Patterico's Pontifications

5/21/2012

Incredible: Serial Litigant Brett Kimberlin Files Yet Another Legal Action Against Blogger

Filed under: Brad Friedman,Brett Kimberlin,General,Neal Rauhauser — Patterico @ 7:25 am

Convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin has filed over 100 lawsuits, including a lawsuit for insufficiently provocative porn and a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons for not allowing him to have an electric guitar in prison. Blogger Aaron Walker recently revealed how Kimberlin made false statements as part of an effort to have Walker prosecuted for an assault Walker says never happened. Charges against Walker were dropped after a video was located showing that Kimberlin’s account was false in important respects.

As Walker reported, Kimberlin has already been to court a number of times litigating “peace orders” evidently designed to prevent Walker from blogging about Kimberlin’s past as a convicted bomber and perjurer. Now, Walker reports that Kimberlin has filed yet another one:

So here we go again. His abuse of the legal system continues. This is plainly in retaliation for my post exposing with video and documentary evidence, his recent criminal attempt to frame me for a crime.

Bluntly, this is illegal under the Peace Order statute. The court would have to find I did some kind of physical act against him, or that I stalked him or something like that. I have not even been in Maryland for well over a week and I simply put have never done anything to put him in reasonable fear of his life. I haven’t even seen him outside of court. I can’t say I have never been in his presence because somehow he or one of his allies has snapped a picture of me surreptitiously, so maybe he was nearby and I didn’t know. But I know I was never knowingly in his presence in the last 30 days.

The reference to a surreptitious picture is to a post on a blog (which I will not link) run by either Kimberlin or a close associate, that recently published a picture of Walker from a low angle, evidently taken inside a courthouse. Evidently he was being followed by someone in the courthouse, on one of the appearances Walker made to deal with this serial litigant.

Kimberlin uses the legal process to wage war against people who have told the truth about him. This is not about politics. It’s about how one man, together with a small crew of enablers, can use anonymous libelous speech on the Internet and frivolous actions in court to try to squelch truthful speech about his criminal history.

Walker says he will be setting up a legal defense fund soon. Help him out in any way you can.

P.S. I may be setting up such a fund myself. I have evidently been sued as well, in a lawsuit that has Brett Kimberlin’s fingerprints all over it. More about that in coming days.

311 Responses to “Incredible: Serial Litigant Brett Kimberlin Files Yet Another Legal Action Against Blogger”

  1. So don’t spend all your legal defense fund dollars in one place!

    Seriously, though, Aaron probably needs the help more right now.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  2. thanks as usual for having my back.

    He is not going to shut me up, period.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  3. Babs Streisand and the Tides Foundation fund this type of nonsense. BK, NR, and RB deserve every last bit of bad karma the universe can send their way.

    JD (318f81)

  4. I can understand the porn lawsuit. If you spend good money for some high quality spank magazines, you really want to get what you paid for, or so I’m told.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  5. Does MD have a vexatious litigant list? The abuse of the courts bothers me almost more than the abuse of decent people.

    And BTW, does MD have a SLAPP statute?

    SarahW (b0e533)

  6. The goal, again, is to shut down dissent. Make no mistake.

    Simon Jester (7bec13)

  7. Here’s what: I haz a thumb drive.

    It’s easy to copy Aaron’s post and save it. Court says “Aaron, delete” (it won’t unless the court errs) it goes right up again.* It should go up everywhere and pave the fricking internet.

    What’s that called again? It’s some kind of crazy internet science term…sounds like.

    *I might even put it up anyway, and more than one place.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  8. does MD have a SLAPP statute?

    Comment by SarahW

    They do, but it’s nearly useless because it’s poorly conceived. An effort to improve the law failed recently.

    Dustin (330eed)

  9. Frivolous lawsuits abound among prisoners, especially in the Federal System as I am quite sure you are aware. As a former inmate in the Federal System, I saw this as well as the groups of prisoners that were the ‘enablers’, those who work in the Law Library and those who spend the majority of their free time there, formulating one frivolous lawsuit after another (the Muslim inmates have a very strong presence). I would not be surprised if Kimberlin has a similar group of ‘enablers’ surrounding him now.

    plemmen (6cd503)

  10. In fact, my impression is that Maryland is the best place to file lawsuits meant to stifle free speech.

    This case should be used to rally Maryland voters to support a legitimate anti-SLAPP defense such as the one Texas has.

    Dustin (330eed)

  11. Abuse of the legal system?

    It seems to me that the legal system has been carefully crafted for just such abuse. These cases may be a bit extreme, but they are not at all unprecedented.

    How exactly is throwing bogus cases out to the advantage of the legal profession?

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  12. Comment by plemmen — 5/21/2012 @ 8:45 am

    …groups of prisoners that were the ‘enablers’, those who work in the Law Library and those who spend the majority of their free time there, formulating one frivolous lawsuit after another (the Muslim inmates have a very strong presence).

    I would not be surprised if Kimberlin has a similar group of ‘enablers’ surrounding him now.

    Kimberlin has his own skills. He wsas filing lawsuits for other prisoners. It was within prison rules to do this but not to get paid and they always suspected him of getting paid but were never able to prove it. The money was handed to people on the outside. First an Indianapolis woman named Shelly Conner (Kimberlin paid her phoen bill and part of her rent) Later, formeer convict James Turner.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  13. Hey, Patterico, I have an idea (that SarahW put in my head)!!! Of course, I might need your help if it ever gets past the idea stage.

    I own a micro-blog, as you know. I get thousands of page-views a month, tens of thousands a year. In fact, since very early 2009, I have had tens of thousands of hits en toto. I have a micro-blog.

    What I’m thinking about is inviting every “Kimberlin is a convicted criminal” blog author to provide their full articles to me so I can publish them in their entirety, linking them and giving them full credit and all that stuff. Then, if the terrorist bomber and perjurer Kimberlin actually manages to get a court order for Bill Smith to take down his articles about Kimberlin, they will still exist in their entirety on my site to assist in the viral-by-action-of-the-court blogosphere saturation. And the original authors would have no authority to take down what I wrote on my site.

    Here’s where you could help in that endeavor (of shelving articles on relatively unknown sites and then losing control over them). Since you definitely know more people in this arena than I do, and the people you know are more widely known than the one I do (for the most part), you could serve as someone who can acknowledge proper email addresses of all parties concerned, so that nobody gets burned by giving out their email addresses to people they don’t want having them. (My main email addy is different than what I post on my site, and I’m having difficulties with Yahoo/Google about that stuff anyway.)

    I’m too lazy to do all that research and put out a proper piece myself, so having article authors provide links to all their pieces and permission to “quote in totality” their articles, it fills all the blank spaces, AFAIK, IANAL.

    So, whatcha thinkin’?

    John Hitchcock (917ba8)

  14. From Citizen K: (page 201)

    Kimberlin gave Turner his formal power of attorney and then ordered letterheads printed in the name of James Turner, Attorney-in-Fact. This prevarication circumvented the BOP’s authority top open all mail except legal correspondence. Whether Kimberlin’s clients [and the people screening the mail at the prison!!] understood that Turner was not a member of the bar was irrelevant; they knew that Kimberlin was doing the bulk of the work on their cases and that outside lawyers were usually needed to rubber-stamp and file papers formally with the courts. What mattered most to Kimberlin was that Turner was unshakably loyal.

    It was probably important to him, though the Bureau of Prison’s people think James Turner was an attorney, though. I don’t think that attorney-in-fact actually exempts mail from screening, but Mark Singer may not have caught this point.

    …Another Oxford convict, Sam Petty, a client who was doing hard time for weapons and drugs told me [Mark Singer, author of Citizen K] “All the hotshot Mafia guys used to cluster around Brett like ants on a piece of cake.” His sales pitch went,”I’m the best guy in the federal system to do your brief. I have a long-standing reputation for winning. Plus, I can get almost any lawyer I want on the phone in a dozen major cities.” He wouldn’t take a case “unless I could make five hundred dollars a week on it.” [Page 202] His Mafia vlients, he said, “always paid well, but thy were real ass*****. the funds always came from these front companies. Jimmy [Turner] would be met by bagmen.”

    During his peak productivity, he said, he earned between $25,000 and $30,000 a year, “hundreds of thousands of dollars” over the course of his imprisonment. Invisible, and therefore tax-free, this income also boasted the advantage of leaving the DeLong family clueless. Toward the end of his sentence, in Memphis, he shared a cell with an electrician who possessed tools to remove the special screws on the prison’s electrical outlets. At any given time, Kimberlin stashed hudreds of doillars inside walls…His phone bills ran over $500 a month. He spent a hundred fifty a week at the commissary for food and stamps. He paid his own legal fees, court filing fees, fees for a legal transcript…Doing legal work meant feeding “thousands of dollars” to photocopying machines. If there was an angle to be worked on either the income or the overhead side, he naturally took advantage. After someone at Oxford showed him how to short-circuit one of the coin-operated pohotocopiers, he “beat them out of tens of thousansds of copies.”

    Last brackets in the book, all the others mine. he also spent momney on tuition and on various women on the outside. Sam Petty is quoted as saying “He was a soft touch for a whine over the phone from a woman.” (although it sounds like maybe without the whine they didn’t get anything)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  15. 13. If Kimberlin could force otehr people to take down their posts why couldn’t he force you. It needs to go viral and/or be posted on a website in Oz maybe.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  16. Interesting idea John Hitchcock and Sarah W. I may just immortalize it on YouTube as well with some funny pics and a song. He doesn’t seem to realize the more people he goes after to try to shut them up from speaking the truth the more the story gets out.

    Meanwhile I have found a link that perfectly describes the piece of garbage that is Kimberlin

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9lNuw-jWpI&feature=g-all-lik

    JOe (c21991)

  17. So, he has history of creating fake legal stationary. Makes me think the Richard Head letter asking for Nadia’s stolen emails is fake.

    Elle (d14677)

  18. Elle, he used fake DOD insignias and Presidential seals to get his bombs and was convicted of the crime of unauthorized use of those symbols.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  19. Someone could call Richard Head and ask… although I would think O’Keefes attorney would already have had some questions for him.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  20. so he probably faked legal docs to get liberty chicks medical and school records without her knowledge or permission. I hope this pressure on him doesn’t stop and actually increases. It won’t stop until he’s exhausted, then crashes and burns.

    I have been watching tweets and it’s flying around the twitterverse but I’m not seeing tweets going to top dems, dem clients of Neals, or to the donors like Barbra Streisand. She’s on twitter and I forwarded one to her. It seems to me she’d be really interested to know that she’s being scammed.

    Elle (d14677)

  21. I wonder if Barbra Streisand is familiar with the Streisand effect and how this is a double streisand. She’s a player and has no idea she’s part of the greatest political mystery story of all time. The title of the movie could be “The Streisand Effect”. Do you suppose these guys are behind all the web scrubbing and document forging of our dear leader?

    Elle (d14677)

  22. Elle: “he probably faked legal docs to get liberty chicks medical and school records without her knowledge or permission”

    What had occurred to me is a type of abuse of process he has employed before – such as using old or bad addresses so that legally required notifications go to the wrong place.

    I had not considered outright forgery. Perhaps attention has made him desperate. He will go to jail for that, if that’s what he did.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  23. OOh a disgruntled customer.

    The chocolate chips in her ice cream are too large.

    This sounds like a job for ace paralegal Brett Kimberlin, of the law firm Speede, Waigh & Blamm.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  24. I have a law firm that deals with trash like Kimberlin and the spurious legal actions they file.

    It’s called: Kiss, My & Ass.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  25. I’m happy for you Weinergate; And Imma let you finish, but Watergate, the JfK assassination, The contents of Sandy Bergers Pants, Obama’s GPA, well pretty much every other political mystery ever would top that as one of the greatest political mysteries of all time

    SarahW (b0e533)

  26. uses the legal process to wage war against people

    Maybe it’s because I’m from Philadelphia, but I thought this is what lawyers DO.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  27. Pat – Are you familiar with the Foxx Media Group? i found it from a tweet going to Aaron from @tumbling cox. they make fun of a Crystal Cox who links to Diana Grandmason or Desi Foxx from Weingergate fame. She’s involved with the Righthaven folks. Popehat has a story on Crystal Cox. There is a parody site called Crystals Tumbling Cox. It leads to Desi Foxx’s website.

    Monica Foster shows back up again and she had an epic vicious long running battle with Darrah Ford, who I believe is either Neal or Neal’s girlfriend.

    All the usual suspects popping up again with the same porn connections. These are all people with whom Mike Stack is familiar.

    Elle (d14677)

  28. Sarah – watergate – it was a coverup of a burglery. His crime was lying after the fact. meh. jfk? not a mystery, just a crazy conspiracy theory. Sandy Berger’s pants, I’ll give you that much, but that’s been solved now. That was pretty big, I admit. But, I’m in the camp that this goes all the way to the white house and is part of a very large WH operation to silence the “fox isn’t really news” media. I think this is part of the overall biggest political mystery of “who the hell is barack obama and why is he and his czars trying to destroy america?”

    Neal claims protection. “You won’t believe who is protecting me”

    I’m curious.

    Elle (d14677)

  29. How did Barbra Streisand Justice Through Music in the first place and why did she think they were worth $10,000? hmmm. I’m curious about that too.

    Elle (d14677)

  30. Oops – forgot the word “find” Justice Through Music.

    Elle (d14677)

  31. “War” is great if it means zealous, ethical advocacy in disputes of law, causation, liability, etc.

    Abuse of the courts is something else again – frivolous and vexatious litigation have a specialized definitions in law. Dishonest conduct, deliberate violation of rules of procedure, bringing forward manufactured or false claims – this is not what lawyers do. When they do, the other lawyers want them sanctioned or disciplined, and the court system and legislatures do too.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  32. Elle, a. its a joke and b. meant to indicate the relative unimportance of a congressma not fit to be one with self-destructive and indiscreet habits.

    Who knows, there might be Chicago way fingers in the pie, even connected to White house maneuverings.
    But I’m not ready to overblow it.

