>George H.W. Bush seems an equally likely possibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean, when old people get confused, they
generally get confused about people and events in their own lifetime, and both
Presidents Bush were in his lifetime, and would it shock anyone if an old man
gets the two George Bushes confused?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I also joked that maybe he
thought he was running against George Washington.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, very quickly the mainstream
media leapt to Biden’s defense, which is why this example is more controversial
than the others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here’s what Dave Weigel
said:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">1.1 million views and a Fox story based on the premise that Biden was confusing Trump with George Bush. <br /><br />He was talking to George Lopez. (Clip in next tweet) <a href="https://t.co/Y0poyu0ejS">pic.twitter.com/Y0poyu0ejS</a></p>— Dave Weigel, Re-Animator (@daveweigel) <a href="https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1320765883405520900?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="und"><a href="https://t.co/4xGDkklo5E">pic.twitter.com/4xGDkklo5E</a></p>— Dave Weigel, Re-Animator (@daveweigel) <a href="https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1320766181637263366?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">First, the longer only adds the
fact that Biden was talking to George Lopez, but the words don’t make any more
sense if you imagine he was talking about Mr. Lopez.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean the line is “four more years of
George, uh, George, he, uh, gonna find ourselves...”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So if we pretend he meant Lopez, he’s talking
about “four more years of George Lopez.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">We are not voting next week on on
whether George Lopez has a job, okay?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And certainly Jill Biden thought
that Joe was trying to say Trump, because you can see her saying “Trump” under
her breath as he struggles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Dave Rubin makes a similar point to
mine a different way:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Lots of “journalists” saying that Biden mean “George Lopez” earlier, as of that makes it better. <br /><br />So I added “George Lopez” to exactly what Biden said.<br /><br />You let me know if this makes any freaking sense... <a href="https://t.co/jaGMxZ1W8e">pic.twitter.com/jaGMxZ1W8e</a></p>— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) <a href="https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1320866352010199040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And even with the defense, it is
still video of Biden completely losing his train of thought on television.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">JOE BIDEN DOESN’T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT OFFICE HE IS RUNNING FOR, WHO IS
CURRENTLY PRESIDENT, WHERE HE IS OR WHAT YEAR IT IS<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For starters, Joe Biden has said
that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqS4m-8B4IQ&feature=emb_title">he
is running for the senate, not the presidency</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Twice:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden: "I'm running as a proud Democrat for the Senate" <a href="https://t.co/7LTFdJQMgF">pic.twitter.com/7LTFdJQMgF</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1315717708734959619?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">That last example is from October
12, 2020.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">It only gets stranger on this
point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On September 14, he said he was
running for reelection to… something.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Umm... Joe Biden just touted the actions of "the Obama-Biden Administration" and said "this is just the beginning if we get re-elected." <a href="https://t.co/v5h002ZuzT">pic.twitter.com/v5h002ZuzT</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1305577782353760256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I mean, break that down for a
moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Right now, he holds no public
office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His last public office was Vice
President.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, what is he seeking
re-election to?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Does he think it is 2012 and he
and Obama are running for re-election?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Or does he think he is already
President and seeking a second term?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In the next clip, we see a
similar problem: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">WATCH: A confused Joe Biden appeared to be reliving his 2012 campaign during an interview in Iowa this week, touting a current policy plan "we proposed ... the President and I."<a href="https://t.co/UHF2TfnpWd">https://t.co/UHF2TfnpWd</a> <a href="https://t.co/eu9sAZqOx2">pic.twitter.com/eu9sAZqOx2</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1190391367773634560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 1, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Let’s break that down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Biden talks about the “President and I,”
proposing something that Donald Trump hasn’t proposed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Honestly, I think the only way the clip makes
sense is if he thinks somehow Obama is the president and he is still playing
“wingman” to him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But you can make up
your own mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But certainly something
is really off in Joe Biden’s mind.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The possibility that Joe Biden
thinks he is currently Vice President is also suggested by this next video in
which Joe Biden says <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=1s84R5u8-bI&feature=emb_title">he
was Vice President during the Parkland school shooting.</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School occurred on February 14, 2018, two years after he left office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seriously, don’t gloss over the link.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Go watch it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He is telling a whole story about what he remembers happening at that
time <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">when he was Vice President and the
shooting occurred</i>, despite the fact that it didn’t actually happen that way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is this a hallucinated memory?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t know, and I can’t think of any
explanation that makes me <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">more</i> likely
to think he is qualified to be president.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Finally, we have an appearance
Biden made in Nevada, where he said he was in Arizona, despite the fact that
there is a flag next to him that says Nevada on it:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">After dodging a question about packing the Supreme Court during an interview in Las Vegas, Joe Biden addresses “Arizona”<br /><br />Biden forgot what state he was in... again. <br /> <a href="https://t.co/XeElCHRjLg">pic.twitter.com/XeElCHRjLg</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1314723034805211136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But, to be fair, his twitter
account also seemed to get confused about where he was, too: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Even Joe Biden's Twitter account doesn't know what state Joe Biden is in. <a href="https://t.co/MXY0bqcx4f">pic.twitter.com/MXY0bqcx4f</a></p>— Andrew Clark 🎃 (@AndrewHClark) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewHClark/status/1315707739377672195?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, that one is presented more
as humor than a serious argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After
all, I don’t think he writes very much of anything that appears on his twitter
account.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it is amusing, anyway.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>BIDEN HAS TROUBLE WITH NUMBERS<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Another issue is that keeps
cropping up is that Biden often wildly overstates (and occasionally
understates) numbers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With all of this,
it is usually useful to remember that there are currently approximately 330
million people living in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I
will occasionally call them Americans, even though many aren’t citizens.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So for starters, Joe Biden
promised to create <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXwbbVZd1c&feature=emb_title">720
million new jobs for women</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or is
that a good thing?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are about 160
million women in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So in order to
fill those positions, the average woman will have to take about 4.5 jobs—and of
course, many women are not able to work due to age or disability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Well, in any case the issue is
moot, because we are all dead, anyway.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
honestly don’t know how I am writing this, because according to Joe Biden, we
have all died, some of us more than once.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For instance, according to Joe Biden <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyFKCRCVT28&feature=emb_title">150
million Americans have died of gun violence</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So that leaves only 180 million people left
after that carnage, give or take.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, briefly, you might have
hoped that most of those people would have avoided dying of Covid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And at first, we did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Biden initially reported that that only 600K
people had died of it in America:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden’s coronavirus death count is only slightly off by... 540,000 people. 🥴 <a href="https://t.co/PBndtNrWp6">pic.twitter.com/PBndtNrWp6</a></p>— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) <a href="https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/1256215136278392839?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">(it was actually closer to 60K at
that time.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But the next month, I guess
things took a dark turn, because in June <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/06/26/joe-biden-wrongly-says-we-have-120-million-dead-from-covid/">he
said</a> that 120 million more Americans had died of Covid 19.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, he claimed that we had lost millions
of lives and millions of jobs due to Covid:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden: "We're in the middle of a pandemic that has cost us more than 85,000 jobs as of today. Lives of millions of people, millions of people, millions of jobs." <a href="https://t.co/P4b2CA27Yf">pic.twitter.com/P4b2CA27Yf</a></p>— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1261021660318179328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, we are down to only about 60
million Americans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh, except later, he
revised that number to 200 million Americans dead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden: “It’s estimated that 200 million people will die, probably by the time I finish this talk.”<br /><br />That’s nearly 2/3 of the U.S. population. <a href="https://t.co/lp23K11K3o">pic.twitter.com/lp23K11K3o</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1307752575354261505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And if you are keeping track that
means that not only is every American dead, but somehow an additional 20
million people are also dead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So maybe
they were zombies who died again? Vampires? Maybe some holy water was involved
as well as a member of the Belmont clan…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">(That’s a joke about the game
series Castlevania.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other news, I am
a nerd.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Joking aside, the real number was
closer to 200K on that date.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And putting aside my decision to
put joking aside, I have good news: apparently it was less than that:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">at 9:21 in <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a>'s broadcast: “115,000 dead”. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JoeBidenIsSick?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JoeBidenIsSick</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DementiaJoeStrikesAgain?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DementiaJoeStrikesAgain</a><a href="https://t.co/CSJe84F0tA">https://t.co/CSJe84F0tA</a></p>— 4 more years of George, uh, George, uh (@noLoserThinkPls) <a href="https://twitter.com/noLoserThinkPls/status/1316175262078373893?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So previously, he said
(accurately) that the death toll was around 220K (in a clip I am not showing
you), so apparently about a hundred thousand previously dead people were
resurrected?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">He had a similar problem with
military infected and dead, which was noticed by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzzadzdWbbc&feature=emb_title">Sky News
in Australia</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Indeed, really, Joe Biden can’t
keep his numbers straight with Covid-19 at all:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden calls the coronavirus "covid-9." (It's covid-19.)<br /><br />He has no clue what is going on! <a href="https://t.co/oe0wmuvEGY">pic.twitter.com/oe0wmuvEGY</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1285884640214036480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Of course, he also has problems
with other numbers, such as how much money he has made:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden made $15.6 MILLION in the two years after he left office.<br /><br />But he thought nothing of lying to Detroit workers recently, claiming that $400,000 "is more money than I’ve ever made." <a href="https://t.co/CkIcRuYbOP">pic.twitter.com/CkIcRuYbOP</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1308130835095269379?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I mean, the tweet I’m quoting
says Biden is lying, but my gut says he forgot—especially given the evidence
that he might think he is currently Vice President that I provided above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But you decide for yourself, dear reader.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Additionally, when Biden was on
60 Minutes, he also grossly underestimated the cost of his “free” college plan:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden confuses his agenda in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/60Minutes?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#60Minutes</a> interview: "Biden's staff told us he misspoke"<br /> <a href="https://t.co/Eewxlthof2">pic.twitter.com/Eewxlthof2</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1320527287922630657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">You can see more journalistic
coverage, breaking down the issue, <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-staff-tells-60-minutes-he-misspoke-in-saying-free-college-would-cost-150-billion/">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>JOE BIDEN GETS WEIRD ABOUT BLACK WOMEN IN THE SENATE<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">There aren’t many clips on this
topic, but things get pretty weird when it comes to Joe Biden and black women
in the senate.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In our first clip, we go back to
the fight over the nomination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In one
debate, there are a number of democrats on stage, but you really only have to
know about two of them (besides Biden): Cory Booker and Kamala Harris.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Harris was destined to be Biden’s running
mate, but at the time, she was running for the nomination as president.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, it was more than a little weird when Joe
Biden claimed that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBpBHGXqepY&feature=emb_title">he had
the endorsement of the only black woman ever elected to the senate</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you watch the clip, you might pick up that
there have in fact been two black women elected to the senate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first was Carol Moseley Braun and the
second being Mrs. Harris.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">As if that statement is not
puzzling enough, we later <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPWkoCOBz0Q&feature=emb_title">see
Joe Biden say that as President he would appoint the first black woman to the
Senate</a>—which is wrong for two reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First, as we just mentioned there have already been two black women in
the Senate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, Presidents don’t
appoint senators.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, at one point he forgot Harris
was a senator, and then he forgot there were any black women elected to the
senate, despite the fact one ran against him and the other was involved in a
prior gaffe?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>JOE SEES AND HEARS DEAD PEOPLE<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The title of this category is a
little tongue-and-cheek, but the issue is serious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Two times, Joe Biden claimed to have had
conversations or interactions that are impossible, because one of the
participants were dead.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For instance, he has said that he
worked with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=krXo-Jzj1Lg&feature=emb_title">Deng
Xiaoping on the Paris Climate Accord</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Except that agreement was first drafted in 2015 and agreed to in 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And Deng died in 1997 (and promptly began to
roast in Hell).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And while the first example had
video, in this case I have reliable reporting that Biden said privately in May
that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is worried about
Trump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As in she was at the moment
presently concerned about the man.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Except of course, she died in
2013.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">My sources are both <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-mistakenly-claims-margaret-thatcher-who-died-in-2013-is-worried-about-trump">Fox
News</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/joe-biden-gaffes.html">New
York Times</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And really, if the New
York Times reports anything negative about a democrat, it is usually true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>JOE FORGETS AND FORGETS AND FORGETS…<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Next up, we have just a bunch of
instances where Joe Biden just forgets one thing after another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For starters, in this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3G52Bjirho&feature=emb_title">clip</a>
Joe Biden forgets the Declaration of Independence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I mean, I don’t knock him for
adding the word “women” into it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I only
knock him for when he pretty much forgets the rest.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">On another occasion, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qEIG7cx3Uc&feature=emb_title">he
mashed together the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please note that the title of the video and
its description is wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But then
again, the guy who wrote that isn’t running for President.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Previously, I noted that he said
he negotiated on the Paris Climate Accord with a dead man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8AMW0ueOVo&feature=youtu.be">clip</a>,
he confuses that agreement with the Paris Peace Accords, which ended the
Vietnam War.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Similarly, in this clip he
confused Iran and Iraq, even while reading from notecards:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Fresh Biden gaffe here: Joe talks about number of U.S. troops who've died "in Iran and Afghanistan," even while reading from notes <a href="https://t.co/hOHVxpgFN2">https://t.co/hOHVxpgFN2</a> <a href="https://t.co/LzUVIv053x">pic.twitter.com/LzUVIv053x</a></p>— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) <a href="https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1305957169284747266?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">On another occasion, he forgets
the word “mailbox”:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden pushes the “Trump is stealing the Mailboxes” Conspiracy Theory — Forgets the word Mailbox <a href="https://t.co/Uhy7kpuBxE">pic.twitter.com/Uhy7kpuBxE</a></p>— Benny (@bennyjohnson) <a href="https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1306755091320446976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The next example requires a
little context.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You see, over thirty
years ago, <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/18/joe-biden-resurrects-false-college-claim-that-helped-ruin-his-1988-presidential-run/">Joe
Biden falsely claimed he was the first in his family to go to college</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In September, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHZRqhg8vPs&feature=youtu.be">he
repeated the same claim</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Was he just
habitually lying? Was he forgetting it wasn’t the truth?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I honestly don’t know.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Speaking of college, and the
question of whether he is forgetful or lying… <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/09/27/delaware-state-university-denies-that-joe-biden-was-a-student/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons">Biden
claimed he “got started” at Delaware State University</a>, a historically black
university.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The university says he never
went there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So is he lying or confused?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I’ll remind you that he
previously seemed to imagine conversations with dead people or otherwise
impossible interactions with some detail, so…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>who knows?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Next up, he forgets the term
“main street lending” and the host has to prompt him:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Awkward. MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle just had to help Joe Biden remember what he’s talking about after he loses his train of thought <a href="https://t.co/5u49j8P9zU">pic.twitter.com/5u49j8P9zU</a></p>— TV News HQ (@TVNewsHQ) <a href="https://twitter.com/TVNewsHQ/status/1309908236598996994?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Next up, Biden forgets the term
“Biden-Bernie Manifesto”:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden put together a unity platform with far-left radical Bernie Sanders.<br /><br />This communist manifesto copies Sanders's plan word for word. No wonder Joe Biden can't remember it! <a href="https://t.co/KhxkqzkwCX">pic.twitter.com/KhxkqzkwCX</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1311373174907559936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And after that, he forgets how
long he has been alive:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">WATCH: Joe Biden misreads the teleprompter: "I got to the Senate 180 years ago" <a href="https://t.co/tPtHHtNlcq">pic.twitter.com/tPtHHtNlcq</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1309930188730511360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Jesus, maybe he really thinks he
is running against George Washington...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Next up, Biden is either lying,
or he doesn’t remember what his own website says about the Green New Deal:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden is either lying or can't remember what his own website says about the Green New Deal. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BidenTownHall?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BidenTownHall</a><br /><br />Biden's website says: "Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face." <a href="https://t.co/DXny6bBGCI">pic.twitter.com/DXny6bBGCI</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1316942405426434054?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And for the record, as of this
writing, it still says that the <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/">Green
New Deal is a crucial framework</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For our next example, we don’t
have video but we do have <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7322877/Joe-Biden-condemns-shootings-Houston-Michigan-actually-happened-El-Paso-Ohio.html">reliable
reporting</a> stating that he mixed up shootings that took place in El Paso,
Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, and instead says they took place in Houston, Texas and
somewhere in Michigan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And in one particularly egregious
example, he forgets how many grandkids he has:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden incorrectly says he has 5 grandchildren, then confuses their ages. <br /><br />Free Beacon: “By all scientific and legal standards, former vice president Joe Biden has seven grandchildren.”<a href="https://t.co/4cBPPU2U6h">https://t.co/4cBPPU2U6h</a><a href="https://t.co/9TYrR26nrz">pic.twitter.com/9TYrR26nrz</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1320113385363693577?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, mind you, I give him a
mulligan on forgetting the seventh kid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As I understand it, there has been a paternity dispute between Hunter
and the child’s mother. So maybe Joe Biden was omitting that child because he
didn’t want to undermine his son’s legal case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But there is no such excuse for leaving out the sixth grandchild.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">BIDEN’S MASK FOLLIES<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">This one is pretty simple: Joe
Biden has trouble with facemasks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, masks
can be controversial with some.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think
they do some good but their advocates overestimate their effectiveness, but I
am going to completely sidestep the issue by saying this: whatever value they
have, they are almost completely defeated if you aren’t covering the nose.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In other words, there isn’t much
point in wearing a mask if you aren’t doing it right.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And as I wrote this, I started
noticing that Joe Biden was having problems with that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, there is no verbal gaffe in
this clip, but watch how the mask constantly comes off Biden’s face, often
exposing two nostrils:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">WATCH: Joe Biden yet AGAIN refuses to say if he will pack the Supreme Court with radical left-wing judges.<br /><br />Preserving the credibility of the Supreme Court is not "Trump's game." It's in America's best interest. <a href="https://t.co/5wBc9cMfGf">pic.twitter.com/5wBc9cMfGf</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1311795466175221762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And while there is no gaffe, this
is one of many examples of Joe Biden dodging the question of whether he would
engage in court-packing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, the next video has something
I would call a gaffe, where Joe Biden says that the reason he was able to stay
home during the pandemic is because Black women were able to keep the grocery
shelves stocked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Go to roughly 1:41:00
in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4oKoqvK5hY&feature=emb_title">this
video.</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Previously, I said I wouldn’t
bring up racism specifically, but at this point if he hasn’t figured out to be
more careful, you have to wonder how much of a full deck he is playing with.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But the topic of this section is
Mask Follies, and that’s the other point in showing you this video.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Watch Biden’s mask as he talks, constantly
falling off the nose.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Similarly, in this clip Biden is
getting confused between PPP and PPE, and that is also useful to the
overarching point of this post.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But also
notice that the mask is never over his nose:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">WATCH: Biden again confuses PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) with PPE (personal protective equipment). <a href="https://t.co/wekXKE9K6g">pic.twitter.com/wekXKE9K6g</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1314694297510440961?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And finally, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">oh my good God:</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">You can't make this up.<br /><br />Joe Biden just removed his mask to cough in his hand.<br /><br />Talk about unsanitary! <a href="https://t.co/4rwJvHA3LS">pic.twitter.com/4rwJvHA3LS</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1314688491368964098?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Again, there is no point in
wearing a mask if you don’t do it properly.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">BIDEN IS DAZED AND CONFUSED<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The next examples involve
instances when Joe Biden looks confused and/or is visibly struggling with what
to say.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, for instance, we have this
statement made on the night Ginsburg died (may she rest in peace).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was no gaffe I detected, but look how
he goes from good moments to bad moments, sometimes struggling to speak,
sometimes clinging to his notes like a life preserver in the middle of the
ocean, and sometimes he actually sounds pretty sharp.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">"Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for all of us," Joe Biden says, following her passing. <a href="https://t.co/UOOiOEjFei">https://t.co/UOOiOEjFei</a><br /><br />"She practiced the highest American ideals as a justice." <a href="https://t.co/blnMOzft8m">pic.twitter.com/blnMOzft8m</a></p>— ABC News (@ABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1307135968223391747?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">You see a similar phenomenon
here, with Biden closing his eyes at one point as if struggling to concentrate:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Bruh this is just sad. <a href="https://t.co/mFt0WYWVe7">pic.twitter.com/mFt0WYWVe7</a></p>— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) <a href="https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1306914222601695233?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I’ll let “Not the Bee” introduce
this clip:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Honestly thought Biden was having a serious medical episode during this speech <a href="https://t.co/rKMsQREHTV">https://t.co/rKMsQREHTV</a> <a href="https://t.co/Tbtd6kBNVv">pic.twitter.com/Tbtd6kBNVv</a></p>— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) <a href="https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1308772521194520576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And while I don’t agree with all
of the commentary provided by this tweeter (misuse of the word “treason” has
become a real pet peeve for me), the video shows Biden just in a state of
confusion, and even making a weird gaffe (“I will make an educator”):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Treasonous Criminal Corrupted Democrat Joe Biden gets confused by the teleprompter: "I will make an educator?" <a href="https://t.co/xwvlOrnF7U">pic.twitter.com/xwvlOrnF7U</a></p>— Anti-terrorism (@Vladimi81231035) <a href="https://twitter.com/Vladimi81231035/status/1310996706662789121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Similarly, he gave kind of a
“shouty” speech the other day, but what I want to highlight in the next two
clips is his demeanor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At time he seems
to be mindlessly reading from the teleprompter, sometimes with little sense he
even knows what words are coming out of his mouth. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">How does this Biden gaffe even happen? <a href="https://t.co/iDDviFa737">https://t.co/iDDviFa737</a> <a href="https://t.co/VPOMOqCa2Y">pic.twitter.com/VPOMOqCa2Y</a></p>— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) <a href="https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1317299440256995328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 17, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden, while RAGE yelling, says "unions built the middle class, no matter what your ace, rage, or gender." <a href="https://t.co/LlvJvQKSlD">pic.twitter.com/LlvJvQKSlD</a></p>— Ella Mizrahi (@EllaMizrahi12) <a href="https://twitter.com/EllaMizrahi12/status/1317242290495160322?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I wrote at the time that these
two clips are “some of the creepiest stuff I have posted.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Truly a moment where the lights are on, but
no one seems to be home.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean in the
second one, he doesn’t even seem to realize how nonsensical it is to say “ace,
rage or gender.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">We can see another example of
Biden just seeming confused, here:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden is confused 😂😂😂😂<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JoeBidenIsUnableToLead?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JoeBidenIsUnableToLead</a> <a href="https://t.co/w2XR3lMXLJ">pic.twitter.com/w2XR3lMXLJ</a></p>— GermanyTRUMP🇺🇲🇩🇪 (@GermanyTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/GermanyTrump/status/1310320903352455169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And in this clip, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d909fQVgw7M&feature=emb_title">you
can see him struggling to speak and actually wandering off camera.</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">God, this is probably the most
depressing category here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Send him home, America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You will be doing him a favor.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Next up, in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IrZXz_22rk&feature=emb_title">this
clip</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iga7pttpDIw&feature=emb_title">that
clip</a>, we see examples of Joe Biden losing his train of thought, as we do
here:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Good God. This is so bad. What is he saying?! <a href="https://t.co/qBs7YMvZZ4">pic.twitter.com/qBs7YMvZZ4</a></p>— Henry Rodgers (@henryrodgersdc) <a href="https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1306766275427827712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And here:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">While <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> is solving world peace in the Middle East, Joe Biden is doing his thing on the campaign trail to try to sell us he needs to be POTUS in 2020. Wow... <a href="https://t.co/FvRqfVFEiy">pic.twitter.com/FvRqfVFEiy</a></p>— CJTRUTH (@cjtruth) <a href="https://twitter.com/cjtruth/status/1306026630377242630?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">During the first debate, Joe
Biden says he doesn’t oppose the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme
Court, and then he says he’s against it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Joe Biden on Judge Amy Coney Barrett: "I’m not opposed to the justice."<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Debates2020?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Debates2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/XdLUTFqbs7">pic.twitter.com/XdLUTFqbs7</a></p>— Team Trump (Text VOTE to 88022) (@TeamTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1311112287416209409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I don’t have video of him saying
he is against it during the debate, but I do have footage of him saying later
on that it is unconstitutional for Trump to nominate and confirm Mrs. Barrett
to the Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a lawyer, I
assure you this position is nonsense:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Biden is again asked why voters don’t deserve to know his views on court packing. He responds: “The only court packing going on right now is going on with Republicans packing the court right now ... I’m going to stay focused on it so we don’t take our eyes off the ball here." <a href="https://t.co/E9H5rIXMX2">pic.twitter.com/E9H5rIXMX2</a></p>— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) <a href="https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1315001442437079042?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I mean, this is post is not going
to get into the question of whether it is wise or fair play to confirm her, or
if Merrick Garland deserved to be on the court, or at least deserved an up or
down vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But there is no serious
argument it is unconstitutional to confirm Barrett, and Joe Biden was once a
lawyer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He might still be a lawyer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But you don’t forget something this basic, as
a lawyer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He should know better.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the fact he doesn’t is further evidence
of #Bidementia.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>BIDEN IS HIDIN’<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">As I wrote my daily thread, I
started noticing the issue of “lids.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is when the campaign officially announces that Joe Biden is not
going to make any in-person appearances that day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, I was late to the issue, and probably
didn’t catch all the times the Biden campaign did that, but here are the ones I
did catch.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">The Biden campaign has called a lid at 8:35am, per pool. So we won’t see Joe Biden today.</p>— Pat Ward (@WardDPatrick) <a href="https://twitter.com/WardDPatrick/status/1307298187775037440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/25/biden-campaign-lid-trump-421824">He
also called one on September 24-25</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The Spectator reported that the
September 24 lid <a href="https://spectator.us/joe-biden-campaign-press-lid-2020-election/">was the
ninth that month</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Then he called one on <a href="https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/09/26/lid-watch-guess-what-joe-biden-wont-be-doing-again-today-bonus-wheres-cnns-curiosity/">September
26</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">This person attempted to track
the lids as of that date: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Tracking Biden Campaign Lid Calls for the month of September. (Date, time & what the pool reporters of the day wrote)<br /><br />Total so far → 10 lid calls<br />This week alone from 9/19-9/26 → 4 <a href="https://t.co/R4zBcrd5dn">pic.twitter.com/R4zBcrd5dn</a></p>— Mona Salama (@MonaSalama_) <a href="https://twitter.com/MonaSalama_/status/1309869356910882816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Another lid on September 28:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Biden campaign has called a lid at 9:52am.</p>— Pat Ward (@WardDPatrick) <a href="https://twitter.com/WardDPatrick/status/1310579433212870656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 28, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">October 4:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">The Biden campaign called a lid for in-person events at 9:16a ET.</p>— Kerry Picket (@KerryPicket) <a href="https://twitter.com/KerryPicket/status/1312752265728528387?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">October 14:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">The <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> campaign has called a LID today, but he'll be participating in a virtual fundraiser later today, per pooler <a href="https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SabrinaSiddiqui</a>.</p>— Nikki Schwab (@NikkiSchwab) <a href="https://twitter.com/NikkiSchwab/status/1316388952132198400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">On October 18 (a Sunday), we
learned that he called a lid until the next Thursday (the last debate).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">CBS's Ed O'Keefe on Face The Nation: "[Joe Biden] will not be seen again after today until Thursday night."<br /><br />REMINDER: Joe Biden and his campaign have not disputed the authenticity of the bombshell emails which detail the extensive corruption of the Biden family. <a href="https://t.co/obMn3QRxKS">pic.twitter.com/obMn3QRxKS</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1317844679891832832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">On October 25, nine days to go
before the election, the Joe Biden Twitter account said the following:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">9 days. Let’s go.</p>— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1320362476714795009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, as I said above, I don’t
believe that Joe Biden writes those tweets, but I do think it still highlights
how weird it was that he called a lid within a few hours, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nine days before the election</i>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">With nine days until Election Day, Biden has no in-person events today and his campaign has called a lid, per pooler <a href="https://twitter.com/katieglueck?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@katieglueck</a>.</p>— Thomas Kaplan (@thomaskaplan) <a href="https://twitter.com/thomaskaplan/status/1320388675885293568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Bluntly, I don’t think any major
presidential candidate has done this, since Presidential candidates started to
personally campaign for the Presidency (prior to Wilson, it was seen as
“unseemly” to actually run to be president, so campaigning was usually left to
surrogates, with only a handful of exceptions).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And really, the overall point
here is this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyone who has dealt with
elderly people who are losing their faculties knows that they have good days
and bad days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So think for a moment about
all of the other entries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every other
time we catch Joe Biden on video forgetting Barack Obama’s name, or how many
grandchildren he has, or telling us we have all died (but at least women have a
lot of job opportunities)…? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Those are the good days.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Those are the days when, as he
got ready to go out the door, his campaign looked at him and said, “yeah, he
will make a good impression on voters.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And if those are the good days,
what are the bad days like?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How bad is
he when they decide they can’t let him out the door?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">THE FINAL DEBATE<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In my mega-thread, I treated the
final debate differently than a lot of the other material, and I think I will
treat it the same here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, one thing I should say is
that during the first debate, we didn’t have a serious outbreak of
#Bidementia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I noted one weirdness, but
he was mostly fine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mentioned above how
elderly people who are losing their faculties often have good and bad days and
the first debate was a pretty good day in that respect.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And the final debate was a pretty
bad day in this respect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean, he
didn’t start clucking like a chicken and calling Trump Napoleon, but I do think
he was showing signs of mental difficulty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There aren’t many short, punchy video clips I can show you or link
to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But let me show you how I dealt with
the debate and you decide for yourself:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">And we are going to do something a little different today. I went to bed last night thinking that Joe Biden had not had a serious outbreak of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bidementia?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Bidementia</a>, and woke up thinking that cumulatively, he did.</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787908123983872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">But instead of giving you a small clip I am going to talk to you about what i saw in the debate last night and then, respectfully, I would ask you to watch again and judge for yourself. Do you see what I see?</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787914730049539?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">So I will first tell you what I see, generally, with some time stamps, screen caps and even portions of the transcript to help me. And what I saw came in several categories: signs of distress or pain, signs of anger, forgetfulness and making ill-advised statements.</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787919540948994?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">And for your reference, the video I am using is this video from Cspan: <a href="https://t.co/mWLtjPvJPO">https://t.co/mWLtjPvJPO</a><br /><br />The transcript I am going to use is here: <a href="https://t.co/2pOd06LGdB">https://t.co/2pOd06LGdB</a><br /><br />But please note that the time stamps for the transcript does not line up with the video because of dead airtime</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787921906520064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">First, let’s talk about one overall issue with his face: for some reason his right side of his face was more expressive than the left. He is typically raising his right eyebrow, an his smiles are more on the right than the left. Is that a sign of reduced motor function?</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787924477665282?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">But lets get to something else: Biden’s periodic expressions of pain and distress. These are just four examples I caught where Biden closed his eyes for a moment, clearly concentrating, seemingly distressed. They are not isolated. Watch the video. He does this a lot. <a href="https://t.co/eIvFMnhET6">pic.twitter.com/eIvFMnhET6</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787932362878976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Additionally, he also got very angry a lot during the evening. Again, here are four representative examples, but he had many more. Watch the video and see it. And the anger might be a sign of his mental distress. <a href="https://t.co/4meGDaY3N4">pic.twitter.com/4meGDaY3N4</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787940789321730?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">And some more <a href="https://t.co/AtDur26pQe">pic.twitter.com/AtDur26pQe</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787948087398402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">And then there is the issue of forgetfulness. Several times he seemed to forget people’s names, even moments *in the debate*<br /><br />For starters, Biden seemed to forget the name of reporter Bob Woodward in this exchange: ⬇️<br /><br />This is at about 45:00 in the video and I urge you to... <a href="https://t.co/wVOQMNFaJC">pic.twitter.com/wVOQMNFaJC</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787956291440640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">...watch for yourself. Because no transcript would capture he way you can see him struggle as if he is trying to remember one of the two reporters credited for taking down Richard Nixon and immortalized in the movie “All the President’s Men.” He plainly forgot his name.</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787959332331520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">I mean, its not as bad when he forgot Obama’s name, but its bad.<br /><br />Then at 1:00:20ish in the video, you see him seem to forget the name of both Kim Jung Un and Xi Jinping. In the transcript it says: “He embraces guys like the thugs, like in North Korea and the Chinese president”</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787961085530114?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">But what the transcript doesn’t capture is how halting Biden’s words are, and you can tell he is struggling to remember their names.<br /><br />For the next one, we only need a line from the transcript. In the middle of a discussion of DACA, a program for illegal immigrants...</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787962801029120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">...presently in the United States, Joe Biden says this “They been here. Many of them are model citizens.” That’s right, in the middle of a discussion of illegal immigrants facing possible deportation, he calls them citizens.</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787964633915392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">And while I am not usually using short clips, we do have this clip of him forgetting that the organization that Trump denounced in the last debate was called the Proud Boys, calling them instead the Poor Boys.<br /><br />Creedence Clearwater Revival jokes ensued in my household. <a href="https://t.co/6PL6FapIkO">https://t.co/6PL6FapIkO</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787966412345351?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Next up, we have a screenshot from the transcript where Joe Biden apparently forgot part of the prior exchange and Trump corrected him live on television: ⬇️<br /><br />And Trump is right. He didn’t say he was Abraham Lincoln <a href="https://t.co/TBKkeWLJwB">pic.twitter.com/TBKkeWLJwB</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787972947042309?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">And then there are inappropriate statements, such as claiming no one lost their insurance under Obamacare (1:10:47 in the video). It is an established fact that many people lost their insurance because of Obamacare.</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787975824343040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Additionally, Biden claimed not only did he today support fracking, but he never opposed it. And this was proven wrong by that pro-Trump news outlet... [checks notes]... CNN: <a href="https://t.co/cAFyeHMfPv">https://t.co/cAFyeHMfPv</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787978135404544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">And finally, we have Joe Biden admitting he would end the oil industry. (The transcript I have been using says “old industry.” i disagree with that transcription.) <a href="https://t.co/KrEQJnH6nQ">https://t.co/KrEQJnH6nQ</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787980656156672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">It is ridiculous for Biden to believe anyone would buy that no one lost their insurance under Obamacare, or to challenge Trump to prove he opposed fracking and post it on the web. Did he forget about people losing their insurance? Did he forget his own words on fracking? <a href="https://t.co/oGrdwsPp81">https://t.co/oGrdwsPp81</a></p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787982807879680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">And then to say they were going to transition away from the oil industry. That’s not lying, so much as Joe Biden telling the truth, when he knows it is going to kill him in the election. And that, i believe, is evidence of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bidementia?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Bidementia</a>, too.</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787985248944129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">So watch the debate again, and see if you see what i see. The anger. The look of pain and concentration. The forgetfulness. And the inappropriate statements. He kept from being too obvious, but he was experiencing <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bidementia?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Bidementia</a> last night.</p>— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1319787987388026881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, that wraps up the debate,
let’s get to the next category.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">MISCELLANY <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">This category is for items that I
haven’t really categorized.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, one thing I have shied away
from is diagnosis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You know, because I
am not qualified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But my friend Ali
Alexander (also not a doctor decided) that he wanted to put out a hypothesis:
Parkinson’s disease.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, I’m not saying
he’s definitely right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He’s not even
saying that. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But he gathered a lot of
evidence on that topic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, check out
the <a href="https://joebidenissick.com/">website</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzY9g-kULpU&feature=emb_title">this
video</a>, and consider for yourself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
included a lot of information I had previously missed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">On the other hand, this guy is a
doctor and, while he has not purported to diagnose Biden, either, he agrees
with my bottom line: something is seriously wrong with the man.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">“I've taken care of three presidents during three administrations, and I know exactly what's required to sit in that seat at the Resolute Desk,” says former White House physician <a href="https://twitter.com/RonnyJackson4TX?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RonnyJackson4TX</a>.<br /> <br />“Biden is not prepared for that.” <a href="https://t.co/9MAjn6mRyt">pic.twitter.com/9MAjn6mRyt</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1316224191604166657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For the next item, this is
actually pretty funny: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Oh no he didn't!!! - Joe Biden: ‘You’re Trying Your Breast, But It Never Feels Like It’s Enough’ <a href="https://t.co/IhBFm4sskN">pic.twitter.com/IhBFm4sskN</a></p>— Alexandra Datig | Front Page Index (@alexdatig) <a href="https://twitter.com/alexdatig/status/1315056677142503424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And less funny is this clip where
Biden says that the police should shoot people who are charging them in the
leg:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Tonight Biden said that when confronted with deadly force, officers should "shoot 'em in the leg" <a href="https://t.co/8kmFwLUMiy">https://t.co/8kmFwLUMiy</a> <a href="https://t.co/cEN4VyMN21">pic.twitter.com/cEN4VyMN21</a></p>— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) <a href="https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1316932134104408065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Pretty much 90% of gun owners had
a heart attack listening to this, knowing that this advice is likely to get
people killed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if you don’t know,
I’ll let this expert <a href="https://www.guns.com/news/2011/07/14/why-shoot-center-mass">explain</a>,
but the short version is that if you have to shoot, you aim for what we call
center mass—essentially the middle of the chest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Because your appendages (including your head move around a lot more),
and because it is bigger target.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Next up, we see Joe Biden tell us
he has an extensive voter fraud organization:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">👀👀 <br /><br />Joe Biden brags about having “the most extensive and inclusive VOTER FRAUD organization in the history of American politics” <a href="https://t.co/PfkqrFXu7i">pic.twitter.com/PfkqrFXu7i</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1320107370312323073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, I don’t think this is a
confession as some have said.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I assume he
meant “anti-fraud” but #Bidementia took over.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But at the same time, you know
how the secret service will investigate any statement about killing the
president?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like you can tell an obvious
joke about killing the president and, if they get wind of it, they will knock
on your door.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The attitude is that they
never want to risk overlooking something and taking a rigid approach insulates
them from the claim that they are applying this law unevenly (if they apply the
law unevenly, the courts might refuse to allow them to enforce it at all under
the First Amendment).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Well, I think this is how we
should treat election fraud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Investigate
everything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Take every statement
seriously.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Have no sense of humor.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For the final two examples, we
first have Jill Biden on camera, and then Joe saying “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq3zxFx3hn4">I’m Joe Biden’s husband</a>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And if that is not cringy enough,
here’s Joe Biden talking about Kamala Harris’s “wife.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">WATCH: Joe Biden calls Doug Emhoff “Kamala’s wife” <a href="https://t.co/1XU3qT9OsR">pic.twitter.com/1XU3qT9OsR</a></p>— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1321079822693662721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Ehhhh...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2 style="break-after: auto; page-break-after: auto;">THEY KNOW THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">One question a reasonable person
might ask is, “do the liberals know any of this?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the answer seems to be “yes.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, every time the Biden campaign calls a
“lid” on campaign events, especially when they do it this excessively, it is a
silent confession that they know it is better to hide their candidate than to
risk sending him out there.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And there is another piece of
evidence that his campaign is aware of Biden’s mental problems and they are
aware that many other people are aware.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">When the latest news over Hunter
Biden first started to break, there was the allegation that Hunter Biden
arranged for Joe Biden to meet with a Mr. Pozharskyi.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the Biden campaign didn’t deny it so much
as say “it was not on his schedule.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">.<a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> spox Andrew Bates responds to <a href="https://twitter.com/nypost?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nypost</a> story on Hunter Biden <a href="https://t.co/DNT3odmANv">pic.twitter.com/DNT3odmANv</a></p>— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) <a href="https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1316424957694484481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The implicit message, it seems,
is that even if Joe Biden denied it happened, no one would believe his memory
is good enough to rule it out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
intuition was strengthened later when they acknowledged maybe it did happen
after all:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">“Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule.” <a href="https://t.co/M3VjfYhQj0">https://t.co/M3VjfYhQj0</a></p>— Jake Schneider (@jacobkschneider) <a href="https://twitter.com/jacobkschneider/status/1316509507246227457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And, incidentally, someone dug up
a photo of the two men together, found on some foreign embassy’s website.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But whether the story is true or not is not
the point: the fact that the Biden campaign didn’t dare attempt to rely on its
candidate’s memory is.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Additionally, look at this
negotiation over the rules of the first debate:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Good lord. <a href="https://t.co/35QrYEuUTT">pic.twitter.com/35QrYEuUTT</a></p>— Noam Blum (@neontaster) <a href="https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/1310945417866162178?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">No drug test?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Constant breaks?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Huh.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Further, during one of the
debates Julian Castro asked Biden if <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE2nUstHQOQ&feature=emb_title">he had
just forgotten what he said</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By the
crowd’s reaction you knew they understood what he was getting at.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Likewise, with this media
interview, we see evidence that the press knows something is wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean there is also the matter of Joe Biden
claiming that his presidential campaign will stop deportations despite the fact
that mere campaigns do not have that kind of power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But let’s focus on the question that Mr.
