Patterico's Pontifications

6/2/2012

Crowdsourcing Request: Help Transcribe the Best Parts of Aaron Walker’s Hearing

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:38 pm

Lee Stranahan has published the audio of the hearing where Aaron Walker was arrested for blogging about a public figure.

Ssshhhh. We’ll keep it under wraps for now. It’ll be our secret: just you Patterico readers and me. (And Stranahan readers, and Jawa readers, and . . .)

All I’ll say for now is: my report of the events of the hearing is completely vindicated, as is David Hogberg’s. This is a clear-cut case of a First Amendment violation — about as clear-cut as you’ll ever hear.

Always trust content from Patterico.

Our plan is to release a post on Monday morning with the audio and the best bits transcribed. Ideally, Lee will do a video.

I’ve taken a rough cut at a few passages, but I had to work on a trial before I could transcribe the rest. To save you time, I’ll give you the parts I partially transcribed:

At 9:58:

KIMBERLIN: Last week, he got all these bloggers all over the country to create Let’s Blog About Brett Kimberlin day. Over 350 bloggers blogged that I framed him. And that led to a number — probably scores of death threats. . . . They threatened my daughter, who is a preteen, my mother, they called on the phone and threatened SWAT teams –

WALKER: Your honor, I would like to object here. He is characterizing the statements of third parties –

THE COURT [to Aaron]: You got any clients?!

At 13:53:

WALKER: And you were known as the “Speedway Bomber,” were you not?

KIMBERLIN: I don’t know that.

He doesn’t know that he was known as the Speedway Bomber.

WALKER: You don’t know that you are known as the Speedway Bomber? Do you not know that you — you never read this before in your life?

KIMBERLIN: I’ve read a lot of things.

At one point, Kimberlin claims that the civil judgment against him was “thrown out” and is “considered satisfied.” Since these statements are false, I’d love for them to be fully and accurately transcribed as well.

At 40:30:

WALKER: It is my right under the First Amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It is my right to tell the world what he did to me. Galloway vs. State –

THE COURT: Within reason, my friend.

There is much more in this hearing that is gold. Listening to the audio, I am struck by how much more respect I have for Aaron, and how much less respect I have for the judge, than I did based on the published reports.

Again, leave your efforts at transcription in the comments. With luck, we can put all the best parts in a video to be released on Monday morning, which will be publicized far and wide.

I am not asking for a transcription of the whole thing. I am asking you to listen to the file, pick out the most outrageous parts, and provide an accurate and usable transcription, as well as the time when the notable passage occurs.

Make sure you read the comments first to see if someone has already transcribed your favorite passage.

This must be done quickly. Every minute that a judge’s order prohibits Aaron from blogging about a public figure, his free speech rights are being violated. This must end as soon as possible. Again, our goal is to get out a comprehensive post on Monday morning.

So get cracking!

This is a situation where you can truly advance the defense of the First Amendment in a tangible way. By accurately transcribing the most shocking parts of this hearing, you can help end this injustice.

Here is the audio:

Release the Army of Davids!

UPDATE: The post with excerpts of the most relevant clips is here.

209 Responses to “Crowdsourcing Request: Help Transcribe the Best Parts of Aaron Walker’s Hearing”

  1. If you care about the First Amendment, get moving! This is important.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  2. All I’ll say for now is: my report of the events of the hearing is completely vindicated, as is David Hogberg’s. This is a clear-cut case of a First Amendment violation — about as clear-cut as you’ll ever hear.

    Well, that was my initial position so I feel vindicated somewhat about that — even if I did end up on an enormous tangent.

    I’ll give working on the audio a shot, but maybe it would be more efficient if you quickly divided it into blocks and we transcribed those blocks.

    Further, if anyone has an audio editing program, such as the free Audacity, you can stop and start and such real easily using those, and it makes transcribing easier.

    Believe me. I know.

    But if you’re not familiar with it, just use the above or Media Player or the Apple equivalent.

    Random (fba0b1)

  3. I’ll give working on the audio a shot, but maybe it would be more efficient if you quickly divided it into blocks and we transcribed those blocks.

    We are operating on a very short timeline if we’re putting out something Monday. I do not plan to transcribe it all. I want readers to listen to it all, and note the times where outrageous things are said.

    Then check comments to see if someone has already transcribed that section.

    If not? Transcribe that section.

    Goal is to have 7-8 totally outrageous segments transcribed by afternoon tomorrow. We verify those, write up the post, and publish Monday morning, to push Aaron’s story out there.

    Make sense?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  4. Yep. I was just thinking to avoid duplication of efforts.

    Like someone listen for outrageous things in minutes 1-10, another for minutes 8-18, another 26-26, or what have you. But we’ll do it your way. :P

    Random (fba0b1)

  5. *16

    Random (fba0b1)

  6. then you take a poke at the politicians

    nothing happens in this burnt out town anymore

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  7. I’m poking around in the area of 38:00

    RocIngersoll (0c7c42)

  8. At one point, Kimberlin claims that the civil judgment against him was “thrown out” and is “considered satisfied.” Since these statements are false, I’d love for them to be fully and accurately transcribed as well.

    It’s true that the judgment was thrown out; he merely omitted to mention that it was then reinstated on appeal. As for “considered satisfied”, the question is “by whom”; I think the answer is “by me”.

    Milhouse (312124)

  9. Maybe nothing outrageous, but here’s 36 seconds worth:

    Start at [36:57]
    Walker: Mr. Kimberlin has said that I have filed 100 lawsuits. That it’d be no sweat to file, um, one more. He said that to my friend Patrick Frey.

    Judge: Hey, but, hows this going to end?

    Walker: (audible sigh)

    Judge: Help me along. How do you see it ending?

    Judge: I make all my money by predicting the future, ok?
    [muffled laughter]
    Walker: Ok.

    Judge: And that’s how I do it. See, I bet on something and [bang?] I make a lot of money. Yeah, that’s the way I do it.

    Walker: Ok, you [unclear]…, you [unclear] if I…

    Judge: How do you see it ending? You two guys put swords to each other’s throats? Hmm? How do you see it ending? You two guys going outside drawing swords and [shooting?] each other?

    Walker: No, I will never, I would never resort to violence.

    Judge: So then it’s going to, it’s going to be a non-violent, uh, ruination of an individual.
    End at [37:33]

    RocIngersoll (0c7c42)

  10. Sounds like it’s about time for Aaron to call the ACLU.

    Free speech issues are their bread and butter.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  11. this judge makes me feel sad i live in america

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  12. Yeah, maybe the Communist Party will help too.

    Random (fba0b1)

  13. well yeah but when does the Communist Party not help

    bless their hearts

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  14. RocIngersoll:

    Thanks. That kind of thing is very helpful.

    But there are way better parts, I think.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  15. do we really need more evidence that this judge is a feeb?

    even Hugo Chavez (so far) retains a shred of human dignity

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  16. Yeah, I know. I giving it one more shot up around minute 42.

    RocIngersoll (0c7c42)

  17. My wife transcribes and types about 150 wpm, so let’s see tomorrow if I can get her to just do it.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  18. You know, the Canadians have had an official system just like this since 1977, where “Human Rights Commissions” can shut down speech with a lot less bother — actual rules of evidence aren’t followed and counsel aren’t allowed to gum up the works. There is some hope that the Canadian Courts will kill this soon, but they haven’t yet.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  19. I listened to the whole thing. Aaron really shot himself in the foot.

    Man, never make the judge mad. That’s a mistake.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  20. I listened to the whole thing. Aaron really shot himself in the foot.

    What a weird reaction.

    Me, I thought it was 99% the judge’s fault. I was surprised at how well Aaron handled things, given the reports I had read.

    You think if Aaron had just . . . what? What could he have done to convince this old codger not to say “Forget Brandenburg” — the key decision from the highest court in the land on point?

    Give me a break.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  21. If I was Aaron, I think I would just ignore the court order and stay out of Maryland (of course, Aaron might have reason to go to Maryland, so that might not be possible), and keep on shooting my mouth off.

    But, if he wants to fight this, I would definitely contact the ACLU and see if they’re interested. Internet censorship by government(which is what this pretty much is) is one of their causes at the moment.

    Couldn’t hurt to ask them.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  22. OK. Here’s another 1:55. This one is better. The money quote is at 42:57. The rest of it just makes the judge sound a little nuts (to me at least). Irish boxers, Italian girls, truck justice…

    Start at [41:42]
    Judge: I’m Irish, OK? And one of the things the Irish are the best at in the world is boxing. And a real good Irish middleweight is a counterpuncher. He doesn’t throw the first punch. But boy he let’s the second one go he’s got ya, see. You decide to battle and he comes back. And see, you’re… you.. you’re the kind of guy, you don’t want to get into this to settle it. Mano y mano. You want to get all these friends who got nothing else to do with their time, in this judge’s opinion, because my God, I’m a little bit older than you are, and I haven’t got enough time in the day to do all the things I want to do and I thought by retirement I would have less to do. I got more. Because everybody knows I’m free. They all come to me, but you… you are starting a, a conflagration, for lack of a better word. And you’re just letting the thing go recklessly no matter where it goes. I mean, you get some, and I’m going to use [unclear] freak somewhere up Oklahoma got nothing better to do with his time, so he does his nastiest things in the world he can do to this poor gentleman. What right does that guy got to do it?

    Walker: He has no right to do that, your honor.

    Judge: [unclear]… You incited him.

    Walker: But your honor, I did not incite within the Brandenburg standard…

    [42:57]
    Judge: Well, forget Brandenburg. Let’s go with Vaughey right now, and common sense out in the world. But you know where I grew up in Brooklyn, when that stuff was pulled, it was settled real quickly. Very quickly. I’m not going to talk about those ways; but boy it ended fast. [unclear] the day when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date and Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boy’s permission. But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair. When someone did something up there to you, your sister, your girlfriend, you got some friends to take them for a ride in the back of the truck.

    Walker: Well, your honor…

    Judge: That ended it. You guys have got this new mechanical stuff, uh, the electronic stuff, that you can, uh, just ruin somebody without doing anything.
    End at [43:37]

    RocIngersoll (0c7c42)

  23. “What a weird reaction.”

    Well, he interrupted the judge several times…and the judge was starting to get a little perturbed about it. Which I don’t think is a very good strategy.

    Obviously, I don’t agree with the judges’ decision.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  24. RocIngersoll,

    Yes. That’s the stuff we need people to see.

    Well done!! You are serving the cause of free speech.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  25. That’s 2:31 of 48:57 (5.1%) transcribed by 1 slacker in about 90 minutes.

    All you need are 19 more slackers, and you could have the whole thing done by morning.

    RocIngersoll (0c7c42)

  26. oh. I just got it. Judge Codger reminders me of the pseudo-musical stylings of *

    yup. It’s antiquated. You can’t dance to it. And it has less beat than cross-continental astronaut diapers.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  27. Surls is advancing the cause

    Surls is a-jacking the boss

    Surls is abstracting the laws

    Surls is a hack at a loss

    Surls is a whack job from Oz

    At least one of those statements is correct. Let’s go to the transcription to confirm which one . . .

    Icy (904b3d)

  28. Well, he interrupted the judge several times…and the judge was starting to get a little perturbed about it. Which I don’t think is a very good strategy.

    Nothing like interrupting a judge reminiscing about some anecdotal crap from “back in the day” with a legal cite. Tell me you’re joking.

    ∅ (721840)

  29. “Tell me you’re joking.”

    No, I’m quite serious.

    It’s not a good idea to repeatedly interrupt a judge in a court proceeding. Do it enough, and eventually you’ll get a warning, then you’ll get cited for contempt.

    And, even if you don’t get cited for contempt, they’re going to be less inclined to cut you a break when it comes time to render a decision.

    Judges don’t like people disrupting proceedings, and they really don’t like it when you disregard their instructions.

    You might not like the idea…but, that’s the way it is.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  30. Judges hate getting their cars spray-painted with stolen paint.
    Judges hate being held up for their t-time.
    Judges are paid off by the highest bidder.
    Judges suck.

    mg (44de53)

  31. I am starting to work on the section around 30:40 where walker tries to explain twitter and email to the judge. Just putting this up ahead of time to head off potential duplication of effort.

    transcriberist (4ef64b)

  32. I gotta agree w/the comment that Aaron sounds much more credible after listening to the whole audio. The judge, much less so.

    39:35
    Judge: Where do you see this thing going?
    Walker:
    I hope to raise enough consciousness to convince the state’s attorney to finally charge him. That’s where I hope it goes. That’s my goal.
    Judge: And how are you going to do that?
    Walker: I, I can bring some awareness. There’s now, um, 400,000 posts on on on Google. You, you look up Google you find 400,000 hits for him, discussing him. And I believe probably at least 300,000 of them are not very pleasant toward him. These are people calling for him for filing a charge.
    Judge: Who started this?
    Walker: But who started this? Mr. Kimberlin started this.
    Judge: No. No. No. You started it.
    Walker: How did I start this?
    Judge: You Googling all these people and getting them all excited and charge (inaudible)
    Walker: Ok, in that sense your honor…
    Judge: the same way a politician gets elected. He doesn’t see everybody. He gets the whole thing going. See? See? See?
    Walker: Well, I understand your honor.
    Judge: …and he does the same thing only (inaudible)
    Walker: It’s my right under the first amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It is my right to tell the world what he did to me. Galloway vs. State made it very specific on harassment…
    Judge: Within reason, my friend.
    Walker: Within reason?
    Judge: Within reason.
    Walker: I have had a crime committed against me. What is unreasonable about seeking justice?
    Judge: You know, I shouldn’t say it, but I think you’ve got it twisted.
    40:53

    Occupied Territory (307176)

  33. Starting transcript at 30:33

    Walker: I reported on my. I have told the world about what this man did to me. That’s all I’ve done. Now I know, your honor, that when you tell, say to the world someone has done something evil, that you do obviously have a risk of things like violence, things like that. It’s inescapable. But I have never incited violence. I have always told people every time they have said anything violent in my presence. I have said I don’t endorse violence even as a joke. And even if they joke about, “oh wouldn’t it be funny if he went to prison and got raped”, I would say, “That’s not cool. I’m not cool with that.” I was always clear with that.

    On top of that, I put numerous, numerous, numerous primary documents on my web site. Many of those documents originally has his home address, had his phone number, had his email address, etc, etc. I carefully redacted every single instance of that. I didn’t put any current photos of Mr. Kimberlin on the web site.

    Judge: Did you send all those email that he had to have

    Walker: I did not send any nasty email to him. I’ve never sent him any email period.

    Judge: That was not the question. You’ve changed it again.

    Walker: I apologize

    Judge: Did you send those emails?

    Walker: I’ve never emailed him period

    Judge: So those fifty-four pages, five hundred forty emails never came from you.

    Walker: The fifty four pages he’s talking on is twitter, and twitter is something where you talk to the world, not to Brett Kimberlin. Brett Kimberlin believes that if you speak anywhere on the internet, it is equivalent of putting a letter in his mailbox. And he is trying to equate it to [Doway?] in [Doway?] vs state, saying your honor, that in that case that guy sent 122 letters to the address of a woman he kidnapped and stalked previously.

    And Mr. Kimberlin is trying to say it’s equivalent to sending him a letter. He created Google alerts, Google alerts, as he just admitted, to bring this stuff into his email inbox. He has asked Google, “Please tell me when anyone in the world does this”. He has employs, he can ask them to look at it. He doesn’t have to even look at it. He chooses to bring this and then pretends I’m intruding on him.

    And this matter has become an issue of national debate. Let me show you an example, your honor.

    [32:56]

    Kimberlin: Judge may I [inaudible]

    Walker: This is, for example, an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner, and this is about Brett Kimberlin and his conduct toward me. I believe he refers to me as, under the pen name, Aaron Worthing, and he says at one point. Let’s see here. It says, “Far more serious is the tactic adopted by Brett Kimberlin” He’s talking about the tactics used to supress free speech. ” an activist and the founder of the group Velvet Revolution who was convicted in 1981 of exploding eight bombs”

    Kimberlin: [inaudible]

    Walker: “in 1978 in Speedway Indiana” Let me go on. “Nowadays, Kimberlin targets conservative bloggers like Aaron Worthing”, that’s my pen name, “and Robert Stacy McCain in Maryland, and Patrick Frey of Patterico’s Pontifications. Why? For publishing facts about Brett Kimberlin’s criminal record. Kimberlin harasses his targets by, among many other ways, filing false charges in courts that require expensive, time-consuming litigation, disrupting his targets’ workplaces, and dropping dark hints about spouses and kids.”

    This is the kind of thing. This is part of the national debate that’s going on right now about Mr. Kimberlin’s conduct. Because I came forward and told my story. And I told it peacefully. I didn’t ask anybody to make [harm?] complaints. I sent it right to his donors. I’ve done no such thing.

    [34:25]

    transcriberist (4ef64b)

  34. Applaud the effort Patrick, but its really a waste of time – other than for the publicity it might bring.

    Aaron can appeal the Peace Order to the Circuit Court — like he did before — and the review in the Circuit Court is de novo. What this imbecile judge said is meaningless.

