Patterico's Pontifications

5/30/2012

Professor Jacobson on Brett Kimberlin’s Abuse of Process

Filed under: Brett Kimberlin,General,Neal Rauhauser — Patterico @ 7:32 am

Professor Jacobson describes Kimberlin’s ambush of Aaron Walker:

That same day, as Patterico documents, Brett Kimberlin obtained a warr[a]nt for Walker’s arrest based violating a prior Peace Order by blogging about Kimberlin (which, as David Hogberg wrote, triggered a “Google Alert” which [K]imberlin claimed was contact prohibited by the Peace Order).

Kimberlin knew how to use the system so that by the time Walker arrived in court on Tuesday, he had no idea there already was a warrant for his arrest.

Kimberlin has used this tactic before. Last year, in a lawsuit against Seth Allen, he had Seth Allen arrested for harassment when Allen showed up to a mandatory hearing in the civil suit.

Now, in that case, the criminal complaint was arguably quite justified, as Allen had mused about killing Kimberlin in an email which was duly and promptly reported to police. If someone made a statement like that about me, I’d go to the authorities too.

But in the process, Kimberlin learned a technique that he later used against Walker: namely, having your critics arrested in civil court.

Namely, this serial litigant forces his critics into his jurisdiction with a frivolous civil action. If Kimberlin’s critics complain that the action is frivolous, he calls that criticism “harassment,” and through a process of seeking frivolous peace orders and/or filing frivolous criminal complaints, obtains an arrest warrant for the critic. When the critic shows up to court as required, he or she is arrested on the trumped-up charges.

Success! The story becomes about the critic’s arrest. The critics look worse because authorities seem to take Kimberlin’s side; and he gets the satisfaction of putting his critics behind bars, even if for a short time.

Alternatively, Kimberlin and his supporters can use the threat of arrest to try to frighten civil litigants into staying out of court. After Allen’s arrest last year, he was very afraid to go back to court, because Kimberlin continually alleged that Allen’s blogging violated a peace order. Kimberlin supporters flooded Twitter with messages declaring Allen was going to be arrested at the next hearing for blogging. Allen almost decided never to go back to court.

It’s a Catch 22 for people who want to blog about public figures. You either go to court and risk arrest on a bogus criminal charge, or stay away and risk default on a bogus civil claim.

The combination of frivolous civil and criminal actions is a creative abuse of process and it’s bound to be repeated — until judges start noticing that Kimberlin repeatedly makes false statements in the course of filing flurries of court actions against his critics.

On a more positive note, Brit Hume has noticed Aaron’s arrest for blogging:


I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this story.

297 Comments

  1. Ding.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/30/2012 @ 7:34 am

  2. Judgie-wudgie is gonna get hisself spanked, I think.

    Comment by Space Cockroach (8096f2) — 5/30/2012 @ 7:41 am

  3. what we’ve learned is to stay far far away from idiot coot judge courts in freedom-hating maryland

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/30/2012 @ 7:41 am

  4. So…. why doesn’t someone do the same to Kimberlin?

    Comment by steve (369bc6) — 5/30/2012 @ 7:45 am

  5. So, how does one counter this strategy? There has to be some defense.

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 5/30/2012 @ 7:47 am

  6. they tried to make me go to idiot coot judge court but i said no no no

    I ain’t got the time and if you want I’ll pay a fine

    you try to make me go to idiot coot judge court I won’t go go go

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/30/2012 @ 7:52 am

  7. If the same tactic was used last year, how come the guy who gave advice in last year’s case, and knows a lot about that situation, “had no idea” that the tactic could be used again?

    Comment by Sam (8bd5ad) — 5/30/2012 @ 7:58 am

  8. “what we’ve learned is to stay far far away from idiot coot judge courts in freedom-hating maryland

    Comment by happyfeet — 5/30/2012 @ 7:41 am”

    This is one of the many reasons I don’t cross the Potomac. Call me biased because I live in Virginia but the best thing coming out of the north is I-95.

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:01 am

  9. Pass the Vaughey on the left hand side, I said

    pass the Vaughey on the left hand side…..

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:03 am

  10. Don’t know if this was talked about, but Liberty Chick from Breitbart.com has a screencap of Neal Raywhatshisname trying to con someone out of divulging private info on one of Kimberlin’s marks. He uses the same bullshit story of a fake threat and the involvement of the FBI to con this person. Luckily, the person tells ray to take it to the FBI instead of trying to con him.

    Comment by EC (dda60e) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:04 am

  11. If the same tactic was used last year, how come the guy who gave advice in last year’s case, and knows a lot about that situation, “had no idea” that the tactic could be used again?

    Comment by Sam —

    He just didn’t see it coming. You don’t seem to realize how convoluted this has been and how many tricks they have played so far. Aaron was focused on making his case about free speech. He was utterly blindsided.

    He’s responded to I’m guessing a dozen or more legal actions from Brett and then they sprung this on him. And I am certain they will spring different traps on others that are difficult to anticipate.

    But you’re welcome to do a better job fighting Brett than Aaron has, sir. Those who can anticipate every move Brett would make should really jump at that.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:06 am

  12. This may be a stupid question, but why not just send an attorney to the civil court hearing (if someone is worried about getting arrested)? I am an attorney (civil litigation) and our clients virtually never show up to any of the thearings in our cases (except for a mediation or at trial to testify as a witness). I know this isn’t a perfect solution to this Catch-22, but it could be a temporary fix why your attorney fights the arrest warrant for violating the peace order.

    Comment by Harry Lime (352e9b) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:15 am

  13. I think I asked a reasonable question. It’s how this post starts.

    Comment by Sam (8bd5ad) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:20 am

  14. Sounds like he preys on ignorance.

    Comment by Harrison (975823) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:20 am

  15. I think I asked a reasonable question. It’s how this post starts.

    Comment by Sam —

    You got a reasonable answer. Perhaps you think Aaron should be able to predict Brett’s moves like that, but I don’t see how that’s possible. Even if a tactic is repeated, it’s possible to be blindsided by it.

    Are you disputing that Aaron was blindsided, or that Seth was arrested in a similar fashion? Both are true. It seems you asked ‘how’ he could be blindsided, because you aren’t aware of the dizzying array of moves that have been made in this fiasco.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:22 am

  16. Sam, your question isn’t unreasonable. And yet the answer is very simple. Hindsight is always sharper.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:24 am

  17. What Sarah said, Sam.

    I think the surprise in that case is understandable.

    The pro-se choice… perhaps that part is not as understandable, but I think that point has been adequately made.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:29 am

  18. Sam is a cute concern troll, guys.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:46 am

  19. Between Patterico, Prof. Jacobson and others…there are a lot of very sharp lawyers on “this side” of the issue. They can’t anticipate everything, but I suspect lawfare is going to be more difficult in the future for Kimberlin and Associates. Most judges have heard about the First Amendment.

    This whole situation makes me angry — but at some level anger is exactly the wrong response. (Whole situation = Aaron arrested, Frey SWATED, McCain in hiding…)Strategic responses have to be legal, above board and positive. Can somebody focus on the money? Or at least point us toward a list of the grants Kimerlin has gotten? An army of non-violent and polite Davids just might be able to starve this guy of the funding he needs.

    The other problem with this situation is that it is so damned complex. Patterico’s “swatted” post alone takes an hour to digest. My basic :30 wrapup: “A guy who was supposed to be in prison for bombings is instead harrassing bloggers through the court system. He convinced a judge to arrest a blogger who wrote the truth, even though everybody has the right to write the truth b/c of the First amendment. He also is the prime suspect in a string of fake 911 calls which have brought SWAT police units to some blogger’s houses.”

    Comment by ukuleledave (e546ca) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:47 am

  20. An army of non-violent and polite Davids just might be able to starve this guy of the funding he needs

    Agreed, but if each move causes a Google Alert email to fly to BKs email box, it might frighten and alarm a judge in MD in a way that sitting on a Caribbean beach or bare-knuckle fighting in Brooklyn does not.

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:53 am

  21. I’m not arguing or attacking anyone. The post directly raises that question by following “had no idea” with “used this tactic before,” in very close proximity.

    I got a lot more than an answer.

    Comment by koam @wittier (8bd5ad) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:55 am

  22. The post directly raises that question by following “had no idea” with “used this tactic before,” in very close proximity.

    The question is reasonable, but as I noted, I think there’s basis for saying Aaron was blindsided and there’s basis for saying that this tactic was used before, so the incredulous tone I interpreted from Sam justified asking if he accepts those points.

    The answer to the question is that Aaron didn’t see this coming, even though it already happened once.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:59 am

  23. Kimberlin’s bio is now on Wikipedia and this version at least to me looks accurate.

    Also if you type in “Brett on Yahoo”, “Brett Kimberlin” comes up as the #2 search option.

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:04 am

  24. Brett Kimberlin Wiki bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kimberlin

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:05 am

  25. Aaron wouldn’t have expected an authority to issue a baseless warrant. He has never threatened Kimberlin, and indeed has removed comments from his blog for going over the line. (Those comments were probably made by Kimberlin or Kimberlin supporters, most or all were from anonymous users or persons who had never commented before.)

    Never having done anything which could be remotely considered a violation of the order (which was itself baseless and bogus) he would never expect a warrant had been issued.

    Comment by Have Blue (8743b5) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:06 am

  26. True, but perhaps a Maryland attorney with experience in peace orders might have anticipated this … or at least have been able to go back into court and ask the judge to set the arrest aside.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:08 am

  27. True, but perhaps a Maryland attorney with experience in peace orders might have anticipated this … or at least have been able to go back into court and ask the judge to set the arrest aside.

    Comment by DRJ

    Yeah, ya got me there. If that was Sam’s point I have to admit … yeah.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:09 am

  28. I would think that the fact that Aaron has been deprived of his livelihood and had bogus assault charges hanging over his head is making it really difficult for him to think clearly about what’s going on here. Some of the things he’s done don’t make a lot of sense, but that’s understandable considering the pressure he’s under with no income. Not everyone can rely on Auntie Moneybags and a slew of deep-pocketed leftist donors to pick up the tab like our favorite convicted drug trafficker, bomber and perjurer.

    Comment by radar (257ad5) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:15 am

  29. Dustin,

    I think Patterico saw this coming, but perhaps Aaron was too wrapped up in the bigger picture to think about the downside for him. That’s why people faced with this situation need an attorney, to help them see the downside. Ironically, I think this may be especially true for attorneys because it’s so easy to think about the principles instead of the risk when you are used to being around courts.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:26 am

  30. Patterico and Aaron have repeatedly noted they rejects threats and comments about exposing personal information. They’ve also deleted them as they have seen them.

    I believe Neal and Brett are planting most of these comments, and then presenting them to the court to ‘prove’ they are being threatened.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:27 am

  31. DRJ, that’s a great point. Aaron was asking the court to consider landmark Supreme Court precedent. Brett was thinking about ambush “big surprises” as Occupy Reb. called it. Two totally different concepts of what the court is for are in display, and apparently Aaron’s concept (which should be the right one) was not savvy.

    It is hard for me to criticize him over that, even though I was asking him privately and repeatedly to get a lawyer before yesterday’s problems. Not because I saw any of this coming, but because I can’t see what’s coming and that makes this a scary situation. I recall how this happened to Seth and yet I was also utterly shocked by what happened to Aaron. I’m praying for this guy and asking others to, and feeling good about the day, and then suddenly Aaron’s being arrested for blogging!

    Radar’s comment is great.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:32 am

  32. I don’t know but that this Kimberlin business is Deb Frisch redux, and as off kilter as she was nothing punishing happened until she vexed government officials of her own jurisdiction.

    Judge Vaughey’s ruling won’t stand. People have the right to tell the truth about Kimberlin. It is a free speech issue. It just seems right now like the issue is trapped in an echo chamber and if swatting an ADA or a CNN contributor doesn’t change that, I don’t know what will.

    Comment by Wat Tyler (f61bc5) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:33 am

  33. Of course they and their minions are planting shit. It’s what Neal does for a living.

    Comment by radar (257ad5) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:33 am

  34. My sympathy and support to Patterico, Aaron Worthing, Radley Balko, and everyone else, right, left or center, who has been attacked by this litigious asshat felon Brett Kimberlin.

    I have one question about his lawsuits. I’d bet $425.16 that the implications will be obvious to any California lawyer.

    Question: What could a Californian say and broadcast on the intarweb tubes that would inspire him to file one of his lawsuits in a California court?

    Comment by Passing thru, may stick around. (398c41) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:34 am

  35. @Dustin @#29

    I’ve seen thousands of Tweets about Kimberlin since Friday, hundreds of articles and delved deeply into the comments sections at many blogs concerning them and I haven’t seen one instance of Kimberlin or his mob lieutenants lives or property being threatened.

    To put it simply, Brett Kimberlin is full of shit.

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:40 am

  36. It’s like this, say a blogger wrote an unfavorable article stating that I ran into the back of him with my automobile for driving wrecklessly while talking on a cellphone or something.

    The potential now exists that folks after reading an unfavorable article about me could potentially put my life or property in danger.

    Is this the basis Kimberlin is going on.?