    Brett Kimberlin is not the left. He’s someone who USES the left while the left might think it is using him. He’s not the only con man on that score but he’s a nasty one and I’m not sure how it is he gets to walk among free people.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  33. Neal claims protection. “You won’t believe who is protecting me”

    If I were the guy protecting him I’d be tempted to unprotect him. His boast sounds like he’s wishing he could say.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  34. If I were Neal, I’d be more concerned about who’s NOT protecting him.

    Hal (56ba61)

  35. On the other hand if I were Kimberlin or Neal I’d be more concerned about who is protecting me 😉

    Elle – Foxx Media group and Grandmason aka Desi Foxx are a joke. Bunch of kooks flocking together – cox, foster, grandmason – insert next latest greatest conspiracy theorist here. Just wondering if kimberlin is somehow connected – he certainly exhibits similar behavior.

    Joe (c21991)

  36. What ev…they are connected to Brett, Ron, Neal and tentative victim, Mike Stack.

    Elle (d14677)

  37. How did Barbra Streisand Justice Through Music in the first place and why did she think they were worth $10,000? hmmm. I’m curious about that too.

    Comment by Elle — 5/21/2012 @ 4:03 pm

    First, the donor was not Barbra Streisand herself, but the Barbra Streisand Foundation, see this website: http://www.barbrastreisand.com/us/streisand-foundation

    In all likelihood, Justice Through Music Project sent in a grant request. The guidelines for 2013 are here: http://www.barbrastreisand.com/us/guidelines

    It’s not clear to me how much involvement Barbra Streisand herself has with the decision-making process. Some founders deliberately make it an arm’s length process, and others don’t. My main point of confusion is the staff. I cannot understand the staff not reacting to the things I see in the 990’s, both 2010 and before.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  38. Just looked at Velvet Revolution 990’s. The Exec. Dir and The Director of said non-profit list 0 hours and 0 comp. How can one be a director with 0 hours? Why even list him as Director if no time is claimed, with or w/o compensation?

    Hal (402847)

  39. Just looked at Velvet Revolution 990′s. The Exec. Dir and The Director of said non-profit list 0 hours and 0 comp. How can one be a director with 0 hours? Why even list him as Director if no time is claimed, with or w/o compensation?

    Comment by Hal — 5/21/2012 @ 7:19 pm

    This is an excellent question; you might have a director who devotes no more than an hour per week, but an executive director?

    Not really, no.

    It really bothered me to see that Cohen signs the returns, both for VR and JTMP, and indicates he does not work for VR, and only one hour per week for JTMP. No, there is no reasonable explanation for this.

    Thanks for noticing. I was beginning to wonder if this was something only those who are from non-profit world could see.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  40. Thanks for noticing. I was beginning to wonder if this was something only those who are from non-profit world could see.

    Comment by Dianna — 5/21/2012 @ 7:29 pm

    In my little town, I’m kinda the watchdog, and we have a few slicksters 501’s who do some shady things and never list their 990’s for the public. So when I dig them up, I always find stuff that just jumps out. And on that particular 990 for VR, that stood out big time.

    Hal (402847)

  41. BK is a vexatious litigant.
    Declare such in court.

    Larry Reilly (2216dc)

  42. “Thanks for noticing. I was beginning to wonder if this was something only those who are from non-profit world could see.”

    Dianna – Looking at the 2010 990 for JTMP if I recall correctly, it appears their tax preparer is not very careful. The $4,500 loan to Brett Kimberlin, an affiliated person or related party (but not an officer or director?) is listed as a liability in Section O. Unless I’m reading it wrong, which is always possible, that should be a receivable, an asset. It makes me wonder whether the transaction was recorded correctly in the first place or if once side was not booked right, which side it was.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  43. Also thanks Dianna and Hal. I appreciate the look through your eyes and experience.

    I saw things that seemed strange to ME…but whether they are/were terribly signifcant or nothing is hard for me to judge.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  44. all so simple then
    misty watercolor C-4
    oh teh way we were

    Colonel Haiku (702788)

  45. Daley – its a loan fROM Kimberlin, to VR.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  46. The VR 990’s all – from 2006-2010 Have the same numbers for Exec. Dir and Dir. 0-0

    Interesting! The Exec. Dir is in Maryland
    The Dir is in CA

    Hal (402847)

  47. Dianna, I wish I could reply to your comments or Hal’s intelligently. I just think you’re onto something.

    What ev…they are connected to Brett, Ron, Neal and tentative victim, Mike Stack.

    Comment by Elle

    What do you mean “tentative”? He’s butted heads with a few of my friends over the long rocky path of the past many months, but that doesn’t revoke what’s happened to him.

    It sure looks like an imperfect person (as imperfect as you or me) stood up to a powerful congressman to do the right thing and got his life turned upside down as reward.

    I could elaborate, but I don’t think it’s constructive. Lots of people have said things I don’t agree with. Seth has. Elle has. Mike has. It’s a complicated mess that I doubt I’ll ever unravel, and any overarching theory is likely to be wrong. ‘They’ injected confusion. They shoved stuff in that won’t be solved because it’s just random. So when I read that there’s a huge overarching porn angle… I think some of that could be a red herring.

    The big picture is crimes being brought to light and to justice. That part I think can be unraveled, then accomplished.

    Dustin (330eed)

  48. Dianna – Looking at the 2010 990 for JTMP if I recall correctly, it appears their tax preparer is not very careful. The $4,500 loan to Brett Kimberlin, an affiliated person or related party (but not an officer or director?) is listed as a liability in Section O. Unless I’m reading it wrong, which is always possible, that should be a receivable, an asset. It makes me wonder whether the transaction was recorded correctly in the first place or if once side was not booked right, which side it was.

    Comment by daleyrocks

    I understand your confusion, but the loan was made by Brett Kimberlin to VR.

    It is a liability to VR, and rather a silly one; VR would have finished 2010 with a gain in net assets had they not assumed that liability. Worse, they checked “no” for “written agreement”, which is just…well, I wouldn’t loan money that way, or accept money without a written agreement. It just screams of bad cash flow management.

    So, why was Kimberlin listed as an “interested party”?

    My first suspicion was because Cohen is executive director to both organizations (VR and JTMP), and they share an address.

    It’s seriously questionable practice. I have only the 990’s, and I’m not really able to dig the way I’d like to due to job constraints.

    Look on Schedule O, and notice the Independent Contractor – or contractors? – paid $29,400. Tell me your eyebrows aren’t headed for your hairline. Who was the contractor, and what did he/she do?

    Lots of questions.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  49. The VR 990′s all – from 2006-2010 Have the same numbers for Exec. Dir and Dir. 0-0

    Interesting! The Exec. Dir is in Maryland
    The Dir is in CA

    Comment by Hal — 5/21/2012 @ 8:01 pm

    Yes, and look who the “director” is.

    Now, it’s not impossible to have someone on a board who does not live close to the offices, but it’s not common for something as small as VR. And where are the minutes of board meetings for either VR or JTMP? Governing documents?

    This is why I keep wondering what the staff at various foundations was doing. There are a lot of tiny little 501(c)(3)’s out there doing good work, and some are not the greatest bookkeepers you ever saw, but their 990’s do not look like this.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  50. So, why was Kimberlin listed as an “interested party”?

    Comment by Dianna — 5/21/2012 @ 8:07 pm

    I’d say that because the two orgs have the same address, both pointing back to Pvt K.

    Hal (402847)

  51. Now, it’s not impossible to have someone on a board who does not live close to the offices, but it’s not common for something as small as VR. And where are the minutes of board meetings for either VR or JTMP? Governing documents?

    Comment by Dianna — 5/21/2012 @ 8:12 pm

    They don’t have any board members listed. Only an Exec. Dir and Dir.

    Hal (402847)

  52. They don’t have any board members listed. Only an Exec. Dir and Dir.

    Comment by Hal

    That’s the entire board.

    It’s just weird. I’ve seen some private foundations – that’s usually the funding side – with very small boards. But this? It’s out of the mainstream. Very.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  53. Do we know that Velvet Revolution is anything but a name given to Brett Kimberlin?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  54. I’ve never seen any indication that it’s anything but that, Patterico.

    Dustin (330eed)

  55. 53. Patrick – Unavailable for comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZVnve5wG0A

    SarahW (b0e533)

  56. Do we know that Velvet Revolution is anything but a name given to Brett Kimberlin?

    Comment by Patterico

    Offhand? No.

    Using the Foundation Center’s databases, it might be possible to trace activity. We’re venturing outside my field of expertise, here, and far beyond what my time allows.

    Frankly, the statement of what VR is supposed to do is so vague, and they don’t list their accomplishments in carrying out their mission. If you read the 2010 990, it’s very sketchy.

    I’d love to have a more definite answer for you, but I don’t.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  57. It seems that the VR thing was passed to Brad in order for maybe some plausible deniability?

    Need to look up the docs from when the corp was filed and see if there is more than one name listed.

    Hal (402847)

  58. “I understand your confusion, but the loan was made by Brett Kimberlin to VR.”

    Dianna – That interpretation I can understand, thanks. Will look again.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  59. It seems that the VR thing was passed to Brad in order for maybe some plausible deniability?

    Hal, he’s not on VR’s board – not the director. I do not remember that Kimberlin was listed on VR’s 990’s; but I’ve read a bunch of 990’s this weekend, and I may simply be confused.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  60. Dianna – That interpretation I can understand, thanks. Will look again.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/21/2012 @ 8:42 pm

    Page 5 of the pdf, the question is, was the loan made to or from the organization? The box for “to” is checked, and the $4,500 is listed as a liability in at least two places on the 990-EZ.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  61. Guess what one of their recent projects was about;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZP_oBRDQs

    narciso (1c125b)

  62. Hal, he’s not on VR’s board – not the director. I do not remember that Kimberlin was listed on VR’s 990′s; but I’ve read a bunch of 990′s this weekend, and I may simply be confused.

    Comment by Dianna — 5/21/2012 @ 8:43 pm

    Brad is Dir listed on VR. Cohen is the Exec. Dir

    Hal (402847)

  63. Gah! Yes, Hal, you’re right! Sorry!

    If I’m getting confused as to who’s who, it’s time for bed.

    Take care!

    Dianna (f12db5)

  64. Thanks, narcisco. Have you checked out velvetrevolution.us?

    Hal (402847)

  65. Enjoyed your input, Diana. Thanks much.

    Hal (402847)

  66. First of all, I find it offensive, the real Velvet Revolution was against Soviet tyranny, just like Charter 88 against THatcher was a takeoff on Charter 77, what a scam.

    narciso (1c125b)

  67. Narciso – Ha, that sucked.

    Looked at the website today, which was on the lame side itself, Alex Jones-y without the fun but I don’t know what passes for entertainment and information in that sphere really.

    I’m a little skeptical of the stunts.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  68. Well, IMHO, when you (JTMP and VR) are pandering to the low hanging fruit…you can easily coerce the lowest common denominator.

    Hal (402847)

  69. Someone should leave a comment on Brad’s blog and ask.

    Oh wait. That’s impossible. Even type “Velvet Revolution” or “Brett Kimberlin” into that blog’s comment section and poof… your comment is deleted. JD noted that sunlight is not kind to these people.

    Because they are dedicated to transparency.

    Something else I wish was quoted of Kimberlin’s more often, written in response to “I won’t take down anything that is true.”:

    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?

    -Brett Kimberlin (Link)

    Oh, and from another letter:

    Also, please provide me with your full name and address.

    Thank you,
    Brett Kimberlin

    Creepy in hindsight. Creepy at the time too, I guess.

    Here’s the thread where these forms were discussed previously.

    Dustin (330eed)

  70. Let me say this. I’m a retired musician. Even in my most “hippiest days”, I believed then, as I believe now, there is no such thing as Justice Through Music. that’s what courts are for. I am insulted by that, and as a band brother was laid to rest today, I’m even more appalled at these people, and will fight until my last breath.

    Hal (402847)

  71. He got more attention, in the days of Plame, and
    ‘black box voting’ now what’s his new hook, the Chamber of Commerce, seriously.

    narciso (1c125b)

  72. Sorry you lost your friend, Hal.

    It’s great that a lot of good and capable people are involved in helping unravel this thing.

    Dustin (330eed)

  73. Although the tie to Anonymous is concerning;

    narciso (1c125b)

  74. Thanks, Dustin. He was only 58, and a very good person; a true Southern gentleman. Please keep his wife, sons,daughter-in-law and grand daughter in your prayers.

    Hal (402847)

  75. I will.

    Dustin (330eed)

  76. “Page 5 of the pdf, the question is, was the loan made to or from the organization?”

    Dianna – Don’t have the 990 handy. You are correct that it was VR not JTMP. I was reading it as to or from the related party, not to or from the organization, which explains the balance sheet confusion on my part.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  77. Also, we all need to keep Patterico, Aaron, and RSM and families in our prayers as well.

    Hal (402847)

  78. “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”

    Prayers? Who aswers them?

    Get something that hurts.

    nk (875f57)

  79. Prayers? Who aswers them?

    Well, I’m not depending on you to answer them.

    Hal (402847)

  80. Not once have I ever ‘heard God’ answer a prayer (yet I pray dozens of times a day). I don’t understand why a God powerful enough to hear prayer would wait for one before helping.

    My answer is that prayer is not about results. People calling for good or comfort for others, or organizing their own needs into a humble request… that is a good in and of itself.

    Dustin (330eed)

  81. Well, this is just my opinion, but I don’t think God should be called upon in prayer, to be used as Santa. You know…gimme, gimme, gimme.

    Hal (402847)

  82. 13. If Kimberlin could force otehr people to take down their posts why couldn’t he force you. It needs to go viral and/or be posted on a website in Oz maybe.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 5/21/2012 @ 10:17 am

    Mister Finkelman, he could. But that would take a separate court proceeding. And the fact I’m a micro-blogger means my blog is barely noticed. And as such, is less likely to be found and challenged. But even if that were to occur, my idea is to provide opportunity for saturation with the original author of articles not having the authority to take articles down.

    Patterico writes a “Kimberlin is a convicted bomber and perjurer” article.
    Patterico grants me permission to quote en toto.
    Patterico becomes incapable of taking down an article he wrote that I posted on my site, or controlling what happens to it.
    I grant Sammy Finkelman permission to quote en toto my article, which quoted en toto Patterico’s article.
    I lose the ability to control the article I wrote (that Patterico actually wrote) and cannot take it down off of Sammy Finkelman’s site.