Elliott is asking:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">What is happening here in this interview w/ <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a>? After he says he’ll freeze deportations once becoming president, he tells someone off camera, “I lost that line.” Telemundo’s <a href="https://twitter.com/jdbalart?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jdbalart</a> then tells him “We can talk you and I on that.” <br /><br />José, was he reading his responses? <a href="https://t.co/Yoausx0zTr">pic.twitter.com/Yoausx0zTr</a></p>— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1308137972886368256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">It sure as hell looks like he was
reading something, maybe a teleprompter or something like that and got
lost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reporter involved in that
interview should have explained who he was talking to and, if necessary,
release unedited footage. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, to the
best of my knowledge we have never heard such an explanation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Of course, this is not the only
reporter covering for the former Vice President.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is Jake Tapper pretending that there is
no evidence that Biden has a mental problem (beyond stuttering, which explains
none of this evidence):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">WATCH: Lara Trump denies mocking Joe Biden's stutter, suggests cognitive decline <a href="https://t.co/82P9mXXGio">https://t.co/82P9mXXGio</a> <a href="https://t.co/0ZQakogV2k">pic.twitter.com/0ZQakogV2k</a></p>— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1317880875133095945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">However, one reporter did think
there was enough of a question to ask <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=2nzmdy1V3VU&feature=emb_title">Joe
Biden if he would be willing to take a cognitive test</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His answer was to snap at him for it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So hopefully so far you are
starting to see that there is something deeply wrong with the former Vice
President, calling into question whether he is competent seven days a week.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">--------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And, so far I have relied on
hard-to-deny evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, I am going
to engage in what can only be described as debatable speculation and
“wargaming.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This might be less
persuasive, but I ask you to consider what I am saying.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2 style="break-after: auto; page-break-after: auto;">WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? A HYPOTHESIS THAT
FITS THE FACTS<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, you might ask yourself
reasonably, “surely, the democrats can’t expect an incompetent to be
president?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there was something really
wrong with him, they would have done something.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Let’s assume for the sake of
argument, that I am right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That Joe
Biden is, at least at times, dangerously incompetent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s assume that they realize he can’t
really be president.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What could they
have done?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Well, the first thing they could
have done was stop him at the convention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It would have been the most honest way to handle the circumstance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They could have said to their party, “look,
we have a problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The guy with the
votes needed to get the nomination just isn’t up to the job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, at the convention we are going to vote on
a new candidate.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But then you have to ask: what
would have happened if they did that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And I think the clear answer is that Bernie Sanders would have been the
nominee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And even if you don’t agree,
certainly the fear in the democratic party would be that he would win and it
would be a disaster for their side.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, what could they do instead?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Well, the simple answer is to
hope they could get through election day without anyone realizing that
something is seriously wrong with Joe Biden and then remove him shortly after
he is inaugurated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And how “shortly”
after inauguration that would be might be determined in a few ways.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">One approach is let him stay in
for a month or two and then they declare that his health has deteriorated and,
gosh, Harris will just have to step in as President.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Or they might tell us sometime
after the electoral college makes its choice but before the inauguration that
he had a turn for the worst and that he would be removed within minutes of
being sworn in.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Could that be the plan?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, consider the proposal Nancy Pelosi had
a few weeks ago to create a commission to evaluate fitness under the 25th
Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can read the transcript
of the press conference where she announced it, <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/nancy-pelosi-press-conference-on-25th-amendment-bill-proposal-transcript-october-9">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, let me start with something
basic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The devil’s in the details, but
this is not unconstitutional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The way
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment works is this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It sets up a default method of removing the president when he or she is
disabled by requiring the vice president and the majority of the “principal
officers of the executive departments” to sign off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s just the default procedure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The amendment also explicitly says that the
executive officers can be replaced with any “such other body as Congress may by
law provide.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So it would still have to
be a majority of this special commission, and it would still absolutely require
the consent of the vice president, but assuming Pelosi’s proposed law meets
those requirements, it is constitutional on its face.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But, why do this?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, let’s wargame this a little bit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">First, if Trump wins next
Tuesday, I presume Pelosi’s proposal is dead on arrival.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trump will not want to give power to remove
him to any body that doesn’t count numerous people who are personally loyal to
him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Honestly, what president would?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, its not for Trump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, Pelosi said that she wants to create
a process “for future presidents.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
of course, Pelosi’s official line is that her party will win everything next
week.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, her target is Biden, but why
would she need a special procedure to remove Biden?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why wouldn’t the ordinary process be
sufficient?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Well, think about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here’s the text of the first paragraph of
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; text-align: justify;">Whenever the Vice
President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive
departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to
the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall
immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In the default constitutional
method of removal requires that the current vice president and the current
executive officers find the current president is unfit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But when Joe Biden is inaugurated, does he
even have a cabinet?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, he will have to
appoint one, and that could take months.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So, at the time he is inaugurated, who will have the power to remove him
if necessary?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But, suppose Trump loses and
Pelosi convinces Trump to sign on to creating this special commission.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then this commission could evaluate Biden <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">before he swears in.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then they could swear Biden and Harris in,
and within five minutes this commission could declare that Biden is unfit for
office and, with Harris’ consent, remove him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I mean, there are additional hoops to jump through in the rest of
Section 4, but this would make Harris immediately acting president.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But are they really planning to
do that?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">There are some hints that this is
the plan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, here is Harris
talking about a Harris administration:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">“A Harris Administration... together with Joe Biden” <a href="https://t.co/swTkDJNStV">pic.twitter.com/swTkDJNStV</a></p>— Jewish Deplorable 🇺🇸 (@TrumpJew) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpJew/status/1305634106592690178?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And as if that isn’t bad enough,
here is Biden talking about a Harris-Biden administration: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p dir="ltr" lang="eu">“Harris Biden administration” <a href="https://t.co/J4zRqBtm0H">pic.twitter.com/J4zRqBtm0H</a></p>— Robert (@bSmithMagic) <a href="https://twitter.com/bSmithMagic/status/1305933594725175296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Yes, it could be nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It could all be a coincidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it all fits, doesn’t it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But would they show so little
respect for the people?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, yes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do you remember when I mentioned how Joe
Biden is dodging the issue of court packing?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That is the idea of adding seats to the Supreme Court as a way of
forcibly creating a liberal majority when normally something that would take
decades?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">(And the biggest problem, of
course, is that the moment conservatives are back in power, they are likely to
pack it right back, until we have a supreme court of around 200 justices—all of
which would fatally undermine the integrity of the judicial branch.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For weeks Biden refused to take a
position on court packing and then the press dogged him until he promised to
form a <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/10/22/926607920/asked-about-court-packing-biden-says-he-will-convene-commission-to-study-reforms">committee
to decide if he wants to push court packing and other questionable proposals</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Folks, that still isn’t an answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One week from the election and he won’t tell
us if he plans to screw up one third of our government.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">“But Aaron, you handsome and
learned person, you,” I hear you ask, “surely the press wouldn’t go along with
this crap, right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They wouldn’t hide
information from the American people that they deserve to know, right?”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Except they did exactly that with
FDR.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">FDR was significantly disabled
because of a bout with polio and he basically couldn’t walk or stand without
assistance and he successfully <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-fdr-hid-his-paralysis-from-american-public-even-while-campaigning-2019-4">kept
that fact from the American people throughout every presidential election</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He would sometimes be carried around by two
close acquaintances (like his sons) Weekend-at-Bernie’s style.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And the press knew and they never
told the people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Think about that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would FDR have become president if the
average American knew he was disabled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is a good chance he wouldn’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And I have every bit of sympathy for the view that this would have been
unjustified discrimination.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But the American people had the
right to know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if it invoked unfair
prejudice, the people had a right to know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(I mean, if even if you are not a fan of FDR [I’m not], his flaws cannot
be traced to his disability, but rather his philosophy).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the press didn’t tell us “for our own
good.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And likewise, I think the press
is not telling us the truth about Joe Biden because they believe they know what
is best for us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Actually, I know they are doing
this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, take Tara Reade.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She is the woman who has accused Joe Biden of
sexual assault.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You may or may not
believe her, and that is beside the point because he was considered so credible
and her story was considered so newsworthy that she was interviewed by 60
Minutes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">But only the Australian
version.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seriously, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOti0PJlJ7A&feature=emb_title">go
here and watch it</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Someone Down
Under heard her story, interviewed her, and decided that what she said was
important enough to inform a bunch of viewers who generally speaking, aren’t
eligible to vote in America’s elections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I mean how is this news the average Australian deserves to hear, but not
something Americans deserve to know?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Well, obviously, because it will
hurt Biden.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Lest you think this is an
isolated incident, check out what the Washington Post said: “<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-post-piece-calls-on-media-to-report-hunter-biden-leaks-as-foreign-disinformation-even-if-it-probably-isnt">We
must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence
operation — even if they probably aren’t.</a>”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Or look at the difference between
how the Hunter Biden laptop story was treated from Trump’s alleged taxes by
Silicon Valley.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Twitter and Facebook
both shut down all links to the information on the theory that it might be
hacked, apparently on the logic that they had not proven to Facebook and
Twitter’s satisfaction that the information was obtained legally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am indeed not going to link to the NY
Post’s article for fear of being blacklisted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But if you read it, they explain the story: Hunter Biden brought his
laptop in for a repair, and then forgot to retrieve it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As per the repair agreement, after it was
abandoned for 90 days, it became the property of the repair shop and so the
owner then owned it and its contents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(This is done to allow the shop owner to recover unpaid repair costs and
to get rid of old equipment.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">(And for those who can’t believe
Hunter Biden would do something that stupid, I will remind you that <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-son-hunter-discharged-from-navy-reserve-after-failing-cocaine-test-1413499657">he
is apparently a crackhead</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are
not known for their responsibility.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">By comparison, the New York Times
published the alleged tax returns of Donald Trump (he’s denying they are
genuine), and as for their explanation of how they got them, the Times stated
that “<a href="https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/no-the-new-york-times-did-not-break-the-law-by-exposing-details-of-president-trumps-tax-returns/">All
of the information The Times obtained was provided by sources with legal access
to it.</a>”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, we lawyers know to look
at what is not being said, as much as what is being said.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And in this case, what is not being said is
“our sources had a legal right to disclose this information to us.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I mean, to give a simple example,
as a lawyer, I have legal access to all kinds of information about my
clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I often do not have the
legal right to disclose it without their consent because of attorney-client
privilege.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, there is no guarantee that no
laws were broken in getting the information to the Times, and yet social media
did not censor any of it and the rest of the media determined to treat it like
news rather than the possible product of a foreign intelligence operation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So why were these two stories
treated differently?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because people are
deciding you don’t deserve to hear information “for your own good.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And that is wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The basic principle of republicanism—not
meaning the Republican Party, but the republican style of government—is that “<a href="https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-39/">supreme
authority is derived from the people.</a>”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We the people are supposed to be in charge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That means we have government by the consent
of the governed and that consent has to be free and informed consent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A press refusing to tell the people basic
information about the candidates is not literally unconstitutional, but it
violates the spirit of republicanism itself.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I have said it before, and I will
say it again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Biden campaign is the
greatest act of fraud ever attempted to be perpetrated on the American
people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I think that is reason
enough to reject it out of hand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tell
our betters in the media and Silicon Valley that you will not reward an attempt
to fool you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t vote for Biden.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">--------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Finally, dear reader, if you are
convinced by this, please show all of this, to your friends.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Text or email them a link, or just show them
on your computer or tablet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can show
them my whole post, or take the information it gives and present it to those
friends.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And don’t think people can’t be
persuaded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let me show you another
video:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Curb your Biden Supporter. <a href="https://t.co/u9iz8st8t4">pic.twitter.com/u9iz8st8t4</a></p>— Johnny J. Nalbandian (@Johnny_Congress) <a href="https://twitter.com/Johnny_Congress/status/1313986731360710657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 7, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, I think they made fun of the
Biden supporter too much in that video but it illustrates an important
point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I just outlined to you, the
media is not telling you the truth about Biden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The American version of 60 Minutes doesn’t tell you things that the
Australian version does, to pick out one example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think some of us learn to plug in and find
the information that the mainstream media doesn’t want us to learn, but others
don’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This in the video gentleman had
no idea that Biden said that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When he
was confronted with it, he confidently denied it and it was only when they
played the video for him that he realized he had been misled.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And very often when you expose a
person to the truth, they will say they reject it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, as our second President said “facts are
stubborn things” and over time, it will get to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean we only have a week, but we will do
what we can.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientists tell us that
even when our conscious mind isn’t thinking about a problem, our subconscious
is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is why sometimes you wake up in
the morning and suddenly have a new way to approach a problem or why you might
have your best ideas in the shower.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Because as you were asleep or as you concentrated on shampooing yourself,
part of your mind was working it out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So
even in the face of immediate rejection don’t assume you have ultimately
failed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Because we are rational
beings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh, not perfectly rational, 100%
of the time, but we are capable of weighing evidence and reaching the right
conclusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The entire idea behind
republicanism is that the people are more often right than wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The people trying to manipulate us have
forgotten that, but you should never lose faith.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">--------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In any case, my plan for the
foreseeable future is to keep adding to the #Bidementia thread on a daily basis
and maybe to integrate those new tweets into this thread. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I am thinking of compiling that evidence
that Joe Biden is racist, because it is very real and I have learned of even
more.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Follow me at Twitter and Parler <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.</p><p></p>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-73938654044192182682020-02-11T20:36:00.000-05:002020-02-11T20:36:40.027-05:00Why Legalizing Prostitution Would Legalize Sexual Harassment: <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>A Response to Jazz Shaw and His Followers</b></div>
<h2>
<o:p></o:p></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p>So, today Jazz Shaw (whom I
generally respect) posted a tweet that suggested that he supports the
legalization of prostitution, as follows:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Gabbard: Let's decriminalize sex work.
(She's probably onto something here)<a href="https://t.co/iescWdGBfB">https://t.co/iescWdGBfB</a>
<a href="https://t.co/vrgCSCcyaO">pic.twitter.com/vrgCSCcyaO</a></div>
—
Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) <a href="https://twitter.com/JazzShaw/status/1227254967741931520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 11,
2020</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then in turn, I pointed out that
there was a serious downside to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I won’t
quote myself in the name of keeping this blog reasonably family friendly, but
the gist of what I said was as follows: “Right now, if an employer says to a
woman ‘sleep with me or you’re fired,’ it’s illegal and sexual harassment. You
make prostitution legal, you make that demand legal.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(And if you really want to know
what I originally said, you can follow <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronWorthing/status/1227260544001986560?s=20">this
link</a>.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
After Shaw called my comment “stupid,”
all hell broke in my mentions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well,
respectfully, people are not thinking it through.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s start with something very
basic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is described as “quid pro
quo” sexual harassment (“sleep with me or you are fired”) is also solicitation of prostitution in most states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I mean check your local laws, but if prostitution is defined in your
local law as giving money or a thing of value for sex, then if a boss says to an
employee, “sleep with me or I will fire you,” that is not only sexual
harassment, it is solicitation of prostitution.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But, what I will also show is that
the prohibition on it being prostitution is also critical to it being sexual
harassment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To understand why that is the
case, you have to start by understanding that sexual harassment law is a
creature of anti-discrimination law, not a regulation of the act of sex.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The best way to understand this
is to deal with a hypothetical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine
that a white boss had a black employee and the boss kept calling the employee racial
slurs, kept leaving nooses at his desk, and made racist jokes all the
time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What do you call that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Racial harassment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, let’s suppose that a boss called a
disabled employee, a cripple, etc., left threats around his desk about his
disability, went on and on about Hitler had the right idea murdering disabled
people as “useless eaters.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What do you
call that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Disability harassment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, say a male boss starts calling a female
employee a b*tch, dumb broad, etc., tells her how much he would like to murder
all women, and so on. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What do you call
that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sexual harassment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(Mind you, in all cases, the
conduct would have to be <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14616838878214701501&q=sexual+harassment&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">“sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and
create an abusive working environment,”</a> so, bluntly, one racist, ablest, or
sexist joke is not going to do it and I hope I conveyed a sufficiently
pervasive situation in my hypotheticals.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, the word “sexual”
in the term “sexual harassment,” is talking about gender, not the act of
sex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea, whether you are talking
about racial harassment, disability harassment or sexual harassment is that you
are singling out a person for mistreatment because of their race, their
disability or their gender.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will call
all of this “bias harassment.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, sexual harassment, unlike
any other kind of bias harassment I can think of, has a special category called
“quid pro quo” sexual harassment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
mentioned it before, but if you are unaware of the term, quid pro quo is Latin
for “something for something,” and it is describing a bargain or a deal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, if I buy a desk from you for
$20, that is literally a quid pro quo.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Although people often ask if there is a quid pro quo in the context of illegal
conduct, most quid pro quos are legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s typically legal to sell you a good or service for money or another
thing of value, as long as the good or service is legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem with prostitution is the bargain
or deal you are proposing—sex in exchange for money—is illegal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So how is a quid pro quo for
sexual acts, or proposing one, a form of harassment based on sex?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, because it is assumed that the person
demanding sex has a preference between men and women.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is, a man who asks a woman to have sex
with him is not as likely to ask a man to have sex with him, and therefore he
is discriminating between men and women.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Even bisexual persons typically have a preference: They might date men
and women, but not in equal frequency.*<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But here is the key.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Race, gender, disability and any other typically
forbidden factor can be considered if it is what the law calls a bona fide
occupational qualification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
often shortened to “BFOQ.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Basically,
the “occupational qualification” part is asking if it is part of the job, and
they throw in the words “bona fide,” because they worry about the employer
being full of it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And that’s where the problem
comes in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If prostitution is legal, then
prostitution is a lawful job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Having
sex for money,” becomes a potential lawful part of any person’s job
description.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Consider, for example, the
restaurant known as Hooters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I admit I
have never stepped inside one of these, but we all know what they are about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently, Jacob Shamsian over at Business Insider
went to one for, um, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9">research</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
If you’ve been to a
Hooters lately, you’ve probably noticed something about the servers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
It’s pretty obvious:
They’re all women. Hooters doesn’t hire any men as servers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, as many lawsuits attest,
the women are required to wear certain clothing, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have heard of Hooters being sued many
times, but I have never heard of them losing and as far as I know, they have
not changed their policies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because being a woman and dressing sexy is considered
qualifications for the job (or BFOQ’s, if you prefer).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As they said to Business Insider:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Typically, gender
based hiring is not permitted ... [However,] [t]he law allows the
discrimination when it is necessary for the purpose of authenticity or
genuineness as for an actor or fashion model. While we offer world famous wings
and burgers, the essence of our business is the Hooters Girl and the experience
she provides to our customers. Hooters Girls are entertainers. They audition
for their roles and, once hired, they must maintain a glamorous appearance, and
sing, dance and engage the customers to provide a unique Hooters experience.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, this is where I have to
argue for the taboo idea of “justified sexism.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I use that term often when discussing domestic violence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, men can be abused, but its not what
usually happens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I help people in
abusive situations and I wouldn’t turn a man away, but we all know what usually
happens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its usually men abusing women,
not the other way around.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And here, with
Hooters, what is unsaid is a bit of justified sexism: We all know that men go
for this sort of thing much more often than women, justifying a business
decision not to bother to hire men at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And it seems that the market agrees, or else I would think you would see
a chain of restaurants called “Peacocks,” or something like that, where handsome
waiters serve women food.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And the other hidden assumption
is that when actual sexuality is involved, not only does the law presume that
most people have a preference, but the law will respect that preference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, the courts will not say to
Hooters “your customers should be equally attracted to both genders, so you
have to hire men in equal numbers.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No,
they have gotten away with this for decades because the law allows them to
recognize that this is something that men want so much more than women that it
makes no sense to hire male waiters.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And it is worth noting that you
generally cannot do this with race, and other forbidden factors besides sex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Hooters refused to serve black customers,
or refused to hire black waitresses, for instance, I don’t think they would be
allowed to get away with it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the
belief that men will prefer to look at attractive women works for Hooters
legally, because sexuality is part of their “product” and therefore, being an
attractive woman is a job qualification (BFOQ, if you insist).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And based on a similar justified
sexism, I doubt that legal brothels will hire women and men in equal
numbers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that hiring practice is
challenged on the basis of anti-discrimination law the answer is likely to be
that it is legal because it reflects the customers’ preference.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, let’s walk through this step
by step, imagining an America where prostitution is made generally legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After prostitution is legalized, suppose a
man opens a legal brothel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He hires
mainly women—though perhaps a few men—to work as prostitutes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everything seems legal so far, right?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The owner then says to his
prostitutes: “If you are going to work here, you have to be willing to take all
comers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can express a preference in
terms of gender but you have to sleep with all customers of that gender regardless
of race, disability, religion, whatever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If you refuse to sleep with a customer of your preferred gender, you are
fired.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s legal so far, right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That sounds like what you are likely to hear
at your local Target: You have to serve all customers—only Target wouldn’t even
allow an exception for gender.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now imagine that this hypothetical
owner decides to frequent his own brothel. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He picks out one woman, says he wants to be
her customer, and let’s say she refuses at first.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then he can say, “You have said you were
willing to sleep with all male customers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I am a man and your customer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
have paid the money. Sleep with me or you are fired.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Is that legal?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t see how it isn’t, if prostitution is
legal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s take that further.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s suppose that the owner decides that he
needs a bookkeeper at his brothel, but he doesn’t think he needs that person
full time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So rather than creating a
part time position, he decides to put out a want ad for someone who can serve
both as a bookkeeper and a prostitute and only considers applicants who are
willing to do both.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is that legal?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, why not?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who says that you can’t mix the job
description of “prostitute” and “bookkeeper?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, suppose that bookkeeper and
prostitute is a woman (who prefers men) and then he decides to frequent the
brothel as a customer and demands that she sleep with him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, that seems perfectly legal, if prostitution
is legal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let’s suppose we had a CEO
of a Fortune 500 company, who is a straight man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suppose he says to the board, “I am stressed
out all the time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I need a full-time
prostitute on my team, so she can help me relax.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would need to be a woman who is attractive,
attractively dressed and willing to sleep with me.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And suppose the board agrees to that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, that is obviously legal, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">if prostitution is legal.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems to me that if it is legal to hire
prostitute available to the general public, that it would be equally legal to
hire one who serves one customer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(Indeed, that is less likely to spread of STDs.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let’s suppose instead that
the board says to that creepy CEO, “we are willing to hire a prostitute, but it
can’t be full time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So how about instead
hire a woman who is both an administrative assistant <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and</i> a prostitute, and does both jobs?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suppose he agrees to that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How is that any different from the brothel
owner demanding a bookkeeper who is also a prostitute?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now let’s suppose that the CEO
then goes in the next day to work and sits down with his current secretary and
says to her: “We have voted to change your job description.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now your job is prostitution and secretarial
services.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would understand if you
wished to quit and we will never bad-mouth you for doing so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if you wish to keep this job, you have to
do both functions.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
How would that be illegal if
prostitution is legal?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You might cite
employment discrimination law, but if prostitution is legal, then having sex
for money is a perfectly legal job description.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And yes, there is sexual discrimination in the sense that he is not
interested in men, but there her gender is a bona fide occupational
qualification: If her job is to be his prostitute, then she has to be someone
he would want to have sex with.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And of course, if that is legal,
then it is equally legal for a boss to say to his employee “Sleep with me or
you’re fired.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its not as nicely put as
what my hypothetically creepy CEO said two paragraphs above, but it’s basically
the same thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At most, the boss would
have to have the job description changed, but that is all.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I will also address another claim
which is that if a boss demands sex from or her employee that this is
coercion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Often, those making this
argument say that if the employee gives in to this demand that it is rape or
sexual assault.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, folks it is not rape or
assault and this is black letter law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First, I would challenge anyone making this claim to find a single
instance of successful prosecution under the theory of “rape by threat of
firing.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, if a threat of firing a
person is considered coercive, then all employment is illegal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, I admit that might not be obvious to
people who don’t think about the law as much as I do, so let me explain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You see, as you surely know slavery
is illegal under the Thirteenth Amendment (with an exception for punishment for
a crime that is irrelevant here).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I
have said before, it is one of the only parts of the constitution that an
ordinary citizen (who is not part of the government) can violate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is another part that applies to
ordinary citizens, it doesn’t come to me right now.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But what is slavery?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the right to force another person to
work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, “pick that cotton,
or I will whip you.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I wrote in <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-ariel-castro-may-have-violated.html">another
context</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Since its inception,
the Thirteenth Amendment has been read (correctly in my opinion), as applying
to individuals and not just state actors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>After all, “paradigmatic” American slavery is a situation where a person
says to another, “work for me, or I will kill you, beat you, etc.” And while of
course there were laws in the South that allowed people to do this and these
laws officially told slaves they had to obey their masters, making it illegal
to run away, and so on, it wasn’t mainly the law keeping slaves in chains.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I doubt if even one slave obeyed their master
because some words in a book told them to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No, what kept the slaves in chains was largely private violence <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">tolerated by the law.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, slavery is the right to force
a person to work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That can be done by a
direct threat “work for me, or I will shoot you,” or by an indirect threat such
as “work for me, or I will whip your spouse.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Likewise, if a person forces
another person to have sex with them, that is rape (though it might be called
sexual assault or something like that in your jurisdiction).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, if a person is persuaded to sleep with
another by “sleep with me or I will shoot you,” is a rape, and likewise with “sleep
with me or I will shoot your spouse.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, if “sleep with me or you are
fired,” is forcing a person to have sex, then a manager of a Target telling an
employee to “operate a cash register or you are fired,” is equally forcing a
person to work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By that logic, all work
is slavery! <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oh noes!</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Which should make you understand
that this train of logic has gone off the rails.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not forcing a person to work to say
that if they don’t work, they are fired.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And it isn’t rape to successfully convince a subordinate to sleep with
you because you said “sleep with me or you are fired.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, that isn’t rape, it’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prostitution</i>.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>And the way to make such
conduct illegal is to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">keep prostitution
illegal</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But it seems like a good place to
segue into what I think is happening, with all the consternation about me
saying that if you legalize prostitution you effectively legalize sexual
harassment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, I think it is clear that
some of these people just don’t know the law like I do, or that the illegality
of prostitution is so critical to banning sexual harassment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They don’t see it and I am happy to try to explain,
and hopefully I am successful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And of
course, society positively misinforms people about the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, I remember watching the show <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ally McBeal</i> and wanting to throw something
at the screen every time they would talk about the law of sexual harassment as
if it was a codified set of laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a series of interpretations
of the basic command not to discriminate based on sex—<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a command that goes out the window when sex is a profession</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But the other difficulty I think
some people are experiencing comes from the fact that I think when it comes to
libertarianism, prostitution is a bit of a soft spot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The libertarian philosophy is typically
summed up as the idea that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they
want to each other as long as it doesn’t hurt non-consenting adult third
parties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, for instance, most libertarians
believe that drugs should be legal because if you snort some cocaine the only
person it really hurts is you, and you consented to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say “most” in that last sentence because
the libertarians I know often vary quite a bit on these issues.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But libertarians usually believe
that prostitution should be legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After
all, both parties are consenting to the sex and the fact that money is involved
doesn’t change that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is any harm,
it is felt by them, or so the argument goes from the libertarian perspective.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, pointing out that it
legalizes sexual harassment really gets into a cognitive dissonance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reality is that if prostitution is legal,
more people will be pressured into it by economics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am not saying they will be literally forced
in a way that the law can recognize. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
is will create an incentive to do it in some people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is true even if you found a way to stop
the creepy boss scenario I started off this discussion with (and I don’t think
you can).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe a woman is having
trouble making ends meet and wants to hold on to her apartment and the only way
she can think of raising the money in time is putting in some time in a local, legal
brothel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you legalize prostitution,
this sort of thing will happen more often.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(And I keep saying it will be
more common because surely that sort of thing happens now, but not as much as
if it was legal.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And the thing to get is that
libertarians are usually not very comfortable with the idea of a person being
pressured, economically, into prostitution. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most libertarians I know don’t see prostitution
as “just another job” even if they think it should be legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, they think of their sisters, mothers,
wives and daughters and they don’t like the idea of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">them</i> being pressured into prostitution—which will inevitably
happen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I think my arguments get at
that dissonance: They are not fully comfortable with people being pressured
into prostitution.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To all that, I say this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can’t force you to think a certain way on
certain issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if you believe
prostitution should be legal, then you have to recognize that a person might be
economically pressured into it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s
just reality and it is hard to deny that is reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if it is not “sleep with me or you are
fired,” it will definitely be “either I sleep with some strangers or I lose my
home,” for some people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it is perfectly
normal to be repulsed by the idea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
so, if you want to legalize prostitution, you need to reconcile yourself with
that repulsive idea, or admit that making prostitution legal is not a good
idea.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It’s not the only reason why I oppose
legalizing prostitution, but it is one.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One additional argument that is
made is to point at something that is rarely or perhaps never done as somehow
evidence that it would not be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">legal</i>
for a boss to demand sexual favors from an employee (if prostitution was legal).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One person said that their boss couldn’t
demand that they engage in plumbing so therefore they can’t demand sex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another said they couldn’t demand stripping
as a condition of employment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But there is a difference between
the will of the market and the actual law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let me give you a simple example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When I entered the legal profession, I was told that legal secretaries in
large law firms in particular did not like it when you asked them to get you
coffee, and that legal secretaries typically held more pull than the average
first year associate, so it was best not to ask.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mind you, I had no problem with this, but let’s
explore that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, certainly it is not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">illegal</i> to ask a secretary to get you
coffee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But legal secretaries as a group
had decided that this sort of work was beneath them, creating a social
difficulty in getting good legal secretaries who were willing to get coffee, so
much so that firms generally didn’t bother: If they needed to order coffee,
they would have an outside vendor deliver.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That shows you the way that, for lack of a better word, custom can
prevent an employer from making an otherwise perfectly legal arrangement.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Another consideration is that
often there is a concern about personal benefits v. corporate benefits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A corporation is supposed to be an artificial
person that has agendas that might be different from the owners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s say you have a situation where 51% of
the company is owned by a single woman who then orders an employee to repair
the plumbing on her house: The danger is that it would be seen as evidence that
the company is just the alter ego of the owner because she is using the company
for personal benefit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But there are two things to note
about the corporate benefit v. personal benefit dichotomy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, if a company is deemed an alter ego,
the punishment is stripping away any protection from civil liability offered by
the corporate status.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It doesn’t make
the personal benefit illegal, just unwise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Second, companies can provide many things to its employees that benefits
them personally on the theory that a happy employee is good for the
company.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, for instance, a company can
probably provide its officers with free weekly massages on the theory that if
they are relaxed, they will do a better job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So, the personal benefit/corporate benefit dichotomy is not as clear as
you might think.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That is one reason why you should
not confuse what corporations do with what is legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another reason is that corporations don’t
generally like to push legal envelopes, because all things being equal,
corporations prefer not to be sued.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
instance, I noted above that a single racial epithet is not sufficient to constitute
actionable racial harassment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the
other hand, as a practical matter, if you are a white boss and you say the
N-word, there is an extremely high probability you will lose your job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is any discussion of the law at all
when deciding your fate in this hypothetical, the lawyers will surely tell the
company that they shouldn’t get anywhere near the line between a few racial
insults and actionable racial harassment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And wholly apart from legal concerns, the employees might be so offended
that they would need to fire that person even if the law didn’t require it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, it may be possible for a
number of reasons that even if it is suddenly legal to demand sex from a subordinate
(“sleep with me or you are fired”), companies will absolutely refuse to
tolerate it, anyway.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first is that
you would need some company to be willing to litigate that issue to the point to
setting the precedent—and I doubt most companies would be willing to do that,
considering how expensive a lawsuit can be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The second is that even if they win, they might so completely offend the
staff that they will have trouble retaining good employees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But my comment was about what is legal, not
what human behavior we might expect—because when it comes to human behavior,
that is harder to predict than the law.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, some people cite various
provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is abbreviated to C.F.R.
The important thing to understand is that the C.F.R. is not law on this
point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">guidance</i> and because it is written in the context of it being that
most American jurisdictions ban prostitution, it is not terribly persuasive if
prostitution is legal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For instance, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11">29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)</a>
states that<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Harassment on the
basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of title VII. Unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when... submission to such conduct
is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">condition of an individual’s employment</i>[.]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That section seems to fail to
imagine a scenario where it is a person’s job to have sex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, it is my understanding that in
Nevada, some places have legalized prostitution (note: I have not checked, so
check your local laws).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, if this
section of the C.F.R. is taken literally, a legal brothel in Nevada cannot tell
a person that if they want to work there, they have to engage in sex even if
the job is literally to be a prostitute!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I mean, the C.F.R. doesn’t even specify that the sexual contact has to
be with a superior or even someone who works with the company, so it literally
is saying that prostitution is illegal!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And, by the way, those kinds of mistakes
are exactly why the C.F.R. is seen only as guidance and not actual law—that and
the fact it is promulgated by bureaucrats and not Congress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That means that the courts will consider their
interpretation, but it is not controlling. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it was controlling, then prostitution would
be illegal in Nevada, even if certain jurisdictions within the state purported
to make it legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That argument proves
too much.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Footnote:<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
* Mind you, I did hear of one
case where a man claimed that he was an equal opportunity harasser, but that
was early in proceedings and I never heard of how that case turned out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would certainly say that he would have a
hard time persuading the jury that he did it equally to men and women, given
that most people have a preference. Further, I would suspect that if it had an
unequal effect, that would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the
law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Still, regardless, the law requires
inequality.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.</div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-57756146949616392142019-10-22T17:51:00.000-04:002019-10-22T17:51:19.588-04:00On Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day (II), Focus on His Falsification of Evidence<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, Lee Stranahan—my friend and
occasional client—has declared today to be a second Everybody Blog About Brett
Kimberlin Day.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The first time seemed to be about
protecting me and others, and protecting free speech in general.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The whole idea was this: if Brett Kimberlin
would do anything he could to silence anyone who talked about him—including suing
people, getting bogus gag orders from courts, and even in my case attempting to
frame me for a crime—then maybe one way to defeat it is to have so many people
talking about him that he couldn’t retaliate against <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all </i>of us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, because it
was in part about protecting me, I said privately and publicly that I didn’t
have the heart to ask anyone to do that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I mean, how do you ask someone else to take a metaphorical bullet for
you?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This time appears to have a different
goal: to bring more attention to Kimberlin’s involvement in the investigation
of 2016 election “interference” by the Russians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here’s a typical headline: “<a href="https://dailycaller.com/2017/03/21/former-dnc-official-partnered-with-convicted-bomb-maker-to-investigate-trump/">Former
DNC Official Partnered With Convicted Bomb Maker To Investigate Trump</a>.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>What most of these articles do is
mention that Brett Kimberlin is a convicted serial bomber.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That isn’t wrong, mind you, but it shouldn’t
be the focus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly, the allegation
that he is a serial bomber is factual.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Here’s what the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14728957245347536353&q=kimberlin+v.+white&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Sixth
Circuit</a> has said about his bombing campaign:<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Kimberlin was
convicted as the so-called “Speedway Bomber,” who terrorized the city of
Speedway, Indiana, by detonating a series of explosives in early September
1978. In the worst incident, Kimberlin placed one of his bombs in a gym bag,
and left it in a parking lot outside Speedway High School. Carl Delong was
leaving the high school football game with his wife when he attempted to pick
up the bag and it exploded. The blast tore off his lower right leg and two
fingers, and embedded bomb fragments in his wife’s leg. He was hospitalized for
six weeks, during which he was forced to undergo nine operations to complete
the amputation of his leg, reattach two fingers, repair damage to his inner
ear, and remove bomb fragments from his stomach, chest, and arm. In February
1983, he committed suicide.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Some have also pointed at the
extensive evidence—which I personally find to be convincing—that Brett Kimberlin
is also a pedophile.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I gathered some
evidence <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/07/brett-kimberlin-is-pedophile.html">here</a>,
but that piece is six years old.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since writing
it, I can add that his wife, who I will only called T. Kimberlin here,
testified under oath in open court that Brett Kimberlin seduced her when she
was only 14 years old and a jury found that my claim that he was a pedophile
was true (or more precisely, they found that the claim that I had <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">falsely</i> called Brett Kimberlin a
pedophile was itself false).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But that isn’t what you should
focus on today, either.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What you should focus on is that Brett
Kimberlin has a history of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">falsifying
evidence</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is a convicted perjurer
and a convicted document forger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
instance, this is what the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16948702464384984593&q=kimberlin+chew&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Seventh
Circuit said</a> when he was caught leaving a copy shop with documents that contained
a forged copy of the Presidential Seal and the Department of Defense insignia:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
[FBI Agent] Lucas
had been called to a printing establishment. He observed defendant wearing
clothing with badges and insignia. The insignia was identical to that of the
Security Police of the Defense Department. Defendant had in hand a facsimile of
the Presidential Seal and other documents, one or more of which he attempted to
chew up. He had been at the establishment the day before to have copies of the
documents printed. He had been wearing the same clothing. At the printer’s
instructions, he had returned to give final approval of the layout. Army
investigators were also present. They had just previously observed defendant
drive the Impala into the parking lot and enter the establishment. The Impala
had remained there since defendant’s arrest.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Nor had he given up his tendency
toward forgery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He has admitted to two
forgeries since 2012 in court, and admitted to submitting third forged document.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as I have documented before, <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">he
tried to frame me for a crime</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To
summarize that last link, he basically claimed I beat him up at the Montgomery
County (Maryland) Circuit Courthouse and he claimed to have medical records and
photographs documenting how I injured him but he forgot one detail: there were
video cameras in that courthouse, and they proved I did no such thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The linked-to post is a summary post that
links to two different versions of my article: one long one which allegedly
causes serious slowdown on your computer, and a version that is broken down
into smaller chunks that your computer will probably have an easier time
with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And yes, the video footage is
included in both versions of the piece.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In other words, you don’t have to believe my words: you only have to
believe your eyes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, dear reader, that should be
the headline: the DNC hired a man to investigate <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the president of the United States</i>, who has a history of forging
documents and attempting to frame a man (me) for a crime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if he had never set a single bomb, even
if he never seduced a single underage girl, this should be disqualifying.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if Alex Chalupa is as pure as new-fallen
snow, Kimberlin has tainted any investigation he has been a part of.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He creates, at the very least, reasonable doubt
as to any “evidence” he has been involved in gathering.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s what everyone should be focused on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bombing and pedophilia might be what
grabs your attention, but it’s falsifying evidence that should have disqualified
him from any election investigation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
fact he was not removed is at the very least gross negligence, if not something
more sinister.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, as you read more and more about
him today, keep that in mind: his tendency to falsify evidence is the story,
today.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In all cases, the only justice I want is
through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not call him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not write him a letter. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not write him an email. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not text-message him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not contact his
organizations, either. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And most of all,
leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And let me say something else. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that
any person supporting me has done any of the above. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-54654563959924086762019-08-08T18:44:00.001-04:002019-08-08T18:45:19.829-04:00Are Conservatives Engaged in Friendly Fire Against “The Hunt?”<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, there is a movie coming up
called <i>The Hunt</i>. The basic plot synopsis is liberal elites hunting
people they hate that they see as "deplorables." And in the wake of recent mass shootings, ads
for the movie are being pulled sporadically, and the <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ads-pulled-hunt-wake-mass-shootings-1229829">Hollywood
Reporter</a> is saying that behind the scenes they are talking about rethinking how they are going to
market it and so on. This is probably the
first news that the movie existed for many people, so I am seeing a lot of
conservative anger directed at it. For
instance, Twitchy has an <a href="https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/08/08/sensitive-movie-studio-pulls-ads-for-film-in-which-elites-hunt-down-and-kill-red-state-deplorables/">article</a>
typical of this where conservatives are quoted as saying how terrible this
movie is as an idea. You can read for
yourself, but the basic gist is “oh my God, they’re making a movie that revels
in murdering conservatives.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And I am here to persuade you
that maybe that interpretation is wrong.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
Now, first, you always have to approach a movie with an
open mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean, feel free to be picky
about how much you pay to see a movie, but until you see it, you don’t know if
it is bad, good or somewhere in between or what its exact message is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have refused to pay a dime for a movie only
to be really pleasantly surprised when I got to see it for free, and vice-versa.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And the more I learn about the thing,
the more I wondered: are we sure this is an anti-conservative movie?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Or maybe anti-Trump or anti-Trump supporters
or something like that?)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean here’s
some of the description of the movie from the Hollywood Reporter:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
“Did anyone see what
our ratf**ker-in-chief just did?” one character asks early in the screenplay
for <i>The Hunt</i>, a Universal Pictures
thriller set to open Sept. 27. Another responds: “At least The Hunt’s coming
up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen
deplorables.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The Hunt stars Betty
Gilpin from GLOW and Hilary Swank, representing opposite sides of the political
divide. It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the
elites pick off their prey. The script from Damon Lindelof and Nick Cuse
reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter revolves around third-rail political themes.
(Original title: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Red State Vs. Blue State</i>.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The script for The
Hunt features the red-state characters wearing trucker hats and cowboy shirts,
with one bragging about owning seven guns because it’s his constitutional
right. The blue-state characters — some equally adept with firearms — explain
that they picked their targets because they expressed anti-choice positions or
used the N-word on Twitter. “War is war,” says one character after shoving a stiletto
heel through the eye of a denim-clad hillbilly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, assuming that the President
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Hunt’s</i> universe is Donald J.
Trump, it seems like the liberal characters are going to kill “deplorables” as a way of letting off steam because they hate Trump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But does the movie sympathize with the killers
or the person being killed?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean, killing
in self-defense is one thing, but cold-blooded murder is not typically seen as
a sympathetic act. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its not impossible
for a movie or TV show to make people sympathize with a killer or other monster,
but “cold blooded murder is a good thing” is not the most obvious take.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And then you watch the trailer
for this movie:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1lqCjai8LDo" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
Judging by that one trailer, who looks like the good
guys?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The hunters or the hunted?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every moment in that trailer makes you think
that these people caught up in the hunt are the ones we should relate to, root
for and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hell, at one point the
main female character is seen going through some kind of military camp and
diving on top of a veil-wearing Muslim woman in an action that sure as hell
looks like she is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">protecting</i> the
woman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean, what could be a better
sign that she is a “good guy” by the logic of Hollywood than risking her life
to protect an apparent Muslim?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I’m not saying that the
movie is definitely pro-conservative or pro-Trump or pro-Trump supporter or
something like that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am just saying
maybe we hold our “fire” until we get a better sense of it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And I will say something else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saying it is pro- or anti-conservative or
something like that might be grossly oversimplifying things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I could see this as being against the most extreme,
most hateful elements of the left.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You
know the kinds of people we are talking about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The kinds of liberals who think that it is appropriate to physically assault
a person because they think they are a Nazi (and think everyone is a Nazi).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The kind of liberal who cheers every time a prominent conservative gets
hurt, sick or dies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The kind of liberals
who wish death on Dana Loesch’s kids because she supports a right
to bear arms. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The kinds of liberals who
hate with a fire so bright that they stop seeing their opponents as human or as
having any rights they are bound to respect (classically evil reference <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026&q=dred+scott+v+sandford&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">here</a>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It could be a message of nothing more than “yes,
their views are terrible, but for God’s sake, these are human beings and you
need to calm down.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And indeed, the
authors might feel that there are equally dehumanizing elements on the right
(and there are, though I don’t think it is quite as big a problem).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And if that is the real
message, then this is not a bad movie for these times: this is a great movie to
make in those times. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most of the people we
disagree with aren’t bad and responses that start with the assumption that they
are reasoning people capable of being persuaded is usually the best way to win
the political battles, anyway. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this
movie successfully pleas to the left to take a deep breath, that’s a good
thing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(Or here is another possibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe it is intended to send one message but
accidentally sends a different message by its story, like I imagined with another movie, <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-star-trek-into-darkness-anti-bush.html">here</a>.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In any case, all I am pleading
for is to keep an open mind. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not
saying it is definitely a movie that conservatives can get behind but we
shouldn’t assume it is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean God
forbid that Hollywood make a movie that has a message agreeable to conservatives
and we destroy it with “friendly fire.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
think we conservatives are making a mistake assuming we know what the message
of this movie is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, conservatives
have every reason to expect the worst from Hollywood—the bias has been getting
pretty insufferable as of late.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if
you want to change that bias, one way to do that is by making it profitable to
either be neutral or (gasp) favorable to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And that means keeping an open mind in a situation like this.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I mean, I remember Charles Krauthammer
joking (paraphrase) that Fox News had its success because they discovered a niche
market that had been previously untapped: half of the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sooner or later, the liberal bubble in Hollywood
will start to break.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sooner or later, if
only for the desire of money, they will make movies that openly appeal to
conservatives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should be ready for when
that happens.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">P.S.:</b> But then you might wonder “why are they pulling ads now?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, one answer might be devious and the
other might be stupid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The stupid answer
is they are just panicked at the thought of violence or they might think the
public would freak out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The devious
answer is that it might be harder to convince us to give up our guns, if there
is a movie calling out the violent hatred many on the left feel for those on
the right.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I tend to think it is the stupid answer
because so many on the left seem to have such a hard time comprehending how
conservatives think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Take the example of
the liberals who wish death on Dana Loesch’s children because she supports
gun rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, if any liberal happens
upon this post, let me ask you this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
someone is wishing death on your children are you more likely to 1) give
up your guns, or 2) hold on to them even tighter, because you are afraid some nutball will actually come and try to kill your children?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, I suppose a weaker person than Dana
might give think “if I give in to these loons, maybe my children will be safer,”
but most people would harden their position as a result.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The "momma bear" syndrome is real and fierce. </span>Wholly apart from the merits of the debate (I’m
pretty hardcore on the Second Amendment, myself), “disarm because I hope your children die” is just bad as a persuasive technique.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
My wife and I lost our jobs due
to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist)
Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a
crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you
read starting <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">here</a>,
you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video
evidence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In all cases, the only justice I want is through
the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not call him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not write him a letter. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not write him an email. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not text-message him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not contact his
organizations, either. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And most of all,
leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And let me say something else. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that
any person supporting me has done any of the above. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.</div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-61448324433705342242019-07-16T01:45:00.000-04:002019-07-16T01:50:28.430-04:00No, Donald Trump’s Tweets On Sunday Do Not Prove He is a Racist<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So on Sunday, Donald Trump
tweeted the following…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="“twitter-tweet”" data-lang="“en”">
<div dir="“ltr”" lang="“en”">
So interesting to see “Progressive”
Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments
are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept
anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now
loudly......</div>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%E2%80%9D">July
14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="“utf-8”" src="“https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”"></script><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="“twitter-tweet”" data-conversation="“none”" data-lang="“en”">
<div dir="“ltr”" lang="“en”">
....and
viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most
powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go
back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they
came. Then come back and show us how....</div>
— Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381395078000643?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%E2%80%9D">July
14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="“utf-8”" src="“https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”"></script><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="“twitter-tweet”" data-conversation="“none”" data-lang="“en”">
<div dir="“ltr”" lang="“en”">
....it
is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m
sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel
arrangements!</div>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381396994723841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%E2%80%9D">July
14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="“utf-8”" src="“https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”"></script><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
…and within minutes everyone was
sure 1) who he was talking about and 2) it is racist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For instance, Chris Cillizza of
CNN wrote an entire piece at CNN making both claims on both points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/donald-trump-ilhan-omar-tweets/index.html">website</a>,
it gives the following headline “Donald Trump’s racist tweets show he doesn’t
understand America,” while the preview on this <a href="https://twitter.com/CillizzaCNN/status/1150751597280014336">tweet</a>
says “Donald Trump’s Vision of America isn’t American.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cillizza states that the tweets were
definitely “directed at freshman Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.)”
and then, says:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Let’s start with
some facts. Of the four people Trump told to go home to their own country, 3 of
the 4 were born in the United States. The 4th -- Omar -- was born in Somalia,
spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya, arrived in the US at age 12 and is
a naturalized US citizen, according to the New York Times.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
So, telling them to
go back to their “totally broken and crime infested placed from which they came”
makes very, very little factual sense. But Trump isn’t terribly concerned with
the facts here. It’s the sentiment that matters to him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
And that sentiment
is racist. Again, this is not an opinion. This is a fact.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
But hold on for a moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>How does Cillizza know Trump is talking about those four?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Cillizza admits, Trump “did not name” whom
he was talking about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So how does
Cillizza know Trump was talking about them?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It’s bad logic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, the best way to take Cillizza's analysis apart is to treat the issue like an old school logic game.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lawyers all know about these, because almost
all of us had to take the LSAT, which includes Godawful <a href="https://www.kaptest.co.uk/courses/graduate/lsat/practice/logic-games">questions
like this</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
An athlete has six
trophies to place on an empty three-shelf display case. The six trophies are
bowling trophies F, G, and H and tennis trophies J, K, and L. The three shelves
of the display case are labelled 1 to 3 from top to bottom. Any of the shelves
can remain empty. The athlete’s placement of trophies must conform to the
following conditions:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
J and L cannot be on
the same shelf<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
F must be on the
shelf immediately above the shelf that L is on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
No single shelf can
hold all three bowling trophies<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
K cannot be on Shelf
2</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Question 1</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
If G and H are on
Shelf 2, which of the following must be true?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
1. K is on Shelf 1<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
2. L is on Shelf 2<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
3. J is on Shelf 3<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
4. G and J are on
the same shelf<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
5. F and K are on
the same shelf<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Jesus, I just gave myself a
flashback.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Still, if we want to figure out
who Trump is talking about, you have to start with what we know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So let’s review what he said about them:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->He called them Congresswomen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That means:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->There
are at least two of them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">b.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->They
serve in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">c.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->They
are women—I mean that is obvious, but needs to be said.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">d.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->They
are citizens—because you cannot be a Congresscperson if you are not a citizen
under the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->He called them Democrats.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->He called them “progressive” but the quotations
marks indicate that maybe he doesn’t think they are really progressive.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->They are immigrants—but remember they have to be
citizens, so we are talking first generation Americans.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->They are originally from countries that I will
paraphrase as being a “mess”—at least in Trump’s mind (a “complete and total
catastrophe, the worst,” etc.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->They put down America (how I summarize the bit
about viciousness)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
So, can we logically figure out who he was talking about?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, actually, we can’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Too many of the terms are subjective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we can at least narrow it down to
four Congresspersons he might have been talking about, and only one of them are
on the list that Cillizza gave: Ms. Omar.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Allow me to show my work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First, this <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/in-116th-congress-at-least-13-of-lawmakers-are-immigrants-or-the-children-of-immigrants/">page</a>
from Pew Research counts the number of Congresspersons who are immigrants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are counting both immigrants and the
children of immigrants, but fortunately they mark which is which, so we can
sift through them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will also sift out
any men or Republicans, and if we do that, we get the following first
generation American Democratic Congresswomen, as well as their countries of
origin:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Mazie Hirano (Japan)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Pramila Jayapal (India)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (Ecuador)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Stephanie Murphy (Vietnam)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Norma Torres (Guatemala)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Ilhan Omar (Somalia)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Now can we whittle that list down more?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, with some educated guessing, we can.