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:48 am

  37. Is there any way we could sue Kimberlin’s donors?

    Comment by OmegaPaladin (a63d4d) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:54 am

  38. As a Scotsman might say, “Being convicted of terrorism is like fooking a goat.”

    Comment by Have Blue (8743b5) — 5/30/2012 @ 9:58 am

  39. Well, it’s about frigging time that someone from Fox News acknowledged this story, which certainly would have been the case if FNC had stuck by Glenn Beck rather than replace him with the entertaining empty-calorie hour known as The Five.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (d7ed67) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:00 am

  40. Glenn Beck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Five

    How stunning to realize that his valuable and informative and thought provoking program was replaced with a rehash of The View.

    Beck erred with Sherrod, but that’s in the past as far as I’m concerned

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:02 am

  41. Usually I’m just a lurker here, but I’ve got a couple of comments.

    1) It’s interesting that this matter came before a retired judge who’s woefully ignorant of electronic media, it’s almost as if Brett’s lawyer knows how to game the local courts into manipulating which judge this came before. The lawyer probably has some inside knowledge of the county’s court system and which judges were available on a holiday weekend so as to be better able to get away with misrepresenting the facts. Might be interesting to vet that lawyer, to the legal extent possible.

    2) Aaron & his lawyer need to explain that Google alerts is sort of like a routing system. If you put yourself on the list to receive Harvard Law Review editions when they come to the courthouse, then Harvard Law is not contacting you. If they go before this judge again, they’re going to have to use “Royal typewriter” analogies.

    Comment by rbj (9e8f64) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:03 am

  42. Brett was thinking about ambush “big surprises” as Occupy Reb. called it. Two totally different concepts of what the court is for are in display, and apparently Aaron’s concept (which should be the right one) was not savvy.

    Possibly Aaron got lost in the weeds of the greater cause he is fighting for and as a rate, underestimated and lost sight of the ver practiced viciousness and cleverness of his opponent. It’s not surprising when one is rife with emotion, and it would seem easy to assumes that the person on the bench would be like minded. Clouded vision, too close to it all. I hope that he has secured good legal counsel and one very familiar with the ins and outs of Maryland courts.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:18 am

  43. Days that LN Smithee comments tend to be good days.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:21 am

  44. and as a rate result, underestimated and lost sight of the ver very practiced…

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:24 am

  45. rbj, good point.

    Maybe Aaron could argue to the wise ancient philosopher king that a google alert is like a subscription to a newspaper. Brett did that to his own inbox, just as I subscribe to the WSJ and did that to my mailbox. And if I were to say the WSJ is harassing me because it keeps showing up in my mailbox with news about the economy that I find alarming, that is not the WSJ’s fault because I caused that. It is not a good basis to deprive the WSJ of the right to report on the recession.

    Google having 500k results for Kimberlin is kinda like a card catalog, an ancient device used to locate books. It is a map of the ‘library’ that is the internet. It is not like Aaron jammed the card catalog with reports.

    And more importantly, Neal Rauhauser has boasted of his ‘twitter automation’ and said “I’m a hacker” and variously explained that he likes to comment on conservative blogs to ‘stir things up’. That he is Brett’s associate is powerful evidence that the comments Brett is citing are probably not authentic. Especially since Aaron has repudiated threats and harassment, and yet new commenter IDs keep showing up to make very similar comments urging it even after it’s shown to do great damage to Aaron’s cause and great help to Brett’s.

    All this means is that Brett needs to offer convincing evidence that Aaron actually incited the comments that he specifically argued AGAINST. Which is not possible.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:24 am

  46. Have faith guys.

    You don’t have to win every battle in order to win the war.

    There will always be losses.

    But we’ve only started fighting this war; and the troops are assembling.

    I just miss General Breitbart.

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:25 am


  47. Patterico and Aaron have repeatedly noted they rejects threats and comments about exposing personal information. They’ve also deleted them as they have seen them.

    I believe Neal and Brett are planting most of these comments, and then presenting them to the court to ‘prove’ they are being threatened.

    Comment by Dustin — 5/30/2012 @ 9:27 am

    Before I knew anything about the judge, I wrote this at The Other McCain:

    I can’t imagine that there is any other way that Walker could be found in violation of the order, since his writings on his blog certainly have not been even vaguely threatening! This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Internet works! How old is that judge? Does s/he do anything on her/his computer other than play solitaire during court proceedings?

    As it turned out, probably. It’s cute when you try to teach people “of the Royal Typewriter Generation” about the Internet, but only when your 1st Amendment rights aren’t at stake.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (7b0e77) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:26 am

  48. I can’t imagine that there is any other way that Walker could be found in violation of the order, since his writings on his blog certainly have not been even vaguely threatening!

    It’s frustrating. Aaron has shown grace to someone who has been very hostile to Aaron. Liberty Chick did the same and they were even worse to her in one example. It’s as though their efforts to keep the fight against Brett civil, lawful, non threatening, and even non harassing is thrown in their face against them.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:32 am

  49. If Brett Kimberlin is trying to get people to stop discussing his violent criminal record, he’s not doing a very good job at it.
    Brett Kimberlin is a criminal.

    Comment by Gus (36e9a7) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:34 am

  50. I would say something, but I am not allowed. http://anexconsview.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/intimidation/

    Comment by plemmen (6cd503) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:36 am

  51. Not a huge Beck fan myself, but he was at least willing to take chances. The Five is good for staring at Kimberly Guilfoyle and Dana Perino’s legs and that’s about it.

    Comment by radar (257ad5) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:37 am

  52. The fact is that this incident could be blamed partially on Kimberlin’s abuse of the system, and partially on a judge who is clearly over his head when it comes to new media.

    Or math. Since if AW had “googled” Kimberlin 500,000 times- he’d have to have done it once a minute for nearly a year to accomplish it.

    Kimberlin is a snake, but he’s also a lucky snake.

    Comment by Book (956833) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:42 am


  53. Days that LN Smithee comments tend to be good days.

    Comment by JD — 5/30/2012 @ 10:21 am

    Thanks so much, but that’s the way I’ve always felt about Aaron’s threads and comments here. Even though I’ve never met A.W., I feel like an adopted brother is under siege.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (d7ed67) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:42 am

  54. There are worse things one could stare at, radar.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:43 am

  55. Beck got people talking. Even if I disagreed with him, his program would put things into context and highlight major stories that others didn’t touch.

    Fox News should bring him back if they can, but perhaps they don’t want Beck to bring up stories like this?

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:44 am

  56. No thanks needed. Even when we disagree, I respect you, immensely.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:46 am

  57. Dustin:

    It’s as though their efforts to keep the fight against Brett civil, lawful, non threatening, and even non harassing is thrown in their face against them.

    Back off from the KoolAid, man!

    Aaron has specifically said in his blog, to BK, and to the court that he will continue to go after Kimberlin (“spread the truth”) and won’t let up, at least until Kimberlin is facing criminal charges. That’s from Aaron’s own mouth.

    And these kind of things include unproven speculation that Kimberlin has committed statutory rape and other murders — i.e., Aaron’s isn’t just “laying out the truth”, but laying out assumptions, unproved allegations, and opinions. You can easily pluck them out from his “blockbuster post”.

    Now if someone said to you, Dustin, that they would continue going after you — would you consider that “civil” and “non-threatening” behavior?

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:51 am

  58. Kmart hates the 1st Amendment.

    Truth is harassment!

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:53 am

  59. Aaron has specifically said in his blog, to BK, and to the court that he will continue to go after Kimberlin (“spread the truth”) and won’t let up, at least until Kimberlin is facing criminal charges. That’s from Aaron’s own mouth.

    Yeah — victims of a crime generally want to see their attacker face charges.

    HOW HORRIBLE!!!

    Comment by Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 5/30/2012 @ 10:57 am

  60. I would hope all of us continue to explain how Kimberlin is proven to have committed crimes so that law enforcement does something about it.

    If petitioning government via activists to enforce a provable crime is illegal because the proven criminal finds this alarming, then we have to start wondering about this upside down legal world in Maryland.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:02 am

  61. Yeah — victims of a crime generally want to see their attacker face charges.

    And that’s fine. But how does blogging about Kimberlin’s alleged and unproven statutory rape fit into that objective?

    It doesn’t.

    Although it does dovetail nicely into Kimberlin’s position that all Aaron wants to do is harass and humiliate him.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:07 am

  62. And that’s fine. But how does blogging about Kimberlin’s alleged and unproven statutory rape fit into that objective?

    Why do you care?

    Why are you so concerned with protecting Kimberlin?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:18 am

  63. Kimberlin hearts Kmart. Big time.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:19 am

  64. But how does blogging about Kimberlin’s alleged and unproven statutory rape fit into that objective?

    It fits neatly into a discussion of the likely motive behind the Speedway bombing, of course.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:22 am

  65. You see, the speedway bombing was an elaborate hoax in a way. The bombs and death were real, but they are thought to have been intended to hide a different crime. As Kimberlin fears justice, he uses elaborate and complicating diversions and then thrives in the fog and confusion, erring only in going wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too far.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:23 am

  66. Aaron would be remiss not to mention that. Actually I think he hasn’t explained this enough times.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:23 am

  67. I am wondering if the New Black Panther party has enough in their coffers to put a bounty on Kimberlin?

    Comment by PCD (73fc83) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:28 am

  68. And that’s fine. But how does blogging about Kimberlin’s alleged and unproven statutory rape fit into that objective?

    It doesn’t.

    Although it does dovetail nicely into Kimberlin’s position that all Aaron wants to do is harass and humiliate him.

    Comment by Kman — 5/30/2012 @ 11:07 am

    Don’t be dense.

    The story of the Speedway bombings — for which Kimberlin was found guilty, and for which he did time in Federal prison — cannot be fully told without the context of the reasons why it is thought that Kimberlin went to great lengths to set the bombs. That reason has to do with the fact that a murder victim thought Kimberlin had an inappropriate relationship with her granddaughter (with her daughter’s knowledge and/or permission).

    In your eagerness to piss on A.W., you seem to be willing to countenance the quashing of your right as an American citizen to publish speculation about the established facts in a criminal case. What is WRONG with you?

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (d7ed67) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:31 am

  69. Not a huge Beck fan myself, but he was at least willing to take chances. The Five is good for staring at Kimberly Guilfoyle and Dana Perino’s legs and that’s about it.

    Comment by radar — 5/30/2012 @ 10:37 am

    Don’t forget Andrea Tantaros, or as Rush lovingly calls her, “Andrea Tarantula.”

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (d7ed67) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:36 am

  70. 2) Aaron & his lawyer need to explain that Google alerts is sort of like a routing system. If you put yourself on the list to receive Harvard Law Review editions when they come to the courthouse, then Harvard Law is not contacting you. If they go before this judge again, they’re going to have to use “Royal typewriter” analogies.

    Comment by rbj — 5/30/2012 @ 10:03 am

    The best analogy would be a news clipping service. Back in those ancient, foggy days before the Intertubes, celebrities, politicians, and companies would subscribe to a news clipping service to find and forward everything that was written about them.

    Comment by Brian (2f898a) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:38 am

  71. Back in those ancient, foggy days before the Intertubes, celebrities, politicians, and companies would subscribe to a news clipping service to find and forward everything that was written about them.

    Huh. I had never heard of this. A bit before my time, I suppose.

    How miraculous and magical Google must seem to Maryland’s judiciary. No wonder they react to it like it’s witchcraft.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:41 am

  72. “What is WRONG with you?”
    Obviously a rhetorical question.

    Comment by Gazzer (dd0ab1) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:45 am

  73. As Kimberlin fears justice, he uses elaborate and complicating diversions and then thrives in the fog and confusion, erring only in going wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too far. Aaron would be remiss not to mention that. Actually I think he hasn’t explained this enough times.

    Yeah. Here’s my problem though with A.W. and most other attempts to lay out all the “wrongs” of present-day Brett Kimberlin: it starts to sound like the Chewbacca defense, except it’s the Chewbacco offense. That’s part of my discomfort with all this supposed “truth-telling” about Kimberlin — it involves a lot of speculation into his psyche and motivations and blah blah blah, and it sounds like a lot of, well, post hoc rationalizing. A Chewbacca offense.

    If Kimberlin is bad guy, why can’t somebody point to something concretely illegal that he is actually doing? Why is it buried in 28,000 word posts that go back to his teenage years to paint the portrait as ugly as possible? Why are we speculating about how his brain works and what he fears? Why are there vague words like “associates” (I mean, what does that mean exactly)? I suggest to you, Dustin, that Kimberlin isn’t the one thriving in the “fog and confusion”.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:46 am

  74. I think Andrea is easily as lovely as the other two.

    I don’t know who kman is (y’all seem to think he’s just a sock for Kimberlin) but some of his arguments are what you’d want to hear from a coach on your side who’s reviewing your case for consistency and logic. Like when you’re making a big case or proposal, before you go to the court, or the board of directors, you get a bunch of smart lawyers or senior managers to come in and review your presentation, shoot holes in it, anticipate the tough questions, so you can tighten it up and be prepared.

    Comment by MCreamer (8bd5ad) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:48 am

  75. I don’t know who kman is (y’all seem to think he’s just a sock for Kimberlin)

    I know who he is and he is not Kimberlin. I do not understand his position on this, but it’s probably unfair to assume much. All I’m saying is I do not know if I can trust one of his earlier claims.