    Brush fires are easily enough put out, singly, but in totality, there can be so many of them as to overwhelm the fire department. And that’s what things going viral does: provide too many sources of something for all the sources to be eliminated.

    John Hitchcock (cd0ded)

  83. We are God, Dustin. He did not make Us, We made Him. Still, it does not make Him any less real than Apollo 11. People build things more powerful than themselves. But not greater. What is not human, is less than human, no matter what some prelittetates may have thought.

    nk (875f57)

  84. John Hitchcock has my permission to quote anything I have written about Brett Kimberlin, in toto.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  85. *prelitterates*

    nk (875f57)

  86. Well, this is just my opinion, but I don’t think God should be called upon in prayer, to be used as Santa. You know…gimme, gimme, gimme.

    Comment by Hal

    Maybe that’s where I’ve been wrong all these years. (not entirely joking, to be honest).

    John, it’s good to see you around. I think the best way to handle the lawfare/censorship campaign Brett is waging against Aaron and others is to make some kind of post about it. The more original material, the better.

    I don’t even blog… frankly I enjoy commenting a lot. But there are a lot of aspects one could research and understand and opine on well without putting in the time needed to research the entire story.

    I don’t know how Aaron’s supposed to constantly go to Maryland (he doesn’t live in Maryland) to defend himself from so many legal actions.

    Brett had his day in court on this matter. He lost. Badly. And appealed and appealed and lost. Now he does it again. And he’ll lose. And he’ll do it again.

    It would be nice if people who had filed 50 lawsuits in their life were then limited to one legal action per year for the rest of their lives.

    Dustin (330eed)

  87. John and his cob loggers have a good blog, btw.

    Interesting comment, nk. I disagree, but it’s still an interesting thought.

    Dustin (330eed)

  88. Thank you, Patterico. Does that permission carry over into articles you will write tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow?

    John Hitchcock (cd0ded)

  89. And thank you, Dustin, for your plug. However, I’m not sure what a “cob logger” is. Would that be Liliputians who harvest corn cobs for use in making lumber for their abodes? I have a micro-blog, so that definition might actually fit.

    John Hitchcock (cd0ded)

  90. Thank you, Patterico. Does that permission carry over into articles you will write tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow?

    Until revoked, yes.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  91. Here’s the bottom line. Criminals like Kimberlin have learned how to keep their assets out of the reach of the court system. You can see he’s practiced at it. So he does not fear an adverse judgment from a failed lawsuit.

    The only thing Kimberlin really fears is going back to jail. And of losing the teat he’s sucking off right now – that of the big political money he’s figured out how to con others out of.

    And that’s why he’s lashing out – because publicity of his violent, criminal past threatens to make that teat dry up.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  92. However, I’m not sure what a “cob logger” is.

    I think you’re being tongue in cheek, but I’m extra cautious lately about misunderstandings so: it’s an aceofspades comment section joke about the term co-blogger.

    Dustin (330eed)

  93. “Prayers? Who aswers them?”

    nk – To each his own.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  94. Yes, Dustin, I was being tongue in cheek. I actually thought you were typing fast and misplaced the space. I don’t read Ace of Spades because I have an aversion to a lot of his type stuff and the resultant comment sections. It’s like peas, which have the most disgusting taste, or green bell peppers, which have the most disgusting aroma (combined with an absolutely disgusting taste).

    John Hitchcock (cd0ded)

  95. btw, there is a copy of the peace order up at my site.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  96. Aaron, can I get permission to quote en toto your Kimberlin articles on my micro-blog?

    John Hitchcock (cd0ded)

  97. i’m not sure i’d trust anyone who doesn’t like Ace of Spades…

    but then again, i’m a moron, so what do i know? 8)

    redc1c4, proud AoS moron (403dff)

  98. John, yeah go for it. :-) but give me a linkback.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  99. Peas and bell pepper taste fine after a fifth of Val-u-rite.

    Dustin (330eed)

  100. “I am not sending him anything, he is telling Google to obsessively scour the internet for any sign that anyone anywhere in the world is talking about Brett Kimberlin.”–Aaron

    So, if I say Brett Kimberlin is a convicted felon, and a career lowlife scumbag, he’ll hear about it?

    Cool.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  101. Dislike aoshq comments? Impossible. As Breitbart noted, he has the best commenters on the Internet.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  102. Just don’t give John any exclusive right to publish. And since he’s an aggregator , couldn’t he easily send bk lists of sites containing you pieces if any bit were quoted.. He would have single word to to search with.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  103. SarahW, I’m not an aggregator, although I am offering to aggregate after a manner. I am a very opinionated blogger, and I have been known to be at Patterico’s throat a time or three in the past. I strongly suggest you peruse my site for your own edification. Of course at this time, you need to go beyond the 15 articles on the front page because they are all “quote en toto” Patterico articles. But beyond that, you will see plenty of articles where my opinionated self is shown to be opinionated.

    And Dustin, whom I respect, has declared my site and my co-bloggers worthy of reading.

    John Hitchcock (834063)

  104. SarahW, you’re relatively new here, so you might not know that I’m an old-time regular commenter (as in tens of comments a day) here. I started my own blogging in early 2009, and adjective-laden Dana commented here that his and Patterico’s blogs were my first two “worthwhile links” I created on my own blog site — back in 2009.

    While your concern is duly noted and very appropriate for relative unknowns, I am not a relative unknown here. I’m hard core. And the long-time regulars here, such as Dustin, JD, nk, aphrael, Leviticus, DRJ, stashiu, Patterico, Dana, adjective-laden Dana, and others, know me well enough to know I’m not about to backstab Conservatives.

    John Hitchcock (834063)

  105. John and Patt aren’t really the best example, as they have been cordial for a while now, but it’s really awesome seeing others let bygones be bygones because of the bigger picture. What Brett is doing is wrong. What others have been doing to Patterico and Aaron and Liberty Chick and Mike… that’s wrong.

    It’s not always easy to put the ego aside, but I’m impressed that in all but one or two cases, everyone has instantly done so as soon as they become aware of the situation.

    It makes me proud to be part of this.

    Dustin (330eed)

  106. Notice that John left me out of that list. 😉

    SPQR (26be8b)

  107. I’m glad to be called new anything, and I can imagine your not noticing, but I had a little start there, because I’m an old-school P. reader and commenter.

    I see your 2009 and show you 2004.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  108. It’s not a contest y’all! I hope. Because I’d lose. I’m pretty sure of the mentioned commenters I’m the newest (and I’m not that new).

    And of course John isn’t going to backstab anyone. Ha! I’m sure Sarah didn’t mean anything like that. John’s idea works better when more people participate in spreading this discussion, whether via original work or reprinting Patterico’s detailed work. That was his point, I think.

    Dustin (330eed)

  109. Sorry, spork, for leaving you out. And, SarahW, you must have gone dormant prior to 2009, such that you missed my heavy commenting with Eric Blair, et al (and why does Al always show up?) back in aught 9 and 10.

    Heck, even DRJ back in her 3-articles-per-day days linked my site and adj-laden Dana’s old site for entertainment value alone.

    John Hitchcock (834063)

  110. It’s not a contest y’all! I hope. Because I’d lose. I’m pretty sure of the mentioned commenters I’m the newest (and I’m not that new).

    And of course John isn’t going to backstab anyone. Ha! I’m sure Sarah didn’t mean anything like that. John’s idea works better when more people participate in spreading this discussion, whether via original work or reprinting Patterico’s detailed work. That was his point, I think.

    Comment by Dustin — 5/22/2012 @ 8:07 am

    It was indeed my idea, in as much as SarahW planted it in my head. And I noted such, upthread.

    John Hitchcock (834063)

  111. I’ll settle for being inconspicuous, but I was about.

    I apologize for not putting two and two together as your name IS coming back to me.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  112. SarahW, you were right to be concerned, inasmuch as you did not recognize me. No apology necessary for your voicing of your legitimate concern. But to help you further shake the cobwebs out of your head, and to help clarify where Patterico and I had our spat (that I started), let me note this:

    Patterico is a California Conservative.
    I am a Conservative.

    And, to quote or paraphrase some famous person from bygone days, “that makes all the difference.”

    Compared to me, Patterico’s Conservatism is weak sauce. But, even in my book, Patterico is a Conservative (albeit rather weak in certain matters). Hope that helps.

    John Hitchcock (834063)

  113. I see a lot of people claiming that Kimberlin is illegally threatening them, without much evidence of it. “The Other McCain” is on the run from “threats”, the nature of which seems to be “He doesn’t want me to write about him” plus “He set off a bomb thirty years ago”. Maybe there is more, but I find it odd that there aren’t specifics.

    I don’t know. Just because you’re scared of someone you repeatedly label “terrorist” doesn’t mean you’ve been ACTUALLY threatened, you know?

    I get that he’s a d*ck. But can someone go on record with something specific and concrete that Kimberlin is ACTUALLY doing that is ACTUALLY, you know, illegal?

    Kman (5576bf)

  114. We get that you are a dlck, kmart. We do. Really. Your compulsion to prove it repeatedly is odd.

    JD (318f81)

  115. Kman, actually that’s not what McCain wrote. But then, simple factual statements haven’t been your strong suit for some time.

    Shall we mark you down as a seated on Kimberlin’s side of the church?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  116. SPQR – cute how kmart ignores what BK, NR, etc admit to doing, calling employers of spouses, making malicious smears, baseless threats, and frivolous litigation.

    JD (318f81)

  117. Kman, actually that’s not what McCain wrote.

    McCain had written anything specific. Just conclusory statements that he has been threatened.

    Shall we mark you down as a seated on Kimberlin’s side of the church?

    Of course not. Some of you no doubt will though because you live in a black and white world.

    All I did was ask for actual evidence of actual illegality. Somehow, I suspect I will get a lot of boo’s and insults, but — tellingly — not an answer to my question.

    Kman (5576bf)

  118. SPQR – cute how kmart ignores what BK, NR, etc admit to doing, calling employers of spouses, making malicious smears, baseless threats, and frivolous litigation.

    Comment by JD — 5/22/2012 @ 1:43 pm

    JD (318f81)

  119. Yes, Kman, McCain wrote something specific. So your defense is your own ignorance?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  120. Asking for evidence of illegality is a cute metric. People can be plenty threatening without doing something overtly illegal. Especially when the person doing it is an unrepentant domestic terrorist with a penchant for blowing people up.

    JD (318f81)

  121. Yes, Kman, McCain wrote something specific. So your defense is your own ignorance?

    I asked for something SPECIFIC and ILLEGAL, SPQR. Do you know the meaning of those words?

    Kman (5576bf)

  122. Kman, actually with respect to McCain, you said “specifics”. You can’t even get your own writings straight, can you?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  123. Asking for evidence of illegality is a cute metric.

    Thank you, JD. That’s as close to an honest admission as I’m likely to get.

    Kman (5576bf)

  124. Stacy McCain specifically wrote:

    Convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin on Monday continued his effort to silence those who write about his criminal past by contacting my wife’s employer, claiming that I was “harassing” him.

    And if Kimberlin called my wife’s employer, I’d be taking direct action too.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  125. Kman, however, would probably welcome the call – in a sort of Michael Dukakis tribute.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  126. SPQR:

    Again, that’s not illegal. D*ckish, but not illegal.

    My point is that, objectively speaking (which is how a judge is going to look at this), people are doing d*ckish things to him as well, and despite the fact that he set off a bomb 30+ years ago, he still has the right to exercise legal recourse, even if it ultimately fails.

    Seriously, this whole thing looks like a game of “Who can be a bigger d*ck and get away with it”

    Kman (5576bf)

  127. SarahW, (me) late to the ball,

    John Hitchcock can be super-annoying. But he is everything he said. And please do not try to replace me as “Patterico’s resident hammer”. :)

    nk (875f57)

  128. Sometimes reality is surreal

    JD (2307e5)

  129. Kman, you claimed that McCain had made no specific comments about what Kimberlin had done. That was a false claim.

    And you are wrong, Kman. Calling someone’s employer can be illegal, in context. Your blanket statement is false.

    And the fact that several people are dead either as a result of his actions or in suspicious proximity to him is not “despite the fact”. It is the fact that a rational person could conclude that he has a proven propensity for violence.

    You remain a clown.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  130. Kman,

    Based on what I’ve read at his website, Aaron alleged and offered proof of specific, illegal actions by Kimberlin – including perjury and filing false charges that Aaron assaulted him — and I believe he claimed Kimberlin’s harassment caused him and his wife to lose their jobs.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  131. I wish Aaron would file a civil suit. He certainly has basis enough.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  132. Kman–I am late to this thread but it is unclear to me why you believe that people need to convince you or to provide “evidence” to you about what all is being done to turn their lives upside down. Would it make a difference in any material way either to this discussion or to Aaron’s and others’ troubles if you were convinced?

    elissa (e46b2e)

  133. NK – I was just testing his reflexes :)

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  134. DRJ:

    Aaron alleged and offered proof of specific, illegal actions by Kimberlin – including perjury and filing false charges that Aaron assaulted him

    Anyone who has been practicing law as long as I have hears cries of “perjury” in about every conflict. Every side thinks the other side is lying, yet there isn’t usually actual perjury. I hear it so often it just washes over me.

    And Aaron DID assault* Kimberlin — it’s on the video — which was an incredibly stupid thing to do since it only provided fodder for Kimberlin.

    [* “Assault” is a technical legal term, and probably not what you think it is.]

    I believe he claimed Kimberlin’s harassment caused him and his wife to lose their jobs.

    Well, that’s one way to look at it, I suppose. Another way is that Aaron went out of his way to aggravate a rabid dog and got part of his hand bitten off. Now he’s playing victim/martyr and pimping the story for blog hits.

    Kman (5576bf)

  135. Anyone who has been practicing law as long as I have hears cries of “perjury” in about every conflict. Every side thinks the other side is lying, yet there isn’t usually actual perjury. I hear it so often it just washes over me.

    Kman,

    Do you care to discuss the actual details here? Brett Kimberlin lied under oath. Forget “perjury” and battles over materiality. I can prove to your satisfaction that he lied under oath.