Trump said that the women he was talking about came from countries that are a
mess (my word).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, bluntly, there is a
great deal of subjectivity in that—even if you believe the country is run well,
Trump might feel it is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, the only
country I feel absolutely confident that Trump would not believe is a mess
would be Japan, so Ms. Hirano is eliminated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I admit that is a little subjective, but I feel safe in that assumption.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Also, Trump said that the Congressperson was a “progressive,”
with scare quotes around the word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So,
you don’t know how progressive they are, and indeed he might be suggesting that
they are phony progressives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But let’s
try to find people who he is likely to call Progressives, even recognizing that
there is a lot of wiggle room in all of that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
A little googling tells me that Pramila Jayapal is
co-chair of the <a href="https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/">progressive
caucus</a> and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a member.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ms. Torres has said that some of her policies
are <a href="https://www.dailynews.com/2019/05/24/rep-norma-torres-only-house-member-from-central-america-wants-to-fix-border-crisis-with-aid-not-punishment/">progressive</a>,
so she might be perceived as progressive regardless of whether she sees herself
as one, or most progressives would call her one of their own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand its not clear from googling
around if Ms. Murphy, who was born in Ho Chi Min City is likely to be seen as
progressive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe growing up in a
Communist country moderated her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So,
recognizing that this is a debatable move, let’s eliminate her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not saying its definitely not her, but I think
I can make an educated guess it isn’t her.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
That leaves us with:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Pramila Jayapal (India)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (Ecuador)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Norma Torres (Guatemala)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Ilhan Omar (Somalia)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
The only other factor remaining is whether they made
vicious statements, but, to be blunt, that is too subjective to make any
headway with that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To quote Michael
Creighton’s classic <a href="https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf">lecture</a>
on Global Warming: “The only way to work the equation is to fill in with
guesses.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think I could previously
make educated guesses eliminating two possible candidates—Ms. Hirano and Ms.
Murphy—but I don’t feel comfortable eliminating anyone else.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
So, what we are left with is a plausible alternative
explanation. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe Trump was talking
about at least two of the following: Pramila Jayapal (India), Debbie
Mucarsel-Powell (Ecuador), Norma Torres (Guatemala) and Ilhan Omar
(Somalia).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will make one final
educated guess and say my gut says Omar was definitely on Trump’s mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But beyond that, I can only guess.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">But Aaron</i>, you
might say, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">we know he meant congresswomen
of color who, in actuality were born here, because Trump is a racist and that
is something racists think: that certain ethnicities are “perpetual foreigners”
even if their family has been here for generations.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Except the problem is that this argument cannot prove
Trump is a racist, because it relies on the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">assumption</i>
that he is a racist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The syllogism goes
like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Trump
is a racist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Racists
tend to assume that certain ethnicities are “perpetual foreigners.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Therefore,
Trump was probably<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>talking about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez,
Ms. Omar, Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Pressley.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Only
one of those four women were born in a foreign country.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Racists
tend to assume that certain ethnicities, like theirs, are “perpetual
foreigners.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Therefore,
Trump is a racist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Except that doesn’t prove Trump is a racist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, it treats his alleged racism as a
given, a premise you build off of.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
other words, you can’t prove X using a syllogism that assumes X is true.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
And there is another problem with this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One thing the syllogism gets right is that
some ethnic groups get stereotyped as being “perpetual foreigners.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have talked about it <a href="https://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/11/this-racist-president.html">here</a>
and the stereotype is described well, <a href="https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/the-perpetual-foreigner-stereotype/">here</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
No matter how long
they or their families have lived in the country, they are still not seen as
True Americans, they are still seen as foreigners. That is why people are
surprised at how good their English is and ask them, “Where are you really from?”
– where New Jersey does not count as an answer.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
This is a bit of a personal issue to me because my wife is
a lovely Asian American who has to deal with people assuming because she is of
Asian descent that she must not be American.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
But if you know about the history of this stereotype, you
know that it is a problem attached mainly to people who are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not white or black</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you are black or white, and don’t speak
with a foreign accent, most people generally assume you are American. Its people
of Latino, Middle Eastern, Asian, and South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, etc.)
descent that are assumed to be foreigners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And I think if a white or black person dresses in a way that is overtly
Muslim or Sikh, they are stereotyped that way.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
So, I can’t figure out why any racist would assume Ayanna
Pressley is a foreigner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean I pride
myself as being able to put myself in the shoes of people I deeply disagree
with (a good lawyer develops that skill), and, googling around, I don’t see
anything indicating that she is anything but an ordinary black American.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She is not listed by Pew Research as either
an immigrant or the child of immigrants. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No website seems to list any ethnicity but
American or African-American.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I watched
a video of her talk, and I detect no accent other than a mainstream Northern
accent—the kind of accent Southerners wrongly think is not an accent at
all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I see no indication of what
religion she belongs to, except she made a statement on Twitter that she was a
woman of (an unstated) faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I haven’t
seen her wear anything outside of mainstream American apparel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So even if Trump was a racist, why would he
see <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">her</i> as a perpetual foreigner?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Mind you, it’s not impossible, but it’s also not very
likely.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
So, in fact the popular assertion that Trump is definitely
talking about those four congresswomen in particular doesn’t make much sense. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, we see the popular theory that Trump is talking
about those specific Congresswomen take off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For instance, this New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/us/politics/trump-twitter-squad-congress.html">article</a>
doesn’t tell us who they think Trump is talking about, but does say “Only one
of the lawmakers was born outside the country.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/pelosi-announces-resolution-condemning-trump-for-racist-tweets-1415889">article</a>
doesn’t quote Trump, but says he was definitely talking about those four, as
does this CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/trump-escalates-attacks-on-democratic-congresswomen-ilhan-omar.html">article</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most amusingly, this <a href="https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/7/15/20695427/donald-trump-tweet-racist-aoc-tlaib-omar-pressley-nationalism">article</a>
from Vox says:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The targets of Trump’s
ire have mostly gone unnamed, but the remarks seem to be clearly addressing
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley
(D-MA), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN). Each is a progressive woman of color serving her
first term, and all have attracted considerable attention for their outspoken
critiques of DC politics in general and the president in particular.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
But, of course, to assume he is definitely talking about
them is just bad logic as I have outlined above.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
In any case, if you can’t establish that he has falsely
indicated that anyone is an immigrant when they are not one, you can’t
establish he is a racist by believing in the perpetual foreigner
stereotype.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is simple as that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So the Tweet cannot prove him to be a racist
that way.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">But Aaron</i>, you might say, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">isn’t
it racist to tell someone person to go back to their country?</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, it is bigoted, if the only
reason why you are saying it is because of their race, ethnicity or
religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like if a man tells a Chinese
American woman to “go back to China” because he believes that she is not a true
American because she is the wrong color, then that is racist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But on the other hand, it is
downright common in our rhetoric to say “if you don’t like this country, get
out” and that is not racist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seriously,
every time a celebrity says they are going to flee the country because this Republican or that Republican is elected, there are a few sarcastic responses
of “do you promise?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is not racist,
because after all, you are judging a person by the content of their character,
not the color of their skin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed,
that sentiment is often aimed at the white people born in this country.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This gets a little bit into the
divide in this country between two conceptions of nationhood, which I
previously talked about <a href="http://patterico.com/2011/11/11/a-fire-alarm-in-the-night-darino-v-morgan-hill-unified-sch-dist/">here</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I said before, some have believed since
the beginning of this republic that America as a nation is defined by race or
ethnicity, and some believe that America is a nation defined by ideals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ugly side of the racial/ethnic view of
our nation is then everyone but certain groups and races don’t really belong,
encouraging all manner of discrimination up to and including race-based slavery
and lynching.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thankfully that has been
rejected by the vast majority of Americans and even by the Constitution itself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But there is an ugly side to the
view that America is a nation of ideas, too: If America is defined by certain
ideas, then other ideas are un-American.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That leads to reactions that range from merely denouncing a person for
what they say, to severe viewpoint discrimination even by the government (which
the Supreme Court has regularly found to be unconstitutional).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Think of McCarthy and his quest to root out un-American activities. </span>Mind you, I say that being firmly in the “America
is a nation of ideals” camp, as I hope you are, too, dear reader.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But everyone should still be aware of the
danger of excess and guard against it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In any case, Trump’s comments look
more like the second scenario.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He isn’t
saying all foreign-born congresswomen should go back to their country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just the progressive ones who say vicious
things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That might be in your mind an
ugly sentiment, but it is on its face based on the content of their character,
not the color of their skins.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Or so I thought.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then as I was finishing this, I watched a video
of the President of the United States saying that he knows who is and is not an
immigrant just by looking at them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
that I can’t defend.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no logical
way to argue that statement is not racist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
So I finally agree that the President is a racist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In 2009-2017.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
As in, it was not President Trump, but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">President Obama</i>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/00wHXJcVv-c" width="560"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
And of course, the point of that patented “Aaron Worthing
Head Fake” is to make a point about media bias.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It takes an illogical interpretation of Trump’s words to whip everyone
up into calling Trump a racist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
Obama could clearly and unambiguously say the racist thought everyone is trying
desperately to cram into Trump’s mouth, and... there was little reaction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean I remember conservative media
mentioning it, but the mainstream media just yawned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What a perfect example of media bias.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
-------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>P.S.:</u></b>
For extra bonus points, Cillizza writes about Trump’s catch phrase:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The insidious idea
lurking right below the surface of that slogan [“Make America Great Again”] is
this: America was better off before all of this diversity. When everyone knew
their place. When people didn’t question what people who looked like Donald
Trump said.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
First, it’s infamous?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Only around your water cooler, Chris.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
As for whether it is racist or not, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voMW-P9bU8I">Bill Clinton said it, too</a>,
and I don’t’ recall anyone calling him a racist for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, it was also denounced more recently
as a racist dog whistle by… [checks notes] …<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/make-america-great-again-who-said-it-first-n645716">Bill
Clinton</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
And when you think about it, who is shocked that Bill
Clinton would call Trump a racist for saying the same thing he said?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
So, Bill Clinton and Chris Cillizza denounced Trump for
saying what Bill Clinton said without controversy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be more infuriating if it was not so
typical.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
My wife and I lost our jobs due
to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist)
Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a
crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you
read starting <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">here</a>,
you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video
evidence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In all cases, the only justice I want is
through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong,
but it is counter-productive.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not call him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not write him a letter. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not write him an email. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not text-message him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Frankly try not to even
be within his field of vision. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not contact his
organizations, either. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And most of all,
leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And let me say something else. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that
any person supporting me has done any of the above. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.</div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-7122235428360976912018-08-16T16:40:00.000-04:002018-08-16T21:23:30.619-04:00The Savage Hypocrisy of the #FreePress Protest<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today and yesterday, a number of newspapers are putting
forth editorials purporting to defend freedom of the press, using the hashtag
#FreePress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It all seemed to be kicked
off by the <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2018/08/15/editorial/Kt0NFFonrxqBI6NqqennvL/story.html">Boston
Globe</a>, which made these kinds of statements.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<h1 style="margin: 0in 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
Journalists are not the enemy<o:p></o:p></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
August 15, 2018<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A central pillar of President Trump’s
politics is a sustained assault on the free press. Journalists are not
classified as fellow Americans, but rather “the enemy of the people.” This
relentless assault on the free press has dangerous consequences. We asked
editorial boards from around the country – liberal and conservative, large and
small – to join us today to address this fundamental threat in their own words.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let me start with something basic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, I support freedom of the press, as
well as all forms of peaceful expression and not just in words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My readers know that I have literally gone to
jail for this and am fighting in several courts to protect that right, both as
lawyer and citizen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They know I have
defended the right to speak of people who cheered when my freedom of expression
was suppressed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s not my problem
with this #FreePress protest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My problem
is the incredible hypocrisy involved and general stupidity about what freedom
of the press and freedom of expression means.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For starters, complaining that Trump is assaulting freedom
of the press is so ignorant it makes my head hurt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does anyone in the press understand that freedom
of expression includes the right to criticize what others say?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, the First Amendment protects
the right of CNN to say X and it also includes the right of someone else to say
“CNN should not have said X.” <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, the First Amendment protects Trump’s speech,
too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, the President doesn’t enjoy
quite as many free speech rights as a regular citizen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, I am a private citizen who
holds no office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, if I say “CNN
should be audited by the IRS for criticizing the President,” that’s an idiot
thing to say, but I am allowed to say it under the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand, Trump cannot say “CNN
should be audited for criticizing me,” because 1) the IRS might take that as an
order and 2) if anyone at CNN hears that, this is a threat that might chill
speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It shouldn’t take too much on
your part to understand why ordering the IRS to audit someone as political
revenge is a violation of the First Amendment, but freedom of expression can be
violated merely by the threat to engage in that kind of behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We say that when a person faces a realistic
threat of adverse government reaction that this person experiences a “chilling
effect,” and it is not to be created.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The test for this is <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8237828975910750498&q=baltimore+sun+chilling+effect&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">this</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoBlockText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The determination of whether government conduct or speech
has a chilling effect or an adverse impact is an objective one — we determine
whether a similarly situated person of “ordinary firmness” reasonably would be
chilled by the government conduct in light of the circumstances presented in
the particular case.</blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The words “ordinary firmness” is important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It eliminates situations where one is just
jumping at shadows.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which I would argue
is precisely what the press is doing these days with respect to Trump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saying that a company is “fake news” or that
it is “an enemy of the people” does not meet this test.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, there has to be a reasonable fear of
consequences.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Further, a reasonable fear of consequences doesn’t require an
actual verbal threat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, if a
disproportionate number of Trump’s critics are being audited, and Trump
denounces someone, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">under those circumstances</i>
that might be seen as a reasonable threat of audit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that isn’t what we have here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We just have Trump criticizing the press.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
None of that is to say that such language is good or
wise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it remains Trump’s right to
say it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So these #FreePress protesters
are protesting... Trump’s exercise of his First Amendment rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do you see now why this is making my brain hurt?<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“But Aaron,” you might say, “they have a right to protest
what Trump has been saying, and to say that even if a President has a right to
say it, he <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">shouldn’t</i> say it.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that would be correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, what is insufferable is that, while
they are draping themselves in the banner of free expression, how little they
care about real threats to freedom of expression.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Take AntiFA, for instance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I spell it that way, with “FA” at the end in capitals, because I
consider them to be anti-First-Amendment, not against Fascists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can they say they are against fascism
when they use fascist tactics?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
well documented how <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html">they
drove Milo Yiannopoulos out of Berkley</a>—the alleged home of the Free Speech
movement of the 60’s—and <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-berkeley-protest-shapiro-20170914-htmlstory.html">tried
to do the same to Ben Shapiro</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
then there was that whole Mohammed Cartoon controversy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For those who don’t remember, Islamofacists
threatened to murder anyone who depicted Mohammed, and the same people who are
using the hashtage #FreePress today <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">gave
in to those terrorists</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The most horrific example of the institutional press’s
abject surrender to the terrorists can be found in the video <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/02/14/pkg-lars-vilks-cartoonist-denmark-shooting.cnn">here</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a CNN report on the death threats
against Lars Vilks, who drew a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if you go to the 20 second mark, you will
see an alleged “picture” of the cartoon, but with the part that offended the
terrorists blurred out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Plainly, judging
by that video, someone at CNN understood that if a cartoon is controversial,
you must show it so the audience can decide the reasonableness of the other
side’s position, but then someone else at CNN said, “we can’t show that! The
terrorists will murder us!” resulting in this shameful display of cowardice.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, CNN’s Brian Stelter joins in the <a href="https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/08/16/snappity-doo-dah-redsteeze-owns-brian-stelter-and-the-entire-freepress-tag-with-just-1-perfect-pic/">self-congratulation</a>
by invoking the phrase “strength in numbers.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yes, well, imagine if every newspaper in America published a cartoon of
Mohammed and we showed that strength in numbers?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That was a moment when standing up for a
#FreePress and indeed Free Expression in general would have mattered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, at that critical moment, the same
people who are now sanctimoniously saying they are standing up to Trump choked.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And bluntly, this sort of thing tells you all you need to
know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’re not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">really</i> scared that Trump is going to suppress their free expression
because we know how they respond to a real threat: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they capitulate</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“But Aaron,” you might say, “that isn’t government action.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, first, if you are silenced by violence
and threats of violence, does it really matter if it is a government or a
private party that is doing it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of
course, the First Amendment only applies to governmental conduct, but that is
only one of many ways the right of freedom of expression can be violated.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But even ignoring private actions, there are plenty of
government actions that suppress free speech that the #FreePress protesters never
cared about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, I was
arrested for exercising my right to freedom of the press while I peacefully
tried to bring a pedophile to justice. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or
if you don’t care about me, here’s a court case where Christians prevented from
<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13520956933803620017&q=saieg+v+city+of+dearborn&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">peacefully
leafletting outside of an Arab festival.</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Indeed, four Christians were arrested under <a href="https://www.christianexaminer.com/article/four-christians-arrested-outside-arab-festival/42372.htm">this
unconstitutional law</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did you see
any major outcry in the press over that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“But,” you might say, “its different when the president does
it.”<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Except the last president frequently violated the First
Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/4/irs-tea-party-targeting-35-million-settlement-appr/">it
is no longer a matter of dispute</a> that the Obama Administration unfairly
targeted Tea Party groups for discrimination by the IRS based on their speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And when the Obama Administration took away
the Redskins’ Trademark, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2017/06/22/new-york-times-editorial-board-reconsiders-its-position-on-redskins-trademark/?utm_term=.66394a172fbb">that
decision was cheered by the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York
Times</i></a>—one of the many <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/15/opinion/editorials/free-press-local-journalism-news-donald-trump.html">newspapers
joining in the #FreePress protest today</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yet, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14085180484211709676&q=matal+v.tam&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">an
unanimous Supreme Court declared that to be unconstitutional</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, to be fair, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New
York Times</i> reconsidered their position after the Supreme Court weighed in
on it, but if they actually cared about freedom of expression they never would
have supported this unconstitutional act in the first place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">this
was an unanimous decision</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nobody on
the Supreme Court thought this was constitutional: not Kennedy, not Thomas, not
even Ginsberg.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So this is not a
situation where the argument was close.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This was the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times</i> being
to the left of the most liberal members of the court.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And this wasn’t the only time the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times</i> has been howling hypocrites on Freedom of
Expression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, here the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times</i> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html">argues that
corporations do not enjoy protection under the First Amendment</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As in, not just one writer, but rather it was
an unsigned editorial, and thus, it was the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New
York Times</i> saying this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, you
guessed it, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times</i> is a
corporation.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not to mention the sheer disingenuousness of the editorial,
claiming that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Citizens United</i> was a
case about spending and not speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here’s
what the Supreme Court <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6233137937069871624&q=citizens+united&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">actually
said on the subject</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoBlockText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal
sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including
nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or
defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30
days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the
following acts would all be felonies under § 441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad,
within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts
the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national
forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to
vote for the challenger because the incumbent U.S. Senator supports a handgun
ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the
public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense
of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.</blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To say that this was a law about spending is false.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The NRA, Sierra Club and so on were not
prohibited from making ads at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
they put up an ad saying “Please teach your children firearm safety,” or “recycle
your trash,” that would not trigger the ban.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The ban was triggered by what they said.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If that was constitutional, then the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New
York Times</i> could be validly silenced in the pre-Internet age by a law that
said it was illegal to purchase ink and paper for the purpose of publishing a
criticism of a sitting president.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s
not how the First Amendment works.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Returning to Presidential suppression of speech, Obama
himself chilled speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPKf5IUGn_Y">Here’s</a> Obama
saying that “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet
of Islam:”</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In isolation that doesn’t sound too bad. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that was right around the time <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-benghazi-patsy-091101">Obama
locked up a man for anti-Islamic blasphemy</a>, so it was accompanied with a
real threat of consequences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, where
were the hand-wringing editorials even denouncing Obama’s expression?<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most of all, we are gripped in a national moment where the
left has decided that it somehow vital to democracy to suppress certain kinds
of expression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So we see, for instance,
alleged words by alleged Russians being described as “interfering” with our
elections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, the hypocrisy involved
in this is nothing less than stunning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>How many times to liberals read international newspapers about American
politics? How many times do liberals say that we are supposed to let the
opinions of the world drive our policy?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global/2008/jul/24/barackobama.uselections2008">This</a>
is a pretty useful example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
linked article, candidate Barack Obama goes to Germany as part of his campaign
to become president of the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The left says that Russian speech is enemy interference, but we actually
fought two shooting wars with Germany.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Did a single person screaming about Russian interference today scream
about German interference with our American elections?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course not, because it would have been silly.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And then we get this glowing paragraph:<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoBlockText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Taking what he calls his “improbable journey” to the
heart of Europe, Barack Obama succeeded in closing down one of Berlin’s main
thoroughfares tonight, luring the city’s young in their tens of thousands to
stand in the evening sunshine and hear him spin his dreams of hope, not for
America this time, but for the whole world.</blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And all of that, in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Guardian</i>,
which is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">British</i> newspaper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Britain would be another country we had two
shooting wars with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Guardian</i> is a corporation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So it is a foreign corporation reporting on a
foreign political rally meant to influence the American election of Barack
Obama.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And no one on the left batted an
eye.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And rightly so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
idea growing on the left that we have to suppress certain speech to maintain
democracy goes against the First Amendment and what the Democrats once claimed
to believe.<br />
<br />
In terms of the First
Amendment, let’s break that down a little more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea that we have to suppress certain
speakers to allow others to be heard is directly contrary to the First
Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Supreme Court said in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11397892430187334248&q=citizens+united+v+federal+election+com%27n&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Buckley
v. Valeo</a>, </i>“the concept that government may restrict the speech of some
elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is
wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A milder version that has been making the rounds is that we need to
suppress false speech in order to maintain democracy, but as the Supreme Court
has <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2853347803518998660&q=567+U.+S.+709&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">said</a>,
“Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s
Ministry of Truth.”</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Free expression is critical to democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The right to make a decision implies the
right to make an informed decision, which in turn implies the right of other
people to speak freely, so that you can listen to what they say in the process
of making such an informed decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So
the right to vote in an election implies the right to speak freely about an
election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as for the purported need
for gatekeepers who will decide what is the truth, the Supreme Court has said
something about that, too:<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoBlockText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, “presupposes
that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of
tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and
always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.”</blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And what case said that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10183527771703896207&q=567+U.+S.+709&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">New
York Times v. Sullivan</a></i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Which segues into my other point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Liberals used to believe this sort of thing,
or at least did a better job pretending.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For instance, in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times v.
Sullivan</i>, that corporation argued that even when it got facts wrong about a
public figure, it should still be shielded from suit unless it was proven that
they had “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times</i> fought for the right to
get things wrong about people like Donald Trump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New
York Times</i> was instrumental in setting up precedents that protects so-called
fake news from suit.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Further, only two years before the Supreme Court sounded off
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times v. Sullivan</i>, President
Kennedy offered one of the best defenses of Supreme Court I have ever heard:<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We welcome the
views of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries
and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust
the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies,
and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the
truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or if you would prefer to hear it, go <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUnu58EnqTY">here</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How did we get here?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>How did we get a press that looks the other way at suppression of free
speech by Islamofascist barbarians, AntiFA terrorists, the IRS, the Trademark Office
and so on, yet howls when the President merely criticizes them—which is itself
protected expression under the First Amendment?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>How did we go from “We seek a free flow of information across national
boundaries and oceans” to “Oh my God, the Russians interfered in our elections by
saying things!”<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would be praising this #FreePress protest, if I thought
for one moment that this was a sign of a new appreciation of the value of all
expression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it isn’t. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is selective and hypocritical—and hypocrisy
is often a sign of dishonesty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
hard to escape the conclusion that the vast majority of the newspapers involved
in the #FreePress protest really only supports freedom of expression by liberal
newspapers, and by political allies.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, some of the examples I shared of suppression of freedom
of expression was noted by conservative media and protested by them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, for the most part, they are not the
ones participating in the #FreePress protest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And if they are participating, this post isn’t directed to them.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But for all the people protesting for the #FreePress who
didn’t speak up when AntiFA terrorists drove speakers off of college campuses,
who let islamofascists bully you into censoring yourselves, who said it was
okay to “punch a Nazi,” who supported suffocation of free speech by the IRS and
the FEC, who didn’t speak up when an American was locked up for blasphemy, who didn’t
speak up when Christians were arrested for handing out leaflets to Arab Americans,
I have two words for you: spare me. You don’t believe in Free Expression: you
only believe in your expression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I will
not participate in your savage mockery of freedom.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">My wife and I lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted
terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist) 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 <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: #888888;">here</span></a>, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: #888888;">@aaronworthing</span></a>,
mostly for snark and site updates.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">And do not contact his organizations, either. And most of
all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-7978190278781613172018-02-28T18:11:00.003-05:002018-02-28T18:11:31.672-05:00The Mueller “Russian” Indictment: The Prohibition on Foreign Participation in Elections is Unconstitutional (and a Mess)<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, previously I wrote a piece
explaining how the <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-mueller-indictment-foreign-agents.html">Foreign
Agents Registration Act is Unconstitutional</a>, as part of a promised series
on the Mueller indictment of thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian
companies. Once again, you can read the
indictment, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download">here</a>,
and you can search through its text, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945">here</a>, and, bluntly,
you might want to read that prior piece on the Foreign Registration Act,
because this piece is going to build off of that analysis. In other words, you really might not get what
I am trying to tell you unless you read that other piece.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And yes, this will be a long one.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So let me start by saying that I
am <i>not</i> saying that non-citizens should
be allowed to vote. But federal law
prohibits participation by “foreigners” to a far greater degree than voting. Here’s the statute in question, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121">52 U.S.C. § 30121</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b>(a) Prohibition</b>
It shall be unlawful for—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(1)
a foreign national, directly or
indirectly, to make—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(A)
a contribution or donation of money
or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local
election;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(B)
a contribution or donation to a
committee of a political party; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(C)
an expenditure, independent
expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the
meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, the first problem starts
when you look up the term “foreign national.”
From the same statute:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->(a)<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b>“Foreign
national” defined</b> As used in this section, the term “foreign national”
means—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(1)
a foreign principal, as such term is
defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national”
shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(2)
an individual who is not a citizen
of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section
1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent
residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, here it is important that
you read the last post. First, with
respect to subsection (2) you might remember that I explained that the word “individual”
is code for “flesh and blood human beings”—as opposed to artificial “persons”
such as corporations and partnerships, so now you know what that term means in
subsection (2). Further, in the last
post got through the definition of “foreign principal” mentioned in subsection
(1). The only thing to add to that is
that while the term “foreign principal” can mean a U.S. citizen in relation to
the Foreign Agents Registration Act, U.S. citizens can never be a Foreign
National under this subsection (2). So
if you didn’t read the previous post, now might be a good time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Also, subsection (2) uses some
terms that might need explaining. For
instance, it talks about the idea of a national of the United States. That is defined in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_22">this statute</a> as “(A)
a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of
the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” I’ll be honest, I didn’t know for sure what
that phrase “owes personal allegiance to the United States” while not being
citizens until I came across <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/i-9-central-questions-answers/faq/do-citizens-and-noncitizen-nationals-united-states-need-complete-form-i-9">this
page</a> from the Citizenship and Immigration Service, where they explain that
they are referring to the people in places like American Samoa, where they are
not citizens but nonetheless owe America their allegiance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Which still might be confusing to
many readers, in part because what is happening is frankly unjust and, in my
opinion, unconstitutional (contrary to what the courts have found so far). But what they are getting at is the concept
of treason. If I, an American citizen
who has lived his whole life in America, up and joined ISIS and bombed a train
station in Germany, that wouldn’t be treason <i>against Germany</i> because I owe no allegiance to Germany—I’m not a
German citizen, and you’d have to go back to my great-grandparents to find
someone who ever set foot in the country.
But if I joined ISIS and bombed a train station in New York City, that
could be treason. Further, even though a
person born in American Samoa is denied citizenship in America, the law claims
he or she owes allegiance to this country, so that if he or she joins ISIS and
bombs a train station in New York City, that is also treason. That is, it is treason against a country that
doesn’t even give that person citizenship in America as the Fourteenth
Amendment demands. But while people born
in American Samoa are denied citizenship in what I consider a continuing
injustice, at least they can speak freely like any citizen under this statute.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile the phrase “who is not
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of
title 8” is more obvious. They mean
pretty much green card holders. So
basically if you are a human and you are outside of the country, and you aren’t
a citizen, you are a foreign national.
However, if you are a real person and either here illegally, or you are
here legally, but not permanently, you are also a foreign national. So for instance, this applies if you are here
legally, but on a tourist visa. Or there
are visas just for temporary work or training in America. Those people are subject to those limitations
on their freedom of expression.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And is that all? Well, if you read my last post, you would
know that because the term “foreign principal” uses the word “includes,” there
is an unknown and undefined subset of persons (real people or entities) who
might still be foreign principals and therefore possibly foreign nationals
under the statute I am examining today.
And that is a problem, because it is the very definition of vague. The only good news is that the statute makes
it pretty clear that a citizen never falls under these limitations under any
circumstances. But as I pointed out, if
the law is too vague and it impacts the right of free speech, that vagueness
can render it unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And what are these foreign
nationals banned from doing? Well,
first, they cannot donate directly to campaigns or political parties, roughly
speaking. Second, an expenditure for an “electioneering
communication.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It’s the second part of that
which is concerning and I will focus on.
Consider for example, what the Supreme Court said in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6233137937069871624&q=citizens+united&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47"><i>Citizens United v. FEC</i></a>, about the law
they struck down in that case:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The law before us is
an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony
for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to
expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast
electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days
of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §
441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before
the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman
who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association
publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the
incumbent U.S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties
Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential
candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These
prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
“But, wait...” you might say, “liberals
constantly claim that this decision was about legalizing expenditures.” Well, that is right in one sense and highly
misleading in another. None of those
laws are triggered unless some money is spent, but it only requires <i>some</i> money. So, for instance, if on November 1, 2008
(three days before that year’s presidential election), you bought 1) a printer,
2) paper and 3) ink, and used them to publish a bunch of pamphlets saying “don’t
vote for Barack Obama” that you handed out by walking door-to-door in your
neighborhood, that is an expenditure for an electioneering communication in
relation to the Presidential election and, potentially, a crime under this
analysis.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar: </b>If there is one mistake in the analysis in <i>Citizens United</i>, it is a tactical
one. From the first big campaign finance
case, <i>Buckley v. Valeo</i>, down to
today, the courts constantly talks about it being a matter of free speech. The problem with that is that at the founding
of the First Amendment, freedom of speech meant “freedom to shout as loud as
you can.” Today “speech” can be a vital
part of mass media, but back then, the only mass media was the printing press,
and thus freedom of the press was a right to engage in mass media. Freedom of speech, at the founding, was also “free”
in the sense that it was costless. But
freedom of the press has always required money to allow you to exercise that
right. It is difficult for a person to
understand that “money is speech,” but it is easy to see how obtaining, keeping
and spending money can be vital to the press.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For example, imagine if Congress
passed a law prohibiting the purchase of ink and paper if it was to be used to
create statements critical of the president.
The average person wouldn’t have a difficult time understanding how that
law is unconstitutional. And by
extension, that person would have little difficulty understanding how it
applies to the internet, now that it is the primary vehicle by which the
printed word is distributed—on news sites, Twitter, Facebook and even blogs
like this one—so it is not hard to make a regular person understand that it is
impossible to engage in the right of freedom of the press without spending
money. I mean yes, Twitter is free, and
so is Blogspot, but the computer I am writing on is not free, and neither is my
internet connection or the electricity I am using. And even the more primitive forms of written
expression—a pencil and a notebook, perhaps—requires you to spend money. It is far easier to make a person understand that
the right to get money and property (hard to write on paper, if you can’t own
paper and a pencil), to keep that money and property and to exchange that money
and property is necessary to freedom of the press, compared to freedom of
speech. I am not saying the Supreme
Court is wrong—in modern media, it’s hard to exercise freedom of speech
meaningfully without spending money, because without money your speech reaches
only as far as your voice—but it is easier for the mind to process it through
the lens of freedom of the press. And
thus <i>Citizens United</i> and their ilk
should have discussed the matter through the lens of freedom of the press.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A deeper way to understand what
the Supreme Court was saying in <i>Citizens
United </i>is to realize that the law the Supreme Court struck down didn’t
prohibit spending generally. If you want
to spend the exact same amount of money to buy cars, Legos, or fruit for your own
use you didn’t break the law. It wasn’t
even illegal to spend that money to engage in most forms of communications. It was only if you spent that money on a
certain kind of expression. So to
pretend that this law was about spending and not expression is just
dishonest. And the only question is
whether the person saying that is lying, or they are being lied to (which is
sadly common).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Like the law struck down in <i>Citizens United, </i>the statute I have been
examining declares that a large group of real persons and entities are
prohibited from making campaign expenditures—non-citizens of any kind in a foreign
country, and illegal immigrants and temporary immigrants/visitors to our
country. They cannot express themselves
as freely as anyone else.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
“But, hey,” you might say, “that’s
being done to foreigners. <i>Screw them.</i>”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But look how quickly you can
recreate that paragraph I quote from Citizens United, by substituting persons
prohibited from speaking under this law:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The law before us is
an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. 52 U.S. Code § 30121 makes it a
felony for all foreign nationals—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either
to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast
electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days
of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under 52
U.S. Code § 30121: Médecins Sans Frontières runs an ad, within the crucial
phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to
disapprove of a Congressman who opposes spending on international epidemics
that might eventually reach our shores; an illegal immigrant self-publishes a
book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U.S.
Senator wishes to end DACA; and Malala Yousafzai creates a website telling
Americans to vote for a presidential candidate in light of his support of
international efforts to increase women’s education. These prohibitions are
classic examples of censorship.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for the law, the Supreme Court
hasn’t said one way or the other whether the right to express oneself applies
overseas, but one does not have to be a citizen to invoke one’s right to be
silent (that is, your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination). For instance, in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12528182500454273033&q=balsys&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47"><i>U.S. v. Balsys</i></a>, a resident alien was
told that “[i]f ... Balsys could demonstrate that any testimony he might give
in the deportation investigation could be used in a criminal proceeding against
him brought by the Government of either the United States or one of the States,
he would be entitled to invoke the privilege.”
It would be strange if a non-citizen had a right to remain silent, but
could not speak freely.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Likewise, the logic of another
decision supports the notion that, while the Fourth Amendment does not apply to
property belonging to non-citizens where that property is situated outside the
territorial U.S., much of the rest of the Bill of Rights does. In <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10167007390100843851&q=verdugo+urquidez&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47"><i>United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez</i></a>, a
Mexican citizen objected to a search of his Mexican property by Mexican police
at the urging of the American DEA. The
Supreme Court said that the Fourth Amendment didn’t apply with logic like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
That text, by
contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to “the
people.” Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this
phrase “simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,” Brief for American
Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, “the people” seems to
have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The
Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the
people of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that
certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See
also U. S. Const., Amdt. 1 (“Congress shall make no law. . . abridging . . .
the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2,
cl. 1 (“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second Year by the people of the several States”) (emphasis added). While this
textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people”
protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and
to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have
otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered
part of that community.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, with that analysis in mind,
look at the First Amendment:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You’ll notice the word “the
people” doesn’t appear until it discusses the right of assembly, and that term “the
people” might arguably apply to the right to petition the Government. But the use, or the failure to use the term “the
people” suggests it was intentional. I
mean, if the intention was to limit all of it to “the people,” it would be
written more like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion <i>over the people</i>, or prohibiting <i>the
right of the people to engage in the</i> free exercise thereof; or abridging
the right <i>of the people</i> to freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Instead, we get an amendment that
only speaks of limitations of power until the free assembly clause, and only
then do they use language limiting who enjoys the right.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar: </b>Reading this, you might wonder “how does this limit the
power of the president to censor people, or for that matter the states? It only seems to limit Congress.” The answer with relation to the Federal
Government is that the Courts have said that the President (and the judiciary,
for that matter) lacks the power to censor on his own, and Congress cannot
grant that power to any other branch.
Meanwhile, with respect to the states, the Fourteenth Amendment has been
interpreted to apply or “incorporate” most of the Bill of Rights to the
states. They call this the incorporation
doctrine.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Mind you, I am not saying that if
the Soviet Union locks up a dissident for criticizing the government that the
American First Amendment is violated.
What I am saying is that American government typically cannot try to
control what a person says, period, whether you are a citizen or not, whether
you are a legal immigrant or not, and whether you are standing on American soil
or not. Congress and the states cannot
silence any person, anywhere.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar:</b> I do think there is room for a wartime exception—in other
words, if we bombed Tokyo Rose off the air during World War II, we wouldn’t
have violated her First Amendment rights.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for the courts, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1121532194737627452&q=800+F.+Supp.+2d+281&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">D.C.
Circuit</a> has said that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to foreigners at
all and I will quote them at length, because I think I can show the problem
with their analysis:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
In those many decisions,
the Supreme Court has drawn a fairly clear line: The government may exclude
foreign citizens from activities “intimately related to the process of
democratic self-government.” <i>Bernal v.
Fainter</i>, 467 U.S. 216, 220, 104 S.Ct. 2312, 81 L.Ed.2d 175 (1984); see also
<i>Gregory v. Ashcroft</i>, 501 U.S. 452,
462, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991); <i>Cabell</i>, 454 U.S. at 439-40, 102 S.Ct. 735. As the Court has
written, “a State’s historical power to exclude aliens from participation in
its democratic political institutions [is] part of the sovereign’s obligation
to preserve the basic conception of a political community.” <i>Foley</i>, 435 U.S. at 295-96, 98 S.Ct. 1067
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, the government
may reserve “participation in its democratic political institutions” for
citizens of this country. Id. When reviewing a statute barring foreign citizens
from serving as probation officers, the Court explained that the “exclusion of
aliens from basic governmental processes is not a deficiency in the democratic
system but a necessary consequence of the community’s process of political
self-definition.” <i>Cabell</i>, 454 U.S. at
439, 102 S.Ct. 735 (emphasis added). Upholding a statute barring aliens from
teaching in public schools, the Court reasoned that the “distinction between
citizens and aliens, though ordinarily irrelevant to private activity, is
fundamental to the definition and government of a State.... It is because of
this special significance of citizenship that governmental entities, when
exercising the functions of government, have wider latitude in limiting the
participation of noncitizens.” <i>Ambach</i>,
441 U.S. at 75, 99 S.Ct. 1589 (emphasis added). And in upholding a ban on
aliens serving as police officers, the Court stated that, “although we extend
to aliens the right to education and public welfare, along with the ability to
earn a livelihood and engage in licensed professions, the right to govern is
reserved to citizens.” <i>Foley</i>, 435
U.S. at 297, 98 S.Ct. 1067.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
We read these cases
to set forth a straightforward principle: It is fundamental to the definition
of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a
constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from,
activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the
United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment
analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of
American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign
influence over the U.S. political process.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Applying the Supreme
Court’s precedents, the question here is whether political contributions and
express-advocacy expenditures — including donations to outside groups that in
turn make contributions or express-advocacy expenditures, see <i>Emily’s List v. FEC</i>, 581 F.3d 1
(D.C.Cir.2009) — constitute part of the process of democratic self-government.
In our view, the answer to that question is straightforward: Political
contributions and express-advocacy expenditures are an integral aspect of the
process by which Americans elect officials to federal, state, and local
government offices. Political contributions and express-advocacy expenditures
finance advertisements, get-out-the-vote drives, rallies, candidate speeches,
and the myriad other activities by which candidates appeal to potential voters.
See generally <i>Buckley</i>, 424 U.S. at
14, 96 S.Ct. 612. We think it evident that those campaign activities are part
of the overall process of democratic self-government. Moreover, it is
undisputed that the government may bar foreign citizens from voting and serving
as elected officers. See <i>Sugarman</i>,
413 U.S. at 647-49, 93 S.Ct. 2842. It follows that the government may bar
foreign citizens (at least those who are not lawful permanent residents of the
United States) from participating in the campaign process that seeks to
influence how voters will cast their ballots in the elections. Those
limitations on the activities of foreign citizens are of a piece and are all “part
of the sovereign’s obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political
community.” <i>Foley</i>, 435 U.S. at
295-96, 98 S.Ct. 1067 (internal quotation marks omitted).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And as you can see, they are
getting at exactly the questions I am exploring, but I think they are getting
it fundamentally wrong. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, it is worth noting that
the cases cited for the idea that aliens can be excluded from the political
community dealt solely with state governments excluding non-citizens from being
government officials, usually cops and once a teacher. To stretch that the Supreme Court’s
declaration that foreigners can be excluded from actually working for the
government into the idea that they have no right to speak at all is ridiculous.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Second, the idea that only people
who can vote can speak is simply not true.
Non-voters “participate” by speaking about elections all the time. Children below the age of eighteen cannot
vote, and yet nothing stops them from speaking their mind about who you should
vote for. Many states also ban felons
from voting, but they are still allowed to speak, donate to candidates and
parties and issue electioneering communications. Likewise, green card holders can’t vote
(except maybe in California), but the statute specifically exempts them from
the limitations imposed on foreign nationals.
And for that matter, <i>Citizens</i> <i>United</i> allowed corporations to
participate by issuing electioneering communications even though such
artificial persons are not allowed to vote.
So the notion that only citizens capable of voting can tell us who to
vote for is simply wrong.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Third, this opinion misunderstands
the purpose of the First Amendment. I
agree that the primary purpose of the First Amendment is to serve
democracy. We are a republic. Power ultimately resides in the citizens of
the republic. We choose ultimately the
direction of this country.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But the right to make a choice is
the right to make that choice voluntarily and intelligently, with the chance to
receive information about that choice, and to hear people’s opinions about that
choice. That is what the First Amendment
is for: to open up the floodgates of information so that the voting citizens
can make up their minds about who or what to vote for. This is not to say that the First Amendment’s
free expression clauses only applies to political speech—its language encompasses
art, for instance—but this is their primary reason for existence: to inform the
people so their decisions in the political process are informed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, the right of Malala, illegal
immigrants or Médecins Sans Frontières to speak isn’t about <i>their</i> right to participate in the
American political process. It’s about
our rights, as citizens, to take in any information or views we want as <i>we</i> decide how to participate in the
political process. I am an American
exceptionalist who believes that the world has more to learn from us than we do
from it, but that doesn’t mean I won’t even listen to what a foreigner in a
foreign land might have to say. And even
if I personally refused to listen to foreigners, I wouldn’t deny another person’s
right to hear their opinions, because Americans have a right not to subscribe
to my American exceptionalism views. Thus
the right of all people, including foreigners, not to be silenced by the
American government isn’t about their right to speak, so much as our (the
citizens of America’s) right to hear them.
And that is the most basic flaw in their analysis.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, there is an additional
problem when you exempt entire groups from the First Amendment. You see, the First Amendment not only
protects the right to speak, but the right not to speak, either. As the Supreme Court has <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15210508422263730617&q=430+U.S.+705&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">said</a>
“the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state
action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from
speaking at all.” So, if an illegal
immigrant is not protected by the First Amendment at all, for instance, then
Donald Trump can say to an illegal immigrant “either campaign for me, for free,
or I will deport you.” Rather than
keeping the foreigners out of politics, it would make them vulnerable to being
forced to help a particular side, which would distort our politics.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, while that opinion is
well-written, I think the D.C. Circuit is wrong and I don’t think their opinion
will prove persuasive in the long run.