    Hopefully MoCo uses some kind of assigned-judge system where the Circuit Judge that handled Aaron’s last appeal will handle this one too since he’s familiar with the parties and their dispute. That judge had no time or patience for Kimberlin’s nonsense.

    shipwreckedcrew (5dfa92)

  35. This effort is NOT worthless at all. If it shows that Maryland brings in Judges that do NOT understand what is going on, and are clearly not doing their due diligence to understand, then justice has NOT been served and Aaron Walker’s freedom of speech has been suppressed by an ignorant old man.

    He may have been an excellent judge when he was active and technology wasn’t at a point where it confused him. I have no idea, but as of right now he has Aaron Walker jailed unnecessarily.

    Cheesecake (0f916e)

  36. Shipwreckedcrew is talking from a legal stance; however, however, I don’t think this is wasteful for a different reason. Some people prefer transcripts over audio because of their hearing disabilities.

    This isn’t the primary reason for transcribing the audio but as patterico stated earlier, it’s for increased public awareness. As it’s not getting the level of public awareness at this point.

    lurker9876 (dd34fe)

  37. The work done so far in this thread proved that the judge was against Aaron from the git go. Even if Aaron wasn’t interrupting the judge at all, the results would be the same. The judge made it very clear that no matter what Aaron did or said, the judge already made a decision at the beginning of the hour.

    lurker9876 (dd34fe)

  38. (35) Aaron isn’t still in jail, is he?

    LASue (ba1869)

  39. Yep, L-9876, Judge ignored swaths of obvious data, facts, and over reached to aide a known terrorist.

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)

  40. Does anyone have the background on the judges actual ruling? Some dolt on Breibart Unmasked (likely Kimberlin himself) posted the following:

    Judge ruled that case was built upon FALSE NARRATIVE that Aaron Walker created as revenge plot against Mr. Kimberlin.

    Judge ruled that Aaron Walker did in fact ASSAULT Mr. Kimberlin.

    Judge ruled that Medical Records that Mr. Kimberlin had produced at a prior trial were in fact legitimate medical records pertaining to the assault – and not forged documents as Mr. Walker had claimed in a number of articles.

    Judge ruled that Mr. Walker had a clear purpose/motive in inciting people to attack Mr. Kimberlin.

    Video that Aaron Walker used to claim exoneration did not in fact exonerate him of an assault.

    Joe (c21991)

  41. LASue, Aaron was immediately released on recognizance.

    I just read Seth Allen and Brett Kimberlin: As Lesson over at Lee Stranahan’s blog site. It’s a link to Seth’s post explaining that he is not being given enough credit by Patrick Frey and all that.

    What’s up with all that?

    lurker9876 (dd34fe)

  42. “Within reason” is the judge’s way of saying it’s at his discretion to decide what speech is protected by the First Amendment protect and what is not. In other words, the judge believes he can nullify the First Amendment at will. This tyrant needs to be removed from the bench.

    CrustyB (d4da92)

  43. How much do you have left to scribe? I’m a professional transcriptionist, and I’ve been scribing for about 12 years. If there’s not much left, I’m willing to do the rest gratis. Let me know. This whole situation infuriates me, and I’m willing to do what I can.

    Melody (d5e86b)

  44. Sorry for the second post – please contact me by e-mail.

    Melody (d5e86b)

  45. Late to the party, as usual. I made my living for a while taking dictation and transcribing. If you still need help, holler.

    creeper (f1f686)

  46. Creeper, Melody, I think getting the entire thing transcribed is important. It would be good to have the facts to refute any nonesense being spouted by Kimberlin. I’m not the right person to ask but just wanted to let you know I appreciate any help anyone provides in doing this.

    Joe (c21991)

  47. I’m still trying to figure out, how Vaughey had been selected, he’d been 7 years retired, He clearly was not interested in facts, the law, etc/

    narciso (494474)

  48. Judge: “Well, forget Brandenburg. Let’s go with Vaughey right now, and common sense out in the world. But you know where I grew up in Brooklyn, when that stuff was pulled, it was settled real quickly. Very quickly. I’m not going to talk about those ways; but boy it ended fast. [unclear] the day when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date and Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boy’s permission. But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair. When someone did something up there to you, your sister, your girlfriend, you got some friends to take them for a ride in the back of the truck.”

    Vaughey character
    verbal fire-bombin’ baby
    rapin’ priest humpah

    Colonel Haiku (37a9a6)

  49. it’s genetic thang
    bombers will protect bombers
    sad the fix is in

    Colonel Haiku (37a9a6)

  50. Free Stacy McCain!

    And free Aaron Walker, Patterico, Redstate, and other conservatives from this criminal lying felon Brett Kimberlin.

    EBL (f71fce)

  51. Please tell me there is civil recourse for Aaron against the judge and the state!

    Pamela (a9329d)

  52. Vaughey character
    verbal fire-bombin’ baby Bernadette Devlin lovin’
    rapin’ priest humpah

    Colonel Haiku (37a9a6)

  53. One thing, that strikes me, did Kimberlin, even present any evidence of said threats.

    narciso (494474)

  54. Avoiding fisticuffs rather the point of a peace order.

    Go figure.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  55. _______________________________________________

    I am struck by how much more respect I have for Aaron, and how much less respect I have for the judge,

    I’m not surprised by that, since I originally sensed that one reason Aaron Worthing chose to be his own counsel (along with his profession being that of a lawyer) was that he knew the case — in truly objective, non-partisan terms — was open-and-shut in his favor. But, unfortunately, he didn’t realize — or has to remember — that there is lots of liberalism infecting many people in Maryland, the judicial system included.

    The retired judge who oversaw the proceedings may even be the type who drives around town with a “I Love Obama” on his car’s bumper and believes that Bill Clinton’s only transgression was being a bit too horny. I’m being only somewhat sarcastic.

    Mark (cf1348)

  56. ‘“Within reason” is the judge’s way of saying it’s at his discretion to decide what speech is protected by the First Amendment protect and what is not. In other words, the judge believes he can nullify the First Amendment at will.’

    Sadly, that’s pretty much the way, it’s always worked.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  57. It seems to me that the basic attitude of the judge is the same way a teacher might look at two kids fighting in the schoolyard i.e. “I don’t care who started it, just stop”, and then he sees Aaron not stopping it by continuing the fight.

    Not trying to excuse the judge, just trying to add color.

    Joe Schmoe (0e1f8b)

  58. Darn. Didn’t refresh the page, and I see that “Occupied Territory” covered the ground I transcribed.

    In the waning moments of the recording, Vaughey goes completely off the rails and talks about being an Irish kid in Brooklyn and the hazards of wanting to date an Italian girl without permission of the local goombas (my word, not his).

    L.N. Smithee (9dd090)

  59. Except Kimberlin has stabbed the dog, punctured all the tires, and set fire to the house, and Aaron is just relaying the story,

    narciso (494474)

  60. Dustin, daley

    http://www.nch.com.au/software/dictation.html

    can any of these work?

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)

  61. Dave Surls once worked with rape victims.

    He took a very intelligent approach. Compassionate too. Perhaps only slightly sanctimonious and self-satisfied, with an even slighter hint of immaturity combined with malice. He’d usually tell the women they had it coming, because of some mistake they made.

    Brian (2bd7d2)

  62. that’s all highly speculative I think Mr. Brian

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  63. “Well, forget Brandenburg. Let’s go with Vaughey right now”

    The SCOTUS might just have a problem with that approach.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  64. Walker: How did I start this?

    Judge: You Googling all these people and getting them all excited and charge (inaudible)

    You better be careful how you Google!

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  65. Don’t tell the judge about Google Images.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  66. When is the appeal?

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  67. Just to clarify:

    Aaron made a bunch of mistakes in how he handled this.

    The judge’s decision in regard to the abuse portion of the peace order is a travesty of justice.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  68. Yeah, citing the proper legal precedents in a courtroom is a big mistake. What was Aaron thinking? Lock him up and throw away the key!

    ∅ (721840)

  69. Mr. Aaron may have made a misstep or two but I think there should be lot more tolerance for error built into the system –

    if Maryland is going to continue to recruit idiot coot judges what drool all over their robes with stupid they’re gonna have to think about ways to help them function more better in the future

    maybe they can hire one of them six sigma gurus to take a look at their big black binder and see if maybe some of the policies and procedures might could be tweaked

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  70. “Yeah, citing the proper legal precedents in a courtroom is a big mistake.”

    No, repeatedly interrupting the judge is a mistake, especially after you’ve been warned.

    Also, using force to take someone’s property away from them at a court facility is a big, big mistake, especially when that person is trying to secure a retraining order against you.

    Unless you’re TRYING to piss off the powers that be. Then it’s o.k.

    I know this is hard for youi folks to wrap your brains around, but just because a judge made a bad decision (IMO), it doesn’t therefore follow that everything Aaron did is correct or wise.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  71. Melody,

    That’s a very nice offer. I encourage you to email Patterico directly, because he may miss your comment. His email is Patterico-at-gmail.com but use the @ symbol instead of -at-.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  72. I had an experience back in the early 80′s in Orange County, Ca. where I knew the facts of the case in a tenant vs. landlord dispute. The judge apparently believed a landlord should have to put up with the boyfriend of the landlord’s tenant tearing down then rebuilding a motorcycle engine in the living room of the 2-bedroom unit of his duplex AND forgo the nearly one year’s rent that was in arrears at that time.

    California Justice.

    Colonel Haiku (37a9a6)

  73. Also, my advice about contacting the ACLU in regard to this matter ought to be heeded (if I do say so myself).

    This is right up their alley, and it sounds like Aaron can use all the help he can get.

    http://www.aclu-mn.org/news/2011/09/02/district-court-lifts-unconstitutional-restraining-order

    In the past, they’ve managed to get unjust restraining orders lifted on First Amendment grounds.

    So, Aaron, if he wants to fight this, should give them a jingle, if he hasn’t already.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  74. I agree with Dave’s general point but it’s a judge’s job to know and follow the law, even if he’s annoyed. It sounds like this judge may be weak on First Amendment law and that’s not surprising since it isn’t typically an issue in restraining order or peace order hearings. Those hearings usually involve parties who know each other and are dealing with a divorce, custody or business dispute.

    Aaron cited the relevant cases and that was his role. It’s up to the judge to listen and, if necessary, take the matter under advisement if he isn’t sure about the law. This judge has only himself to blame if he made the wrong call.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  75. 61. Kevin Gregory

    Thanks for link to the Macon, GA story.

    Note the errors of detail throughout….

    Erickson said there’s a possibility that all three cases are related, since the other two pundits have also written recent commentaries about activist Brett Kimberlin, who was convicted for a series of bombings in Speedway, Ind., in 1978 and later paroled.

    Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/05/30/2043237/hoax-911-call-targets-erickson.html#storylink=cpy

    Timing, other 2 pundits (1′s a pundit?), both commenting on BK (Stack didn’t really). And that’s just a few of them.

    Errors in news have a way of propagating til they look like facts.

    So, who is working on getting the audio of the Erickson SWAT call?

    Mercurio (63f90e)

  76. I wouldn’t trust the ACLU. Maybe EFF but not the ACLU.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  77. “I wouldn’t trust the ACLU.”

    You don’t have to trust them, just use them.

    This is exactly the sort of thing they specialize in, they’ll work pro bono, and they get results.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  78. Can we do a separate page or comments link dedicated to transcriptions, and edit suggestions only? Suggest start with time stamp, and follow Court reporter conventions Also if you’re transcribing, needs to be more than one sentence

    scottl (b6c5dc)

  79. The asshattery from jukeboxhero and timmah is remarkable, if not predictable.

    JD (92e1b0)

  80. Mr. Surls’ clarification is well taken. I’d add the if Surls were targeted by Kimberlin, he’d likely make a lot more mistakes. It’s kind of Stockholm-syndrome-esque to look at a situation in which an individual is targeted by a psychopath – who gets away with it due to an idiot judge – and then try to prove your sophistication by critiquing the victim. It’s also dumb.

    It’s additionally worth noting that AW would likely agree that it’s not ideal for him to be representing himself. But he’s not a wealthy guy, and – lest we forget – he was targeted by Kimberlin for the crime of giving legal advise to another target of Kimberlin. So it’s quite possible that other attorneys are not too enthused about the prospect of joining this not-so-exclusive club.

    Brian (2bd7d2)

  81. I think the ACLU would be less worried than most about Kimberlin’s “retaliation.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  82. 46:25 This report shall remain in effect until November 15 2012
    46:30 and during that period of time (inaudible) shall not commit any act
    46:33 that causes any person fear and apprehension of bodily harm
    46:37 and places (inaudible) in fear and apprehension of grave bodily harm
    46:40 any assault rape or attempt to (. . . all mumbled all together in a hurry . . .)
    46:48 The Respondent shall not contact the person
    46:51 in person, by telephone, in writing
    46:55 or ANY OTHER MEANS!!! (pause for effect, or to breath)
    46:57 and any other means is putting it on a blog, a tweet
    47:02 a megaphone, a smoke signals
    47:07 . . . ah what else . . . sonar, radar . . . laser
    47:13 nothin
    47:14 [Aaron] So I’m not allowed to
    47:15 [Judge] You’ve
    47:16 [Aaron] (talk or blog) about him for 6 months
    47:17 [2 second pause]
    47:19 [Aaron] (How am. . .)
    47:20 [Judge] How many times are you going to interrupt me
    47:23 [2 second pause]
    47:25 and you shall not contact or harass him in any way
    47:28 You shall not enter his residence wherever he may be living
    47:32 You shall remain away from his place of employment where ever that may be
    47:38 [mumbles by judge as he ponders]
    47:42 Now let me get to the . . . should this should you violate this order sir
    47:47 you are subject to being prosecuted by the state’s attorneys office as a criminal case
    [Editor: The judge has no more prosecutorial discretion than does Aaron, other than for contempt.]
    47:52 and (if?) you are found guilty the maximum penalty for the first violation
    47:55 is 90 days in jail and or a 500 dollar fine, could be a thousand dollar fine
    48:02 or worse than that it could be contempt of this court
    48:06 where you could a where I could do anything I deem necessary to keep you away from
    48:12 or emailing him or twit him or googling him
    48:14 or (inaudible to me) him or (inaudible to me) him or (mumbles)
    . . . (gavel bang). . . I’m just a civil servant doing my job . . .

    pdxnag (006d86)

  83. I got caught up in something personal, mostly decompressing over events of the last few days, and didn’t review the audio as I said I would. Apologies for that.

    I’m going to finish listening to it now. I’m not sure if I’ll have any usable transcription that diligent others didn’t already post. Thanks to those who did the work.

    Random (fba0b1)

  84. Good for you, Random!

    Living . . . pass it on.

    Icy (904b3d)

  85. Lazy judge. We expect better. Creates more problems than he solves.

    The lifting of the ipad and pointing it at aaron outside of court is an attack on aaron whether it was to photo him or throw it at him or strike him with it. Sort of like an NBA foul here. Kimberlin erred, aaron erred back. no one should go to jail over that. There are more serious death threats like swating that get ignored everyday by everyone.

    Some judges need to be interrupted if a legal argument can be applied to them. Respect for a judges decision after all the facts are considered wisely is part of the foundation of society. However some judges become Gods due to the nature of their position and tend to alter facts and lose focus. That is an inability to judge and the judge needs to know it.

    jd2 (40a8c6)

  86. I only need initial time stamps, and would prefer for the transcriptions to be in the format I used in the post:

    CAPITAL LETTERS TO DENOTE SPEAKER: Followed by a colon and then what they said, not in quotation marks.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  87. Can anyone fix the ones that have been done so far to fit in that format, review for accuracy, and put it all in one comment? I am doing so much other stuff right now for my actual job that I don’t have time to do that.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  88. Can anyone fix the ones that have been done so far to fit in that format, review for accuracy, and put it all in one comment?

    I will do that now.

    Random (fba0b1)

  89. pdxnag,

    Those quibbles on formatting aside, that is definitely a passage I wanted transcribed. So thanks for that!

    Patterico (feda6b)

  90. 46:55 or ANY OTHER MEANS!!! (pause for effect, or to breath)
    46:57 and any other means is putting it on a blog, a tweet
    47:02 a megaphone, a smoke signals
    47:07 . . . ah what else . . . sonar, radar . . . laser
    47:13 nothin

    48:12 or emailing him or twit him or googling him

    Comment by pdxnag — 6/3/2012 @ 11:34 am

    So Aaron is not allowed to “google” BK? Or is it he is not allowed to contact BK by googling?

    Is Aaron allowed to contact BK by noodling ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UIpOUgQt-g&feature=related ), or is that counted under “any other means”.

    like someone said, it seems like a teacher on a playground with 2 kids fighting, just stop it both of you

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  91. The problem, of course, is that this judge got to send Mr. Walker to jail, and there will never be any redress for it.

    The judge should, at a minimum, lose his pension, law license etc.

    In my view, he should be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

    spo (e43c65)

  92. Did this judge send AW to jail?! I think not. I think the Commissioner that rubber stamped the warrant on Sunday did.

    JD (92e1b0)

  93. This judge issued a peace order banning AW from exercising his Constitutional rights because he is an old coot that doesn’t understand things like google, blogs, twitter, or email.

    JD (92e1b0)

  94. I’ve reformatted the above except for the quotes. I’ve not yet checked for accuracy and that could take some time.

    Quick questions:

    1. Do I keep or remove internal quotes, such as:

    Let’s see here. It says, “Far more serious is the tactic adopted by Brett Kimberlin.” He’s talking about the tactics used to suppress free speech.

