Brett Kimberlin Threatens to Sue Me; UPDATED with Second E-Mail from Kimberlin
Just got this e-mail:
To Patterico:
Please take this email as an intent to sue you for your Oct 11, 2010 post on Patterico.com which has defamed and libeled me. I have just sued Socrates on which you rely for cyber stalking, defamation, libel, violation of privacy and interference with business. Socrates has been banned from many sites and forums for stalking many people including me. He is under criminal investigation for cyber bullying and cyber stalking. By corresponding with him and relying on his defamatory posts, you are conspiring with him and are just as liable as he.
Most of the things you write about in your post are false. If you have not removed the defamatory piece within 24 hours, I will proceed with legal action against you and will serve notice on your service provider that you are violating your terms of service by engaging in false, defamatory and abusive postings.
Let me assure you that you are not the first blog that has posted lies about me, yet each of them has removed the offending posts once I alerted them to the facts about Socrates and his spreading of lies.
Also, please provide me with your full name and address.
Thank you,
Brett Kimberlin
My response:
My post is based primarily on a number of published news articles. I ask you to specify anything in my post that you claim is false. If I have made any mistakes I am always happy to correct them. But I won’t take down anything that is true.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Kimberlin is referring to this post of mine in which I discussed his history as a convicted bomber, drug smuggler, perjurer, and suspected murderer.
If he actually sues, I’ll let you know. I may need to establish a litigation fund. (PayPal buttons are on the right.)
UPDATE x2 9:21 p.m.: Just got this e-mail:
I appreciate the quick response. Most of the information in the post is false. As noted, I put up with Socrates’ shit for too long, and finally sued him, he has been polluting the Internet with lies about me and Brad and now he gets a chance to defend it in a court of law.
I have no beef with you and I never even heard of you or your blog until today when I got the Google alert. I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you. I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money and for what. I run a small non profit that works to inspire youth to get involved. I have only met Brad Friedman one time in my life. Your piece is a smear job against both me and Brad. I have gotten death threats all day today because of your and Liberty Chick’s post and I have to meet with the FBI tomorrow to give them copies. Have I ever posted anything, anywhere? Have I ever said or done anything to you?
Maybe you have some beef with Brad, but going after me to get to him is really a shameful way of resolving it. I can tell you for a fact that Brad Blog, Daily Kos, HuffPo, RawStory, and DU have all removed these type of posts once they were advised that they were false and that Socrates was behind them. I really urge you to pull the post and not post anything more about me.
Politics aside, I can see you are very passionate about what you do and I respect that. I would be happy to meet you, shake hands, have a beer or soy chai, and just have a chat.
Thanks Pat.
Brett
My response:
Once again: my post was based primarily on published news articles. I repeat: please specify anything in my post that you claim is false. I will correct mistakes if there are any, but I will not remove the truth.
There are obviously a lot of other things I could say. But I am going to leave it at that for now.
do NOT give this person your address he likes to blow stuff up
happyfeet (19c1da) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:19 pmFull name and address? Creepy….
Eric Blair (2e5551) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:19 pmThe Aaron Klein equivalent on domestic political, social and legal issues. That is the positioning.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:19 pmPlease give me your real name and address.
goatsred (b20383) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:20 pmHahahahaha!!!!!
Any fool can find an address. But my recommendation is get a PO Box for correspondence.
Javert_is_alive! (AKA ...) (4f78d0) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:21 pmPlease give me your name and address … ?! Are you kidding me? From someone that has blown people up, and killed people ?!?! I will tell you what, Brett Kimberlin, post your current address, and see if anyone comes to visit you …
JD (3399c0) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:22 pmIt is ironic, coming from someone with, um, such a flexible definition of “free speech.”
Sorry for the “um,” Patterico.
Eric Blair (2e5551) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:24 pmLet’s see, material from court proceedings, interviews Brett gave, material Brett posted on the internet, material Brett’s business partner posted on the internet………
I’m so confused – Is Brett saying he lied and you published his lies and now he is planning to sue you over them?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:26 pmYeah, I thought the same thing (re: full name and address).
Go fuck yourself, dude.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:26 pmNote the complete failure to identify anything even purportedly false or misleading in any of your posts.
Yeah, I would not give this dude my home address even if I had Secret Service protection.
Crank (a5d228) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:29 pmI hear that he had inappropriate relations with other inmates, just a rumor I heard… I wonder if he will sue me too?
Chris (8721a9) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:29 pmPatterico – Heh! That sounds pretty serious if Brett sent that himself instead of having a lawyer do it.
Then again, didn’t Brett file something like 200 motions while he was in the slammer?
This just keeps getting better and better.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:31 pmdoes he not know about your day job?
CardioNP (d18b93) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:35 pmThink J Lo in “Enough”. Just sayin’.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:35 pmIf Liberty Chick and Breitbart did not receive a similar legal threat, I hope you can convince them to post yours there.
First Braddy tries to get you fired when he is losing a debate even though your blog is completely separate from your work. Then the diminutive terrorist tries a legal intimidation tactic. DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO SHAME?
We already knew Braddy was a liar and a coward. Likes attract.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:38 pmMy reaction to his threat is summed up here, at :11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM
Mitch (e40959) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:38 pm_________________________________
You can smell the phoniness of people like Kimberlin from a mile away. After all, they’re a bad seed, rotten from Day One.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:39 pmYou know, I wasn’t convinced the guy was a nutjob before… BUT NOW….
I love dbags like that who automatically assume they are smarter than everyone else on the planet. Are we sure this guy wasn’t a White House Czar of something or other?
Kaisersoze (25a652) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:40 pmBTW, I’m totally down for the defense fund if needed. Let me hit the tip jar anyway.
Kaisersoze (25a652) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:41 pmWhat was that bit about cyber bullying?
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:43 pmThe problem with the First Amendment is it applies to everyone.
Sometimes you use it to defend bombings, other times you use it to to expose said convicted bombers and then have to put up with the protests of the convicted felon.
As the convicted felon proudly allowed the posting of a picture of himself with his daughter along side Karl Rove for some reason.
The left is quickly becoming something, what’s the the word? Banal.
Ag80 (743fd1) — 10/11/2010 @ 8:53 pmIn my limited experience, people that intend to sue you actually sue you. People that send you testy letters, well there’s an old internet term for that: cartooney (“cartoon attorney”).
Funny getting a cartooney threat from former inmate number 01035-079, according to the Bureau of Prisons one BRETT COLEMAN KIMBERLIN 01035-079 56-White-M 06-05-2001 RELEASED.
Personally, I’d be disinclined to give anyone with Kimberlin’s history of violent crime an address. Given the length of his original Federal sentence, he may still be under supervision, and threatening you could put him back where he was in June 2001, inside. Where he belongs.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (4e83c4) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:03 pmPatterico – Maybe he thinks you’re as stupid as Braddy’s usual readers and commenters and that a generic letter will make you take down your post.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:08 pmGive him his parole officer’s address. Offer to meet him there. Done in one.
sybilll (10987c) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:09 pmYou know better than that.
Feel free to let me know if you think I got anything wrong.
But if he thinks I will simply submit to an Internet threat, he obviously does not know me. I have encountered many such threats before.
“Let me assure you that you are not the first person who has tried to intimidate me on the Internet and failed.”
How do you defame a convicted bomber and perjurer anyway?
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:13 pmsybill wins the thread.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:13 pm“How do you defame a convicted bomber and perjurer anyway?”
– Patterico
Imply that he’s friends with Brad Friedman.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:15 pmI’m sure a lawsuit and the publicity it garners from you and especially Breitbart is EXACTLY what Braddy doesn’t want.
This thing breaks open more in the media and any further funding is gone and Braddy goes back to his failed acting “career.”
Jackson Blair (25b260) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:18 pm“You know better than that.”