And I certainly think it is wrong as an original matter.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And it is worth noting that at
least two courts have agreed that at least foreigners in America have First
Amendment Rights, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1678134619269135875&q=+646+F.Supp.+492+&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">here</a>
and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6525669703796060783&q=663+F.Supp.2d+1018&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Certainly, the strongest argument
can be made for “free speech for foreigners” involves people present in the
United States even if only temporarily or illegally. Another function of freedom of expression is
that it can call attention to problems.
Temporary workers might in fact be abused. They might be subjected to unlawful working
conditions, sexually harassed and so on.
Or maybe an illegal immigrant was pulled over by a cop and even though
he offered no resistance, was unlawfully beaten by that cop. Or maybe a person here on a tourist visa is
the only witness to a Congressman receiving a bribe. If these people are not protected by the
First Amendment, then every single one of these people can be, consistent with
the constitution, stopped from telling others what they have seen or
experienced. This might also mean injustices
like the ones I outlined might persist and fester, until they explode into a
riot. In the name of domestic
tranquility, they should at least have a chance to be heard. A person who believes they have been wronged
has a right to tell the citizens (who are the true sovereigns of this country),
so that if they are right, we can redress it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And if you only agree with
that—that illegal immigrants, temporary workers and foreign tourists—have a
right to speak, then this law is already overly broad. And if you recall my last post, if a statute
restricting speech is overly broad, it is unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But things start to get even
worse when you start looking at the definition of Electioneering Communications
found in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30104#f_3">52
U.S.C. § 30104</a>, where it says:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b>(3) Electioneering
communication</b> For purposes of this subsection—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(A)
In general<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(i)
The term “electioneering
communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(I)
refers to a clearly identified
candidate for Federal office;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(II) is made within—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 3.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 3.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(aa)
60 days before a general, special, or
runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 3.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 3.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(bb)
30 days before a primary or preference
election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to
nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(III)
in the case of a communication which
refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is
targeted to the relevant electorate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(ii)
If clause (i) is held to be
constitutionally insufficient by final judicial decision to support the
regulation provided herein, then the term “electioneering communication” means
any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which promotes or supports a
candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office
(regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or
against a candidate) and which also is suggestive of no plausible meaning other
than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in
this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation or
application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of Federal Regulations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, while that is a lot to take
in, I think if you go slow you can pick apart most of it. Most of it doesn’t suffer from the vagueness
problems I have been mentioning, but I think subsection (iii) creates two
problems for those defending these statutes.
First, its overbroad. It says “in
the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other
than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate” which
means that when you are talking about a candidate for President or Vice President,
they are not going to look at whether the ad is targeted to the relevant
electorate or not. So imagine a Chinese
citizen living in rural China sends out some leaflets that say that Donald
Trump should be president. Well, that
has little chance of reaching even a single American citizen, let alone moving
the needle to any appreciable degree in the election, and a regulation that prohibits
that seems by definition to be overbroad.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But the second problem is that
this transforms what previously was a content-neutral regulation into a
regulation that discriminates based on content (but not viewpoint). See my previous post for more discussion of
that principle, but that means it has to survive the strict scrutiny test which
requires that it be 1) narrowly tailored to serve 2) a compelling government
purpose. What is the compelling purpose
in preventing rural Chinese from hearing a person’s opinion of the American
Presidential election? How is a law that
would cover that scenario narrowly tailored?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That is something to keep in mind
when the exceptions to that definition:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b>(B) Exceptions</b>
The term “electioneering communication” does not include—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(i)
a communication appearing in a news
story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any
broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any
political party, political committee, or candidate;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(ii)
a communication which constitutes an
expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iii)
a communication which constitutes a
candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or
on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iv)
any other communication exempted
under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with the
requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate implementation of
this paragraph, except that under any such regulation a communication may not
be exempted if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is described in
section 30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, I would like to focus on
subsection (i) which says “a communication appearing in a news story,
commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting
station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party,
political committee, or candidate.” So
that would appear, for instance, to exempt every foreign broadcast news
station—unless it is owned or controlled by any political party, political
committee or candidate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So first... wouldn’t that exempt
the BBC? Which is strange, because it
seems that the general thrust of the laws I have been looking at is being
afraid of foreign influence, especially from foreign governments. The BBC—that is, the <i>British</i> Broadcasting Company—is state television. So, they are saying it is okay for <i>state television</i> to endorse a candidate,
but not a political party? On the other
hand, I tend to think that if China’s official state television endorses a
candidate, that this would not fall outside of the exception in subsection (1) because
it would be obviously controlled by a political party, the Communist Party.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, that exemption only
applies to broadcast. Traditionally, the
term “broadcast” only refers to the transmission of television waves—you know,
UHF and VHF. It doesn’t typically refer
to cable or satellite (even though both typically transmit through the air at
some point). These exceptions also don’t on their face apply to printed
newspapers, internet news sites, and so on, but then again the statute might
not apply to those things at all, since the definition of “electioneering
communications” requires that it be a “broadcast, cable, or satellite
communication.” As a general rule, that
doesn’t include any of those other forms communication like printed newspapers,
internet news sites, etc., except arguably when I am using a cable-based
internet service, it might arguably be a “cable communication.” Still, where is the sense in exempting that
one kind of communication?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, a failure to cover
something can be a constitutional problem, too.
As noted by the Supreme Court in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8188183097368882582&q=468+U.S.+364&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">FCC
v. League of Women Voters of California</a></i>, not only is overbreadth a
problem in constitutional analysis, but so is underinclusiveness. Mind you, it is not typically a violation of
the First Amendment to <i>fail</i> to ban certain
speech as long as that failure is content- and viewpoint-neutral, but it
undermines the credibility of the government when it says “X is such a problem
we must silence speech… well, except
this part of X, that’s totally not a big deal.”
Allowing Congress to regulate elections and election-related expression is
inherently dangerous—there is a danger that under the guise of protecting
democracy, they would instead subvert democracy to maintain their power. Underinclusiveness is evidence that they are
not motivated by protecting democracy—it undermines the sincerity of their
avowed concerns.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, the underinclusiveness
problem creates another issue: discrimination among speakers. The fact is this law, as written, gives
certain speakers “privileges” in the marketplace that others don’t
enjoy—namely, the press. So if the BBC
runs an editorial endorsing a presidential candidate, that is legal. But if Theresa May spends her own money on an
ad exhorting Americans to vote for a certain candidate, that is forbidden. Yet, what is the compelling reasons for
allowing British State Television to speak freely, but not their Prime Minister?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now it is worth taking a moment
to clear up a misconception about the press and the First Amendment. There is a clause that guarantees “freedom of
the press” and it is popular in liberal circles to think that phrase is
designed to protect the institutional press and us ordinary schmucks are not
covered by that clause.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, that whole idea can be
defeated by <i>Common Sense</i> in
conjunction with common sense. You see,
if that interpretation of the First Amendment was correct, then Thomas Paine’s <i>Common Sense</i> is not covered by the First
Amendment. After all, <i>Common Sense </i>was not published in the
institutional press—it was just a pamphlet.
And yet common sense tells us that the Founders were thinking precisely
of their own revolutionary experience when they wrote the First Amendment and
thus <i>Common Sense</i> was probably
exactly the kind of thing they would think was protected. So common sense tells us that any
interpretation that would leave <i>Common
Sense</i> unprotected is wrong. And for
that matter, that entire interpretation of that clause was rejected in Citizens
United. No, freedom of the press belongs
to everyone, whether you are part of the institutional press or not.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, having established that every
speaker is equally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment one has to look at the
justification for excluding the non-press foreign national from the marketplace
of ideas. Fortunately, the Supreme Court
has addressed the question of restrictions on speakers recently in the case of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=285661631352488303&q=packingham&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47"><i>Packingham v. North Carolina</i></a>, where
the state had forbidden registered sex offenders from joining social media
where children might be—as in Facebook, Twitter, and so on. The Supreme Court noted that since the
regulation appeared to be content- and viewpoint-neutral, the test would be
whether it was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest (as
opposed to a compelling government interest needed if it was not
content-neutral). But what interest
would the government have in treating “the press” differently from any regular
schmuck? What significant interest is
served by saying they should be treated special? I cannot see any such purpose.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The other exception I want to
focus on is found in subsection (iv).
This is what it says, again:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iv)
any other communication exempted
under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with the
requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate implementation of
this paragraph, except that under any such regulation a communication may not
be exempted if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is described in
section 30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So basically, this lets the FEC
create additional exceptions, so long as it doesn’t exempt any communication
that “meets the requirements of this paragraph” and is described in another
statute (which we will get to, I promise).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Which, Gosh, that sounds really
questionable constitutionally. Remember
how I said that under-inclusiveness undermines their claim of a compelling
interest. Well, so does this. I haven’t seen a case declaring this, but
logic suggests it. It transforms their argument into “X is so important that we
must suppress speech, except whatever the FEC decides isn’t that important
after all.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Apart from that, let’s take a
look at those exceptions, which are found in <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5f675d4be1c6eda059f7bd38ad09c6f9&mc=true&node=se11.1.100_129&rgn=div8">this
regulation</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(c) The
following communications are exempt from the definition of electioneering
communication. Any communication that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(1) Is publicly
disseminated through a means of communication other than a broadcast, cable, or
satellite television or radio station. For example, electioneering
communication does not include communications appearing in print media,
including a newspaper or magazine, handbill, brochure, bumper sticker, yard
sign, poster, billboard, and other written materials, including mailings; <i>communications over the Internet</i>,
including electronic mail; or telephone communications;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(2) Appears in a
news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any
broadcast, cable, or satellite television or radio station, unless such
facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee,
or candidate. A news story distributed through a broadcast, cable, or satellite
television or radio station owned or controlled by any political party,
political committee, or candidate is nevertheless exempt if the news story
meets the requirements described in 11 CFR 100.132(a) and (b);<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(3) Constitutes
an expenditure or independent expenditure provided that the expenditure or
independent expenditure is required to be reported under the Act or Commission
regulations;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(4) Constitutes
a candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to 11 CFR 110.13, or that solely
promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or on behalf of the person
sponsoring the debate or forum; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(5) Is paid for
by a candidate for State or local office in connection with an election to
State or local office, provided that the communication does not promote,
support, attack or oppose any Federal candidate. See 11 CFR 300.71 for
communications paid for by a candidate for State or local office that promotes,
supports, attacks or opposes a Federal candidate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(emphasis added). Did you catch that? The entire internet is exempted from
this. That is a pretty large
exemption. So if you are watching, <i>Legion</i> on FX, and the evil Russians run
an ad saying vote for Trump, that is a crime.
But if you are watching <i>Legion </i>on
Hulu, and the exact same ad runs, that is legal. That does answer my previous question of
whether cable internet is covered or not (it isn’t)—but holy crap, it exempts
so much, it really makes you wonder what is the point.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And that again gets to that <i>Packingham</i>, issue: how is this narrowly
tailored to serve a significant interest?
What is the significant interest in saying TV ads need to regulated while
the entire Internet is not? Indeed, in <i>Packingham</i>, the Supreme Court said that<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
While in the past
there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a
spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is
cyberspace — the “vast democratic forums of the Internet” in general ... and
social media in particular. Seven in ten American adults use at least one
Internet social networking service. Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation et
al. as Amici Curiae 5-6. One of the most popular of these sites is Facebook,
the site used by petitioner leading to his conviction in this case. According
to sources cited to the Court in this case, Facebook has 1.79 billion active
users. Id., at 6. This is about three times the population of North America.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So if you are speaking to the
Supreme Court, it would be hard to explain to them why “the most important
place[] ... for the exchange of views” should be exempted but it was vitally
important to suppress broadcast, cable and satelite. Again, I am not saying that the internet <i>shouldn’t</i> be exempted, only that the broadcast,
cable and satellite networks shouldn’t be regulated this way, either and its
hard to justify their special treatment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But we are not out of the woods
yet. The exception also can’t offend
this part:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iv)
any other communication exempted
under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with the
requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate implementation of
this paragraph, except that under any such regulation a communication may not
be exempted if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is described in section
30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now the easy part of this is what
“is described in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30101#20_A_iii">section
30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title</a>” which is this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
a public
communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office
(regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office is also mentioned
or identified) and that promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or
attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the
communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That’s relatively
understandable. But it also has to meet
the requirement so “this paragraph” which raises the question: what does “this
paragraph” refer to?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Look at the entire section
regarding exceptions again:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b>(B) Exceptions</b>
The term “electioneering communication” does not include—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(i)
a communication appearing in a news
story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any
broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any
political party, political committee, or candidate;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(ii)
a communication which constitutes an
expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iii)
a communication which constitutes a
candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or
on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iv)
any other communication exempted
under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with the
requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate implementation of
this paragraph, except that under any such regulation a communication may not
be exempted if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is described in
section 30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, is “this paragraph” a
reference to subsection (iv)? Because,
bluntly, that subsection is not even a sentence, let alone a paragraph as the
term is ordinarily used. But then that
would suggest this entire quoted subsection (B) is “this paragraph.” Or maybe even more?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Further, the term “requirements
of this paragraph” is non-sensical—the only requirements are those needed to
qualify for an exception. So it seems to
translate to “if your exception meets the requirements for getting an exception
it cannot be an exception…?” Regardless
of how expansively we interpret the term “this paragraph” the word “requirements”
doesn’t make much sense.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Put them together, with what “is
described in section 30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title” I mentioned a moment ago,
and things get bizarre. For instance, if
you interpret “this paragraph” as including subsection (iii), then a candidate’s
debate may not be exempted if it “meets the requirements of this paragraph and
is described in section 30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title.” So the requirements of that subsection of
that paragraph, applied there, would mean that it would cover a candidate
debate. And as I just mentioned 52
U.S.C. § 30101(20)(A)(iii) describes:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
a public
communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office
(regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office is also mentioned
or identified) and that promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or
attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the
communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So that would mean that in a
candidate debate, you either 1) cannot clearly identify the candidates, or 2)
you must prohibit the candidates from “promoting or supporting a candidate” or “attack[ing]
or oppos[ing] a candidate,” which kind of goes against the entire idea of a
debate. “I am a candidate for president,
but I am indifferent about getting your vote!”—that would be absurd, and when
reading ambiguous statutes, the courts avoid the absurd interpretation. So that would suggest that “this paragraph”
only means subsection (iv).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But at the same time, it is also
absurd to read the phrase “this paragraph” to mean only subsection (iv), because
it raises the question “what requirements?”
There didn’t seem to be any requirements in subsection (iv). I suppose you could say the requirement is
that is a regulation created by the FEC, but in statutory drafting, the more
common phrase to use is “such regulations” instead of that “requirements” mess. Still my gut says that the best reading is to
limit it to subsection (iv), but a judge could easily read it differently.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, this exception is
a mess, which creates another void for vagueness problem.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let’s go back to the issue
of internet expression with a hypothetical.
Imagine that a foreigner, an evil Russian, ran an ad on Facebook saying “Vote
for Bernie Sanders” in the crucial thirty days before a primary. Would that be criminalized under the law?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, first, you have to ask if
it is an electioneering communication at all.
Under § 30104(f)(3)(A)(i), it has to be on “broadcast, cable, or satellite
communication.” As I noted before, I am
not sure whether an internet cable transmission counts as a “cable
communication.” But, if it does, the
remaining requirements are met pretty clearly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, still in that hypothetical,
we ask if an exception applies. The only
one that would seem to apply is the regulatory exception, where they said communications
are excepted from the term “electioneering communication” if it is one that<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Is publicly
disseminated through a means of communication other than a broadcast, cable, or
satellite television or radio station. For example, electioneering
communication does not include communications appearing in print media,
including a newspaper or magazine, handbill, brochure, bumper sticker, yard
sign, poster, billboard, and other written materials, including mailings; communications
over the Internet, including electronic mail; or telephone communications;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So that would seem to fall into
the exception because it is internet communications. Now, what about that exception to the
exceptions I have been talking about above?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One view is that such a Facebook
ad would be covered by exception to the exception (meaning it is covered by the
statute, and doesn’t fall into any proper exception), because it is a
communication arguably described in “this paragraph” even if we only interpret
it to mean subsection (IV) and obviously it would be supporting a candidate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But there is another radically
different way to look at that regulatory exception: as not literally an exception,
so much as an interpretation of § 30104(f)(3)(A)(i), which said that
electioneering communications have to be on “broadcast, cable, or satellite
communication.” Look at how the
regulation creating this “exception” reads.
It is literally saying that one exception is, more or less, “stuff not
actually covered by the statute at all.”
Then it goes on to list some examples of what is not covered. Some of those are obviously not covered. A billboard or an actual printed newspaper is
obviously not broadcast, cable, or satellite communication. The only debatable part of that is exempting
internet, email and phone communications (because there is such a thing as
cable-based phone service). And there is
a doctrine that says that regulatory agencies can put out regulations that
interpret what a term in a statute means, and courts will defer to those
interpretations if the term is ambiguous in the statute. So rather than really being seen as an
exception that is subject to the “exception to the exceptions” subsection, it
might instead be seen as an interpretation of the statute, which the courts are
supposed to defer to.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The additional notion to consider
in all of this is the doctrine of lenity.
This doctrine says that when dealing with an ambiguous criminal statute,
courts should interpret it narrowly.
These statutes have criminal consequences, so that would seem to suggest
that you have to interpret “cable” as not applying to the internet (or cable
phones), under this approach, in order to narrowly interpret that term.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, my gut says that in this
hypothetical, that no crime was committed.
But I cannot be sure if a judge would see all of it the same way.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
There are several bottom lines you
can get, then, from that analysis.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, is your brain hurting
yet? I tried to walk you slowly through
that analysis, but as a trained lawyer who is used to reading statutes, that
was difficult and you saw there were some parts of this that still don’t make
full sense to me. If you are a reader
who doesn’t literally do this sort of thing for a living, what chance would you
have to work through all that by yourself?
This goes to a larger criticism of the entire campaign finance
structure: it makes it so that a novice has a very hard time navigating all of
this. So, as a practical matter, if you
are running for political office, you <i>have</i>
to hire a lawyer, thus incurring a cost many cannot ordinarily afford. That might not be unconstitutional in and of
itself, but it does seem wrong. We are
supposed to be a government “of the people,” in Lincoln’s immortal words, which
suggests that it shouldn’t be hard for a regular person to run for office, and
yet one effectively cannot run without hiring a lawyer. It is decidedly against my interests as a
lawyer to say this, but that is wrong and should change.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Second, that would seem to
implicate the issue of vagueness. If a
trained lawyer has trouble figuring out what these statutes mean, what chance does
a lay person have?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Add that to the other concerns—the
fact that the statute is overbroad in its reach and underinclusive as well—and I
believe that this statute is unconstitutional and that the courts will
eventually see it as such and strike it down.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, we are two for two on laws
implicated by the Mueller “Russian” indictment.
But that is a “stacked” analysis.
I focused on the unconstitutional laws first to set the table for
looking at the indictment as a whole, which is what I plan to do next. So, stay tuned. We are not quite done with this indictment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
My wife and I lost our jobs due
to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist)
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 <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">here</a>,
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all,
leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-51503308643393206032018-02-21T16:48:00.000-05:002018-02-21T16:48:31.386-05:00Black Panther Review: Double Plus Secret Societies<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So last night I took a break from
work and writing my next post dealing with the Mueller indictment and saw <i>Black Panther</i>. And I want to talk about it. As per usual, I’ll keep things spoiler-free
above the fold and warn you before I get spoilerific. Without spoilers, I remember getting a very
“Wonder Woman” vibe when reading the reviews.
Now, I liked Wonder Woman. I own
a copy of it and have watched and enjoyed it several times. It is a legitimately good movie. But it was much better reviewed than it
deserved to be. And you got the
suspicion that people were worried about being called sexist if they dare to be
insufficiently exuberant in their praise.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It took me a while to think of
what this reminded me of, and then I remembered this video. Watch it to the end. It’s pretty amazing/horrifying:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FY8tR0OQ1oc" width="560"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, in this video, I am not sure
there was any genuine enthusiasm for Stalin.
I mean, if they are that scared of him, how much can they really like
him? On the other hand, I absolutely
believe that there is a lot that is genuinely good about Wonder Woman, so I
presume that a large part of the praise it got was entirely genuine. But there was also an element where I
wondered if they were going massively over the top just because they were
afraid of being “the first one to stop clapping.” And I began to get the sense that the same
thing was happening with Black Panther.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And I was right. It was good.
I recommend it. But the praise is
waaaaaay over the top. For instance, I
saw reviews comparing Michael B. Jordan’s turn as Killmonger as being like
Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight.
If they mean he is as scary as that iconic character, no, he’s not even
close and he’s not meant to be. If they
mean well-acted, yeah, Jordan did a pretty damn good job, but in a contest I
think I’d still give the win to Ledger.
Although to be fair to Jordan, it’s a bit of comparing apples to
oranges. A good scary performance is
much different than what Jordan was giving us.
Jordan’s Killmonger actually more resembles Michael Shannon’s depiction
of Zod, in <i>Man of </i>Steel, in that he
is shown to be a determined and ruthless follower of comprehensible ideology. I’m not saying you necessarily agree with
their ideology, but it was an ideology that seemed pretty logically consistent
and worked out.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(Well, Zod’s ideology was
consistent at least until Superman screwed up his plans so thoroughly that Zod
completely flipped his sh*t and decided to go on a killing spree, but in that
movie’s context it made sense that events would completely break his mind and
drive him insane.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That being said, Killmonger,
despite having a silly name (that was surprisingly well-justified in the movie)
was really one of the best villains in the Marvel Universe. And Andy Sirkis is actually pretty awesome as
secondary returning villain Klaw.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Also, toward the end, there is a
character death that was surprisingly moving—really probably the most moving
moment since the funeral at the end of Guardians of the Galaxy 2.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And finally, before we get really
spoilerish, let me point out that you don’t need to stay for the final after
credits scene. As we all know, Marvel
really loves to put in those mid- and post-credits scenes, sometimes setting up
sequels, sometimes tying up a loose end, sometimes schmucking around (I’m
looking at you, <i>Guardians of the Galaxy 2</i>,
but with affection). So there is a
mid-credits scene that I won’t reveal, but I will say I think it should have
just been part of the movie. And then
when all the credits are done, they have an after credits scene that you
frankly didn’t need to see (although there are some kids who are pretty funny,
so maybe it is worth seeing it for that).
Why you don’t need to see it is...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>OKAY, SPOILER ALERT TIME. ALTHOUGH THIS SPOILER HAS ALREADY BEEN
REALLY, REALLY SPOILED.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
...is because it gives away the
fact that Bucky Barnes is out of stasis and apparently okay. As you might remember they put him in some
kind of stasis in one of the mid- or after-credits scenes in Civil War. So the after the credits scene in Black
Panther reveals that he is out and he seems to be psychologically okay. Which you already know if you have been
watching the ads for Avengers: Infinity War where Buckey is charging at the bad
guys along with a ton of Wakandans and I think Captain America. I mean there is pretty much no other point to
that scene except to tell you Bucky is back in action, but like I said, there
are some funny kids messing with him, so maybe you want to sit through the
credits to see that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, before we go on, I am going
to get into MUCH MORE MASSIVE SPOILERS.
DO NOT PROCEED IF YOU CARE ABOUT HAVING THE MOVIE SPOILED. BUT IF YOU HAVE SEEN IT, OR YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT
BEING SPOILED, READ ON.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Unlike the Bucky spoiler, this
really tells you something that you are not going to get from a
Marvel-sanctioned advertisement. So...
you decide whether to proceed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Okay, still with me?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One thing that is interesting
about the movie is this: it confronts one of the weird elements of the “secret
society” trope. In fact, confronting it
is what Killmonger’s entire ideology is about.
Indeed, it is fair to say that this is what the whole movie is about.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let me start by telling you about
this fictionalized Wakanda. Basically,
millions of years ago a massive asteroid of vibranium crashed in the middle of
Africa (is this what wiped out the dinosuars?).
Vibranium, as you might recall, is a fictionalized material that is the
toughest metal in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s what they made Captain America’s shield
out of, and you might recall Ultron mentioning that vibranium has all these
wonderful properties in them “and they use it to make a frisbee.” So Vibranium is like a super substance that
allows them to do special things with healing and other things. If you are a fan of Valkyria Chronicles, it’s
probably most similar to ragnite, in the sense that it is a fictionalized
substance with properties that are practically magic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So they had a massive amount of
the stuff, to the point that even today they are still mining that
motherlode. Five ancient tribes fought
over it, and eventually made peace and decided that vibranium was too powerful
to let the rest of the world have it. So
they went super-isolationist. Their
mountains were a natural barrier, but they also decided not to do any kind of
trade with the outside world. And they
also trick the world into thinking that they have pretty much nothing, when in
fact they have Star-Wars-like technology.
So they hide their skyscrapers with what appears to be holograms, and so
on, and the rest of the world thinks they are a third world country.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So it belongs in the what I call
the “secret society” genre. The idea is
that while we are going about our daily lives, there is a secret world or a
secret place we don’t even know about.
Sometimes this society is apart from us, such as the Inhumans living on
the moon, or Wakanda, and sometimes they are integrated into our world, such as
the Harry Potter world of wizardry and the aliens among us in Men in Black.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I admit I am personally pretty
sick of the genre and it has to work hard for me not to get too annoyed with
it. As I see it, there are three big
problems with the genre that recurrently occur.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The first problem that often
crops up in these stories is how the hell do they keep the secret? In the case of a kingdom on the moon, natural
isolation does a lot to help. On the
other hand, in Men in Black, keeping it secret is pretty much a full-time
job. And often in these secret society
stories you get the creepy feeling that the only way they are keeping the
secret is by fascist speech limitations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The second problem is kind of
related to the first: isn’t all of this really undemocratic? This is most pronounced when the secret
society is mixed with our own society and no one is telling normal people what
is really happening. For instance, with
Stargate SG-1 and related TV shows, the American people are not told about a
basic fact in the universe: that we are not alone and in fact we are engaging
in several secret wars with various alien species. That seems wrong for anyone who believes in
government by consent of the governed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The third problem is if that
secret society has abilities that might benefit normal people, why aren’t they
helping? Again, look at the Harry Potter
“universe” where apparently they can heal many diseases we can’t. It makes them kind of come off as jerks for
not sharing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, not every secret society
story implicates all three of these, but they are recurring problems. For instance, going back to Stargate SG-1,
the secrecy is not too crazy: probably two hundred people have to know the
secret truth in the show. The secret
society—in this case a galactic community of aliens and humans who have left
Earth—has little other way to contact us.
And as for helping with their amazing abilities, they are actually doing
that, constantly. There are entire
episodes discussing how they are slowly leaking technology they are recovering
from alien civilizations. And while I
knocked the undemocratic nature of the premise of the show—multiple secret alien
wars that are not even shared with the American people—they even do their best
to make the case that we can’t handle the truth, by having an episode where
another civilization learns of the Stargate and collapses into anarchy within a
day or two, suggesting that it could happen here.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Harry Potter world also does
a descent job of explaining how the secret is kept by explaining how muggles
are constantly having their memories wiped.
There is a whole sequence in <i>Fantastic
Beasts and Where to Find Them</i>, where they cast a massive amnesia spell over
an entire city. It gets a little
strained by the time they reach the modern day, because, well, wouldn’t magical
teenagers have cell phones? And if you
look at how non-magical kids behave with their phones, you know what you would
expect: moron kids who take selfies as they levitate, or when Harry Potter
dies, #RIPHarry would trend on Twitter, competing with Death Eaters tweeting
#VoldemortForever or some nonsense like that.
Or at least that is what they would want to do. So you have to think that the only way their
secrets are being kept is if expression in their world is being pretty brutally
suppressed. Either that, or JK Rowling
doesn’t believe teenagers would do the sort of things I described, which means
she doesn’t know any actual teenagers or remember what it is like to be one. And of course, the idea is undemocratic as
heck. I mean, there is an entire branch
of the British government, the ministry of magic, that most of the people had
no idea existed. Like Stargate SG-1,
they make the case that ordinary people can’t handle the truth, which makes a
little more sense given the history of actual witch burnings.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for Black Panther, there is no
satisfactory explanation why the secret doesn’t get out. They imply the place is surrounded by
mountains and so its almost like their own Berlin Wall, but those mountains are
not utterly impenetrable. The truth
would trickle out, typically.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And they obviously <i>can</i> have mass media and social media in Wakanda,
given that they have hologram technology.
The only issue would be creating sufficient “backwards compatability” to
transmit to the world at large. So it <i>can</i> theoretically happen, but does
it? And if not, why not? Are they brutally suppressing any attempt to
communicate with the outside world? More
likely, the creators just think they’re not interested in the outside world,
which strikes me as unrealistic. I just
don’t believe any group of people that large could be that monolithic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for the lack of democracy
issue, well, it’s a monarchy where the king can be chosen by combat, so... not
really a democracy issue in the sense that it doesn’t exist in Wakanda and they
don’t care. In other media, I see Black
Panther enact democratic reforms, but not in the movies, so far.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And then there is the recurring
problem of why the hell they don’t help normal people now and then? And what is unusual in that not only does the
movie take this head on, but it’s a major theme of the story and it drives the
plot. Remember how I said that
Killmonger had an ideology that drove him.
That is his ideology. He comes to
Wakanda and he says (paraphrase), “where the f--k have you been? When they were kidnapping Africans and
sending them off into slavery, where the f--k were you? When European powers were colonizing Africa,
where the f--k were you?” This is, in part, where the movie gets
political, but that question isn’t <i>that</i>
political. Its not very political to say
“slavery is bad” and in America, hating colonialism is founding ideology. His plan, then, is to take over Wakanda, and
then use their agents around the world to rise up and overthrow every country
until Wakanda rules the Earth, so they can help black people around the world. And the clash between Black Panther and him
is stopping that part of his plan, but Black Panther comes to the conclusion
that Wakanda can’t just do nothing. So
at the end, he decides they need to try to help the whole world, peacefully: a
middle ground between conquering the world like Killmonger wants, and hiding
from the world and letting it go to hell like they did previously.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And that strikes me as the most
interesting part of the story. The basic
premise of Wakanda makes them kind of jerks.
Slavery happened, they did nothing.
Nazi Germany happened, they did nothing.
Hell, the Earth nearly ended twice on the Avengers’ watch and they did
nothing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A few other, less spoilerish
notes. First, any notion that Wakanda is
depicted as a perfect society doesn’t seem right. Its kind of racist, and I think most
Americans would say that a hereditary monarchy that apparently can be hijacked
by choosing leaders by combat is a terrible system of government. These imperfections in Wakanda might bother
you, but I don’t watch movies to see people all behaving perfectly. I mean, if everyone behaved properly in
movies, there would literally be no drama.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So Black Panther was pretty good,
and had a real thought in its head, so there is that. But it is not quite as amazing as the reviews
would have you think.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let’s hope they nail <i>Infinity War</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
My wife and I lost our jobs due
to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist)
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 <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">here</a>,
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all,
leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-88872775537913049112018-02-19T13:46:00.000-05:002018-02-28T17:59:40.513-05:00The Mueller Indictment: The Foreign Agents Registration Act is Unconstitutional<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Update: For some reason a video didn't embed properly. I am updating to fix. If that doesn't work, I will cut it out for a picture.</b><br />
<br />
So, after another long break, I
am back with another post. In fact, I am
planning a series of posts dealing with different issues related to the
indictment of thirteen Russian nationals and three Russian companies. You can read the indictment, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download">here</a>, and you can
search through its text, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945">here</a>. But if you have been following me on twitter,
you are seeing me suggest that I see some very serious First Amendment problems
in this indictment.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Strap yourself in, dear reader,
this is a long one. We’re going to go
very deep into some dense statutes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So today’s issue is the
requirement that you must register as a foreign agent, which the defendants in Mueller's indictment were often allegedly evading. The
requirement comes from <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/612">22
U.S.C. § 612</a>, which says in relevant part that “No person shall act as an
agent of a foreign principal unless he has filed with the Attorney General a
true and complete registration statement...” it goes on to says what you must
do to register. Meanwhile, 18 U.S.C. §
951 sets up criminal penalties if you “act[] in the United States as an agent
of a foreign government” without first notifying the Attorney General.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So who is an agent of a foreign
principal? Well, we go over to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/611">22 U.S.C. § 611</a> which
discusses some of the definitions involved and frankly it is a poorly crafted
law. First, we look at the term foreign
principal:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(b)
The term “foreign principal”
includes—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(1)
a government of a foreign country
and a foreign political party;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(2)
a person outside of the United
States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a
citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not
an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United
States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(3)
a partnership, association,
corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the
laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now right off the bat, I see
trouble with a single word: “includes.” “Includes,”
in statutory language means more or less, “the stuff I am about to list, and
other stuff.” Like in ordinary English,
if I said “my favorite movies are superhero movies, including Avengers, The
Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2,” it would mean that those three movies are among
my favorite, as well an unspecified number of other superhero movies. But you’d have no idea what those other
movies were, except for that general description “superhero movies.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That’s not a big deal if you are
talking about what kinds of movies I like.
But it is a big problem when we talk about criminal statutes, especially
when you are discussing ones that regulate expression. There is a concept in First Amendment law
called the “void for vagueness” doctrine.
As the Supreme Court has <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9438961868955985513&q=galloway+v.+state&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">said</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
It is a basic
principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its
prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important
values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and
unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence
a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act
accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.
Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws
must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law
impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries
for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of
arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague
statute “abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,” it “operates
to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms.” Uncertain meanings inevitably
lead citizens to “ `steer far wider of the unlawful zone’ . . . than if the
boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, first, you have a
right to a clear idea what is illegal, so you can avoid doing it. Second, by being specific in the law, you
avoid the danger of any kind of inappropriate discrimination—be it according to
race, sex, religion, viewpoint or anything else. And finally, if you are not sure what a law
means, it might frighten you into being silent when you have a right to speak,
if only to avoid trouble.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
By using the word “include” they
are saying there are an unknown subset of people who may or may not be foreign
principals under this law with absolutely no guidance in the law to tell you
who they might be. That is the very
definition of vagueness—they give you literally no idea who else might be
included.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And just so you understand the
rest, let’s look at this part again:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
a person outside of the
United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Stopping there, do you know how
sometimes in law a “person” can be a corporation or various other business and
political entities? Under the law, for
instance, the New York Times is a person, as a convenient legal fiction. Well, in the same language of the law, if you
want to talk about a human being, a real person, in the law, the most common
code word is “individual.” So you see in
the passage they differentiate between people who are individuals (that is,
human beings) and ones that are not (i.e. a fictitious person, such as a
business entity). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
...and a citizen of
and domiciled within the United States...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Domiciled is also a legal term of
art. It is not simply where you live,
but where you intend to live in the long term.
You can spend a month in Milan, Italy, but so long as you intend to
return to the United States, then you are domiciled in the United States. So under this language, if a real flesh-and-blood
human being is a citizen of the United States, currently abroad but intending
to return, then they are not a foreign principal under this passage.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
...or that such
person is not an individual... <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This is not a Monty Python and
the Life of Brian situation:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KHbzSif78qQ" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No, this statute presumes you humans
are all actually individuals. Instead,
by discussing persons who are not individuals, they are talking about non-human
legal persons, such as corporations. And
with all of that, the rest of this will hopefully be able to be pieced
together.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
...and is organized
under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other
place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal
place of business within the United States; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But after that explainer on the
meaning of “foreign principal,” let’s now turn to the definition of “agent of a
foreign principal.” Here you go:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(c)
Expect as provided in subsection
(d) of this section, the term “agent of a foreign principal” means—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(1)
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk506794734">any person
who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who
acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or
control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are
directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or
subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly
or through any other person—<o:p></o:p></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(i)
engages within the United States in
political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(ii)
acts within the United States as a
public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or
political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iii)
within the United States solicits,
collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things
of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 2.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iv)
within the United States represents
the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the
Government of the United States; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(2)
any person who agrees, consents,
assumes or purports to act as, or who is or holds himself out to be, whether or
not pursuant to contractual relationship, an agent of a foreign principal as
defined in clause (1) of this subsection.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(d)
The term “agent of a foreign
principal” does not include any news or press service or association organized
under the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, or any newspaper, magazine, periodical,
or other publication for which there is on file with the United States Postal
Service information in compliance with section 3611 of title 39, published in
the United States, solely by virtue of any bona fide news or journalistic
activities, including the solicitation or acceptance of advertisements,
subscriptions, or other compensation therefor, so long as it is at least 80 per
centum beneficially owned by, and its officers and directors, if any, are
citizens of the United States, and such news or press service or association,
newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication, is not owned, directed,
supervised, controlled, subsidized, or financed, and none of its policies are
determined by any foreign principal defined in subsection (b) of this section,
or by any agent of a foreign principal required to register under this
subchapter;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So one thing that leaps out at
you is that there are typos in the law. If
you go to the Cornell Law School website I linked to, there are footnotes twice
in this area: once when they say that “expect” probably should be “except,” and
a second time when they reference apparently the wrong statute. According to the notes following this law,
the last amendment was in 1995. The fact
that they have left these glaring and obvious errors in a statute with criminal
consequences for over 20 years is inexcusable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But even ignoring this, problems
abound in this definition law. How bad
is this? A wife buying a DVD for her
husband at his request would technically be an “agent of a foreign principal” and
it would be a crime for her to buy that DVD without first registering with the Attorney
General.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Or, perhaps you are on twitter
and you see this tweet:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="“twitter-tweet”" data-lang="“en”">
<div dir="“ltr”" lang="“en”">
Got 2 mins? Watch &
share our video on the Human Rights Act! <a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/hashtag/HRA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%E2%80%9D">#HRA</a>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/hashtag/ECHR?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%E2%80%9D">#ECHR</a>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/hashtag/HumanRights?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%E2%80%9D">#HumanRights</a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://t.co/nyQxAPEa35%E2%80%9D">https://t.co/nyQxAPEa35</a></div>
—
BIHR (@BIHRhumanrights) <a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/BIHRhumanrights/status/964463141181587456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%E2%80%9D">February
16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="“utf-8”" src="“https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”"></script><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, if you do indeed watch or
share this video, without first registering as an agent of a foreign principal,
you’re committing a crime.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s break that down, shall
we? First, many ordinary people in your
life can instantly become agents of foreign principals at the drop of a
hat. As you recall, one of the ways you
can become a foreign principal is if you are “a person outside of the United
States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a
citizen of and domiciled within the United States.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So let’s say your significant
other is a lawful permanent resident of the United States, maybe a British citizen. Then that person goes to Milan, Italy. Well, that person fits the definition of “foreign
principal.” S/he is a “person outside of
the United States” (in Italy), and even if she is domiciled here (because she
plans to return and live here long-term) she is not a citizen, remember?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for that tweet, it was sent by
the British Institute of Human Rights, which, as suggested by the title, is <i>British</i>.
That would mean it is a legal entity, which would make it a “a
partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of
persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business
in a foreign country” which is part of the definition of foreign principal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So there are two ways for that
person you are interacting with—your spouse or this random twitterer—to become
a foreign principal. But how does that
make you an agent of that principal?
Well, look at the language. Now
obviously, you wouldn’t necessarily be that foreign principal’s “agent,
representative, employee or servant.”
First, that use of the word, “agent” is probably best understood as using
the common law definition of “agent,” which you can read <a href="https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/agent">here</a>, if you
really feel like it. The key thing is if
you cannot sign a contract on behalf of the other person and bind them to it,
you aren’t an agent in the eyes of the law. The term servant or representative, meanwhile,
isn’t too hard to understand.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But you don’t have to be any of
those things, because you can be covered if you are a “person who acts in any
other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a
foreign principal[.]” First, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=6%2C47&q=%22capacity+as+her+husband%22&btnG=">it
is common to refer to a person as acting in their capacity as a husband or wife
in the law</a>. But really, it is far
from clear what other kinds of capacities won’t be found to exist, so “any
other capacity” might include “capacity as a reader” or “capacity as an
activist.” The real limitation in that
quoted passage (“person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request,
or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal”) is the requirement
that he or she are acting at the prompting of a foreign principal. And in that case, all it takes is a
request. So if your husband requests
that you buy a DVD, at a point in time when he is a foreign principal as I explained
above, and you do it, then you are acting at the request of a foreign
principal, fitting every part of that definition. Likewise, if you do indeed view and share
that video in the tweet of the British Institute of Human Rights then you are
acting at the request of that foreign principal. Yet, in both cases, your conduct is something
you have an absolute right to engage in under the First Amendment. You may buy DVDs (so long as they are not
something constitutionally prohibited, like child porn), and you can certainly
retweet another person’s tweet.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So that seems kind of broad,
doesn’t it? Like maybe even overly
broad? Well, there is another legal
doctrine implicated by that: the overbreadth doctrine. The idea is that even if a statute is not vague,
it still might reach too far. Consider,
for example, the events that might trigger the reporting requirement:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
1) Piers Morgan, a British
citizen, tells citizens around the world that they should rally for gun
control on TV from London, and you (an American in America) do so as a result.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
2) Malala Yousafzai, a Nobel Prize
recipient for promoting women’s education in Afghanistan, and a Pakistani,
Canadian and perhaps British citizen, makes a documentary in which she asks for
American politicians to financially support women’s education around the world,
and then she makes a deal with Warner Brothers to distribute that documentary
in the U.S.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
3) A man marries a Canadian woman
who had a daughter by a previous marriage.
Both the mother and daughter are Canadian citizens and American green
card holders. While the mother and
daughter are visiting family in Canada, the step-father asks his step-daughter
what she would like for her birthday.
The step-daughter says she wants a specific book, and he buys it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In each case, these are
activities that are protected by the First Amendment that are burdened by this
registration requirement. And bear in
mind, if you actually <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/612">read</a>
what has to go into the registration, it’s quite a bit of information, but one
of the most important requirements is that you list each principal you are an
agent of. So that means every time you
get a new one, you have to re-register—you can’t just tell them in general you
are going to be listening to foreigners who speak on different subjects and
occasionally be influenced by them. So,
if today you see Malala on Twitter ask her supporters to tweet in favor of gun
control, then according to this statute, you cannot do so at her request,
unless you first register with the Attorney General, at pain of criminal
punishment. But suppose you send off
your registration, tweet about gun control, following Malala’s request, and
then tomorrow, you see Malala’s mother ask you to tweet in favor of women’s
equality. Well, guess what? Tou can’t do that, until you register
again. Hopefully, you can at least get
away with some cutting and pasting when you do it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But the problems with the statute
doesn’t stop there. For instance,
imagine if Super-Duper-Power Company (“SDPC”) runs an ad telling you how
wonderfully environmentally conscious they are and urges everyone to
participate in Earth Hour—that virtue-signaling nonsense when you turn off many
non-essential electrical items for one hour toward the end of March. So you are a good environmentalist type and
decide you are going to do exactly that.
Then you remember that you might become an agent of a foreign principal
if you act at the request of a “a person [which can be a corporation] any of
whose activities are directly ... controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole
or in major part by a foreign principal[.]”
So then that means that you need to look into whether any of the
stockholders are foreign principals, or perhaps important officers in the
company are foreign principals. I mean
even an American company operating in America, owned by Americans, might still
have a President or CEO who is a foreigner who telecommuting from outside of
America. Indeed, if SDPC got a big
enough loan from a foreign bank, that might be enough to make them into a
foreign principal that you are acting at the request of. And then of course one’s status as a foreign
principal might change from day to day.
For instance, 51% of the stock of this fictional SDPC might be owned by
a lawful green card holder originally from Australia, who then decides to go
home for Christmas to the old country.
So before that vacation, obeying the requests of SDPC does not make you
an agent of a foreign principal, but during the vacation it does, and then when
the vacation is over, it doesn’t, again.
And how the hell you are supposed to keep track of that sort of thing is
anybody’s guess.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But, dear reader, it gets
worse! Did you notice that phrase “in
major part?” So, suppose we imagine that
SDPC is an American company, in America, where one American who never leaves
America controls 51% of the stock and has appointed himself President and other
American citizens <i>sans</i> passports in
every other position down all the way to janitor. But what if 11% of the stock is owned by a
Saudi businessman? Is that enough of a part
to be a “major part” of ownership or finance?
Or perhaps out of $100 million in loans SDPC has received, $11 million
came from this Saudi. Is that enough to
make it so that everyone who acts at the request of this company an agent of a
foreign principal? Just how much of a
part does a foreigner have to play in order for it to count as a major
part? There’s no good way to know.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And it gets even worse. Suppose you know for a fact that SDPC is 100%
American, no foreign employees, no foreign stockholders, no foreign money at
all. It’s as American as Steve Rogers
baking an apple pie in the shape of the American flag, using fireworks as a
heat source. So, they put out that Earth
Hour ad, and you decide to participate.
Well, guess what? You might still
be an agent of a foreign principal.