    And you have a point. Kman is presenting all of Brett’s best defenses and arguments, and even going so far as to make nonfactual claims, either by error or to stretch his point. And my responding to these, we are better prepared for them when others inevitably makes these same points on Brett’s behalf.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:50 am

  76. And by responding to these, we are better prepared for when others inevitably makes these same points on Brett’s behalf.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:51 am

  77. “it’s almost as if Brett’s lawyer knows how to game the local courts into manipulating which judge this came before. ”

    I’ve seen this done in the Orange County court system. Some years ago, I was a witness, both expert and percipient, in a case where a guy shot another guy he found in bed with his wife. The very sharp defense lawyer kept continuing until he got what he called “the AA prosecutor.” It worked. His client was acquitted. The questions I was asked were dumb.

    Comment by Mike_K (326cba) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:52 am

  78. MCreamer:

    I don’t know who kman is (y’all seem to think he’s just a sock for Kimberlin) but some of his arguments are what you’d want to hear from a coach on your side who’s reviewing your case for consistency and logic.

    You would think, but I get the sense that many here would just prefer that the insular bubble not be popped.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:53 am

  79. “Aaron has specifically said in his blog, to BK, and to the court that he will continue to go after Kimberlin…”

    Yeah, I’m going to do that as well…keeping a weather eye out for the defamation laws.

    And, no court is going to tell me I can’t talk about ths scuzzbucket’s past criminal record or his current antics.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:53 am

  80. Currently he and his buddies are swatting people, using lawfare against innocent people, and filing false criminal charges against people.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 11:54 am

  81. KMAN??? Nah, he’s Brett Kimberlin’s KY-MAN.

    Comment by Gus (36e9a7) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:01 pm

  82. “Aaron has specifically said in his blog, to BK, and to the court that he will continue to go after Kimberlin (“spread the truth”) and won’t let up, at least until Kimberlin is facing criminal charges. That’s from Aaron’s own mouth.”

    Kman – That’s a lot lower temperature stuff than the things Nancy Lugosi says about Republicans every day. Do you have a point?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:01 pm

  83. I haven’t read all of this by any means. But the few comments I’ve read by him seem to be about trimming away the spurious stuff and looking at this objectively (and less emotionally) like a competent judge hopefully would. His points seem to be that the cheerleaders are as emotionally tied up in all this as Aaron is, and that pleas for rational, dispassionate arguments are shot down as if they were arguments for the other side. From what I’ve read, they’re not. They’re coaching you to make a better case…to find a better argument that will stand up to judicial scrutiny and not make Aaron and friends seem like ranters with age-old vendettas.

    Comment by MCreamer (8bd5ad) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:02 pm

  84. MCreamer – knowing the history of Kmart might lead you to a different conclusion. On his best days, he is a sophist.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:04 pm

  85. MCreamer,

    Kman has gotten a lot of facts wrong and has had to be corrected on basics.

    Also, he’s been arguing like this against Aaron for over nine years.

    pleas for rational, dispassionate arguments are shot down as if they were arguments for the other side.

    I don’t see that. DRJ and SWC have offered a lot of thoughtful dispassionate arguments that were more rooted in reality.

    And I think Kman’s comments about Kimberlin are weird at best.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:06 pm

  86. Not knowing the history lets me read an individual post of his for what it says, not what I expect him to say.

    Comment by MCreamer (8bd5ad) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:07 pm

  87. Mcreamer, frankly Kman’s history has squandered credibility, so if you’re trying to promote some idea of his that you find helpful, I suggest you offer that same idea in your own words.

    I mean this non snarkily and sincerely. If you see something constructive being overlooked, I think it will be more likely to be heard if you offer it.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:08 pm

  88. OK, I haven’t read all of his comments and don’t intend to. I’m just reacting to how he gets shut down for what seem like useful coaching rather than arguing for the opposing team. I’ll drop it.

    Comment by MCreamer (8bd5ad) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:09 pm

  89. I was reminded of Mr, Schakowsky, who went to jail
    for embezzling, yet is still a progressive in good standing,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:10 pm

  90. No worries. He gets shut down quickly, but not for no reason at all. Unfortunately there’s so many comments about this that one can’t possibly consider them all, and patience for Kman is justifiably very low, so people just write him off if he can’t even figure out if 5/17 is before 5/19.

    I do think you’re quite right that considering even hostile and dishonest arguments can be ‘useful coaching’ for a debate against Brett.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:11 pm

  91. MCreamer is right on the money. At some point, the people in this forum are going to have to deal with perception — and it happened with Seth Allen, too — that Aaron is simply trying to beat up on Kimberlin. Because that’s how it is playing out.

    And it’s fine in this forum to mock me when I bring it up, but that’s not going to fly in a courtroom.

    I mean, what is the response when the judge says, “Why are you writing a blog post which speculates that Kimberlin was a statutory rapist? What possible relevance does that have to anything that concerns you? Why are you bringing it up, if not to paint embarrass, humiliate or harass Kimberlin?”

    What about it, JD? Are you going to call the judge “a sophist” or accuse him of being a Kimberlin supporter for asking those questions, or do you have an actual response?

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:14 pm

  92. Off topic

    http://www.examiner.com/article/al-sharpton-alleges-gop-like-hitler-ready-to-exterminate-blacks

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:14 pm

  93. patience for Kman is justifiably very low

    …because I raise issues that nobody else wants to think about.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:16 pm

  94. Aaron is simply trying to beat up on Kimberlin. Because that’s how it is playing out.

    Typical. Brett Kimberlin is picking this fight. Not AW.

    If a judge asks those questions, I would refer him to the contemporaneous investigations and subsequent books written about this.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:18 pm

  95. “You would think, but I get the sense that many here would just prefer that the insular bubble not be popped.”

    Kman – I disagree. I think a lot of people would like to see your bubble popped.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:19 pm

  96. patience for Kman is justifiably very low

    …because I raise issues that nobody else wants to think about.

    Comment by Kman — 5/30/2012 @ 12:16 pm

    Yes, us mere mortals quiver in the presence of your great mind. We are too scared to process your truth telling.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:19 pm

  97. I think that in this case Kman may be on to something: BK’s unsavory relationship with a little girl who’s grandmother’s murder was never solved is probably not relevant to whether or not he’s abusing the legal system to punish those who keep reminding the world about said unsavory relationship.

    So why does he keep bringing it up?

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:22 pm

  98. The Swattings were mentioned on Megyn Kelly’s show today.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1663686679001/

    Comment by Noodles (3681c4) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:24 pm

  99. “I mean, what is the response when the judge says, “Why are you writing a blog post which speculates that Kimberlin was a statutory rapist? What possible relevance does that have to anything that concerns you? Why are you bringing it up, if not to paint embarrass, humiliate or harass Kimberlin?””

    Kman – Are you saying the Judge should tell Aaron that discussing the PUBLIC RECORD of BK is prohibited? Seriously? That is your legally considered opinion?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:25 pm

  100. The combination of frivolous civil and criminal actions is a creative abuse of process and it’s bound to be repeated — until judges start noticing that Kimberlin repeatedly makes false statements in the course of filing flurries of court actions against his critics.

    So . . . for a long time then.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:27 pm

  101. Brett Kimberlin is picking this fight. Not AW.

    Then you’ve got a problem, because so far, the courts haven’t been seeing it that way.

    And when AW stands in front of a judge, as he did, and suggests that as a result of his “raising awareness” about Kimberlin, there have been 300,000 negative posts, it’s really hard for a court to buy into the concept that Kimberlin is picking the fight.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:28 pm

  102. Brit Hume, Megan Kelly — obviously CNN doesn’t give a shit about their own contributors.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:29 pm

  103. Brit Hume, Megan Kelly — obviously CNN doesn’t give a shiit about their own contributors.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:30 pm

  104. Daley @95:

    I’m not trying to embed a point within my questions. I’m simply asking you what the response should be when a judge asks those kinds of questions.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:31 pm

  105. “I’m not trying to embed a point within my questions. I’m simply asking you what the response should be when a judge asks those kinds of questions.”

    Kman – I disagree. By your comments you are suggesting that the PUBLIC RECORD of a public figure should be off limits for discussion merely because events happened a long time ago, like Mitt Romney bullying a kid in school, or whatever excuse you want to make up to justify your position. You are pathetic.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:38 pm

  106. By your comments you are suggesting…

    I don’t need to “suggest” anything. I have no problem stating my position on any given matter (to the extent I have settled on a position).

    But you still don’t have an answer to the (hypothetical) judge’s question… and that should be troubling. Don’t answer ME; don’t worry about what *I* might be “suggesting” by my questions. Answer the (hypothetical) judge.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:42 pm

  107. “Can somebody focus on the money?”

    Apparently his brother is Kevin Kimberlin, a venture capitalist, which is ironic considering Brett is a far-leftist according to Mark Singer’s book. I found this out when I saw someone made a comment about him years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiDan61/Archive20100414#Brett_Kimberlin

    So it’s always a possibility that Brett’s own brother is bankrolling him.

    Comment by Kaitian (b95502) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:45 pm

  108. “If Kimberlin is bad guy, why can’t somebody point to something concretely illegal that he is actually doing?”

    LOL.

    A bad guy?

    The guy has a felony conviction record as long as your arm. At least two people he had reason to kill wound up being murdered (neither of which were ever pinned on Kimberlin…more’s the pity). He was held liable in the wrongful death of Carl DeLong (who committed suicide after being maimed by one of Brett’s bombs). He then attempted to evade paying his debt to Carl DeLong and Carl DeLong’s wife (also injured by Bretty’s bomb), which led to his parole (which never should have been granted in the first place) being revoked.

    And, that’s just the worst of it.

    Ain’t that enough? Or, does he have to commit a felony every single day before we’re allowed to think he’s a bad guy?

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:45 pm

  109. “I’m not trying to embed a point within my questions. I’m simply asking you what the response should be when a judge asks those kinds of questions.”

    Since we’re talking about blogging here, Brett Kimberlin’s conviction is a matter of public record which ANYONE can write about. For example, we know Brett Kimberlin is the Speedway Bomber and I’m not liable to defamation because it is a true fact.

    Comment by Kaitian (b95502) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:46 pm

  110. 97.

    Brett Kimberlin is picking this fight. Not AW.

    Then you’ve got a problem, because so far, the courts haven’t been seeing it that way.

    And when AW stands in front of a judge, as he did, and suggests that as a result of his “raising awareness” about Kimberlin, there have been 300,000 negative posts, it’s really hard for a court to buy into the concept that Kimberlin is picking the fight.

    Comment by Kman — 5/30/2012 @ 12:28 pm

    The only reason this has gone to court is because Kimberlin picked a fight.

    There really isn’t anything to fight over. Kimberlin set a bunch of bombs that ended up killing a guy a few decades back. Then spent a bunch of years in prison after getting convicted.

    See. Nothing to fight over. Everybody in the whole world should be able to cite the facts.

    Except Kimberlin doesn’t think so.

    Comment by Steve (7d9c6b) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:48 pm

  111. So let’s assume that Patrick Frey decides to withdraw from the public scene. He now declares that all information about him are off limits and should not be a matter of public record / information. Using the Kimberlin Logic, Frey can sue anyone with a civil action harassment against you should you post anything about Frey. Absurd? Yes, it is. That’s exactly what Kimberlin is doing here. He’s suing people for pointing out the fact that he is a convicted terrorist. Kimberlin runs several “public organizations” all of which are questionable and no one is allowed to criticize him? For example, he runs Velvet Revolution and has posted bounties calling for evidence of Ohio election fraud in 2004. But we shouldn’t talk about the guy and why we should ignore him. We should ignore the fact that he’s committed major crimes, abused government tags including the POTUS tag, committed perjury, his actions caused the suicide of a man, Carl DeJong, and we should ignore it?

    Comment by Kaitian (b95502) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:54 pm

  112. It’s basic common sense to be able to distinguish between kimberlin and walker. If a person can’t do that then they have some blinders on. AW is a decent person. BK is not a decent person. AW was trying to avoid these issues. BK gets a jones on for this stuff. BK is the type of predator that learns from his past victims and then assumes their stance to hide his next crime. BK is an evolving type of criminal. If he wasn’t he would have apologized for his crimes and paid at least $10 back to the widow.

    But he won’t because he is a consummate sociopath liar who has to lie to live. For him to tell the truth would be him stabbing himself in his heart.

    kman

    Comment by jd2 (40a8c6) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:55 pm

  113. If Kimberlin is a bad guy ….
    If Kimberlin is a bad guy ….
    If Kimberlin is a bad guy ….
    If Kimberlin is a bad guy ….
    If Kimberlin is a bad guy ….

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:56 pm

  114. A couple points:

    I don’t see how Aaron has any choice but to keep “going after” He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named (else he’ll get another Google alert) unless he and his wife want to change careers to one that might extend his vocabulary with phrases such as “Would you like fries with that?”

    I’m not saying he’s desperate (yet), but he and his wife lost their jobs because their employer got freaked out over the very real possibility of the workplace being a site of lethal domestic terrorism. Going forward, are any of us doubting that He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named and his Truth Eaters will continue to hound the couple?

    Second, while it certainly might have been preferable for him to retain a lawyer for this hearing, it’s not clear it would have made any difference in the outcome, and he still would have been arrested afterwords.

    I assume that because the case is sufficiently complex and the material sufficiently novel, especially for a member of the Royal Typewriter Generation, that a lawyer at the hearing who could not consult Aaron in real time probably would have fared even worse. Or Aaron would have had to spend a lot of money bringing him up to speed, especially if he wasn’t sufficiently knowledgeable about of all these entities on the net and their interconnections (e.g. the Google alerts). And lawyer with that level of domain expertise are expensive, last time I checked.