Patterico – I know better than that, but I am suggesting that he may not. Or are you suggesting I should not make unkind references about Braddy’s commentariat?
Based on my reading of the background material, again much of it public source (see #8), I have not noticed anything wrong.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:20 pmOh Patterico is having way too much fun with this. Imagine the water-cooler scene tomorrow when he gets to tell the other asst DAs that some dude is going to sue him and that dude has self-proclaimed cred because he’s suing Socrates.
PC14 (4a4ed3) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:26 pmThis is as credible of a threat to sue as when William the racist hilljack skin flute player threatened to sue Jeff G for libel.
On behalf of the State of Indiana, I apologize for Kimberlin and timmah.
JD (1507cd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:27 pmUPDATE x2 9:21 p.m.: Just got this e-mail:
My response:
There are obviously a lot of other things I could say. But I am going to leave it at that for now.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:27 pmBy the way: it does not appear that Socrates has been served with any lawsuit. This I know because I corresponded with him — which, legal eagle Brett Kimberlin tells me, makes me just as liable as him.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:28 pm“whooooooo.”
(-Stripes intro scene)
Mitch (e40959) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:29 pmI have filed a hundred bullshit lawsuits. What is one more? That is essentially his position, no? And people laugh about tort reform being serious.
Who in their right mind would meet this person for a soy chai, roadside bomb, or coffee? How delusional are these leftists?
JD (1507cd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:30 pmPatterico – I will volunteer to accept service on your behalf, so long as Brett “The convicted bomber drug smuggler underage girl liker perjurer and likely murderer” Kimberlin promises to be the one delivering the papers.
JD (1507cd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:32 pmI believe this statement will be Exhibit A in my answer to Mr. Kimberlin’s complaint.
I suggest Mr. Kimberlin research California’s anti-SLAPP legislation before he makes assertions about who would bear the ultimate cost of any threatened lawsuit.
Oh — and to answer the “for what?” question:
For the truth.
That’s what I always fight for here, Mr. Kimberlin.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:33 pmHow do you defame someone who got 50 year sentence? That’s the mystery.
Cool, someone just handed me the defamation question for the final exam I have to write this semester …
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:34 pmYou’re a great read, Patterico.
rdbrewer (cc8c84) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:34 pm“On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money and for what.”
That sounded like a threat to me.
This is why we need the “loser pays” rule.
lee (cae7a3) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:36 pmThanks, rdbrewer.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:36 pmIt is far worse to be associated with Brad Freidman and crissyhooten than it is to be a convicted domestic terrorist and drug smuggler and perjurer.
Patterico – He essentially admitted to a willingness to file a warrantless lawsuit, no?
JD (1507cd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:37 pmlee, California’s anti-SLAPP statute gets closer to a “loser pays” rule.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:37 pmlee,
In California, in First Amendment cases, we have something very much like that rule.
Mr. Kimberlin might want to become acquainted with it. Because I might end up hiring expensive attorneys. I would hate for Mr. Kimberlin to have to pay their fees.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:38 pm#
“How do you defame a convicted bomber and perjurer anyway?”
– Patterico
Imply that he’s friends with Brad Friedman.
Comment by Leviticus — 10/11/2010 @ 9:15 pm
LOL Outstanding.
And, nice job Patterico. Keep up the good work.
no one you know (72db9b) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:39 pmRe: update
Don’t you just love it when convicted bombers and drug dealers threaten to sue you and then, in a flash, turn on the charm?
What a creep.
John (1a890d) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:39 pmDarn it all to heck! I’m all out of coconut oil. Can’t pop my popcorn. 🙁
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:40 pmI call BS on Brett Kimberlin’s claim that he has to meet with the FBI tomorrow because of death threats from these articles. Abject lie. Complete fabrication.
JD (1507cd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:41 pmJD, do you doubt the FBI will have a lot of sympathy for someone like him?
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:42 pm“only met Brad Friedman one time.”
(But emailed him 568,349 times since we started our scams).
This comes at a bad time for Braderick. Dems are going to get slaughtered in a couple of weeks and that means “election fraud” is back on the table.
Business has been bad since Dems won the last two elections.
Jackson Blair (25b260) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:43 pmSPQR – Not only do I doubt the FBI would feel sorry for him, I would call him out on what I believe to be an outright lie. The idea that a drug dealing bomb making murdering perjurer would scurry to the protection of the FBI after having truthful posts written about him is laughable.
JD (1507cd) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:48 pmSo a guy who blows people’s limbs off is scared because someone else is a ‘cyber bully’?
It’s rather telling that in two separate threatening emails he’s just as quick to claim falsehoods as he is reluctant to provide any specifics.
And isnt it interesting that he has the money to file frivolous lawsuits (over soy chai you’ll have to ask him how many resulted in damage awards or settlements) but apparently not to pay the widow of his victim?
Lastly, it seems now that more and more liberals are starting to play the ‘death threat’ card when their own dirty deeds are being exposed.
harkin (1d0d3f) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:49 pmIs Deb Frisch posting again?
Pat Patterson (56dc55) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:57 pmwhat the hell is a soy chai?
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 10/11/2010 @ 9:59 pmI am still waiting for Mr. Kimberlin’s specifics regarding the alleged falsehoods in my posts.
I think the offer to have soy chai is not going anywhere. In case anyone was wondering.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:01 pmsoy chai, c4, so similar…
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:03 pmPatterson, this guy is as nutty as Frisch but comes complete with the real deal in terrorist violence. Not actually all that funny to compare an alcoholic nut with someone actually convicted of those kinds of violent felonies. Almost makes Frisch cuddly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:05 pm“In California, in First Amendment cases, we have something very much like that rule.”
Can the former terrorist request a change of venue? What kind of lawyers can the non profit sector afford?
He probably thought you fit some blogger stereotype – an unemployed nobody whose writings aren’t fit for “legitimate” publications. I didn’t realize you were a prosecture for a while.
lee (cae7a3) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:07 pmPatterico – Brett is making my point for me. It takes a special kind of person to read and believe the type of unsupported conspiracy theories promoted by Braddy week after week.
Prepostericity/Socrates showed intelligence and judgement by recognizing and challenging the scam and then bailing out when acceptable answers or corrections to the knowing disinformation were not forthcoming.
A great day of posts for you!
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:15 pmI am now. I prosecute murderers. The likes of Kimberlin don’t frighten me.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:16 pm“Almost makes Frisch cuddly.”
SPQR – The video of Frisch humping a fire hydrant was pretty funny.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:17 pmdaleyrocks, it was indeed.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:20 pmI didn’t know you were still a prosecutor, Patterico. (I read and commented here in ’04, IIRC. I knew something about it then.) So, just another day at the office for you. Cool.
rdbrewer (cc8c84) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:22 pmPat
He might as well add this organization to his list of 100
From Time in 2007
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1574161,00.html
EricPWJohnson (cae720) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:29 pmYeah, Eric, that quote was in my original post, but it was too long.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:41 pmWell, no one who proposes a Soy Chai Summit can be too scary, right?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:42 pmI’d be careful of exploding soy chais.
LukeHandCool (9fc768) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:42 pmHahahahahaha, this line is really funny on its own:
“I have put up with Socrates’ shit for too long.”
Leviticus (30ac20) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:50 pmFrom Kimberlin’s email:
Over a hundred? Would he identify the court(s) he filed them in and what they were about?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:52 pmPolitics aside, I can see you are very passionate about what you do and I respect that. I would be happy to meet you, shake hands, have a beer or soy chai, and just have a chat.
The thing about sociopaths is that they are truly, deeply contemptuous of other people. He probably thinks you’re stupid enough to believe him.
Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:54 pmBrett Kimberlin buggered goats, and Brad Freidman, or so I heard.