Why? Because SDPC might have
acted at the <i>direction</i> of a
foreigner. What does direction
mean? Well, I don’t see a statutory
definition, but in that situation the courts are likely to look at something
like Black’s Law Dictionary (I am looking at the Sixth Edition, for you law
nerds), which defines “direct,” when used as a verb, as meaning “[t]o point to;
guide; order; command; instruct. To
advise; suggest; request.” And little
did you know, but that super-American company hired a foreign consulting
company to suggest ways to improve their operations and they gave their advice
telephonically from their home country.
So in the language of the statute, you “act[ed] in any other capacity at
the ... request ... of a person any of whose activities are ... directed ... in
whole or in major part by a foreign principal[.]” Is that consultancy enough to constitute a “major
part?” There is literally no way of
knowing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But you might remember there are
still limitations I have quoted. That
is, even if you act at the request of a forbidden human or entity, you are
still only an agent of a foreign power if you also (directly or through any
other person) does one of the following:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(i)
engages within the United States in
political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(ii)
acts within the United States as a
public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or
political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iii)
within the United States solicits,
collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things
of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.5in;">
(iv)
within the United States represents
the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the
Government of the United States; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But so far all of my examples are
covered. For instance, joining an
anti-gun rally at the request of a foreign principal would seem to be
self-evidently politically activity, meeting subsection (i). Actually, examining the statute’s definition
of “political activity” verifies it is pretty close to what you might guess:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
any activity that
the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way
influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any
section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating,
adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or
with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of
a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So the Piers Morgan anti-gun
rally would be covered. The same can be
said for Malala distributing a documentary.
The step-father buying a book for his Canadian step-daughter or the
person buying a DVD for their spouse would be “within the United States ...
collect[ing] ... other things of value for ... such foreign principal,” falling
under subsection (iii). And even
retweeting a British human rights organization’s tweet can trigger subsection
(i) related to political activities, because that would be “activity ... with
reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a
government of a foreign country or a foreign political party” meeting the
definition of political activity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But, there is another landmine
buried in all of this. You might notice that
these subsections repeatedly talk about activities “for or in the interests of
such foreign principal.” This limits the
application of the law, but it also makes it vague. I mean, certainly if your activities are
putting money in that foreign principal’s pocket, then it is clearly in their
interest. But what about my fictional SDPC
promoting Earth Hour? Using less
electricity is clearly not in the direct financial interest of a fictional
power company, but at the same time the goodwill generated by pretending to
care about the environment might be. One
could argue that just about every action is in a foreign principal’s
interest. World peace might be good for
a person’s business, or war might be good for their business. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But there is yet another problem
with that interest requirement. It then
means that this is a regulation based on viewpoint and viewpoint discrimination
is uniquely prohibited in First Amendment analysis.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Consider for instance, what the
Supreme Court said in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14621372290934958371&q=rav+v.+st.+paul&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">RAV
v. St. Paul</a></i>. In that case, a
local ordinance said<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Whoever places on
public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or
graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika,
which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or
resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender
commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Supreme Court struck down
this hate speech law, writing in part:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
In its practical
operation, moreover, the ordinance goes even beyond mere content
discrimination, to actual viewpoint discrimination... One could hold up a sign saying, for example,
that all “anti-Catholic bigots” are misbegotten; but not that all “papists”
are, for that would insult and provoke violence “on the basis of religion.” St.
Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle,
while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You see, under the First
Amendment, discrimination against expression based on content is not quite
forbidden, but it’s almost impossible to justify. By “content” the courts mean the subject of
the expression, but not the viewpoint.
So a law banning all political speech in a certain place is engaged in
content-based discrimination; but one that prohibits conservative political
speech in that place is a viewpoint-based discrimination. To justify content-based discrimination, the
government has to show the regulation at issue is narrowly tailored to serve a
compelling purpose. Meanwhile, while
case law indicates that viewpoint discrimination is just plain forbidden.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So picture this scenario. Imagine that a British citizen named John Doe
was locked up in Britain because he was convicted of violating that country’s
hate speech laws. From prison, Doe is allowed
to hold a press conference where he says “I want everyone to tell my country to
abolish these hate speech laws and stand up for free speech, and if you are in
a foreign country, I want you to ask your government to pressure my country to
abolish these hate speech laws.” So you,
an American, write a letter the President of the United States telling him to
demand that Britain abolish its hate speech laws under threat of embargo. Well, you know by now this makes you an agent
of a foreign principal (the principal being Doe), and that is obviously
engaging in “political activities... in the interest of such foreign principal.” So that would require registration
beforehand, on pain of criminal punishment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But now imagine that a second
British citizen, Jane Roe, is convicted of violating that country’s hate speech
laws and she is allowed to give a press conference. But in this case, she says the following: “I
am wrongly accused. I didn’t actually
say the things they said I did. But I
still believe that hate speech laws are a good idea. I know John Doe told people outside of
Britain to urge your governments to put pressure on Britain to abolish those
laws. I advise you to do the
opposite. Write to your government in
support of these laws.” Now, suppose you
decide that she is right, hate speech laws are a great idea, and so you write
to the American President telling him that he should support Britain’s hate
speech laws.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, guess what? In that second scenario, you would very
obviously fall outside of the law. I
mean Roe’s message in relation to hate speech laws is obviously not in her own
interest. Clearly, any person in prison
for violating a law has an interest in seeing those laws abolished given that
would free them. So, it is manifestly
clear that an American advocating that Britain keep those laws is not in her
interest.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But then that means that whether
the registration requirement is triggered depends on the point of view being
promoted. If you are pro-hate speech
laws, you are fine; but if you are opposed, then failure to register is a
crime. That is viewpoint discrimination.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And it gets even worse. See, there is even an exception to the
interest requirement, and it is... special.
Let me quote it to you, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/613">which comes in a
different statute from the same chapter</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<b>(f) Defense of foreign government vital to United States defense<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Any person, or
employee of such person, whose foreign principal is a government of a foreign
country the defense of which the President deems vital to the defense of the
United States while, (1) such person or employee engages only in activities
which are in furtherance of the policies, public interest, or national defense
both of such government and of the Government of the United States, and are not
intended to conflict with any of the domestic or foreign policies of the
Government of the United States, (2) each communication or expression by such
person or employee which he intends to, or has reason to believe will, be
published, disseminated, or circulated among any section of the public, or
portion thereof, within the United States, is a part of such activities and is
believed by such person to be truthful and accurate and the identity of such
person as an agent of such foreign principal is disclosed therein, and (3) such
government of a foreign country furnishes to the Secretary of State for
transmittal to, and retention for the duration of this subchapter by, the
Attorney General such information as to the identity and activities of such
person or employee at such times as the Attorney General may require. Upon
notice to the Government of which such person is an agent or to such person or
employee, the Attorney General, having due regard for the public interest and
national defense, may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, and shall,
at the request of the Secretary of State, terminate in whole or in part the
exemption herein of any such person or employee;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That’s a lot to dig through, but
here’s the first thing to highlight: it sets up different rules depending on
which countries you are defending, and which countries get this special
treatment can change any time the President decides. So if the President designates Israel as a
country whose defense is deemed vital to the defense to the United States, but
he doesn’t do this for Iran, a message at the request of the Israeli government
on behalf of Israel that Iran should be bombed into the stone age is entitled
to the special protection of this law, while a message at the request of the
government Iran that Israel should be similarly bombed is not. Now, the fact I am more inclined to believe
Iran should be bombed doesn’t stop me from recognizing that my view on this
point is exactly that: a viewpoint.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But even within that exception
there is even more viewpoint-based discrimination. For instance, your advocacy has to be “in
furtherance of the policies, public interest, or national defense both of such
government and of the Government of the United States, and are not intended to
conflict with any of the domestic or foreign policies of the Government of the
United States.” So if you advocate peace
between Israel and Iran, at the request of the Isreali government, and some jury
decides that is not in the interest of the United States, then you are not
entitled to this statutory exception.
That is viewpoint discrimination within viewpoint discrimination.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I could go on and on, but suffice
to say there are other problems in the law.
But we have gone over enough. We
have identified at least two vague terms, we have shown massive overbreadth,
and we have shown content- and viewpoint-based discrimination. If challenged before the Supreme Court, I
think most justices’ responses would be something along the line of “are you
kidding us?” This will not survive any
serious constitutional inquiry—at least not given the ideological makeup of the
current court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, finally, a reasonable
question might be “why has this law stayed on the books for so long?” I think the reality is that even when a law
is unconstitutional most people will “go along to get along.” Most people who are knowingly going to engage
in real advocacy for a foreign power register, and I have seen no sign that the
government has gone after the people tweeting at some foreign activist’s
request. So you are not getting outrageous
prosecutions. And it is worth noting
that the problems with this statute has only become more pronounced with the
rise of social media. Direct
communications between people across borders is easier than ever, so it is
easier than ever for an American to unwittingly violate this law by acting at
the <i>request</i> of another.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But the undeniable fact is that
flagrantly unconstitutional laws can remain on the books for decades before
being struck down. For instance, in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14085180484211709676&q=matal+v.+tam&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Matal
v. Tam</a></i>, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the trademark
statute that barred trademarks that disparaged groups. Basically, this case is why the Redskins get
to keep their trademark even though it is allegedly racist—because it is not
the Federal Government’s business that a trademark might be racist. (In <i>Tam</i>,
the censorship is much dumber than that.)
And it wasn’t even close: it was a unanimous decision.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And yet this blatantly
unconstitutional law remained on the books for around 70 years and as best I
can tell, there was no serious constitutional challenge to it until the <i>Tam</i> case. I think the foreign registration laws are
similar “dead laws walking.” They are
still on the books, but it will take only one person challenging it to strike
it down.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And any citizen can challenge
it. So maybe one of our civil rights
organizations will wake up and make the argument I made. Only time will tell. But I do not believe it can survive this
challenge.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
My wife and I lost our jobs due
to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist)
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 <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">here</a>,
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all,
leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-43561037150357784482017-10-28T23:38:00.000-04:002017-10-28T23:40:24.839-04:00Cosmo’s Racial “Sensitivity” is Actually Super-Racist<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, Halloween is around the
corner again, and the killjoys on the left are busy fretting that someone might
wear the wrong thing and this annoyed me enough to make me want to blog again. Yep, it’s the fear of “cultural appropriation”—the
idea that the only people who can enjoy another culture are people from the
ethnic/racial group that was historically associated with it. So, only Native Americans can wear native
American headdresses, I guess only Italian Americans can eat Pizza, and so on. It’s a unique topic where people claiming they
are opposed to racism regularly prove that they are actually super racist.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
See, the first problem is that
for one to “appropriate” a culture—that is, commit theft—you have to believe it
is the exclusive property of... some person or group of people. Which then leads you down all kinds of racist
rabbit holes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Don’t believe me? Well, let’s look at how Cosmo dealt with
this. I first became aware of their <a href="http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a13069023/moana-halloween-costume-racist/?src=socialflowTW">latest
tripe</a>, by seeing this tweet.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="“twitter-tweet”" data-lang="“en”">
<div dir="“ltr”" lang="“en”">
Hey Parents: Maybe Don't
Dress Your Kid Up As Moana This Halloween <a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://t.co/F1tppGs47f%E2%80%9D">https://t.co/F1tppGs47f</a>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://t.co/NOMPW3OOFi%E2%80%9D">pic.twitter.com/NOMPW3OOFi</a></div>
—
Cosmopolitan (@Cosmopolitan) <a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://twitter.com/Cosmopolitan/status/922601309173202944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%E2%80%9D">October
23, 2017</a></blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="“utf-8”" src="“//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”"></script><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Yep, it’s an article worried
about cultural appropriation. As you
probably know by now, Moana is based on Polynesian folklore and it’s a very
good movie. (Seriously, see it, if you
haven’t. You will thank me later.) Anyway, the Cosmo article confirms that it is
concerned primarily with white girls dressed up as the titular Disney Princess*
with this passage:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Chances are, you
have a child that is enamored with all things Disney and wants to be all of the
princesses. All of them! Especially Moana.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The New York Post
recently highlighted an article on raceconscious.org about how that’s probably
not a good choice if your kid is white, and revealed that “moms are freaking
out” over the culturally appropriative costume.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, they are really only
concerned with little white girls dressing as Moana. Presumably if you are black, Japanese, South
Asian, Australian Aborigine, Inuit, etc., you’re just peachy dressing as Moana. Maybe.
They are kind of unclear on this.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar:</b> And of course, you have to ask “how White does a girl have
to be?” If she is half-white,
half-Polynesian is she unable to dress as Moana? Does it take one drop of white blood to ruin
it? See what I mean about this stuff
making people super-racist?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And it’s worth circling back to Cosmo’s
tweet again. To quote them: “<span lang="EN">Hey Parents: Maybe Don’t Dress Your Kid Up
As Moana This Halloween.” Putting that
together with the revelation that they are only concerned about white girls...
aren’t they implicitly assuming that the only people reading this tweet are
people with white daughters? Like doesn’t
any Polynesians read Cosmo?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN">Actually, if they don’t, <i>good for
them</i>. What a cesspool of a magazine
it is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Joking aside, the implicit
message to non-white women is “Cosmo is not for you!” Which is pretty racist, when you think about
it, especially for an article that claims to be designed to combat racism. Are you starting to see what I mean about in
the name of opposing racism, they end up being super-racist?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately, they go on:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Recognize this:
Moana is a really special character to young girls of Polynesian descent who
have never seen a Disney Princess who looks like them, just like how Tiana from
The Princess and the Frog likely resonated with young Black women who had
waited decades to see themselves represented. White girls have plenty of
princesses to choose from — there’s Belle, Ariel, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty …
you get the idea. If your Caucasian son or daughter doesn’t get to be exactly
what they wanted for Halloween, encourage them to take a step back and realize
that they’re awash in privileges that the real Moanas and Tianas of the world
will likely never see[.]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But by that implication, if you
are black or Polynesian... you’re stuck with only one Disney princess. I mean, you wouldn’t want to be culturally
appropriating from, say, the Scots, because you decided to dress up as Merida
from <i>Brave</i>, or culturally
appropriating from the French by dressing as Belle. And, evidently, if you are not white, you
cannot dress up as Wonder Woman.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, except it never actually works
in reverse. Cosmo will never say that
non-whites are not allowed to borrow from white culture. So if Tilda Swinton is cast as a traditionally
Asian character in Dr. Strange, we hear accusations of whitewashing. But on the other hand, casting Idris Elba as
a character in Norse Mythology in the Thor movies, well, you’re just supposed
to roll with that. (And for the record,
I do roll with it.) In fact, if you
object, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/dec/17/white-supremacists-boycott-thor">you
are looked down on as being racist</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Ultimately, one of the most
pernicious forms of racism is the obsessive need to match races. I really wonder what world these Cosmo
editors live in. I count among friends
(and family) people from a multitude of races and ethnicities and I think most
of the people my age do (and certainly kids younger than I do). I remember one time a racist moron asked me
on twitter why I didn’t marry my own “kind” (I am in an interracial
marriage). My retort was something like
this: “I have married a woman who loves sci-fi and fantasy, who used to watch
Stargate SG-1 with me on Fridays and make out during the commercials and
thought going to see Deadpool on Valentine's day is a good idea. I <i>did</i>
marry my own kind.” We may not look
alike, she might speak a few languages I don’t, and she might have some family
traditions I don’t, but beyond all that, we hit that sweet spot of being similar,
but not so much alike that its obnoxious.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
When it comes to movie roles, I
think it is equally defensible to 1) cast the best actor regardless of race, or
2) when the role is linked to history (loosely defined), to pick someone who
fits the appropriate ethnic background (or kinda fits it), and 3) find
interesting stories from all cultures. Let
me expand on that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Most of the time, if you are
talking about, say... a movie that takes place in modern times, or a fantasy
taking place long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, just find the best
actors. Maybe have some light race
matching, so that if someone turns out to be Han Solo’s (biological) son, he
looks like someone who might share some of his genes, but that is the extent of
it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But to give a practical example,
I grew up seeing Nick Fury show up in various cartoons and comic books. He was always depicted as a cigar-chomping bad
ass. And always white. Like here’s a reasonably representative
example:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yjd005kHYDg" width="560"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But when, at the end of the
original Iron Man, they had that end-credits scene with Samuel L. Jackson
showing up as Nick Fury, my wife and I both exclaimed “<i>cool!</i>” Yes, he didn’t look
like the Nick Fury I grew up with, and I didn’t care even a little because to
be blunt, I couldn’t picture anyone else capturing a similar level of bravado
needed for the part. So, if I am
watching aliens pour out of the sky as a guy in a robot suit, a super-spy, an
archer, a giant green rage machine and so on fight them, yeah, pick the best
actors regardless of race.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(Although the Hulk <i>must</i> be green.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
On the other hand, I think if the
story is historical or linked to history, then you are more justified in
worrying about race-matching, especially if you are depicting a time in history
when people were very racist. Indeed, if the story is significantly about
racism or prejudice, then racial matching is almost mandatory. Like if Stephen Spielberg had cast non-black actors
as the slaves in <i>Amistad</i>, that would
have gone over like a lead balloon. I’m
not saying it is impossible to create a movie about the Holocaust starring an
entirely Japanese cast where the casting choice is justified,** but it’s definitely
a hard sell.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But even then, I think a light
touch is justified—not perfect matching, but close enough that it doesn’t take
you out of the illusion that you are witnessing history. I remember some strange people getting upset
that Sean Connery played Jim Malone in <i>The
Untouchables</i> or getting upset that Liam Neeson starred as Scottish hero <i>Rob Roy.</i> But both of them were great in
their respective roles and it wasn’t that distracting. Ultimately, we are talking about racial or
ethnic discrimination and even when it is really well-justified (such as my <i>Amistad</i> example above) you are limiting
your options. Seriously, Connery won an
Oscar for Malone and deservedly so.
Would you want anyone else playing the role?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Likewise, as an example “linked
to history,” it would have been justifiable to cast a white guy as Heimdall in
the Marvel <i>Thor</i> movies, but I ended
up being fine with it. I mean the theory
behind the <i>Thor</i> movies appears to be
that the Norse Gods were really inter-dimensional aliens who early humans
mistook for deities, so all those myths of Thor <i>et al</i> doing this or that were just the half-remembered history of
these aliens. At least I think that’s
what it is—they’re a little vague. And
in that context, if Heimdall was a black dude, you would tend to think that the
Vikings would have really remembered that, so it creates kind of a plot hole
that he is black. But, on the other
hand, Idris Elba takes that slender role and is completely awesome in it, so
the awesomeness he brings to the table more than justifies the minor plot hole
his presence creates. Besides, <i>nothing</i> in Thor’s world makes very much
sense if you think about it hard enough.
Really, when watching something with that much nonsense, one should follow
the advice of Basil Exposition:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1SPk3NjYfmQ" width="560"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I mean if you are watching a
movie about aliens who are literally millennia old but are simultaneously often
really old immature people, an advanced species that... for some reason uses bows and arrows and
swords to fight, instead of (at least) ray guns... and somehow speaks modern
English, but nonetheless know literally nothing else about our culture... isn’t
a black dude guarding the wormhole device the <i>smallest</i> plothole? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But to the extent that we
race-match, then you have to hit the third point. We have to draw stories from a diverse set of
cultures. And there are interesting
stories in every culture. To circle back
to what started all of this, that’s one of the things I thought was neat about <i>Moana</i>.
The movie is in a lot of ways a throwback to those old-school
mythological adventures—like <i>Clash of the
Titans</i>. It was about a hero going on
a quest to solve a problem (maybe save the world) and interacting with various
mythological beings along the way... If was about an adventure, and to the
extent that there was any romance, it was mainly a motivating factor (“I have
to fight this giant monster to save the one I love!”). Only it wasn’t the mythology I grew up on but
something I never heard of before. When
I was growing up, I always enjoyed those kind of stories, but I always thought
“surely, cultures other than the Greeks and Romans had their own cool stories
like that Hercules or Jason. Where are
they?” Well, again, I have no idea how
true Moana is to the original stories, but at least I got to enjoy a brand new
(to me) story in that vein. So we should
see the stories of many different cultures, and probably in most cases, you
will see race matching, but that avoids creating a situation where there just
aren’t good parts for non-whites.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for Halloween costumes, if
your little girl isn’t Polynesian and still wants to dress up as a Moana, tell
her to go for it. I believe children are
not “color blind” so much as “color unconcerned,” and isn’t that Martin Luther
King, Jr.’s dream? If your child judges
Moana not by the color of her skin but the content of her character and admires
her enough to want to <i>be</i> her for
Halloween, you shouldn’t discourage that because she is the wrong color. And of course, the proposed cultural
segregation of the “anti-cultural-appropriation” crowd—where everyone is supposed
to stay in their culture, lest they appropriate someone else’s—creates a
separation that is not equal. Saying
“oh, there are plenty of other princesses” to a little girl who likes Moana
best, kind of ignores that there is something different about Moana other than
her ethnicity: she is one of the few Disney “Princesses” who is a pure hero,
without any romantic entanglements. I
said “few” in the last sentence, but honestly, I can’t think of another. Even <i>Frozen</i>,
which isn’t primarily about romance, still has a romantic subplot. In some ways she is a better hero for little
girls to look up to than Wonder Woman precisely because there is nothing
special about Moana, except her determination and her big heart—and any little
girl or boy can choose to give themselves those same kinds of traits. And what could be more utterly subversive of
racism than a bunch of little girls and boys looking up to, and wanting to be
like, heroes and heroines who do not share their ethnic or racial identity?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
On Halloween, a large number of
kids decide they want to dress up as someone they think is really cool. And in previous years, I have seen a black
boy dressed as Captain America, a Filipino girl dressed in <i>The Little Mermaid’s </i>Wedding Dress, and I’ll probably see white
girls dressed as Moana this year. Cosmo
and the anti-cultural-appropriation crowd see this as a problem. I see this as pretty cool.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
* In the movie, they actually
debate whether she is a princess, in a humorous way. In a less humorous way, Moana is a girl in a
society organized around hereditary rule who is in the line of succession with
the expectation that someday she will be chief of her village, so... yeah, she
is a princess.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
** Here’s how an all-Japanese
movie about the holocaust might be done and be justified. I admit I don’t know everything about
Japanese culture, but I presume that there is prejudice within their culture,
because... well, humans suck and they tend to suck that specific way. So maybe they could do a holocaust drama
where the disliked minority are cast as the “Jews” and the majority is cast as
the “Germans” or at least the “non-Jews” in order to highlight such prejudice
in Japanese society.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Or here’s another
possibility. You might see a movie about
the holocaust where both the Jews and their oppressors are played by a
veritable rainbow of human pigmentation, as a way of highlighting the common
humanity of both the victims and their oppressors and the ultimate stupidity of
prejudice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
My wife and I lost our jobs due
to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist)
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 <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">here</a>,
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Follow me at Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing">@aaronworthing</a>, mostly for
snark and site updates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all,
leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-6288223045176433582016-06-27T06:59:00.000-04:002016-06-27T11:14:16.609-04:00Judge Vaughey Reprimanded, Freedom of Speech Vindicated<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Another Setback to Brett Kimberlin’s Quest
to Outlaw Criticism</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<i>This is the latest post in what I
half-jokingly call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 four 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued myself, John
Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. Has recently lost suits against
also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan Backer, DB Capital Strategies, Patrick “Patterico”
Frey, Mandy Nagy (who is significantly incapacitated by a stroke), Lee
Stranahan, the National Bloggers Club, and
others alleging that we are all in conspiracy to defame him because we
reported factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey,
Erickson and others. And he sued two
senators for not appointing Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. So, if you are new to the story, go to </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now regular readers
will recognize that name, Judge Vaughey, but I honestly don’t know how many of
my readers have been following this Kimberlin Saga since May of 2012, so let me
take a moment to review.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I guess it is
all fair to say that this segment of the story started when I wrote <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">this
piece</a>, probably one of the longest blog posts (assuming you follow the
links to the rest of it) written in blogdom, and definitely one of the most
popular and influential posts I have written.
If you are new to the story, it is hard to describe how influential it
was. In it, I lay out documentary and
video evidence showing how Brett Kimberlin attempted to frame me for a
crime. Seriously, if you haven’t go read
it. That got read by a lot of people,
but more importantly it convinced a lot of people that this was a bad
situation, that it was serious, and it needed attention. So other people started writing about it, who
frankly had more reach than I did, and it cascaded from there.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So naturally,
Brett Kimberlin tried to get a court order to stop it. I discuss that whole saga <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/06/story-i-couldnt-tell-part-i.html">here</a>,
<a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/07/story-i-couldnt-tell-part-ii-brett.html">here</a>,
<a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/07/story-i-couldnt-tell-part-iii-may-22.html">here</a>,
<a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/07/story-i-couldnt-tell-part-iv-brett.html">here</a>,
and <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/07/story-i-couldnt-tell-part-v-may-29.html">here</a>. The short version is that Maryland has an
unconstitutionally broad criminal harassment statute (the constitutionality of
which I am challenging, <a href="https://hogewash.com/2016/06/20/team-kimberlin-post-of-the-day-1197/">here</a>),
and then allows you to get restraining order preventing such alleged harassment
called peace orders. So he claimed that
I was harassing him under two theories.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, he said
that since he set up Google alerts to let him know whenever anyone writes his
name, by writing his name in a post I am causing Google to contact him and,
therefore, that’s harassment. Some case
law suggests that unwanted contacts are a form of harassment, but the same
statute specifically says that if you are trying to convey information to
others, it is not harassment. And
besides, by that logic, if I set up a Google alert for “Barrack Obama” and
Brett writes about Barrack Obama, I can claim he is intentionally contacting
me. So essentially you could use that to
prevent a person from talking about clearly political matters, and that would
mean the statute is unconstitutional...
oh, right, it <i>is</i>
unconstitutional, but perhaps not in that obvious way.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Second, he
said that by saying negative things about him, I was inciting violence against
him. Mind you he is not saying I
advocated violence, just that if I say anything negative, that’s
incitement. Again, that is the death of
journalism. For instance, during that
whole Enron debacle, do you think that Jeff Skilling got death threats? So, we can’t report about Enron? And certainly many employees of BP got
threats when they had that giant spill in the Gulf of Mexico, so I suppose ABC
News was harassing them by telling us about it.
And that mean old Woodward and Bernstein actually drove a president from
office while reporting negative things about him and probably caused Nixon to
get a few death threats.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And besides,
there is a whole precedent that says that this is not enough. There’s <i>another</i>
case mentioned a lot in relation to what went on, but let me start with an
older case, <i><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/697/case.html">Near v.
Minnesota<span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></a></i> That case concerned a court order shutting
down a newspaper which was criticizing (and allegedly defaming) a local figure
as a Jewish gangster (the opinion strongly suggests that this paper is being anti-Semitic),
and calling out local officials for not arresting and incarcerating the
individual. In striking down this prior
restraint on freedom of speech, the Supreme Court wrote that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
There
is nothing new in the fact that charges of reprehensible conduct may create
resentment and the disposition to resort to violent means of redress, but this
well understood tendency did not alter the determination to protect the press
against censorship and restraint upon publication<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In other
words, “yes, we recognize that sometimes reporting negative stories can get
people angry enough to commit violence.
But that is not enough of a reason to justify censorship.” So, the Supreme Court over time created a
test for incitement in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15538842772335942956&q=brandenburg+v.+ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Brandenburg
v. Ohio</a> </i>(meaning that incitement cannot be criminalized unless it meets
this test):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
the
constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State
to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except
where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless
action and is likely to incite or produce such action.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That’s going
to be very important in a minute.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, the
links I have provided will give you a great deal more detail, but the bottom
line is that on May 29, 2012, I found myself in a final peace order hearing
defending my right to write freely, Judge Vaughey presiding. Vaughey was retired at the time (I have been
told that Maryland law requires all judges to retire at 70, and I have observed
that many continue to sit in cases after retirement). To his credit, Vaughey rejected this “contact
by Google alerts” theory, but he focused on the theory of incitement, agreeing
with Mr. Kimberlin that merely writing negative stories about him amounted to
incitement. Here’s one of the key
exchanges:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0in;">
Q
[the court] So you get some -- and I’m
going to use the word freak somewhere out in Oklahoma got nothing better to do
with his time, so he does the nastiest things in the world he can to this poor
gentleman., What right has that guy got to do it?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
A [me] He has no right to do that, but
Your Honor—<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Q Because you incited him,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0in;">
A But Your Honor, I did not
incite him within the <i>Brandenburg</i>
standard.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0in;">
Q Well, forget <i>Brandenburg</i>. Let’s go by Vaughey right
now, and common sense out in the world<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It is a rare
thing to see a judge disregard controlling Supreme Court precedent by name, but
there you have it. So Vaughey declared
that I could not write about Brett Kimberlin for six months. And of course if you read the links or just
know the story, you know that about a month later Judge Rupp stayed the
majority of that restraining order in an order that cited <i>Brandenburg</i> by name. As Ken
White put it over at <a href="http://popehat.com/2012/06/25/oh-oh-right-that-brandenburg/">Popehat</a> “That,
boys and girls, is what lawyers refer to as a <i>benchslap</i>.” And eventually
the rest of the peace order—telling me I can’t go to Brett’s house, for
instance, even though I never did and never wanted to—was vacated on July 5 of
that year.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, and on the
same day that my essential freedom of speech was restored? I was SWATted. You can read where I discussed that, <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-happened-tonight.html">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So about a
year ago, I took the time to write out a complaint against Vaughey. Now, I am not going to share the complaint
with you, mostly because I know Brett is writing complaints about judges and as
much as he insults my competence, he learns a lot when he watches me in
action. He realizes I do a better job
persuading people than he does and he tries his best to imitate me. I don’t want to teach him how to write better
ethical complaints, and so I won’t.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But the gist
of it was this. Front and center was the
judge’s willful violation of Supreme Court precedent. And really, any person who takes a moment to
think about it realizes how dangerous Vaughey’s approach would be. Second, I mentioned a long list of highly
suspect conduct, with specific citations to the transcript of the hearing
(which you can read <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/99118140/Kimberlin-v-Walker-Hearing-5-29-12-OCR-Redacted">here</a>)
and I mentioned in passing that Judge Vaughey was disrespectful toward me. Bluntly, it barely got mentioned in my
complaint because it’s the least important to me. How can I say this? When you grow up with disabilities like mine,
you get used to people being cruel to you with no cause. You learn not to let their ugly opinions get
to you. You learn not to care what they
think. Vaughey doesn’t like me? Well, frankly, he was an ass, and I don’t
care even a little what he thinks of me.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And, evidently,
the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities agrees, because about a month ago,
they issued a reprimand against Vaughey for his conduct in that very case. You can read it here (and I think you will
greatly benefit from my analysis, afterward):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Update: There appears to be an attempt by some small person to prevent
access to this reprimand, despite it being a public document, so that some can’t
see it on Scribd. Still, you can still
read it on the Commission’s website, <a href="http://www.courts.state.md.us/cjd/pdfs/cjd2015106vaughey.pdf">here</a>. It looks like someone is upset about this victory
for freedom of speech. I would suggest
whoever it is should try to be a bigger person.</b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/316823746/vaughey-reprimand" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Vaughey Reprimand on Scribd">Vaughey Reprimand</a> by <a href="https://www.scribd.com/user/143951503/AaronWorthing" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View AaronWorthing's
profile on Scribd">AaronWorthing</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7729220222793488" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_27571" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/316823746/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-L60uVssw465nMCidJ263&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For the
record, you can read it directly off the website, <a href="http://www.courts.state.md.us/cjd/pdfs/cjd2015106vaughey.pdf">here</a>. Despite its private designation you can see if
you read it that it was made public with Vaughey’s consent. Now, a reasonable reader might say, “well,
that was awful big of Vaughey. He could
have demanded that it be kept private, but he was willing to accept his
reprimand in public.” That might sound
like a sign of genuine contrition, but I am inclined to think it is not.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Bluntly, this
reprimand looks like a negotiated instrument.
Meaning, it is the product of what you might call a settlement agreement
or a plea bargain. I tend to think “plea
bargain” is the better metaphor, because even though all of this is
theoretically a civil process, the fact is potential outcomes are things that
can be seen as punitive.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let me
say that what I am about to say is a matter of speculation. I am basing this on the reprimand before you,
the transcript I shared above, and even the apparently illegal audio of the
hearing, which you can listen to <a href="http://patterico.com/2012/06/02/crowdsourcing-request-help-transcribe-the-best-parts-of-aaron-walkers-hearing/">here</a>. You judge for yourself. But to me, it looks
like around a 90% probability that they went to Vaughey and said, “either agree
to this, or we will do something worse.”
What gives it away in my mind is the fact that it says that Vaughey
“waives his right to a hearing before the Commission and subsequent proceedings
before the Court of Appeals” and “waives his right to challenge the findings
that serve as the basis for this Private Reprimand.” Not every plea bargain or settlement
agreement gives up the right to trial (or its equivalent) or appeal, and not
every waiver of the right to trial or appeal is proof of a such an
agreement. But more often than not, if
someone is giving up those kinds of rights, it is due to a plea bargain or
settlement agreement.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And of course
the rest of it bears the hallmarks of its contents being negotiated. I mean, isn’t the most serious thing Vaughey
did the violation of my constitutional rights?
And yet the main narrative of the reprimand seems to be all about
disrespect and the decorum of the court.
There doesn’t seem to be any discussion of how Judge Vaughey pretty
flagrantly violated my First Amendment rights...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
...until you
actually read the rules they cite. Like,
say, what is that Rule 1.1. of the Maryland Code of Judicial
Responsibility? It must be important,
because it is appears to be literally the first rule, so what does that
say? Well, the title is:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
RULE 1.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, wait, that
doesn’t sound particularly good for Vaughey.
But what does it say, exactly?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
A
judge shall comply with the law, including this Code of Judicial Conduct.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well,
logically, there are only two laws Vaughey arguably broke when dealing with me:
the peace order/harassment statutes, and the frickin First Amendment And there is no reason why they couldn’t be
saying he violated both.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And then there
is the very next rule, 1.2. The title of
that is:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
RULE 1.2. PROMOTING CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, that
doesn’t sound good for Vaughey. What
does that rule say?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 1in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<b>(a)</b> A
judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
<b>independence</b>, integrity, and <b>impartiality</b> of the judiciary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 1in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 1in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<b>(b)</b> A
judge shall avoid conduct that would create in reasonable minds a perception of
impropriety.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Mind you,
while I have done a great deal to make this look prettier, I didn’t add the
boldface. It is in my copy of the
code. So don’t take that to mean I am
saying that Vaughey didn’t act like an independent actor. But as for his impartiality... well, they cite Rule 2.2, which says:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
RULE 2.2. IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
A
judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial
office <b>impartially</b> and fairly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This is the
part, if I was Judge Vaughey, I’d start sinking in my seat. Rule 2.3(a) states that “A judge shall
perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without
bias or prejudice.” And then finally,
with the citation of Rule 2.8(a) and (b) the rules talk about maintaining
decorum and that the judge shall be “dignified, and courteous” when dealing
with pretty much everyone. So regardless
of what the narrative portion of the text says, they have declared that Judge
Vaughey 1) broke the law, 2) was biased as hell and 3) was kind of a jerk
toward me. But the narrative only talks
about courtesy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So I think
this was negotiated. I believe the
Commission read the transcript, maybe even listened to the audio, and said,
“holy f—k, what is this sh-t?” Then they
went to him and said, “you clearly violated the rules, and we are going to
bring holy hell down on you for it, unless you agree to this reprimand.” I further believe that the original draft
said in the narrative that he was biased and violated my constitutional rights
and Vaughey negotiated with them until they were willing to keep it simply in
the citation of the rules to save face.
So now, most lay people reading the reprimand would think the judge was
being chewed out for being a jerk, while if you look up what they are actually
citing him for, they are all but saying he violated my constitutional rights
and was biased, too.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course it
is all speculation. For all I know,
Vaughey could be genuinely contrite, and the Commission could be downplaying
the more serious misconduct out of respect for him. But here’s the clincher for me. As far as I know, there has been no attempt
by Vaughey to reach out to me and apologize.
I mean, it’s not hard to find my email.
If the board wouldn’t give him my contact information, I believe my home
address is the file, so why not write a letter on that Royal Typewriter of his? And how hard is it to find my blog and my
email address? And if he wrote a nice
note and asked the Commission to send it to me, wouldn’t they have? Or at least in the letter the Commission sent
me informing me of their action, they might have said, “Vaughey also wishes to
convey to Mr. Walker that he is sorry for his conduct” or something like that. But... I get nothing. You put all that together and I feel very
confident that I see exactly what happened.
But, hey, it is speculation—you make up your own mind.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(And before
you ask, I am not sharing the letter they sent telling me about this reprimand
because it literally adds nothing.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps some
enterprising journalist will find and ask Vaughey if he is sorry, but I don’t
think it is wise for me to do so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, a few
cynical people might say, “big deal. He
was reprimanded. So what?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, the “so
what” is found in the first paragraph.
As I mentioned in the beginning, Vaughey is retired. He was retired when he heard this case. And as stated in the first paragraph of the
reprimand, he can only sit in cases at the pleasure of the Court of
Appeals. I spoke with a person involved
in the investigation and this is what he told me. He said that of course he wouldn’t talk at
all about the investigation and the formation of the reprimand due to the
confidentiality rules covering the rest of the process. That was disappointing but not
surprising. And he said, naturally, the
Commission has no control over what the Court of Appeals does. But you can observe that when X happens that
Y tends to follow and he has observed that when this sort of thing happens, the
Court of Appeals is likely to review and ultimately revoke a retired judge’s
authorization to sit in on cases. This
is probably the end of his career as a judge.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I’m not a
vicious man. If I was told 1) I’d never
have to deal with him again, and 2) he will never sit on a case involving First
Amendment issues again, I would be more than satisfied. I wouldn’t assume he can’t handle the other
work of that courthouse. I saw one ugly
slice of his personality on one day, but I wouldn’t assume it is his whole
being. But I ain’t going to shed too
many tears over this outcome, either, because his conduct was pretty
outrageous, too.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I will say
frankly that friends urged me to think long and hard before I filed my
complaint. I understood the risks, but I
also remembered what Mark Steyn <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302263/bozo-jurist-mark-steyn">wrote</a>
about Vaughey’s behavior toward me:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Over
the years, I’ve faced unsympathetic judges in various courts around the world,
but I can’t recall ever listening to such a stream of unjudicial drivel from
the bench as that which poured from Judge Vaughey. If Andy McCarthy or Ed
Whelan or our other legal eagles can help me here, I’m genuinely curious: Is
this Vaughey clod unusually awful? Or all too typical?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I said to
myself, the answer couldn’t be that this was typical, and thus acceptable. A couple of years ago, I found myself
defending a person in court who had seen combat who was asking for protection
from the violence of others, and I said something like this to the judge:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
We
say people like him fight for this country.
But what does that mean? Does
that mean he simply fought for a piece of dirt that someone called
“America?” It seems to me that America
is more than a peace of dirt, that it is bundle of ideas. Freedom and democracy is a big part of it, but
there is also a whole web of ideas that go along with it that maybe we don’t
even quite articulate when we declare that we love this great nation. One of the big ones is that might doesn’t
make right, in America. Rather we have
the rule of law and ideally most of our cases are decided based on those rules,
blind to who is before them whether they are rich or poor, black or white, or
whatever.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Okay, I probably
wasn’t that eloquent, but you get the idea.
As I said, Vaughey’s disrespect didn’t offend me overly much because I
don’t allow myself to be offended. I
don’t give people like him that kind of power over me. But the idea that a judge could behave so
atrociously on the bench and not face any consequences? The idea that the Supreme Court itself and
common sense could both be on your side and that might not be enough to protect
your sacred right of freedom of expression?
Yeah, that does offend me and I wasn’t willing to let that stand.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And the fact
that this is a ball-kick to Brett Kimberlin’s arguments against us is a nice
bonus. How many times has he whined that
we criticized Judge Vaughey. Well, the
state of Maryland just told us we not only had a legal right to do so, we right,
factually, to do so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, so I
will accept that victory with dignity and grace and...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Ah, who are we
kidding? Let’s do a little victory
dance!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7lu81z2E6pE" width="420"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Always stay
happy warrior, people. Keep your powder
dry and your popcorn fresh.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; text-decoration: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">Follow me at Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; text-decoration: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">, 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
</span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; text-decoration: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">. And
you can read a little more about my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; text-decoration: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-26522826445079703712016-06-12T15:37:00.000-04:002016-06-12T15:37:01.466-04:00Will Democrats Turn Against Gay Rights in the Wake of the Orlando Massacre?<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So like many
of you, I woke up to the news of a horrible massacre in Orlando, Florida. This is a breaking news story, so you need to
be extra leery about what you read, but currently the media seems to agree that
around fifty people have died and around fifty three people have been
injured. The murder is a man named Omar
Mateen, who is dead and thus sparing us the need for a trial and all of
that. <a href="http://patterico.com/2016/06/12/gunman-opens-fire-at-orlando-gay-bar-possible-ties-to-islamic-terrorism-being-investigated/">Patterico</a>
has details and knowing how he runs his site, you can expect regular updates,
either at the link or in subsequent posts.
I have social plans that will make it impossible to do the same, so
check them out now and then.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And however
one may wish to keep politics out of it, the left will not do so and we cannot
unilaterally disarm.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In fact,
unilateral disarmament may be a significant part of the problem in this. Pulse nightclub, the scene of this massacre,
was a <a href="http://crimeresearch.org/2016/06/mass-shooting-in-florida-occurred-in-another-gun-free-zone-as-many-as-20-people-died-in-a-shooting-at-an-orlando-nightclub/">gun
free zone</a>. In fact, it couldn’t be a
gun freedom zone if it wanted to, because Florida law prohibits clubs like this
from allowing its patrons to carry. I am
also seeing reports that an off-duty cop was there as a security guard and
armed. Even if true, wouldn’t it have
been better to have thirty people who are well-armed? One guy might stop such and even, or he might
just be the first to die. I don’t want
heroic dead cops. I want stupid dead
murderers, killed in a hail of gunfire from law abiding citizens exercising their
most sacred right to bear arms and self-defense.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Likewise, I am
reading that the suspect had an AR-15, but bluntly, this is most likely an
incident using an automatic weapon (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/K923Orlando/photos/a.88327216382.101243.49799431382/10154322654086383/?type=3">here</a>,
<a href="http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/multiple-injuries-reported-after-florida-nightclub-shooting-cops/">here</a>,
and <a href="http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/627371-for-2nd-time-in-two-days-orlando-is-rocked-by-violence-over-20-people-killed-in-mass-shooting/">here</a>. As I understand it, that can be an AR-15, if
unlawfully modified, but regular readers know that I am not such a gun aficionado
for you to take that as gospel. Or maybe
the claim it was an AR-15 is wrong. Or
maybe the claim it was full automatic is wrong—my sources don’t explain to me
why they think it was an automatic and, bluntly, there is so much ignorance
about guns these days I don’t fully trust a stranger’s conclusion. (If you don’t know, a full automatic will
effectively keep shooting repeatedly on one trigger pull. By contrast, a semi-automatic will have one
shot for one pull of the trigger.) Still
with around 100 dead and wounded, that’s around 100 trigger pulls for a semi-automatic,
which not impossible but difficult to pull off and kill that many people.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So the killer
broke at least one gun control law—prohibiting guns in Pulse—and probably broke
another—possession of an automatic weapon is unlawful with only a few exceptions. But of course gun control is the go to
answer. I even had a person who said it would
have been dangerous if the patrons of Pulse were armed and fought back. Yeah, then someone might have gotten hurt. Sigh.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course when
large numbers of people are killed, liberals have to decide which posture they
are going to take in terms of telling us how to respond. Of course they will always call for gun
control. This is a given, even if no gun
was used, even if it was a gun free zone, even if a gun was used, but it was
illegal. But beyond that, they have to
decide whether they want to shift to a “blame the victim” or “blame conservatives
for encouraging the killer” mode.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Seriously,
watch their responses. When a Palestinian
murders a group of Israeli teens at a pizza place, the calculus is like
this. In liberal minds, Palestinians are
constructed as “brown people” who are oppressed by the “whiter” Israelis, so
any violence they commit (they might add “while deplorable”) is the product of
the oppression of the Israelis over the Palestinians and therefore their
fault. It is time to blame the victim.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Never mind
that the Israelis are actually ridiculously genetically similar to the Palestinians
and that the initial rebellion of the Jews of Israel was in response to
literally a century of continual murder of Jews in that area of the world (not
to mention being righteously fed up with murderous anti-Semitism in the wake of
the holocaust). The ugly truth is this. One hundred years ago, the Palestinians were
randomly murdering Jews. During World
War II, the Palestinian Grand Mufti asked Hitler to open a death camp in Jerusalem,
in order to kill random Jews. After they
rebelled, the Arab nations did not focus on military targets but instead killed
random Jews. And today the Palestinian
terrorists do not generally focus on military targets, but instead kill random Jews. So any rational person would see it for what
it was. The Jews of the region had their
rights trampled for years and they rebelled.
