Patterico's Pontifications

6/4/2012

Kimberlin Harassment Update: Kimberlin’s Latest Documented Lies Told Under Oath

Filed under: Brad Friedman,Brett Kimberlin,General,Neal Rauhauser — Patterico @ 7:21 pm



David Hogberg of Investor’s Business Daily sheds light on the issuance of the warrant for Aaron Walker’s arrest:

I went back to the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County on Friday to get a copy of the warrant for Walker. I have uploaded it here (addresses and phone numbers are redacted).

The warrant was filed by Kimberlin on Sunday, and from it a few things are now clear that I got wrong in the post from last week. First, Kimberlin claims that Walker violated the second peace order Kimberlin filed against Walker, not the first. Kimberlin filed the second peace order on May 22, and it is “temporarily” in effect until the hearing on May 29th. In it, Kimberlin basically claims that the blog posts Walker wrote between May 22 and May 27 constitute a violation of the peace order (more on that in a bit).

Also, in the blog I wrote that the “court apparently agreed (that Walker had violated the peace order) and Walker was arrested.” That leaves the impression that the judge had Walker arrested. He did not. Rather, the warrant was carried out by a Montgomery County Sheriff, as is clear from the first page of the warrant. The easiest way for a sheriff to arrest someone is to know exactly where he is, and the sheriff obviously knew Walker would be in court that day.

Always trust content from Patterico. As I reported the day of the hearing:

As best as I can tell, the arrest occurred because Brett Kimberlin got a warrant from a judge two days ago, for a criminal charge of violation of a peace order.

Hogberg has performed an invaluable service in obtaining the pack of lies Kimberlin used to get this warrant issued. Read it here:

KimberlinWarrant

Among other things, Kimberlin the convicted perjurer says:

Mr. Walker has tweeted on Twitter about me in alarming and annoying ways over hundreds of times the past week and urged others to attack me. He has generated hundreds of blog posts directly and indirectly based on false allegations that I framed him for an assault.

Mr. Walker has had many people threaten me directly with death, and told me to stop talking to the police, and not show up in court or I would die. I received these threats over the past few days via email.

Look at how that is phrased. Kimberlin is saying that Aaron told him not to show up in court or he would die.

That is a lie. Brett Kimberlin lied to get Aaron arrested.

Mr. Walker has urged people to intimidate me if I come to court on Tuesday by tweeting for a mob of people to show up. He has repeatedly said he would make me pay for seeking legal redress.

So if Aaron asks people to come support him at the hearing, Kimberlin says Aaron “urged people to intimidate me.”

I have received many threats by electronic contact on behalf of Mr. Walker.

Which is his fault, how?

Mr. Walker has urged people to publish my address and phone number on the Internet and they did.

I submit that this is also a blatant lie. Aaron has never “urged” people to publish Kimberlin’s address or phone number.

I want a competent judge to put Kimberlin under oath and MAKE HIM PROVE his allegation that Aaron urged people to publish Kimberlin’s address and phone number on the Internet.

I’ll remind you that Brett Kimberlin’s web site OccupyforAccountability.org (donations go to Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution) published my home address online. And Google street view pictures and aerial pictures of my home. They did the same thing to Andrew Breitbart.

And an anonymous web site run by a Kimberlin supporter who appears to be in close contact with Kimberlin has published divorce records of one of my commenters, as well as scads of other personal information about the commenter, including pictures of a family member’s home.

Now a similar thing has happened to Ali Akbar of the National Bloggers’ Club — and Velvet Revolution has threatened to sue them. (For what? you might ask. As if they need a valid reason. They want NBC’s emails, and they don’t care whether their claim is frivolous or not. They just want discovery.)

It will continue. The thuggish attempts at intimidation will continue. The barrage of lies to get trumped up criminal charges will continue. The frivolous litigation will continue. Until Congress investigates these people. Until prosecutors start holding Kimberlin accountable for his serial string of lies told under oath.

Until someone puts a stop to this insanity, in a lawful, ethical, and nonviolent way. (I will tolerate no suggestion of any other method.)

Until that happens . . . this thuggish and dishonest behavior that is the hallmark of Brett Kimberlin will continue.

P.S. I’m in on the day of silence, by the way. Hell, I’ll go further than that. It’s going to be a weekend of silence for me.

P.P.S. Part of me, frankly, wants to just shut down the blog period, until Aaron is legally allowed to speak again. But I recognize that there are things I can do by speaking that would be more effective. I take time out of my schedule to write a post like this, for example, because I know Aaron can’t.

435 Responses to “Kimberlin Harassment Update: Kimberlin’s Latest Documented Lies Told Under Oath”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  2. Dear Patterico, I’m wondering when Kimberlin does not lie.