    Comment by Lina Inverse (85d8f2) — 5/30/2012 @ 12:57 pm

  115. Brett Kimberlin’s conviction is a matter of public record which ANYONE can write about. For example, we know Brett Kimberlin is the Speedway Bomber and I’m not liable to defamation because it is a true fact.

    The peace order has nothing to do with defamation.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:00 pm

  116. The peace order has nothing to do with defamation.

    It is about being harassed by the truth.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:01 pm

  117. It is about being harassed by the truth.

    And speculation.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:02 pm

  118. So let’s assume that Patrick Frey decides to withdraw from the public scene. He now declares that all information about him are off limits and should not be a matter of public record / information. Using the Kimberlin Logic, Frey can sue anyone with a civil action harassment against you should you post anything about Frey. Absurd? Yes, it is. That’s exactly what Kimberlin is doing here.

    I think the lesson to draw is, if you’re going to commit a crime, make it a crime you can be proud of.

    Comment by Steve (7d9c6b) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:04 pm

  119. Damn that 1st Amendment.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:05 pm

  120. And speculation.

    Horrors! Speculation! Well, I’m certainly glad the Democrats have passed a law against that.

    Evil speculators. First they’re driving oil prices up. Now they’re going after felons.

    When will it end?

    Comment by Steve (7d9c6b) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:06 pm

  121. Kman,

    “peace order has nothing to do with defamation.”

    And what led up to the peace order? Kimberlin files suit against Walker to get his name outted which was anonymous at the time, Walker shows up in court to quash the motion and succeeds. Kimberlin attempts to takes picture of Walker outside courtroom against rules of courthouse, files false police statements accusing Walker of wrestling Kimberlin & punching him in the eye which he willfully committed perjury in the Peace Order. The judge unfortunately thinks this is a petty squabble and allows the peace order. Kimberlin creates a Google Alert so that he can claim harassment occurred via proxy and succeeds in getting Walker arrested FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S ACTIONS.

    Let’s say you write something after Frey files a peace order against you. Then you make a post talking about the fact you have a peace order against you and I send a death threat to Frey. Under Kimberlin’s logic, you are to be arrested immediately for my own actions.

    Comment by Kaitian (b95502) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:09 pm

  122. “There really isn’t anything to fight over.”

    Sure there is.

    Getting justice for the DeLong family (by stripping Kimberlin, and anyone associated with him, of everything they own, until the DeLong’s are paid in full).

    Making sure that sociopathic criminals have no input into our poltical system.

    Putting a stop to convicted felons misusing our legal system to bother people.

    All these things are worth fighting for.

    IMO, of course.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:11 pm

  123. Dave, you’re making an ungodly amount of sense today.

    It’s scaring me.

    I meant there shouldn’t be anything to fight over in the current instance, given the fact Worthing just uttered the unvarnished truth.

    I grant everything else you said.

    Comment by Steve (7d9c6b) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:18 pm

  124. I thought that Aaron had described the (peace order followed by claim of violation of same for blogging) tactic in an earlier post and that he expected the same. The book length post was to illustrate it, willingly, to expose the thug in all his glory. That was the whole point of the episode. Blog — and be harassed by the Left’s thugs. The book length blog post was like one last post, in the event of incarceration — or death.

    Comment by pdxnag (b9df26) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:20 pm

  125. And speculation.

    Comment by Kman — 5/30/2012 @ 1:02 pm

    And where is that in the peace order, K?

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (d7ed67) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:21 pm

  126. I haven’t gone over all the comments, but in the first couple dozen there is a discussion on why Aaron didn’t see the arrest coming. It might be because the arrest warrant was sworn out on Sunday, 5/27 – the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend. Maybe if I were involved in a legal fight with someone as devious as Kimberlin and knew I had a court appearance on Tuesday I would think to check for this – big maybe. It may or may not have been posted on the Maryland Judiciary Case Search website; honestly, though, I don’t think I would have expected something like this on a holiday weekend and would not have expected it to be served in court. My bad – and Aaron’s, I guess.

    These are the times when I wish I was really, really, really rich and could thrown money to the bloggers’ defense fund. Unfortunately, my donation will be smaller, but it is being made.

    Comment by Mari (1f4c27) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:24 pm

  127. Walker was promptly released on recognizance and has a trial date of July 12, 2012.

    Comment by Bruce Godfrey (13a1ab) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:24 pm

  128. The Indianapolis Star and the Speedway Police were harassing poor Brett as well.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:27 pm

  129. Re:117
    Not all felons are currently bad people. SOME can (and have) had that “come to Jesus” moment (outside of prison) and decided to reform their lives. I am one, a former con-artist and federal convict. I am also a conservative blogger that has been vociferous about Brett Kimberlin’s past, present and probable future criminal conduct. By even writing this I stand the very real possibility of going to jail without bail, to remain there until I am transported back to the middle district of Tennessee and the federal court there decides if I have violated my unsupervised release by exercising my 1st amendment right to free speech.

    Comment by plemmen (6cd503) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:27 pm

  130. If Kimberlin is bad guy, why can’t somebody point to something concretely illegal that he is actually doing?

    Hello, McFly? Anybody home? Think, McFly, THINK!

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (7b0e77) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:29 pm

  131. What stops a person from going to MD over the weekend and filing a complaint against anybody for anything? Just having better things to do?

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:30 pm

  132. Do I assume correctly that a person who practices law for reimbursement has to worry about ethics charges, but somebody only doing lawyering for them self is more-or-less immune to ethics charges and disciplinary action?

    Does the MD bar want a new growth industry for the state? Come to MD for the weekend! Enjoy our hotels, eat fresh crab, harass your enemies with your very own arrest warrant…

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:37 pm

  133. The book length blog post was like one last post, in the event of incarceration — or death.

    Comment by pdxnag — 5/30/2012 @ 1:20 pm

    Which is NOT hyperbole when you consider that 1) Kimberlin conspired to have entered into the public record Walker’s name and location for the purpose of exposing him to people offended by his “Everybody Draw Mohammad” day project. Kimberlin’s facetious fear for Walker’s safety was a ruse. 2) Pat blogged in 2010 about how prison authorities discovered Kimberlin’s handwritten plans for harassment and revenge on his perceived enemies upon his release.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (7b0e77) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:38 pm

  134. “Not all felons are currently bad people.”

    Yeah…but Kimberlin is.

    That guy is one step below pond scum on the old evolutionary ladder.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:38 pm

  135. Comment by John Difool — 5/30/2012 @ 9:04 am

    Also if you type in “Brett on Yahoo”, “Brett Kimberlin” comes up as the #2 search option.

    I assume you mean type “Brett” on yahoo.

    Not so with Google or Bing.

    Bing has:

    favre
    michaels
    favre scandal
    michaels condition
    robinson
    favre news
    [brett]on woods
    dennen

    Google has:

    favre
    gardber
    ratner
    lawrie
    matthews
    dennen
    bretton woods
    butler
    bret michaels [with 1 T]
    myers

    If you type a space after the second t in Brett Bretton woods goes way and [brett} anderson appears at the bottom.

    If you type brett k:

    …then Kimberlin is the first suggestion.

    And altogether they are:

    kimberlin
    keisel
    kilroe
    kavanaugh
    knief
    kelly
    kimmel
    kurzweil
    knief baseball

    To get further suggestions after Brett Kimberlin that involve him you have to type up to the letter M at least, and then you get:

    brett kimberlin
    brett kimmel
    brett kimmel wheels
    brett kimmel principal
    brett kimmel attorney
    brett kimberlin wikipedia
    brett kimball
    brett kimberlin speedway bomber
    brett kimball grand rapids
    brett kimball obituary

    The letter B gets you also:

    brett kimberlin velvet revolution
    brett kimberly
    brett kimble
    brett kimberlin exonerated

    E adds:

    brett kimberlin justice through music

    …besides,
    brett kimber

    and

    brett kimber afrox

    There are no further suggestions from Google for search terms following “Brett Kimberlin” no matter how much of his name you type.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:44 pm

  136. Prof Jacobson has a new post with a Fox News video on Patterico’s SWATting.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:47 pm

  137. plemmen, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    I’ve worked with a few guys who did time. Some do get turned around and are as decent and as trustworthy a bunch of guys as you’d hope to meet. I work with one guy now who had to go before an administrative law judge to get licensed, a necessity in his profession you have certain felony convictions. As in if you’ve been convicted of something along the lines of theft you can’t work in certain fields where you have a fiduciary duty toward a client.

    The judge looked at how he had turned his life around since prison, and not only gave him the license but told him how impressed he was with him.

    I’d trust him before just trusting some guy who wandered in off the street who has, for all I know, managed to commit his crimes without being detected.

    As far as I’m concerned, the term “paid your debt to society” has real meaning. If you screwed up, and did your time, it’s done with. But this doesn’t apply to someone like Kimberlin who won’t own up to his deeds. I was being facetious earlier when I said if you’re going to commit a crime, make it a crime you can be proud of. But if you do commit a crime, at least be willing to admit it. If you’re the kind of guy who sues someone for mentioning what is in fact a public record, it tells me you’re not willing to live your life in a way that says you want to live down what you once did. And therefore you really shouldn’t be living among free people; you should still be locked up.

    Comment by Steve (7d9c6b) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:49 pm

  138. “What stops a person from going to MD over the weekend…”

    In my case, it’s good taste.

    I’m just teasing. I’m sure Maryland is a perfectly lovely state.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/30/2012 @ 1:58 pm

  139. Steve, did kimberlin sue cause someone said he was the speedway bomber?

    Comment by Ryy (c0ec8e) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:00 pm

  140. Comment by Dave Surls —
    I agree 100% and if I didn’t think this pimple on the ass of Asmodeus was as bad as they come for believers in America and the 1st amendment, I would not risk a return to prison. But I do believe we must end this behavior, these attacks on our free speech especially concerning people who operate tax exempt organizations that try to shape our national political dialog. These people should be above board, honest (even if having a criminal record, a track record of reform would not preclude this) and most of all, honorable people. This issue is too important to be silenced by the threat of imprisonment.

    Comment by plemmen (6cd503) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:01 pm

  141. I mean, what was the reason given? You can’t sue for telling the truth, he musta covered with another reason

    Comment by Ryy (c0ec8e) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:01 pm

  142. What stops a person from going to MD over the weekend and filing a complaint against anybody for anything? Just having better things to do?

    Comment by MD in Philly — 5/30/2012 @ 1:30 pm

    Absolutely. As you can tell by the army of eighwholes doing possibly pro bono work for Neal Rauhauser, there are people who have nothing better to do with their free time than try to ruin random conservatives’ days.

    I can’t imagine a conservative I respect going to the lengths Kimberlin et al have to try to silence liberals’ free speech. The closest I can think of is Bill O’Reilly’s ridiculous attempt to change the name of Al Franken’s Lying Liars… book so that it couldn’t bear the trademarked phrase “Fair & Balanced.” But O’Reilly’s not really what I call a conservative. What he has in common with Kimberlin is that he gets hot and bothered when people talk nasty about him on the Internet, but it’s a difference in degree like a spider monkey to King Kong.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (d7ed67) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:02 pm

  143. 138: kimberlin is not trying to silence people because of their politics, but rather because these people are threatening to him, right?

    Comment by Ryy (c0ec8e) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:04 pm

  144. Patterico has said this is not a left/right issue

    Comment by Ryy (c0ec8e) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:05 pm

  145. If lawyers were honest types, the lawyer who filed would be disbarred, the defendent issues a lien versus all plaintiff property, and soon thereafter integrity would infect the legal system.

    Till then, using “The Law” to torture and bully people is the norm. Shame on the lawyers for allowing a noble profession to become 99.2% corrupt.

    Comment by Bill (cd1593) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:06 pm

  146. I think Aaron didn’t see the arrest coming because Kimberlin used a procedure that is simply stunning to those of us involved in various criminal justice systems around the country.

    Basically, best as I can discern from the information available, Kimberlin serruptiously obtained an Interim Peace Order on 5/19 from a Commissioner. This is a demonstrable instance of abuse of process since the Commissioner’s are empowered to issue Interim Peace Orders only when the district court is closed. May 19 was a Saturday. Kimberlin should be forced to explain why he went on a Saturday to a commissioner rather than to a judge during the week.

    The Temporary Peace Order was issued by a Judge on 5/22, following the issuance of an Interim Order by a Commissioner. The Judge is not bound by the earlier decision of the Commisioner. It will be interesting to see what Kimberlin’s stated basis for seeking the Peace Order was.

    The hearing on 5/29 is the forum where the Temporary Order becomse a final order.

    What Kimberlin did was secure a warrant from a Commissioner — again as provided in MD statute –based on allegations that the Teporary Peace Order was violated between 5/22 and 5/27.

    5/27 is Sunday again, so he took advantage of the fact that Commissioners do this work when the court is closed. But he’ll be forced to state why he didn’t go to the court for a warrant between 5/22 and 5/25 since he says the incidents constituting a violation of the order took place all during that period. Again, he abused the process. It will be interesting to see what he alleged on 5/27 to be the nature of the conduct constituting a violation of the Order.