    I know that by making that statement he will probably sue me, but I am comfortable making it because it is 100% true. I have heard it with my own ears and I have the court decisions that say the opposite. I won’t keep silent just because I know he’ll sue. If I sound confident that he lied under oath, that’s because I am. Because he did.

    How about this. We’ll have a bet. If I prove to your satisfaction that Brett Kimberlin lied under oath, you agree to never again criticize the victims in this situation for being the victims. Deal?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  136. Well, that’s one way to look at it, I suppose. Another way is that Aaron went out of his way to aggravate a rabid dog and got part of his hand bitten off. Now he’s playing victim/martyr and pimping the story for blog hits.

    Yes, that is another way to look at it. It is a completely unreasonable and unfair way, which puts all the blame on the victim while entirely discounting the moral blame of the truly culpable party by excusing his behavior as the product of an unavoidable illness. But it’s “another” way to look at it, sure.

    I can only conclude you don’t understand all the facts. I concede Aaron acted unwisely in confronting Kimberlin personally, in a courthouse, with no witness present — but Kimberlin was already DEEP into the harassment at that point.

    May I publish the email you sent me about your experience at the hands of one of this crew? I won’t do it unless you say it’s OK, but I would think that experience would remind you that it’s possible to suffer harassment at the hands of these people even when you have done absolutely nothing wrong.

    Please let me know.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  137. Patterico:

    First of all, I’m not talking about court decisions. I’m talking about recent controversies — the ones that have everyone up in arms.

    Secondly, I can’t just “forget perjury and battles over materiality”. If a person is going to be labeled a “perjurer” for his recent actions, then the materiality of his supposedly false statements comes into play.

    I want to make it clear — I think the guy (and his associates) is a total d-bags. I think their tactics are slimy. But I don’t think they have done anything illegal in these recent skirmishes. And it is my opinion (clearly in the minority) that if you just leave him alone, he’ll be a total non-entity in the political realm and in the cybersphere.

    I’m not sure that giving him a reason to be litigious, and then complaining about his litigiousness, is the way to go. And all this fuss about him — making him out to be Keyser Söze — only benefits him. He probably gets off on it.

    But again, I’m clearly in the minority on this…

    Kman (5576bf)

  138. Sure, you can publish it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  139. It is immaterial to note that a convicted bomber and convicted drug dealer and a convicted perjurer is just that. Immaterial.

    JD (2307e5)

  140. Secondly, I can’t just “forget perjury and battles over materiality”. If a person is going to be labeled a “perjurer” for his recent actions, then the materiality of his supposedly false statements comes into play.

    I believe his false statements were material to the issuance of an injunction against Seth Allen, but a haughty prosecuting office that let charges stand against Aaron for two months apparently didn’t find it worth their effort.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  141. Filing false criminal charges, and BS documentation to support the false charges is legal? Who knew?

    JD (2307e5)

  142. But I don’t think they have done anything illegal in these recent skirmishes. And it is my opinion (clearly in the minority) that if you just leave him alone, he’ll be a total non-entity in the political realm and in the cybersphere.

    Aaron became a target because he gave free legal advice to a penniless man who was being sued for making honest comments, right?

    And that this ‘total nonentity’ raised nearly $2 million while making claims that have spread through media before being debunked. While this isn’t a political issue for me, liars should be exposed, and those lies do tend to smear the right (and dupe millions of dollars from the left).

    As for illegality, I’m having a hard time seeing how he isn’t guilty of this.

    And all this fuss about him — making him out to be Keyser Söze — only benefits him.

    Brett seeks to squelch the free speech of Liberty Chick, Patterico, Aaron, and others. Of course. He wants to continue coming up with conspiracy theories that bring in cash, and the last thing a con man needs is sunshine. There’s a reason he duped his pals into thinking he was double secret exonerated. There’s a reason Neal is telling people they won’t believe who is protecting him. They want legitimacy that analysis denies. It’s the same reason they try so hard to make this a convoluted story to tell. Every journalist who is fooled into thinking this is about a blog feud, or gives up because it’s too convoluted, or gives up when a lawyer warns that coverage of this story could result in lawfare… that helps keep Brett under the radar. Even now, I don’t think many are tying this to Brad Blog. It’s even been claimed that the State Department has supported Brett. I want to know if they did, and if so, I want that to stop.

    As for your comment on Brett getting off on it: frankly I don’t care. He’s going to twist the situation in his ego-maniacal head. I’m not going to adjust as a result.

    Dustin (330eed)

  143. While this isn’t a political issue for me, liars should be exposed, and those lies do tend to smear the right (and dupe millions of dollars from the left).

    And if it were the other way around… a terribly violent criminal smearing the left with lies that blow up in the right’s faces after the checks clear… I would want that exposed too.

    Dustin (330eed)

  144. Exactly, Dustin.

    Exactly Dustin. Ideology serves as a mask, to hide his actual intentions and some of his little cohort, to exploit the desires and hopes of others.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  145. Kman – If Kimberlin used your comments here over the past week or so as a pretext to get a Peace Order against you under your real name and his minions used that fact, because of course Brett does not tweet or blog himself, to smear you personally and professionally on twitter and the internet, how would you feel?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  146. If Kimberlin used your comments here over the past week or so as a pretext to get a Peace Order against you under your real name and his minions used that fact, because of course Brett does not tweet or blog himself, to smear you personally and professionally on twitter and the internet, how would you feel?

    Well, I suppose nobody likes to get smeared over Twitter and the internet. But doesn’t that logic apply to Kimberlin, who objectively is getting smeared on Twitter and the Internet more than anybody?

    Kman (5576bf)

  147. Telling the truth is a smear?!

    JD (47dea0)

  148. Filing false charges? Making false statements? BS medical records for a phantom assault? All good with kmart.

    JD (47dea0)

  149. “Well, I suppose nobody likes to get smeared over Twitter and the internet. But doesn’t that logic apply to Kimberlin, who objectively is getting smeared on Twitter and the Internet more than anybody?”

    Kman – That doesn’t answer the question. Would you take any actions to counter the Peace Order or correct the misinformation campaign against you?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  150. But doesn’t that logic apply to Kimberlin, who objectively is getting smeared on Twitter and the Internet more than anybody?

    As Patterico told Kimberlin long ago, he will happily correct any factual errors. Aaron has noted the exact same thing.

    Judges have noted that Aaron’s claims about Kimberlin are factual. He did set bombs. He was convicted of perjury.

    And you say Brett Kimberlin is being smeared?

    And you say he’s being smeared more than anybody?!?

    Where’s the smear? You do realize that telling the truth about Brett is not a smear, right?

    Dustin (330eed)

  151. Are you talking about the way they contacted RSM’s wife’s workplace and talked about RSM’s children? Are you trying to say it’s a smear for RSM and everyone else to assert a convicted bomber doing those things is an implicit threat?

    Because that’s not a smear. That’s an opinion. And it’s one I agree with, for the record.

    Dustin (330eed)

  152. Kman,

    I guess it’s a good thing Seth didn’t come to you for help. Freedom is not free. You have to stand up to those sorts of men who are seemingly always there to threaten freedom.

    You are quite right to call these people slimy and d-bags, so I am confused by your view Brett is being smeared.

    Dustin (330eed)

  153. Daley:

    Kman – That doesn’t answer the question. Would you take any actions to counter the Peace Order or correct the misinformation campaign against you?

    Well, I suppose it depends on the contents of the peace order, but if it is a typical one (stop contacting him, stay away from his home/work/etc), then I wouldn’t even contest it (since I don’t do any of things anyway).

    And misinformation about me? On the Internet? Puh-lease. My reputation isn’t online. The people who matter, know me. And the people who know me, matter. I mean, if someone were to launch a misinformation campaign against me (or even a smear campaign of half-truths), it says more about them than about me, doesn’t it? People can see through that.

    AW himself has told a whopper or two about me. Big deal. At some point, you just have to be the grown-up on the playground.

    Kman (5576bf)

  154. You are quite right to call these people slimy and d-bags, so I am confused by your view Brett is being smeared.

    I mean he is being singled out for attack.

    Kman (5576bf)

  155. As he should be Kman. He is a singular sort of baddie.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  156. Also, it’s not quite exactly doing the situation justice to say he is singled out.

    He has gone after assortment of people with intimidation of family, workplace, and courts in the mix – persons who have done no more than reveal his history. His predations work better when the victims are isolated and confused about how to address crazy-making false allegation that no one burdened with a conscience would make in bad faith, and so get more credit than they deserve.

    Martialling a concerted effort to reveal his tactics, and his reasons are as important as refusing to abet him covering up his past. No one should be allowed to behave as he has.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  157. Well, I don’t mind Kman bringing his opinions into this. The answer to his comments that I disagree with is my opinions being expressed.

    See how that works, Brett?

    Aaron and Kman have debated for many years, and neither have thought of suing the other, even when the debate was strident. This was why Kman was approached for Aaron’s identity, of course. The bad guys thought he would gladly jump in with them. Just because Kman is a lefty. But no, he valued free speech. All he wanted was a debate.

    And so his workplace was contacted when he refused to help… right when Brett started the legal actions to determine Aaron’s identity.

    So keep on saying stuff I completely disagree with. I won’t pretend it isn’t annoying. But so what?

    Brett’s efforts to squelch Aaron must be opposed by all who value our freedom to write opinions and discuss issues. If Brett seems to be singled out, bring up those who are similar in their tactics. Of course there are other examples.

    Dustin (330eed)

  158. Martialling a concerted effort to reveal his tactics, and his reasons are as important as refusing to abet him covering up his past.

    I agree, Sarah. Publicizing this story is extremely important (And it’s going along far better than I thought it would… to say I’m happy would be the understatement of the century).

    And the attempt to frame Aaron is too clear and too awful to ignore. Brett singled himself out.

    Dustin (330eed)

  159. I mean he is being singled out for attack.

    Attack? WTF do you consider an attack? What do you consider a bombing that caused injury? Helping people access their healthcare?

    ∅ (721840)

  160. “My reputation isn’t online. The people who matter, know me. And the people who know me, matter. I mean, if someone were to launch a misinformation campaign against me (or even a smear campaign of half-truths), it says more about them than about me, doesn’t it? People can see through that.”

    Kman – You seem to keep deliberately missing the point as usual. If the misinformation campaign were directed at people were directed at people who thought they knew you, but all of a sudden started hearing very disturbing things about you, would you be motivated to do something, or would that be considered pestering somebody as you have characterized Aaron’s behavior?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  161. “Being singled out for attack” is not the same thing as “being smeared”. But Kmart can’t tell the difference.

    Kmart, the utter fool, doesn’t understand being factual, truthful, honest, and fighting back against a known convicted bomber, convicted liar, drug-related convict, is not a smear campaign, no matter how many people are involved in spreading the truth about the dangerous low-life.

    John Hitchcock (cd0ded)

  162. If the misinformation campaign were directed at people were directed at people who thought they knew you, but all of a sudden started hearing very disturbing things about you, would you be motivated to do something, or would that be considered pestering somebody as you have characterized Aaron’s behavior?

    What don’t you get? People who know me aren’t going to be persuaded by a misinformation campaign from someone they never heard of.

    It’s like the complaint that Kimberlin’s associate lodged to my employer. It was full of all kinds of weird speculation about who I was, who I was involved with, etc. And they just laughed at it.

    The problem as I see it is that people are trying to use Kimberlin’s tactics (his present-day ones, that is) against Kimberlin. And that’s fine, but you don’t get to claim the high road and complain about Kimberlin if you’re getting down to his level. That’s my point. It’s all just a flame war, really, on steroids.

    Kman (5576bf)

  163. Kmart is deliberately trying to minimize the real world effects of BK, NR, and RB’s history. /spit

    JD (47dea0)

  164. I think we need to ignore Kman. I’m not a fan of Kman.

    However. To his credit, he knows that Kimberlin is criminal scum. He knows that what Kimberlin engages in is wrong. He is allowing his antipathy to Aaron color his reaction and add in blame to Aaron for events.

    Fine. We get it. No need to pound on him further.

    SPQR (3deba4)

  165. The problem as I see it is that people are trying to use Kimberlin’s tactics (his present-day ones, that is) against Kimberlin.

    Did someone bring a frivolous lawsuit against Kimberlin? I didn’t know that! Please forgive me for getting my facts wrong.

    ∅ (721840)

  166. I don’t think anyone’s using Kimberlin’s tactics against Kimberlin.

    And let me say: don’t. Even though Kimberlin was a suspect in an execution and convicted of setting bombs, do not even consider violence against him. And certainly do not post as internet tough guy to talk about it.

    And no lawfare against Kimberlin. Obviously, Aaron has a very good case against Kimberlin in civil court and should proceed with that, but in good faith. Not to silence criticism, but to reach some degree of justice.

    That’s my point. It’s all just a flame war, really, on steroids.

    No, it’s not. That’s laughably stupid.

    Dustin (330eed)

  167. I think the term “lawfare” gives too honorable a distinction to Kimberlin’s practices. In his case, it’s plain old vexatious litigation, or even frivolous suits.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  168. Vexatious, frivolous, fraudulent, perjurious

    JD (47dea0)

  169. Kman, there was a time I though so (flame war). It’s not. It really is not. It’s not some tough guy making fun of someone else, of casting aspersions on his romantic prowess or intellectual abilities, or impugning motives.

    Its extends into behaviors that threaten security and peace of mind, and not just the primary target, but family, friends, employers…
    It involves abuse of the justice system ….something that almost makes me madder than the first thing.
    Lastly, its not just for Lulz. It’s to preserve a lucrative gig – one that we will be learning more about.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  170. “What don’t you get? People who know me aren’t going to be persuaded by a misinformation campaign from someone they never heard of.”

    Kman – This is exactly how you are avoiding the question. Clearly Kimberlin’s harassment has been effective with some people’s employers, friends and family. You choose to ignore that and call reacting to the harassment pestering Kimberlin because your experience has been different and you lack empathy.

    Congratulations!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  171. Daley:

    Say what you want, but by any objective viewing of the facts, Kimberlin was (and is) reacting to him being pestered by others. You seem to act like he just randomly picked names out of a phone book and started giving them a hard time. I assure you; he’s REACTING.