    2. Deadline?

    Thanks.

    Random (fba0b1)

  95. Yes, use internal quotes. Deadline is ASAP. I am working on a trial and ideally would like to be able to simply lift these into a post I do tonight, verify the quotes’ accuracy, and publish. Best would be if everything was to me by, say, 7 p.m. Pacific?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  96. And thanks!

    Patterico (feda6b)

  97. Is it just me, or would Edward G. Robinson be the perfect actor to play the judge in an upcoming made-for-t.v.- movie? Yes, yes, I know the great E.G. is long gone.

    Judge: You will abide by my decision, see? Or me an’ my boys will take you for a ride, see?

    felipe (3cc5df)

  98. Patterico,

    Did you see Melody’s offer, above?

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  99. Best would be if everything was to me by, say, 7 p.m. Pacific?

    Yeah, no worries. I’m only committing to reformat and verify the transcripts in comments above this point, but consider that done by 7 or sooner.

    Random (fba0b1)

  100. Yes, I have already written her, thanks.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  101. I’m so sorry, Mr. Frey. I have tried to listen to the audio, but the particular quality of the sound/timbre hurts and quickly fatigues my remaining hearing as to make me useless in this important endeavor. a lifetime of headphones and loud music is my ruin. A better citizen will take my place.

    felipe (3cc5df)

  102. In my opinion, Ted Knight would have been the perfect actor to portray the judge, based on his performance in Caddyshack.

    Gary Coleman (aa9c15)

  103. These are not verified nor spellchecked yet, but just so that everyone has a concise chronological list of the nuggets uncovered so far, so as not to duplicate their efforts, here it is:

    At 9:58:

    KIMBERLIN: Last week, he got all these bloggers all over the country to create Let’s Blog About Brett Kimberlin day. Over 350 bloggers blogged that I framed him. And that led to a number — probably scores of death threats. . . . They threatened my daughter, who is a preteen, my mother, they called on the phone and threatened SWAT teams –

    WALKER: Your honor, I would like to object here. He is characterizing the statements of third parties –

    THE COURT [to Aaron]: You got any clients?!

    ———-

    At 13:53:

    WALKER: And you were known as the “Speedway Bomber,” were you not?

    KIMBERLIN: I don’t know that.

    He doesn’t know that he was known as the Speedway Bomber.

    WALKER: You don’t know that you are known as the Speedway Bomber? Do you not know that you — you never read this before in your life?

    KIMBERLIN: I’ve read a lot of things.

    ———-

    At 30:33

    WALKER: I reported on my. I have told the world about what this man did to me. That’s all I’ve done. Now I know, your honor, that when you tell, say to the world someone has done something evil, that you do obviously have a risk of things like violence, things like that. It’s inescapable. But I have never incited violence. I have always told people every time they have said anything violent in my presence. I have said I don’t endorse violence even as a joke. And even if they joke about, “oh wouldn’t it be funny if he went to prison and got raped”, I would say, “That’s not cool. I’m not cool with that.” I was always clear with that.

    WALKER: On top of that, I put numerous, numerous, numerous primary documents on my web site. Many of those documents originally has his home address, had his phone number, had his email address, etc, etc. I carefully redacted every single instance of that. I didn’t put any current photos of Mr. Kimberlin on the web site.

    COURT: Did you send all those email that he had to have

    WALKER: I did not send any nasty email to him. I’ve never sent him any email period.

    COURT: That was not the question. You’ve changed it again.

    WALKER: I apologize

    COURT: Did you send those emails?

    WALKER: I’ve never emailed him period

    COURT: So those fifty-four pages, five hundred forty emails never came from you.

    WALKER: The fifty four pages he’s talking on is twitter, and twitter is something where you talk to the world, not to Brett Kimberlin. Brett Kimberlin believes that if you speak anywhere on the internet, it is equivalent of putting a letter in his mailbox. And he is trying to equate it to [Doway?] in [Doway?] vs state, saying your honor, that in that case that guy sent 122 letters to the address of a woman he kidnapped and stalked previously.

    WALKER: And Mr. Kimberlin is trying to say it’s equivalent to sending him a letter. He created Google alerts, Google alerts, as he just admitted, to bring this stuff into his email inbox. He has asked Google, “Please tell me when anyone in the world does this”. He has employs, he can ask them to look at it. He doesn’t have to even look at it. He chooses to bring this and then pretends I’m intruding on him.

    WALKER: And this matter has become an issue of national debate. Let me show you an example, your honor.

    ———-

    At 32:56

    Kimberlin: Judge may I [inaudible]

    WALKER: This is, for example, an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner, and this is about Brett Kimberlin and his conduct toward me. I believe he refers to me as, under the pen name, Aaron Worthing, and he says at one point. Let’s see here. It says, “Far more serious is the tactic adopted by Brett Kimberlin” He’s talking about the tactics used to supress free speech. ” an activist and the founder of the group Velvet Revolution who was convicted in 1981 of exploding eight bombs”

    Kimberlin: [inaudible]

    WALKER: “in 1978 in Speedway Indiana” Let me go on. “Nowadays, Kimberlin targets conservative bloggers like Aaron Worthing”, that’s my pen name, “and Robert Stacy McCain in Maryland, and Patrick Frey of Patterico’s Pontifications. Why? For publishing facts about Brett Kimberlin’s criminal record. Kimberlin harasses his targets by, among many other ways, filing false charges in courts that require expensive, time-consuming litigation, disrupting his targets’ workplaces, and dropping dark hints about spouses and kids.”

    WALKER: This is the kind of thing. This is part of the national debate that’s going on right now about Mr. Kimberlin’s conduct. Because I came forward and told my story. And I told it peacefully. I didn’t ask anybody to make [harm?] complaints. I sent it right to his donors. I’ve done no such thing.

    ———-

    At 36:57:

    WALKER: Mr. Kimberlin has said that I have filed 100 lawsuits. That it’d be no sweat to file, um, one more. He said that to my friend Patrick Frey.

    COURT: Hey, but, hows this going to end?

    WALKER: (audible sigh)

    COURT: Help me along. How do you see it ending?

    COURT: I make all my money by predicting the future, ok?

    [muffled laughter]

    WALKER: Ok.

    COURT: And that’s how I do it. See, I bet on something and [bang?] I make a lot of money. Yeah, that’s the way I do it.

    WALKER: Ok, you [unclear]… you [unclear] if I…

    COURT: How do you see it ending? You two guys put swords to each other’s throats? Hmm? How do you see it ending? You two guys going outside drawing swords and [shooting?] each other?

    WALKER: No, I will never, I would never resort to violence.

    COURT: So then it’s going to, it’s going to be a non-violent, uh, ruination of an individual.

    ———-

    At 39:35

    COURT: Where do you see this thing going?

    WALKER: I hope to raise enough consciousness to convince the state’s attorney to finally charge him. That’s where I hope it goes. That’s my goal.

    COURT: And how are you going to do that?

    WALKER: I, I can bring some awareness. There’s now, um, 400,000 posts on on on Google. You, you look up Google you find 400,000 hits for him, discussing him. And I believe probably at least 300,000 of them are not very pleasant toward him. These are people calling for him for filing a charge.

    COURT: Who started this?

    WALKER: But who started this? Mr. Kimberlin started this.

    COURT: No. No. No. You started it.

    WALKER: How did I start this?

    COURT: You Googling all these people and getting them all excited and charge (inaudible)

    WALKER: Ok, in that sense your honor…

    COURT: the same way a politician gets elected. He doesn’t see everybody. He gets the whole thing going. See? See? See?

    WALKER: Well, I understand your honor.

    COURT: …and he does the same thing only (inaudible)

    WALKER: It’s my right under the first amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It is my right to tell the world what he did to me. Galloway vs. State made it very specific on harassment…

    COURT: Within reason, my friend.

    WALKER: Within reason?

    COURT: Within reason.

    WALKER: I have had a crime committed against me. What is unreasonable about seeking justice?

    COURT: You know, I shouldn’t say it, but I think you’ve got it twisted.

    ———-

    At 40:30:

    WALKER: It is my right under the First Amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It is my right to tell the world what he did to me. Galloway vs. State –

    THE COURT: Within reason, my friend.

    ———-

    At 41:42:

    COURT: I’m Irish, OK? And one of the things the Irish are the best at in the world is boxing. And a real good Irish middleweight is a counterpuncher. He doesn’t throw the first punch. But boy he let’s the second one go he’s got ya, see. You decide to battle and he comes back. And see, you’re… you.. you’re the kind of guy, you don’t want to get into this to settle it. Mano y mano. You want to get all these friends who got nothing else to do with their time, in this judge’s opinion, because my God, I’m a little bit older than you are, and I haven’t got enough time in the day to do all the things I want to do and I thought by retirement I would have less to do. I got more. Because everybody knows I’m free. They all come to me, but you… you are starting a, a conflagration, for lack of a better word. And you’re just letting the thing go recklessly no matter where it goes. I mean, you get some, and I’m going to use [unclear] freak somewhere up Oklahoma got nothing better to do with his time, so he does his nastiest things in the world he can do to this poor gentleman. What right does that guy got to do it?

    WALKER: He has no right to do that, your honor.

    COURT: [unclear]… You incited him.

    WALKER: But your honor, I did not incite within the Brandenburg standard…

    ———-

    At 42:57:

    COURT: Well, forget Brandenburg. Let’s go with Vaughey right now, and common sense out in the world. But you know where I grew up in Brooklyn, when that stuff was pulled, it was settled real quickly. Very quickly. I’m not going to talk about those ways; but boy it ended fast. [unclear] the day when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date and Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boy’s permission. But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair. When someone did something up there to you, your sister, your girlfriend, you got some friends to take them for a ride in the back of the truck.

    WALKER: Well, your honor…

    COURT: That ended it. You guys have got this new mechanical stuff, uh, the electronic stuff, that you can, uh, just ruin somebody without doing anything.

    ———-

    At 46:25:

    COURT: This report shall remain in effect until November 15, 2012, and during that period of time (inaudible) shall not commit any act that causes any person fear and apprehension of bodily harm and places (inaudible) in fear and apprehension of grave bodily harm, any assault, rape or attempt to (… all mumbled all together in a hurry …). The Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by telephone, in writing, or ANY OTHER MEANS!!! (pause for effect, or to breath), and any other means is putting it on a blog, a tweet, a megaphone, a smoke signals … ah what else … sonar, radar … laser, nothing.

    WALKER: So I’m not allowed to

    COURT: You’ve

    WALKER (talk or blog) about him for 6 months [2 second pause] How am…

    COURT: How many times are you going to interrupt me [2 second pause] and you shall not contact or harass him in any way. You shall not enter his residence wherever he may be living. You shall remain away from his place of employment where ever that may be. [inaudible mumbles by judge] Now let me get to the … should this, should you violate this order sir, you are subject to being prosecuted by the state’s attorneys office as a criminal case. And (if?) you are found guilty the maximum penalty for the first violation is 90 days in jail and or a 500 dollar fine, could be a thousand dollar fine or worse than that it could be contempt of this court where you could a where I could do anything I deem necessary to keep you away from or emailing him or twit him or googling him or (inaudible to me) him or (inaudible to me) him or (mumbles) … (gavel bang)… I’m just a civil servant doing my job ….

    ———-

    I will verify and then proofread these, and post when done — hopefully in time for a last once over by whomever for spelling errors.

    Please keep looking for other good material if you can, and format as Patterico has advised. Thanks.

    Random (fba0b1)

  104. Random:

    One comment. There is no real break at 42:57. I put the extra time stamp there in my original transcription to specifically mark the Brandenburg remark, but Walker’s citation of Brandenburg and the Court’s response were directly consecutive.

    RocIngersoll (0c7c42)

  105. I figured that, but was going to verify when reading it. Thanks for clarifying.

    Random (fba0b1)

  106. Excellent. If we can remove the commentary and verify for accuracy, and have only one timestamp for continuous transcript portions, we will be most of the way there.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  107. Should the final transcript be verbatim with the false starts, stutters, uh and ah, filer words included, or cleaned up without those (like you did in the 9:58 transcript)?

    Random (fba0b1)

  108. I’m going to assume not verbatim, unless I hear otherwise, since that’s what you did in the 9:58 transcript.

    Random (fba0b1)

  109. I know this is hard for youi folks to wrap your brains around, but just because a judge made a bad decision (IMO), it doesn’t therefore follow that everything Aaron did is correct or wise.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 6/3/2012 @ 10:33 am

    Oh good grief, can you just stop the recriminations against Aaron and deal in the present. Aaron did what Aaron did and is dealing with the consequences, right or wrong. So he pissed off an incompetent judge, do you seriously think you pointing this out in every comment is going to change the past?

    You play the hand you are dealt and right now it is solutions that are being sought, not blame. Go work for Obama if all you want to do is pass the blame instead of dealing with real problems. Did the judge rule against Aaron because of his unlimited knowledge of electronic communications or out of pique? Is one legal, the other not? Does reading the transcript help determine the areas of potential solution? For you, no, all it does is give you more fodder to blame Aaron. Perhaps if this judge were not such an ignoramus, Aaron would not have felt the need to interrupt with facts and truth.

    Sara (e8f5d4)

  110. I tried listening, but the sound quality was so bad and sometimes people were talking over each other. I listened from 13:53 to just after 25:00. I think there might be a couple of gotchas.

    What can I say: 20 years in the Navy being around jets didn’t do great things for my eardrums.

    It’s clear Kimberlin is a sociopath. That much I got. I know that won’t surprise anyone. But it’s nice to have it demonstrated so clearly on tape.

    Steve (958caf)

  111. 1–I have donated $$ to Aaron.
    2–I have defended him on my blog.
    3–I have defended and pressed peace orders/injunctions in real FL courts, by the dozen.
    ********
    OK, if you listen to the audio, you can see why it is so tough to represent yourself in Court, even if you are an experienced and thoughtful lawyer, AND an experienced and thoughtful Defendant. The lawyer’s role is to not just control the flow of info to the Court, but to also deflect heat/pressure from the client, that might be directed from the Court [Judge], unfairly or not. The Witness/Client is perforce worrying about the consequences if he loses, the frustrations of previous months, the things he might have done better or differently, and the glory of triumph…he just CAN’T be the cool calculating advocate that is required in Court.

    An experienced lawyer also develops a sense of what the Judge is thinking AND feeling, and adjusts his approach (or should) accordingly. The Witness/Client is too wrapped up in his testimony to have the normal sensitivity to this variable–only natural!

    Peace Order/Injunction Court is, as is now painfully obvious, a place where a judge’s whims are difficult to oppose, esp a retired judge. So you gotta take those whims seriously, and ADDRESS THEM, no matter how unfair this seems.

    BTW, I recently went to injunction court 2X in 6 weeks for the same [Mexican] client. The first time, after he’d received service in Mexico for an ex parte temp. injunction, he hired me the day before the hearing. As I went over the facts w/my rudimentary Spanish w/him, it dawned on me–the entire complaint had happened in Mexico! Where is the jurisdiction? They hadn’t been in the US together for years…But the wife had completed her application in such a way so to make it APPEAR it had happened in our jurisdiction. I drafted a magnificent 5 page motion to dismiss, marched into Court, wifey was there w/Court interpreter (my client had waived his presence), I put my argument to the Judge, he asked her: Did this all happen in Mexico? Yes. Well, then, I can’t sustain the injunction, but if he harasses you here in FL, then you can come back and seek an injunction against him [this is true, if there are minimum state contacts by the respondent--this is why Aaron was subject to MD jurisdiction, even tho he resides in VA].

    6 weeks later, wifey files again, ex parte. He had simply visited FL to see his kids, sent word thru the inlaws that he wanted to talk to wifey and see the kids, they told wifey…She rushed to Court, rehashed THE SAME MEXICO ALLEGATIONS FROM THE 1ST INJUNCTION, plus added that “he had called her in-laws to try to talk to her.” HOW THE HELL IS THAT THREATENING?! Plus, she AGAIN misrepresented where the Mexico allegations had occurred, and lied on the app about where the kids had resided (important for custody issues).

    So I filed an amended Motion to Dismiss, marched into Court at the temp inj. hearing (husband/client had to return to Mexico), dutifully reported all this to a 2d judge, pointed out that the case had been dismissed 6 weeks earlier by Judge 1 for lack of jurisdiction…Judge “Deer-in-Headlights” 2 says, “Well, she’s sworn this is all true, so we have to have an evidentiary hearing on it.” WTF??!!

    Lesson being: Just because you have the law on your side and an experienced lawyer in peace order/injunction court, don’t assume things will go all smooth and lovely.

    Oh, BTW, 3 days before we had the final hearing, wifey got a lawyer, who saw how bogus the whole thing was, and agreed to dismiss the injunction. “Justice triumphed!” lol

    JewishOdysseus (57038c)

  112. 70. …I know this is hard for youi folks to wrap your brains around, but just because a judge made a bad decision (IMO), it doesn’t therefore follow that everything Aaron did is correct or wise.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 6/3/2012 @ 10:33 am

    Dave, try wrapping your brain around this; even had Aaron made a lot fewer or even no mistakes, things weren’t going to go his way before this senile judge.

    The guys rambling on about how he’s Irish, and what it was like dating an Italian girl back in the old neighborhood, and how in his day he and his friends would take a guy who insulted their sisters for a ride in his truck, but now these days “(y)ou guys have got this new mechanical stuff, uh, the electronic stuff,” blah, blah, blah.