    When we get a transcript of yesterday’s proceeding, we’ll see if Kimberlin ever mentioned to the Judge that a commissioner had issued an arrest warrant for Aaron under the very Peace Order the Judge was considering. If not, I expect the Circuit Court judge who will hear this whole matter de novo will not be very pleased.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:08 pm

  147. Let me synopsize this violent criminal speedway bomber a-hole, felon Brett Kimberlin thing.
    Those who are arguing FOR Kimberlin’s cause, are morons. And likely libtards too.
    Just because Kimberlin is a violent thug doesn’t mean he’d chew your face off.

    Comment by Gus (36e9a7) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:08 pm

  148. Kimberlin’s campaigns of intimidation and harassment are predicated on the assumption that his victims are descent people who won’t turn the tables and adopt similarly vicious tactics, or ones even more dark, dirty, and reprehensible.

    In the same way that conventional forces can’t prevail in a guerrilla war, adherence to Marquis of Queensbury rules won’t do any good in an MMA octagon.

    Face it, to beat Kimberlin you have to use weapons and tactics more effective than his, blindside him, rain down a series of knock-out blows he doesn’t see coming, kick him while he’s down, then make damn sure he never gets up. Metaphorically speaking.

    Comment by ropelight (114f90) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:09 pm

  149. 142: great analysis, thank you

    Comment by Ryy (c0ec8e) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:11 pm

  150. “But the few comments I’ve read by him seem to be about trimming away the spurious stuff and looking at this objectively (and less emotionally) like a competent judge hopefully would. His points seem to be that the cheerleaders are as emotionally tied up in all this as Aaron is, and that pleas for rational, dispassionate arguments are shot down as if they were arguments for the other side.”

    K-Mart made some good points about how to avoid trouble with the law (if that’s your intention), but other than that, he’s just being a tit.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:20 pm

  151. I suspect that Aaron might have a decent case under 28 USC Section 1983 against the State of Maryland. The statutory framework they have created allows for the issuance of an arrest warrant based on false information submitted by a citizen, which then leads to the deprivation of liberty without due process when the warrant is executed.

    I question whether the “Commissioners” that issue these warrants have more than “qualified immunity”. Even if they have qualified immunity, the State could still be on the hook for conduct by them that violates the 5th Amendment.

    This could get very interesting vis-a-vis Maryland if a public-interest law group decided to take this up for Aaron.

    I suspect the State of MD would shut down Kimberlin and other vexatious litigants who are gaming the Peace Order process that exists — and has only existed for a very short period of time.

    MD is playing a dangerous game allowing a civil rights stifling process like “Peace Orders” to be grafted onto its criminal justice system, and then allowing proviate actors to set the process in motion in such a way that people are actually arrested and held in custody pending a court hearing.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:26 pm

  152. “but other than that, he’s just being a tit.”

    Hey, whats wrong with glorious tits?

    Boob I can live with, asshole is more like it.

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:27 pm

  153. How miraculous and magical Google must seem to Maryland’s judiciary. No wonder they react to it like it’s witchcraft.

    snort

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:27 pm

  154. Dare I suggest, not being a lawyer or nothing, and with 20/20 hindsight:

    The next time a judge asks Andrew what he wants out of all of this, failing a charge of perjury, he falls back on:

    “I would like Brett Kimberlin to be declared a vexatious litigant, and have to seek approval from the court before filing any more suits/peace orders/etc.”

    I’m sure a real lawyer can put that much better – even if the vexatious litigant stuff in maryland is not so great.

    Comment by luagha (5cbe06) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:28 pm

  155. Good comment, shipwreckedcrew.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:33 pm

  156. I have never posted before, am a Canadian visitor but come and read often. Just wanted to let you know that Patterico and the swatting etc was mentionned on Megan Kelly this afternoon on Fox TV.

    Comment by P.Cannon (9a868a) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:34 pm

  157. @P.Cannon

    Problem is, if the rest of the media run with it now they’ll be reporting on it from the perspective of yesterdays decision that a poor guy who made a mistake 30+ years ago when he was a yoot, served his time and is now a totally reformed family man who runs a charitable organization is being harassed, stalked & terrorized by a bunch of right-wing Breitbart/Tea Party thugs, that’ll be the meme.

    Once this bullshit decision gets thrown out they won’t bother mentioning it again.

    Won’t fit the agenda.

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 2:43 pm

  158. There is a process under MD statutory and case law to get what they refer to as a “Pre-Filing” order issued against any person deemed to be a “Vexatious Litigant.”

    The case that discusses it is Riffin v. Cir.Ct Baltimore County, 985 A.2d. 612, and there the court relied on MD. Statute 15-502(b). This is deemed a “sua sponte” injunction that bars all filings by a particular person unless first approved by a Circuit Judge.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/30/2012 @ 3:06 pm

  159. shipwreckedcrew, did you see anything that indicates how or when these “interim” and “temporary” orders were served upon Aaron?

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/30/2012 @ 3:19 pm

  160. Reading Riffin is remarkable.

    Comment by JD (8e63c8) — 5/30/2012 @ 3:24 pm

  161. ‘This is deemed a “sua sponte” injunction that bars all filings by a particular person unless first approved by a Circuit Judge.’

    They might want to consider employing that procedure whenever filings are made by a convicted perjurer.

    Just a suggestion.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/30/2012 @ 3:53 pm

  162. http://twitchy.com/2012/05/30/fox-news-covers-brett-kimberlin-and-patterico-swatting-story/

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 5/30/2012 @ 4:16 pm

  163. SPQR — the statute provides that these orders may be served by mail to the person’s last known address.

    But when that residence is out of state, I doubt such service is going to be “effective.”

    Bu, Aaron did appear in court so he submitted himself to the Court’s jurisdiction even if service was defective — though such defective service is likely a bar to actual prosecution.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/30/2012 @ 4:23 pm

  164. my iPhone won’t let me post for some reason, but I just wanted to say, you guys stay safe. Also, I agree with Lee Stranahan that Aaron should continue blogging, but please, Aaron, don’t take my opinion. Consult a lawyer and know every nook and cranny of the law. And again, above all, stay safe.

    Comment by ghost (6f9de7) — 5/30/2012 @ 4:29 pm

  165. SWC, your comments are very helpful for me understanding what has happened.

    I don’t think I would have expected something like this on a holiday weekend and would not have expected it to be served in court.

    Actually, this stings a bit because they were playing some games with the process right around the Christmas holiday. In other words, we should have seen this coming during a holiday weekend.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/30/2012 @ 5:34 pm

  166. No one bothered to ask Kimberlin how he was able to go through 5oo,ooo + Google alerts within 36-48 hours and find any and all instances of where his life was being threatened or provide proof of it.

    He would have had to have several people helping him with that, a helluva lot more than just his two best buds Bryneart and Rauhauer.

    Even if by chance there were a few instances of threats, I’d say it was like looking for a needle in a haystack and next to impossible to do in that short amount of time.

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 5:35 pm

  167. Which is to say the only way Kimberlin would know where to begin to look amongst that many alerts is if he were the one planting them.

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 5:41 pm

  168. shipwreckedcrew, proof of actual notice before the alleged acts would be required as at least a minimum to create probable cause for the arrest warrant. As well as to prosecute.

    This whole shenanigan is ridiculous.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/30/2012 @ 5:45 pm

  169. SPQR — that is why I think Maryland is playing with fire allowing “Commissioners” to handle these matters during off-hours.

    THis kind of nanny-state social science through the court system — providing every possible avenue to give comfort to people who feel aggrived by others — is dangerous business when it provides a path by which the rights of others can be so easily violated. When you get a miscreant like Kimberlin who is willing to exploit such a system you undermine public respect for the system which serves so many more important functions.

    If you read the transcript of the first Peace Order appeal before the Circuit Court judge, you can see his frustration with the Peace Order process and how it has created an impression that we all have a legal right to not be annoyed by others, and the Peace Order is a mechanism to protect us from being annoyed.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/30/2012 @ 5:51 pm

  170. John Difool: I hate to defend He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named and his putative Truth Eathers winnowing his Google alerts, but it wouldn’t take me very long to write a filter based on simple word matching that would leave only likely hits. (Not very long as in minutes.)

    Especially since he only needs some positive matches—well, ones in Aaron’s blog’s comments, but you get the idea—and Google can immediately process them and send the alerts before Aaron sees and delete them, since Google runs his blogging platform (Blogspot) and no doubt has an efficient feed from it.

    Comment by Lina Inverse (85d8f2) — 5/30/2012 @ 5:52 pm

  171. I am curious as to why the GoP does not see a First Amendment concern here.

    Comment by jd2 (40a8c6) — 5/30/2012 @ 5:54 pm

  172. @lina

    I’ll admit, I’m not very savvy when it comes to programming & software. Thanks for putting me some knowledge.

    Comment by John Difool (4251ee) — 5/30/2012 @ 5:55 pm

  173. shipwreckedcrew: Ah, but what else can Maryland do in the really serious cases, where violence truly is likely to happen? They don’t let their subjects citizens bear arms outside of their homes (it’s a may issue state, and seldom does), so obviously the only solution is to have someone available 24×7 to hand a threatened individual a piece of paper making it even more illegal to murder him….

    Comment by Lina Inverse (85d8f2) — 5/30/2012 @ 6:08 pm

  174. Since K-turd is so supportive of Brett Kimberlin’s methods, may AW ought to do the same to K-turd. After all, he has been cyberstalking and harassing AW for over NINE freakin’ years. What’s good for the goose!

    I bet he would sing a different tune then!

    Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:01 pm

  175. “maybe” AW ought

    Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 5/30/2012 @ 8:02 pm

  176. Kman,

    The issue at hand is the ability to present information that is public record or publicly reported, and to discuss speculation relating to events as long as it does not defame a person.
    The discussion of the Speedway Bombings goes to show that Kimberlin is capable of violent criminal actions and deceit.

    It’s also the origin of the entire scandal!

    The initial argument was in response to Seth Allen being harassed by Kimberlin for discussing the prudence of giving money to a domestic terrorist. The attempt is to portray Kimberlin’s record of dishonest and criminal conduct. Kimberlin is the one who is escalating this. He was the one trying to expose AW’s identity and he was the one who filed false assault charges (the video shows he was not decked or needing to be forcibly separated). If he had anything to do with the swatting, that’s an even higher level of insanity, but we do not have a solid case on that. If you don’t cover Kimberlin’s past, you miss the starting point for the whole scandal.

    Comment by OmegaPaladin (a63d4d) — 5/31/2012 @ 4:28 am

  177. If you read between the lines in this story, you can see that Kimberlin uses the threat of lawsuits to intimidate and empower himself at every turn– even if it’s just a case of his crazy cat lady aunt and her illegal fox collection

    Comment by Auntie Fraud (2f38aa) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:38 pm

  178. The initial argument was in response to Seth Allen being harassed by Kimberlin for discussing the prudence of giving money to a domestic terrorist….
    Comment by OmegaPaladin — 5/31/2012

    Thank you. I was about to ask how we got to where we are today from where BK was back then.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/31/2012 @ 8:42 pm

  179. The initial argument was in response to Seth Allen being harassed by Kimberlin for discussing the prudence of giving money to a domestic terrorist….
    Comment by OmegaPaladin — 5/31/2012

    Thank you. I was about to ask how we got to where we are today from where BK was back then.

    ——

    More specifically— Kimberlin and BradBlog were spreading this hoax of a story to fill their own coffers as Elections watchdogs

    Comment by Auntie Fraud (2f38aa) — 5/31/2012 @ 9:00 pm

  180. Thank you for that additional info, Auntie.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/31/2012 @ 9:07 pm

  181. Guess who else was floating this hoax, he’s been in the news lately,

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/non-profit-calls-for-federal-criminal-investigation-into-the-death-of-george-bush-technology-expert-michael-connell-84465217.html

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 5/31/2012 @ 9:23 pm

  182. narciso – Has anybody ever met Larissa Alexandrovna?

    Comment by daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9) — 5/31/2012 @ 9:34 pm

  183. Wasn’t she played by Scarlett Johansson,

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 5/31/2012 @ 9:37 pm

  184. Maybe Aaron could argue to the wise ancient philosopher king that a google alert is like a subscription to a newspaper. Brett did that to his own inbox, just as I subscribe to the WSJ and did that to my mailbox. And if I were to say the WSJ is harassing me because it keeps showing up in my mailbox with news about the economy that I find alarming, that is not the WSJ’s fault because I caused that.

    Not quite the right analogy. Some of you young’uns might not know what a cutting service is, but His Honor will. Cutting services were the Google alerts of the 20th century; instead of subscribing to every newspaper on the planet and taking the time to read them, the service did that for you, and any time they came across one of your key words they cut the article out and sent it to you. Every week (or every day, I suppose, if you were a heavy user) you’d get an envelope in the mail, with cuttings about the topics you were interested in. If you choose to subscribe to such a service and ask that they send you any article mentioning platypuses, and I write a letter to the editor about platypuses, thus causing your cutting service to send it to you, Kimberlin is claiming that I have communicated with you, and that if I’m under an order not to do so then I’ve violated it. That’s absurd even if I know about your cutting service subscription, let alone if I don’t.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 5/31/2012 @ 10:21 pm

  185. And now I see that I needn’t have bothered commenting, since #68 said the same thing.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 5/31/2012 @ 11:19 pm

  186. I mean, what is the response when the judge says, “Why are you writing a blog post which speculates that Kimberlin was a statutory rapist? What possible relevance does that have to anything that concerns you? Why are you bringing it up, if not to paint embarrass, humiliate or harass Kimberlin?”