    Isn’t it possible — just possible — that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago? And the right wing internet lynch mob won’t let him? And so now he has to fight back?

    It is the politics of personal destruction, and Aaron knows it well — from his “Everybody Make Fun Of Someone Else’s Deity” website to this, in all cases using the First Amendment to bludgeon someone as best as legally possible. SURE, nobody is disputing one’s RIGHT to be an internet lynch mob; I’m just suggesting (to the few people out there who haven’t made up their minds) that it’s not the right thing to do.

    I give him no praise for his tactics, but Kimberlin’s public stance is that he wants to be left alone, and move on from the crimes he did before most of you were probably born. And I’m suggesting that if everybody HAD done left him alone, and/or COULD do that in the future, he won’t be a bother to anybody. Does anyone disagree with that statement?

    It’s just an outright falsehood to say that he is creating this when clearly, he is being provoked.

    Kman (5576bf)

  172. I’m suggesting that if everybody HAD done left him alone, and/or COULD do that in the future, he won’t be a bother to anybody. Does anyone disagree with that statement?

    Yes.

    And you are very, very mistaken.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  173. Isn’t it possible — just possible — that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago? And the right wing internet lynch mob won’t let him? And so now he has to fight back?

    Really? He brought a suit against Karl Rove, so leave him along, right? It was a beneficent act of selflessness. Nothing screams “wanting to do good in this world”, than filing a frivolous lawsuit against an ideological adversary.

    ∅ (721840)

  174. Also, he has no right to his methods to shut people up about his criminal dealings, which did not end in 1978.

    He’s not victim at all, not even in the sense you mean.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  175. Isn’t it possible — just possible — that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago?

    It’s possible that anyone would want to do some good in the world. But how would someone go about doing that by lying under oath, swearing out false police reports, calling the employers of another person’s spouse with false claims, and all the other things BK has done? To ignore all that is to turn a blind eye to what’s really going on here.

    from his “Everybody Make Fun Of Someone Else’s Deity” website to this

    Mohammed is not a deity.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  176. that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago

    No it is not possible. And I would hardly call Seth Allen a right wing lynch mog.

    No. Not based on his present conduct, and not according to numerous well-researched and sourced reports on who he is and what he is about.

    He’s a predator. An inter-species predator, a psychopath.

    You do realize that he was returned to prison for his remorseless conduct and deliberate actions to conceal or prevent distribution of his assets to Sandra Delong? He only got out of federal prison in 2000?

    How he boasted of his mob connections to Marc Singer?

    How he is described as a con-man in just about every serious retrospective on his hideous career?

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  177. Also, I believe the shadow of suspicion of murder should trail him the rest of his life. You want to deal with him, fine. But people should be free to find and talk about his past, so that THEY can avoid or shun him

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  178. Mohammed is not a deity.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 5/23/2012 @ 1:12 pm

    Kman is grasping at strawmen. Murdering strawmen and logic is a Kman specialty.

    ∅ (721840)

  179. Wh don’t you read Citizen K , Kman. It’s available at a library near you if you don’t want to pay 8 dollars for a copy including shipping.

    That was no “right wing” lynch mob. This isn’t about lynching or mobs.

    It’s about stopping a predator trying keep his meal ticket –
    and trying to force people to shut up through intimidation.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  180. Although I’ll give you this much, Kman – he wants to be important. He has grandiose ideas about his mad skilz – in music, in law, in thuggery, in getting one over on people.
    He wants to be a big shot. I think anyone who helps him do that is a disgrace to humanity if not on his scale.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  181. And the right wing internet lynch mob won’t let him? And so now he has to fight back?

    He has to fight back? That’s what you call this? That’s absolutely disgusting.

    Also, you call this a lynch mob from the right? Are you insane?

    Dustin (330eed)

  182. Kman writes: “It’s just an outright falsehood to say that he is creating this when clearly, he is being provoked.

    Nope, that’s the opposite of what’s true. Kimberlin’s pattern of intimidation began without provocation, or at least using any normal person’s definition of provocation more sophisticated than that of the rules of a dog pack.

    SPQR (32a911)

  183. If someone wants to “do some good in the world” and “get past his crimes”, he does not do it by lying about his own past conduct.

    SPQR (32a911)

  184. Kmart jumped 64256874367 sharks in one comment.

    Can’t you all just leave poor Brett alone?!

    JD (47dea0)

  185. The ‘he’s moving beyond the crimes of 33 years ago’ is just wrong. He had his parole revoked much more recently. He has never apologized for setting the bombs. He has never even taken responsibility for it.

    That comment is directly from Brett’s own playbook. The Right Wing Lynch Mob fantasy is not supportable by the facts, given the lefties Brett has abused, but also from Brett’s playbook.

    That this is Brett forced to fight back is so wrong I don’t even want to respond because I’m doing my best to be polite.

    Dustin (330eed)

  186. That was breath-taking, even for kmart.

    JD (47dea0)

  187. As RSM notes: hiring an infamous liar and admitted tax cheat to run a tax-exempt non-profit – GREAT IDEA.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  188. And as we all know here, RSM reminds: “Kimberlin has falsely claimed that he was ‘secretly exonerated’ for those crimes, so that his life continues to be one enormous continuing lie.”

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  189. I assure you; he’s REACTING.

    You asked him? Or you buy his claims of victimhood?

    In order to make amends for heinous crimes I lie and say I am exonerated of, in an effort to do good, I plan on falsely accusing people of crimes they did not commit, call the cops and FBI on innocent people, and try to ruin people and their families at their places of work.

    JD (47dea0)

  190. So Kimberlin was an accomplished forger of legal documents?

    I can imagine that might come in pretty handy at 1600 Penna. Has anyone checked the WH visitors logs?

    creeper (f1f686)

  191. Dustin:

    The Right Wing Lynch Mob fantasy is not supportable by the facts…

    Except it’s not. Or have you not heard of “Everybody Blog about Brett Kimberlin” Day?

    Argue the reasons for going after him, but don’t lie and say that you’re NOT going after him. Seth Allen went after him. Aaron did.

    Sarah:

    It’s about stopping a predator trying keep his meal ticket…

    Then stop feeding him. Starve him.

    Kman (5576bf)

  192. Then stop feeding him. Starve him.
    Comment by Kman — 5/23/2012 @ 1:58 pm

    Sound advice when dealing with Kmart.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  193. Daley:

    Say what you want, but by any objective viewing of the facts, Kimberlin was (and is) reacting to him being pestered by others. You seem to act like he just randomly picked names out of a phone book and started giving them a hard time. I assure you; he’s REACTING.

    Isn’t it possible — just possible — that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago? And the right wing internet lynch mob won’t let him? And so now he has to fight back?

    It is the politics of personal destruction, and Aaron knows it well — from his “Everybody Make Fun Of Someone Else’s Deity” website to this, in all cases using the First Amendment to bludgeon someone as best as legally possible. SURE, nobody is disputing one’s RIGHT to be an internet lynch mob; I’m just suggesting (to the few people out there who haven’t made up their minds) that it’s not the right thing to do.

    I give him no praise for his tactics, but Kimberlin’s public stance is that he wants to be left alone, and move on from the crimes he did before most of you were probably born. And I’m suggesting that if everybody HAD done left him alone, and/or COULD do that in the future, he won’t be a bother to anybody. Does anyone disagree with that statement?

    It’s just an outright falsehood to say that he is creating this when clearly, he is being provoked.

    Comment by Kman — 5/23/2012 @ 12:57 pm

    Mendoucheous Twatwaffle of the Week

    JD (47dea0)

  194. “It’s just an outright falsehood to say that he is creating this when clearly, he is being provoked.”

    If he didn’t want to get “provoked” then he shouldn’t have been convicted of multiple felonies.

    That being said, if he gets out of politics and I see convincing evidence that he’s paid, in full, his debt to Sandra DeLong, then I’ll probably lay off.

    Otherwise…no dice.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  195. Everything BK, NR and RB have done has been a reaction to a lynch mob that has yet to happen.

    JD (47dea0)

  196. “Say what you want, but by any objective viewing of the facts, Kimberlin was (and is) reacting to him being pestered by others.”

    Kman – Say what you want, but you have still failed to address my basic question. It’s fine to say Kimberlin’s harassment did not have the same effects on you that it did on Aaron, Patterico or McCain, but a more sentient commenter would realize the goal of the question was to elicit a response about what you would do if it did.

    A simple I’m not sure what I would do would have sufficed or I pretty sure I would have acted to clear my name as Aaron has would have worked. Instead, in cowardly fashion, you dodged the entire question and blamed the victim, in this case Aaron.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  197. Isn’t it possible — just possible — that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago?

    Yes, it’s possible. It is also possible that:
    -OJ is innocent and still searching for his wife’s killer from inside the penal system…
    -Zimmerman chased down Martin, grabbed him, and turned him around before he shot him
    -aliens used the solar eclipse the other day as a distraction while they invaded the earth at Martha’s Vineyard.
    -the sun will collapse as a black hole before 2100, meaning solar power will run out before oil and other fossil fuels by hundreds of years

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  198. Comment by Kman — 5/23/2012 @ 1:58 pm

    There was a time when I agreed with the “starvation” strategy you proposed. Then there turned out to be more to it.

    I believe the proper starvation method now is to remove his ability to work the same cons – and to remove his ability to succeed in abuse whenever that happens because he is credited with honesty or conscience.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  199. Patterico – did you know that you brought all this on yourself, and that it is all just a reaction to the online lynch mob ?

    JD (47dea0)

  200. “There was a time when I agreed with the “starvation” strategy you proposed.”

    SarahW – That’s why you have seen so many companies giving in to the shakedown tactics of race pimps like Jackson and Sharpton over the years, right? Or more recently, shaking down companies to leave ALEC.

    Kman is full of it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  201. Comment by Dustin — 5/23/2012 @ 8:09 am

    It’s even been claimed that the State Department has supported Brett. I want to know if they did, and if so, I want that to stop.

    The State Department would mean Hillary Clinton, if it is in the last three years.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  202. “Patterico – did you know that you brought all this on yourself, and that it is all just a reaction to the online lynch mob ?”

    JD – Patterico could have avoided all of this if only he had not gotten out of his car.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  203. “The State Department would mean Hillary Clinton, if it is in the last three years.”

    Sammy – Hillary likes to boogie to the beat.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  204. ONe thing, kman, is that he is getting away with not paying his judgement to Sandra DeLong. His assets have cover – I believe he went right back to his bag of tricks.

    Kimberlin’s overreactions I think are related to money.

    Speaking of “starvation” retailing of his criminal history and sketchy practices, likely would have just faded away if he had ignored it. Books and articles that came before never made a dent.

    Weinergate sillines would have dried right up, if he’d been content to just let it drop. Weiner skeeved himself out of business – but I believe BK had his eyes on a prize and was thwarted. He’s hoped for conspiracy payday. He couldn’t let go.

    for that matter, I think in his heart of hearts, he wants credit.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  205. Maybe I’m mistaken about that last bit. But I do believe punishment and control are rewarding to him.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  206. Comment by daleyrocks — 5/23/2012 @ 2:23 pm

    LOL

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  207. kman,

    Have you been in touch with Brett (or Neal)? On what basis do you assure us about his thoughts?

    Dustin (330eed)

  208. Odd how kman, doesn’t want to be recognized for doing a decent thing, but then again, let us not forget Kimberlin ‘kills people for a living’

    narciso (1c125b)

  209. He (his life story) sort of reminds me of a messed up in the head villain who would be featured and ultimately hunted down in a Lucas Davenport novel.

    elissa (ab911b)

  210. Well more like James Patterson’s earlier tomes,

    narciso (1c125b)

  211. AHAHhAHHAHAHA

    You have to watch this, if only as a palate cleanser.

    I’m not a really a Judge Judy fan but she puts the smackdown on a character that I call the “Brett Kimberlin of love”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqsqmH2aydQ

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  212. Good call, Elissa.

    JD (47dea0)

  213. “Isn’t it possible — just possible — that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago?”

    It’s possible that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow (all you need is a miracle from God)…but, I wouldn’t count on it.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  214. I wonder what would make Kimberlin leave Kman alone while deciding to target and pursue other bloggers?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  215. DRJ, that is a very interesting question. On the other hand, Kman has been a very, um, unusual poster all along. But the “fearlessness” coupled with his preference not to post under his own name and link to his own website are most interesting.

    I just want bad people to leave Patterico and Aaron alone.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  216. Patterico and AW brought this on themselves.

    JD (47dea0)

  217. I should have put that last line in quotes, as in
    the reference to BHC 2, when Axel Foley, is explaining who he is chasing,

    narciso (1c125b)

  218. “Patterico and AW brought this on themselves.”

    JD – According to Kman over at Balloon Juice, that is true:

    “Kman Says:

    33 years ago, Brett Kimberlin (then 18) set off a bomb at the Indianapolis Speedway. Nobody was killed, but years later, one of the injured people took his own life. Kimberlin has been out of prison for some time now, and is now working for a lefty not-for-profit organization (which fights against, ironically, domestic terrorism among other things).

    Now with a family and children, Kimberlin claims to be reformed, but a few right wing bloggers won’t let him move on from his past—they have been harassing him for years. He’s only recently started to fight back, primarily using the court system. So now he is being tagged as a suppressor of free speech.

    I don’t know if Kimberlin is reformed or not, but this has the earmarks of right-wing lynch mob/feeding frenzy. I’ll leave it to others to decide if Kimberlin has it coming.
    ReplyReply

    May 23rd, 2012 at 4:25 pm”

    The recently started to fight back part is obviously due to Kman’s ignorance.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  219. I see why so many good people/bloggers are boldly standing against the tyranny and intimidation. I can also understand how some good people/bloggers might, for a variety of reasons, choose to stay away from this issue entirely. I get that, too. What I don’t get, and can’t understand at all, is why a person/blogger apparently feels that they should weigh in on the situation–but only, and for no other reason –than to challenge the reality of the victims’ depth of fear and/or to chastise them about whether they are over-reacting and might have “asked for it”.

    elissa (ab911b)

  220. Daleyrocks – what is he fighting back against? The truth?

    Kmart fits in well at balloonjuice. Kmart has revealed himself to be a far bigger crapweasel than I had ever given him credit for, I always just thought him to be an obsessed stalkery troll.