    The many “campaigns” under the Velvet Revolution banner (some of which have received funding from various foundations) should be reported to the IRS – I am not at all sure how one would explain publishing the details you mention under a non-profit’s mission.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  3. Patterico,

    Why in the world will the FBI not investigate your case in particular? Is not swatting a serious crime punishable by imprisonment? How can it be (rhetorically) that in all probability we know who the perpetrator is, and yet there is no investigation?

    If Kimberlin lied to get Walker arrested, doesn’t that have serious consequences?

    This is totally contrary to the notions I have had of my country since I was a young boy. I find it extremely hard to believe that these guys are allowed to continue with no consequences, allowed to practice their sociopathology unimpeded by law enforcement.

    Steve (44e766)

  4. one thing that is interesting is that the transcriptions you asked people to do here did get a lot of mileage today in the blogs. It clarified a lot for people.

    One thing it clarified for me is that the judge is anti red state. It leads me to think the judge was inclined towards Kimberlin political leanings before hand. did this judge seek out a political opinion from his connected friends before he went to court?

    jd2 (40a8c6)

  5. Rauhauser and kimberlin will both get violent if pushed into a corner. They will just be a little smarter about it than when they were kids. They haven’t learned anything productive.

    jd2 (40a8c6)

  6. True, Diana. He did tie the non-profit to this whole persecution complex he’s selling to the judge.

    Pat, on another thread I wondered if it might be a good idea to see what was in note Kimberlin passed to the inmate when he offered to bail him out in exchange for setting off another bomb like the ones he set in Speedway, while he was still in stir, to throw the authorities of his scent.

    If the file still exists.

    It might also prove he was well aware he was called the speedway bomber.

    Or are there just so many wolves closer to the sled?

    Steve (958caf)

  7. I was pretty confident that the affidavit that Kimberlin filed would be filled with perjury. It was a certainty. And the affidavit itself does not constitute probable cause in any way, as it fails to actually connect any of the conduct Kimberlin complains of to Aaron.

    Just who is this incompetent “Commissioner” with the scrawled name?

    With Glenn linking, I would say that Kimberlin’s self created Google alerts are alerting like crazy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  8. There are too many steves and Steves. I suggest we take numbers. Will I be considered a troll using an inconsistent name if I take something like “Steve57″ like the steak sauce?

    Steve (958caf)

  9. Until someone puts a stop to this insanity, in a lawful, ethical, and nonviolent way. (I will tolerate no suggestion of any other method.)

    I’m with you for “lawful, ethical” … but I wouldn’t want to hamstring law enforcement’s normal methods of dealing with these violent criminals, depending on specific contingencies which occur during the course of their work.

    I.e., they will (or at least ought to!) be dealing with a convicted domestic terrorist bomber and his associates engaged in a current, ongoing program of political domestic terrorism using various means of intimidation and actual violence (SWATting), so who knows what these people are going to do? I say law enforcement officers need to proceed with caution and concern for both their safety and the public’s safety.

    Random (fba0b1)

  10. Well a head in the sand approach is not wise I think.Unless a person thinks this is not that serious of an issue. and that people like kimberlin are the real alpha males around here and should just be supported and tolerated.

    Doesn’t sound like America though does it.

    jd2 (40a8c6)

  11. Just who is this incompetent “Commissioner” with the scrawled name?

    Maybe Kimberlin has gone back to forged documents.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  12. To clarify, it has not been proven in court that a convicted domestic terrorist bomber or his associates are behind the SWATting, but there is reasonable grounds to believe he and/or they might be, and therefore federal agents and local police ought to proceed accordingly, for reasons of an abundance of prudence. Whether he or they are behind that, the fact is Patterico is calling for the investigation of a man who has engaged in serious violence in the past, and was convicted for same.

    Random (fba0b1)

  13. Kimberlin claimed in Court that AW was trying to harm the State Dept, by implication that he worked in some capacity for the State Dept.

    What does it take for the Court to hold him responsible for his perjurious nonsense?

    What would it take to get all of the different asshattery, in different jurisdictions in front of one entity? That is part of how they get away with it, as their full actions are never really ever fully explored. Never.

    JD (318f81)

  14. Kimberlin claimed in Court that AW was trying to harm the State Dept, by implication that he worked in some capacity for the State Dept.

    Kimberlin’s JTMP has given presentations in conjunction with a State Department program. It’s on his site. That’s how he snuck that claim in. Be careful in checking the site, but you can find that post. It’s about a month old, now.