    The correct answer is that it’s none of the judge’s business if Aaron or Seth or anyone else wants to “paint [sic] embarrass or humiliate” Kimberlin. That is their right as free people, and the judge (in his official capacity) has no right to inquire into their reasons. It’s only the judge’s business if they are harassing him, and blogging about this can’t be harassment. It can’t be harassment for the exact same reason that it can’t be cross-country skiing, or embezzlement. Words have meanings. “Harrassment” has a meaning, and this isn’t it. It’s as simple as that.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 5/31/2012 @ 11:43 pm

  187. I think that in this case Kman may be on to something: BK’s unsavory relationship with a little girl who’s grandmother’s murder was never solved is probably not relevant to whether or not he’s abusing the legal system to punish those who keep reminding the world about said unsavory relationship.

    So why does he keep bringing it up?

    Why not? How is it anybody’s business why he keeps bringing it up? How is that relevant?

    But the reason is actually simple; it’s a (small) part of Kimberlin’s history. It explains how we got to where we are now. That’s all. It’s not as if AW or anyone else is making a huge deal out of it; it’s mentioned as an aside in explaining who Kimberlin is, that’s all. And it is a fact that the whole saga started when Julia Scyphers got suspicious of Kimberlin’s relationship with her granddaughter.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 5/31/2012 @ 11:50 pm

  188. And when AW stands in front of a judge, as he did, and suggests that as a result of his “raising awareness” about Kimberlin, there have been 300,000 negative posts, it’s really hard for a court to buy into the concept that Kimberlin is picking the fight.

    Kman, here’s your problem: You’re in the same position as those nuts who insist that if George Zimmerman suspected that Trayvon Martin was up to no good, and followed him, then he started the fight and thus forfeited his right to defend himself with deadly force. That’s absurd. Following someone is not starting a fight, and nor is blogging about someone. Punching someone is starting a fight, and so is filing false legal motions against someone.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 5/31/2012 @ 11:56 pm

  189. “If Kimberlin is bad guy, why can’t somebody point to something concretely illegal that he is actually doing?”

    The concretely illegal thing he is doing is serial perjury, harassment, and making veiled but clear threats. But to understand that last charge, the threats, one has to know his criminal background. The same behaviour from a normal person would not seem as sinister, and if someone felt threatened they might justly be regarded as paranoid; but when coming from someone with his background these fears are only rational, because he’s shown what he’s capable of.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:05 am

  190. The peace order has nothing to do with defamation.

    It is about being harassed by the truth.

    And speculation.

    Neither of which can be harassment.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:14 am

  191. Ryy:

    Steve, did kimberlin sue cause someone said he was the speedway bomber?

    I mean, what was the reason given? You can’t sue for telling the truth, he musta covered with another reason

    AIUI, this whole saga started with Kimberlin suing Seth Allen for harassment, which alleged harassment consisted solely of blogging about him. So the answer to your question is yes, pretty much. He went to court and swore that the true things Allen had written about him were false, and that Allen was harassing him by defaming him. Which isn’t harassment, but he pretends to think it is.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:30 am

  192. Neither of which can be harassment.

    Yes, you CAN be harassed by the truth.

    Suppose that whenever you left your house and went out in public, I walked three feet behind you with a large sign showing a blowup of an authentic class photo from your elementary school yearbook, where it appears that you have wet your pants. And then there was an arrow coming out from the sign and pointing to you, making it clear that the picture was you.

    Suppose I followed you around (in public) with that sign consistently every day, for weeks, months….

    You wouldn’t consider that harassment?

    Courts have found that type of behavior to be harassment. In fact, there are states that criminalize harassment that do not require an inquiry into the truth or falsity.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 7:36 am

  193. “Suppose I followed you around (in public)…”

    But, no one has followed Kimberlin around in public.

    At least not that I’ve heard of.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 7:44 am

  194. Harrass

    “a: exhaust, fatigue b (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct”

    Are we harrassing Bretty? Hell, yes. Is it illegal?

    Not as far as I can tell. We have every right in the world to harrass the hell out of the guy by writing about his shady past.

    If he’s bothered by it (and it seems obvious that he and other people are real bothered by it)…that’s his tough luck.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 7:50 am

  195. Anyone else see the jaw-dropping irony of Kman criticizing someone else for following a person around, irritating them?

    Honestly, Kman?

    By your standards, you have been harassing Aaron for years.

    Comment by Simon Jester (2296f5) — 6/1/2012 @ 7:57 am

  196. But, no one has followed Kimberlin around in public.

    That’s not the point. The point is that “truth” isn’t necessarily an absolute defense to the charge of harassment.

    Are we harrassing Bretty? Hell, yes.

    Well, I wouldn’t go about admitting that. In any event, there are legal definitions of harassment, both in the civil and criminal context. As well as legal defenses. And it differs from state to state. Using the dictionary as the basis for your conclusion is, uh, not helpful.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 7:59 am

  197. By your standards, you have been harassing Aaron for years.

    And yet, he doesn’t sue me. Hmmmmm. I wonder why.

    Could it be that he’s been exaggerating and/or lying about me when he says I’ve been “stalking” him? Yeeeeeessss…….

    And that’s fine. There’s no downside for him to exaggerate and lie about someone when it comes to comment threads. It’s just part of the incivility that comes with the Internet.

    But Aaron can’t get away with that in court. And I seriously wonder if he really can distinguish between his “spin” about people, and the actual TRUTH about them. Because if he can’t, Kimberlin et al are going to have a field day in court.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:04 am

  198. Kman, you’re delusional. As I would expect of someone who’s sticking up for Kimberlin.

    In any case, Kimberlin is saying the “harrassment” consists of unlawful contact.

    Which Kimberlin arranged himself by setting up the Google alerts.

    If you followed me around with a sign, yes, that could be harassment. But as been pointed out, Kimberlin’s case is the exact opposite. Kimberlin is initiating and maintaining the contact that he’s blaming on Worthing.

    Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:18 am

  199. “That’s not the point.”

    Yes, it is the point. I have every right in the world to harrass Brett Kimberlin by telling the truth about his criminal past on the internet. It’s perfectly legal to do that.

    OTOH, it wouldn’t be legal for me to follow Brett Kimberlin down the street screaming at him, in California, because that would be a violation of California law.

    Some kinds of harrassment are legal, and some aren’t.

    That’s the point.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:23 am

  200. As for Maryland law, it doesn’t apply to me, so I don’t care what the authorities in Maryland think about what I’m doing, or what their laws say.

    If he secures a restraining order against me in Maryland, I’ll just ROTFLMAO, and go on about my business.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:31 am

  201. Kmart – is anyone following him around with a sign In public? Or do you consider blogging harassment?

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:34 am

  202. In any case, Kimberlin is saying the “harrassment” consists of unlawful contact.

    You obviously don’t know what the peace order said.

    Typical of peace orders, “harassment” and “no contact” are dealt with separately, as separate matters. Educate yourself.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:35 am

  203. Kmart doesnt want to talk about the relevant controlling case law. Because they all blow a hole in his sophistry and Kimberlin love.

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:40 am

  204. Kmart doesnt want to talk about the relevant controlling case law.

    I would LOVE to talk about relevant controlling case law. Don’t expect to find anyone here willing to, though. It’s easier to just throw rocks here.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:44 am

  205. I know what the peace order said, Kman. Which is why I’m not buying your BS.

    Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:46 am

  206. I know what the peace order said, Kman. Which is why I’m not buying your BS.

    You obviously don’t, because you link the “harassment” with the “no contact”, based on truncated and incomplete press reports.

    And yes, those press reports said that Kimberlin used Google Alerts, but he never said (according to those reports) that the Google Alerts was the SOURCE of the harassment. Nor did the judge make his decision solely on the Google Alerts.

    I don’t think you are terribly interested in the truth.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:51 am

  207. Or rather, I know what Kimberlin claimed to obtain the peace order.

    Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:52 am

  208. Here’s the truth, BSer:

    §3–803.
    (a) A person may not follow another in or about a public place or maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys the other:
    (1) with the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy the other;
    (2) after receiving a reasonable warning or request to stop by or on behalf of the other; and
    (3) without a legal purpose.
    (b) This section does not apply to a peaceable activity intended to express a political view or provide information to others.
    (c) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to:
    (1) for a first offense, imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or a fine not exceeding $500 or both; and
    (2) for a second or subsequent offense, imprisonment not exceeding 180 days or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both.

    Kimberlin lied to get a peace order against Worthing when according to the Maryland statute Worthing’s activities were completely within the law.

    Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:54 am

  209. Suppose the law did ban political speech or speech about a major hustler who just framed you for a crime?

    Would you obey that law?

    Gut check.

    I have seen over time which of us would have answered that call in 1776 America or 1940 France or any time there was a need for men and women to put what’s right ahead of what’s easy.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:59 am

  210. Or rather, I know what Kimberlin claimed to obtain the peace order

    Well, read the court’s order — I linked to it. The one that Aaron allegedly violated.

    §3–803.

    We’re not talking about Aaron violating a criminal statute. NOBODY thinks Aaron violated a criminal statute. Probably not even Kimberlin.

    We’re talking about Aaron violating a court order. And a court order can prohibit someone from doing something completely within the law.

    I don’t think you have enough background understanding to have an intelligent discussion.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:00 am

  211. It appears the Maryland statutes that cover Peace Orders are set forth in Title 3, Subtitle 15, of the 2010 Maryland Code. I’m not sure but aren’t these the laws that apply to Aaron’s case?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:04 am

  212. “Suppose the law did ban political speech…Would you obey that law?”

    I’ll answer that one.

    No.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:04 am

  213. http://www.openmarket.org/2012/05/31/lawyer-arrested-for-constitutionally-protected-blogging-against-convicted-bomber-after-hearing-before-judge-c-j-vaughey/

    Explain what is wrong with this analysis

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:08 am

  214. DRJ:

    It appears the Maryland statutes that cover Peace Orders are set forth in Title 3, Subtitle 15, of the 2010 Maryland Code. I’m not sure but aren’t these the laws that apply to Aaron’s case?

    They are. And actually, those statutes do make reference to, and incorporate, 3-803.

    But apparently, the judge didn’t believe that Aaron was merely “providing information to others”, but trying to incite others to do harm to Kimberlin.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:17 am

  215. Suppose that whenever you left your house and went out in public, I walked three feet behind you with a large sign showing a blowup of an authentic class photo from your elementary school yearbook, where it appears that you have wet your pants. And then there was an arrow coming out from the sign and pointing to you, making it clear that the picture was you.

    Suppose I followed you around (in public) with that sign consistently every day, for weeks, months….

    You wouldn’t consider that harassment?

    Yes, but no more so than if you weren’t carrying the sign, or than if the sign said no more than “Milhouse is a jerk”. Conversely if you were to put that sign up on a billboard or a web site, it would not be harrassment, no matter how embarrassing it was for me.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:19 am

  216. Okay, I remember seeing 3-803 incorporated. Thanks.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:20 am

  217. But, no one has followed Kimberlin around in public.

    That’s not the point. The point is that “truth” isn’t necessarily an absolute defense to the charge of harassment.

    It is the point. Truth isn’t a defense to harrassment; but telling the truth about someone cannot constitute harrassment. That’s simply not what the word means.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:21 am

  218. Typical of peace orders, “harassment” and “no contact” are dealt with separately, as separate matters.

    It is by definition impossible to harrass someone without contacting them.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:24 am

  219. We’re talking about Aaron violating a court order. And a court order can prohibit someone from doing something completely within the law.

    No court order can prohibit someone from doing something that is protected by the constitution.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:25 am

  220. But apparently, the judge didn’t believe that Aaron was merely “providing information to others”, but trying to incite others to do harm to Kimberlin.

    It is practically impossible to incite people on a blog. Incitement requires that the incited person immediately commit the crime, without thinking about it. The idea is that the criminal didn’t make an independent decision to commit the crime; that the incitement turned him into a sort of robot for the inciter. That’s difficult to do in writing; maybe it can be done on twitter, but it’s harder on a blog. In any event, incitement also requires that the inciter intend for the incitee to commit the crime; such an intention certainly can’t be attributed to AW. There’s simply no basis for it in anything he’s written.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:30 am

  221. Milhouse,

    I think the judge was wrong in Aaron’s case but there can be limits on speech and other constitutionally-protected rights. Peace/restraining orders regularly restrict a person’s right to have a weapon, even though the right to arms is protected by the Second Amendment. It can even be a federal criminal offense in domestic cases.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:32 am

  222. As for incitement, the judge appeared to analogize talking on the internet to standing outside and talking to a mob of people. There are similarities and differences, although I think the differences are more significant.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:33 am

  223. Kman, your BS is piling up fast and thick.

    Yes, you linked to the peace order. And paragraph one said that respondent had committed the following acts against the petitioner:

    Harassment.

    That’s it. Harassment. And that has a legal definition in Maryland, and I quoted the statute to combat your BS that anything Worthing did constituted harassment. It didn’t.

    You are just flat out full of excrement when you try to characterize Worthing’s behavior as constituting harassment, or when you try to portray the pack of lies that Kimberlin attested to in order to get the peace order as if they are a valid portrayal of harassment.

    Moreover, the only reason one can get a peace order because one believes someone is harassing them is if that someone’s behavior constitutes the behavior listed in the statute.