    JD (47dea0)

  221. DRJ – maybe they offered him a job as their spokesnozzle.

    JD (47dea0)

  222. I don’t know if Kimberlin is reformed or not

    He claims he had a double super secret exoneration and. Ever did what he was convicted of, nor has he ever satisfied the civil judgment against him for one of his victims. So, I vote not reformed.

    JD (47dea0)

  223. Kman,

    Here’s what Aaron said about Kimberlin:

    Starting on January 9, 2012, Brett Kimberlin actually attempted to frame me for a crime. He falsely accused me of essentially beating him up inside the courthouse for the Montgomery County Circuit Court, in Rockville, Maryland. He has claimed at different times that I decked him, that I struck him three times, that I wrestled with him, that I pushed him, that courtroom staff separated us, that the sheriff’s deputies separated us, and that even after the deputies arrived that I kept coming at him repeatedly and had to be restrained.

    What didn’t occur to him was that there was a security camera that captured what really happened in the courthouse that day. I have the footage and I have included it in a long post that tells the whole story of how I came to be there that day and what really happened. You will read with your own eyes the transcripts and documents in which he claimed I beat him up, and then you will see the footage that proves that this was a fabrication. I have even created a video comparing his description of what happened to the video footage, piece-by-piece. In other words, you won’t have to believe my word on this. You will only have to believe your eyes.
    ***
    And you will learn that after the video emerged, the charges were dropped and the peace order was dismissed on appeal.

    I assume you’ve read his post and looked at his video.

    Do you believe Kimberlin filed false charges? If not, why not? If so, then how can you say Kimberlin has reformed?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  224. Reformed terrorists from the late 1970s do not further screw with their victims in the late 1990s.

    Kman’s argument so far beyond what I’m seeing from anyone else on any website.

    It’s changed the way I perceive the set of events where Brett’s twitter defender asked Kman for Aaron’s identity, and within a day or two of Kman publicly noting he refused, those people getting a ton of information about Aaron, including his name and his LSAC legal battle.

    I hope this perception is incorrect, and my previous one, where I appreciated Kman’s refusal to cooperate with the thugs, was the correct one. I doubt I’ll ever know for sure, but the defense I’m seeing of Brett is itself pretty breathtaking.

    Dustin (330eed)

  225. DRJ, look at the history of Kman’s posts. The only reason anyone is taking this bit of toilet film seriously is that he stood up once for Aaron. But as you can see, his historical MO reveals itself.

    Jeremiah 13:23 comes to mind. I could be wrong, of course.

    Simon Jester (5a80f4)

  226. “But as you can see, his historical MO reveals itself.”

    Simon – That’s why I thought it was useful to post what he was saying at Balloon Juice above.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  227. Daley – it is like Kmart is Kimberlin’s Carney

    JD (47dea0)

  228. Yeah, the Balloon Juice stuff is unfortunately illuminating.

    ☐ Victim of lynch mob
    ☐ Everything the left holds dear
    ☐ Reformed philanthropist
    ☑ Bomber
    ☑ Perjurer

    Dustin (330eed)

  229. Lefts’ incontinence
    attention KMart snarkers
    clean up on aisle two

    Colonel Haiku (3f9ab1)

  230. take it down teh road
    Seven Screaming Dizbusters
    would not change his mind

    Colonel Haiku (3f9ab1)

  231. If Kimberlin were to hire a spokesnozzle, what would they say different than what Kmart is peddling?

    JD (47dea0)

  232. I fart in your general direction, kmart.

    JD (47dea0)

  233. Well, it looks like Kman has fled the scene. I really wanted to see his answer to DRJ’s questions in #223.

    I wonder whether Kman still thinks that Mohammed is a deity.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  234. I’m sorry for having the smallest interaction with the Kman person.

    He was just feeling us out for attitudes and arguments, no more than that.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  235. Kman

    > I asked for something SPECIFIC and ILLEGAL, SPQR. Do you know the meaning of those words?

    Sadly I don’t believe he did anything illegal. It’s not illegal to say “I know where your wife works. I know the name of your kids.” But when Brett Kimberlin says it, people of common sense recognize there is an implicit threat.

    And by the way, the first time you didn’t say you needed proof it was illegal.

    > people are doing d*ckish things to him as well, and despite the fact that he set off a bomb 30+ years ago, he still has the right to exercise legal recourse, even if it ultimately fails.

    What specifically have I done that is not protected by the first amendment?

    I have been petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. I know you are not very big on the text of the first amendment but that particular action is specifically protected. And saying bad things about other people online is protected, too. Given the nasty things you and I have both said about each other over the years, you would think you would recognize that out of pure self-interest there is a right to say bad things about each other online.

    Kimberlin was told specifically by the court that he cannot use the harassment statute to suppress speech, and yet here he is doing it again. And here you are defending it.

    What he wrote was frivolous and dishonest. And no, we should not encourage that kind of thing. A long time ago you recognized a person shouldn’t sue unless they have a genuine cause of action and it was one of the most decent things you ever did. Try to access that part of you more often.

    > I hear it so often it just washes over me.

    So you are not paying attention therefore I am wrong? As usual you use laziness as an argument. Why don’t you watch the video, and read what Kimberlin said about it and figure out if it was a little bit perjurous.

    > And Aaron DID assault* Kimberli

    No I did not. I acted in self defense. But then you have demonstrated that you don’t believe in self-defense when talking about the Zimmerman case.

    > Another way is that Aaron went out of his way to aggravate a rabid dog

    Abraham Lincoln has an answer to that idiocy when people claimed that the Republicans would cause the union to break up:

    >But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”

    >To be sure, what the robber demanded of me – my money – was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

    Kimberlin has demanded our silence about his criminal conduct. He has put a gun to each of our heads and said “give me your freedom, or I will shoot.” And you are here saying, “if you don’t and he shoots you, then you will have murdered yourself.”

    And that woman who was raped was wearing her dress too short.

    Seriously, what is wrong with you?

    Then again, I suppose you just don’t believe people controlling themselves. I remember years ago you talked about a woman who was given an ATM card by the government to spend on essentials after she was displaced by Katrina. She went and spent the money on silly items that were not by any stretch of the imagination necessities. And you suggested we shouldn’t blame her because she had a disorder that made her a compulsive shopper. You never believe that people should suffer the consequences of our own actions.

    Brett Kimberlin has a duty to withstand people talking about his background without committing crimes against others in retaliation. If he can’t live up to that very minimal expectation in our society, than that isn’t an argument to tell the rest of society to handle him with kit gloves. It is an argument that he should be removed from civil society and placed back in prison. But rather than having Brett Kimberlin suffer the consequence of his own inability to conform ourselves to the law, you advocate that we censor ourselves to conform ourselves to the possibility that he might fly off the handle and commit a crime for us.

    There is so much wrong with your logic it makes my head hurt. And it makes me wonder if you love anything this country is about.

    > . If a person is going to be labeled a “perjurer” for his recent actions, then the materiality of his supposedly false statements comes into play.

    Are you under the impression that lying about me beating him up is not material when he is trying to get a peace order against me based on assault? If the severity of the assault, if the exact actions I did or didn’t do to assault him is not material to that, what is?

    > But I don’t think they have done anything illegal in these recent skirmishes.

    You have eyes but you cannot see. Seriously, would you point out to me in the video the exact second in which I was held back by deputies as I charged at him like a wild bull? Or how about you point at the exact second when the deputies separated us? Or how about you point at the exact second when I “decked” him?

    The real problem here is your familiar pattern of laziness. Remember when I denounced the Iowa decision claiming there was a state constitutional right to gay marriage and you thought the case was about the federal constitution. You are lazy, so you make obvious mistakes. So why don’t you go away, read my whole f—ing post, or just the part where I outline what he said about the incident, and then come back to me and tell me whether he lied or perjured himself.

    > But doesn’t that logic apply to Kimberlin, who objectively is getting smeared on Twitter and the Internet more than anybody?

    So telling the truth about him is smearing? Guess what? You don’t have a right to demand that no one say anything bad about you. And as a public figure, he has less protection from ugly speech than most.

    > I mean he is being singled out for attack.

    Yeah, much like Al Capone. *rolls eyes*

    I suppose next you will say Obama was kind of picking on bin Laden.

    > The problem as I see it is that people are trying to use Kimberlin’s tactics

    Like trying to frame a person for a crime?

    > Kimberlin was (and is) reacting to him being pestered by others.

    By abusing the legal system, trying to get people killed and trying to frame me for a crime.

    And notice something else. Above you cavalierly dismiss my point that I was defending myself by taking his iPad, and falsely claim I assaulted him. But now you say, hey, Brett is just defending himself.

    He is allowed to try to discourage people from talking about his criminal past… in legal ways. My best suggestion is to say, “I did lots of horrible bad things. I am trying to reform. You can hate me for what I did, but I am doing good work now.” No, but instead he files abusive lawsuits, tries to get people killed, tries to extort people into silence and then tries to frame them for a crime, disbar them etc. and you defend this. Amazing.

    And you act like as if what we are doing is equivalent.

    > Isn’t it possible — just possible — that the guy wants to some good in this world, and wants to move past his crimes of 33 years ago?

    I considered that possibility up until he tried to frame me for a crime. Then I realized that he has not reformed at all.

    Its sort of like OJ Simpson. About 20 years ago he killed his wife and that tennis player. But he was acquitted of murder (but later found civilly liable, which is why I feel no fear saying he did actually kill them—because collateral estoppel applies). And there was a divide, unfortunately along the lines of race, about whether he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I will not criticize the jury for drawing a different conclusion than I would have, I will just note the difference of opinion by people of good faith.

    And then years later he commits that robbery and is convicted. And once it became clear he was guilty, I saw a reassessment of the Brown/Goldman murder, too. Suddenly virtually all the people who didn’t think there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, suddenly agreed, yeah, he did it. No question about it now. At that moment when he committed that robbery it made it clear to everyone what kind of person OJ was and therefore we have said (in the court of public opinion) that there is no reasonable doubt he killed them now.

    Same with Kimberlin. His conduct toward me has shown me that he has not reformed. He shouldn’t have been let out in the first place and hopefully when we are done he will be put back in prison.

    > And I’m suggesting that if everybody HAD done left him alone, and/or COULD do that in the future, he won’t be a bother to anybody.

    Read the passages in my post discussing Julia Scyphers. What did she do to earn the title of “harasser.” And then ask yourself if it might happen again.

    > Except it’s not. Or have you not heard of “Everybody Blog about Brett Kimberlin” Day?

    The purpose of it, you moron, is to make it so that Kimberlin realizes he can’t sue everyone.

    > Argue the reasons for going after him, but don’t lie and say that you’re NOT going after him. Seth Allen went after him. Aaron did.

    That is false and if you were not such a lazy @$$ you would know it. I didn’t go after him except in self-defense, to expose his thuggery to the world. So once again in your mind the only person allowed to defend himself is Brett Kimberlin.

    Before he went after me, all I did was give Seth free legal advice. You would think a lawyer would believe in the right to receive counsel.

    > Then stop feeding him. Starve him.

    That is precisely what we are trying to do. We are telling his donors to stop feeding him, so the next time someone tells the truth about him he won’t have the ability to harass them.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  236. Sarahw – Kmart is an oozing rectal fistula.

    JD (15dd28)

  237. Aaron – Good comment. Kman needs to open his good eye.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  238. AW:

    What specifically have I done that is not protected by the first amendment?

    Assaulted him.

    I have been petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

    Of course, the same thing can for Kimberlin. You seem to think that just because he is a convicted [insert whatever], he doesn’t have any rights after the government says he has done his time.

    Kimberlin was told specifically by the court that he cannot use the harassment statute to suppress speech, and yet here he is doing it again. And here you are defending it.

    First of all, I’m not defending him. I’m just suggesting that you (and others) leave him alone, and stop providing ammunition to him.

    Secondly, his peace order does not seek suppression of your speech, and it is only your intentional mischaracterization of it which says so.

    I acted in self defense.

    That’s your claim. It wouldn’t hold up in court.

    First of all, I have seen the video. When Kimberlin takes his iPad out and holds it up, he steps back. (consistent with someone trying to take a photo). He couldn’t have hit you with it even if he tried, unless he threw it. And in fact, you had to lunge for it to get it. You move from beside your briefcase, at least two steps toward Kimberlin in order to grab the iPad, in the course of one frame.

    Now, I know a lot of people here have already frank the Kool-Aid, and won’t bother to check your video to verify this, but it is true. You didn’t act in self-defense, and that argument wouldn’t have passed the reasonableness test.

    You grabbed it because you didn’t want to be photographed.

    Kimberlin has demanded our silence about his criminal conduct. He has put a gun to each of our heads and said “give me your freedom, or I will shoot.” And you are here saying, “if you don’t and he shoots you, then you will have murdered yourself.”

    Oh, please. A gun to your head? You’re building this guy up waaaay too much in an effort to build yourself up waaaay too much.

    He is allowed to try to discourage people from talking about his criminal past… in legal ways. My best suggestion is to say, “I did lots of horrible bad things. I am trying to reform. You can hate me for what I did, but I am doing good work now.”

    He HAS said that. But you and others from The Star Chamber dismiss that as from the Kimberlin “playbook”, not to be believed. Seriously. There is nothing this guy could do that would please you. Not that I condone much of what he IS doing, but let’s not pretend that he would be left alone otherwise. Seth Allen wasn’t content to do that. And then you picked up where Seth Allen left off.

    Same with Kimberlin. His conduct toward me has shown me that he has not reformed.

    And it’s therefore your purpose in life to punish people who haven’t reformed to your satisfaction?

    The purpose of it [Blog About Brett Day], you moron, is to make it so that Kimberlin realizes he can’t sue everyone.

    Yeah. I think he knows that as a matater of practicality. And you know that he knows that, too. So it’s basically being d*ckish.

    I didn’t go after him except in self-defense, to expose his thuggery to the world.

    B*llshit. There are lots of “thugs” out there. Lots of threats to the First Amendment. Right now, there is a bill in the New York legislature to ban anonymous comments. That’s a REAL threat to your First Amendment rights. Not one guy.

    ME: Then stop feeding him. Starve him.