    Which by that I guess the judge means one of these two should have gathered their old posse and taken the other for a ride and beaten the dog mess out of him.

    The judge was blaming Worthing for wasting his time, now that he’s retired, when Worthing is there as the respondent. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least when it comes to initiating court proceedings I don’t need to ask who started things, like the idiot on the bench did.

    Steve (958caf)

  113. I would like to see a full transcript of the audio.

    Like I said this morning, I sensed that the Judge had already made a decision prior to the hearing and his bias prevented him from listening to Aaron’s arguments and defense. Whether he interrupted the judge or not is irrelevant to the judge’s decision.

    As for the evidence, Brett Kremlin brought a stack of paper. Brett claimed that this is evidence containing “emails” with death threats sent by third parties incited by Aaron Walker.

    lurker9876 (e62692)

  114. @112,

    Interesting post. It raises a question in my mind. Had Worthing simply remained in VA would there have been a similar jurisdictional issue?

    Steve (958caf)

  115. I’m beginning a series of transcriptions.

    Once I have them all typed up, I’ll post any that aren’t found here in the same format.

    I’m beginning with Kimberlin’s assertion that he the charges against him were wiped because of a judge’s bribery case, or something to that effect.

    Luke (cb44fc)

  116. First 2 minutes:

    0:00 BAILIFF/CLERK: Special proceeding number 01979 and it’s Brett Kimberline [sic] vs Aaron Justin Walker.

    0:27 WALKER: Before we begin, I have a dispositive motion I want to present, a motion to dismiss and a memorandum of law and facts … [unintelligible].

    0:39 KIMBERLIN: I object.

    0:43 JUDGE: It’s a motion to dismiss?

    [Papers shuffling.]
    [Unintelligible discussion.]

    0:52 WALKER: It’s not very long, it’s just the exhibit part. [Short pause.] Let me [sign?] this for your benefit, Your Honor. This is the actual motion to dismiss and the exhibits, including some on disks. He has alleged I’ve made video threats, and therefore I’ve provided the videos to show that they were not threats.

    1:15 JUDGE: So what’s your motion?

    1:17 WALKER: The motion is to dismiss this case. Mr. Kimberlin has, um, his petition for peace order contains numerous flaws in it. The one thing he continually tries to claim …

    1:26 KIMBERLIN: That’s fact.

    1:27 JUDGE: I’ll look into that.

    1:29 WALKER: … if you look at it on the face of it, basically, that he is making assertions that it’s harassment to speak badly about him on the internet. He says that is harassment. In [Dunlevy?] vs State they made it absolutely clear: Pure expression, unless it is a threat, unless it is somehow directed contact – if it’s an email, a letter, or a phone call, anything of those things – if it’s just pure expression, it’s not harassment.

    1:54 JUDGE: How do I know it’s just pure expression until I hear it?

    1:56 WALKER: I think it’s pretty obvious on the face. If we have to go through a trial, we can. But it is obvious on its face.

    2:04 JUDGE: I’m gonna deny your motion, counsel. Proceed to trial.

    2:06 WALKER: Okay.

    2:08 KIMBERLIN: Thank you.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  117. IANAL. Aren’t there stupid, incompetent judges in every jurisdiction? Isn’t that one of the reasons you shouldn’t represent yourself? Isn’t that one of the reasons that you should avoid entering the courthouse with hubris over your “open-and-shut” case?

    I read everything AW posted at his blog about this clusterf*ck. I sincerely hope he prevails. To do so, he needs to get competent representation. He needs to tamp down his legal ego, and do what his counsel tells him. He needs to decide what outcome he truly wants: legal martyrdom; a return to a normal life; a costly continuing crusade against the world’s assholes; or something else. IANAL.

    gp (0c542c)

  118. Can anyone make out what Kimberlin is saying at 16:55-17:00?

    I can’t make heads or tails of it.

    Luke

    Luke (cb44fc)

  119. 16:35 KIMBERLIN: The judge in that case solicited a bribe to my attorney.

    WALKER: It was a parole case.

    KIMBERLIN: He was indicted and sent to jail for 18 years.

    JUDGE: That’s very good. I think that’s wonderful.

    KIMBERLIN: So that’s what happened in that case.

    JUDGE: Well, what did that do to your case?

    KIMBERLIN: Well, it resulted in that case .. it no longer …

    JUDGE: How did it terminate? With a reversal of conviction?

    16:55 KIMBERLIN: Considered satis … quote satisfied … I guess is what they called it.

    JUDGE: Never heard of that in a criminal case.

    KIMBERLIN: It’s not a criminal case, it’s a civil case.

    JUDGE: The parole board …

    KIMBERLIN: Oh.

    JUDGE: The parole board thing?

    KIMBERLIN: No, no, that was a civil case where I was found … the judge solicited a bribe and went to jail, 18 years, extortion, bribery …

    JUDGE: It’s got nothing to do with your case, though.

    KIMBERLIN: No, no, but he solicited a bribe in my case.

    JUDGE: That doesn’t mean the underlying facts of the case change. It means the judge solicited a bribe. Dirty judge. But it doesn’t change the facts in your case.

    KIMBERLIN: The facts of that case are that the judgment is not valid. It’s not valid at that time. It’s not enforceable.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  120. ______________________________________________

    It sounds like this judge may be weak on First Amendment law and that’s not surprising since it isn’t typically an issue in restraining order or peace order hearings.
    Comment by DRJ — 6/3/2012 @ 10:53 am

    I wouldn’t trust the ACLU.
    Comment by DRJ — 6/3/2012 @ 10:54 am

    I don’t trust the judge for the same reason you or others may not trust the ACLU. Namely, a lack of confidence based on the way individuals (Judge Cornelius Vaughey, in this instance) filter facts and issues through their biases.

    It’s not a given, but it’s also not unreasonable, to theorize that if the political orientation and history of Kimberlin and Worthing/Walker were reversed, the judge would also flip-flop his ruling. Vaughey may be retired, a geezer, and unfamiliar with modern technology and communication, but if he’s still of the left in his 70s (he was born in 1938), that alone makes his lack of inherent wisdom and objectivity even more probable.

    Beyond that, if he truly is weak on First Amendment law, then it’s also far more likely he’ll be very subjective (and foolish) in who he favors in various court hearings. Or if he’s no less aware of the specifics of the First Amendment than anyone in this message thread is — not to mention any member of the judiciary who’s halfway decent — then he could easily tilt matters the way we saw with, as one example, Dave Surls and his take on Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

    I don’t trust human nature in general, and, in particular, I don’t trust how liberal instincts apparently corrupt people in some surprising and contradictory, if not also very pathetic, ways.

    Mark (cf1348)

  121. How do you know the judge is aware of either party’s political ideology?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  122. It looks like several folks have done several bits and pieces. I will put them all into one document and edit to make sure they are verbatim. I should have this done well before 7:00 p.m. PT.

    Melody (d5e86b)

  123. That is very cool of you, Melody.

    JD (92e1b0)

  124. #120. How much of Kimberlin’s testimony at 16:35 is perjury, an dhow much will he attribute to “misunderstanding”?

    (I take it that part of this exercise is to get solid proof of perjury to refer to the Maryland authorities.)

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  125. ________________________________________________

    How do you know the judge is aware of either party’s political ideology?

    You’re kidding, right?

    Walker: “in 1978 in Speedway Indiana” Let me go on. “Nowadays, Kimberlin targets conservative bloggers like Aaron Worthing”…

    Not to mention the judge hearing things like…

    He’s talking about the tactics used to supress free speech. ” an activist and the founder of the group Velvet Revolution who was convicted in 1981 of exploding eight bombs”

    I can easily envision Vaughey musing: “‘Velvet’ and ‘revolution’ sound so nicely idealistic, heroic and humane. Kimberlin may have used bombs, but it’s hard not to feel that the ends sometimes justify the means.”

    Vaughey perhaps is fuzzy about the First Amendment, but he sure as hell had to have known the political leanings of the two sides, if not from the get-go than certainly once the hearing was over.

    Mark (cf1348)

  126. 39:33 JUDGE: Where do you see this thing going?

    WALKER: I hope to raise the [?] consciousness to convince the State’s Attorney to finally charge him. That’s where I hope this goes. That’s my goal.

    JUDGE: And how are you gonna do this?

    WALKER: Well, I can raise awareness. There’s now 400,000 posts on Google …

    [Cross-talk]

    WALKER: … yes, discussing it, and I believe at least 300,000 of them are not very pleasant toward him. These are people calling for him to finally be charged. The man …

    40:05 JUDGE: Who started this?

    WALKER: Who started this? Mr. Kimberlin started this.

    JUDGE: No, no, no. You started it.

    WALKER: How did I start this?

    JUDGE: You go get all these people and get them all excited and tried to turn them against him.

    WALKER: In that sense, Your Honor …

    JUDGE: The same way a politician gets elected. He doesn’t [unintelligible] everybody. He gets the whole thing going. See? See? See?

    WALKER: I understand, Your Honor.

    JUDGE: And [unintelligible] do the same thing …

    40:29 WALKER: But it is my right under the First Amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It’s my right to tell the world what he did to me.

    JUDGE: Within reason, my friend.

    WALKER: Within reason?

    JUDGE: Within reason.

    WALKER: I have had a crime committed against me. What is unreasonable about seeking justice?

    40:50 JUDGE: You know, I shouldn’t say this, but I think you got it twisted. The one who decides to prosecute crimes is the government …

    WALKER: Of course, Your Honor.

    JUDGE: … and only the government, and not you.

    WALKER: Of course, Your Honor.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  127. Mark,

    I don’t know if the judge let politics enter into his decision, but shouldn’t there be more proof than that before we blame politics for what happened here?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  128. I vote we blame stupidity. And old age.

    JD (92e1b0)

  129. The judge had a choice to believe a convicted domestic terrorist bomber, convicted perjurer, and convicted drug smuggler or an Ivy League attorney. In any case other than this, he might have made a good choice.

    JD (92e1b0)

  130. FWIW, Mark, I think the judge’s tone changed around 22:30 when Kimberlin talked about Everyone Draw Mohammed. I think that’s when the judge decided Aaron’s intent was to incite.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  131. _______________________________________________

    I don’t know if the judge let politics enter into his decision, but shouldn’t there be more proof than that before we blame politics for what happened here?

    Whoa, DRJ, I think you’re being naive, perhaps inadvertently or because the reality is too disturbing or sad for you. What I mean is that liberals are all over the place, all around us, and “some of my best friends are liberals.” Patterico, as one example, is married to a person of the left.

    I guess one therefore can’t help but sympathize with left-leaning instincts and their biggest adherents on various occasions. Or realize that if a family member, friend, acquaintance, neighbor, etc, is not too different from a Cornelius Vaughey, and if such people are rather common, that means one could easily find him or herself dependent on the biases of such people. So it’s hard not to cringe when realizing that a situation like the one facing Aaron Worthing could easily be where any sensible, sane person ends up. Or a feeling that if the inmates — ie, all the folks who believe liberalism imbues one with wonderful qualities, and that liberalism means never having to say you’re sorry — are running the asylum, then we’re trapped in the middle of that asylum.

    Moreover, the last few sentences you’ve posted of the transcription from the hearing convince me to an even greater degree that Vaughey is of the left, perhaps such a dyed-in-the-wool liberal that he very well could be the type who’d force himself to believe OJ was innocent of murder in the interest of socio-racial equality and do-gooderism.

    Mark (cf1348)

  132. I don’t have a problem being naive, Mark, if it means I give people the benefit of the doubt.

    People can have strong political opinions without letting it impact their work. Do you make work decisions based on your politics?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  133. You can really be an idiot, mark.

    Does the transcript bear any of this out?

    Judge ruled that case was built upon FALSE NARRATIVE that Aaron Walker created as revenge plot against Mr. Kimberlin.

    Judge ruled that Aaron Walker did in fact ASSAULT Mr. Kimberlin.

    Judge ruled that Medical Records that Mr. Kimberlin had produced at a prior trial were in fact legitimate medical records pertaining to the assault – and not forged documents as Mr. Walker had claimed in a number of articles.

    Judge ruled that Mr. Walker had a clear purpose/motive in inciting people to attack Mr. Kimberlin.

    Video that Aaron Walker used to claim exoneration did not in fact exonerate him of an assault.

    JD (92e1b0)

  134. Did Aaron help or hurt his case when he compared his own attempt to get justice to similar efforts by Treyvon Martin’s family?

    Pious Agnostic (ee2c24)

  135. Pious – I would vote that was not in his favor.

    JD (92e1b0)

  136. JD,

    ???

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)

  137. ________________________________________________

    WALKER: I have had a crime committed against me. What is unreasonable about seeking justice?

    40:50 JUDGE: You know, I shouldn’t say this, but I think you got it twisted. The one who decides to prosecute crimes is the government …

    The sentiment revealed in that passage reeks of liberal bias on the part of Vaughey. Yes, some conservatives on certain occasions may give the public sector (including the judiciary) a “Father Knows Best” benefit of the doubt, or believe the common man should give hugs to the government. But, again, that’s on fewer occasions than what is true of far more liberals, who will be like Vaughey and pronounce “I’m the Great Oz, and only I — and not you, peon — know whether Kimberlin is to be denounced or not!! Moreover, liberal predilections mean one’s heart is ALWAYS in the right place and should never be doubted!”

    Mark (cf1348)

  138. Melody,

    If you’re reading, what parts of the audio do you need help transcribing? I can help if you can give me a timeframe.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  139. Making progress.

    It isn’t a verbatim transcript I’m making because, as in the 9:58 comment, Patterico didn’t use verbatim. In other words, uhs, ahs, and similar filler words, plus stuttering is removed (repeating words, false starts). If that’s an issue, let me know, or someone else can tighten it up.

    I’m doing one last spell check and review, and then I’ll post them.

    Random (fba0b1)

  140. Epwj – not sure why I am bothering, but what did your ??? Reference?

    JD (92e1b0)

  141. DRJ, I am basically editing what folks have already posted. I copied and pasted into a Word document, and I’m reading along with the audio. I’m correcting listening errors and adding anything that I hear that wasn’t scribed that I thought might be pertinent. I’m on minute 29 of 48. Patterico wanted this much by 7:00 p.m. PT, so that’s what I’m doing. If y’all want the entire text scribed, it won’t be a big deal to go back and add in what’s been left out.

    Melody (d5e86b)

  142. Random, I’m putting in stutters and false starts, but leaving out uh and um.

    Melody (d5e86b)

  143. I think Patterico wants as much as he can get, and all of it if possible. That’s why I’d like to help fill in any gaps that no one transcribed. Can you tell what portion is missing?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  144. ______________________________________________

    if it means I give people the benefit of the doubt.

    DRJ, so do you think Vaughey deserves more benefit of the doubt or less benefit of the doubt than Worthing/Walker? I would imagine you’d want to say “as much” (ie, no more, no less) benefit of the doubt. But since Vaughey is a judge (retired or otherwise), do you believe he actually deserves more respect than the average person does? Or a belief that in order to avoid “mob rule,” the sentiments of the judiciary (and its members) must always be given wide latitude.

    I’m not being argumentative to be argumentative, but I am curious what makes people tick.

    Mark (cf1348)

  145. DRJ #131: how sad that te judge “judged” Aaron based on the Mohammed business, but not the Nazgul over prior felonies and 100 lawsuits of dubious intent.

    Simon Jester (1abbb8)

  146. Mark,

    I don’t know why the judge made his decision. It could be politics but it could be other things, too, including that this result is his understanding of how the law should work.

    Peace orders are what other states call restraining orders. They usually involve disputes between two related people (e.g., husband/wife) or two feuding people who know each other. Judges typically try to solve the problem by separating the people, and they use these orders to impose solutions that keep the people from bothering each other.

    I think that’s the frame of reference from which the judge is approaching this problem. He’s used to seeing people who need protection, or want to hurt each other, or want to get each other in trouble, but the common denominator is usually that they live in the same community. I could definitely be wrong, but my guess is he’s not used to internet claims and free speech concerns.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  147. _______________________________________________

    Judge ruled that Aaron Walker did in fact ASSAULT Mr. Kimberlin.

    Okay, JD, you therefore must sense that all of Patterico’s blog entries on this case give too much sympathy to Worthing instead of to Vaughey? So the ruling by the judge was quite fair and impartial? If so, then Walker vs Vaughey (and, in turn, Kimberlin) is a case of much ado about nothing.

    If the assault you speak of truly was an assault (and not an “assault”—or a variation of political correctness run amok), then it should be discussed here in greater detail.

    Mark (cf1348)

  148. Mark – you are an idiot.

    JD (92e1b0)

  149. Beginning at 16:10

    16:10

    Walker: …You had a judgement against you involving the death of, in the suicide death of Carl DeLong, is that correct?

    Kimberlin: Uh Judge, that, that, that judgement has been thrown out…

    Walker: I’m asking for a yes or no question…

    Kimberlin: (inaudible)

    Court: It was reversed?

    Kimberlin: It’s it’s been, it’s been nullified. I don’t know what the word is in Indiana, but it’s been nullified.

    Walker: Well, it wasn’t nullified in 1998, when the Parole, when the Parole Commission revoked your parole, is that correct?