    Ergo, if as you admit he didn’t violate the statute:

    We’re not talking about Aaron violating a criminal statute. NOBODY thinks Aaron violated a criminal statute. Probably not even Kimberlin.

    Then you just admitted you know you’re full of excrement.

    Have a nice day, BSer.

    Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:36 am

  224. Explain what is wrong with this analysis

    There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s a good analysis of the legal issues.

    My only point is that it’s not as open-and-shut as you might think. There are lines of cases, not mentioned in that analysis, that go the other way, e.g., Thorne v Bailey, 846 F.2d 241 (1988)(“Prohibiting harassment is not prohibiting speech, because harassment is not a protected speech. Harassment is not communication, although it may take the form of speech.”)

    I think the First Amendment argument should prevail, and, as a liberal, I would obviously prefer that it did. But if someone is simply saying, “Aaron was telling the truth about BK. End of argument”, they’re not thinking about the issues hard enough.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:42 am

  225. the judge appeared to analogize talking on the internet to standing outside and talking to a mob of people.

    It wouldn’t have killed the judge to read Aaron’s post and see that it wasn’t remotely threatening or remotely inciting any kind of mob to go get anybody.

    He even had a section specifying precisely what he wanted readers to do to help him: things like help Aaron get a job and petition the government to address this problem, which is a sacred right we should exercise in cases like this one.

    Not that dispute this. It just bothers me that the judge should have at least read Aaron’s post. I think if he had, he’d have understood the situation much better. Brett is claiming his post is harassment? Well read the post!

    Of course it’s not protected speech to incite a mob to commit crimes. Aaron admitted freely that threats were not protected speech.

    Grumble grumble.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:43 am

  226. I think Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527, 532-33 (6th Cir. 1993).Id. 532-33, demonstrates the kind of behavior Kimberlin continues to engage in (not available for free on-line).

    As for Kimberlin’s allegations about Vice President Quayle supposedly creating an appearance of political vindictiveness in the Commission’s decisions, the district court correctly concluded that Kimberlin, not the Commission, created this appearance.

    Kimberlin claims to be victimized by behavior that Kimberlin is entirely and solely responsible for in the first place.

    Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:44 am

  227. Dustin,

    It’s logical and fair to expect the judge to specifically identify what Aaron posted or tweeted that became the judge’s source for the claim of incitement. At this point, it sounds like the judge assumed a nexus between the two, but his actual words would tell us if that is true.

    Thus, we need a transcript in order to say for sure. Until then, I’m going to assume there was some basis for the judge’s decision, even though I think he was wrong. (In addition, when a litigant annoys a judge, it makes it easier for the judge to miss the litigant’s point. I don’t think the appeals court will hold that against Aaron but it may factor into how they talk about the judge.)

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:53 am

  228. Dustin:

    It wouldn’t have killed the judge to read Aaron’s post and see that it wasn’t remotely threatening or remotely inciting any kind of mob to go get anybody.

    I believe the judge said he did.

    But you probably know the counter-argument. Domestic terrorist groups (the Klan, etc.) never tell people to go and commit crimes either. In fact, they often instruct their followers not to (wink, wink).

    I don’t buy that argument as applied to Aaron, obviously. But he doesn’t help his cause when he writes and Tweets so often (and so verbosely), and does it in such an aggressive and bombastic tone. With the sheet volume of words out there, it was fairly easy for Kimberlin to cherry-pick different phrases that Aaron wrote, and paint Aaron as a legitimate threat.

    DRJ:

    we need a transcript in order to say for sure.Until then, I’m going to assume there was some basis for the judge’s decision, even though I think he was wrong.

    Indeed.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:58 am

  229. I think the First Amendment argument should prevail, and, as a liberal, I would obviously prefer that it did.

    BS. The idea that being a liberal places you on that side of the equation is laughable. Especially in light of your defense of BK.

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:01 am

  230. I need some help with the facts. It’s my understanding that, prior to the hearing before Judge Vaughey, Kimberlin got an arrest order over the weekend from a commissioner claiming that Aaron had violated the Interim Peace Order by blogging about Kimberlin. Specifically:

    1. Is it correct that Aaron was arrested based Kimberlin’s claim that Aaron had violated the interim order that was the subject of the hearing before Judge Vaughey (to decide whether to make it a final order)?

    2. Was the judge told about the arrest warrant during the hearing, or did he see Aaron get arrested before leaving the courtroom? Or was Aaron arrested outside the courtroom?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:02 am

  231. Here’s what I’m pondering: Aaron may have annoyed Judge Vaughey but if Kimberlin didn’t tell the Judge about his weekend efforts to get Aaron arrested based on the interim order that was before the court, that’s an end run that would annoy any judge. I assume Aaron plans to appeal but if my understanding of the facts is correct, Aaron’s attorney might also be able to use Kimberlin’s actions to get Judge Vaughey to agree to a rehearing and/or set aside his final order.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:11 am

  232. Kman – Have you finally settled on a position or are you going to keep moving the goal posts around awhile longer?

    Comment by daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:13 am

  233. DRJ – it seems like a pretty blatant lie by ommission, no?

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:17 am

  234. “I think the First Amendment argument should prevail”

    There is no First Amendent argument here.

    There is an argument about whether or not the court order violates Article 10 of the Maryland state Constitution (definitely so, IMO).

    There’s an argument about whether or not a court in Maryland can tell someone in Virginia what they can or can’t say (definitely not, IMO).

    But, there is no First Amendment argument in regard to this case.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:23 am

  235. With the sheet volume of words out there, it was fairly easy for Kimberlin to cherry-pick different phrases that Aaron wrote, and paint Aaron as a legitimate threat.

    So then you realize that Kimberlin cherry-picked different phrases in order to falsely convince a commissioner that Worthing had “harassed” him, as defined by the criminal code.

    A crime you don’t believe Worthing committed, and you don’t even think Kimberlin believes Worthing committed.

    And yet you continue to defend Kimberlin as if he’s pursuing a legitimate course of action.

    Very telling, Kman.

    Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:26 am

  236. “…and, as a liberal, I would obviously prefer that it did.”

    A laughable statement as virtually all serious violations of the First Amendment have been carried out by liberals.

    Example: Enactment of the Smith Act, and Smith Act prosecutions.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:26 am

  237. daley:

    Have you finally settled on a position or are you going to keep moving the goal posts around awhile longer?

    I haven’t moved any goalposts on my position because I don’t think I’ve ever stated my position on the legal issues until today. I think you (and most others) have always been assuming what my position was, based on:

    (1) I’ve criticized Aaron for his courtroom antics or other things that have lead him to his situation: and/or

    (2) Because I’m interested in knowing the facts and not speculating; and/or

    (3) I refuse to drink the KoolAid and froth at the mouth about how the judge should be impeached blah blah blah.

    So that had lead some of you to assume I’ve been “in the Kimberlin camp”, and some of you stated that as fact, and eventually, some of you come to believe it.

    But it was never true, and I don’t feel compelled to adhere to your incorrect misinformed assumptions.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:30 am

  238. daleyrocks,

    Most litigants would be anxious to tell the judge how the opposing party violated the interim order and to ask the judge to find the party in contempt. Instead, it sounds like Kimberlin tried to get two bites at the apple — once with the commissioner (by getting an arrest warrant) and another after that with Judge Vaughey (by getting a Final Peace Order).

    I wonder if Kimberlin overplayed his hand by trying to punish Aaron twice for the same words. Had Kimberlin been satisfied with the Final Peace Order against Aaron, it would take time to appeal and the attention would have gone away. Instead, by getting Aaron arrested, Kimberlin undoubtedly got some short-term satisfaction but Aaron is getting far more legal help and attention.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:33 am

  239. On second thought, my understanding is that Aaron’s long post was published 2 days before the interim peace order took effect. Is that correct? If so, I wonder what Kimberlin told the commissioner that Aaron said or did that violated the interim peace order?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:46 am

  240. In addition to Judge Vaughey’s transcript, frankly I’d like to hear more about the commissioner’s decision.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:47 am

  241. DRJ – I thought the “peace order” looked back 30 days.

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:49 am

  242. DRJ:

    On second thought, my understanding is that Aaron’s long post was published 2 days before the interim peace order took effect. Is that correct? If so, I wonder what Kimberlin told the commissioner that Aaron said or did that violated the interim peace order

    The timeline is a bit confusing, it appears there was a temporary peace order that followed the interim peace order. There was a hearing about which we know very little about, because Aaron did not appear in court. We don’t even really know what the temporary order said, but I believe that Aaron was arrested for violating the temporary peace order, not the interim peace order. Patterico has a very helpful post here.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:59 am

  243. Kmart is really a condescending prlck

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:03 am

  244. Aaron was contesting the peace order, and actually showed up, ‘winning the future’

    Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:06 am

  245. I’m not getting it, Kman.

    Patterico’s timeline suggests there was one peace order — beginning on 5/19/2012 as an interim order; changing on 5/22/2012 to a temporary order; and culminating on 5/29/2012 as a final order.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:07 am

  246. My guess is the 5/22/2012 hearing may have been listed as a temporary order because Aaron wasn’t present.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:08 am

  247. Kman,

    I agree the criminal charge refers to the 5/22/2012 temporary peace order, but all the peace orders are listed under the same Civil case number.

    So I’d like to know what Kimberlin told the commissioner that Aaron did after 5/19/2012, and what Judge Vaughey knew or was told about the status of the case.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:11 am

  248. Great questions, DRJ. I’m not confident the transcript will clarify the matter any more than simply showing the judge failed to precisely identify what about Aaron’s posts or tweets was incitement. In fact, if I’m correct, we’ll only read that he dismissed the idea of reading them a something for those with no life.

    I agree that irritating the judge didn’t help. A lawyer representing Aaron would have been less tempted to get aggravated with what must have been a very aggravating situation for Aaron.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:15 am

  249. JD:

    Kmart is really a condescending prlck

    I’m giving you points for this. It’s true. I don’t suffer fools gladly.

    Dave:

    A laughable statement as virtually all serious violations of the First Amendment have been carried out by liberals.

    Anti-flag burning statues
    Compelled school prayer
    Suppression of the Pentagon Papers
    Gag orders on what doctors can tell their patients
    Obscenity laws

    Liberals are always on the anti-First Amendment side, huh?

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:16 am

  250. Do we know anything about the 5/22/2012 temporary hearing? What if it was an earlier attempt by Kimberlin to get an arrest warrant or a contempt citation against Aaron but the judge refused, so he went back to a commissioner on the weekend and was successful?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:19 am

  251. I said that in direct response to the way you were speaking to DRJ. Were you being that way to her because you think her a fool?

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:19 am

  252. One peace order — beginning on 5/19/2012 as an interim order; changing on 5/22/2012 to a temporary order; and culminating on 5/29/2012 as a final order.

    It’s three peace orders, stemming from the same complaint. Just as the terms of a temporary injunction may differ from the terms of a permanent one, the terms of these orders may be different (although personally, I doubt they differed substantially if at all).

    My guess is the 5/22/2012 hearing may have been listed as a temporary order because Aaron wasn’t present.

    I don’t think so. I think that’s standard practice.

    You have the interim stage, which sets limits without a hearing. These tend to be very short in nature simply because there’s been no opportunity for both sides to air their argument. But there are necessary (you can see why if you think about it in a case that involves domestic violence).

    Then you have a temporary hearing, which gives both sides an opportunity to appear, albeit not in a full blown capacity, since there isn’t time for discovery, etc.

    And then a final hearing when, presumably, all sides have done discovery and can litigate the issues to the fullest extent.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:24 am

  253. I said that in direct response to the way you were speaking to DRJ. Were you being that way to her because you think her a fool?

    No. She (she, you say?) is asking relevant questions.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:25 am

  254. Dustin,

    I understand it’s unlikely that the Judge conducted Brandenburg test fact-finding, given his reported statements that he didn’t care about that. Nevertheless, the appeals court might consider whether sufficient facts to meet that test are set forth in the transcript.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:26 am

  255. And then a final hearing when, presumably, all sides have done discovery and can litigate the issues to the fullest extent.

    That seems to be presuming quite a bit.

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:26 am

  256. You linked to a post she read and commented on. You were being a condescending prlck. It is who you are.

    Full discovery lasts less than 2 weeks? Is it not the case that the ex parte hearing could have been a final hearing if both parties were present? Not much time for discovery there.

    DRJ – seems rather clear to me that the Sunday warrant was gaming the system.

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:32 am

  257. I understand it’s unlikely that the Judge conducted Brandenburg test fact-finding, given his reported statements that he didn’t care about that.

    I’m not sure I trust the reporting on this. First of all, it’s third-hand.

    And while the judge may have said “I don’t care about Brandenburg”, he may have meant it in the sense of “I already know about Brandenburg, so don’t lecture me on it, counsel”.

    Or maybe he meant in the sense of “I don’t care about Brandenburg at the moment; just answer the question I asked”.

    That’s the problem with taking quotes out of context, particularly in a courtroom.

    That’s why a transcript would be helpful.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:38 am

  258. JD:

    Full discovery lasts less than 2 weeks?

    It depends on the case, obviously.

    Is it not the case that the ex parte hearing could have been a final hearing if both parties were present?

    An ex parte hearing where both parties are present?!? LOL! You don’t know what you’re talking about. And if I sound like a condescending prick to you, it’s because I don’t suffer fools gladly.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:43 am

  259. It was ex parte, when AW was not there, no? Had he been there, obviously it would have not been ex parte. But you just felt like being a prlck again, instead of addressing the question. Shocka!