    YOU: That is precisely what we are trying to do. We are telling his donors to stop feeding him, so the next time someone tells the truth about him he won’t have the ability to harass them.

    Oh, I see. So Streisand and Soros are going to be moved by the protests of Malkin et al? You think?

    No, what I mean by starving him is, leave him alone. Because right now…. you file a lawsuit against him, he retaliates, you blog about it, and it goes on and on and on. It feeds him. It feeds you.

    The winner in my eyes is the first one on the playground to act like an adult.

    Kman (5576bf)

  239. AW:

    What specifically have I done that is not protected by the first amendment?

    Assaulted him.

    I have been petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

    Of course, the same thing can for Kimberlin. You seem to think that just because he is a convicted [insert whatever], he doesn’t have any rights after the government says he has done his time.

    Kimberlin was told specifically by the court that he cannot use the harassment statute to suppress speech, and yet here he is doing it again. And here you are defending it.

    First of all, I’m not defending him. I’m just suggesting that you (and others) leave him alone, and stop providing ammunition to him.

    Secondly, his peace order does not seek suppression of your speech, and it is only your intentional mischaracterization of it which says so.

    I acted in self defense.

    That’s your claim. It wouldn’t hold up in court.

    First of all, I have seen the video. When Kimberlin takes his iPad out and holds it up, he steps back. (consistent with someone trying to take a photo). He couldn’t have hit you with it even if he tried, unless he threw it. And in fact, you had to lunge for it to get it. You move from beside your briefcase, at least two steps toward Kimberlin in order to grab the iPad, in the course of one frame.

    Now, I know a lot of people here have already frank the Kool-Aid, and won’t bother to check your video to verify this, but it is true. You didn’t act in self-defense, and that argument wouldn’t have passed the reasonableness test.

    You grabbed it because you didn’t want to be photographed.

    Kimberlin has demanded our silence about his criminal conduct. He has put a gun to each of our heads and said “give me your freedom, or I will shoot.” And you are here saying, “if you don’t and he shoots you, then you will have murdered yourself.”

    Oh, please. A gun to your head? You’re building this guy up waaaay too much in an effort to build yourself up waaaay too much.

    He is allowed to try to discourage people from talking about his criminal past… in legal ways. My best suggestion is to say, “I did lots of horrible bad things. I am trying to reform. You can hate me for what I did, but I am doing good work now.”

    He HAS said that. But you and others from The Star Chamber dismiss that as from the Kimberlin “playbook”, not to be believed. Seriously. There is nothing this guy could do that would please you. Not that I condone much of what he IS doing, but let’s not pretend that he would be left alone otherwise. Seth Allen wasn’t content to do that. And then you picked up where Seth Allen left off.

    Same with Kimberlin. His conduct toward me has shown me that he has not reformed.

    And it’s therefore your purpose in life to punish people who haven’t reformed to your satisfaction?

    The purpose of it [Blog About Brett Day], you moron, is to make it so that Kimberlin realizes he can’t sue everyone.

    Yeah. I think he knows that as a matater of practicality. And you know that he knows that, too. So it’s basically being d*ckish.

    I didn’t go after him except in self-defense, to expose his thuggery to the world.

    Bullsh*t. There are lots of “thugs” out there. Lots of threats to the First Amendment. Right now, there is a bill in the New York legislature to ban anonymous comments. That’s a REAL threat to your First Amendment rights. Not one guy.

    ME: Then stop feeding him. Starve him.

    YOU: That is precisely what we are trying to do. We are telling his donors to stop feeding him, so the next time someone tells the truth about him he won’t have the ability to harass them.

    Oh, I see. So Streisand and Soros are going to be moved by the protests of Malkin et al? You think?

    No, what I mean by starving him is, leave him alone. Because right now…. you file a lawsuit against him, he retaliates, you blog about it, and it goes on and on and on. It feeds him. It feeds you.

    The winner in my eyes is the first one on the playground to act like an adult.

    Kman (5576bf)

  240. Ah, the best example of Kman’s dishonesty? This from the comment:

    He HAS said that. But you and others from The Star Chamber dismiss that as from the Kimberlin “playbook”, not to be believed. Seriously. There is nothing this guy could do that would please you. Not that I condone much of what he IS doing, but let’s not pretend that he would be left alone otherwise.

    I could not better illustrate why you are a clown Kman but with these words from your own comment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  241. SPQR – if Kmart was a paid spokesnozzle for Kimberlin, what would he say differently? Remember, he ASSURED us that BK is just reacting. Patterico and AW brought this on themselves. Reform means denying you did it, claiming secret exoneration, and eluding civil judgments.

    JD (0046a7)

  242. “…The winner in my eyes is the first one on the playground to act like an adult….”

    Oh, my. The lack of self-irony is strong in this one.

    Unless he means adult stalker playing middle school debate team games.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  243. Kman’s attempt to imply that Kimberlin is only “reacting” is obviously dishonest.

    But the passage I quoted from Kman’s comment illustrates that Kman isn’t the adult in the playground. He wants to claim that Aaron would not accept sincere contrition from Kimberlin and is stuck with the fact that there is absolutely nothing to point to about Kimberlin’s actions consistent with contrition – so we get this pathetic admission buried in the middle of a sentence built on the failed implication of Kimberlin’s sincerity.

    Its just bizarre syntax that results from a warped point of view in Kman’s mind. That twisted language originates in a twisted thought: that Aaron should act as if Kimberlin were sincerely contrite regardless of Kimberlin’s actions.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  244. He is allowed to try to discourage people from talking about his criminal past… in legal ways.

    Nope, he isn’t. First Amendment, and all that. As long as people are telling the truth about him, he has no legal means of discouraging them from doing so.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  245. Yeah, I doubt Kmart will last much longer here. I think I see the glint of the golden ban-hammer as the sun flashes off of it.

    John Hitchcock (7b8b32)

  246. I wonder if Kmart still thinks it is legal to file false criminal charges, false documentation to support said false charges, and to file repeated BS peace orders?

    JD (0046a7)

  247. JD – This all could have been avoided if Aaron had chosen not to defend himself and his reputation.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  248. This all could have been avoided if we would have all picked up the gym bag together.

    John Hitchcock (7b8b32)

  249. Chuck:

    ME: He is allowed to try to discourage people from talking about his criminal past… in legal ways.

    YES: Nope, he isn’t. First Amendment, and all that.

    English much? He is allowed to TRY. After all, the First Amendment isn’t an absolute right — there are exceptions (defamation, slander, etc.). I agree that his likelihood of losing is great, but my point is that it is not vexatious to try.

    JD:

    I wonder if Kmart still thinks it is legal to file false criminal charges, false documentation to support said false charges, and to file repeated BS peace orders…

    I wonder if you are aware that such things are not “false” (and therefore illegal) until a court rules them to be. In the meantime, all you have are allegations of falsehood, and AS allegations, your allegations don’t persuade me much more than his allegations. In other words, what we have here — objectively — is a pissing match.

    Kman (5576bf)

  250. Patterico brought this all on himself.

    JD (0046a7)

  251. BS, Kmart. If you watched the video you claimed to have watched, you know BK filed false charges. But you are cool with that. I do not need a effin Judge to make a ruling to state for a fact that the charges were BS. Let’s go to the tape …

    JD (0046a7)

  252. You never did answer DRJs question.

    JD (0046a7)

  253. No, what you are, Kmart, is full of schist. And even you cannot be stupid enough to believe the schist flowing out of your mouth to be anything other than schist.

    Besides, it is not wise to personally attack Patterico and Aaron on Patterico’s site. But nobody has ever accused you of being wise, insofar as I know.

    Moron.

    John Hitchcock (7b8b32)

  254. Kman

    > Assaulted him.

    Except I didn’t, @$$hole.

    > Of course, the same thing can [be said?] for Kimberlin.

    Really? My excercising my 1st amendment is his grievance. Lovely how quickly you succumb to his fascist mindset.

    > First of all, I’m not defending him.

    Yes, you are. And defaming me, I might add.

    > Secondly, his peace order does not seek suppression of your speech, and it is only your intentional mischaracterization of it which says so.

    Bullsh**. He is trying to punish me for stating facts and opinions protected by the first amendment. Its obvious on the face of it.

    > It wouldn’t hold up in court.

    Yeah, well, we know how much you understand the law of self-defense. You think someone can’t defend themselves unless they are 100% certain that they are in danger.

    > He couldn’t have hit you with it even if he tried, unless he threw it.

    Proving you haven’t even read what I said.

    > You move from beside your briefcase

    That’s not even accurate. My briefcase stayed in my hand. did you actually watch the video?

    > A gun to your head?

    He threatened to file false criminal charges and then DID did file them. I think it’s a valid metaphor. but it is a metaphor.

    > He HAS said that.

    No he hasn’t. he hasn’t even admitted guilt.

    > There is nothing this guy could do that would please you.

    If he confessed to framing me and asked the state’s attorney to punish him, I would be pleased. and dropped the suit against seth. and compensated all of his victims for the crimes he committed against them…

    > And it’s therefore your purpose in life to punish people who haven’t reformed to your satisfaction?

    No, mainly the ones WHO COMMITT A CRIME AGAINST ME!!!

    > Yeah. I think he knows that as a matater of practicality. And you know that he knows that, too.

    He hasn’t acted like he knows that.

    > Bullsh*t. There are lots of “thugs” out there.

    Well, I am allowed to focus on the one coming after me. By your logic, I am not allowed to shoot a man coming at me with a knife, because there are lots of people in danger in the world and why am I not focused on them? A woman who is raped by a man can’t ask for justice because gosh there are lots of rapes and why should we focus on this one?

    > Oh, I see. So Streisand and Soros are going to be moved by the protests of Malkin et al? You think?

    I think Streisand and Soros might not like the publicity of being associated with a criminal terrorist.

    And notice you ignore the comments of liberals like ken white.

    > The winner in my eyes is the first one on the playground to act like an adult.

    Right. Well, if anyone ever commits a crime against you, I will be sure to give you the same advice. Douche.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  255. It is funny how detailed of a description Kmart gave when he wanted to spin his position, then acts like that simply doesn’t exist later, when it contradicts his advocacy.

    JD (0046a7)

  256. Hitchcock:

    Besides, it is not wise to personally attack Patterico and Aaron on Patterico’s site.

    I didn’t attack Patterico personally. I have no reason to attack Patterico personally. You’re just lying about that. Don’t confuse your own spin with, you know, facts. Nice try, rabble-rouser.

    I’m not even really “attacking” Aaron, except to say that I think his course of action against Kimberlin is ill-advised and actually backfiring.

    JD:

    You never did answer DRJs question.

    I answered it twice. You just didn’t like the answer.

    Kman (5576bf)

  257. You ASSURED us BK was just reacting. What did Patterico do to foolishly provoke him, bringing everything on himself? How can you ASSURE us what BK thinks?

    Why do you believe he is reformed?

    JD (0046a7)

  258. IANAL.

    Here’s a question for those of you who can rightfully claim “IAAL”: Is it possible to financially go after the money bags that provide the “destitute” Kimberlin all his money? Just looking at “out of court” settlements and background-laying. And possibly draining his swamp as a collateral action?

    John Hitchcock (7b8b32)

  259. My excercising my 1st amendment is his grievance.

    He said that, or is that your spin? I’m not interested in your spin. If you want to nail the guy, be factually honest.

    ME: First of all, I’m not defending him.

    YOU: Yes, you are. And defaming me, I might add.

    Wow, now you’re sounding like him!

    He is trying to punish me for stating facts and opinions protected by the first amendment. Its obvious on the face of it.

    No, Aaron. If it were obvious “on the face of it”, the Kimberlin would be ACTUALLY saying (somewhere in his complaint), “I am trying to punish Aaron for stating facts and opinions protected by the first amendment”

    You see, the more you have to spin something, rather than state FACTS, the more suspicious YOU look. Stick to the facts, not conjecture.

    ME: Bullsh*t. There are lots of “thugs” out there.

    YOU: Well, I am allowed to focus on the one coming after me. By your logic, I am not allowed to shoot a man coming at me with a knife, because there are lots of people in danger in the world and why am I not focused on them?

    Think you got a timeline problem again. You focused on him first, not the other way around. You tried to do it behind the scenes, but you took part in his downfall before he even knew you existed.

    Which is kind of my point.

    Well, if anyone ever commits a crime against you, I will be sure to give you the same advice.

    Except he hasn’t committed a crime against you. In case you haven’t noticed, the State’s attorney declined prosecution of your claim, and did so with this admonishment, quoting from Judge Everngam:

    “It seems… quite apparent to this Court that both of you are way too invested in each other’s affairs and way too invested in trying to do harm to one another.”

    Truer words were never spoken. From a grown-up.

    So. Stop. It.

    Be. A. Big. Boy.

    Stop. Digging. A. Deeper. Hole.

    Have. Some. Dignity.

    Kman (5576bf)

  260. Yep, I’m almost certain I see the sun glinting off that golden ban-hammer, as the douche Kmart keeps spewing schist from out his mouth and defaming people here.

    John Hitchcock (7b8b32)

  261. JD:

    Why do you believe he is reformed?

    I don’t know if he is reformed or not. Neither do you. He claims to be reformed, but we’ll never know for sure so long as people give him a reason to defend himself (or, if you prefer, give him the excuse that he is just defending himself).

    Kman (5576bf)

  262. You ASSURED us BK was just reacting. What did Patterico do to foolishly provoke him, bringing everything on himself? How can you ASSURE us what BK thinks?

    Why do you believe he is reformed?

    Crickets

    JD (0046a7)

  263. I absolutely know he is not. Were he reformed, he would admit to his responsibility. He would pay his legal judgments. He would not claim secret exoneration. He would not file false criminal charges. He would. It do what he has done to Patterico. So, objectively, he is not.

    You are a lousy spokesnozzle for him. But you, like Carney, have precious little to work with, literally and figuratively.

    JD (0046a7)

  264. Kman

    > He said that, or is that your spin? I’m not interested in your spin. If you want to nail the guy, be factually honest.

    Well, you’re not interested in his words, either, because if you actually read them you would know it.

    > Wow, now you’re sounding like him!

    I am sorry, but you don’t have the right to lie about me.