    Kimberlin: The judge in that case solicited a bribe from my attorney and he was…

    Walker: In the Parole case?

    Kimberlin: …he was indited and sent to jail for 18 years.

    Court: That’s very good. I think that’s wonderful.

    Kimberlin: So, that’s what happened in that case.

    Court: What did that do in your case?

    Kimberlin: Well, that case has been resolved, and that case is no longer…

    Court: How did it terminate? With a reversal of conviction?

    Kimberlin: Considered satis-, quote considered satisfied, I guess is what they’d call it.

    Court: Never heard of that in a criminal case, (inaudible).

    Kimberlin: It’s not a criminal case, it’s a civil case.

    Court: A Parole Board

    Kimberlin: Uh

    Court: A Parole Board thing?

    Kimberlin: No no no, that was a civil case, where the ju-, where I was, I was, I was found…

    Walker: Your, your honor, if I can help…

    Kimberlin: The Judge solicited a bribe, went to jail, 18 years, extortion, bribery, all the racketeering…

    Court: That’s got nothing to do to the case, though.

    Kimberlin: No, but he solicited a bribe in my case.

    Court: That doesn’t mean the facts, the underlying facts of the case change. It just means the judge solicited a bribe. Dirty judge. But it doesn’t change the facts in your case. How was that case resolved?

    Kimberlin: The facts of that case are that that judgment was not valid, it’s not valid at this time, it’s not enforceable. It’s, it’s gone.

    Court: Okay, Ask him some more questions, go ahead.

    Luke (cb44fc)

  150. No that’s not what the first story, from 2010, says;

    Kimberlin was paroled in 1994 after serving about 13 years of his 50-year sentence. But when he made no effort to pay the DeLong judgment his parole was revoked in 1997 and he went back to prison for about four more years, released again in 2001.

    narciso (494474)

  151. JD,

    I think I got it nevermind

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)

  152. _____________________________________________

    but my guess is he’s not used to internet claims and free speech concerns.

    You may be correct, and this is all second guessing by everyone at this point. But I continue to have a hunch that Vaughey filtered the case through a left-leaning prism and would have responded differently if the politics of the two sides were flipped.

    BTW, I notice you favor using the word “judge” to describe the decisionmaker (ie Vaughey) in the matter of Walker vs Kimberlin. I’m not sure if that’s because you feel the judiciary (or the concept of the Judiciary—meaning with a capital “J”) is rather lofty and noble, and should therefore receive more benefit of the doubt than it necessarily deserves. I think most people buy into that notion and want to downplay the ideological forces that affect a courtroom (particularly its judge) as much as society in general.

    Mark (cf1348)

  153. This is my edit of the transcriptions (with some somewhat extended transcriptions thrown in) submitted by Patterico or commenters on this post before 12:40 pm:

    At 9:58:

    KIMBERLIN: Last week, he got all these bloggers all over the country to create “Let’s Blog about Brett Kimberlin” day. Over 350 blogs blogged that I framed him. And that led to a number of — probably scores of death threats to me. They threatened my daughter, who is a preteen, my mother, they called on the phone and threatened SWAT teams –

    WALKER: Your honor, I would like to object here. He is characterizing the statements of third parties –

    THE COURT [to Walker]: You got any clients?!

    ———
     
     
    At 13:54:

    WALKER: And you were known as the “Speedway Bomber”, were you not?

    KIMBERLIN: I don’t know that.

    WALKER: You don’t know that you were known as the Speedway Bomber? You did not know that you — you’ve never read this before in your life?

    KIMBERLIN: I’ve read a lot of things.

    ———
     
     
    At 30:33:

    WALKER: I reported on my — I have told the world about what this man did to me. That is all I’ve done. Now I know your honor — I know your honor that when you talk, say to the world, “Someone has done something evil,” that you do obviously have a risk of things like violence and things like that. It’s inescapable. But I have never incited violence. I have always told people every time that they have said anything violent in my presence, I have said I don’t endorse violence even as a joke. And even if they joke about, “Oh wouldn’t it be funny if he went to prison and got raped,” I would say, “That’s not cool. I’m not cool with that.” I was always clear with that.

    WALKER: On top of that, I put numerous, numerous, numerous primary documents on my Web site. Many of those documents originally has his home address, had his phone number, had his email address, etc., etc. I carefully redacted every single instance of that. I didn’t put any current photos of Mr. Kimberlin on the Web site.

    COURT: Did you send all those email that he had to have.

    WALKER: I did not send any nasty email to him. I’ve never sent him any email period.

    COURT: That was not the question. You’ve changed it again.

    WALKER: I apologize.

    COURT: Did you send those emails?

    WALKER: No I didn’t. I’ve never emailed him period.

    COURT: So those 54 pages, 540 emails never came from you?

    WALKER: Well the 54 pages he’s talking about is Twitter, and Twitter is something where you talk to the world, not to Brett Kimberlin. Brett Kimberlin believes that if you speak anywhere on the Internet, it is equivalent of putting a letter in his mailbox. And he is trying to use — he is trying to equate it to Galloway in Galloway vs. State, saying, your honor, that in that case, that guy sent 122 letters to the address of a woman he kidnapped and stalked previously. And Mr. Kimberlin is trying to say it’s equivalent to sending him a letter.

    He created Google Alerts, Google Alerts, as he just admitted, to bring this stuff into his email inbox. He has asked Google, “Please tell me when anyone in the world does this.” He has employees; he can ask them to look at it. He doesn’t have to even look at it. He chooses to bring this and then pretends I’m intruding on him.

    And this matter has become an issue of national debate. Let me show you an example, your honor.

    ———
     
     
    At 32:56:

    Kimberlin: Judge may I understand [unintelligible].

    WALKER: This is, for example, an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner, and this is about Brett Kimberlin and his conduct toward me. I believe he refers to me as, under the pen name, Aaron Worthing, and he says at one point; let’s see here: It says, “Far more serious is the tactic adopted by Brett Kimberlin …” — he’s talking about the tactics used to suppress free speech — “… an activist and the founder of the group Velvet Revolution, who was convicted in 1981 of exploding eight bombs in 1978 in Speedway, Indiana.” He goes on, “Nowadays, Kimberlin targets conservative bloggers like Aaron Worthing …” — that’s my pen name — “… and Robert Stacy McCain in Maryland and Patrick Frey of Patterico’s Pontifications. Why? For publishing facts about Brett Kimberlin’s criminal record. Kimberlin harasses his targets by, among many other ways, filing false charges in courts that require expensive, time-consuming litigation; disrupting his targets’ workplaces; and dropping dark hints about spouses and kids.”

    This is the kind of thing — this is part of the national debate that’s going on right now about Mr. Kimberlin’s conduct, because I came forward and told my story. And I told it peacefully. I didn’t ask anybody to make harmful complaints.

    I sent it right to his donors? I have done no such thing.

    COURT: You spotlighted his –

    WALKER: I spotlighted his conduct. This is an article from a news site known as “The Blaze”. And it talks again about

    COURT: Tell me why. Tell me why you spotlighted this guy.

    WALKER: Why? Because I believe he committed a crime against me. I believe he attempted to put me in prison.

    COURT: So because you believe he committed a crime that the state’s attorney refused to prosecute?

    WALKER: Yes, sir. And I believe the state’s attorney is wrong in that [inaudible].

    ———
     
     
    At 36:56:

    WALKER: Mr. Kimberlin has said that, “I have filed a hundred lawsuits and it’d be no sweat to file a one more.” He said that to my friend Patrick Frey.

    COURT: Hey, but how’s this going to end?

    Help me along. How do you see it ending?

    WALKER: I’m going to tell you the truth.

    COURT: I make all my money by predicting the future [muffled laughter]. OK?

    WALKER: OK.

    COURT: And that’s how I do it. See I bet on something and bang, I make a lot of money.

    WALKER: This is my –

    COURT: Yeah, that’s what I do.

    WALKER: OK, you [unintelligible] … you [unintelligible] –

    COURT: How do you see this ending? You two guys put swords at each others’ throats? Hmm? How do you see it ending? You two guys going outside drawing swords and shooting at each other?

    WALKER: No, I will never, I would never resort to violence.

    COURT: So there’s going to — it’s going to be a non-violent ruination of an individual?

    ———
     
     
    At 39:34:

    COURT: Where do you see this thing going?

    WALKER: I hope to raise enough of a consciousness to convince the state’s attorney to finally charge him. That’s where I hope it goes. That’s my goal.

    COURT: And how are you going to do this?

    WALKER: By I can raise awareness. There’s now 400,000 posts on Google. You look up Google, you’ll find 400,000 hits for him, discussing him; and I believe probably at least 300,000 of them are not very pleasant toward him. These are people calling for him filing a charge [sic]. A man in –

    COURT: But who started this?

    WALKER: W started this? Mr. Kimberlin started this.

    COURT: No, no, no, you started it.

    WALKER: How did I start this?

    COURT: You googling all these people and getting them all excited and charged [unintelligible].

    WALKER: OK, in that sense your honor –

    COURT: The same way if a politician gets elected. He doesn’t see everybody. He gets the whole thing going.

    See? See? See?

    WALKER: Well, I understand your honor, but –

    COURT: And that you’re just the same thing only you use this other thing.

    WALKER: But it is my right under the First Amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It is my right to tell the world what he did to me. That Galloway vs. State made it very specific on harassment –

    COURT: Within reason, my friend. Within reason.

    WALKER: Within reason?

    COURT: Within reason.

    WALKER: I have had a crime committed against me. What is unreasonable about seeking justice?

    COURT: You know … I shouldn’t say this, but I think you’ve got it twisted. The one who decides to prosecute crimes is the government …

    WALKER: Of course.

    COURT: … and only the government …

    WALKER: But of course.

    COURT: … and not you.

    WALKER: Of course, your honor.

    COURT: And you’re doing this, I think under a guise, under this new banner of “I’ve got the right to do.”

    You can’t. You can’t.

    Suppose you didn’t like a girl and you wanted to take about her chastity? He feels the same way. He feels violated. And then I have to look at the reasonableness between the two of you in the [unintelligible].

    That’s why I said, “Where is this going?”

    WALKER: But your honor –

    COURT: This is going to you guys shooting each other in my opinion.

    WALKER: Your honor, that is absolutely –

    COURT: You plan to be [unintelligible]. I think, you know — I’m Irish. OK? And one of the things the Irish are best at in the world is boxing. And a real good Irish middleweight is a counter-puncher. He doesn’t throw the first punch, but boy he let’s the second one go: he’s got ya, see?

    WALKER: But your honor –

    You decide to battle and he comes back. And see, you are … you’re – you’re the kind of guy: you don’t want to get into this to settle it … mano y mano.

    You want to get all these friends who got nothing else to do with their time — in this judge’s opinion — because my God, I’m a little bit older than you are, and I haven’t got enough time in the day to do all the things I want to do, and I hoped by retirement I would have less to do. I got more! Because everybody knows I’m free!

    So they all come to me, but you … you are starting a conflagration, for lack of a better word, and you’re just letting the thing go recklessly no matter where it goes. I mean, you get some, and I’m going to use the word I [unintelligible], “Freak!” somewhere out in Oklahoma got nothing better to do with his time, so he does the nastiest things in the world he can to this poor gentleman.

    What right has that guy got to do it?

    WALKER: He has no right to do that, your honor.

    COURT: But [unintelligible] ’cause you incited him.

    WALKER: But your honor, I did not incite within the Brandenburg standard.

    COURT: Well, forget Brandenburg. Let’s go with Vaughey right now, and common sense out on the world.

    But you know where I grew up in Brooklyn, when that stuff was pulled, it was settled real quickly.

    WALKER: I’m not sure what that means –

    COURT: Very quickly. I’m not going to talk about those ways, but boy it ended fast. [unintelligible] the day when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date an Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boys’ permission.

    But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair. When someone did something up there to you, your sister, your girlfriend, you got your friends to take them for a ride in the back of the truck.

    WALKER: Well, your honor, what –

    COURT: But that ended it! You guys have got this new mechanical stuff out here, electronic stuff, that you can just, uh, ruin somebody without doing anything.

    But you started it.

    ———
     
     
    At 43:54:

    WALKER: But pardon your honor, he started when he committed a crime against me.

    COURT: No. He did not commit a crime against you.

    WALKER: Your honor, you have no –

    He did not commit a crime against you. He is innocent until proven guilty.

    WALKER: Well I’m entitled –

    COURT: Now you’re in the [unintelligible]. You take the actions to Mr. McCarthy. You don’t get all these people from Oklahoma, Indiana, Wyoming, wherever the heck it is, and all these past things.

    Good, I’m going to rule right now; I’ve heard enough. I don’t need arguments. I could be a hundred, almost an hour on this case, and all I’ve learned is one guy hides behind the sheets and runs his little machine, while the other man suffers.

    I don’t care what his background is. A prostitute can also be raped.

    WALKER: Of course, your honor.

    COURT: But what I care about is, he’s an individual, he’s entitled to have – to his own privacy, and not to be threatened. Anything else is — the thing I didn’t like is these death threats that are coming. And his children are [unintelligible]. That is nasty and raw.

    WALKER: But your honor, I did not cause that.

    ———
     
     
    At 45:06:

    COURT: I am going to pass this order because I find that they are worse than harassment … as far as I am concerned. It’s a downright dirty, nasty thing to do to somebody — I find. And quite frankly, if we were sitting a criminal case, you’d get a sentence you wouldn’t [unintelligible].

    WALKER: But –

    COURT: You’d get a sentence that you wouldn’t like. Because you’ve got time to tear somebody down … through rumors and innuendos, and you’re not doing it directly, you’re doing it indirectly, and that’s what hurts the most. If it was directly, he could come right out and you could come to a court of law and you could have thing thing settled in one, two, three; but you’ve got people all over writing these things. God, 54 pages that he says comes directly from you; and he’s got volumes over there of these people that are doing it.

    It’s wrong, son. It’s absolutely wrong.

    So what I’m going to do is I am going to pass this peace order, and it’s going to remain in effect, sir, for six months. So this is May 15th [unintelligible] June, July, August, September, October, November.

    WALKER: Your honor, if I could say one thing here.

    COURT: No you can’t . …

    ———
     
     
    At 46:25:

    COURT: This report shall remain in effect until November 15, 2012. During that period of time you not shall commit any act that causes and puts in fear and apprehension of bodily harm, any act that places this gentleman in fear and apprehension of grave bodily harm, any assault, rape, attempt to rape, sexual [unintelligible], false imprisonment, harassment, stalking, trespass, or malicious destruction of property. The Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by telephone, in writing, or any other means.

    And any other means is putting it on a blog, a tweet, a megaphone, a smoke signals [sic] … um what else is out there … sonar, radar … uh … laser, nothing!

    WALKER: So I’m not allowed to –

    COURT: You’ve –

    WALKER — talk about him for 6 months? How [unintelligible] –

    COURT: How many times are you going to interrupt me?

    And you shall not contact or harass him in any way. You shall not enter his residence, wherever he may be living. You shall remain away from his place of employment, wherever that may be. He may be employed.

    Now let me get to the — now should this, should you violate this order, sir, you are subject to being prosecuted by the state’s attorneys office as a criminal case, and if found guilty the maximum penalty for the first violation is 90 days in jail and/or it’s a 500 dollar fine, could be a thousand dollar fine, or worse than that, it could be contempt of this court … where you could — where I could do anything that I deem necessary to keep you away from him or emailing him or Twitting [sic] him or oogling [sic] him or tooting him or smoking him, whatever phrase you use. I don’t know the difference at this point. Thank you very kindly. [gavel bang]

    KIMBERLIN: Thank you, your honor.

    COURT: No, no, no, don’t say anything to me. Don’t say anything to me. I’m just a civil servant doing my job.

    ———

    Random (fba0b1)

  154. ______________________________________________

    Mark – you are an idiot.

    Comment by JD — 6/3/2012 @ 5:55 pm

    Whoa and wow, JD. Ad-hominen responses don’t reflect very well on you.

    Why don’t you instead respond with details on the assault that you mentioned previously and why you believe that and not other issues greatly influenced Cornelius Vaughey’s ruling?

    I’ve got no skin in the game, if you will, so if it can be shown that Vaughey was quite justified in the way he ruled against Walker, I won’t crumble and cry.

    Mark (cf1348)

  155. I just quickly added “THE” in front of “COURT:” and capitilized one instance of “KIMBERLIN:” to make like Patterico’s examples:

     
     
    At 9:58:

    KIMBERLIN: Last week, he got all these bloggers all over the country to create “Let’s Blog about Brett Kimberlin” day. Over 350 blogs blogged that I framed him. And that led to a number of — probably scores of death threats to me. They threatened my daughter, who is a preteen, my mother, they called on the phone and threatened SWAT teams –

    WALKER: Your honor, I would like to object here. He is characterizing the statements of third parties –

    THE COURT [to Walker]: You got any clients?!

    ———
     
     
    At 13:54:

    WALKER: And you were known as the “Speedway Bomber”, were you not?

    KIMBERLIN: I don’t know that.

    WALKER: You don’t know that you were known as the Speedway Bomber? You did not know that you — you’ve never read this before in your life?

    KIMBERLIN: I’ve read a lot of things.