JD (1507cd) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:55 pmThere is an astonishing amount of belief that he’s immune to all the consequences of his actions, and that no one would dare to point out the truth of his actions.
Coupled with the typical jailhouse lawyer vibe.
He’s scum that has been allowed to pretend he was important for far too long.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/11/2010 @ 10:56 pmPatterico:
I wouldn’t count on him paying given the report that he previously failed to pay Mrs. DeLong.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:00 pmI doubt he’d be able to pay the retainer on a bulky job like this, and a lawyer would have to be the village idiot to take this on contingency.
rdbrewer (cc8c84) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:14 pm“He’s scum that has been allowed to pretend he was important for far too long.”
SPQR – He gets his picture taken with a lot of musicians. Look at that Justice Through Music Project website. Doesn’t make him important, just a starf*cker wannabe.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:22 pmForest Gumpish in a way.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:23 pmBut shorter.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:23 pm” I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money and for what.”
Obviously this turd is a fan of filing SLAPP suits. A people that make a habit of abusing the legal system in this manner deserve whatever happens to them.
rayra (b088ec) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:26 pmI would. He’ll have to put up a bond up front.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:31 pmI have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me.
He must be an associate of Cyrus Sanai.
AD-RtR/OS! (3ac795) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:34 pmInteresting. Some California lawsuits require a bond at filing or are you talking about a post-judgment bond?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:38 pmAn anti-SLAPP lawsuit would require a bond in case he had to pay attorney’s fees. Which he would.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:40 pmHe’s very passive aggressive. In a “I’ll sue the crap out of you or we could have a distinctly gay beverage together” kind of way. He needs to be pointed at: laughed at and possibly have things thrown at his head. That type despise ridicule which is why it is the best medicine.
Gazzer (dd4205) — 10/11/2010 @ 11:50 pmAll that bravado…more like “A Boy named Sue.”
Gazzer (dd4205) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:04 amrdbrewer #71 – now, if Kimberlin were female, Ms Allred would be all over Kimberlin like a cheap suit !
Alasdair (205079) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:09 amLove the perfect response: “I ask you to specify anything in my post that you claim is false. If I have made any mistakes I am always happy to correct them. But I won’t take down anything that is true.” The basis for a defense is already laid! This chump is stuck on the ’70s psychobabble “Winning Through Intimidation” it seems . . .
Adjoran (ec6a4b) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:51 amI think Brett’s mad, because it’s now out in the open that an associate of his was fingered in the murder of Julia Scyphers. The original juries weren’t allowed to hear why police thought he set bombs. They had trouble understanding motive.
He’s specifically mad at me for asking the disturbing question of how much money he and Brad have raked in off of unsubstantiated stories. Some debunked those without going into his past. Others understand his violent history but have no clue about the manufactured tinfoil and donation scheme. I put them together. I guess that’s my contribution in a nutshell.
If he does sue me, one of the major things I will try to accomplish is to find out how much has been donated. They really pushed that black box voting schtick hard. Kimberlin’s a genius. He snookered people into thinking he was a political prisoner back in the day. That of course fell apart once Singer looked at the facts. The last several years VR made it seem they have uncovered proof of election fraud or were on the brink of doing so.
It’s one thing to advocate a stop to using electronic voting machines. It’s yet another to amass a fortune off of dubious claims. Kimberlin can’t debunk the truth, so his fallback plan is to smear one individual. Same as it ever was, just evolved into a form of non-violent terrorism.
Prepostericity (d6554a) — 10/12/2010 @ 1:35 amThink that’s creepy? Check out “Frank Drackman’s” comment at 2:42 am.
[I removed it. He has a history of that sort of commentary. — P]
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/12/2010 @ 2:51 amSo, looking at the Velvet Revolution website, it seems a catspaw for every left wing scheme we’ve
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/12/2010 @ 5:49 ambeen hearing about for the last few years, not only
‘election reform’ but the criminalization of foreign
and even domestic policy differences with the left, which begs the question, who’s really behind it
Maybe Debbie Schlussel will work for Kimberlin pro bono.
LaFong (810b4b) — 10/12/2010 @ 5:52 am购买VANCL的衣服，价格很便宜，质量不错。
vancl (2fc2bb) — 10/12/2010 @ 6:24 amI think it’s the stuff that affects male liberal hormone levels.
Lazarus Long (5720c3) — 10/12/2010 @ 6:46 amwe really need to institute a loser pays rule in cases involving defamation and the like. how many people has this guy silenced by intimidation, just because of the sheer costs of fighting?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:04 amPatterico – I volunteer to accept service on your behalf, so long as he serves the papers himself.
Interesting how he lied about suing “Socrates”
JD (1507cd) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:07 amJD, tort reform isn’t necessary for this Frischian sort who threatens and occasionally files frivolous suits, with no legal or factual basis; there are already sanctions in place to deal with the likes of him
A pro-se libel suit is generally about the most worthless of all, I think.
Having already included several tells that he’s such a fool (Give me your address so I can sue you), refusing to specify any particular point as false and defamatory, I’d be more concerned about the instability of the writer than any garbage suit.
SarahW (af7312) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:18 amInteresting how he lied about suing “Socrates”
See? A couple of blocks too close to Crazy Town.
SarahW (af7312) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:21 amSarahW – Too true. I guess expecting rational behavior from a convicted bomber and drug smuggler is too much.
JD (1507cd) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:23 amThis is not unlike what Ehrenfeld and others have faced when they have written about certain figures
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:23 aminvolved in support of terrorism,
Did he threaten to sue the folks at bigjournalism too?
JD (1507cd) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:27 amSarah
I think you meant to respond to me.
And i completely disagree. sanctions are very often hard to get–so much so that they have little deterrant effect. an automatic “loser pays” rule will do alot more to discourage people.
indeed, i favor us doing that with the entire legal system (civil side, obviously). as a lawyer, i see first hand how the law is abused. on occasion, i abuse it to my advantage. mind you, as i jokingly say, i always use my powers for good and not evil, but its exceedingly easy to see how it can be abused.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:31 amWhat were the details about Brett’s perjury conviction? I didn’t see that explained in the post yesterday or the links from it.
Joshua (9ede0e) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:35 amIt noted that he was convicted of perjury, in high school, but I did not see much else referring to it.
JD (1507cd) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:36 amAs mentioned, we have an anti-SLAPP rule in California that is essentially a “loser pays” rule for frivolous libel suits.
Patterico (c218bd) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:37 amIsn’t the problem with those how difficult it is to get something determined to be frivolous?
JD (1507cd) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:38 ambtw, new ad for O’Donnell, but not BY her, but by people calling themselves friends of COD.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/249453/and-you-expected-beatles-tune-didnt-you
Actually pretty effective, albeit cheesy.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:38 ampatterico
thanks for the tip. that is helpful.
i will fully confess, i rarely read all of the comments.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:42 amJD
in general the courts don’t like them because they see it as barring the door to defendants who might or might not have merit. they don’t want to overly chill the decision to go to court. which i think is batty, but most lawyers don’t think like me, being this skeptical about the value of going to court as a method to solve problems.
every contract with my company, i put in an attorney’s fee clause instituting a loser pays approach. i find it makes both side play nice. otherwise there is a temptation to try to deliberately twist or misinterpret things to create a suit on the theory that they are not risking too much if they lose.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:49 amObviously, it is impossible to explain rationality to irrational people. Hence the predicament this country finds itself in. Entertaining it truly is. The Chinese Curse says “May you live in interesting times…”.
dfbaskwill (ca54bb) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:54 amPat,
Send him “your” address: 1600 Pennsylvania Av., DC.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/12/2010 @ 8:15 amInteresting that you got a response from Kimberlin when seemingly all Socrates has ever had from Brett and Brad is defamation, censorship and calumny. Rather than address the issues Brad and Brett prefer to insult and censor, claiming Socrates was a cyber-stalker and a lunatic rather than a persistent interlocutor of the unseemly side of VelvetRevolution. Clearly such a tactic by B&B is damage limitation and obfuscation by way of personal attacks on Socrates. If they have nothing to be ashamed about and nothing to hide from anyone why have they never addressed the issues and why have they always defamed Socrates as some “cyber-stalking lunatic”? If Socrates’ concerns were so easily dismissed why haven’t B&B ever done so?