    > somewhere in his complaint

    What complaint? See, you pretend you are going to the source, but in fact you don’t know anything about it. There is no “complaint.” There are petitions for a peace order and an application for the statement of charges. But no complaint.

    > You focused on him first, not the other way around. You tried to do it behind the scenes, but you took part in his downfall before he even knew you existed.

    What exactly did I do to focus on him? Give seth free legal advice? So now you think i was a bad guy to help a guy out?

    > Except he hasn’t committed a crime against you.

    Name the minute and second in the video in which the sheriffs held me back as I charged him repeatedly. Do it now.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  265. He would not do what he has done to Patterico.

    JD (0046a7)

  266. “Kimberlin has demanded our silence about his criminal conduct.”

    Brett Kimberlin is a lowlife criminal who has been convicted of numerous felonies.

    Guess the demand thing didn’t work out.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  267. Dave, no kidding, and i love everyone for the support they have given me.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  268. “You focused on him first”

    You mean I’m not allowed to say bad things about Osama Bin Laden because he hasn’t focused on me personally (and he ain’t ever likely to, at this stage of the game)?

    Methinks thou art looney tunes.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  269. Kman say “let sleeping dog lie”
    Overlooks the fact that
    Dog is snapping its jaws and foaming at the mouth

    Icy (bfa3b4)

  270. Kman, so you think its a legitimate “defense” to attack people who give others legal advice “behind the scenes” ?

    That’s an interesting point of view for someone who would claim to be in the practice of law to take.

    Plainly inconsistent with the ethical responsibilities of such a person, but hey, you appear well on the way to abandoning those.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  271. Breaking my vow here:

    “I agree that his likelihood of losing is great, but my point is that it is not vexatious to try.”

    Yes it is in BK’s case, because he sought relief for speech that is protected, for which under no circumstances ever could he recover, even if he proved Aaron made every statement, and showed that he would be the worse for it.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  272. ME: Except he hasn’t committed a crime against you.

    YOU: Name the minute and second in the video in which the sheriffs held me back as I charged him repeatedly. Do it now.

    Did Kimberlin say under oath or affirmation that it happened on the 9th Floor? No.

    Here’s the thing, Aaron. You’re like the kid who shoots his parents and then asks for sympathy because he’s an orphan. On January 9, you assaulted Kimberlin. It was a colossally stupid thing to do. It resulted in a temporary peace order being placed against you. Not to mention the loss of your job, legal bills, etc.

    You can focus all you want on whether the sheriffs held you back or not, and whether Kimberlin lied about it or not. Hell, I’ll even concede (for the sake of argument) that he lied about it, largely because I don’t care one way or the other. All I know is that you’re not going to get any “justice” where that is concerned. Why not? Because you assaulted Kimberlin, and it’s right there on the videotape. Kimberlin didn’t “get” you; you handed yourself to him on a silver platter.

    You should have left the courtroom and not spoken to him. Instead, you GAVE him the sword on which he tried to impale you, so don’t whine about him trying to impale you.

    And frankly, I wonder if you learned your lesson.

    Kman (5576bf)

  273. http://www.popehat.com/2012/05/18/but-i-tell-you-resist-a-censor-if-anyone-slapps-you-slapp-back/#more-14444

    Kimberlin’s abuses will, ironically, be catalyst for improvement in Maryland’s SLAPP law.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  274. Kman, I don’t think you read what the judge had to say about that, or you would not say that.

    Aarron had a legitimate defense.

    You might also acknowlege that Kimberlin was in violation of court rules when he attempted to take a photograph.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  275. Kmart is just inventing stuff now. Is BK paying you?!

    JD (0046a7)

  276. Also, Kimberlin didn’t just assert his ipad was yanked away.

    He said he was decked, claimed injuries that did not occur, and manufactured evidence of same.

    He lied WILDLY, perjured himself, and claimed second degree assault

    SarahW (b0e533)

  277. Kman, so you think its a legitimate “defense” to attack people who give others legal advice “behind the scenes” ?

    “Legitimate”? “Attack”? Those aren’t useful words. I think Kimberlin’s allegations against Aaron (having helped out Seth) were preposterous and desperate, but not illegal.

    I don’t condone it, but it happens a lot. In fact, the same thing has happened to me. Helped someone out pro bono, and the opposing party’s attorneys came after me — under the theory that I wasn’t really pro bono, and my client was actually paying me so that she would be poor when she lost the case.

    Best defense is a good offense. Aaron knows that, I’m sure. But so does Kimberlin, I’m sure.

    Kman (5576bf)

  278. “Dave, no kidding, and i love everyone for the support they have given me.”

    I’ll kick in some dough, if you’re strapped for cash, and you need it to deal with this prick.

    Just tell me where to send the check.

    I am Aaron “Worthing” (Sparatcus)!

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  279. “Instead, you GAVE him the sword on which he tried to impale you, so don’t whine about him trying to impale you.”

    Another example of Kman’s twisted ethics. If you give a man a tool, all that he does with it is your fault, not his.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  280. He said he was decked, claimed injuries that did not occur, and manufactured evidence of same.

    He lied WILDLY, perjured himself, and claimed second degree assault

    The truth is not helpful, Sarahw.

    JD (0046a7)

  281. Comment by Kman — 5/24/2012 @ 2:10 pm

    To the contrary, Kman, you have condoned. Here, and elsewhere, as you write comments that specifically condone Kimberlin’s actions.

    That’s what is twisted about you – you keep saying “I don’t condone it …” as you condone it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  282. Kman

    > Did Kimberlin say under oath or affirmation that it happened on the 9th Floor? No.

    jesus, you are such an ass.

    To think I ever said a nice thing about you. To think I gave you a fucking christmas gift, and you would prove have such prejudice toward me.

    And yes prejudice. You judge before. You judge before you have actually investigated. Screw off.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  283. Kman

    And this is a peach of a line:

    > Hell, I’ll even concede (for the sake of argument) that he lied about it, largely because I don’t care one way or the other.

    so now you don’t CARE whether he committed perjury. good to know.

    Let me say this. if any person committed a crime against you, I would care.

    But i think I know what this is really about. Your comment here:

    > Now he’s playing victim/martyr and pimping the story for blog hits.

    You are angry that people are paying attention to me. you have always been angriest with me when I have been an effective advocate.

    Get over yourself.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  284. And frankly, I wonder if you learned your lesson.

    Comment by Kman — 5/24/2012 @ 2:02 pm

    I may be banned for saying this, but you’re an @$$hole. You’ve completely mischaracterized what has happened, and frankly, I can’t believe you have a license to practice law, let alone attended law school. I pity anyone who’d give you money for legal advice.

    ∅ (721840)

  285. “I don’t know if he is reformed or not”

    One thing you do have to say for serial felon, Brett Kimberlin: he hasn’t been in prison, or convicted of a felony, for over ten years!

    And, that’s pretty damned good for him.

    In his earlier incarnation, he was constantly engaging in serious criminal activity (perjury, drug smuggling, setting off bombs, impersonating government officials, etc., etc.), and also constantly getting caught at it.

    At the very least, he’s no longer constantly getting caught at it, so he has made some improvement.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  286. AW:

    You are angry that people are paying attention to me.

    Yeah, that’s it. You got me. Because I measure my life based on how many people link to my blog. It’s more important to me than a job, providing for my family, my real world life, etc. I so want to be you, Aaron.

    Seriously, you are being paid attention to insomuch as people use your story to advance their agenda. And that’s about it. Maybe that’s good for you, and if so, I’m happy for you. But I see it this way: A dog barks in my neighborhood. And before long, all the dogs are barking. I personally don’t get jazzed about that.

    you have always been angriest with me when I have been an effective advocate.

    “Effective advocate”? You know, I don’t want to kick a guy when he’s down, but is that really how you characterize your success rate in court against BK?

    I’m not angry at you at all. I’m frustrated with you, I suppose. You’re playing his litigious game and losing, and you don’t seem to realize that.

    Answer me honestly. How does this end? I know what your demands are (you stated them somewhere) and I’m confident that BK (nor his associates) are going to give in to them. So assuming I am right about it, how does this play out? How does this end?

    Kman (073043)

  287. How are you able to ASSURE us of BKs motives, Kmart? What did Patterico do to bring this on himself? How is it that you are unable to figure out if BK has reformed? Why do you condone false charges being filed, since you claim to have watched the video?

    JD (0046a7)

  288. Did I mention I finished highlighting my copy of SInger’s book? Kimberlin is one big honking liar throughout.

    And in ways that seem so very familiar.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  289. ==I’m not angry at you at all. I’m frustrated with you, I suppose. You’re playing his litigious game and losing, and you don’t seem to realize that.
    Answer me honestly. How does this end? I know what your demands are (you stated them somewhere) and I’m confident that BK (nor his associates) are going to give in to them. So assuming I am right about it, how does this play out? How does this end?==

    Can someone ‘splain to the little people here why this particular dialog is happening in the comments section of an open blog that belongs to Patterico rather than in a telephone call or email conversation between Kman and Aaron? Unless it’s meant to non-transparently thwart or intimidate somebody other than Aaron it seems to make little sense to do it this way or even to take the time to write it.

    elissa (35e94b)

  290. Sarahw – did you run out of ink?

    So the K in kman stands for Kimberlin?

    JD (0046a7)

  291. “I pity anyone who’d give you money for legal advice.”

    His advice is excellent, if you want to avoid trouble at all costs.

    And, his advice about not trying to grab cameras away from people is good, period, unless you don’t mind dealing with the consequences of your actions.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  292. Elissa – if AW would just quit writing comments, kmart would quit stalking him.

    JD (318f81)

  293. I wonder what it would take to convince kimberlinman that BK has not reformed?

    JD (318f81)

  294. After all, the First Amendment isn’t an absolute right — there are exceptions (defamation, slander, etc.).

    Did you notice the part where I wrote “As long as people are telling the truth….”? Truth is an absolute defense against a charge of defamation or slander.

    Reading comprehension just eludes you, doesn’t it?

    Chuck Bartowski (e1fdd9)

  295. Chuck – it is not so much that the truth eludes kmart, it is more accurate to note that kmart is actively engaged in an effort to obscure, obfuscate, and otherwise distract from the truth.

    JD (318f81)

  296. It goes beyond “telling the truth” –

    characterizations and statements of opinion are protected.

    If I say the crab tasted awful at your restaurant, there is no defamation. If I say I saw you pour it out of a cat food can (and you didn’t) I made a statement of fact – that you could prevail on.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  297. If I report Gelarden wrote this and Gelarden said that – and he did – you have to go after Gelarden.

    If I mention your criminal record, it’s not defamation.

    Kimberlin makes the remarkable and untrue claim that he was exonerated – in secret. He can’t talk about it. Clue – if they don’t exonerate you, you aren’t exonerated. Besided Kimberlin is a dreadful liar.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  298. Besides.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  299. it’s ‘double secret exoneration’ elissa, so I’m confused, is a kman the standup guy, who held out against Kimberlin, and he’s just doing the William
    Costigan routine, or is he the way he has represented himself here.

    narciso (1c125b)

  300. I don’t know if he is reformed or not. Neither do you. He claims to be reformed, but we’ll never know for sure so long as people give him a reason to defend himself

    If you don’t know, then you are a bigger twatwaffle than we ever gave you credit for.

    Hint, if this is how he chooses to defend himself, he is not reformed.

    JD (318f81)

  301. That little performance art from kmart where he did a detailed account if the video, then trid to claim that we could not know what happened was really remarkable, and clearly showed how incredibly dishonest he is. Hint, kmart. If you watched the video you claimed to have watched, you would have seen that nobody decked BK, AW did not have to be held back by guards, and there was nothing that would cause the need for medical care – the premise for the false charges that you support, or shrug your shoulders at.

    You never did inform everyone how you could ASSURE everyone as to what BKs intentions are. Or what Patterico did to bring all of this on himself.

    JD (318f81)

  302. “Answer me honestly. How does this end?”

    When they start chucking dirt in your face, that means “game over”.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  303. Chuck,

    Actually, truth may not always be an absolute defense to defamation. Maybe it should be but that doesn’t mean it will be.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  304. DRJ – did that court find the lady was, in fact, a whore?!

    JD (318f81)

  305. Kman,

    Have you read my latest post? I’d be ever so interested in your reaction to the sainted Mr. Kimberlin after you read it.

    Can you explain why you chose to provoke Ron Brynaert? I understand he threatened to do things to you at work and with the State Bar. Have you considered the possibility that you just picked on him a little bit too much, by refusing to give up Aaron’s identity? I mean, isn’t that kind of stomping on a sidewinder?

    A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!!!!!

    Since you’re hellbent on opining from a position of ignorance, I’d like to tell me what I did to provoke any of these people between the dates of December 9, 2011, and the date (months later) that Rauhauser started encouraging Nadia Naffe to sue me. Obviously, I must have been poking at these people.

    Except that I know, quite specifically, that I was not. Beginning December 9, a date that means a lot to me for reason I know and nobody else on the Internet does, I VERY STUDIOUSLY AVOIDED discussing these people in any way.

    FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS. I SAID NOTHING.

    And during that time, all that they did to me was, what? I mean, you’re the expert on this. So you tell me what they did to me during the several months that I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about ANY of them.

    If your answer is “nothing,” you lose, showing you have no idea what the facts are.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  306. Kman – “He is allowed to try to discourage people from talking about his criminal past… in legal ways.”

    No, actually he isn’t.

    There is nothing he can do legally to shut me or anyone else up for reporting the truth.

    Joe (c21991)

  307. Joe, actually i said that:

    “He is allowed to try to discourage people from talking about his criminal past… in legal ways.”

    And if you look in the comment I said that in, i meant by gentle persuasion.

    Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea)

  308. These are sick people. Combination Marxist-Anarchist. Most dangerous people in America and funded by Soros.

    Dennis D (b17ac9)

  309. Hey all you libs:

    >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UPw4f1oN7g&ob=av2n <<

    This ain't over
    have a nice day.

    quiznilo (6151d2)

  310. Hello there, just turned into aware of your weblog through Google, and found that it’s truly informative. I’m gonna watch out for brussels. I’ll be grateful in case you continue this in future. Numerous people will be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!

    NameCombat (d3df80)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.8486 secs.