And the Palestinian terrorists killing them are like the Klansmen who
every now and then decide to murder a black person: genocidal terrorists who
have lost their fight, but are so filled with hate they still want to keep
killing. But that’s not how the left
sees it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Or take clash
over blasphemy. Of course liberals are
perfectly fine with anti-Christian blasphemy.
They will even demand that taxpayers—who tend to be Christian—subsidize it. Thus it was a very important free speech
issue that taxpayers be forced to pay for a picture of Jesus submerged in
urine. That is because Christians are the
majority, and in the liberal mind they tend to be horribly oppressive toward
gay people and women who want abortions, and so anything to stick it to them is
justified. And if there is any threat or
suggestion of violence in response to that kind of blasphemy then there is no suggestion
that it is the artist’s fault for provoking them. No, that is proof of how hateful those
Christians are. So they shift out of
blame the victim mode, and into “blame the atmosphere of hatred” mode, trying
their best to pin the blame on their political or sociological opponents.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But then when
the blasphemy is directed toward Islam, suddenly things change. See, Muslims are constructed by the left as a
minority. And further the left thinks of
them as “brown people” while the left sees Christians as white. Never mind that there are white Muslims and
dark black Christians, because we’re not talking about reality, but rather perception. You don’t believe me? Look how often the left will claim that any
comment perceived to be against Muslims is “racist.” Further, Muslims are associated in liberal
minds with the Middle East, which is a part of the world where America is
supposedly the oppressor. So suddenly
the fact that there is a massive, organized and deadly campaign to suppress
alleged blasphemy of Islam is not as important as avoiding hurt feelings. So we are back to “blame the victim” mode.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And, it
shouldn’t be forgotten, that I think a fair bit of fear is involved in the difference
between these reactions. The left
professes loudly that not all Muslims are terrorists and their words are
correct; the problem is that most of them really don’t believe that. They believe that Muslims are uniquely
dangerous and so they are willing to appease them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkwPvvZXIAAJiz-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkwPvvZXIAAJiz-.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nakoula in custody; doesn't that make you<br />proud of your country?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One of the
worst examples of that was when current presumptive presidential nominee Hillary
Clinton scapegoated the movie <i>The
Innocence of Muslims </i>for the attack on Benghazi. As a result of Clinton’s urging, the DOJ
investigated the movie, discovered that the director had made it under a
pseudonym, and that the actual director was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who was
on probation for bank fraud. And that
probation included a prohibition on him using computers, which he very
obviously violated. So they sent him
back to prison for about a year and last I read he was freed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Did you get
that? A man expressed himself freely and
for that he was investigated by the DOJ.
What evidence was there that a crime occurred at that point in
time? Pissing off Islamofascists is not prima
facie evidence that you are a criminal.
And, yes, it was legal to imprison him, but that sends a terrible
message to the Islamofascists: kill enough Americans and we will give you what
you want. We’ll find any excuse to throw
this man in prison. I wonder if the same
people wringing their hands over Gawker’s demise give a crap about that?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That same
ideology was reflected in this tweet Hillary put out a while back.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<img height="400" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkwPvo9XIAEBC_O.jpg" width="225" /><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So the lesson
was taught. Kill people who blaspheme against
Islam or criticize it, and liberals will blame the victim and tell them to shut up. They will even try to imprison them, if they
can. They might say it is unfortunate
that these Islamofascists murdered the creators of Charlie Hebdo, but they
really shouldn’t have provoked them. It’s
better not to do the things Islamofascists hate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, you know
what Islamofascists also hate? Gay
people. So, I suppose liberals will now say
that gay marriage should be declared illegal, sodomy laws should be put in
place and gays should go back in the closet, right? <i>Right?</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Are you
kidding me? Of course not. (And yes, that does mean my title is a
tease. Sue me.) In the hierarchy of oppressed people, gay
people trump Islamofascists. So they
will not be blaming the victims for this.
But at the same time, why shouldn’t the Islamofascists expect that the
best way to suppress our “decadent” attitudes towards gay people is to kill a
bunch of gay people?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
See, there’s
really two problems I am getting at in this post. The first is this. There are legitimate ways to discuss the
social importance of violence. For instance,
on one extreme, it is altogether fair to blame the violence directed as civil
rights protesters during the civil rights movement of the 1960’s on the
atmosphere of hatred and racism that infected much of our nation, especially in
the South. On another extreme it is
right to say sometimes that violence is prompted by injustice. I mean, that’s sort of the whole point of the
Declaration of Independence: because of the unjust way England treated us, we
are leaving and if you try to stop us, we will fight. The problem is for the left this has devolved
into a nakedly political argument. There
is no attempt to judge with any kind of intellectual rigor whether the person
being violent has a just cause for the violence or not, at least not on the
left.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What do I mean
by vigorous analysis? Well, you start
with the question: was the victim doing anything wrong? So you look at Charlie Hebdo and you say, “no,
speech is not really doing anything, let alone doing anything wrong. They were not inciting violence, they were
not threatening people, or doing anything else that can rightfully be made
illegal. They were just expressing an
opinion.” So, therefore, the decision to
violently attack them is automatically wrong.
For most liberals, being gay is not wrong, either, so this attack is
obviously not a case where they would argue that injustice causes it. But let’s talk to those who think that being
gay is wrong. Okay, if you believe it is
wrong, that’s not the end of the analysis.
The next question is “are they doing something that infringes your rights
in some way?” I don’t see how any
reasonable person can say that two gay dudes kissing infringes your
rights. And to get to the last question,
supposing someone it doing something that is wrong, supposing it infringes your
rights, you have to exist in a context where there is no reasonable apparatus
to obtain justice peacefully. You know,
like a reasonably just court system, for instance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, for
instance, if you are Nat Turner, i.e. an American slave in 1831, you have all
the pieces necessary to justify private violence. Wrong is being done. It is violating your rights. And in 1831 there was no fricking way a black
slave was going to get justice. Under
those circumstances, illegal private violence is utterly justified even if
those in charge are likely to kill you for it.
Likewise, if you live in China and a party official commits a crime
against you, the only chance you have for justice is taking the law into your
own hands, because there is no real justice in China. But those are extreme circumstances that just
don’t apply here and now.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The other
problem is how the left has encouraged the Islamofascists to think this is a
good idea. (And by the left, I include
Donald Trump <a href="http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/13/video-watch-donald-trump-blame-pam-geller-inciting-violence/">who
blamed Pamela Geller for being attacked</a>.)
The left gave the Islamofascists every impression that violence brings
attention to your cause and might even get you what you want. If the left applied a rigorous analysis, like
you saw above, then most violence “for a cause” would be condemned and idiots
like this wouldn’t think that their terrorism would get results. So if this is a wake up call for anything, it
is for the left to stop rewarding this kind of violence with sympathy and
sometimes even suppression of human rights—such as suppressing so-called
blasphemy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have heard
reports that the killer pledged himself to ISIS just before he began his
massacre. If this is an ISIS disciple,
the best response isn’t to navel-gaze and say, “why do they hate us?” Rather it is to unleash severe massive destruction
on ISIS. Even if they are not directly
guilty in the sense that they ordered, planned or even knew about this massacre
ahead of time, killing them is independently morally laudable and the next
idiot who is tempted to kill a bunch of Americans in the name of ISIS will know
that they will be harming the very cause they are seeking to advance. And that, dear reader, is a better way to
stop the next atrocity than all the gun laws liberals can make up.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-59279542078387021362016-02-05T14:01:00.000-05:002016-02-05T14:01:42.689-05:00Adjudicated Pedophile Brett Kimberlin Impotently Accuses me of Unauthorized Practice of Law<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Or “Brett Kimberlin Goes the Full
Schmalfeldt”</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/caucasian-boy-in-3d-glasses-eating-popcorn-picture-id135538415" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/caucasian-boy-in-3d-glasses-eating-popcorn-picture-id135538415" width="221" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Brett's fail is much funnier in 3D!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the latest post in what I
half-jokingly call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued myself, John
Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan
Backer, DB Capital Strategies, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy (who is
significantly incapacitated by a stroke), Lee Stranahan, the National Bloggers
Club, and others alleging that we are
all in conspiracy to defame him because we reported factually about the spate
of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey, Erickson and others. So, if you are new to the story, go to </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now in the
last two posts, I discussed <i>Kimberlin v.
Walker, et al.,</i> and <i>Kimberlin v.
National Bloggers Club (II)</i>, and I have discussed other cases in the past. One case I don’t remember discussing at all,
is <i>Kimberlin v. Hunton and Williams, et
al.</i> That’s largely because I am not
a party in it, and not generally involved in that case, but my friend John Hoge
is and he has been discussing it regularly at his blog, <a href="http://hogewash.com/">here</a>. He
calls it “RICO II,” sometimes humorously adding “Electric Boogalo” to riff off
the movie “Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogalo” which is more famous for its title
than anything else.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
How to explain
this suit? Well, the short version is
this. Longtime readers know that Brett Kimberlin
believes that there was a vast conspiracy against him called in shorthand “Team
Themis” that involves the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the FBI and I think the
CIA. No word on whether the Templars are
involved, too. Anyway, this suit is
about that pile of crazy... and then he
threw in some random unrelated state-law tort claims against John Hoge and Bill
Nickless. The insertion of Mr. Hoge
seems largely to be related to his anger at John for having won a peace order
hearing the week before Brett filed this.
He filed this dumb lawsuit literally the same week that Judge Hazel
dismissed all RICO claims (and most other claims in <i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club (I)</i>. You can read that opinion <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14860789549609016921&q=brett+kimberlin&hl=en&as_sdt=3,47&as_ylo=2015">here</a>. And guess who got the new RICO case? Judge Hazel.
It’s like legal whack-a-mole.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar:</b> And for those of you who
bother to read the opinion in <i>Kimberlin
v. National Bloggers Club (I)</i>, you will recognize that <i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club (II)</i> is kind of a continuation
of <i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club
(I). </i>Basically Brett<i> </i>brought federal law claims against
various state law claims against a large number of us. The judge dismissed most of the federal law
claims for failure to state a claim, and then dismissed the state law claims
for jurisdictional reasons. This gave
Brett the right to re-file the state law claims in state court, so he did. And that is what just got dismissed,
recently.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, in
RICO II: Electric Boogalo, Brett just filed a motion that did involve me,
accusing me of unauthorized practice of law.
Just to give a little more background, Brett Kimberlin’s complaint
against the defendants, as usual, was woefully inadequate as a matter of law,
so he filed a motion to amend his complaint.
I would post it, but what it says specifically isn’t important to the
story I am telling right now. The
important thing is he asked to amend it, and John Hoge filed an opposition to
it, which you can read here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/296860911/ECF-110-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
ECF 110 Redacted on Scribd">ECF 110 Redacted</a> by <a href="https://www.scribd.com/user/172917509/himself2462" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View himself2462's profile
on Scribd">himself2462</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7715996578272027" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_14224" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/296860911/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-6XnxPOfSMH9G6PVeOHPC&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And here comes
Brett’s response where he falsely accuses me of unauthorized practice of law:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/298152615" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
ECF 113 Redacted on Scribd">ECF 113 Redacted</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_83828" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/298152615/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(Please note
that the title of the document says he is responding to a different document,
but the substance of it was about the document I just gave you from John.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now that
raises a few questions and the problem here is my duties as a reporter are
going to be trumped by my duties as an attorney. I have been John’s attorney for some time now
and so I have a duty to keep private conversations related to legal matters confidential. This is true even if it helps me, and even if
what he told me was innocuous—as long as it is in the course of our
attorney-client relationship, I can’t tell just tell you. I am not <i>free</i>
to tell you.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So it is not a
breach of privilege to point out that this exists on John’s Scribd account...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297175659/Hoge-Opp-docx" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Hoge Opp.docx on Scribd">Hoge Opp.docx</a> by <a href="https://www.scribd.com/user/172917509/himself2462" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View himself2462's profile on
Scribd">himself2462</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7729220222793488" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_31931" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297175659/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-2iNRZcd2SPdGktpKq4bw&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
...because
that is not confidential. He posted it
in public. So if you, dear reader, are
concerned about any data security breach, that will put your mind at ease. But on the other hand, any explanation he
might have given for posting that thing to his account—whether it was an
accident, if John did this to create a “honeypot, or any other reason—is something
I can’t share.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, one exception
to that is that I can breach attorney-client privilege to the extent it is
necessary to defend myself against allegations that I have engaged in improper
conduct. So that allowed me to explain
what went on to the Court, in terms I couldn’t normally say in the blog. In other words, to understand what happened,
you are going to have to read the document, because I am limited in what I can
say here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/298157287/Opp-to-Show-Cause-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Opp to Show Cause (Redaction) on Scribd">Opp to Show Cause (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_42771" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/298157287/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(of course, the
actual was appropriately signed. And I find
scribd has been making the formatting on some of my documents weird in terms of
line spacing. I assure the original
looked normal.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So basically
Brett is humping the same theory of the practice of law that Brett’s
self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt subscribed to, <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/06/breaking-brett-kimberlin-associate-bill.html">here</a>,
which should be your first clue how stupid his theory is. (Schmalfeldt showed up here previously as a
thug supporting Kimberlin. For instance,
<a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/09/breaking-brett-kimberlin-ally.html">here</a>
he is—referred to as Liberal Grouch—trying to get someone to rape Lee Stranahan’s
wife.) Basically Brett and Bill think that if you are not a Maryland lawyer,
you can’t talk about Maryland law, even if you licensed in another jurisdiction
and in that jurisdiction where you are licensed at the time. So, if you run a business with contacts all
across the nation, you need to hire 51 lawyers to tell you if what you are
doing is legal, one for every state and the District of Columbia. Anyone who actually, you know, practices law
knows that this is not how it works: it is where you are that governs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Also, Brett’s
claim that I authored the entire document is just stupid. All the designation of authorship in Word
indicates is whose computer the specific text came out of. For instance, for all Brett knew, I had
loaned my computer to John to write on.
It has no way of knowing who is punching the keys. My point isn’t to say that this is what
happened—the document above tells you what actually happened. Instead, it is to point out that Brett should
have known that this was no evidence at all that I engaged in unauthorized
practice of law. Seriously, I know he’s
an old man and old men don’t typically do well with computers, but he should
know better than that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So all he
managed to do was waste everyone’s time, including—notably—Judge Hazel.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I’ll add that
John has filed his response to this nonsense, which you can read about, <a href="http://hogewash.com/2016/02/05/rico-2-follies/">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And that gives
you some idea of the stupid drama Brett continually tries to insert into the
dockets.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What it comes
down to is this. You are not allowed to
write anything bad about Brett Kimberlin.
And if you are a lawyer, you are not allowed to assist any person that
Brett Kimberlin is targeting. That is his
core belief, and my fight is to disabuse him of that notion and make get
justice for the crimes he has committed against me.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-28007254884532739322016-02-04T22:50:00.000-05:002016-02-04T22:50:37.400-05:00Adjudicated Pedophile Brett Kimberlin Impotently Pleads for a Stay of Execution<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the latest post in what I
half-jokingly call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued myself, John
Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan
Backer, DB Capital Strategies, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy (who is
significantly incapacitated by a stroke), Lee Stranahan, the National Bloggers
Club, and others alleging that we are
all in conspiracy to defame him because we reported factually about the spate
of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey, Erickson and others. So, if you are new to the story, go to </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRE0H_JvMc51A6a7NeIpnHjWQprITLKJ5WkSw24DYc3fms5xHIt" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Image result for popcorn laughing girl" border="0" src="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRE0H_JvMc51A6a7NeIpnHjWQprITLKJ5WkSw24DYc3fms5xHIt" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"He is an impotent little wannabe lawyer, isn't he?"<br />"Yeah, what a loser!"<br />"This is good popcorn."</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, dear
reader, the last two posts on Brett Kimberlin (<a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2016/02/appellate-court-affirms-brett_3.html">here</a>
and <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2016/01/convicted-terrorist-brett-kimberlin.html">here</a>)
have been instances where a lot of catch up was needed. I had to go back months in time to tell you
what is happening. This time, we can
build off of events in, well, those last two posts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For those just
catching up, I am going to do a recap, sort of a “last time on <i>Lost</i>,” moment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To briefly
recap,<b> </b>Brett first had a case against
me that we call <i>Kimberlin v. Walker, et
al.</i> Basically it revolved primarily
(but not exclusively) around allegations that Brett is a pedophile and issues
like criminal charges that arose from that.
We went to trial on defamation and false light and won that case for the
most substantive reason possible: truth.
Which means that from now on, Brett is not allowed to claim anyone has
defamed him or placed him in a false light by calling him a pedophile at least
as of August 12, 2014, even one that has practiced it in the past. In my last post I discussed how he attempted
to appeal his loss in that case and lost that appeal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>In the middle
of all this, he started another suit I am currently calling <i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al.</i>
claiming a bunch of causes of action but primarily revolving around claims that
I put him in a false light by allegedly calling him a SWATter or implying that
he was one. If you are unfamiliar with
that term “SWATter” or are unfamiliar with my SWATting, I would suggest you
read <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-happened-tonight.html">this
post</a> discussing my experience. You
will also notice that I do not once accuse Mr. Kimberlin outside of court papers
of being involved in that crime against me.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, but I did
do it in court. I have previously shared
my SLAPP motion, but one exhibit I didn’t share is the affidavit I filed with
it as Exhibit V. You can read the whole
thing on Scribd (sans signature), <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/298067780/Walker-Affidavit">here,</a> but let
me quote from the relevant passage.
After explaining that on June 25, 2012, my freedom of expression had
been restored, I go on to state the following:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
That
evening, as I was writing about the day’s events, I was SWATted. While I do not believe Mr. Kimberlin
personally made the SWATting call, I believe that it was done at his command,
out of anger at seeing my freedom of expression restored.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You can take
that for whatever you think it is worth.
But bluntly that was the first time I had publicly accused Brett of
SWATting me. His claim that I had
falsely stated he had done so was false; and the statement that I implied something
is just not actionable. Further, as
Judge Mason has said in oral argument, simply pointing out a few facts that
tend to make you suspect that Brett Kimberlin was involved in SWATting and
stating the opinion that you think he might have been involved is not actionable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, I moved
to dismiss the case and I moved for a summary judgment. You can read the order granting it, <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295493743/Walker-Win-Jan-14">here.</a> I won’t bother to explain why dismissal was
granted on some items because it is not vital to the story I am telling you
now. But the summary judgment was based
on the concept of res judicata. I am
told it translates to “a thing adjudged” and it is a rule designed to see an
end to litigation, which is like Brett Kimberlin’s kryptonite.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The best way
to explain it, is that if you have disputes with someone, you need to bring all
your disputes into one case. So if Jane
Doe breaches a contract with you and then as a bad coincidence hits your car
with hers on a different occasion, if you sue her, you better sue her for both
the breach of contract and the accident at the same time. And if you don’t, then you waive whatever
claims you didn’t bring in that first suit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So what Judge
Mason ruled was, in essence, that even if Brett has a rock solid case against me
for calling him a SWATter (even though I didn’t actually call him one outside
of court papers), <u>he should have brought those
claims in<i> Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.</i></u> And, since he didn’t, he waived those claims.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But, Brett
pleaded, that is based on <i>Kimberlin v.
Walker, et al.</i> which is on appeal before the Court of Special Appeals as we
speak! He made that plea when opposing
the motion for summary judgment and he has made it again, seeking a stay of the
January 12, 2016, order essentially ending the case for me. Here’s that motion for a stay:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/298069136/Motion-for-Stay" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Motion for Stay on Scribd">Motion for Stay</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_80071" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/298069136/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I got that
document just before Winter Storm Jonas dumped about two feet of global warming
(i.e. snow) around my house and I spent a good amount of time while I was
snowed in working on my opposition, which you can read here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/298069556/Opposition-to-Stay-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Opposition to Stay (Redaction) on Scribd">Opposition to Stay (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_52913" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/298069556/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That was where
I last left it, but you know what is about to be super-relevant: the Court of
Special Appeals’ decision last Tuesday. So
on Wednesday morning I submitted the following to the court in <i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club (II)</i>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/298069968/Supplement-to-Opposition-to-Stay-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Supplement to Opposition to Stay (Redaction) on Scribd">Supplement to Opposition to Stay (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_45322" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/298069968/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, you can’t
just submit a supplement without asking permission, so I also filed a motion
for leave to file the same supplement. I
won’t embed it because it is very workaday, but you can read it <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/298070305/MFL-to-File-Supplement-Redacted">here</a>,
if you are dying of curiosity. One
cannot predict with 100% accuracy what a judge will do, but I feel confident
that Mason will allow the supplement or otherwise take notice of the Court of
Special Appeals’ action. I didn’t think
the motion for a stay had much of a chance to begin with, but I am more than
convinced now that it will be denied.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And of course
you can get a good chuckle when reading my original opposition to the stay when
you see me transcribe Brett’s description of his own chances on appeal at the
December 8, 2015, motions hearing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
That
case is on appeal, right now, in the Court of Special Appeals. And—you know—there’s issues in that case that
are pretty suspect. I mean Judge Jordan
even issued an order on a motion for a new trial and made note of the problems
with that case. And so I don’t think it
would be wise to ever go on <i>res judicata</i>
in that case.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And likewise
my prediction of success in that appeal was bold, and as of today, utterly
vindicated. Always stay happy warriors,
folks!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-10457614099579206002016-02-03T20:20:00.000-05:002016-02-03T20:20:38.268-05:00Appellate Court Affirms Brett Kimberlin’s Status as an Adjudicated Pedophile<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Or: “Catching Up with <i>Kimberlin v. Walker, et. al.</i>”</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://replygif.net/thumbnail/1393.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://replygif.net/thumbnail/1393.gif" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">With a headline like that, you <i>know</i> you<br />will need popcorn!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the latest post in what I
half-jokingly call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued myself, John
Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan
Backer, DB Capital Strategies, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy (who is
significantly incapacitated by a stroke), Lee Stranahan, the National Bloggers
Club, and others alleging that we are
all in conspiracy to defame him because we reported factually about the spate
of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey, Erickson and others. So, if you are new to the story, go to </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The headline,
here, is that Brett Kimberlin has lost his latest appeal of his lawsuit
involving charges that he is a pedophile.
This is the same case that David Weigel wrote about in <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/30/the-weirdest-story-about-a-conservative-obsession-a-convicted-bomber-and-taylor-swift-you-have-ever-read.html">the
Daily Beast.</a> And you can see where I
wrote in the immediate aftermath of that victory in the lower court <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2014/08/brett-kimberlin-is-adjudicated-pedophile.html?spref=tw">here</a>
and <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-legal-note-brett-kimberlin-is.html">here</a>. To explain how we get there, however, is
going to take a while. Bluntly, I don’t
write posts trying to chase the lastest breaking news. I try to give you thoughtful analysis you can
read for a while and this post is no exception.
If you read every embedded document, you are looking at around 300 pages
of text by my best estimate. So there’s
nothing wrong with saving it for when you really have a long time to read.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s start
with a quick background about the case.
The short version is that in 2013, Brett Kimberlin’s wife, Tetyana
Kimberlin, separated from her husband and came to myself and John Hoge for
help. She told us that Brett Kimberlin
had seduced her when she was fourteen years old in Ukraine, that he brought her
to America when she was fifteen and carried on a sexual relationship in
violation of Maryland law (because she was below the relevant age of consent), and
various other horribles. This lined up
with other evidence that suggested Brett was a pedophile. She ended up filing charges based on that
crime, but at some point reversed course and stopped cooperating as a witness,
causing those charges to be dropped.
Brett sue me and several of my friends (John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain,
Ali Akbar and two persons who allegedly wrote as KimberlnUnmasked) for alleged
stalking and harassment (which is not a cause of action in Maryland), malicious
prosecution, malicious use of process, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, defamation and false light.
First, we won a grant of summary judgment in our favor on all but the
defamation and false light claims. Then
we won a judgment (what is called a directed verdict in most states) at trial
on the issue of false light or defamation, because Brett literally had no
evidence that anything we said was false.
In other words, he thought he could get up there, prove we said bad things
about him and then rest his case, or he wanted the court to accept that
argument. He has now lost that argument,
twice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>So that’s a
thumbnail picture of the case below. A
more detailed picture will pop up in my brief, which you will see soon. Like last time I talked about Brett’s litigation,
we have some catching up to do. It is
almost a year and a half since our August 12, 2014 victory over Kimberlin in
this matter and a great deal has happened.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I won’t bore
you with every document involved in that—though I am still giving you a
lot. There was a fair amount of paper
flying about, including at least two motions to dismiss by counsel Patrick
Ostronic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s start by
giving you Brett’s brief asking for the Court below to be reversed. But let me preface this as follows. Regular readers know not to trust much of
what Brett says. Well, this is less
honest than usual. For instance, it
contains false allegations against his own wife that she has mental
illness. I am no doctor, but I have
spent enough time around her that I feel confident that there is nothing wrong
with her and he has produced literally no evidence showing otherwise. We’ll go into his dishonestly in more detail
when you see my response, but keep that in mind as you read this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297845887/BK-Brief-Filed-July-31-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
BK Brief Filed July 31 Redacted on Scribd">BK Brief Filed July 31 Redacted</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_88313" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297845887/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
After I
received that, it became very clear that I wanted to represent myself on the
appeal. So Patrick Ostronic and I filed
a “consent motion” withdrawing him as counsel.
It is a consent motion because both Patrick and I agreed to this,
frankly as a matter of strategy. I felt
that in this situation two lawyers arguing to the court was better than
one. In other words, lest there be any
confusion on this point, I think I was well-represented by Mr. Ostronic. But bluntly, the arguments I expected Patrick
to make for John Hoge and Robert Stacy McCain would benefit me, and the
arguments I expected to make would benefit John and Stacy. I don’t mean to say that Patrick would be
arguing on my behalf or I would argue on their behalf, just that the reasons
why I think I should win applies equally to John and Stacey, and the reasons
why Ostronic thinks his clients should win applies equally to me. That’s why Ali Akbar never made any kind of
appearance in this case and won anyway—because the arguments we made so clearly
applied to Ali, that they couldn’t not rule in his favor. So we saw it as a way to reinforce the
arguments of the other.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So here’s that
motion to withdraw:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297846248/Motion-to-Withdraw-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Motion to Withdraw (Redacted) on Scribd">Motion to Withdraw (Redacted)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_32267" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297846248/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then, before
that motion to withdraw was granted, I filed what I call my Omnibus Filing,
which is three documents in one. First,
there is a Brief, which responds to Brett’s points on the merits. Second, there is a motion to dismiss which
says that because Brett did various things wrong his Brief should be dismissed. Finally, there was a motion for leave to file
a motion to dismiss in excess of the page limit, because ordinarily a motion to
dismiss is limited to ten pages. Really,
all you need to read from that motion for leave is this line displaying my
often dry sense of humor:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
The
discussion of the law and its application to the present facts amounts to about
three pages total. It is the necessity of correcting every time the Appellant
misstated the truth that take[s] up the bulk of the Motion to Dismiss. Therefore,
the length of the Motion to Dismiss is dictated almost entirely by the number
of times the Appellant has misstated the truth. Accordingly, the Motion to
Dismiss is twenty-five pages long.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So that would
be approximate twenty-two pages of continual bull___t. By the way, “misstated the truth” is a legal
code phrase. Lawyers typically are not
supposed to accuse the other side of lying, however clear the evidence is that
they are. So we say “misstated the
truth” or some variation of it, which those embedded in legal culture
understand as meaning literally the same thing.
Sometime I do directly say the word “lie” with Brett because his
behavior is outrageous enough to justify a minor breach of decorum—and to be
clear it is only a rule of decorum, not an enforceable rule.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So without
further ado, here is that omnibus filing:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297846670/Omnibus-Filing-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Omnibus Filing (Redaction) on Scribd">Omnibus Filing (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_3822" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297846670/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(As per usual,
many of these motions are unsigned, because they are uploads of the raw Word
documents. The originals were signed.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You will note
that I am piggy-backing on a motion to dismiss by Patrick Ostronic that you
haven’t seen, yet. Bluntly, what
happened with Patrick’s is it was denied without prejudice, giving him the
right to re-file on the theory that they were not going to dismiss it before
they go to the judges, but the judges can consider this. In essence, they told Ostronic: re-file it
when you file your motion to dismiss. As
you will see in a minute, that is exactly what he did. If there is any difference between what he
originally filed in his motion to dismiss and what he re-filed, it is so
negligible that it is not worth noting.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Patrick also
filed for an extension of time while they considered his motion to
dismiss. If memory serves the extension
was granted, though the dismissal was not.
So there’s that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway,
without further ado, here’s Mr. Ostronic’s omnibus motion:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297858003/Appellees-Brief-8September-FPO-FINAL-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Appellees Brief - 8September FPO FINAL Redacted on Scribd">Appellees Brief - 8September FPO FINAL
Redacted</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_9935" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297858003/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
While there is
a great deal of echoing and adoption of my arguments by Patrick, it might not
be correct in the first place to call them “my arguments.” I will say in all bluntness that first as my
lawyer and then as my colleague discussing matters under joint defense
privilege, that we spoke freely about the merits of the appeal. I won’t breach the relevant privileges, but I
can’t say for sure who recognized the validity of what argument first. My purpose was to gather the best ideas in
writing my brief, not to take credit for them.
So if you think a point is particularly good, don’t assume it means I am
smart: the idea might have originated with Patrick. Honestly, I don’t remember one way or the
other.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, at
this point the <s>Empire</s> Midget Struck Back. For instance, when a motion to withdraw as
counsel is filed the other side can oppose it, but it is almost never done, if
only because it is such a waste of time.
But Brett is a viscous little man, and so he felt the need to challenge
it as well as challenging my motion to dismiss and Patrick’s request for an
extension of time. Here’s that dumb filing:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297857222/Brett-s-Opp-to-MTD" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Brett&#x27;s Opp to MTD on Scribd">Brett&#x27;s Opp to MTD</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_64610" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297857222/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And here’s my
response.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297857388/Reply-MTD-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Reply MTD (Redaction) on Scribd">Reply MTD (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_81916" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297857388/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Really, Brett
needs to stop attacking me personally, because then it gives me a chance to
present in general terms my story of triumphant struggle. Every time he calls me incompetent, I get to
say I went to Yale Law School in spite of my disabilities. Which do you think is more effective? You would think that a person with such an
awful personal history would want to take the high road if only to avoid giving
us an excuse to bring up that awful personal history.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, next
up, Brett filed his reply, ostensibly to Patrick’s omnibus filing, but... well,
we will talk about that in a moment.
Here it is, missing only it’s pretty little cover page:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297857615/Kimberlin-Appellate-Reply-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Kimberlin Appellate Reply Redacted on Scribd">Kimberlin Appellate Reply Redacted</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_56963" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297857615/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And then
following that, I filed a motion to strike that reply, which you can read,
here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297858814/Mot-to-Strike-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Mot. to Strike (Redaction) on Scribd">Mot. to Strike (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_18090" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297858814/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I will note
that when I include an exhibit that shows what Brett’s filings look like if you
exclude the improper parts, it is a bit of dry humor mixed in. I mean, I chuckle every time I see entire
pages blocked out. Whether you do the same
depends on your demeanor. And it serves
the overall purpose of making the court realize how thoroughly the dishonesty
permeates his writing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, was that
motion granted? Well, if you read
carefully, I am asking primarily for one of two things: that the court strike
the improper parts or disregard them.
The first was not done. But when
I show you the opinion, it seems pretty obvious that the second was done.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, next
as an additional twist, the Court on its own issued an order to show cause.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297858946/Order-to-Show-Cause" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Order to Show Cause on Scribd">Order to Show Cause</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_57658" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297858946/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Basically they
demanded that Brett explain why he left out so many vital transcripts in the
process.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Here’s Brett’s
response.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297859352/BK-Show-Cause-Answer" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
BK Show Cause Answer on Scribd">BK Show Cause Answer</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_2812" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297859352/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And my
response to that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297859563/Opp-to-Show-Cause-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Opp to Show Cause (Redaction) on Scribd">Opp to Show Cause (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_5393" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297859563/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I didn’t get
what I asked for in that document—to have the court reject his answer to the
show cause motion—but it gave me a chance to de facto rebut what the new state
of the record said, albeit briefly. For
instance, you see me say:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Ref436964493">Likewise, the Appellant claims that “Appellant presented
testimony at the summary judgment hearing on July 1, 2014.” (Reply 13) Now that
this Court has a complete record of what happened at that hearing, it can see
that in fact, <i>no testimony </i>was
presented at that hearing. In fact, there was no evidence whatsoever presented
by the Appellant at a hearing in which he was required to provide at least <i>some</i> evidence supporting each element of
his claims. Thus, this Court can see that not only was Judge McGann correct to
grant summary judgment regarding some counts, but this Court might wonder why <i>any</i> of the Appellant’s counts survived
that hearing.</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This was
naturally an argument about Brett’s deception as a reason to actually dismiss
the case, but it simultaneously makes an important legal point: that Brett had
no evidence in the record at the summary judgment hearing. That will be important in a moment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In any case,
as I suspected they would be, the court was lenient (<i>ugh</i>), but probably because it knew the case was a dog and Brett
would lose on the merits, anyway, and appellate courts are loath to dismiss
cases like this. So they responded as
follows:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297859749/Order-Accepting-Show-Cause-Answer" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Order Accepting Show Cause Answer on Scribd">Order Accepting Show Cause Answer</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_39701" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297859749/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And that
brings us to yesterday’s decision, affirming the court below.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/297747250" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
1553s14 on Scribd">1553s14</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_29158" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297747250/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Like with
Judge Mason’s opinion, there are a lot of parallels between my arguments and
theirs, but as I noted above, I am not sure how many of those arguments were
mine to begin with, so there is less ego stroking involved. The only major deviation is the difference
between how I approach the issue of summary judgment, but my argument was based
on the record as it was when Brett filed it.
They based their decision on the record as it existed after they added
in the appropriate transcripts. Since my
brief was written before they supplemented the record this way, my argument was
off topic. On the other hand, they did
take the view I offered in my opposition to show cause. So is that influence, or did the court just
notice a blindingly obvious point? I
report, you decide.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, you might
think that this is the last of the documents I have to share with you and you
are wrong. There is one more document I
filed, just as soon as I could get out and about after the blizzard. It asked for a chance to supplement the
record in light of Judge Mason’s ruling in <i>Kimberlin
v. National Bloggers Club (II)</i>, which I discussed <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2016/01/convicted-terrorist-brett-kimberlin.html">here.</a> Its moot now (which is legalspeak meaning
that it doesn’t matter given what the Court of Special Appeals ruled), but it
still might provide interesting reading:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/297864430/Motion-for-Leave-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Motion for Leave (Redaction) on Scribd">Motion for Leave (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_12591" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/297864430/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Stay tuned,
and stay happy warriors. Brett’s
vexatious litigation has taken a very severe blow. I don’t think he understands how bad it
really is, just yet.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-13509333288837527892016-01-18T08:20:00.002-05:002016-01-18T08:53:50.635-05:00Moral Absolutism and Revolution: My Martin Luther King Day Tribute<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.newtrier.k12.il.us/uploadedImages/Siteroot/Student_Services/Adviser_Program/MLK_Day/MLK.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This picture of Dr. King, in minister's robes and standing before the American flag, is oddly appropriate given <br />
the subject of this post</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As regular
readers know, every year I try to write a post celebrating Dr. King’s birthday. As I have said, if Dr. King had not been
born, or if he didn’t do what he did, I probably would not have gone to
college, let alone graduated from Yale Law School,* I would not be a lawyer,
and I very likely would not have been legally allowed to marry my wife. So a debt of gratitude is appropriately owed.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This year I will
talk about a passage that you might not know of from Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham
Jail.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I remember
when I first read the letter—or thought I read it—in middle school in North
Carolina, I was less than impressed. I
remember reading this passage in particular:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
You
express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is
certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the
Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools,
at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break
laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying
others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and
unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a
legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral
responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an
unjust law is no law at all.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And I remember
thinking that was, at best, only a partial answer to the question. What, after all, was the difference between
an unjust law and a just law? Certainly
the KKK would tend to think the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were unjust
laws, so what do you say to them?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, the answer
is that the book I read it in was censoring Dr. King’s words. Here’s the passage they left out of my
textbook:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Now,
what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is
just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law
or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the
moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a
human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that
uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is
unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the
soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of
superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to
use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I
it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to
the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically
and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has
said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of
man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus
it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for
it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for
they are morally wrong.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(<a href="https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html">Source.</a>) Ah, now that makes a little more sense, doesn’t
it? Of course the side of evil will
still try to echo his words and say that segregation is good and desegregation
is evil, but it will be wrong... more or less because God says so. Dr. King was not a moral relativist. He did not believe that all points of view on
what is right and what is wrong were equally valid. He believed there was one right side, one
wrong side, and (aside from personal moral failing) he tried to be on the right.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, an
early sermon I will discuss in a moment makes it clear that Dr. King believed
that being a moral absolutist was a necessary ingredient in his success as a
revolutionary. And yes, Dr. King was a revolutionary, in the style of democratic
revolution fostered by our American system.
I have long said that our republic is designed to a significant amount to
allow for “controlled revolution,” not by bullets but by ballots.** Think about it. Every four years we decide whether or not to “kill”
the king (i.e. the President) not by literally killing whoever is in office,
but by peacefully voting him or her out.
Likewise, every two years we get the opportunity to throw out the
entirety of the House of Representatives, and every six years we can clean out
the Senate. Even the election of 1800,
which swept Thomas Jefferson and his Republican Party** into power, was
popularly known as the Revolution of 1800.
And while Dr. King’s revolution was focused more on the souls of
Americans than getting any specific people into power, the kind of peaceful
revolution that Dr. King led was exactly how our system was supposed to work.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Truly, every
major revolutionary in history was a moral absolutist, starting with the guys
who Founded this country. The
Declaration of Independence, for instance, says that<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The very first
words of that passage—“We hold these truths to be self-evident”—were not
literally true. There were tons of kings
and tyrants who believed just the opposite, not to mention a multitude of
slaveholders in America who disputed the point.
What they really meant is that if you couldn’t agree on those principles
as being axiomatically true, then there was no point in further discussion. If you didn’t agree that all people had an
equal right to life and liberty, you were beyond convincing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Likewise, the
other major set of founders—the people who founded the Thirteenth, Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments—were not moral relativists, either. The great mass of them were evangelical Christians
who believed that slavery was a sin and took the Declaration’s preamble as
divinely inspired. Even Abraham Lincoln—who
was less expressively religious than many at the time—made it clear that his
opposition to slavery involved his rejection of moral relativism. For instance, consider this <a href="http://patterico.com/2011/02/07/akhil-amar-refusing-to-let-congress-force-people-to-buy-healthcare-is-like-refusing-to-let-congress-ban-slavery/">speech</a>
he gave when praising a gradual emancipation statute in Maryland:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
The
world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American
people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in
using the same <i>word</i> we do not all
mean the same <i>thing</i>. With some the
word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the
product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to
do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here
are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same
name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective
parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
The
shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks
the shepherd as a <i>liberator</i>, while
the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially
as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed
upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference
prevails to—day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing
to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily
passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty,
and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it
seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty; and
thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been
repudiated.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://exploringmormonism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/You-keep-using-that-word.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://exploringmormonism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/You-keep-using-that-word.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #545454; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 18.2px; text-align: left;">Inigo Montoya is very disappointed with those who <br />call terrorists "Freedom Fighters."</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Lincoln was
getting at the idea that evil often called good “evil,” and evil “good,” often
on the same terms that good people used that language. And we see this pattern today, where it is
objectively true that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” in
the sense that the Islamofascist terrorists are called “freedom fighters” by
some because some people have redefined “freedom” to mean the very opposite of
what the word actually means. There will
always be a dictionary of the wolf.
There will always be those who oppose liberty and would redefine “liberty”
to describe what is actually tyranny. And
sometimes, those who read from the dictionary of the wolf will be the ones in
power.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Whether we are
talking about the Founders of 1776, or the those who led the “Second American Revolution”
in 1860 (as the Republicans of that era called the election of Lincoln and the
Civil War), or the more peaceful revolutionaries led by Dr. King, their
rejection of moral relativism and their embrace of moral absolutism has been a
common thread.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And this, dear
reader, is not a bug. It is a
feature. I would posit that it was a
necessary ingredient, that these various revolutionaries <i>could not have been revolutionary</i> if they were also moral
relativists. Consider, for example, one
of Dr. King’s earliest sermons: Rediscovering Lost Values. You can read the whole thing, <a href="http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol2/540228RediscoveringLostValues.pdf">here</a>,
or you can listen, here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="331" mozallowfullscreen="" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/24387817" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="500"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://vimeo.com/24387817">Rediscovering Lost
Values</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/sweetspeeches">Sweet
Speeches</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But I want to
highlight one passage in particular:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
The
first thing is that we have adopted in the modern world a sort of a relativistic
ethic. Now, I’m not trying to use a big word here. I’m trying to say something
very concrete. And that is that, that we have accepted the attitude that right
and wrong are merely relative to our. . . .<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
[long
space missing from the recording]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Most
people can’t stand up for their, for their convictions, because the majority of
people might not be doing it. <b><i>(Amen, Yes) </i></b>See, everybody’s not
doing it, so it must be wrong. And, and since everybody is doing it, it must be
right. <b><i>(Yes, </i></b><i>Lord <b>help him) </b>So </i>a sort of numerical
interpretation of what’s right.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
But
I’m here to say to you this morning that some things are right and some things
are wrong. <b><i>(Yes) </i></b>Eternally <b>so, </b>absolutely <b>so. </b>It’s <b><i>wrong
</i></b>to hate. <b><i>(Yes, </i></b><i>That’s</i> <i>right) </i>It always has
been wrong and it always will be wrong! <i>(Amen) </i>It’s wrong in America,
it’s wrong in Germany, it’s wrong in Russia, it’s wrong in China! <i>(Lord help
him) </i>It was wrong in two thousand <b>B.c., </b>and it’s wrong in nineteen fifty-four
<b>A.D.! </b>It always has been wrong, <i>(That’s right) </i>and it always will
be wrong! <i>(That’s right) </i>It’s wrong to throw our lives away in riotous
living. <i>(Yeah)</i> No matter if everybody in Detroit is doing it. It’s
wrong! <i>(Yes) </i>It always will be wrong! And it always has been wrong. It’s
wrong in every age, and it’s wrong in every nation. Some things are <i>right </i>and
some things are wrong, no matter if everybody is doing the contrary. Some
things in this universe are absolute. The God of the universe has made it <b>so.
</b>And <b>so </b>long as we adopt this <i>relative</i> attitude toward right
and wrong, we’re revolting against the very laws of God himself. <i>(Amen</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In Dr. King’s
eyes, moral relativism was the siren song of inaction. How could he say that segregation was wrong,
without first believing that right and wrong could not be a matter of mere
opinion? After all, if you believe that what
is right or wrong is defined was what the majority <i>thinks</i> is right or wrong—or worse yet, what every individual thinks
is right or wrong—then he couldn’t oppose racism—after all, the majority
thought it was right. He necessarily had
to believe in an absolute, authoritative source of morality so that he could
say “Some things are <i>right </i>and some things are wrong, no matter if
everybody is doing the contrary.” And without
that belief, no revolution is possible.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
* By which I mean
that my ability to have a more equal opportunity as a disabled person was
probably contingent on the success of the racial civil rights movement. After all, if we couldn’t convince people to
stop discriminating based on race, what chance would disabled people have?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
** This is not
to denigrate the role the Second Amendment plays in all of this. The Second Amendment is designed to preserve the
ability of the people to rebel should it become necessary—and one of the
circumstances where it might become necessary is if the systems allowing for
revolution by ballot and not bullet breaks down. It might even be fair to say that part of the
reason why our ballots are respected by those in power is because they are
backed up by bullets.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
*** Yes,
Jefferson’s party was known as the Republican Party. They later changed their name to the Democratic
Party, the same we know of today—at least in the sense of it having an unbroken
line of succession. As for the
Republican Party, it was consciously named that to represent what they saw as
getting back to Jeffersonian principles, which was a dubious claim. Certainly they were reclaiming some of what Jefferson
believed by deciding that slavery was an affront to natural law, but the
Republican Party was far more friendly to industry than Jefferson was likely to
tolerate. But all of that fits with the
pattern in America of conservative revolution, where you are revolutionary, but
simultaneously claim that you are simply reclaiming what the founders wanted in
the first place, albeit dubiously. Even
Dr. King consciously followed that pattern, often saying that he was asking for
nothing more than America to live up to its own ideals—such as those found in
the Declaration of Independence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar:</b> So why did that textbook of
mine leave that passage out? My guess is
because of fears that by leaving it in, the school would be seen as endorsing
religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which
is foolish, but understandable in our litigious environment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-77981036595285478482016-01-15T11:43:00.000-05:002016-01-15T18:17:23.722-05:00Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin Loses His Latest Suit Against Me<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Catching up with <i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club</i> (II))</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the latest post in what I
half-jokingly call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued myself, John
Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan
Backer, DB Capital Strategies, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy (who is
significantly incapacitated by a stroke), Lee Stranahan, the National Bloggers
Club, and others alleging that we are
all in conspiracy to defame him because we reported factually about the spate
of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey, Erickson and others. So, if you are new to the story, go to </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://cdn.meme.am/instances/56516791.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.meme.am/instances/56516791.jpg" /></a>In my last
post, I promised to start updating you, dear reader, on what is going on in the
many legal cases involving Brett Kimberlin.