This is all exemplified by Kimberlin’s email threats above – he fails to point to a single “untruth” yet is full of bombastic self-righteousness.
Here’s two examples of Velvet Revolution’s (VR’s) methods:
1) VR professes to launch a campaign against domestic terrorism – with convicted bomber BK at the head of the organisation! VR dishonestly suggest other groups such as ADL and SPLC are working with them on their campaign, and they invite donations from readers.
2) BradBlog publishes articles on rightwing “dehumanisation” and “demonisation” of minorities and “the other” whilst employing an anti-semitic moderator whom (along with other Bradblog regulars) are pursuing neo-nazi interests and sources such as Willis Carto & Christopher Bollyn of AmericanFreePress (AFP), Adolf Hitler (!), Benjamin Freedman, Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, Eustace Mullins etc. So, whilst BRadblog is publishing articles against rightwing dehumanisation attacks on minorities his moderator and friends are elsewhere posting neo-Nazi derived World Jewish Conspiracy. Brad has repeatedly censored any criticism of this – he is not unaware of such criticism. However, he strives to ensure his audience remain ignorant of it.
I think the anti-semitism and fascism lurking in the shadows of Bradblog is related to the wider issues over Brett Kimberlin insofar as it reveals their hypocrisy and their method – they’re pandering to the (anti-semitic) conspiracism that’s so prevalent in america today – a pseudo-leftwing version of Alex Jones.
Why would Bradblog censor criticism when it consists of true claims that much of his audience (and his own moderator!) understand his “election fraud” narrative through the prism of anti-semitism?
Bradblog’s own moderator supported Willis Carto – “a good source of information”; that Christopher Bollyn (formerly of Carto’s AFP) is ‘fighting fascism’; that the 911 survivors group was “fascist”; that Hitler’s Last Testament (extolling the final solution) was ‘good information’………etc
Donations too important for Brad to take a stand against anti-semitic conspiracism, eh? Donations tyoo important to even allow such criticism, eh? Even as BradBlog churns out condemnation of others for much the same thing? Right……hypocrite shysters!
Good luck with defending yourself in the lawsuit, Patterico. lol.
the_last_name_left (4d45ec) — 10/12/2010 @ 8:19 amBrad might be laughing publicly about this, but this is a high dollar charity/scam. No surprise they are trying everything they can to shut this down, even desperate and unlikely to succeed lawsuits.
Hell, these emails would persuade most jurors against Brett, since he never explains what’s false. A violent felon asking for an address carries an implicit threat (IMO), and Patterico is not very anonymous.
Socrates doesn’t seem like a stalker to me. He seems to want to protect people from donating money to a bunch of criminals by getting the truth out there.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 9:06 amBe careful, Patrick. He sounds kinda evil.
Patricia (9b018a) — 10/12/2010 @ 9:10 amCOMMENT #3 [Permalink]
… JD said on 10/12/2010 @ 9:12 am PT…
How is your buddy K!mber!in doing? Bomb anyone recently? Smuggle any drogas? Nice group of friends you have there, Brad.
JD (1507cd) — 10/12/2010 @ 9:13 amDrug smuggling and domestic terrorist bombing – Doing jobs most Americans don’t want to do.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/12/2010 @ 9:27 amI like how they note they sued Socrates, a freaking commenter on their blog. As if that makes them sound more credible and serious.
Also interesting, if Patterico ever is sued, is Brad Friedman’s own rules.
http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=5187
They actually link to this page when accusing people of being this Socrates commenter. Imagine being a lawyer, and Brad and Brett want to sue their internet commenter, and when you see what’s left of the comment, it’s a link to Brad explaining the threshold for criticizing him is lower because he’s a public figure!
Of course, there’s no indication a lawyer has been consulted, but considering that Brad is just some self promoting con artist, it’s amusing that he’s set himself up so poorly.
Did I mention they claim to be suing their own commenter? LOL.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 9:41 amThat’s the problem with this guy, he doesn’t just incite violence, but he has been the cause of it
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/12/2010 @ 9:43 amAs an aside, PA does not have any significant Anti-SLAPP legislation. This is unfortunate, as I know someone who is still stuck defending such a claim when everything she said about “The one who shall be nameless because I don’t want to be sued too” (TOWSBNBIDWTBST)was verified in public articles if not in the easily found in on-line documents authored by TOWSBNBIDWTBST his/herself. (Discovery question, “Where did you get the supposed information that TOWSBNBIDWTBST was an associate of federally indicted Mr. X?” Response: “Umm, in the official publication of
TOWSBNBIDWTBST’s organization on-lins.”)
For example, one claim is that TOWSBNBIDWTBST’s reputation was hurt when it was claimed he/she was being investigated by the FBI for misuse of public funds “but wasn’t”. Only thing is TOWSBNBIDWTBST was being investigated by the FBI, along with several other municipal and state agencies. Knowledge of this incident alone has convinced me that unless God is directly intervening on your behalf (which happens), you better be rich or in a PC-protected classification, otherwise all the commom sense in the world and a dollar won’t get you a good cup of coffee anymore, let alone meaningful legal defense.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:06 amWhat kind of demented whaco picks a fight with a DA? Patterico why don’t you refer this to some of your federal friends, this dirt bag must have violated his parole terms any number of times and deserves to back where he belongs, in a cell for the balance of the 50 years (if not more) and never to be heard from again.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:21 amVRs campaign page on FB:
http://www.facebook.com/StopDomesticTerror
2 posts in a year.
What exactly have they done with any donations given in support of this practically non-existent campaign?
Kept Kimberlin busy on his bong and thus away from explosives, i suppose…..
I can’t see what else any donation to this non-campaign could have achieved: they appear to have spent – and done – absolutely nothing.
It looks to me like a vehicle for self-promotion and personal enrichment. A campaign to stop ‘domestic-terrorism’…..which does absolutely no campaigning. but which is led by a convicted ‘domestic terrorist’. He must be laughing all the way to the bank. How much do they take in from these fundraising ventures – and how much do they spend (and on what)? They’ve seemingly spent and done sweet FA.
the_last_name_left (4d45ec) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:26 amThe thing is going after you like this will only make his past better known.
Terrye (84455a) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:29 amA lot of it, seems likes lost causes, but they have been involved at the periphery at least of reversals like the Siegelman case, they cast doubt
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:40 amon the legitimacy of the voting systems, while abetting actual voter fraud
YES. That’s exactly the problem with a lot of Brad’s BS. He’s posing as an authority on a problem that he constantly denies is occurring on the left, no matter the actual proof. And he’s taking the problem on in a way that simply permits massive doubts and hysteria.
A lot of duped lefty fools think the left needs to cheat to counter this mythical diebold cheating.
Nevertheless, basic reforms that promote confidence in our elections line up with some of Brad’s issues. Good con men sometimes get some of the facts right, of course.
Voters rights activists need champions who do not affiliate with criminals and shamelessly lie and self promote.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:48 amLooks like ‘ol Kimberlin has another blooger to sue:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/306766.php
This is gonna be fun to watch.
william (28fcc9) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:48 amHis threat looks like a classic strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). He sues, blogger removes post. Blogger can no longer participate. The cost of defending such a suit is large and most people can’t afford their first amendment rights if they’re going to get sued.