    ———
     
     
    At 30:33:

    WALKER: I reported on my — I have told the world about what this man did to me. That is all I’ve done. Now I know your honor — I know your honor that when you talk, say to the world, “Someone has done something evil,” that you do obviously have a risk of things like violence and things like that. It’s inescapable. But I have never incited violence. I have always told people every time that they have said anything violent in my presence, I have said I don’t endorse violence even as a joke. And even if they joke about, “Oh wouldn’t it be funny if he went to prison and got raped,” I would say, “That’s not cool. I’m not cool with that.” I was always clear with that.

    WALKER: On top of that, I put numerous, numerous, numerous primary documents on my Web site. Many of those documents originally has his home address, had his phone number, had his email address, etc., etc. I carefully redacted every single instance of that. I didn’t put any current photos of Mr. Kimberlin on the Web site.

    THE COURT: Did you send all those email that he had to have.

    WALKER: I did not send any nasty email to him. I’ve never sent him any email period.

    THE COURT: That was not the question. You’ve changed it again.

    WALKER: I apologize.

    THE COURT: Did you send those emails?

    WALKER: No I didn’t. I’ve never emailed him period.

    THE COURT: So those 54 pages, 540 emails never came from you?

    WALKER: Well the 54 pages he’s talking about is Twitter, and Twitter is something where you talk to the world, not to Brett Kimberlin. Brett Kimberlin believes that if you speak anywhere on the Internet, it is equivalent of putting a letter in his mailbox. And he is trying to use — he is trying to equate it to Galloway in Galloway vs. State, saying, your honor, that in that case, that guy sent 122 letters to the address of a woman he kidnapped and stalked previously. And Mr. Kimberlin is trying to say it’s equivalent to sending him a letter.

    He created Google Alerts, Google Alerts, as he just admitted, to bring this stuff into his email inbox. He has asked Google, “Please tell me when anyone in the world does this.” He has employees; he can ask them to look at it. He doesn’t have to even look at it. He chooses to bring this and then pretends I’m intruding on him.

    And this matter has become an issue of national debate. Let me show you an example, your honor.

    ———
     
     
    At 32:56:

    KIMBERLIN: Judge may I understand [unintelligible].

    WALKER: This is, for example, an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner, and this is about Brett Kimberlin and his conduct toward me. I believe he refers to me as, under the pen name, Aaron Worthing, and he says at one point; let’s see here: It says, “Far more serious is the tactic adopted by Brett Kimberlin …” — he’s talking about the tactics used to supress free speech — “… an activist and the founder of the group Velvet Revolution, who was convicted in 1981 of exploding eight bombs in 1978 in Speedway, Indiana.” He goes on, “Nowadays, Kimberlin targets conservative bloggers like Aaron Worthing …” — that’s my pen name — “… and Robert Stacy McCain in Maryland and Patrick Frey of Patterico’s Pontifications. Why? For publishing facts about Brett Kimberlin’s criminal record. Kimberlin harasses his targets by, among many other ways, filing false charges in courts that require expensive, time-consuming litigation; disrupting his targets’ workplaces; and dropping dark hints about spouses and kids.”

    This is the kind of thing — this is part of the national debate that’s going on right now about Mr. Kimberlin’s conduct, because I came forward and told my story. And I told it peacefully. I didn’t ask anybody to make harmful complaints.

    I sent it right to his donors? I have done no such thing.

    THE COURT: You spotlighted his –

    WALKER: I spotlighted his conduct. This is an article from a news site known as “The Blaze”. And it talks again about

    THE COURT: Tell me why. Tell me why you spotlighted this guy.

    WALKER: Why? Because I believe he committed a crime against me. I believe he attempted to put me in prison.

    THE COURT: So because you believe he committed a crime that the state’s attorney refused to prosecute?

    WALKER: Yes, sir. And I believe the state’s attorney is wrong in that [inaudible].

    ———
     
     
    At 36:56:

    WALKER: Mr. Kimberlin has said that, “I have filed a hundred lawsuits and it’d be no sweat to file a one more.” He said that to my friend Patrick Frey.

    THE COURT: Hey, but how’s this going to end?

    Help me along. How do you see it ending?

    WALKER: I’m going to tell you the truth.

    THE COURT: I make all my money by predicting the future [muffled laughter]. OK?

    WALKER: OK.

    THE COURT: And that’s how I do it. See I bet on something and bang, I make a lot of money.

    WALKER: This is my –

    THE COURT: Yeah, that’s what I do.

    WALKER: Ok, you [unintelligible] … you [unintelligible] –

    THE COURT: How do you see this ending? You two guys put swords at each others’ throats? Hmm? How do you see it ending? You two guys going outside drawing swords and shooting at each other?

    WALKER: No, I will never, I would never resort to violence.

    THE COURT: So there’s going to — it’s going to be a non-violent ruination of an individual?

    ———
     
     
    At 39:34:

    THE COURT: Where do you see this thing going?

    WALKER: I hope to raise enough of a consciousness to convince the state’s attorney to finally charge him. That’s where I hope it goes. That’s my goal.

    THE COURT: And how are you going to do this?

    WALKER: By I can raise awareness. There’s now 400,000 posts on Google. You look up Google, you’ll find 400,000 hits for him, discussing him; and I believe probably at least 300,000 of them are not very pleasant toward him. These are people calling for him filing a charge [sic]. A man in –

    THE COURT: But who started this?

    WALKER: Wo started this? Mr. Kimberlin started this.

    THE COURT: No, no, no, you started it.

    WALKER: How did I start this?

    THE COURT: You googling all these people and getting them all excited and charged [unintelligible].

    WALKER: OK, in that sense your honor –

    THE COURT: The same way if a politician gets elected. He doesn’t see everybody. He gets the whole thing going.

    See? See? See?

    WALKER: Well, I understand your honor, but –

    THE COURT: And that you’re just the same thing only you use this other thing.

    WALKER: But it is my right under the First Amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It is my right to tell the world what he did to me. That Galloway vs. State made it very specific on harassment –

    THE COURT: Within reason, my friend. Within reason.

    WALKER: Within reason?

    THE COURT: Within reason.

    WALKER: I have had a crime committed against me. What is unreasonable about seeking justice?

    THE COURT: You know … I shouldn’t say this, but I think you’ve got it twisted. The one who decides to prosecute crimes is the govenrment …

    WALKER: Of course.

    THE COURT: … and only the government …

    WALKER: But of course.

    THE COURT: … and not you.

    WALKER: Of course, your honor.

    THE COURT: And you’re doing this, I think under a guise, under this new banner of “I’ve got the right to do.”

    You can’t. You can’t.

    Suppose you didn’t like a girl and you wanted to take about her chastity? He feels the same way. He feels violated. And then I have to look at the reasonableness between the two of you in the [unintelligible].

    That’s why I said, “Where is this going?”

    WALKER: But your honor –

    THE COURT: This is going to you guys shooting each other in my opinion.

    WALKER: Your honor, that is absolutely –

    THE COURT: You plan to be [unintelligible]. I think, you know — I’m Irish. OK? And one of the things the Irish are best at in the world is boxing. And a real good Irish middleweight is a counterpuncher. He doesn’t throw the first punch, but boy he let’s the second one go: he’s got ya, see?

    WALKER: But your honor –

    You decide to battle and he comes back. And see, you are … you’re – you’re the kind of guy: you don’t want to get into this to settle it … mano y mano.

    You want to get all these friends who got nothing else to do with their time — in this judge’s opinion — because my God, I’m a little bit older than you are, and I haven’t got enough time in the day to do all the things I want to do, and I hoped by retirement I would have less to do. I got more! Because everybody knows I’m free!

    So they all come to me, but you … you are starting a conflagration, for lack of a better word, and you’re just letting the thing go recklessly no matter where it goes. I mean, you get some, and I’m going to use the word I [unintelligible], “Freak!” somewhere out in Oklahoma got nothing better to do with his time, so he does the nastiest things in the world he can to this poor gentleman.

    What right has that guy got to do it?

    WALKER: He has no right to do that, your honor.

    THE COURT: But [unintelligible] ’cause you incited him.

    WALKER: But your honor, I did not incite within the Brandenburg standard.

    THE COURT: Well, forget Brandenburg. Let’s go with Vaughey right now, and common sense out on the world.

    But you know where I grew up in Brooklyn, when that stuff was pulled, it was settled real quickly.

    WALKER: I’m not sure what that means –

    THE COURT: Very quickly. I’m not going to talk about those ways, but boy it ended fast. [unintelligible] the day when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date an Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boys’ permission.

    But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair. When someone did something up there to you, your sister, your girlfriend, you got your friends to take them for a ride in the back of the truck.

    WALKER: Well, your honor, what –

    THE COURT: But that ended it! You guys have got this new mechanical stuff out here, electronic stuff, that you can just, uh, ruin somebody without doing anything.

    But you started it.

    ———
     
     
    At 43:54:

    WALKER: But pardon your honor, he started when he committed a crime against me.

    THE COURT: No. He did not commit a crime against you.

    WALKER: Your honor, you have no –

    He did not commit a crime against you. He is innocent until proven guilty.

    WALKER: Well I’m entitled –

    THE COURT: Now you’re in the [unintelligible]. You take the actions to Mr. McCarthy. You don’t get all these people from Oklahoma, Indiana, Wyoming, wherever the heck it is, and all these past things.

    Good, I’m going to rule right now; I’ve heard enough. I don’t need arguments. I could be a hundred, almost an hour on this case, and all I’ve learned is one guy hides behind the sheets and runs his little machine, while the other man suffers.

    I don’t care what his background is. A prostitute can also be raped.

    WALKER: Of course, your honor.

    THE COURT: But what I care about is, he’s an individual, he’s entitled to have – to his own privacy, and not to be threatened. Anything else is — the thing I didn’t like is these death threats that are coming. And his children are [unintelligible]. That is nasty and raw.

    WALKER: But your honor, I did not cause that.

    ———
     
     
    At 45:06:

    THE COURT: I am going to pass this order because I find that they are worse than harrassment … as far as I am concerned. It’s a downright dirty, nasty thing to do to somebody — I find. And quite frankly, if we were sitting a criminal case, you’d get a sentence you wouldn’t [unintelligible].

    WALKER: But –

    THE COURT: You’d get a sentence that you wouldn’t like. Because you’ve got time to tear somebody down … through rumors and innuendos, and you’re not doing it directly, you’re doing it indirectly, and that’s what hurts the most. If it was directly, he could come right out and you could come to a court of law and you could have thing thing settled in one, two, three; but you’ve got people all over writing these things. God, 54 pages that he says comes directly from you; and he’s got volumes over there of these people that are doing it.

    It’s wrong, son. It’s absolutely wrong.

    So what I’m going to do is I am going to pass this peace order, and it’s going to remain in effect, sir, for six months. So this is May 15th [unintelligible] June, July, August, September, October, November.

    WALKER: Your honor, if I could say one thing here.

    THE COURT: No you can’t . …

    ———
     
     
    At 46:25:

    THE COURT: This report shall remain in effect until November 15, 2012. During that period of time you not shall commit any act that causes and puts in fear and apprehension of bodily harm, any act that places this gentleman in fear and apprehension of grave bodily harm, any assault, rape, attempt to rape, sexual [unintelligible], false imprisonment, harrassment, stalking, tresspass, or malicious destruction of property. The Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by telephone, in writing, or any other means.

    And any other means is putting it on a blog, a tweet, a megaphone, a smoke signals [sic] … um what else is out there … sonar, radar … uh … laser, nothing!

    WALKER: So I’m not allowed to –

    THE COURT: You’ve –

    WALKER — talk about him for 6 months? How [unintelligible] –

    THE COURT: How many times are you going to interrupt me?

    And you shall not contact or harass him in any way. You shall not enter his residence, wherever he may be living. You shall remain away from his place of employment, whereever that may be. He may be employed.

    Now let me get to the — now should this, should you violate this order, sir, you are subject to being prosecuted by the state’s attorneys office as a criminal case, and if found guilty the maximum penalty for the first violation is 90 days in jail and/or it’s a 500 dollar fine, could be a thousand dollar fine, or worse than that, it could be contempt of this court … where you could — where I could do anything that I deem necessary to keep you away from him or emailing him or Twitting [sic] him or oogling [sic] him or tooting him or smoking him, whatever phrase you use. I don’t know the difference at this point. Thank you very kindly. [gavel bang]

    KIMBERLIN: Thank you, your honor.

    THE COURT: No, no, no, don’t say anything to me. Don’t say anything to me. I’m just a civil servant doing my job.

    ———
     
     

    Alright, I’m done. Improve it as you will.

    Random (fba0b1)

  156. You made up a position and attributed it to me, mark. Hence, you are an idiot. That was not my position, in fact, the assertIons listed were from Rauhauser/Kimberlin/etc

    Did this Judge Vaughey jail AW, Mark?

    JD (92e1b0)

  157. ________________________________________________

    COURT [Cornelius Vaughey]: But who started this?

    WALKER: W started this? Mr. Kimberlin started this.

    COURT: No, no, no, you started it.

    That’s another passage that, again, to me points in the direction of the judge doing emotional (and ideological) back flips to accommodate Kimberlin and, in turn, to excoriate Worthing/Walker.

    The thrust of that reminds me of all the jurists (virtually all of them of the left) who will say and feel: “The felon’s crimes are less important, or are somewhat understandable, in light of society not providing the disadvantaged better healthcare, housing, welfare, schooling, nutrition, transportation, subsidized access to the Internet, etc.”

    Mark (cf1348)

  158. Random, in the 39:34 set, about 30 speaker tags down, you have:

    WALKER: But your honor –

    You decide to battle and he comes back. And see, you are … you’re – you’re the kind of guy: you don’t want to get into this to settle it … mano y mano.

    Is the “You decide…” part THE COURT speaking? (I can’t listen, but it makes better sense that way.)

    Sue (54b03a)

  159. _____________________________________________

    You made up a position and attributed it to me, mark. Hence, you are an idiot.

    So, JD, how am I misinterpreting your post, pasted below?

    I’m assuming you called me an “idiot” because I’ve asserted that Vaughey was greatly influenced by the politics of the case — by the liberalism (if not ultra-liberalism) of Kimberlin compared with the conservatism of Walker — while you say (again, per below) that the judge had specific, valid, non-ideological reasons for deciding in favor of Kimberlin instead of Walker.

    You can really be an idiot, mark. Does the transcript bear any of this out?

    Judge ruled that case was built upon FALSE NARRATIVE that Aaron Walker created as revenge plot against Mr. Kimberlin.

    Judge ruled that Aaron Walker did in fact ASSAULT Mr. Kimberlin.

    Judge ruled that Medical Records that Mr. Kimberlin had produced at a prior trial were in fact legitimate medical records pertaining to the assault – and not forged documents as Mr. Walker had claimed in a number of articles.

    Judge ruled that Mr. Walker had a clear purpose/motive in inciting people to attack Mr. Kimberlin.

    Video that Aaron Walker used to claim exoneration did not in fact exonerate him of an assault.

    Comment by JD — 6/3/2012 @ 5:05 pm

    ^ If what you list is totally valid and reliable — and cannot be rebutted reasonably by anyone out there — then I will have to give greater leeway to Vaughey and not Walker, and conclude that the latter was handed down a just, impartial ruling.

    Mark (cf1348)

  160. 24:15 – 28:00

    WALKER: On the [unintelligible – “original ___ hearing”?] with Judge Johnson, didn’t Judge Johnson instruct you specifically that he could not stop me or anybody else from discussing accurately your long and deplorable criminal record? Did he not say this?

    KIMBERLIN: That’s not what you’re doing. You are harassing me. You are trying to destroy me.

    WALKER: What specifically am I doing to harass you?

    KIMBERLIN: You are ginning up people to send me death threats.

    WALKER: Well, what words did I say … what words did I say to cause people to give you death threats?

    KIMBERLIN: When you say that I framed you, which is not true. When you say that I falsified records from the suburban hospital — that I forged these documents from the suburban hospital and photoshopped pictures of me with a black eye — and you’re ginning up people to come after me. You know how the internet works. It’s like somebody’s gonna [unintelligible] from the 60’s and [unintelligible] lynch mob, and that’s what you’re doing. You’re creating a lynch mob to harm me, and harm my family, and harm my business, and harm my funders, and harm the State Department and everybody that I work with.

    WALKER: So is your position that therefore anybody who says anything bad about you on the internet, including truthfully discussing your criminal record, is therefore inciting people to imminent lawless behavior. Is that correct?

    KIMBERLIN: We’re not talking about you writing an article about me. We’re talking about you stalking me and harassing me. In Galloway there was 134 letters sent to the victim in that case. I’ve had 15,000 tweets. I’ve had scores of death threats and calls to my mother and my daughter. And they’re friending my daughter on Facebook and trying to threaten her on Facebook.

    WALKER: What specifically did I do to incite that? I said bad things about you, is that the long and short of it?

    KIMBERLIN: You tweeted thousands of times. You ginned up. You started “Everybody Blog Brett Kimberlin Day.”

    WALKER: I started this? How do you know I started this?

    KIMBERLIN: You did it. This is what’s going on, Judge. He won’t stop. It’s obsessive. It’s obsessive. I have a right to be a father. I have a right to be …

    WALKER: How do you know …

    JUDGE: Just answer the question. Don’t argue. [Unintelligible – “Get ready”?] Finish up, finish up. Let’s go.

    WALKER: What words did I ask anybody to start “Everyone Blog Brett Kimberlin Day”?