I am not quite ready to do that, completely, but I can give you this
week’s big news: I won Brett Kimberlin’s latest suit against me. As of today, I am no longer being sued by
Brett Kimberlin (although I am still waiting on an outcome from the Court of
Special Appeals—something I will explain to you another time).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So that’s the
lede: I won completely, in that case. And
the purpose of today’s post is to talk about what got me there.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As a little
background, this case was a continuation of a case filed previously against me and
many others in Federal Court, which I refer to as <i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club</i>. Basically I and several other people have
been SWATted. You can read my account of
that event, <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-happened-tonight.html">here</a>. Anyway, having been SWATed, I was sued as a
result.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, you are
reading it right. I was sued for being
SWATted. Basically Brett Kimberlin claimed
that we implied or said he was involved in various SWATtings and he was not,
and therefore sued us on a number of theories.
Of course the answer is that a true and accurate statement of the facts
makes you suspicious as hell about whether Kimberlin was involved, especially
in my SWATting. In other words, <i>reality</i> implies Brett might be
responsible. But we all know that reality is anti-Brett-Kimberlin conspiracy, so...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You can read the
Court’s order dismissing that case <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14860789549609016921&q=brett+kimberlin&hl=en&as_sdt=3,47&as_ylo=2015">here,</a>
but let me give you a quick and dirty summary of what Brett claimed. He claimed first that I and a large number of
people ranging from L.A. Prosecutor Patrick Frey to Michelle Malkin, to Simon
and Schuster, were all in a RICO “mafia” out to make money by destroying his
reputation. He claimed that we had made
other false statements, but that’s the main issue. He also claimed that Mr. Frey had run a
retaliatory investigation to punish him for complaining to his public employer in
violation of Mr. Kimberlin’s civil rights, and that the whole “gang” were in a
conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights under the KKK act. Those were the federal claims and they were
all dismissed in the order linked above.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the same
case, Brett alleged that we committed a number of state torts: defamation,
false light (basically lying about him, but its got subtle differences from a
defamation claim), tortious interference with an existing contract, tortious interference
with business expectations, battery (yes, he is still claiming I assaulted him <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">even
though I proved it was a frame up</a>), intentional infliction of emotional
distress and conspiracy. That last one
might be about to bite him in the behind in ways I am not going to explain here. (Sorry, dear reader, but as I always say, “case
first, blog second.”) As you can see in
the same opinion I linked, Judge Hazel dismissed for jurisdictional reasons
that are more complicated than they are interesting to lay people. So let me have a sidebar explaining the
jurisdictional issue and if you don’t care about all that legal nerd stuff, you
can skip over that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar</b>: Still with me, legal
nerds? Well, here’s the basics. This case was filed in federal court. Federal courts typically have jurisdiction
over two kinds of cases: federal questions and diversity of citizenship. When it comes to federal question
jurisdiction, that means the application of federal law, etc.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for
diversity of citizenship, basically the founders were worried that if a
Virginia sued a Marylander in Virginia—to pick an example—the Virginia court
and the Virginia jury would be completely unfair to the out-of-stater so. So they decided that in that situation, you
should be able to take it to federal court, which will still be in the same state
and the jury will still be locals, but being a federal court might mitigate the
situation, hopefully. I think in all
frankness the rule has outlived its usefulness, but it continues to exist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Obviously
there were federal questions in the case and the court could hear those. But there wasn’t diversity of citizenship
because the rule requires that every defendant be from a different state than
every plaintiff. So given that Brett
Kimberlin and co-defendant John Hoge were both Marylanders, there was no
diversity for federal jurisdictional purposes.
So, ordinarily, there was no jurisdiction for those state law claims. That is, the court could ordinarily hear the
claims based on federal law, but not on state law.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But there is
an exception to that rule, called the Supplemental Jurisdiction rule. Under that rule, federal courts could hear
cases technically outside their jurisdiction, but related to claims that are
properly before the court. But the rule
is ultimately discretionary—the judge doesn’t have to take such a case. And in this case Judge Hazel decided to
decline supplemental jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As I said,
complicated but I suspect not sufficiently interesting. We hereby end the sidebar.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Okay, still
with me? So every part of the case was
dismissed against us, except for that civil rights claim against Patrick Frey,
which is ongoing. And going. And going.
We’ll talk more about that case in another post. And since the state law claims were only
being dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, this means Brett was free to re-file
them, although Hazel did caution that they might be limited by res judicata or
collateral estoppel. And, spoiler alert,
that last bit will be important really soon.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So that takes us
to the case at issue in this post. I call
the federal case <i>Kimberlin v. National
Bloggers Club (I)</i>, and I call this current case <i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club (II).</i> Basically it is all those state law torts
that were dismissed being re-filed in Montgomery County (Maryland) Circuit
Court. Seriously, if you had his last
complaint in the federal case and held it side-by-side with the state case, you
see that the statement of facts are virtually the same, except for deletions of
some parties. You would see that the
causes of action are pretty much the same, except all the federal stuff is
deleted, and he added a new Count III which inserted three different privacy
torts. In that last case, you can tell
it was just tacked on—the numbering of those paragraphs are not even in line
with the numbering in the rest of the complaint.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now,
previously, I had filed a motion to dismiss in April or early May. And the judge set a motions hearing for September
3 for my motion and the motions to dismiss for three other sets of defendants:
Michelle Malkin and her company Twitchy; Breitbart.com; and Glenn Beck, The
Blaze and Mercury Radio Arts. I generally
refer to these three groupings as Malkin, Brietbart, and the Blaze
defendants. There was also a motion to
dismiss filed by my friend John Hoge through my former counsel Patrick
Ostronic, and another former lawyer of mine, Bruce Godfrey wanted to be
appointed to protect my friend Mandy Nagy, who was probably incompetent to be
sued due to the after-effects of a stroke.
Yeah, Brett is exactly that scummy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And I was
ready to go that day. To say I was
prepared was an understatement. I had to
buy a rolling file crate to carry all my papers, because my catalog case was
too small. And then I get to the hearing
and Judge Mason tells me that my whole motion to dismiss had been stricken for
length. You see, there was a rule I had
overlooked that limited motions to 15 pages and mine was only <i>three times</i> that length and, well, sigh.<i><o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Still, on that
date Malkin/Twitchy, Breitbart, and the Blaze Defendants were all dismissed. And for the first time, ever, I am going to
share the transcript of that hearing, here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295606948/9-3-15-Hearing-Transcript-redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
9.3.15 Hearing Transcript (redacted) on Scribd">9.3.15 Hearing Transcript (redacted)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_78847" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/295606948/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I won’t
say I wasn’t disappointed that I wasn’t allowed to speak as well. But at the same time, it did give me a chance
to observe Judge Mason in action and learn a little more about how he thinks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One thing that
marks him as a judge is he is not very adventurous, on legal theories. He is what we call a judicial conservative,
which should not be confused with <i>political</i>
conservatism. It wholly fails to relate
to the political spectrum. He doesn’t
contradict the courts above him, even when they are wrong. Even when he thinks that maybe the precedent is
bad and ripe to be overturned, he sees it as the job of the court above. Like many things, it can be a double edged
sword, useful to our side on some issues, and detrimental on others. Like on one hand, he will apply a three year
statute of limitations to false light even if I suspect he had misgivings about
the precedent on that subject; on the other hand, he will never say anything as
unfortunate as saying in relation to a controlling Supreme Court precedent
protecting freedom of speech: “Forget <i>Brandenburg</i>.
Let’s go by Mason right now, and common sense out in the world.” So there’s that. In other words, there’s nothing inherently
right or wrong about it, it’s just how he is.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Another
observation is that Judge Mason is extremely reluctant to find any facts at the
motion to dismiss stage of a case. To
legal neophytes, the best way to describe a motion to dismiss is a party
saying, “even if everything you say is true, so what?” It’s not about the facts. If John Doe sues you claiming you breached a
contract to purchase cocaine, it is not a useful answer to say “I didn’t” in a motion
to dismiss. You will get the chance to
deny it is factually true later on but at that point, the correct answer is to
say “even if I did everything he said I did, it’s not something you can sue a
person for.” (In most states, a contract
to purchase illegal drugs will not be enforced.) Since a motion to dismiss is about testing
the sufficiency of a complaint, it is also proper to say that the person didn’t
allege what you did in a proper fashion, particularly to ensure you have actual
notice of what specifically you are going to have to defend against.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Another thing
Mason likes to do—I have seen him do it in other cases—is rather than write an
opinion, he simply adopts the briefs of the winning side as the opinion of the
court. That’s what he did, here. For instance, here’s his ruling on the
motions to dismiss:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
First
with respect to the motions at Docket Entry 44 by the defendants Malkin and
Twitchy, at 46 with respect to the motion by Breitbart; at 48 I've already
basically well 48 and 49 the motion by the defendants Blaze, Inc., first based
upon the authority of the Fourth Circuit case Young, I find that there is no
personal jurisdiction in this case over those defendants. I think the Supreme
Case the National Enquirer case is very distinguishable where you have a
subscription service and in that particular case to the extent they had a lot
of subscribers in California, they're obviously deriving substantial revenues
from California, but that's not here. None of these are running subscription
services, so I find the arguments that defendants make with respect to the
issue of personal jurisdiction in each instance are persuasive and the Court
has no personal jurisdiction over any of those defendants.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
In
the alternative to the extent that the Court did have personal jurisdiction I
will adopt the arguments of the defendants on their motion to dismiss that the
claim should be dismissed except as follows: I do not believe that this Court should
apply a one year statute limitations because the law of the State of Maryland
in my view until the Court of Special Appeals has overruled is that the statute
of limitations for false light is three years. There is substantial language in
the Court of Appeals that suggest that maybe the Court of Special Appeals
should revisit their opinion, but it's not up to me to reverse the Court of
Special Appeals. And so until such time as that case is reversed I agree to be
bound by it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
To
the extent that any of their arguments are predicated upon the finding that
you're a public figure, I don't believe that that is an issue that the Court
could decide on this motion to dismiss. So I don't find that you are a public
figure for purposes of these motions to dismiss. And to the extent that the
Court is asked to grant relief under the [SLAPP] suit statute, I find with
respect to that statute that there's no evidence based upon these motions that
I could find at this time that he's acting in bad faith which I would be required
to apply the [SLAPP] suit statute. However, given the fact that this is
basically a reiteration of what has been filed in the federal courts because
basically the enterprise under RICO is almost identical to the concept of a
civil conspiracy and since the motions to dismiss were pending in federal court
I think somebody said since October of last year that you've had a long time to
know what they are alleging in terms of the absence of any conspiracy among
them and the failure of the complaint to set that forth that the dismissal is
granted without leave to amend as to these defendants. So, the dismissal as to
those defendants is final.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, and this
is key, the motions to dismiss filed by those defendants are effectively the
opinion of the court, except the judge disagreed with them about the statute of
limitations, the application of the SLAPP suit, and refused to find Brett is a
public figure at this time. And of
course, Mason carefully limited his ruling on the latter two issues as saying
he couldn’t find Brett was acting in bad faith <i>at that time</i>, and he couldn’t find Brett was or wasn’t a public
figure <i>at that time</i>. Those rulings aren’t technically binding on
me, but you’d be stupid to think you could make the exact same argument that
they made and get a different result, which is why I didn’t try.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar:</b> You might be wondering what the
court was talking about in terms of personal jurisdiction. What that gets into is the right of a court
to judge your conduct. If you are going
to be tried in a certain state for an act or omission, there has to be some
reasonable relationship between you or the act to the state trying you. In other words, if a Tennessean and New
Yorker get into a knife fight in bar in New Mexico, and you can’t be tried in
Alaska for it, barring extraordinary circumstances. It’s a complicated doctrine I am not going to
fully try to summarize here, but here is the upshot. If Brett wants to sue Michelle Malkin for
allegedly defaming him while sitting in her house in Colorado, he has to come
to Colorado to do it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now at the end
of the hearing, the Court did give Brett a chance to amend his complaint—although
not including the people dismissed above (Brett ignored that part). So Brett submitted an amended complaint on September
14, and we were off to the races writing our response. I will focus on what I did, mainly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But first, his
First Amended Complaint (which we legal types call the “FAC” and he called his
Second Amended Complaint):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295615180/Kimberlin-v-NBC-State-FAC-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Kimberlin v. NBC State FAC Redacted on Scribd">Kimberlin v. NBC State FAC Redacted</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_4873" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/295615180/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So then came
my responses. First, I filed this Motion
to Dismiss:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295615757/Motion-to-Dismiss-FAC-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Motion to Dismiss (FAC) (Redaction) on Scribd">Motion to Dismiss (FAC) (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_75989" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/295615757/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, you will
notice that I went exactly one page over the limitation imposed in that
court. I did file simultaneously leave
to exceed the page limit and it was granted.
Bluntly, I had to address more claims in those pages than anyone else in
the case. I won’t bore you by sharing
that: it is written in a workaday fashion and these are typically granted as a
matter of course if you don’t get too greedy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That was
response number 1. Next I filed for a
motion for partial summary judgment. That
is here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295616425/Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Redaction) on Scribd">Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_30853" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/295616425/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course with
these documents personal information is redacted, there is no signature and the
attachments are not included. You will
have to trust that the attachments showed what I say they showed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But do you remember
how I said that Judge Mason didn’t want to decide any evidentiary issue on a
motion to dismiss basis. Well, a motion
for summary judgment <i>is</i> an
evidentiary motion. It basically says “based
on these undisputed facts, I should win.”
The key is that there is no reasonable dispute on those relevant facts,
but if there isn’t and your argument about what those undisputed facts mean in
terms of your defense or claim are correct, you win.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Moving on, then
I dropped the next “bomb” (or is that an unfortunate metaphor with Brett?),
with my SLAPP motion. I’ll let it speak
for itself, primarily because Brett has literally never understood what it is
saying, but I think it is clear enough for you if you read it, dear reader.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295616888/SLAPP-Motion-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
SLAPP Motion (Redaction) on Scribd">SLAPP Motion (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_55742" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/295616888/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
His response
to all of that was to file a motion to strike.
You can read that, here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/292736993/brett-kimberlin-s-motion-to-strike" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Brett Kimberlin's Motion to Strike on Scribd">Brett Kimberlin's Motion to Strike</a> by <a href="https://www.scribd.com/user/143951503/AaronWorthing" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View AaronWorthing's profile on Scribd">AaronWorthing</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7729220222793488" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_12564" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/292736993/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-nCNdXHEs1hM8ITgFTnvS&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Here is my
response to that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295617562/Opposition-to-Motion-to-Strike-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Opposition to Motion to Strike (Redacted) on Scribd">Opposition to Motion to Strike (Redacted)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_9163" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/295617562/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And on the
same day, I filed this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295617982/Request-for-Judgment-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Request for Judgment (Redacted) on Scribd">Request for Judgment (Redacted)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_57714" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/295617982/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
After all, he
had filed no opposition. Here’s Brett’s
response to that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/292740369/opposition-to-request-for-judgment" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Opposition to Request for Judgment on Scribd">Opposition to Request for Judgment</a> by <a href="https://www.scribd.com/user/143951503/AaronWorthing" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
AaronWorthing's profile on Scribd">AaronWorthing</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7729220222793488" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_73886" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/292740369/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-edwQYj89kKNHbFAoNihg&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To Brett’s
credit, he was allowed to be seen as opposing my motion to dismiss, albeit futilely. So a win for Brett!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then the judge
started ruling on some of this. The judge
ruled on my motion to strike. What did
he say? Well, you know the proposed
order at the end of my motion? He signed
it, as is. And then they set a hearing
date for my motion to dismiss. Speaking
on the phone with one of Judge Mason’s clerks as we tried to find a mutually
agreeable date, I asked if any other Defendant was going to be there—after all,
several other Defendants had filed motions to dismiss. The clerk replied that this hearing was
specifically in response to my anti-SLAPP motion, and since I am the only one
who filed something like that, I would be the only person getting a
hearing. It always feels gratifying to
see a judge give you exactly what you asked for—and were legally entitled
to. And the order? The exact proposed order I sent to Judge
Mason, only he added a time for the hearing in addition to filling in the date:
December 8, 2015.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Again I brought
my crate and we had our hearing. I have
not ordered the transcript, but I wrote down my thoughts close to the time,
aided by notes, my written plan for my presentation and the courtroom audio. So none of this is verbatim, but it is a
pretty good representation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(Of course,
the problem of bias is unavoidable. So
take my account of how it went with a grain of salt.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Judge Mason started
off by saying that he just arrived from out of the country and he hadn’t read
our papers with the level of depth that he would like. He said after argument he would do that and he
hoped to rule by the end of the week. Later
he amended it to say early next week at the latest. That told me at the time that this hearing
really was given as soon as “practicable” as required by the anti-SLAPP statute—so
quick the judge was not as prepared as he would like. And, bluntly, ordinarily Judge Mason has a mastery
of the material. He is one of the
smarter judges—something I promise I thought <i>before</i> he ruled in my favor.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, Judge
Mason didn’t the opinion out in that time frame. I mean we are about a month past that time
frame. I recall on about Friday of the
week after, I called chambers to ask in all frankness if the Court was needing something
from me or what? I was using that as a
polite way of saying, “what’s going on?”
They explained that Judge Mason had gotten sick and it sounded like he
was pretty miserable and wasn’t able to do much more than attend hearings. And naturally, that took me into the
Christmas Holiday. I have no idea what
Mason’s faith is, but I wouldn’t begrudge him taking a real holiday at that
time. And of course the reason for subsequent
delay after the holiday is obvious now: he was writing an opinion. No one wants to wait too long for a judgment,
but I always felt that the more time he took, the more likely he would be to
get it right, so I wasn’t about to try to rush him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And I will add
that the hearing was sandwiched in between a violation of probation hearing
(the guy left in cuffs), and a full blown trial expected to take into the next
day. We had almost exactly 30 minutes and the judge clearly watched the clock
like a hawk. This is probably why there
were no other defendants in our case being heard that day: they really didn’t
have time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I started out
saying that if I was going to have any hope of finishing in 15 minutes, I would
focus only on my res judicata argument from my motion for summary judgment and
Count III in relation to my motion to dismiss.
The logic for doing that was as follows: if the judge accepted my argument
regarding res judicata, then every claim but Count III would be wiped out,
because res judicata is always a time-bound rule. As a practical matter, it means that pretty
much every claim Brett <i>could have brought</i>
before August of 2014 should be dismissed on summary judgment. And the only claim where he asserted any
activity after that date, in relation to me, was Count III. So then all I had to do was knock that count
out, and the case would be over.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And by way of review,
Count III was really three claims in one: 1) publication of private facts, 2)
intrusion into seclusion, and 3) misappropriation of name or likeness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I also pointed
out early on that Brett has filed no timely opposition, so this Court could
rule on that basis alone. I didn’t think it was likely to work (and it didn’t),
but it was worth a try.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And
alternatively, this Court shouldn’t consider any new arguments presented for
the first time today because of that lack of opposition. And that lined up with
what the judge said at one point, that the purpose of this hearing wasn’t to
bring up new arguments, but to enhance what we already said. I remember the judge very specifically using
the term “enhance.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So then I
dived into res judicata. I gave my big picture view of it, which was really
close to this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
“I have given
it some thought in the last month and I think the big picture is that it is a
rule about judicial efficiency. If you have multiple disputes with a person or
a group of people, you have to bring all the people and all the issues at once.
And if you don’t, we punish you by saying you have waived whatever you didn’t
bring up. All these rules should be interpreted in that light.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So then we
have a three prong test under <i>Cochran v.
Griffith Energy</i>. You, dear reader,
saw this in my motion. But I went on to cover each prong one at a time. So
first up:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
“<b>(1) the parties in the present litigation
are the same or in privity with the parties to the earlier litigation;</b>” the
prior litigation is <i>Kimberlin v. Walker, et
al.,</i> I explained, which was primarily about whether he was a pedophile and
whether we defamed him by calling him one.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Dear reader, it’s
always helpful to talk about Brett being a pedophile.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I said
something like “this prong is easy when talking about myself, John Hoge who is
observing today [he was in the audience], and Mr. Akbar, who Mr. Kimberlin
can’t seem to serve.” That is because
all three of us were defendants in the prior case. But I also briefly touched on how I found
precedent that said that the mere fact he alleged there was a conspiracy meant
that this Court could apply this to all of the defendants and that was in my
motion. I was pretty explicit in saying
pretty much the Court could kill just about the whole case on its own on res
judicata. I wish I was successful in
that effort, but apparently Mason will not dismiss the rest on his own. They each have to ask, even if they might be
saying “what he said.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then I hit the
third prong of the test, going out of order: “<b>(3) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior litigation</b>”
and case law in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals which said that res
judicata is not suspended by an appeal. And I said that just as this Court felt
bound by the court of special appeals on the issue of the statute of
limitations on September 3, this ruling should bind it as well.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And then I
roll around to the second prong: “<b>(2)
the claim presented in the current action is identical to that determined or <i>that which could have been raised and determined
in the prior litigation</i></b>” (emphasis added). As I said to the court, the last part is what
does the heavy lifting. I quoted from Brett’s opposition to my original motion
to dismiss where he indicated that thought he couldn’t have brought this case
in state court, because he included federal claims. I pointed out that this is doctrinally wrong,
that Maryland has concurrent jurisdiction over all three federal statutes and
even cited cases where Maryland courts considered them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And on that I
ended the issue of res judicata.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So then I
shifted over to Count III, saying that the last day he could have amended the
complaint in <i>Kimberlin v. Walker et al</i>
was July 12, 2014 (30 days before trial). He asserted that these three privacy
torts were committed from July 1, 2014 to the present. So looking from July 13,
2014 to the present, that is not touched by res judicata, and it is the only
part of this case that is alleged to occur after that day in even the most
conclusory manner—as least in reference to me.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I made the
point that all of the allegations are conclusory. I talked about how it was
really just tacked on in a very clear way to this case, and the only
allegations that I did these things is found in section describing Count III. There was nothing in the statement of facts
supporting it. I said these weren’t even
skeletal allegations, because it was not a complete skeleton, or something
close to that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then I briefly
covered the problems with each claim.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For publication
of private facts: he has to allege it is a fact and it is not private. I mention that to say it is factual, is to say
it is true. So is this a confession? And
the only facts we allegedly discussed were things like SWATting, losing my job,
his attempt to frame me for a crime, and those are not private to him. Maybe once upon a time I could argue losing my
job was a matter of privacy for me, but he can’t.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar: </b>Brett seems to think that the
tort for invasion of privacy by giving unreasonable publicity of private facts is
a bar on saying anything he doesn’t like.
He’s wrong. It really has to be
about something that is true, but also private.
The classic example I use to explain it come from the movie <i>Groundhog Day.</i> At one point, when Bill Murray’s character
says “this is Nancy Taylor. She makes
sounds like a chipmunk when she gets really excited.” Telling the whole world what you sound like
during sex is typically a private fact.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Next I discussed
intrusion into seclusion, explaining that he has to allege some kind of
wrongful method of intrusion. The precedents
I cited showed that he had to allege a method of intrusion akin to a trespass.
Not necessarily a literal trespass. A hotel owner setting up cameras in his
rooms to video his guests in various states of undress might not be literally
trespassing (check your local laws, however), but that is probably intrusion
into seclusion. But it has to be a trespass-like intrusion. Brett hadn’t
alleged any wrongful method of intrusion; he had only alleged ordinary
journalistic techniques.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And again,
none of these things are a matter of privacy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And finally I got
to misappropriation of name or likeness. Brett had to allege we were taking advantage
of his good name and he spent forty pages claiming we trashed it. He had to allege his name had commercial
value. And he had to allege more than
incidental use, like in news and commentary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar:</b> the best way to describe
incidental use is this. Ordinarily, you
own the rights to your name. For
instance, a Chicago pizza place tried to use Michael Jordan’s name to promote their
company. Jordan sued them and got over
$8 million dollars in damages. That misappropriation
of name or likeness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But one major
exception is that you can use a person’s name in relation to news and commentary. For instance, Michael Jordan would have no
cause of action against me for using his name right now in discussing his
travails with that pizza place.
Seriously, Brett was making the exact <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/07/375709086/kirby-delauter-who-didnt-want-his-name-in-a-news-story-apologizes">same
mistake</a> that <a href="http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/politics_and_government/kirby-delauter-kirby-delauter-kirby-delauter/article_da85d6f4-fa3c-524f-bbf6-8e5ddc0d1c0a.html">Kirby
Delauter</a> made.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And for all of
these privacy torts, there are no proper allegations of damages or how we
proximately caused such damage.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And then I
stopped, reserving five minutes to respond.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So next it was
Brett’s turn. Capturing how he rambled isn’t
easy, but here’s what I could garnish from my different sources of info.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He claimed
that every allegation he made in the complaint had to be taken as true in
relation to the motion to dismiss.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He claimed
that material facts were still in contention for the motion for summary
judgment. “I say he assaulted me. He denies it,” and so on. (We’ll talk about what is wrong with these assertions
in a moment.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He went on and
on about SLAPP and how this Court found he didn’t act in bad faith, supposedly
(even though the judge clearly was saying he couldn’t find bad faith at that
time).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He went on a
few minutes about personal jurisdiction arguing the mundane point that if you
are dealing with events that allegedly happened in Maryland (namely the alleged
battery) then you have jurisdiction. It was one of those things where he says,
“he talks about jurisdiction” and I wonder what hearing he was at, because I
didn’t. In the past I have seen that happen with people when using prepared
remarks, but Brett was winging it as far as I could tell.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He argued that
he filed an opposition.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In regard to
res judicata, he said he never heard of those federal statutes being tried in
state court. He talked about how the federal court had jurisdiction over those
questions, and dismissed the state causes of action after dealing with most of
the federal questions. He gave many reasons why he wanted to bring it in
federal court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He tried to
say that the appeal is really serious and he will probably win.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For false
light, he went on and on about a campaign to portray him as a SWATter. He pulled out statements allegedly by NBC and
claimed some kind of guilt by association.
He whined that we went after his corporation’s funding. He also showed a tweet purporting to show that
I had gone after his funding with the State Dept (I had, but that is not
tortious), but the tweet in question was after he lost his funding with the
state dept. I know that because it had a
“pedoBrett” image on it, and that only appeared long after the funding
allegedly stopped from the state department.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He suggested I
called him over and over and sent people to his house. (None of that is true.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He went on and
on about special statutes related to debt collection, saying we were like
“moral debt collectors” saying he will go to jail if he doesn’t pay his moral
debt to us. I very visibly gave him a really weird “are you kidding me?” look
at that moment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He alleged we
called his neighbors. Around here I stood up and objected on the basis of the
fact that none of this was in the complaint. I said something like “your honor,
he is testifying. None of this is in the complaint. So I have to object.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now as a
little background, we also had a very contentious hearing on his motion to
dismiss my case against him and his wife (if you are not aware of that suit,
the basic idea is to stop them from continuing to abuse Maryland’s court against
me). Judge Mason ended up being so
frustrated that after Tetyana Kimberlin had an outburst, Mason said that the
next person who interrupted would be arrested for contempt.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So I think
Mason had been giving some thought to how to deal with this. His first response was to say in response to
my objection, “I’ll let him argue.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I will say, I
understood the Mason as meaning “he can say it, but I don’t have to consider
it” and I was satisfied. Then as Brett went on making up new things, he added
this (by John’s transcription):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 2in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.5in;">
THE COURT: Let
me stop you for a second. Just so you understand, when I said to Mr. Walker I’m
gonna let you argue, if you’re arguing anything that is not contained in your
pleading, I will not consider it. I don’t want the record to reflect that I’m
agreeing to consider anything that you haven’t filed. The limits of what I will
consider on these motions are the exhibits that are properly filed and
arguments that are properly filed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 2in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 2in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.5in;">
MR. KIMBERLIN: I
understand. I’m just amplifying on what I said.
[Aaron: in what?]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 2in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 2in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.5in;">
THE COURT: Well,
but to extent that you argue outside the record, I’m not gonna — I will not
consider it when I rule on the motion. I’m not gonna take time now to sit and
decide whether there is or isn’t something covered in the record.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In other
words, “if you want to piss away your remaining time and talk about things I
can’t consider, knock yourself out. I don’t feel like getting into a pissing
contest on what was in the complaint and what wasn’t. So police yourself or
risk wasting what little time you have to argue on something I won’t consider.”
And bluntly, that is eloquent in its efficiency, if that is what the judge was
thinking.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Back to
Brett’s argument, he came up with a case, which I have since looked up and does
seem to decide that battery is subject to a 3 year statute of limitations. So, points for him. But then again, it is also very clearly
subject to res judicata and collateral estoppel (twice).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He tried to
say he sufficiently alleged conspiracy. Further, he claimed that no one in a
position of power buys our version of events.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So it was my
turn again, and I had five minutes. I couldn’t hit most of my rebuttal points
but I did as best I could.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I pointed out
that while proper allegations must be considered by this Court, they had to be
non-conclusory allegations. I cited cased law and I quoted the judge back to
himself saying something like “as you said on September 3, ‘you can’t allege a
conclusion.’” (I don’t think this quote
shows up in the transcript, but I clearly remember him saying it and it’s true.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
On res
judicata I said something like, “he says that there are material facts in
dispute. And on the underlying controversy he is right. But this is a motion
for summary judgment for res judicata and collateral estoppel and he has not
disputed any of the facts related to that.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I briefly said
more or less, I don’t know why he is talking about personal jurisdiction or anti-SLAPP.
I haven’t disputed jurisdiction. In relation to SLAPP, I already got what I
asked for, which is this hearing on my motion to dismiss.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I pointed out
something like “he did not file an opposition, and that at best he only
incorporated what he said the first time. And that opposition <i>failed</i> with respect to Malkin, Breitbart,
and the Blaze defendants as you just reaffirmed. [Judge Mason had just turned
down a motion to reconsider.] This Court
said that it adopted their reasoning, with three exceptions. You said you
couldn’t find he was a public figure at that time, clearly reserving the issue.
You said you couldn’t find bad faith at that time. And you determined that the
statute of limitations for false light was three years. Otherwise, you said you
were adopting their motions to dismiss and that makes those motions the law of
the case, which in turn applies to his allegations against me, and I point out
over and over in my MTD that the principles of that ruling apply to the
allegations against me supporting dismissal. For instance, I pointed out that false light
is measured by the offense of a reasonable person in the Plaintiff’s position
and the Blaze argued that an ordinary person in the plaintiff’s position would
not be offended to be called a SWATter.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
“As for res
judicata, he has not refuted that he could have brought every cause of action
in <i>Kimberlin v. NBC (I)</i> in this Court
as part of <i>Kimberlin v. Walker, et al</i>.
He has given a lot of reasons why he didn’t want to do that, but he hasn’t
explained why he <i>couldn’t,</i> so all of
these causes of action could have been raised, and are now waived.” Somewhere I
mentioned that every party in <i>Kimberlin
v. Walker, et al</i>., were also a party in <i>Kimberlin
v. NBC (I)</i>. And I reiterated that the case law is clear that res judicata
applies on appeal, quoting from one of the case I cited:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
All
of the values served by res judicata are threatened or destroyed by the burdens
of retrial, the potential for inconsistent results, and the occasionally
bizarre problems of achieving repose and finality that may arise.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I also said
that even if he is successful on appeal, he can go back in that case and say,
“I want to amend my complaint to include these claims that were dismissed on
the basis of res judicata which is no longer viable.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I pointed out
at some point that Brett keeps trying to hold me responsible for the actions of
third parties without explaining why I am liable for their behavior. I am not
responsible for what NBC says about him for the same reason that we don’t hold
members of the ACLU responsible for what the ACLU itself says. And I point out
that his allegations of people photographing him and threatening him and so on
are third parties and he hasn’t explained how I was responsible. And I brought
up the obvious point that the laws on debt collectors are specific to them and
don’t apply here.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Somewhere in
all of this, the court asked me about the status of <i>Kimberlin v. NBC (I)</i>, which is now known as <i>Kimberlin v. Frey</i>. I told the Court that it was in discovery
against Frey only and alluded to it being contentious. The judge asked if a
trial date had been set. I said I didn’t know (I haven’t been watching it <i>that</i> closely), but I would be surprised
if it was wrapped up in 6 months. I wasn’t sure what the court was fishing for
with that question, honestly, but there you go.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And somewhere
in making those points we ran out of time. Brett asked the Court to say one thing and
Mason said “no.” I merely I thanked the Court
for giving me that hearing, and then started packing up my massive piles of
documents.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, as
suggested above, next I had to wait. And
wait. And wait. But it was very much worth it, because yesterday
this ruling came down.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/295493743" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Walker Win Jan 14 on Scribd">Walker Win Jan 14</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_19262" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/295493743/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You will
notice several things about it. First,
all it says is that I won, and no one else.
But the principles Judge Mason enunciated will have a serious impact on
this case and beyond.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I admit I felt
a lot of professional pride reading it.
After all, look at its structure.
It is nearly identical in form to my oral argument. First I addressed the motion for summary
judgment, knocking out everything but Count III... as Judge Mason did. Then I addressed Count III... just as Mason
did. And with each part of Count III he
was basically echoing at least one of the arguments I had made. More or less, the judge was saying it was
right, and for the reasons I articulated.
That is always a good feeling for a lawyer.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And there is a
real hidden jem in that ruling, something that could have a potentially huge
impact down the road. But we do not want
to educate the midget...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<img src="http://img.ifcdn.com/images/0d06be6e87f9c5c8dbbcc1752d4740948d6f3275654f60092f3e307c7c13924b_1.jpg" height="400" width="380" /><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
...which I am
sure is frustrating. Sorry, but as I say
“case first, blog second.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In any case,
one person asked me if this means this is over.
Well, Brett has <i>said</i> he plans
to sue me for the rest of my life, but then again, at some point he might
finally start to learn. At some point he
has to look at the ruins of his life and realize that his efforts to shut
everyone up just isn’t working. In any
case, I have my own case going forward designed to put an end to this
silliness. Let’s pray that it has that effect.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-7701048480554889352015-12-10T16:49:00.004-05:002015-12-10T16:49:37.307-05:00The Stupid Season<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It’s often
said that there are silly seasons in politics.
Well, right now we seem to be in a stupid season.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s start
with the Democrats and their latest stupid gun control proposal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, stupidity
and gun control go together like peanut butter and chocolate. For instance, the same people who want open
borders very often want strict gun control, as though the same people moving
people and drugs across our borders freely would hesitate to move guns if there
was sufficient profit in it. Indeed,
often we see single-city gun control. Liberals
in Washington, D.C., for instance, apparently think that no one will to
Northern Virginia, buy a gun, and drive back.
If you are talking gun control without talking border control you are
just a fool—or a cynic hoping to manipulate fools.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>But even on
that scale, the idea of blocking anyone on the no-fly list from buying a gun is
a dumber idea than most. Let me get this
straight. According to liberals, we
think that there are a number of terrorists who will want to buy guns, in
America, and will do so legally, submitting themselves to a background check
using their real names. Further, these
same liberals that the FBI, upon seeing that these terrorists want guns, won’t
send out an agent to grab that person?<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Why is
that? In this country all you need to
arrest a person is probable cause, which is a pretty low standard. So one of two possibilities exist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The first is
we don’t even have probable cause to arrest the people on the no-fly list. In that case, how do we know they are
terrorists?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The second
possibility is that we do have probable cause to arrest them, but we are
choosing not to for some unfathomable reason.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So either the
list sucks or the Obama administration is letting terrorists run free. Take your pick.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(And don’t say
“maybe we are waiting to arrest them until we have a stronger case and we don’t
want to alert them” because being on the no-fly list would tend to alert them,
too. So if that is the reason, it is
also stupid.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And as you
consider the question of whether it is a dumb list, or Obama is letting
terrorists run free, consider this: <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/07/dem-rep-72-people-on-terror-watch-list-work-for-the-department-of-homeland-security/">72
Department of Homeland Security Employees are also on the list</a>. And you know who isn’t? The Speedway Bomber, Brett Kimberlin. I mean, seriously, if you bomb a whole town
for nearly a week, shouldn’t that instantly disqualify you from flying ever
again? Oh, and remember the San
Bernardino shooters? Do you remember how Syed Faroook went to Saudi Arabia to
marry Tashfeen Malik, before coming back here to be a sleeper cell? Well, they apparently weren’t on the <a href="http://abc7chicago.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-suspects-idd;-1-born-in-chicago/1107868/">no-fly
list</a>, either:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Farook
and his wife Tashfeen Malik were married in California in August 2014. But before
the wedding, he traveled to Saudi Arabia to bring her back to this country,
specifically to Chicago. On July 16, 2014, he flew from Chicago to Heathrow to
Jedda, Saudi Arabia. He then flew back in reverse order, with his fiance on
July 27, arriving back in Chicago.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And even then,
they (illegally) used a <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-san-bernardino-shooting-gun-laws-20151206-story.html">straw
purchaser</a>, anyway, something that is impossible to prevent—you can only punish
after the fact. And I am not opposed to
punishing the man who helped them get their guns, but none of these measures
are truly preventative.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You see, on
the bigger picture, when you regulate something, you have to plan on people
trying to evade the regulation. For
instance, one of the dumbest tax proposals in recent memory was Maryland’s “millionaire”
tax. Even if you like the idea of
soaking the rich, it is stupid in that context.
The vast majority of the millionaires in Maryland are in the greater
Washington, D.C. area, and generally work in Washington itself. Because they are rich, they have the least
trouble moving, so they can easily just find a house on the Virginia side of
the Washington Area, where pretty much everything is cheaper and crime is under
better control. About one third of
Maryland’s millionaires did exactly that, and this in turn <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/48120446">cost Maryland $1.7 billion in tax
revenue</a>. I mean I don’t care where
you fall on the issue of how much the rich should pay, that is just stupid.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The same goes
for gun regulation. A gun regulation
that 1) doesn’t account for the possibility of people evading the regulation or
2) doesn’t even try seriously to stop them, is worse than useless. It means the most upstanding people who don’t
break laws will be disarmed, while the criminals will continue to have the
guns.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A liberal
parry to that thrust is to say something like, “so you’re saying we shouldn’t
have laws because people break them?
Then I guess prostitution should be legal, too?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, there is
an obvious difference between the two issues.
If one illegally obtains the services of a prostitute, one generally
cannot use that prostitute to kill lots of other people. And naturally, a prostitute can’t be used to
facilitate self-defense. The president
of the NRA is never going to say “the only person who can stop a bad guy with a
ho, is a good guy with a ho.” Whatever
you think of the laws prohibiting prostitution, those laws don’t work like
that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The point I am
jokingly getting at is that the gun control fanatics literally can’t get it
through their head that guns can be validly used in self-defense. I mean if you really force them to focus on
it, if you say, “well, what if a woman gets a restraining order on her abusive
ex, and he shows up anyway, and she has to shoot the bastard?” they’ll suddenly
remember that self-defense is an actual thing and occasionally justified. But the rest of the time they forget, so they
lament about our number of “gun deaths” or “gun violence” even though both
categories include valid instances of self-defense.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Or take the
comparison to automobiles. Like guns,
the broad ownership of cars has a death toll and so it is common for second
amendment supporters to say, “well, cars kill x thousand people a year, why
aren’t you calling for that to be banned.”
And the response from liberals is usually, “but cars have other uses
than killing. All guns do is kill.” Some
conservatives try to deny this, but, no, that is pretty much right. Guns only kill or wound. It is not wise to use a gun to bang nails
into your wall, or something like that: they are primarily designed to kill or
at least seriously wound. But that
assumes, again, that all killing (or wounding) is bad, and that is the flaw in
their logic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(It is also
worth noting that it is generally believed that in most instances self-defense
with guns is accomplished merely by threat—that is, without killing or even
wounding, but merely making the other person aware you are armed. Many people report, for instance, that when a
person is caught trying to steal from them, that all they have to do is pump a
shotgun and the criminal flees.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So any
intelligent gun control policy, to the extent that is not a contradiction in
terms, accounts for 1) the fact that bad people try to find ways around the
law, and 2) good people can validly use guns for self-protection.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This by far is
not the only stupidity going around these days.
There is also Donald Trump’s stupid proposal to ban Muslims from
entering the country. Now, since I am a
legal geek, I will mention that this is dubious constitutionally. There are many precedents by the Supreme
Court saying that Congress has plenary authority over immigration, suggesting
that they can do anything they want on immigration. On the other hand, I suspect if such a law
was passed, the Supreme Court would suddenly discover limits on that power.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And yes, I
find it morally reprehensible. The vast
majority of, say, the Muslims leaving Iran are good Muslims who have had enough
of that regime’s idiocy. Some of the
best Americans alive are first-generation immigrants who fled some tyrannical hellhole
and therefore knows exactly what Americans are missing. Some of the worst Americans alive are useful
idiots who have decided that freedom of speech or democracy is a tool of the
oppressor, because they have never experienced life in a dictatorship.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The real way
to deal with the problem of terrorists sneaking across our border in the
huddled masses genuinely yearning to be free, is to aggressively kill the
terrorists where they live. I mean
that’s Warfare 101; kill your enemy at the source, instead of trying to play
defense. I’ve said this from the
beginning of the war on terror: better to be aggressive internationally than
play defense, not the least of which because “playing defense” often involves
the violation of <i>Americans’</i> civil
liberties.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But that’s not
why the policy is stupid. The reason why
it is stupid is it is logistically unworkable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For instance,
how do you find out who is a Muslim? I
mean it’s not like you can tell who is a Muslim just by looking at him or
her. There are certain countries that
are dominated by Muslims, but it doesn’t follow that every immigrant from that
country is a Muslim. In fact, when you
are talking about Islamofascist countries (like Saudi Arabia and Iran), you
figure the non-Muslims are disproportionately represented among those fleeing
those countries, because they tend to be intolerant toward Christians, Jews and
so on. Those are people ready to be those
great Americans I was talking about who appreciate the freedoms we have here
because they have been deprived elsewhere.
In any case, Trump’s proposal was to stop Muslims from immigrating, not
people from Muslim-dominated or Islamofascist-dominated countries.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So what you
are talking about, practically speaking, is simply asking a person whether or
not they are Muslim. Which can be evaded
by lying, duh. Furthermore, what kind of
Muslim is most comfortable with lying to accomplish their goals? Oh, right, the Islamofascist terrorist type,
whose aforementioned goals include terrorist attacks. Who is least likely to be willing to
lie? The good Muslims.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So it would be
a policy perfectly designed to block only the Muslims we want most and not the
ones we don’t. Which makes it stupid. It might help Trump politically, but that
doesn’t make the idea less stupid; it just makes me more depressed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And don’t tell
me that they will investigate these people to see if they went to a mosque
recently and so on. Again, if you think
killing the “infidel” will automatically get into heaven you could avoid the
mosque for a few months—because they think that all their “sins” will be
forgiven by martyrdom. It’s the good
Muslims who don’t think they are going to do anything so dramatic who won’t
stay away from the mosques. And, really,
when has the government ever been good at vetting people? They supposedly vetted Tashfeen Malik for her
visa—how did that work?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No, this is a
stupid idea on a mechanical reason. It
won’t actually work.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And in another
case of stupidity, we have the offense du jour on relation to the current
affirmative action case before the Supreme Court, which is Fisher v. the
University of Texas. Here we have people
misrepresenting a transcript available to the public to try to paint Justice
Scalia as racist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
For instance,
here’s Adam Liptak from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/supreme-court-to-revisit-case-that-may-alter-affirmative-action.html?_r=0">New
York Times</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
In
a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said
that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at
“a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
“I
don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of
Texas to admit as many blacks as possible,” he added....<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Justice
Scalia’s questions were particularly hostile to racial preferences, which he
said could leave minority students worse off. “Most of the black scientists in
this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas,” he said.
“They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed
ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scalia-race-affirmative-action">Talking
Points Memo</a> gives the headline “Scalia: Affirmative Action Sends Blacks to
Schools Too Advanced for Them” and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/12/09/3730166/scalia-affirmative-action-slower-track/">ThinkRegress</a>
gave the headline “Scalia: Black Students Don’t Need Affirmative Action Because
They Benefit From A ‘Slower Track,’” breathlessly hinting that Scalia was like
super racist or something.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What Liptak is
not acknowledging and TPM and ThinkRegress is barely acknowledging is that
Scalia was summarizing one of the arguments of the other side. You can read the full transcript, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-981_4h25.pdf">here</a>,
but let me pull out the relevant passage:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
JUSTICE
SCALIA: There are there are those who contend that it does not benefit<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
African-Americans
to to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as
opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less a slower-track
school where they do well. One of one of the briefs pointed out that that most
of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools
like the University of Texas.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
MR.
GARRE: So this Court--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
JUSTICE
SCALIA: They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're that
they're being pushed ahead in in classes that are too too fast for them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
MR.