As for loser pays, I used to support the concept. I litigate a lot against illegal telemarketers. I don’t have a lot of money. So I couldn’t afford the risk of paying out on a loss. I essentially would not be protected by the law, even though I have good cases with evidence. I’m on the national do not call list which is a strong opening, but I’ve seen good cases get tossed by strange judges. So under a loser pays scenario, I would be afraid to defend myself from violators.
This creates a problem when you have folks that do file vexatious or frivolous claims. I don’t see a good solution.
Jeff Mitchell (0204be) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:49 amUnfortunately when a blog is sued, often the plaintiff or person suing will sue for the commentators IP addresses, and unfortunately will get them. He can then sue each person who commented or make them a party to the suit in which they must then spend their valuable time in appearing in the court of record. In the case of BK, wherever he lives and sues from will be the court of record. Often has been the case that people find out too late that commenting on a blog that has a hot button topic can result in unneeded time spent in court when someone sues or claims libel or slander. Slapp laws do not protect everyone, especially the people commenting. And in the case of BK, if they do not have slapp laws in his jurisdiction, then Mr Frey is not protected by said laws. What will happen to him is he will spend money, time, and a good amount of resources defending what he terms a frivolous suit. Frivolous or not, many people have learned that when the threat of suit arises with someone who is schooled in filing them, one walks very carefully around them, unless one has a boatload of money and wants to play in the courts sandbox for fun. This applies to commentators as well.
I think this is why companies such as the RIAA are often successful at suing music downloaders. As those they sue know they can’t afford the cost of defense, thus they would rather settle than fight. Same with people who run blogs or comment on them. Once sued, they often cave because they don’t have the money to fight it. Even Mr Frey would be hard pressed to fly to BK’s court of record time and again to answer his claims. It might be fun to talk tough now, but explaining it to his boss that he can’t appear on cases because he is busy defending some blog post he made or some fight he became involved with on the net would be a very hard thing to support or tell one’s boss. In the end, blog owners know that the power of the suit to unmask anonymous bloggers is there, and the power to sue, even pro se, is not a hindrance in getting such information or causing problems for the blog or the people on it. At the end of the day, the mere fact that some uses an anonymous blog to write stories about someone else can often be a case for winning a libel suit. While Mr Frey is not really anonymous here, I think some of his other sources are, and because of that, it could be construed that BK’s rights are being violated. And if proven, could be disastrous for the bigger pocketed bloggers who “helped” so to speak with the spreading of the purported libelous claims. Be forewarned that blogging often can cause headaches for those not readily prepared to spend time and money defending what they write.
So far Bloggers are not protected by any journalism laws, and in most cases are not even seen by the courts as journalists. So it is buyer beware.. And of course YMMV. Thank you for reading this comment if posted.
Slim (d061b7) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:50 amThat’s true Slim, though I’ll note that they are suing a commenter on their own site. They don’t need to compel an IP address they already have.
But yes, people can and do abuse the legal system. It can be awfully hard to compete. For all I know, V.R. took in a lot of donations and has the resources to ruin Socrates’s life for merely telling the truth.
But as I noted, Brad goes out of his way to trumpet himself as a public figure where different, harder rules apply. he did this because he was boasting, and I think it’s pretty funny.
If anyone out there really is sued by these folks for discussing Velvet Revolution, it would be smart to contact Breitbart, Loesch, and Patterico. There’s a little something called Discovery that they might like to assist with.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 10:57 amThis suit is about as likely to be pursued as the one claimed by William Plagiarist Yelverton, or ACORN. Discovery would destroy them.
JD (af4934) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:13 amDustin
i am willing to bet the terrorist is a public figure, too. i mean he is the same idiot who claimed to sell pot to dan quayle. and also the Big J. story says the publicized his cause to get the left to agitate for his freedom.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:15 amAaron, no doubt he is a public figure.
That’s from Time Magazine.
BTW, that article is pretty biased, but covers much of this issue. If you read it, while keeping in mind that Brett and his friends are making things up in order to con donations, it’s not a bad entry.
You also get some numbers. Over half a million dollars is a nice take for a killer.
what’s interesting is that one of the more well known defects with a Diebold machine came when Avi Rubin found one of them to be completely insecure and vulnerable to a very easy hack. How interesting that Kimberlin had obtained and provided this machine to Rubin.
I am not a supporter of electronic voting, but there’s no doubt in my mind that a person willing to blow other people up, shoot people in the head, and deal actual tons of drugs, would be willing to go to some length to make a voting machine seem much less secure than it is.
At any rate, of course they are public figures, Aaron.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:22 amI can relate to what you are saying. However in many cases when people get sued, the people that were the largest instigators in said case will not just start paying attorney’s fees for those who started it or pursued it. It is a fine thought process to be sure that everyone will come together and support said cause whatever that may be. However the truth is often much different. People have very little time to involve themselves in court or the paying of 200.00 an hour attorney’s to defend others, or even themselves.
In the case of just not showing up, we have now seen how collection agencies are using the power of failing to appear warrants to have debtors thrown in jail with bonds equaling the amount of the purported debt. Thus when they pay the bail, the collection agency is awarded the money. BK could in fact use some of these tactics on people failing to appear in his case, or otherwise having failure to appear warrants given for those who do not answer his suit. Yes, a bit of a stretch, but in the legal world today one never takes extreme chances with various courts and what they will rule on. That is why everyone that blogs or writes for a living or even for fun or stress relief usually must be prepared to defend or fight things they write about all the way down the line.
In the case of posting on a blog, most blog owners have very little time to spend in court over what they write. Not only that, most have day jobs and cannot afford to get tied up in court. In the case of collection agencies, some of them have been driven out of their businesses by debtors suing them for calling them over the debts they owe. Bloggers are probably the next valuable target to go after.
Average bloggers are often unable to pay for attorney’s to fight cases filed against them, and often will settle out of court just to move on. Commentators are not going to be protected by the blog owner either, because no blog owner can afford to send out money for attorney’s to everyone that comments on their blog. It would not be cost effective to do this, and anyone who says it would be OK or within their realm to do so must either be very wealthy or very determined, which is not often the case. Thus, blog commentators are left on their own to find their own counsel, despite claims of financial help being on the way by someone else. It is an issue for the courts today to decide on, and one in which I am sure will be decided on at some future date. That way everyone involved in blogging will know the rules of the road so to speak. Until then, it is every man for himself. Unless you are a billionaire and wish to start a blogging foundation to support bloggers and free speech cases. Not that this doesn’t happen, its just very rare when it does.
Good comment Dustin.
Slim (d061b7) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:22 amThat’s what I’ve wondered about, I don’t know about Diebold (although they started out in Cash
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:31 amregisters) but other machines are not that hackable
unless you endeavor to deliberately open up said machines to such methods
Slim – Do you have any court cases you can cite showing blog commenters getting dragged into lawsuits?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:40 amNot meaning to double post here, but this is the exact type of claim he will use as a libel case. The question is this. Did he kill someone or did someone else kill themselves over what happened to them? In a court case in a bus accident, the question is often asked, did the bus kill him or did he kill himself much later over his depression over his injuries from the accident? One might say yes, he did in fact kill himself over the injuries sustained in the accident. However if you make the claim that the bus driver is a killer, then you have libeled him, because the victim killed himself, and not the bus driver or bus company. Thus you are handing him a fair case which could be won based on that statement alone. And this type of statement is a connect the dots issue for some who have written about him. Wild claims are bandied about, as in we are supposed to suddenly believe that two journalists from a rag in Indianapolis wrote the truth about BK. Yet, when all is said and done, they could have in fact been very biased against him, and written a counter slant against him made to make him look more guilty than he actually was for certain claims made. And all I am saying here is that journalists can be or are often biased in what they write, and not that this actually happened in this case.