    KIMBERLIN: Judge, he wrote on his thing how Brett Kimberlin tried to frame him for a crime and how he …

    WALKER: I’m …

    KIMBERLIN: I’m telling you how. You know what he says? You know how you can help? Okay, go out and contact all his funders, and …

    WALKER: Would you show the Court where I said that?

    KIMBERLIN: … and contact … He was talking in here about “I purchased a handgun.” That’s a veiled threat against me. Um … he said these guys that are reading his blog, they’re all … I’ll read them to you …

    JUDGE: You don’t have to.

    KIMBERLIN: “Pump gauge shotgun, very simple to operate.”

    WALKER: Excuse me, sir, but how do you know he was talking about you?

    KIMBERLIN: It’s in a thread …

    WALKER: Okay, this is written by a third party, isn’t that correct?

    KIMBERLIN: “Arm yourself and your family. Nail the bastard to the wall.”

    WALKER: I’m sorry, was that written by me or was that written by a third party?

    KIMBERLIN: It’s written by a man that you are in contact with and you are ginning up and …

    WALKER: By saying bad things about you on the internet, is that right?

    JUDGE: All right, guys, that’s enough. [To Walker:] Give me your case. Come on.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  161. DRJ,

    Check your email.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  162. Mark – those are rauhauser and kimberlin’s words. I noted that above. There was a paragraph break between me noting you are an idiot and my leading question as to whether the transcript confirmed what they claimed.

    JD (92e1b0)

  163. DRJ – good choice on that one.

    JD (92e1b0)

  164. I was definitely too easy on the judge once I went down a tangent before. The judge was awful.

    Random (fba0b1)

  165. How would any of this harm the State Dept ?

    JD (92e1b0)

  166. Has anyone seen “Bernie” ?

    JD (318f81)

  167. ________________________________________________

    There was a paragraph break between me noting you are an idiot and my leading question as to whether the transcript confirmed what they claimed

    JD, I’m not sure how that does or doesn’t tie into my main interest in this case, which isn’t just the dumb ruling imposed on Aaron Walker — and his having to deal with the sickening mess of it all — but how that ruling was or wasn’t influenced by the judge’s politics.

    DRJ says she’s willing to give Vaughey some benefit of the doubt. I’m not so inclined, even more so when additional bits of the transcript are posted here.

    If you or anyone else can point out Cornelius Vaughey displaying a truly fair-minded, objective, non-liberal slant to Worthing instead of Kimberlin, I’m more than willing to see that.

    Mark (cf1348)

  168. I wasn’t addressing your main interest, I find that tiresome. And predictable.

    JD (318f81)

  169. Mark,

    I’ll certainly give him the benefit of the doubt on his motives based on what we’ve seen so far. However, I still think his decision is wrong.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  170. The 2 or 3 salient points so far look like this:

    Judge attributes to Walker anything anybody might say (to Brett Kimberlin?) comparing what Walker is doing it to what a politician does in an election campaign: Q. Would he issue an injunction against a politician speaking about his opponent?

    Walker: But who started this? Mr. Kimberlin started this.
    Judge: No. No. No. You started it.
    Walker: How did I start this?
    Judge: You Googling all these people and getting them all excited and charge(d up?)
    Walker: Ok, in that sense your honor…
    Judge: the same way a politician gets elected. He doesn’t see everybody. He gets the whole thing going. See? See? See?

    Of course, by the way he uses the word “Googling,” you can tell the judge does not understand the architecture, but that’s a minor point.

    2> The judge muses about all the work he has, and how it would be so much better if these two men had a duel or a fistfight rather than getting all these other people involved. It’s possible the judge is not at all trying to protect Brett Kimberlin, but his thought is that he wants to prevent all sorts of secondary mayhem, but he’s careful not to say so. He’s maybe thinking: Keep on going, make this larger, who knows where this will go. Maybe a second Timothy McVeigh (some freak out in Oklahoma) will set off a massive bomb. He’s got to know the law doesn’t give him this authority but he’s sees a conflagration coming and he’s 74, retired, and got nothing to lose, and the ends justify the means. Judicial activism at the lower court level.

    Just read the judge’s words over. There’s no other way to understand them. He even hints to Walker he should beat up Brett Kimberlin, if he thinks it’s important, rather than excite the whole country against him. If he wants to do something about Kimberlin he needs to take some risks, and not start something that could ruin someone without having to do anything.. The judge’s job is to predict the future he says. (and he doesn’t think that if this goes on, this is going to end completely peacefully, and without bloodshed.)

    So his orders are:

    …..The Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by telephone, in writing, or ANY OTHER MEANS!!! (pause for effect, or to breathe), and any other means is putting it on a blog, a tweet, a megaphone, a smoke signals … ah what else … sonar, radar … laser, nothing.

    WALKER: So I’m not allowed to

    COURT: You’ve

    WALKER (talk or blog) about him for 6 months [2 second pause] How am…

    COURT: How many times are you going to interrupt me [2 second pause] and you shall not contact or harass him in any way. You shall not enter his residence wherever he may be living. You shall remain away from his place of employment where ever that may be. [inaudible mumbles by judge] Now let me get to the … should this, should you violate this order sir, you are subject to being prosecuted by the state’s attorneys office as a criminal case. And (if?) you are found guilty the maximum penalty for the first violation is 90 days in jail and or a 500 dollar fine, could be a thousand dollar fine or worse than that it could be contempt of this court where you could a where I could do anything I deem necessary to keep you away from or emailing him or twit him or googling him or (inaudible to me) him or (inaudible to me) him or (mumbles) … (gavel bang)… I’m just a civil servant doing my job ….

    Sammy Finkelman (508732)

  171. _____________________________________________

    I wasn’t addressing your main interest, I find that tiresome. And predictable.

    Okay, so what is your main interest in this case? And do you believe Vaughey’s motives are so complicated, apolitical and non-transparent that they give no hint of his personal biases?

    If you show me a ruling he’s handed down in the past, involving a case that had an obvious ideological tilt (if not a stereotypical right-vs-left one), in which the person he favored was clearly of the right, I’ll happily be non-tiresome and non-predictable in my assessment of Vaughey.

    Mark (cf1348)

  172. Random has the end like this:

    where I could do anything that I deem necessary to keep you away from him or emailing him or Twitting [sic] him or oogling [sic] him or tooting him or smoking him, whatever phrase you use. I don’t know the difference at this point. Thank you very kindly. [gavel bang]

    KIMBERLIN: Thank you, your honor.

    THE COURT: No, no, no, don’t say anything to me. Don’t say anything to me. I’m just a civil servant doing my job.

    It sounds like the judge does not want to get thanked by Brett Kimberlin. Or is that true for any litigant? Is that personal distaste, or an attempt to avoid an appearance of partiality?

    Sammy Finkelman (508732)

  173. Dave Surls, why do people keep bringing this irrelevancy up?

    This one:

    Also, using force to take someone’s property away from them at a court facility is a big, big mistake, especially when that person is trying to secure a retraining order against you.

    Never, not once, has this been mentioned as a cause of action in the current contretemps.

    Why is it constantly mentioned? I ask out of extreme exasperation. I’m not an idiot. Aaron Walker was not arrested because of the fucking iPad incident. Why does it keep coming up?!

    Dianna (f12db5)

  174. Query: Why not just send the tape to a professional court reporter for transcription? What’s the current per page cost in Maryland?

    Max015 (24d094)

  175. ______________________________________________

    I’ll certainly give him the benefit of the doubt on his motives based on what we’ve seen so far

    From my perspective, not based on things like the following, per below. Vaughey lashes out in a way that implies Kimberlin deserves no repudiation or even mixed feelings based on his history, and that Walker, in turn, is being a big, horrific, unfair meanie to Kimberlin.

    I’d say otherwise if Vaughey were overseeing a case in which the plaintiff had a spotless, non-political record, and if Walker were more like, well, Kimberlin himself.

    THE COURT [Cornelius Vaughey]: I am going to pass this order because I find that they are worse than harrassment … as far as I am concerned. It’s a downright dirty, nasty thing to do to somebody — I find. And quite frankly, if we were sitting a criminal case, you’d get a sentence you wouldn’t [unintelligible].

    WALKER: But –

    THE COURT: You’d get a sentence that you wouldn’t like. Because you’ve got time to tear somebody down … through rumors and innuendos, and you’re not doing it directly, you’re doing it indirectly, and that’s what hurts the most.

    ^ But that assumes the judge isn’t so feeble, if not outright senile, that he wasn’t fully aware of the disreputable and ruthless aspects of Kimberlin. So senility on the part of Vaughey would be just about the only reason I’d have for giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    Mark (cf1348)

  176. _________________________________________________

    THE COURT: No, no, no, don’t say anything to me. Don’t say anything to me.

    One way that could be interpreted is that Vaughey knew deepdown that he had sided inappropriately with Kimberlin and out of embarrassment — for his own biases — wanted to show a bit of the reaction of “devil’s advocate.”

    Or maybe he was subtly repulsed by Kimberlin, which would then run counter to his having previously given the plaintiff sort of a verbal pat on the back—by making it sound like Walker had aimed bile at the director of the local church choir. If so, then it hints that Vaughey’s guilt was starting to seep through.

    Makes me think of a scene in some movie (I believe it was “Saturday Night Fever”) where the main character wins a dance contest, but then angrily hands his award over to the losers, who he realizes were better than him but came in second only because they weren’t of Italian ancestry. Vaughey did mention the ethnic quirks of his having grown up in New York City.

    Mark (cf1348)

  177. How many times did Kimberlin perjure himself?

    JD (318f81)

  178. OccupyRebellion is in a manic phase. Again. Neal needs help.

    JD (318f81)

  179. this is fucking rediculous, its a kangaroo court from the word go. the judge requires the strictest proof and documentation from walker, yet accepts all statments and characterisations from kimberline. This is classic MSM bias techniques… duh. a. walker, never try a case vs a liberal in maryland, it aint rocket fucking science.

    neaderthal (d58661)

  180. Walker may have done nothing wrong at the hearing but would have still benefited from being represented by counsel.

    If only because judges are much less apt to pull this kind of chickenshit behavior when someone is paying for their representation.

    They are afraid of any blatantly obvious jackassery (like this) becoming courthouse gossip, and also out of ‘respect’ for the guild’s financial well being.

    Aside from the Kimberlin saga this episode is also an example of how judges will mistreat anyone who doesn’t bring a hired gun.

    ComradeAxelrod (dff91c)

  181. Aaron.needs.a.lawyer.NOW.

    Sardondi (7d49f4)

  182. So,unless I’m totally missing something, the transcripts most definitely

    Did NOT show a ruling against Arron based on a FALSE NARRATIVE that Aaron Walker created as revenge plot against Mr. Kimberlin. The judge shows he is unclear on the entire concept of the internet and first amendment but does not specifically state it was a “revenge plot” against Kimberline.

    Did NOT rule that Aaron Walker ASSAULTED Mr. Kimberlin.

    Did not state that Medical Records Mr. Kimberlin had produced at a prior trial were in fact legitimate medical records pertaining to the assault – and not forged documents as Mr. Walker had claimed in a number of articles.

    Did NOT state that Mr. Walker had a clear purpose/motive in inciting people to attack Mr. Kimberlin.

    Did NOT in any way state that the video that Aaron Walker used to claim exoneration did not in fact exonerate him of an assault.

    So, we can conclude that all of these nonesense statements on Breibart Unmasked are yet more fantasies of the fruitcake that is known as Brett Kimberlin.

    Joe (c21991)

  183. How could he deny Kimberlin v. White, with a straight face,

    narciso (494474)

  184. Oh, and the crocodile tears over the ‘EDM’ blog, are choice from Kimberlin,

    narciso (494474)

  185. 6:39

    JUDGE: I’m going on 34 years on the bench. I can handle this. Just give me the facts and I’ll cut right through.

    BK: All right, um, so, okay, he said that I framed him.

    JUDGE: Framed him? On an assault charge?(talking over BK)

    BK: On an assault charge. He went on the internet and started tweeting thousands, over 14,000 tweets that have been made on Twitter saying that I framed him for this.

    JUDGE: How do you know that?

    BK: I have them. I have them.

    JUDGE: 14,000 contacts, he made with them?

    BK: I have them.

    JUDGE: Is it the same message?

    BK: These are saying that he framed me and that he wants-

    Judge: (interrupting) I’m back in the Royal Typewriter days, so just come on slowly. So he did a little twit there to 14,000 people?

    BK: No, he tweeted 14,000 times.

    (Background chatter)

    BK: Or had others tweet 14,000 times saying that I framed him.

    Judge: Now wait, wait, wait, 14,000

    BK: At least.

    Judge: …tweets?

    BK: Yes.

    Judge: All right. Now…

    BK: Now…

    Judge: How many did he do?

    BK: Oh, thousands, thousands…

    AW: Not within the last 30 days…

    Judge: Hold on.

    (Background chatter)

    BK: I would say this is 54 pages of tweets by Mr. Walker.

    8:00

    Dana (4eca6e)

  186. Of course, by the way he uses the word “Googling,” you can tell the judge does not understand the architecture, but that’s a minor point.

    Minor point? Seems like pretty much the whole point. This judge doesn’t have a clue about electronic communications, Twitter, blogs, Google or much of anything else. This dispute relies heavily on everyone at least having a working knowledge of these things.

    Sara (e8f5d4)

  187. No, that’s the way it looks, but think a little more, investment funds, major celebrities and
    of course Soros, all have a stake in putting forth
    the notion that Kimberlin, is ‘the bravest, kindest
    most compassionate person, victimized by the right,

    narciso (494474)

  188. I’ll take 11:39 – 13:53

    itobo (27d644)

  189. Well, Dana got in first, but here’s mine and it ends right at 9:22

    At 6:39

    COURT: So just give me the facts and I’ll cut right through it.

    KIMBERLIN: alright, so, he said that I framed him.

    COURT: Framed him, ok, on an assault charge.

    KIMBERLIN: On an assault charge, and he went out there and started tweeting thousands, over 14 thousand tweets that he made on twitter, saying that I framed him for this.

    COURT: How do you know that?

    KIMBERLIN: I have it, I have it (inaudible)

    COURT: 14 thousand contacts he made with this?

    KIMBERLIN: 14 thousand (crosstalk) that, they go on and on and on and

    COURT: Is it the same message?

    KIMBERLIN: These are saying “I think he framed me.” and he …

    COURT: Now, now I can’t follow you, I’m back in the royal typewriter age, ok, so just come on slowly (crosstalk) he..another thing he did a little twit there to 14k different people?

    KIMBERLIN: No, he tweeted, he tweeted it 14 thousand times.

    COURT: Ok, that’s a whole lot different, there’s a whole difference.

    Kimberlin: Or had others tweet it 14k times, saying that I framed him.

    COURT: Now wait a minute wait, wait, wait, 14K thousand?

    KIMBERLIN: At least.

    COURT: Tweets?

    KIMBERLIN: yes.

    COURT: Alright, now!

    KIMBERLIN: Now…

    COURT: Now how many did he do?

    KIMBERLIN: Oh, Thousands, thousands (inaudible)

    WALKER: Your honor, your honor not all (inaudible)
    COURT: Hang on to this, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll…

    KIMBERLIN: Id say this is 54 pages of tweets by Mr. Walker himself.

    COURT: And that’s all I care about.

    KIMBERLIN: Ok well…

    COURT: You say somebody else did (inaudible) this.

    KIMBERLIN: This all (inaudible) this is all during the last 30 days.

    COURT: How many?

    KIMBERLIN: This is last day, this is last week on a on a single day this is Mr. Walker’s twitter account, ok, that’s, and most of them…

    COURT: How do you get this?

    KIMBERLIN: How do the get it? I’m the director of several non profits in the area I work with human rights issues and government accountability issues and so it’s part of my job to to work on the internet because it’s basically a social networking job and so I get Google alerts all the time mentioning my my organizations, my name what work we do and (inaudible)

    COURT: And you can just (inaudible) to what he does and see, you can go into his private…

    KIMBERLIN: No this is twitter, this is public.

    COURT: Oh, it’s public (inaudible)?

    KIMBERLIN: It’s all public.

    COURT: So ok, (crosstalk) so he did 54 pages and how many on a page roughly?

    KIMBERLIN: Well this 54 pages of his (inaudible) socialism (inaudible)

    COURT: On a page?

    KIMBERLIN: Oh probably times, probably like 10.

    COURT: 10 and, so, ok, alright, that’s uh

    WALKER: Sir, I’d like to inspect that copy of (inaudible)

    COURT: Sure, ok, I’ll give you a minute, sir. Alright, so it’s 54, 540 tweets.

    KIMBERLIN: Yeah, and here’s his posts

    COURT: Different tweets?

    Steve (958caf)

  190. BK: Oh, thousands, thousands…

    AW: Not within the last 30 days…

    I relistened; this is more accurate than mine, but AW did say “Your Honor” first.

    KIMBERLIN: No this is twitter, this is public.

    COURT: Oh, it’s public (inaudible)?

    The court’s response should be: Oh, this is public stuff.

    Steve (958caf)

  191. How could he deny Kimberlin v. White, with a straight face,

    Comment by narciso — 6/3/2012 @ 9:57 pm

    IMHO, two possibilities:

    1. Practice makes perfect.

    2. In the immortal words of George Costanza: “Remember … it’s not a lie if you believe it.”

    L.N. Smithee (77d5d7)

  192. In the judge’s description of Brooklyn justice after 42:57, the phrase reported as “When someone did something up there to you” should be “When someone did something unfair to you”.