GARRE: This Court--<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
JUSTICE
SCALIA: I'm just not impressed by the fact that that the University of Texas
may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some you know, when you
take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks admitted to lesser
schools, turns out to be less. And and I I don't think it it it stands to
reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many
blacks as possible.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So the first
thing you notice is that he is citing other people—either unnamed others or one
of the briefs—that made this argument.
And by the way, it is a serious argument. There are some who contend that giving a
person an unfair advantage—for any reason, whether it is because of race,
family wealth, family alumni status and so on—doesn’t do the student any favors. The idea is that by putting them in a school
where they can’t handle the curriculum, they end up flunking out and giving up
entirely, when if they went to a school that was more their “speed” they would
excel.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(By the way, <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/scalia-makes-racially-charged-argument-affirmative-action-case">MSNBC
admitted</a> he was crediting someone else, but he must agree with that, because
he didn’t say he disagreed, ignoring that it really isn’t his job to say that he
disagreed at that point—his job was to see how the attorneys handle good
arguments against their position.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I am not
sure I agree with all of what these other people contended in Scalia’s recitation.
I am not sure the differences between universities are as great as supposed, so
a student being a little mismatched is as disastrous as they imagine. I think we give the schools too much credit,
pretending their admissions are much more scientific than it is. And I am not convinced that some of the lower
scores African Americans have isn’t due to racial discrimination, as I said <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-ricci-v-desteffano-aka-new-haven.html">here</a>. I am more inclined to support affirmative
action when we are in the “developing potential” stage of life, rather than out
in the workforce. But while I am not
sure I agree with that view, I don’t think it is automatically racist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Another thing
he is saying is that the goal shouldn’t simply be to get the maximum number of
African-American students. That is what
the politicians typically want to see, but that goal is forbidden by the
constitution because it is a simple race preference.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And by the way
in all that controversy, no one paid too much attention to Justice Ginsberg’s
remarks, which also suggested that black people benefitted from racial
segregation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As a little
background, after one of UT’s affirmative action programs was struck down, they
enacted the so-called 10% plan. As I
understand it, it guaranteed admission to the University of Texas by the top
10% of every high school in Texas. If
you read the <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C09/09-50822-CV2.pdf">opinion
in the Fifth Circuit that is being appealed</a>, you will see it has had a very
strong effect on admissions. The
controversial element about it is that it was pretty explicitly designed to
boost minority admissions, just not by explicitly referencing race. So in essence it was like a grandfather
clause, but designed to help minorities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So that led
Justice Ginsberg to make this comment:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
But
let let me ask you about the percent plan itself, because it seems to me that
that is so obviously driven by one thing only, and that thing is race. It's
totally dependent upon having racially segregated neighborhoods, racially
segregated schools, and it operates as a disincentive for a minority student to
step out of that segregated community and attempt to get an integrated
education.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Sorry, wait,
did she just say she thought that black people wouldn’t do very well in
integrated schools?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now part of
what she said was not offensive. The 10%
plan was pretty explicitly about increasing minority enrollment at UT, and that
seems to be premised on the idea that there were still minority-dominated high
schools in Texas.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But still, the
very premise of her question was that segregation was actually desirable for
black people and that they would actually do much worse in white schools. Which is actually closer to what liberals
think Scalia is saying than what Scalia actually said. So why isn’t that making headlines?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh right,
because liberals <i>like</i> Ginsberg.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And what this
really is, is a stupid clickbait game where liberals are waiting with baited
breath to hear confirmation of all of their biases. <i>Oh my
God, conservatives are such racists!</i>
And lost in all of this breathlessness is the opportunity to have a
serious discussion about the merits of this form of racial discrimination. I don’t believe the argument is meritless,
but it is equally wrong to smear Scalia as simply a racist, especially when it
wasn’t even his argument.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, the
other thing brought out by these debates is the sheer unreality of the debate
in the Courtroom. From Liptak’s article:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Justice
Sonia Sotomayor said race was not the predominant factor in the university’s
race-conscious admissions decisions. “I thought that what they’re looking for
is leaders in diversity, not just of race, but of experiences generally,” she
said<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This was
reflecting the tie-breaking opinion upholding affirmative action in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4987623155291151023&q=university+of+california+v.+bakke&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">University
of California v. Bakke</a>, where Justice Powell wrote that the First Amendment
allowed for affirmative action:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
The
atmosphere of "speculation, experiment and creation"—so essential to
the quality of higher education—is widely believed to be promoted by a diverse
student body. As the Court noted in <i>Keyishian</i>, it is not too much to say that the "nation's
future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure" to the ideas
and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Thus,
in arguing that its universities must be accorded the right to select those
students who will contribute the most to the "robust exchange of
ideas," petitioner invokes a countervailing constitutional interest, that
of the First Amendment. In this light, petitioner must be viewed as seeking to
achieve a goal that is of paramount importance in the fulfillment of its
mission.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(Footnote
omitted). So the basic idea is that
universities want a great wealth of viewpoints, life experiences and so on and
that includes the life experience of growing up black, white, Hispanic, Asian,
mixed, or what have you. But that
wouldn’t just be racial diversity, but geographic diversity—in this case all
parts of Texas, and to a lesser extent all parts of America and the world—as
well as diversity in religion, politics, work background.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
All of which
might seem more plausible if we had actual, you know, ideological diversity in
the faculties. Instead the schools come
off like that woman in the cowboy bar in the <i>Blues Brothers</i> who told the lead characters what kind of music they
normally play: “oh, we got both kinds.
Country <i>and </i>western!” University faculties entertain all
viewpoints, from Marxism to Stalinism. They
are diverse, that way. So, hey, they end
up with a rainbow of colors, all saying the same liberal platitudes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I would go as
far as to say that a clever lawyer might seek to undermine affirmative action
by using that lack of ideological diversity, but so far no one has tried that. In any case, that doesn’t make Sotomayor and
the other justices stupid, just badly separated from reality.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-81355337303323437402015-12-10T11:45:00.000-05:002015-12-10T13:44:24.343-05:00According to Wikipedia, Erick Erickson has an Insatiable Need to Eat Asian Children (Update: Wikipedia deletes!)<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Or “Why You Shouldn’t Trust Wikipedia Part
14,242”</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Update: The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erick_Erickson">Wikipedia page</a> has
deleted the whole line. This might be in
response to a Gawker story (which I won’t link to) where they allegedly called
his mom and asked her if it was true and she denied it. That led to people proclaiming that Erickson
was lying, instead of that it being a disputed account. Because that is the most obvious
explanation, instead of the mother being embarrassed and not wanting to admit
it.</b></div>
<br />
So, on Pearl
Harbor day this year, Erick Erickson tweeted this out:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Growing up, I remember my parents
never letting us have Asian food on December 7th. They were children of
WWII.</div>
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) <a href="https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/673845768059392001">December
7, 2015</a></blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This in turn
led to a deep discussion about getting past the racism of some of our parents and
commending him for being honest about his upbringing and...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Just kidding,
everyone attacked him for his candor and, even though he didn’t endorse what
his parents did, they assumed he agreed with them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And it even
found its way into his <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erick_Erickson">Wikipedia page</a>.
See if you see what is wrong with this image:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="164" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gRiaOOozJLg/VmmqsqNZaPI/AAAAAAAACo4/RaAKPvoSlrU/s640/Wiki%2BSC04.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="640" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small; text-align: justify;">(I have the whole thing screencapped in case it changes.)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Yep, according
to Wikipedia, “Erickson's parents refused to let his family eat <i>Asian children</i> on December 7th.” Apparently Mr. Erickson had an insatiable
desire to each Asian children, at least when he was growing up, and his parents
could only prevent him from eating said children on one day a year, or
something.<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Nor is this
the only thing Wikipedia has ever gotten laughably wrong when it comes to
conservatives. For instance, during the
Bush administration, Wikipedia said Condi Rice was trained to be a “concert
penis” and littered Bush’s entry with the word “jerk.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I think the
big picture is this. The words on your
screen do not appear by magic. There is
a human hand behind each word, even these you are reading right now. They can be driven by an honest desire to get
at the truth, or they can be driven by unconscious bias or even a conscious agenda. About three and a half years ago when I first
embarked on my quest to hold Brett Kimberlin accountable for the crimes he
committed against me, I recognized that I need to establish my
credibility. So I provided my source
documents and even video evidence to support my story. As I said <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html">back
then</a>: “<span style="background: #FFF9EE; color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">In other words, you won’t have to believe my
word on this. You will only have to believe your eyes.</span>”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Always be
skeptical about what any person is telling you, even from a source as authoritative
as a textbook. Make sure that there are
fact checkers who are not asleep at the switch or so filled with bias
themselves that they can’t recognize an error when it appears. In computer programing they have an acronym:
GIGO. It stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out,
meaning that if your inputted information is bad, your output will suffer. In our democracy we have to base our
decisions on the information we have, and if the information we have is
garbage, our decisions will be garbage.
So you need to screen your sources of information for trustworthiness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for Wikipedia,
it’s just not trustworthy--at least not on politically charged topics.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sidebar:</b> as a matter of full
disclosure, Mr. Erickson was a co-defendant in some of the Brett-Kimberlin-related
litigation and even apparently settled. If you think that somehow creates a bias in
me that affects this article, that seems unlikely. At best, it means that when someone talked
about it on Twitter, I was slightly more likely to notice the story because I know
him a little. But once I noticed it for
any reason I doubt I would have drawn different conclusions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Also, regular
readers might wonder, “hey, Aaron! You’re blogging again! Does this mean you will be filling us in on
what has been happening in Kimberlin Saga?
Yes, I will be working on that, soon.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-50445512702793271962015-08-03T15:04:00.000-04:002015-08-03T15:04:43.166-04:00Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s Unsealed Motion for a Restraining Order<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xfa1/t51.2885-15/s306x306/e15/11117150_430797907084433_1483061178_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xfa1/t51.2885-15/s306x306/e15/11117150_430797907084433_1483061178_n.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Enjoy every kernel...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the latest post in what I
half-jokingly call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued myself, John
Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan
Backer, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Patrick “Patterico”
Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze,
Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and others alleging that we are all in conspiracy
to defame him because we reported factually about the spate of SWATtings
committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.
So, if you are new to the story, go to </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As promised
last Thursday, dear reader, today I am giving you the mysterious document
mentioned in this docket entry:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Docket
Date: 07/21/2015 Docket
Number: 25<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Docket
Description: MOTION, PROTECTIVE ORDER<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Docket
Type: Motion Filed By:
Defendant Status: Open<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Docket
Text: DEFENDANTS, BRETT AND
TETYANA KIMBERLIN'S SEALED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND PROTECTION ORDER, AND ATTACHMENTS, FILED. (PLEADING REMOVED AND
PLACED UNDER SEAL)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That was filed
in <i>Walker v. Kimberlin, et al.</i>, the
case I filed <i>against</i> Brett and
Tetyana Kimberlin designed to 1) enjoin both of them from abusing the civil and
criminal justice system and 2) get damages from Brett for basically the last
three and a half years of hell. You can
read the complaint filed <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2015/07/punching-back-twice-as-hard-revealing.html">here</a>,
and it might help to read it. So without
further ado, I will present the his dumb motion and then fisk its factual
inaccuracies momentarily:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/273420960/Unsealed-Motion-Redacted" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Unsealed Motion (Redacted) on Scribd">Unsealed Motion (Redacted)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_16669" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/273420960/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I say that
this is Brett’s motion, because bluntly, I would fall over in shock if Tetyana
wrote even a single word. At best, she
might have actually signed it, but given his record of forgery, I have little
reason to believe that happened, either.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I won’t say
the first page is error free, but the errors are minor enough I am going to
ignore them. So let’s start on page 2,
first paragraph, where he writes that I am a…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">...disgraced and unemployed lawyer...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, being
self-employed is not unemployed. And I
have never been disgraced as the term is commonly meant. I have not been disciplined in any way
whatsoever by a bar association, and I have never been in any scandal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the same
sentence, Brett states that I have been<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">...stalking and harassing Defendants for years.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Under <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Md. Code</span> Cts. & Jud. Proc. §3-802(a),
stalking must include “approaching or pursuing another.” I have only ever been
in Mr. Kimberlin’s presence in a courtroom setting. As for Mrs. Kimberlin, the only time I have
been around her outside a courtroom setting is when she retained me for
counsel, and obviously an attorney-client relationship is not stalking. Far from being stalked by me, Mrs. Kimberlin
once actively sought my aid.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Likewise, I
have never done anything that can be called harassment, either. But of course this piece right here is
“harassment” in Brett’s dictionary, which means “writing thing about a person
they don’t like,” which you might recall is protected by the First Amendment. (I know, <i>technicalities!</i>)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Moving on, in the
next line, Brett states that<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">His harassment has also been directed at Defendants’ 16
year-old teenage daughter.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I will refer
to her as K. Kimberlin, meaning the eldest daughter of Tetyana Kimberlin, so
that there is no ambiguity. And of
course I have done none of the things that constitute harassment, and indeed, I
have not even written very much about her.
I am fundamentally not interested in K. and I wouldn’t pay an attention
to her at all, except Brett keeps dragging her into the center of this
controversy, such as writing a whole motion all about how he has to seal this
whole case because he is in the unique position of having children.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the same
paragraph, he claims he filed charges against me and the commissioner found
there to be probable cause. What he
doesn’t mention is that the charges contained <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-final-failure-of-adjudicated.html">several
provable falsehoods and several other statements that were intentionally
misleading</a>, and in any case was false overall. The criminal charges were ultimately dropped
with the stated reason being insufficient evidence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for his
claims that he is working with various officials to resurrect them, I wouldn’t
be surprised if they said they would listen to his evidence to humor him, but I
doubt it will go anywhere. This was just
an attempt to scare me, and I am not scared.
I will not be prosecuted because 1) there is no evidence I committed the
offense and 2) they might be scared I can get the law declared
unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the next
paragraph, Brett claims that <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">On July 14, 2015, he posted a comment on a website in
relation to the Defendants which said, “revenge is a dish best served cold.”</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually, it
was in relation to Bill Schmalfeldt, so unless he is admitting that
Schmalfeldt’s conduct is related to his, that is false from the perspective of
his official story. The full comment,
actually was “I am told that revenge is a dish best served cold. I am also told that it is very cold in
Alaska.” The original post where this
comment was made is <a href="http://hogewash.com/2015/07/14/team-kimberlin-post-of-the-day-856/#comment-102522">here</a>. It was not about this suit, but instead in
reference to the case of <i>Schmalfeldt v.
Grady, et al.</i> I knew that later on
that day David Edgren, Esq. was going to file a motion against Mr. Schmalfeldt. You can read the motion, <a href="http://hogewash.com/2015/07/14/in-re-a-lolsuit-8/">here</a>. What gives it away is the reference to
Alaska. Mr. Edgren lives in Alaska. This is an example of why I believe Mr.
Kimberlin wrote the majority of this: because he is in the habit of stating
things with certainty, when the most charitable interpretation is that he
doesn’t actually know. This is
especially in relation to intent: he always knows the intent behind a person’s
actions, and it is always the worst possible interpretation, to hear him tell
it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And the less
charitable interpretation is that he knew it wasn’t about this case, but he was
lying. You can make your own mind up on
this point.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the next
paragraph (same page), he writes<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Plaintiff attributes pages 25-27 of the complaint to
Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin but that information was fabricated and written by
Plaintiff.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, that
information was Tetyana’s story, as she told to William Hoge III, her attorney
Zoa Barnes, my wife and myself. She has
told too many people this story to disown it, at least not while retaining any
credibility. He also ignores that
Tetyana filed charges to the same effect as that part of the complaint, “under
penalty of perjury.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the same
paragraph: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Plaintiff falsely calls Defendant Brett Kimberlin a
‘pedophile’...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
After that
line, I blacked out something. I have
decided not to share his denial of something else that I know to be true, but
private. Bluntly, it’s the same thing I have
been debating whether to reveal and I have decided not to at this time. Why not?
Honestly, my answer is something I shouldn’t say. Which I am sure is frustrating to you, the
reader, but at all times the mantra has to be “case first, blog second.” Someday the story is likely to come out—I was
very close to revealing it today—but I am not going to talk about it yet.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for the
first part of the sentence, he <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-legal-note-brett-kimberlin-is.html">an
adjudicated pedophile</a>, contrary to his denials.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Same
paragraph, same page:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">He falsely states that Brett Kimberlin forged documents to
bring a minor to the United States for sex, and falsely states that Tetyana
Kimberlin is a victim of human trafficking...</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually, that
is what Tetyana said at one time. And I
still believe it to be the truth. And
when he sued me for repeating the story, I won on the issue of truth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Same sentence:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">…and is acting under duress and threats from Defendant Brett
Kimberlin.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This is
false. I have not stated as a certainty,
only that I believe it might the case under information and belief, given that
she has stated in the past that this convicted serial bomber has threatened her
(according to her), which is why I am only seeking an injunction against her,
instead of monetary damages.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Same
paragraph, now on page 3, he says that the Complalint is<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">...meant to cause maximum harm to Defendants and their
daughter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This is
incorrect, and this is one of many statements where one has to wonder why he
pretends to know for a fact otherwise.
The purpose of these statements is state a claim for which relief can be
granted in sufficient detail to survive a motion to dismiss, something Brett
admittedly doesn’t have a lot of experience with.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Same page,
next paragraph:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Defendants have repeatedly told Plaintiff to leave them alone
both orally and in writing.... However,
he will not do so.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Since, I am
manually typing this, I am not going to type every repetitive bit. In any case, to a degree that is true,
although they overestimate how much they’ve said, “leave me alone.” But the lie is claiming I have not done
so. Aside from writing about them to a
general audience (which the Constitution allows me to do), I have left them
alone. And what I am doing is not seen
in the law as harassment or anything else the constitutes not “leaving them
alone.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the next
paragraph he gets very upset about my alleged “moralizing.” I wasn't moralizing there, but I will, here. First he was annoyed that I
explained to the court why I am not suing Tetyana for money. This is another example of why I think Brett
wrote it, because why would Tetyana object to this? I am not suing her for money... <i>oh no!
How terrible!</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He also gets
upset that I mentioned how he had his daughter show her breasts in a music
video, writing that<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">He says that
Defendants’ minor daughter showed her ‘”cleavage” in a YouTube music video and
accuses Defendant of “sexualizing his underage daughter” while falsely stating
that Defendant Brett Kimberlin is “an adjudicated pedophile.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-right: 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
First,
it is interesting that he doesn’t state that the claim that K.K. showed her
cleavage in a music video and that he is sexualizing his underage daughter is
false. The only thing he says in that
sentence is false is that he is an adjudicated pedophile. On the other hand, he can’t really deny that
the part he is not denying. I mean this
is a screencap from that video, with her face obscured:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="224" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GcNzOlaHJFM/Vb-4rnCJ5yI/AAAAAAAACmw/ZJ7g0ggkxkw/s320/K.%2BVideo%2B%2528Redacted%2529.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="320" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Embiggen as necessary</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
That
clearly shows her cleavage, and that is a fifteen year old girl. A normal father would want his daughter
wearing something more conservative in that context. There, I am (<i>gasp!</i>) moralizing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify;">
Second,
he falsely claims that I stated that he was “sexualizing his underage daughter”
when in fact the full quote in the Second Amended Complaint was actually this: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Because
the video was published when K.K. was only fifteen years old, one commenter
quite reasonably was repulsed by what they called a “titty shot” and others voiced
the concern that an adjudicated pedophile was sexualizing his underage
daughter.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, in that
passage, I was not accusing him of sexualizing his underage daughter, but
rather pointing out that others had felt that way. Further, the passage was not about “moraliz[ing]
with righteous indignation” as stated earlier in the same paragraph. Rather, it was about rebutting the false
suggestion in Tetyana Kimberlin’s criminal charges that various people were
salaciously discussing K. Kimberlin’s breasts, implying they were attracted to
her. What the Kimberlins tried to
portray as prurient interest in an underage girl was in fact criticism of the Kimberlin
for allowing this little girl to blatantly appeal to the prurient interest.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And of course
you know by now that he is an adjudicated pedophile.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Same page,
next paragraph:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Clearly,
Plaintiff is obsessed with Defendants’
daughter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Really, based
on what he just said? He thinks he has
convinced anyone this is the case? This
is how it always is with Brett Kimberlin: I am crazy, John Hoge is crazy, his
own wife is crazy... <i>everyone</i> is
crazy except the guy who terrorized a town with bombs for nearly a week.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">He is using this
complaint to torment her so he can get attention, so he can come to court and
see her as he has done so in the past.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for the
specific allegation that I am hoping this lawsuit will give me a chance to see
K.K. I don’t see how it her testimony is likely to be relevant. The claims for malicious prosecution relate
primarily to whether I did anything to merit the charges and whether the
Defendants actually believed I had done so; the same can be said for the claim
for false imprisonment. The claim
related to abuse of process relates to Brett’s behavior in court. And the injunction is solely sought against
Mr. and Mrs. Kimberlin and not their daughter.
It is hard to understand, therefore, why there is any need for K.
Kimberln to be involved at all. I
suppose, given Brett’s litigation history he might try to bring K. Kimberlin in
to provide some barely-relevant testimony, but that will be their decision. In fact, I will happily agree to a motion in
limine excluding her from being called as a witness for either side.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I will skip
over his legal arguments—they will be addressed after I serve the complaint on
Brett and Tetyana, and after they file their likely motion to dismiss. There is no reason to address it before
then. I will note that he is lying about
both previous cases, in verifiable ways.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So next on
page five, the first paragraph after the header, he writes:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Plaintiff knows
that she has suffered severe emotional distress because he has heard her
testify, and seen her weep and get angry in court while pointing at him and
telling him to leave her alone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually,
first, that actual moment—she points angrily at me and says something like
“leave me alone!”—has never happened to my recollection.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Second, I
don’t know she actually has suffered any emotional distress at all. The girl has not always told the truth on the
stand (although it is possible that she is being lied to).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Third, even
assuming she really is upset, she’s not upset at what I have done. I don’t believe K Kimberlin is being
traumatized by anything but a series of lies Brett has told her. I have done nothing to harm this young woman
and indeed have taken steps to prevent her from suffering collateral damage
from her father’s illegal and immoral conduct.
For instance, I have published many public documents on my blog to
expose Brett’s criminal and immoral conduct, but I have always redacted her
name from it (as well as some private information relating to Brett
himself). And when <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/12/exclusive-my-motion-to-dismiss.html">I
explain that I do this because I do not believe in she should suffer because of
what he did</a>, Brett lies and says that I said the opposite.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Going past
some more legal arguments, on page nine, Brett writes that<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">He lists her address on the very caption of the complaint... <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
By which he
means Brett’s home address, as I am required to. As Brett did on the first page of his
complaint against me in the current case of <i>Kimbelin
v. National Bloggers Club, et al.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">...and he lists her age.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually, I
didn’t. But you know who did? Brett, in this motion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">In fact, the minor child has stated that she worries about
being kidnapped by Plaintiff and his associates because he has discussed
‘vigilante’ action to ‘protect’ her.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh yes, I have
“discussed” vigilante action... in order to reject it. So I have discussed vigilante action in the
same sense that Ghandi <i>discussed</i>
violence, Al Gore <i>discussed</i> destroying
the environment and Ruth Bader Ginsberg <i>discussed</i>
banning all abortion. What utter
dishonesty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The actual
post he is apparently selectively quoting from is <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2015/03/in-new-peace-order-hearing-adjudicated.html">here</a>
and you can read it for yourself, dear reader.
It includes the following two passages discussing a false peace order Brett
filed against John Hoge:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And
then [Kimberlin] ends with the allegation that John will try to kidnap his daughter. Do I have to tell you that while nothing
would make us happier than those children getting away from Brett, the only way
we envision it is either by their mother, or by child protective services? Do we have to say that such vigilantism is
not on the table?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Lest there by
any ambiguity on this point, I also wrote:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
we
have never spoke of anyone saving his daughters, except either their mother or
child protective services. We are not,
and never will be, vigilantes. We obey
the law, for the simple reason that it is the law.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So in other
words the discussion of vigilante action to protect her was in the context of
ruling it out. I cannot say whether my
declaration that I would never try to kidnap her somehow made her afraid that I
would kidnap her, but I can say that if K.K. is truly afraid I might kidnap
her, it is an unreasonable fear.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">He has stated that if she “only knew the truth,” she would
turn against Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No, that is
not what I said, and you can read that whole discussion, <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/12/exclusive-my-motion-to-dismiss.html">here</a>. I posited that she was being lied to as an
explanation for why I was trying to limit collateral damage to her.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Same
paragraph:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">He has tried to follow her on twitter in order to make secret
contact with her.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
While I once
pressed the follow button, it was an accident.
As I stated in uncontradicted testimony, I use an Apple iPhone app to
interact with Twitter. One day someone
told me to look at something in her feed, and after I did, I picked up the
phone the wrong way and accidentally hit the follow button. Within seconds I clicked it again to
unfollow. As for the claim that it was
designed to secretly communicate with her, pressing follow only tells Twitter
that you wish to have an account sent into your twitter feed. For instance, I follow Cnn’s twitter account
to get news, and I follow the Washington Post’s Dr. Gridlock twitter feed to
keep up with area traffic. I do not
secretly communicate with them. Judge
Williams observed that it was not proof of an intent to communicate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But once
again, Brett knows why a persons does what he does, and it is always for the
worst reasons possible. Because he is
psychic, I guess. (Yes, I am being
sarcastic.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Page ten,
first full paragraph:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Plaintiff wants to cause harm to the minor child, both
emotionally and physically.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I have said
the opposite, and indeed how will any of this cause her physical harm?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Plaintiff, as he admits, has engaged in a multi-year campaign
of cyber bullying against Defendants and their minor child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Oy, there is
so much bullsh*t in that sentence, it is hard to know where to begin. First, as I have admitted? What exactly is he smoking? No, I have never admitted to doing anything
wrong.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Second, what
exactly is cyber bullying? He keeps throwing
that word around like anyone is supposed to know what it means. As best I can tell, he thinks it is writing
negative things about him to a general audience, which is my constitutional
right. Did Woodward and Bernstein bully
Richard Nixon?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">He abuses the court system by filing false and scurrilous
pleadings in court and then publishing them on the Internet for the world to
see as if they are gospel. He will do
the same here if records are not sealed.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually,
publishing false statements in legal documents to that your buddies can publish
them as gospel is Brett’s tactic. But
yes, I do tend to do what I do openly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Then jumping
to the conclusion, still on page nine:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Plaintiff is a 44 year old man...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Forty-two,
actually, which means that Brett has been a convicted felon for pretty much my
entire life. But math, like the rules of
evidence, is a harsh mistress for Brett.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">...who spends every waking hour of his life obsessing over
Defendants and their 16 year-old daughter.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One would be
tempted to ask how he claims to know what is on my mind. In any case, it is not all that is on my
mind, or even all that I write about.
Read my twitter feed, for instance, on virtually any day. It is probably reasonably close to a “stream
of consciousness.” Unless there is major
news on the Kimberlin front, I am discussing politics, comic book nerdiness,
history nerdy stuff, smacking down racists of all colors, and so on. And that ignores the work I am doing for
paying clients, attending to my lovely wife and so on, which doesn’t make it
onto twitter. Hey, dear reader, I love
communicating with the nice people on the Internet, but that isn’t all there is
in my life.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Page ten, same
paragraph:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Judge after judge in this courthouse have told Plaintiff to
leave Defendants alone.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually, no
judge in the Montgomery County Circuit Court has told me to leave him alone,
because none of them found I wasn’t doing so in the first place. In the same paragraph, he claims that “one
judge” (Judge Creighton, most likely), berated me in court, in a case I was not
a party or a participant in. Although
Creighton’s performance went far astray of how a judge should conduct a
hearing, she did not say that about me.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So that is it
for the injunction. Next we have the K.
Kimberlin’s dumb little affidavit. Now, first just about all of this would be
stricken for various evidentiary shortcomings.
I won’t detail all of them, but the most obvious is you don’t get to
testify to things you don’t witness. You
know, <i>with your eyes</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Skipping over
allegations I have already refuted, paragraph four of her affidavit:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">[John Hoge and I] are the ringleaders of an online gang of
bullies who have attacked me mercilessly and this has caused me serious
emotional distress.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, we are
the ringleaders of nothing. For three
years, the Kimberlins have accused me of controlling everyone on the planet with
absolutely no evidence of it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Second, I have
never attacked the girl, even under the “Brett Kimberlin” definition of
“attack” which includes mere criticism.
At worst I have suggested she was being manipulated by her father, as I
have here. None of that is an attack on
her. As for others, of course I can
never claim to know everything anyone else does, but I have not witnessed any
attacks on her, and I would reprimand anyone who did do so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Paragraph
seven:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">However, Mr. Hoge and Walker have trolled my social media
accounts, which caused me severe emotional distress.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No, we
didn’t. Aside accidentally hitting the
follow button, I have done nothing that can be called “trolling” or even contact
with her social media account.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Hoge tried to friend me on Facebook, which I declined.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He says he
hasn’t and I believe him (and Brett has never produced any evidence to the
contrary).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">They have posted and urged others in their orbit to post nasty
comments on articles about me and the videos I have uploaded.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If she means we
have posted comments in the comment section of the articles in question and on any
YouTube video, we have not. If she means
that I have discussed those things, the only time I have discussed those
articles is to note 1) how her father keeps using them as a platform to defame
me, and 2) that her father is the one who led students at her school to
associate her with him. In regard to the
second point, I have never used K.’s real name on my website and thus you would
never know that the Speedway Bomber was K.’s father. But you would know it from news articles
about K. Kimberlin’s achievements where Brett then uses her success as an
opportunity to promote himself or defame others. I don’t think John has discussed them at
all. Similarly, we have never placed a
comment in the comment section below any YouTube posting of her videos at
all. And the only comment I made about
any of them was what I said here: that others were disturbed by the
sexualization of this underage girl.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In paragraph
8, she states that John’s twitter account was permanently suspended, while
neglecting to mention that they unsuspended him and apologized.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Paragraph 9:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Walker has threatened to take depositions of my friends
and me to ask questions about sexual matters and this has caused great
embarrassment.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Actually, it
was not a threat, so much as an explanation of why I didn’t think Brett would
dare to sue me for calling him a pedophile.
I stated that Mr. Kimberlin probably wouldn’t sue because he would be
afraid that I would depose his daughter and her friends, and he would be
terrified about what her friends might say.
Which, admittedly turned out to be wrong—he did sue me after all—but there
you go.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
She also
neglects to mention that Brett put her on the stand to ask her about sexual
matters. I have no idea if that caused
any embarrassment, but he actually did what she falsely accuses me of
threatening to do.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Paragraph 10:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">I have received Google Alerts of things these men have posted
online about my family and me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And if she
doesn’t like it, she can turn them off.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Paragraph 11:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Hoge posted my age and birthday in a post by a man “hungering”
over me at a middle school basketball game.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The post in
question is <a href="http://thinkingmanszombie.com/2015/03/03/your-moment-of-zombie-zen/">here</a>,
and while it is not something I would have said, the author (“Paul Krendler”) was
not saying he was hungering over her. He
was saying that Brett’s would be driven mad with guilt and fear that some guy
might hunger over her the way he said he does for teenage girls. (I also disagree with Krendler’s assessment
of Brett’s conscience in the sense that he seems to think Brett has any.) As for John’s part, Gus Bailey said that he
believed she was only fourteen years old and John, being his nerdy self, felt
the need to correct the record. Judge
Williams believed him when he said his only purpose was to correct the record,
and that he did not intend to harass her.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Also, the only
reason why she knows any of that was written was because her father brought her
a copy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Same
paragraph:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">He and Mr. Walker have
said that since I have told them to stop harassing me, that I am no longer “off
limits.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We have said
nothing of the sort. Indeed, we have not
said she is not “off limits” for any reason.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Paragraph 12:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Walker and Mr[.] Hoge have contacted my mother and told
her to save me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No, we have
helped her mother in her quest to get custody from her father, because we are
worried about both daughters being in the presence of this adjudicated
pedophile. And her mother agreed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Walker has called the FBI and other officials with false
information to have them raid our home in search of non-existent child
pornography.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Um, no, that
didn’t happen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Skipping over
other stuff I have already refuted, paragraph 15:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: red;">Sometimes [John and I] use proxies to attack me, or use code
words in their posts to have other bullies they control attack me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Do I have to
tell you how dumb and paranoid it is to say we have code words? Well, the answer is very. And mind you, I don’t think a word of this is
actually K. Kimberlin’s. I think Brett
wrote it for her, just like I think he wrote the motion. I could be wrong, but I report, you decide,
right?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And that is
about it. And the irony is that while
this motion has already been denied—and thus it has not done the work Brett was
hoping to do—I can use every word of it against them, including the provable
lies or the parts that are merely deceptive.
But that will have to wait for the future.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, as a
preview of upcoming events, last Friday a whole lot of motions were filed in
the case of Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. And I believe John is going to dribble them
out most of the week. In fact, <a href="http://hogewash.com/2015/08/03/team-kimberlin-post-of-the-day-876/">he
put one out last night</a>... So, stay
tuned and keep lots of popcorn!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-25633617625955566482015-07-31T17:59:00.000-04:002015-07-31T17:59:44.988-04:00My Opposition to Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s Attempt to Obtain Ace of Spades’ Identity<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the latest post in what I
half-jokingly call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued myself, John
Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan
Backer, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Patrick “Patterico”
Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze,
Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and others alleging that we are all in conspiracy
to defame him because we reported factually about the spate of SWATtings
committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.
So, if you are new to the story, go to </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRY4E2eP_6aT9JZX2t3-2egb83GJduYedOvzrf_xUhVUtjRAGvd0g" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" class="irc_mut" height="179" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRY4E2eP_6aT9JZX2t3-2egb83GJduYedOvzrf_xUhVUtjRAGvd0g" style="margin-top: 0px;" width="320" /></a>As I mentioned
yesterday, Brett Kimberlin was trying to get Ace of Spades’ identity in two
courts at once. We saw a federal court
refuse to provide a protective order on Monday.
I found that out literally as I was putting the finishing touches on the
document in this post, which made me wonder if I should bother submitting. I decided I wanted to because the fight might
not be over in federal court. First, the
deficiencies (Federal) Judge Hazel pointed to were technical, only, and he
seemed to leave open the door to them re-filing and improving on those
technicalities. Second, there are always appellate options. So best to oppose it in the state court and
hope that the federal courts do the right thing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So I filed
this.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/273181951/Opp-to-Discovery-Intermarkets-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Opp. to Discovery Intermarkets (Redaction) on Scribd">Opp. to Discovery Intermarkets (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_79433" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/273181951/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It is a little
rushed, so it suffers from a few minor typos and apparently a big error where I
accidentally deleted some last minute text.
Which is unfortunate, but it happens.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And it feels
good to have put Mandy Nagy’s statute of limitations issues before the
court. As I shared yesterday, <a href="http://popehat.com/2015/07/29/popehat-signal-please-help-mandy-nagy-and-her-family/">Popehat
is asking other lawyers to represent her</a>, and of course I don’t represent
her. But that doesn’t mean I can’t say
anything that might help her.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, since
some asked, yes, I am publishing Brett’s dumb motion he filed under seal, but
that is coming Monday. And I will refute
his outright lies at that time, too.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As a preview,
what do you think <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11340461036977890864&q=76+F.3d+33&hl=en&as_sdt=3,47">this
case</a> might have to do with Brett Kimberlin?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Stay tuned,
and for God’s sake, stay stocked up on popcorn!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-40640967521047263592015-07-30T17:57:00.000-04:002015-07-30T17:57:42.751-04:00My Motion to Strike Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s Improper Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the latest post in what I
half-jokingly call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued myself, John
Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan
Backer, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Patrick “Patterico”
Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze,
Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and others alleging that we are all in conspiracy
to defame him because we reported factually about the spate of SWATtings
committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.
So, if you are new to the story, go to </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsg-VtoicBa_AFqQdDjsWLLTll-NxA94TyOL9F6tcHDBjZSnLCzQ" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsg-VtoicBa_AFqQdDjsWLLTll-NxA94TyOL9F6tcHDBjZSnLCzQ" width="132" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">She really likes her<br />popcorn...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So a lot has
been happening in Brett Kimberlin’s various lawsuits, let’s take a moment and
catch up...<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, stop everything
and go read as Ken “Popehat” White <a href="http://popehat.com/2015/07/29/popehat-signal-please-help-mandy-nagy-and-her-family/">puts
up the “Popehat signal”</a> to help a friend of mine, Mandy Nagy. If you happen to be a Maryland lawyer and can
help, please consider doing so. Brett
has heartlessly sued this stroke victim based on a patently frivolous
complaint.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Next, let’s
talk about what was once called <b><i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al.
(I)</i></b> until it was <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14860789549609016921&q=brett+kimberlin&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_ylo=2015">whittled
down to just one claim against Patrick Frey</a>. I think in all frankness, that shouldn’t have
been saved to that degree and now Brett is using that process to try to harass
others. Case in point: on Monday, <a href="http://hogewash.com/2015/07/27/a-busy-day-for-lawfare/">Judge Hazel
turned down a protective order</a> in relation to a subpoena for InterMarkets
which may, or may not, have the identity of the blogger known as Ace. Hazel also said that I and several others
could seek sanctions for Brett, but also indicated that he wasn’t inclined to
grant it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As for Ace, I will
note that the deficiencies the court seemed to hone in on is technical, and the
court doesn’t seem to have ordered them to comply, either. So that fight might not be over. We shall see.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Next, let’ss
talk about <b><i>Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II)</i></b>. In <i>NBC (I)</i>, Brett filed for many state law
claims and they were dismissed for jurisdictional reasons. The U.S. District Court said that if he was
inclined to, he could refile it in state court.
So he did. So here is the news in
that case.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, he
sought to discover Ace’s identity in that case, too, <a href="http://hogewash.com/2015/07/27/team-kimberlin-post-of-the-day-869/">in a
remarkably poor motion</a>. I have filed
an opposition to that which I will reveal soon (probably today).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>Brett also
filed a motion to alternative service on Defendants Ali Akbar, the National
Bloggers Club, Michelle Malkin and Twitchy in the same case, which was promptly
denied. As you might recall, Judge Mason
had been specially assigned to this case (on my motion), but I believe right
now he is on vacation (John Hoge seems sure of it, and unlike me, he was able
to take notes at the July 17 scheduling hearing, so he is probably right). So Judge Albright filled in on this and
another case involving Kimberlin. I have
no idea if she is deciding on her own, or if she is simply formalizing Mason’s
decision from vacation. I, for one, hope
he is getting a break, because we all could use one now and then. I have seen Albright’s order and no reason is
given. It probably has to do with the
fact that Brett has done nothing to establish that anyone is evading service.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But Brett
still might have seriously harmed himself in filing that. We also obtained copies of his exhibits (he
didn’t bother to actually serve it on me) and guess what? He has altered green cards yet again. <a href="http://hogewash.com/2015/07/28/team-kimberlin-post-of-the-day-870/">John
Hoge has the details</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Further,
remember how I mentioned that Brett tried to get service on Michelle Malkin and
Twitchy? Well, even though they haven’t
been served, they filed a motion to dismiss.
This is a motion by the man my mom describes as her second favorite
lawyer in this case, and <a href="http://hogewash.com/2015/07/29/and-in-further-legal-news/">it is very
much worth a read</a>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Additionally,
there is still the case of <b><i>Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al.</i></b>,
involving Brett’s self-described friend trying his hand at lawfare, suing a
large number of people for supposedly defaming him. The most basic problem is that the court just
didn’t have jurisdiction over the case.
But before we even get to that, one of the Defendants, retired attorney David
Edgren, was challenging his <i>in forma
pauperis</i> status. You see, you always
have to pay filing fees and the like when you come to court, unless you can prove
that you are sufficiently poor. And
Edgren showed credible evidence that Schmalfeldt was not telling the truth in
his form. Schmalfeldt opposed, kind of,
the motion to strip him of his IFP status, and Edgren replied, <a href="http://hogewash.com/2015/07/29/and-the-hits-just-keep-on-comin/">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And then we
turn to the case of <b><i>Walker v. Kimberlin, et al.</i></b>
This is the lawsuit I revealed last week and you can read the complaint,
<a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2015/07/punching-back-twice-as-hard-revealing.html">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As I also
mentioned, they filed some kind of motion for a restraining order as follows:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Docket
Date: 07/21/2015 Docket
Number: 25<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Docket
Description: MOTION, PROTECTIVE ORDER<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Docket
Type: Motion Filed By:
Defendant Status: Open<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Docket
Text: DEFENDANTS, BRETT AND
TETYANA KIMBERLIN'S SEALED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND PROTECTION ORDER, AND ATTACHMENTS, FILED. (PLEADING REMOVED AND
PLACED UNDER SEAL)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But I didn’t
know what the heck it was. They didn’t
bother to serve it on me. I waited until
Saturday, and then wrote a quick motion pointing out their clearly improper behavior. So why don’t I show you what I wrote, with the
usual caveat that the original was fully executed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/273083539/Motion-to-Strike-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View Motion to Strike (Redaction) on Scribd">Motion to Strike (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_66585" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/273083539/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
(And, dear
reader, there are a lot of subtleties going on here, that I don’t think it
would be wise for you to discuss. So
please be careful, lest you educate the midget.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I filed that Monday
and then went to see if I could get a copy of that sealed motion, perhaps if I prove
I am the Plaintiff. I doubt that would
ordinarily work, but apparently by the time I got there, the motion had been
unsealed summarily. As in, someone
figured out that he hadn’t moved to seal it, therefore it was no longer sealed—or
at least that my best guess. I could even
see that someone, presumably in the clerk’s office, had opened it. When I went to copy it, the lady at the copy
room desk even called to verify that it was not supposed to be sealed and, once
satisfied, gave me a copy. And, dear
reader, it is clear Brett Kimberlin is rattled.
I mean this is my constitutionally protected opinion, but it was very
clearly written by Brett, and it seems almost manic in its writing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In any case,
on Wednesday, the motion was denied, again by Judge Albright. Since the same judge was specially assigned
to the case (Mason), pretty much all the same speculation applies here. So Brett wasted his time, and I may try to
make trouble for him on that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As a preview
of coming events, I plan to publish my opposition to Brett’s attempt to out Ace
tomorrow (Friday), and then reveal Brett’s dumb motion against me on
Monday. There is some I may choose to
redact in the middle and I want to make sure I do all of it right before I publish
it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In any case,
always remain happy warriors and keep plenty of popcorn handy!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044318176622758692.post-47347214217305424672015-07-24T15:48:00.000-04:002015-07-24T15:48:00.130-04:00Walker v. Maryland, et al.<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly
call <b>The Kimberlin Saga<sup>®</sup></b>. 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 three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. 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 sued 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,
Breitbart.com, 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 </i><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/p/brett-kimberlin-saga-and-how-you-can.html"><i><span style="color: windowtext;">this page</span></i></a><i> and you’ll be able to catch up on what has
been happening.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2015/07/punching-back-twice-as-hard-revealing.html">last
time</a> I shared with you the complaint I filed against Brett Kimberlin and
his wife, Tetyana (noting again, that the only thing I want out of Tetyana is
an order stopping her from filing any more false peace orders, criminal
charges, etc.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And I noted
that the case started as being against Maryland itself. And I promised to share with you my First
Amended Complaint (which is only trivially different from the original
complaint) and that I would share it with you... yesterday.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, best laid
plans and all that. I had to do something
in court today, and I needed to prepare for it last night. So without further ado, here is what I promised:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/272504679/Walker-v-Maryland-FAC-Redaction" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View
Walker v. Maryland FAC (Redaction) on Scribd">Walker v. Maryland FAC (Redaction)</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_44941" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/272504679/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I will say
bluntly, I don’t think there is much more to say about it than I did already in
the last post, so if you want to understand the context, go <a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2015/07/punching-back-twice-as-hard-revealing.html">there</a>. In fact, it is not very different from what I
filed against Brett & Tetyana, except for the part where I go over the
counts, and of course I wrote that complaint before the latest set of criminal
charges.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And even if
you agree with Judge Mason’s ruling that under those set of facts Maryland did
not do something <i>unconstitutional</i>
that merited a potential for damages or injunctive relief, that is not the same
as saying it was right. I mean at one
point slavery was legal, but at no time was slavery right. So if you live in Maryland, ask yourself: is
this the way your government should operate?
Because what happened to me can happen to literally any one of you—all you
have to do is infuriate someone as unethical as Brett Kimberlin.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 16.15pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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 </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.htmlhttp:/allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/summarypreview-of-my-post-how-brett.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #FFF9EE; line-height: 15.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Follow me at
Twitter </span><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/AaronWorthing"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">@aaronworthing</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 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 </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archangel-Alternate-Recent-History-ebook/dp/B006WSFCPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326460195&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. And you can read a little more about
my novel, </span><a href="http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/01/buy-my-novel-today.html"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">here</span></a><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
---------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Disclaimer:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
A.W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10876021589516844048noreply@blogger.com0