Those who followed that case closely noted several issues with it. At any rate the point here is that some have made claims that BK was in fact guilty of killing someone else, when this is not even close to fact. Thus those who spread that could be found to be guilty of libel. It is a fact that the victim killed himself, and not the other way around. BK did not kill the victim, the victim killed himself over his depression over his injuries and other medical issues of the day. Even if BK was somehow involved in those injuries, he did not in fact pull the trigger on the victim, and thus could not be said to have been a killer. In the case of the Scyphers murder, BK also was not convicted of being the trigger man. Thus BK is not a killer by any laws on the books – even though people died around him. So, it’s a serious issue when you make claims such as this which I am sure he will use legally against those who have drawn or painted that picture of him to justify their own ends, be they political ends or otherwise.
This is not meant to be a negative post over the case or any defense of him. It is meant however to show that when one claims something that is not based on material facts, one can be sued for libel and actually lose. So, one must always draw a fine line when commenting or making a post. In this case one would say
“Over half a million dollars is a nice take a convicted felon.” And not “Over half a million dollars is a nice take for a killer.”
Sorry to try and school you, but that is how it is in court, and at the end of the day, one statement alone by itself can be enough to cost you dearly down the line.
Slim (d061b7) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:43 amYes.
Court Rules Anonymous Blogger Sued for Defamation May Be Unmasked
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/court_rules_anonymous_blogger_sued_for_defamation_may_be_unmasked/
http://www.countynewslive.com/content/2010/jul/24/anonymous-blogger-sued-troy-mo-court-libel-and-emotional-distress
Anonymous blogger sued in Troy, Mo. court for libel and emotional distress
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/01/05/2009-01-05_model_liskula_cohen_sues_google_over_blo.html
Model Liskula Cohen sues Google over blogger’s ‘skank’ comment
http://www.startribune.com/politics/11758461.html
Facing suit, anonymous blogger lifts his mask
A local lawsuit has the potential for breaking new ground in the legal issues associated with blogging.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/skanks-nothing-google-must-identify-anonymous-blogger-177
Skanks for nothing: Google must identify ‘anonymous’ blogger
I could go on and on, but you probably get the point after these here.
Slim (d061b7) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:47 amYep. It’s pretty hard to hack an ATM machine to the point where you get free money, but if you have access to the ATM machine for a week and crack it open and change components, I’m sure you could turn it into a jukebox.
And yet banks still rely on ATM machines.
Of course, for all I know, Brett killed anybody who looked at his machines and determined they were actually secure designs. I realize that’s an extreme comment, and I don’t really think that happened. But everyone affiliating with someone like Brett, trusting his samples, giving him money (hundreds of thousands, at least), listening to his views, is profoundly unserious. People with Brett’s disorder will stoop far beyond lying.
Brett talks about how he is evolved beyond normal people, has special perceptive abilities, and how he’s a victim for being imprisoned despite the overwhelming evidence he bombed a human being . Brett is one of those people who thinks he’s elite, has access to extreme means, and can’t contemplate taking responsibility. Brett owes the family of one of his victims a great deal of money that the courts say Brett made no effort to repay (that guy’s dead, BTW, his horrible injuries leading him to suicide).
And what a surprise: Brett hates Karl Rove and Republicans more than anything.
It’s not really about Brett. It’s about the people in bed with Brett. Like Brad, who wrote articles on impeachment of Bush for Kucinich, claiming he was tampering with elections. A lot of people in powerful positions have happily lent credibility to these psychos to collect huge paydays. Why? Short term political smear campaigns.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:50 amHere is one that could in fact be used against those who have so far posted about BK and his case.
Landmark Ruling: Judge Orders Google to Hand Over Identity of Anonymous Blogger
http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2009/08/landmark-ruling-judge-orders-google-to-hand-over-identity-of-anonymous-blogger.html
As an online reputation management consultant, I often find myself on both sides of the fence. Sure, I help a lot of companies and individuals with their reputation needs, but I also study and comment on the effectiveness of the different methods and tactics open to a brand’s detractors.
A new court ruling provides the perfect platform for discussing both sides of the fence.
As SMH reports, a US judge has ruled that Google must hand over the identity of an anonymous Blogger.com author that posted defamatory remarks about glamor model Liskula Cohen. In a series of attacks, the blogger behind “Skanks in NYC” made many disparaging remarks about Cohen, including:
“How old is this skank? 40 something? She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank.”
The blogger’s attorney tried to claim that these remarks were not defamatory and merely one person’s opinion or “trash talk” as he called it. The judge didn’t buy it.
“The thrust of the blog is that the petitioner is a sexually promiscuous woman,” Judge Madden wrote in her judgment, noting that the comments were run alongside photos of Cohen in suggestive poses.
Now Google has to hand over the identity of the blogger so that Cohen can identify and sue that person for defamation. Whether she wins that or not, that’s for another judge to decide.
So, what are the lessons here?
First, for defamer. While defamatory laws (especially in the US) provide some means of protection for opinion, it often boils down to whether or not it’s portrayed as fact and if the general public will assume its a fact. If you go on the attack, you have to be sure the claims you are making are legitimate. You can’t just say “in my opinion” then reel off a laundry list of damaging statements.
Also, anonymity is coming to an end on the web. In my opinion, this is a good thing. I’ve seen too many companies have their reputation burned by an anonymous blogger–one that is just as likely to be a competitor fabricating lies, as a real customer. So, if you have plans to attack anyone’s reputation, don’t assume that you can do so in the safety of anonymity.
For the recipient. This could set an important precedent for using the legal system to weed out defamatory detractors. While this ruling is against Google, it is likely to become an important asset when asking any judge to force a web business to hand over the personal details of an anonymous detractor. If the most powerful internet company in the world can be forced to hand over the identity of a detractor, it stands to reason that any company can.
There are few times that I ever advise a client to take legal action, but blatant defamatory comments are certainly one of them. With this ruling–and if other judges follow suit–it will make it easier for businesses battling reputation issues. It’s one thing to stand-up and face legitimate criticisms of your business, but at least now there’s an option for exposing those that have less than genuine intentions.
The bottom line? I’ve spent the last half a decade touting the virtues of being Radically Transparent. It now looks like that transparency is going to be felt on both sides of the fence.
Slim (d061b7) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:51 amSlim, I, Dustin, say that Brett is a killer.
I will stand behind that claim in court.
You say this isn’t “even close” to a fact.
Really? He’s suspected of putting a gun to a person’s head and shooting them. He blew up a man who was so horribly injured he took his own life. He dealt thousands of pounds of drugs.
Brett Kimberlin is a killer.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:57 amSlim – By any chance do you know Cliff Arnebeck?
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/12/2010 @ 11:57 amFRIEDMAN/KIMBERLIN – IT’S ALL ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY!!!!!!!11ty!!!!!
KNOWING DISINFORMATION PROHIBITED
OMG, teh rich chewy irony is too much!
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:02 pmComment by Aaron Worthing — 10/12/2010 @ 7:31 am
Sometimes “sanctions” work quite well.
Michael Corelone (818dd7) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:04 pm“I have evolved to where I can dip into the place of universal consciousness and tap into its very powerful forces to effect change in a positive way”
Wow… those soy chais seem to have paid off.
Coffee just took a big back seat during this comparison test.
I was wondering, do prisons have baristas now?
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:13 pmNo, but they still have bars.
AD-RtR/OS! (818dd7) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:21 pmIt is really unfortunate that Slim keeps making these “be very scared of criticizing anybody” comments.
Is “killer” a crime your state? I thought it was just a word.
“Killer
adj.
1. Causing death or destruction:”
Has Brett caused death and destruction, Slim? Does Brett meet the dictionary definition of “killer”? why in the world are you conflating this very simple observation of mine with several very specific and drawn out legal defenses?