    Bystander (107f83)

  193. Sorry there was so much unintelligible – someone with good headphones may be able to fill in some of that.

    11:39
    BK: “Don’t show up in court Tuesday or you’re dead.” This is Tuesday (unintelligible).
    AW: Who – who – who wrote…
    JUDGE: (unintelligible) Hang on – calm down, son.
    AW: But – but….
    JUDGE: Hang on. Hang on. Grab a pencil or something (unintelligible) – squeeze it for a while. Make you feel better….see this thing through. If you’ve got (unintelligible), squeeze the pen (unintelligible).
    BK: Exactly. You know, on the temporary peace order, the judge specifically ordered no electronic contact…
    JUDGE: I’ve read the file.
    BK: …no threats. “We know who you are, we’re coming for you, you will pay”. He has said many times on his blogs – many times – “Make Brett Kimberlin pay for framing me”. (overtalk) “…the hunter is hunted. If Brett Kimberlin does not start acting like a grownup and quit calling the police” – I had to call the police last night, a 911 call, for (unintelligible) some knucklehead in front of my house.
    JUDGE: Anything further?
    BK: Huh?
    JUDGE: Anything further?
    BK: (Unintelligible)
    JUDGE: That’s not good enough.
    BK: You’ve got the picture.
    JUDGE: You can ask him some questions – go ahead.
    AW: OK. Mr. Kimberlin, are you an honest person?
    JUDGE: I’ll sustain an objection.
    AW: Have you ever been convicted of perjury, sir?
    JUDGE: I’ll sustain that. Go ahead. You got proof?
    AW: He – I – I – I can show you the court cases, your honor.
    JUDGE: Convicted? Of perjury.
    AW: Convicted of perjury. Absolutely, sir.
    JUDGE: Well, go ahead.
    KB: That – that was (unintelligible) when I was 18 or 19 years old and (unintelligible) grand jury (unintelligible)
    JUDGE: The grand jury still (unintelligible)
    KB: (unintelligible) forty years ago.
    JUDGE: The grand jury’s charged (unintelligible)
    AW: Wasn’t more like thirty-four years ago?
    KB: No, it was when I was 18 or 19.
    JUDGE: OK.
    AW: But I won’t argue, sir.
    KB: I’m – I’m fifty-seven.
    AW: OK, so fifty-seven minus eighteen is more like fifty – it is roughly forty, yes. I’ll ask you another question. Have you ever been convicted of setting a series of bombs in Speedway, Indiana?
    KB: Objection. Has that happened in the last 30 days? Let’s get to the…
    AW: No, no, let’s….
    JUDGE: He’s just attacking your credibility. (unintelligible)
    KB: Yes, I was.
    13:53

    itobo (27d644)

  194. Here are the sections still needed (I’m taking 10:43-11:18).

    14:20 – 16:10

    17:45 – 24:55

    28:00 – 30:33

    35:24 – 36:57

    37:33 – 39:23

    43:39 – 46:25

    itobo (27d644)

  195. from 10:43, if this’ll help for comparison:

    KIMBERLIN: Can, can, can I, can I read some of the death threats into the record?

    COURT: And, but, and they came from him?

    KIMBERLIN: Yeah, well the first one says message Aaron

    COURT: from who?

    KIMBERLIN: Message from Aaron.

    AW: from Aaron?

    KIMBERLIN: Yes message from Aaron.

    AW: So how do you know that it’s Aaron Walker?

    COURT: Now wait wait wait that’s it.

    KIMBERLIN: Ok, and then…

    COURT: Hang, on hang, how do you know it’s him?

    KIMBERLIN: I just I got this as a death threat. And on my (inaudible)

    AW: How do you know it’s Aaron Walker?

    COURT: See with this electronic stuff it could have been anybody, it could have been my grandchild.

    KIMBERLIN: Could have been except of these thousand and thousand of tweets he’s telling people to, to attack my funders…

    COURT: Attack your what?

    KIMBERLIN: My funders.

    AW: (inaudible) Your honor I’d would object to the (inaudible) I’d like him to show where I told anyone to attack his funders?

    Steve (958caf)

  196. 10:43
    JUDGE: (Unintelligible)
    KB: Can – can – can I read some of the death threats into the record?
    JUDGE: And they – but they came from him.
    KB: Well, the first one says “A message from Aaron.”
    AW: But – who?
    KB: “Message from Aaron”.
    AW: From Aaron?
    KB: Yes, message from Aaron.
    AW: So how do you know (unintelligible).
    JUDGE: Wait, wait, wait…
    KB: OK. (Unintelligible)
    JUDGE: Hang on, hang on. How do you know it’s him?
    KB: I just – I got this as a death threat.
    AW: How do you know it’s Aaron Walker?
    JUDGE: (Unintelligible) See, with this electronic stuff, it could have been anybody. It could have been my grandchild.
    KB: It could have been, except of these thousands and thousands of tweets inciting people to attack my funders and…
    JUDGE: (unintelligible)
    KB: …my funders and….
    AW: Your honor, I would object for the record (unintelligible). I would like him to show where I told anyone to attack his funders.
    (11:25)

    itobo (27d644)

  197. Itobo, since I’d already finished it before I saw your post, I thought I just go ahead and throw it out there.

    But I’m done for the night. Too much strain trying to make things out. And I don’t have earphones.

    Steve (958caf)

  198. Well, I’ll see if I can tackle 14:20 to 16:10. I might have that left in me.

    Steve (958caf)

  199. From 14:15

    WALKER: You, this is a decision involving yourself and you’re claiming you did not read this case?

    KIMBERLIN: No (inaudible).

    WALKER: So you were actually, this (inaudible). Your, I’d like to show you this case, (crosstalk) where it describes him as the Speedway Bomber.

    KIMBERLIN: That, that’s literally 30 years ago.

    COURT: It goes to credibility, sir, at any level.

    WALKER: I think I can approach for (inaudible, background noise). Honestly I’m sure you’ve seen this, sir, I didn’t want to…

    COURT: Let’s take a look and see where it’s from.

    (shuffling papers)

    COURT: And when this occurred how old were you, sir?

    KIMBERLIN: Excuse me?

    COURT: How old were you when this occurred?

    KIMBERLIN: Um, twenty (inaudible)

    COURT: Go ahead sir.

    KIMBERLIN: And I did my time, and I got out, and I’m no longer subject to any conditions of that case, it’s been resolved.

    COURT: When were you released?

    KIMBERLIN: Um, more than a decade ago.

    COURT: Ok, (crosstalk) and that was in Texas? Texas?

    KIMBERLIN: Well, it was a, it was a federal case

    COURT: Alright, ok; go ahead, anything final, sir?

    WALKER: Oh, no, no, I have a lot more your honor. Now, (inaudible) more recently than 34 years ago, sir, you had your parole revoked, isn’t that the case?

    KIMBERLIN: Again, that was, that was more than a decade ago.

    AW: OK, and what drew out was that you had a judgement against you, involving the death, it’s the suicide death of Carl DeLong, is that correct?

    It ends at 16:16.

    Just curious; how can it be you get a sentence of 50 years, get released after a total of 19, and then you’re not subject to any parole conditions?

    Steve (958caf)

  200. The 43:39 – 46:25 segment follows:

    at 43:19

    THE COURT: That was the old neighborhoods back in the city, and it was really [fair?]. If someone did something to your sister or your (trails off to silence). If your all fighting [get some?] friends to take them for a ride in the back of a truck.

    WALKER: Well your honor, what –

    THE COURT: And that ended it!

    THE COURT: You guys have got this new mechanical stuff and electronic stuff. You can just ruin somebody without doing anything

    THE COURT: But you started it. (banging fist on desk) Don’t you remember bailments when you were in bailments at Yale Law School about what the [cops?] said about bailments? The one who starts that bad bailment is (the problem?).

    WALKER: But your honor –

    THE COURT: That’s who you hold it against.

    WALKER: He’s –

    THE COURT: You can’t keep saying he (inaudible) he (inaudible) he (inaudible)

    WALKER and Judge: (inaudible at same time)

    THE COURT: If he didn’t give it to the wrong person to start with it wouldn’t matter.

    WALKER: But pardon me your honor, he started it and commited a crime a against me.

    THE COURT: No! He did not commit a crime against you.

    at 44:00

    WALKER: Your honor you have no (inaudible) –

    THE COURT: He did not commit a crime against you. He is innocent until proven guilty.

    WALKER: (inaudible) I’m –

    THE COURT: Now you’re (inaudible) you take the actions to Mr. McCopy. [Editor note: I hope my hearing is not totally gone]. Do don’t get all these people from Oklahoma Indiana Wyoming and wherever the heck it is and all these past things. Cause I am gonna rule right now. I’ve heard enough. I don’t need arguments. I could (inaudible) almost an hour on this case. And all I’ve learned is one guy hide behind the sheets [then mutters:] and runs his little machine. While the other man suffers.

    at 44:30

    THE COURT: I don’t care what his background is. A prostitute could also be raped.

    WALKER: Of course, your Honor.

    THE COURT: What I care about is. He’s an individual. He’s entitled to have his own privacy, and not to be threatened. (inaudible) The thing I didn’t like is these death threats that are comin. And his children are readin em. That is nasty and wrong.

    WALKER: But your Honor I did not cause that.

    THE COURT: Now let’s see. What year was it at Yale when they told you don’t talk when a judge is talkin?

    WALKER: Look at my (blog?) (piece?) your Honor.

    THE COURT: [mutters, then] That is why these things just keep continuing. I am going to pass this order because I find that they are worse than harassment, as far as I am concerned. Its a down right dirty nasty thing to do to somebody. I find. And quite frankly if we were sittinr in a (inaudible) you would get a sentence you (switched to purposeful muttering).

    WALKER: But —

    THE COURT: You would get a sentence that you wouldn’t like. Because you tear somebody down, to (inaudible). And you’re not doing it directly you’re doing it indirectly and thats what hurts somebody. If you go directly he could come right on you and could (inaudible) and we would have this settled one two three. But you’ve got people all over writing these things. He’s got 54 pages that he says comes directly from you. He’s got volumes over there, these people that are doin it. Its wrong son. Its absolutely wrong.

    at 46:00

    THE COURT: So what I am going to do is I am goin to pass this peace order. And its going to remain in effect Sir for 6 months. So this is May 15 (mutters, drifts)

    WALKER: Sir, if I can say one thing here –

    THE COURT: No you can’t. When I was over (in Munich?) and the appeals courts over there. Ah right sir.

    at 46:25

    pdxnag (005163)

  201. Is it just me, or does Aaron sound like Nicolas Cage?

    Joe (b9dd11)

  202. The 37:33 – 39:23 segment follows:

    THE COURT: Ruination of an individual.

    WALKER: No it is not a desire to — . Your honor what I want. Look what happened in the Trayvon Martin incident okay. A man named George Zimmerman shot this young man named Trayvon Martin. His parents felt that he (could be served?) to be charged with a crime. The police did not charge him. So they raised a national () to call for it. And what happened, they’ve now charged him. Now I disagree with the decision to charge Mr. Zimmerman. But that is the model what I am trying to do. I am trying to. I am trying to create enough of a national uproar to create pressure on John McCarthy to finally charge him with the crimes related to him trying to frame me for a crime. I’m trying to get justice and he wants to shut me up. We have a national debate, I could go on and on, veteran reporters

    THE COURT: () who wants justice is (). Well think about it.

    WALKER: But your honor he could do this again to someone else. Any time he could go and claim some third party that he could say Oh Bob he beat me up. And this time maybe his buddy Neal Rauhauser will back him up. Or maybe his wife, I don’t know. And, and, and he has a history of getting people to lie for him. That was found by the parole commission. And for the next time that poor schmuck will have no idea who he is. He will have no defense. If Mr. Kimberlin comes to this court his petition for a peace order was deceptive. He made the court believe that I am emailing him. And I did not. I never emailed him. I’ve never called him. I’ve never text with. I’ve done no form of contact with him, except sending service of process in the mail. And you Honor you want to hear something pretty remarkable? He’s (playing back?) his harassment too. I’d like to show that to to you Honor.

    THE COURT: (inaudible)

    WALKER: This is important because it answers a question.

    THE COURT: You’ve been –

    WALKER: Why –

    THE COURT: haven’t answered my question. Where do you see this case going?

    at 39:28

    pdxnag (005163)

  203. Just curious; how can it be you get a sentence of 50 years, get released after a total of 19, and then you’re not subject to any parole conditions?

    That’s what I keep asking, and so far I have not been able to get an answer. How did he get out in 2001? No source I’ve seen says “parole”, but how else does one get out? Kimberlin himself claims (if I understand correctly) that he received some sort of double-secret exoneration that he can’t talk about, but I don’t see how such a thing could exist. And what’s this business about the judge who revoked his parole demanding a bribe, and getting 18 years for it? Could he be claiming that this is why he was released? That the revocation of his parole was corruptly obtained and therefore reversed? But even so, he’d still be subject to his original parole conditions, which included making payments to Mrs DeLong. And why hasn’t Mrs Delong (or rather a lawyer acting in her name) gone after him for some of this money? Surely he’s got something that it would be profitable to seize or garnish, for the usual 33.3%.

    Milhouse (312124)

  204. I may be missing something here, but why didn’t Aaron approach the bench to review with the judge the origination of the 54 pages of emails?

    He could have shown the judge his own email address and then used that to compare against the google alerts that Kimberlin was receiving.

    wtfci (6cb860)

  205. 28:00
    The Court: Okay, alright, guys, that’s enough. What do you want done? (cross talk) Gi- gi- gimme your case. C’mon. Tell me (unintelligible)
    Walker: Well, Your Honor–
    The Court: You guys could go on for a hundred years and we’re never going to get around to second base.
    Walker: Your Honor, I am a person who spends his time these days, pretty much writing on the internet on topics of national interest, on topics of commenting on law, commenting on politics; I believe that’s ultimately what has brought me into this, his sphere. Mr. Kimberlin is actually in a campaign against me. Mr. Kimberlin now says that he went to court in order to out–
    The Court: Is he in a campaign against you, or is he defending himself?
    Kimberlin: (very low) Defending myself.
    Walker: He is in a campaign against me.
    Kimberlin: I never–
    The Court: Hey, (unintelligible) into him. I say to you, “You guys don’t want to be cellmates (unintelligible).” (laughter) Go ahead.
    Walker: He approached me first. I never approached him. He wrote an email to me back in, on, June, on on December 15th, where he asked me–
    The Court: Is that more than thirty days ago?
    Walker: Well, I understand–
    The Court: And haven’t you been the one screaming about thirty days?
    Walker: We’re asking–
    The Court: Stay within the thirty days.
    Walker: I understand you asking me who started this, how this began, and I’m trying–
    The Court: There’s nobody that started this.
    Walker: No, Your Honor, no.
    The Court: Adam and Eve started it, probably, but go ahead.
    Walker: I have, and he is angry because I have published truthful information based on my own eyewitness testimony, based on numerous primary documents demonstrating Mr. Kimberlin has attempted to frame me for a crime. But Mr. Kimberlin–
    The Court: Framing you for a crime?
    Walker: Yes! And he has done this–
    The Court: Wait, that’s the assault we talked about outside the (unintelligible)?
    Walker: Yes, yes! I can prove, Your Honor, if you’d like to–
    The Court: Again, we had a trial in that case, didn’t we?
    Walker: We did not have a full trial, and that’s one of the misrepresentations–
    The Court: I don’t understand. Was there a verdict?
    Walker: Wha- what happened was is a judge found that he did not make enough of a presentation to justify even requiring a defense.
    Kimberlin: No, that’s not true.
    The court: Okay, (unintelligible).
    Walker: No, that is absolutely true.
    The Court: Wait, was it criminal court or civil court?
    Walker: I- it was a civil court case.
    The Court: No, I mean criminal court, you’re talking about convictions. You’re not convicted in civil court.
    Walker: He did, he did file false charges against me, when videotape evidence emerged–
    The court: You guys can’t even get to the point. I just asked a simple question. Were you convicted?
    Walker: I apologize, Your Honor.
    The Court: What?
    Walker: I apologize, Your Honor.
    The Court: That’s quite alright. Were you convicted?
    Walker: No, I was not.
    The Court: Okay, then what happened to the case?
    Walker: It was nol pros after he–
    The Court: Okay, nol pros, that’s an action of the state. Not by you and not by him. That’s a state action, okay, it’s all, nol pros. (unintelligible) statute of limitations, or whatever the (unintelligible)
    Walker: That’s true, Your Honor
    The Court: Okay? So that’s– Okay. That’s something different. (unintelligible) Keep going.
    30:33

    Innocuous (9dae76)

  206. Is it just me, or does Aaron sound like Nicolas Cage?

    Comment by Joe — 6/4/2012 @ 1:44 am

    Not only is that correct, I think we’ve found the person who could play Aaron in the movie version of this real-life drama (after he wins). Unlike most Hollywood actors, Cage — who is deeply in debt — is in no position to turn down starring roles. Somebody call Joel Surnow, Cyrus Nowrasteh or Edward Allen Bernero STAT!

    L.N. Smithee (91b90d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6350 secs.