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:49 am

  260. Kman,

    I like discussing this but please don’t come here if you can’t “suffer fools.” We all (even you, I bet!) have moments in life where we don’t get concepts and may look foolish, but there are no fools here. Those who hang out here do so because we want to learn, and there’s nothing foolish about that.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:52 am

  261. Is it not the case that the temporary hearing could have been a final hearing if both parties were present? Not much time for discovery there.

    Better, prlck?

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:58 am

  262. Dustin,

    Doesn’t Brandenburg require a showing that Person A intended to incite others to threaten or commit serious, imminent harm against Person B? I think it does but I don’t think the judge has to read everything Person A wrote to make that determination. Under our system, the point is for Person B to show the judge Person A’s intent by showing what he objects to in Person A’s words and why it incited people to imminent threats/harm.

    In this case, I assume Kimberlin offered death threats as proof of “threat of serious harm,” but that’s only one element. We still to know what specific posts Kimberlin objected to. (My guess is he pointed out Aaron’s support for “Blog about Kimberlin Day” and Aaron’s long blog post on 5/17/12 as specific evidence that the judge could decide incited threats.) But as I understand Brandenburg, we also need evidence of Aaron’s intent to incite; that what Aaron wrote would incite a reasonable person to threaten Kimberlin; and that the threat was imminent.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:03 pm

  263. “I haven’t moved any goalposts on my position because I don’t think I’ve ever stated my position on the legal issues until today.”

    Kman – Exactly, you continue moving the goal posts all over the field saying you feel the First Amendment should prevail at one point, avoiding discussion of Maryland statutes on harassment at others, throwing in red herrings about following people with signs or photos at others.

    Jello is what I would call your brave position.

    Comment by daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:03 pm

  264. DRJ:

    I like discussing this but please don’t come here if you can’t “suffer fools.” We all (even you, I bet!) have moments in life where we don’t get concepts…

    You’re right. That’s why I gave JD “points” earlier for calling me condescending. Because he wasn’t entirely off base. I’ll try to be better.

    JD:

    Apologies. I’ll try not to be so prickish. You keep calling me out on that.

    The answer is “no”. If Aaron had shown up to the hearing to determine if there would be a temporary order, and said to the judge, “Look. I just got notification of this within the past 24 hours, and I need time for discovery” or “I need time to marshal my facts” or “I need more time to get by legal ducks in a row”, a judge is going to give it to him. He’s not going to force a defendant into having a final hearing when the defendant states on the record that he has had short and insufficient notice to prepare a defense. No judge wants to have his ruling overturned on those grounds.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:04 pm

  265. That is my understanding of Brandenburg, DRJ. It is unfortunate that the judge took Aaron’s freedom away if he did not first analyze whether Aaron actually failed this test. It’s even more unfortunate if the judge expressed he didn’t want to hear about the test, which means the court was scoffing at the law.

    I believe it’s easiest to read Aaron’s intent by reading his “how you can help” passages in his blog posts on this subject.

    He even notes people need to be polite!

    I look forward to the transcript and to an appeal looking carefully at all the evidence. Aaron deserves a legitimate day in court.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:06 pm

  266. Kman,

    I concede we don’t know if there are sufficient facts in the record for Judge Vaughey to satisfy the Brandenburg test, but the transcript will tell us that. In addition, the appeals court might review the record to decide if there is sufficient evidence to support Judge Vaughey’s decision, regardless of what he said about Brandenburg.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:10 pm

  267. Daley:

    Jello is what I would call your brave position.

    I guess I’ll just have to live with your disappointment in me.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:12 pm

  268. DRJ:

    I concede we don’t know if there are sufficient facts in the record for Judge Vaughey to satisfy the Brandenburg test, but the transcript will tell us that.

    Right.

    Here’s what we don’t have.

    (1) The transcript of the temporary hearing where (I think we can presume) Kimberlin presented further allegations against Aaron.

    (2) The temporary peace order that emanated from the temporary hearing.

    (3) The complaint (or whatever Maryland calls it) from Kimberlin which sets out the ways in which Aaron violated the temporary peace order.

    And that just goes to the arrest.

    And all that is, as you’ve noted, separate and apart from whatever transpired at the final hearing, for which we lack a transcript as well as (am I right about this?) the final order.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:17 pm

  269. So, it could, but you don’t think it would? Is that a fair reading of your response?

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:19 pm

  270. So, it could, but you don’t think it would? Is that a fair reading of your response?

    Not really.

    It could only in the sense that a judge can do anything he wants.

    But I’m telling you that the judge has absolutely no incentive to deny a defendant a full and fair hearing, i.e., knowingly violate § 3-1505 of the Maryland Code (not to mention the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and get overturned by a higher court, thus letting a litigant prevail on a procedural technicality.

    The Maryland statute I refer to, by the way, says that a temporary hearing can only become a final hearing if both parties consent to wave the temporary hearing.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:43 pm

  271. You could have stated that last sentence instead of being a verbose condescending prlck.

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:50 pm

  272. JD:

    You could have stated that last sentence instead of being a verbose condescending prlck.

    Also, I typed “wave” instead of “waive”. Not my best day.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:55 pm

  273. Kman,

    I think this is the Final Peace Order entered at/after the hearing on 5/29/2012.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:57 pm

  274. DRJ:

    That’s right. Thanks.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:59 pm

  275. Maybe it’s nothing, but I just noticed that the terms of the Temporary Peace Order apparently are different from the Interim Peace Order if you look at the “Results” on this graphic that Patterico posted.

    Specifically, it looks like a further condition was imposed on Aaron — i.e., to stay away from Kimberlin’s place of employment. It makes you wonder what allegations Kimberlin made at the temporary hearing.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:18 pm

  276. Good catch, Kman. I hope there is a transcript or recording of that hearing.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:23 pm

  277. Has there been any actual evidence presented?

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:30 pm

  278. “Anti-flag burning statues”

    LOL.

    There aren’t any federal statutes against burning flags that I’m aware of, though there have been attempts to amend the Constitution so that statutes to prohibit burning the flag of the United States could be legally enacted by Congress.

    However, there were/are acts of Congress like the Espionage/Sedition acts used by the Wilson administration and the Smith Act used by the Roosevelt/Truman administrations which caused hundreds of people to be convicted and sent to prison simply for expressing opinions that liberal governments disapproved of.

    Eugene Debs, and Gus Hall could tell you about it, but they’re no longer available for comment.

    Right wingers pretty much don’t play that way.

    The idea that lefties are stalwart defenders of the First Amendment, while righties aren’t, is the joke of the millenium.

    However, this isn’t a first amendment issue, since Congress isn’t passing a law forbidding Aaron “Walker” or anyone else from speaking about Brett Kimberlin.

    It’s quite likely a Maryland state Constitutional issue (since their Constitution specifically forbids courts from interfering with free speech), but it isn’t a First Amendment issue, any more than it would be a First Amendment issue if Pat Frey forbade me to post on this blog.

    He’s not Congress, so he can make a rule forbidding me to speak (in places where he has the authority to do so).

    This whole thing has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which liberals honor only when its convenient (meaning they ignore it when they’re in power and want to toss people in jail for saying or writing stuff).

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:31 pm

  279. The idea that lefties are stalwart defenders of the First Amendment, while righties aren’t, is the joke of the millenium.

    I didn’t say that. YOU said that it was ONLY lefties who engage in serious violations of the First Amendment.

    However, this isn’t a first amendment issue, since Congress isn’t passing a law forbidding Aaron “Walker” or anyone else from speaking about Brett Kimberlin.

    Yes, it is a First Amendment issue. But don’t ask me to explain why, because I’m not sure I can explain without being condescending suffering fools gladly being condescending.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:36 pm

  280. “YOU said that it was ONLY lefties who engage in serious violations of the First Amendment.”

    That’s because it’s true.

    You don’t see hundreds of people being thrown in prison just for expressing opinions when Warren Harding or George Bush II are POTUS, but you sure can see it when Woodrow Wilson or Harry Truman are POTUS.

    “Yes, it is a First Amendment issue.”

    No, it isn’t. Congress hasn’t passed any law telling us we can’t talk about Brett Kimberlin. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:47 pm

  281. “But don’t ask me to explain why”

    I won’t. I’ve already heard the Barron v. Baltimore/Incorporation babble.

    I don’t need to hear it again.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:58 pm

  282. Congress hasn’t passed any law telling us we can’t talk about Brett Kimberlin. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

    I guess Aaron could do worse than representing himself in court.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:59 pm

  283. I think the First Amendment argument should prevail, and, as a liberal, I would obviously prefer that it did.

    If you didn’t intend to express a nexus between being liberal, and support of the 1st Amendment, what was the point of your comment?

    Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:06 pm

  284. Comment by Kman — 6/1/2012 @ 1:36 pm

    Yes, it is a First Amendment issue. But don’t ask me to explain why

    Near v Minnesota. 179 Minn. 40; 228 N.W. 326, reversed in 283 U.S. 697

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0283_0697_ZS.html

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:08 pm

  285. Comment by Kman — 6/1/2012 @ 1:18 pm

    Maybe it’s nothing, but I just noticed that the terms of the Temporary Peace Order apparently are different from the Interim Peace Order if you look at the “Results” on this graphic that Patterico posted.

    Specifically, it looks like a further condition was imposed on Aaron — i.e., to stay away from Kimberlin’s place of employment. It makes you wonder what allegations Kimberlin made at the temporary hearing.

    The whole place of employment thing looks like boilerplate to me. The judge didn’t even have an address to fill in.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:10 pm

  286. “I guess Aaron could do worse than representing himself in court.”

    I’m not defending Aaron in court, putz.

    If I was, I wouldn’t be making arguments that would work AGAINST my client.

    I’d be milking the Incorporation of the First Amendment baloney for all it was worth, if I thought it would get him off the hook.

    Obviously.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:10 pm

  287. And a court order can prohibit someone from doing something completely within the law.

    So close…

    The court can order you to drive down the street where your ex lives. They can say you can’t go to the business they work at. They can even say you can’t speak to them…

    But the law can not, without violating the most basic concepts of Free Speech, tell you to not talk about them in a manner that does not directly incite others to violence.

    Had Aaron ever said “Go, find him, and hurt him”, then sure, we might have an issue to work with, but since he never did that, and in fact told people to do the opposite, means that this judge is a f*cking moron, Kimberlin is a lying pile of sh*t, and you are dumber than a post.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:22 pm

  288. The whole place of employment thing looks like boilerplate to me. The judge didn’t even have an address to fill in.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/1/2012 @ 2:10 pm

    It is; if you look at the original petition Kimberlin submitted to the commissioner for the interim peace order, he had checked the block on the form requesting Worthing be ordered to stay away from his work place. There’s no legible address on the form Kimberlin filed requesting the order.

    Considering how sloppy the commissioner who wrote the original peace order was, it was probably just an oversight that it wasn’t on the document from the start.

    Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:51 pm

  289. “I guess I’ll just have to live with your disappointment in me.”

    Kman – I’ll give you the number for a suicide hotline if you need it.

    Comment by daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:59 pm

  290. JD:

    Has there been any actual evidence presented?

    I don’t know what evidence Kimberlin offered. We’d know if we could see the transcript.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:33 pm

  291. My only point is that it’s not as open-and-shut as you might think. There are lines of cases, not mentioned in that analysis, that go the other way, e.g., Thorne v Bailey, 846 F.2d 241 (1988)(“Prohibiting harassment is not prohibiting speech, because harassment is not a protected speech. Harassment is not communication, although it may take the form of speech.”)

    Exactly. “Harassment is not communication.” Therefore mere speech cannot be harassment. Harassment has a definition, which blog posts do not conform to. Harassment can take the form of speech, but in such a case it’s not content of the speech that is the harassment, but the time and manner, which is not “speech” for first amendment purposes, i.e. it can be regulated for content-neutral purposes. The test is to imagine that the person was saying the opposite of what he is in fact saying, or that he was speaking gibberish; would you still call it harassment? If so, then you’ve got a case; if not, then you don’t.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:30 pm

  292. the judge appeared to analogize talking on the internet to standing outside and talking to a mob of people.

    But it isn’t. That’s my point. A blog post is like a newspaper column; it’s difficult (though not impossible) for it to be incitement, simply because the medium doesn’t lend itself to that.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:31 pm

  293. Some judges might agree with you, Milhouse, but apparently this one doesn’t.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:36 pm

  294. “I refuse to drink the KoolAid and froth at the mouth about how the judge should be impeached blah blah blah.”

    This is the only post in this thread in which the word “impeach” appears.

    Comment by Gary Rosen (afeaef) — 6/2/2012 @ 3:17 am

  295. Some judges might agree with you, Milhouse, but apparently this one doesn’t.

    This judge has no idea what a blog is. If he knew, he’d probably agree with me.

    Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 6/2/2012 @ 11:13 pm

  296. Milhouse, if you haven’t done so, check out the new main post.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/2/2012 @ 11:19 pm

  297. Good. I’ll take out a peace order against the Diversity Hustlers who fraudulently accuse me of having “White privilege,” a charge which instigates racial hatred and violence against me and my future.

    Comment by Church of Jed (ab5790) — 6/12/2012 @ 11:57 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6976 secs.