Now, I also believe that Brett is, at the very least, an attempted murderer and quite possibly a murderer. He’s been suspected of an execution style shooting and was setting bombs off around people, after all. The way I phrased it earlier was more vague “half a million is a great take for a killer” is not libelous… it’s just a vague observation. But Slim’s tactics are effective in that I want to stand up and note that Brett caused deaths and is violent. I don’t want to hide behind careful doublespeak about this kind of thing. Two juries have agreed Brett is responsible for an bomb that led a man to his grave, because the evidence against Brett was convincing.
Earlier, Slim’s walls of text were saying it’s a shame people can be sued at the drop of a hat. Now, Slim’s walls of text are claiming it’s a good thing anonymity is going to end, and he’s advising clients to stop ‘defamers’.
I will also say: anonymity on the internet is a valuable asset to society. We’re talking about an extremely violent man, which chills speech. Just look at how much of the truth about Brett and Brad Friedman has come to light because of anonymous commenters.
—
By the way, comment 135 seems to have simply copied an entire article from another location. I haven’t checked his other walls of text.
I am pretty sure everyone is familiar with the recent stories about lawsuit settlements over copyright violations. Strange that Slim, our legal expert, does not care about that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:23 pmBTW, Slim probably means well. But I mean what I say, and I don’t appreciate being lumped in as defamer for calling Brett the killer that he is.
If you disagree with me, you can chose to tell me I’m wrong (which Slim did, to his credit), or tell me to be afraid of making my claims (which Slim did too, unfortunately), or you can put a bomb in my car if you’re Brett Kimberlin and like to blow human beings up.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:27 pmSorry Dustin, those are not my words. Read the link, I only complied with your request for links and posted a link, the words are not mine. As for the rest of your post I don’t have tome to reply, sorry I have a day job. Good luck to you though.
Slim (d061b7) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:29 pmThat does seem odd, that Slim would pop up to warn us, if Brett’s lawsuits have worked, why have been’many been able to retreive those articles, I mean when D.U. turns on you, it has to be rank
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:34 pmLet’s hope that Slim is not copying articles from Righthaven’s coconspirators in barratry.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:36 pmSlim, no kidding those aren’t your words. You copyied an entire article from another website.
Why read the link when you copied the whole article?
Two of your walls of text seem to disagree strongly on the issue of outing anonymous commenters and suing them. That’s not my fault. You say you’re too busy to comment. And yet you’re here, posting massive comments.
You say you are complying with my request for a link… what are you talking about? I haven’t asked you for any links.
I’m not trying to bash you, but you just don’t make much sense to me. Whether you’re decrying outing the anonymous or cheering it, you seem to be saying that we should be very afraid of screwing with Brett. I’m not.
Thanks!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:37 pmBrett, you’re the suspected murderer of a grandmother, a convicted bomber and liar. You’re the most gutless, pathetic human in this country.
Brett, Email me and I will tell you exactly where I am. If you or any of your gutless cohorts tries something, I welcome the chance to defend myself. C’mon, Brett. Come get some.
john (179fb7) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:47 pmGood call.
Getting back to what Eric Blair originally said, this Kimberlin seems a creep par excellence … with a history of violence, and targeting prosecutors, and more likely than not (yet innocent until proven guilty), murder. Murder, if true, because someone got in the way between him and his favourite pre-teen girl … that he used to travel out of state with.
Wow. I sure as hell wouldn’t offer that Kimberlin fellow your address.
In context, the comment you rightly moved … becomes easier to understand.
Christoph (8ec277) — 10/12/2010 @ 12:56 pmI may have missed this in the thread, but why exactly would Brett be worried about a SLAPP lawsuit considering he has never paid the existing judgment against him?
Makewi (0864f9) — 10/12/2010 @ 2:15 pm#
Is Deb Frisch posting again?
Comment by Pat Patterson — 10/11/2010 @ 9:57 pm
Oh, my lord, I hope not! I honestly thought she’d subsided into incoherence after her last stay in jail?
Dianna (5f6ad4) — 10/12/2010 @ 2:19 pmAs for the rest of your post I don’t have tome to reply, sorry I have a day job. Good luck to you though.
Ah, yes – the time – honored method of running away when you cannot respond to an actual challenge. But make haste to your “job,” Slim – those Slurpees won’t pour themselves, you know!
Dmac (84da91) — 10/12/2010 @ 2:25 pmIt is hard to follow the point slim was plagiarizing, but I did not see where he answered daleyrocks actual question, about if a commenter had been drawn in. I doubt anyone questioned whether a blogger had been involved in a suit of this nature.
JD (5ca003) — 10/12/2010 @ 2:27 pmHa!
You just wait Patterico! For you will most certainly be hearing from his
attorneycartooney soon! Those one hundred plus actions he claims to have filed are not to be mocked! Nosireee!Litigious fool that he is. lol lol
Justacanuck (c22ce0) — 10/12/2010 @ 2:44 pmI do wonder how many johns/janes Brett will have to service to earn the filing fee.
nk (db4a41) — 10/12/2010 @ 2:53 pmLOL
Sadly, Brett is probably wealthy. His 501c3 is well funded. It’s part of Network for Good, run by AOL, Yahoo, and Ebay execs. I’m curious if anyone has taken a look into their financial statements.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 2:58 pmCan’t use the 501(c)(3) for personal purposes.
nk (db4a41) — 10/12/2010 @ 3:10 pmCan’t legally use the 501(c)(3) for personal purposes.
nk – FTFY. Heh.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/12/2010 @ 3:20 pmSadly, Brett is probably wealthy. His 501c3 is well funded. It’s part of Network for Good, run by AOL, Yahoo, and Ebay execs. I’m curious if anyone has taken a look into their financial statements.
Comment by Dustin
Look it up on Guidestar. It’s not hard to see what the take is on it – if he’s an officer, his salary will be listed individually. Especially if it’s more than $52,000.
Dianna (5f6ad4) — 10/12/2010 @ 3:24 pmA lawsuit by a career criminal against a career prosecutor would likely
nk (db4a41) — 10/12/2010 @ 3:36 pmmake it a script onrevive Law and Order, I think.Comment by nk — 10/12/2010 @ 3:36 pm
In which city:
AD-RtR/OS! (818dd7) — 10/12/2010 @ 3:46 pmNew York, Los Angeles, or London?
LaLaLand.
nk (db4a41) — 10/12/2010 @ 3:50 pmWhen these buttboys in prison are not servicing their daddies, they send frivolous petitions to magistrates. Constantly.
Which is not a good thing because the meritorious petitions get lost or diluted in the shuffle.
nk (db4a41) — 10/12/2010 @ 3:57 pmI love it when people send letters giving notice of their intent to sue. I don’t think I’ve ever received one where they actually followed through with the ‘threat’. Very weak.
Does he even know you’re a lawyer? If you get a chance to post anything relating to the alleged suit against Socretes, I’d love to see it.
lasue (ed9852) — 10/12/2010 @ 4:37 pmOf course, everything nk said is true.
But it’s unclear how Brett earns a living (and Dianna, Velvet revolution doesn’t appear on Guidestar). It’s also unclear what his charity has done with the donations they have brought in. Time Magazine mentioned at least half a million dollars, and the New Yorker’s Mark Singer called the guy trusted with that money a “Top Flight Con Artist” in his book about Brett.
Of course Brad Friedman doesn’t want anyone to understand the game he’s playing with a very worthy cause.
nk notes that personal use of this money would be illegal if it’s a 510c3 (which according to Network for Good, it is). Am I asserting they are using this money to pay attorneys? Absolutely not. These legal threats are ridiculous. Suing a commenter is a waste of time. Suing Patterico for pulling together information about a public figure is ridiculous, too.
I don’t think anyone should be afraid of the legal ramifications of telling the truth about these creeps.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 4:38 pmDianna, I’m wrong, they appear on Guidestar as VELVETREVOLUTION.US.
I need to register to see if there’s data on it, but I’ll be back with whatever I turn up.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 4:47 pmI don’t know about anybody else, but I am eagerly awaiting an update from Brett about the results of his meetings with the FBI today.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/12/2010 @ 4:57 pmThanks, Dianna!
I’m looking at their 990s for 2006,2007,and 2008.
That’s all Guidestar has on them other than Brett’s address. Everything else on there is just blank.
According to the 990s, they took in approx $130k in 2006 in donations, $90k in donations in 2007, $90k in 2008, and they got a $35k grant in 2007.
They spend most of that on “independent contractos”, though they don’t name who or for what. They spent about $35k on printing and publications each year. They spent some on travel. They ran a deficit each year.
But most of that money was spent on contractors.
Brad Friedman is listed as director of this organization, and yet if you say the name of the charity on his blog, your comment is deleted automatically.
I am not a professional analyst of this kind of stuff, but it’s strange to me that they spend almost all their money on contractors. I should also note, Brett is not listed as an officer of the organization, even though the address of the org is at his Bethesda home (the home is listed as the property of a woman with his last name).
Why is he clearly an officer of the organization, not listed as an officer, and most of the donations go to some unnamed independent contractor?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 5:09 pmActually, it’s an error for me to say they spend “almost all” on contractors. That’s the lion’s share of their expenses, but merely “most”, and the rest on travel, publications, a tax professional, and legal. They also claim to spend a few thousand on occupancy, but like I said, it’s the Kimberlin residence for as long as the tax records post (since 1999).
If they have an office elsewhere, it’s not listed, though this probably means nothing.
Dianna’s tip was very helpful, but it appears they have paid someone a lot of money and aren’t naming them. While it seems Guidestar is set up to explain just now much Brett Kimberlin takes in personally from Velvet Revolution, it looks to me like Brett didn’t want that information to be available.
I have posted these tax forms on imageshack.
If anyone can help me understand them, I’d appreciate that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 5:29 pmHow does one get away with that, with a 501 c 3, those have very strict requirements last time I checked
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/12/2010 @ 5:40 pmIan, I don’t know. Of course, we’re talking about Brett Kimberlin. He gets away with worse than this. What’s interesting is that his website (velvetrevolution.us) discusses the Chamber of Commerce being guilty of tax fraud because they spent money on tort reform, which “stopthechamber.com” claims is “broader political causes” than what their donations are supposed to go to. “Chamber’s current political activities were, in effect, being underwritten with money intended for charitable work.”
If I were to donate to the Chamber of Commerce, I would be pleased to know it was promoting Tort Reform, actually, and I think this is a real stretch. But at least it suggests the Velvet Revolution takes these issues seriously.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 5:54 pmIt is curious he is keeping with Andy Stern, who shares the same view of the C o C, as some counter
ian cormac (6709ab) — 10/12/2010 @ 5:59 pmrevolutionary organization, honestly these folks fit better in S. America, than they do here
Dustin, you’re images won’t load for me (the perils of being on dial-up, I suppose), but a question and two observations:
1)Might Kimberlin, being a convicted felon, be legally disqualified from being an officer of this sort of organization?
2)Independent contractors often means “employees whom we don’t officially employ because that way we don’t have to bother about benefits, payroll taxes, etc.” There’s no details (unless it’s in those tax forms I can’t get to load) that would prove that Kimberlin is the only the “contractor”.
There may be others. Or there may not be.
3)All the charities I’ve given to talk about donated money going to “grant recipients”–apparently that’s the current lingo to indicate the people in need or organizations who actually get money from the charity to do whatever the charity’s goal is set up. Velvet Revolution doesn’t seem to have any “grant recipients”
(And I never quite thought of the Chamber of Commerce being a charitable organization…)
kishnevi (07cf78) — 10/12/2010 @ 6:24 pmkish, the link is working, but the way I uploaded was intensive.
if you post an email (best to obscure it somehow) I would be happy to email you the pdfs.
You could be onto something as to why Kimberlin would merely be a contractor and not an official “officer”, but if he’s the one running the entire operation (a website?), living at its headquarters, and, perhaps even pocketing most of its donations (even if this is payment for his web development or some other work), I think he should be listed as an officer. at the very least, people should be able to ask Brad (the director, after all) about it.
I can’t even list Brett’s name on Brad’s site. I can’t even name the organization, or the comment is deleted. I’d like to know who the contractor is (or are) that took most of the expenses. I think this whole thing smells.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 6:46 pmThe reality is that the non-profit world is full of shady operations whose real purpose is benefit their founders more than their charges.
There are not enough audits of 501c3’s in reality, other than politically motivated ones.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:16 pmDustin – Thanks for uploading those forms. Not much there. They do disclose the affiliation with Justice Through Music Project where I think Brett does disclose his affiliation. I think Liberty Chick linked one of their Form 990s. Makes you wonder how they have the resources to offer multi-hundred thousand dollar bounties for information if their own resources are scant. Sure, they could do it with pledges from donors, but if I’m a skeptical state attorney general, unless I see those funds escrowed or set aside or an insurance policy backing the pledges, I’d be tempted to say those offers are bogus and frauds on the public. Reminds of bogus sweepstakes offers in some ways.
daleyrocks (940075) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:33 pmDustin–you can use my “nom de Net” at yahoo dot com if you want, although it won’t be very fast turnaround–by the time I download them, it will probably not be until Thursday at the earliest before I can properly study them.
kishnevi (391c85) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:35 pmNo problem, Kishnevi. I think anyone curious should be able to look into this if they are curious. I’m not worried about turnaround (don’t feel any obligation to even read them if you have something else to do).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/12/2010 @ 7:43 pmFWIW, this post is now the #3 result for the search “Brett Kimberlin” in Google.
Fritz (3036f6) — 10/12/2010 @ 9:29 pmDustin, I’m sorry to be so late in even looking at the comments. I am currently running my office on my own, and I’m a little swamped.
I will try to look over the 990s – I’m a nonprofit world person – in more detail; I would say, at a glance, that this looks a little dodgy. I don’t like it when you see a lot of “independent contractor” items. Running a deficit is nothing new or different in nonprofit world; charity runs on a shoestring. But all sorts of expenditures need to be detailed, and you should always be able to see where the funds come from and where they are expended, and to what purpose.
Dianna (5f6ad4) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:03 pmThanks, Dianna! I really appreciated the tip. No need to rush or feel any kind of obligation, but I am not very familiar with this world and appreciate learning more about it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/13/2010 @ 3:08 pmI’m not certain about this but I used to work at a 501(c)(3) and my understanding is that the officers there took a salary but also took consulting fees from the donations it received. A corporate lawyer would have to answer the question for certain of course.
But my first reaction to seeing those posts was that Kimberlin took no salary but paid himself a consulting fee out of whatever money came in. It would be easier to hide on the 990’s and he could make the claim that he wasn’t taking a salary from the non-profit.
Kaisersoze (25a652) — 10/13/2010 @ 9:06 pmSo……….what happened?
He hasn’t sued? Or what?
tlnl (4d45ec) — 11/4/2010 @ 4:27 pmIt is simply accomplished that you simply libido doing what you reach since your crave authority be noticed in intact your enterprise. Don’t ever let the zeal go on by the use of we’re proper right here always anticipating what you are taking it in aliment whereas us. Thanks since your willingness to receipts your beautiful masterpieces.
low cost prints (c7124a) — 7/2/2011 @ 7:44 pmIt’s interesting how many people online think that hurt feelings give rise to a defamation claim whether or not what’s said is in fact true. Unfortunately, some have the deep pockets to forum shop. That’s why you see celebrity lawyers filing suit in the U.K. where possible instead of the U.S. because there aren’t the same free speech protections over the Atlantic pond.
Mike Young, Esq. (01a4f7) — 9/12/2011 @ 1:20 am