    Dianna (f12db5)

  15. I won’t go to any of their sites, Dianna. But it is good that people continue to be reminded to be careful.

    JD (318f81)

  16. JD–there was an article last week stating that JTMP website claims to work with the U.S. State Dept. doing contract work with foreign visitors. I believe that article was linked on this site in an earlier thread.

    elissa (568c71)

  17. Has anyone filed a FOIA request with the state Dept yet? 😉

    JD (318f81)

  18. JD–The article I mentioned above was not a BK site. I would not be surprised if the author of that article has done a FOIA to the state dept.

    elissa (568c71)

  19. Patterico,

    I figured you will have seen this part of the transcript before, but DRJ thinks not, so here it goes (along with some commenter discussion of 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 –

    THE COURT: 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.

    Did you notice that, by any chance? It was part of the edited verification of the transcripts I worked on yesterday. (Not trolling for thanks for that; lots of people did more; just wondering if DRJ’s right and you missed that bit.)

    Random (fba0b1)

  20. “What would it take to get all of the different asshattery, in different jurisdictions in front of one entity?”

    JD – Compiling all the nutty conspiracy theories and anti-Rove/Bush/Cheney campaigns promoted by Velvet Revolution, JTMP, Brad Blog into one post would be nice, along with all the potentially perjurous or unsubstantiated statements made by BK in recent court filings or testimony.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. JD – Compiling all the nutty conspiracy theories and anti-Rove/Bush/Cheney campaigns promoted by Velvet Revolution, JTMP, Brad Blog into one post would be nice, along with all the potentially perjurous or unsubstantiated statements made by BK in recent court filings or testimony.

    I think you’d need a wiki — lots of new material coming in.

    Random (fba0b1)

  22. Patterico doesn’t always have time to read the comments so it’s better to email, but I sent that hours ago so you don’t have to.

    Comment by DRJ — 6/4/2012 @ 8:21 pm

    Ah. Yeah. I don’t email—how does email work again? It’s like Tooting and Smoking, right? 😉

    Random (fba0b1)

  23. Wait, why can’t Aaron make a post about Kert Brimberlin?

    Jackson (e5e9b6)

  24. Can we all pause for a moment and acknowledge the utter, abject stupidity of the people who thought the best way to “help” A.W. in this struggle was to make death threats to Brett Kimberlin?

    Not to minimize the total abuse of both judicial discretion and the First Amendment that have taken place under this judge, but still:

    Thanks for the help, you f*cking morons.

    Leviticus (102f62)

  25. We should also thank the BS ones that they have planted, Leviticus.

    JD (318f81)

  26. RICO them all, starting with the boy kimberlin, that foundation of babs streisand, and the tides foundation, and whoever else is funding this assault on our freedom of speech.

    r_dawg (6151d2)

  27. Speaking of domestic terrorists and the federal government executive branch’s reluctance to investigate same, this is interesting:

    EXCLUSIVE – THE VETTING – SENATOR BARACK OBAMA ATTENDED BILL AYERS BARBECUE, JULY 4, 2005
    — at Breitbart.com

    (Did I mention it was July 4, 2005?)

    Random (fba0b1)

  28. “We should also thank the BS ones that they have planted, Leviticus.”

    – JD

    I’ll keep it simple and stick to the real ones. I’d wager that there are a few.

    Leviticus (102f62)

  29. Leviticus, I’m not saying that wouldn’t happen. I’ve seen stupid and/or shortsighted conservatives on blogs before, but how many of those alleged threatening comments were made up by him or his associates? I suspect that some (many, maybe even most) of them were salted.

    But, yeah, I’ve seen and slapped my forehead at stupidity from some conservatives on conservative blogs, so I wouldn’t be shocked to find some had done this.

    Random (fba0b1)

  30. I’ll keep it simple and stick to the real ones. I’d wager that there are a few.

    Comment by Leviticus — 6/4/2012 @ 8:46 pm

    I ain’t taking that bet!

    Random (fba0b1)

  31. Definitely not discounting the likelihood of astroturfing, by the way. I would be surprised if these guys hadn’t done that, being the scum that they are. But I think we should all acknowledge how stupid the real ones are.

    Leviticus (102f62)

  32. I have no doubt that there were some dumb arses that said some really stupid stuff. I also have no doubt that they are planting some, Patterico caught one here last night.

    JD (318f81)

  33. There are plenty of nuts to go around. Something like this brings them out of the woodwork.A person like Kimberlin who is shady won’t know the right way to handle them. Even though he thinks he does.

    jd2 (40a8c6)

  34. It sucks that the audio post crashes my iPad and iPhone.

    JD (318f81)

  35. I would also bet that many of the claimed death threats are absolutely not. The specific ones that he has referenced seemed to fall short, like AW noting that they were concerned enough for his family’s safety that he purchased a gun.

    JD (318f81)

  36. I think that’s probably right, too.

    Leviticus (102f62)

  37. 28. I bet there aren’t any, and I’ll also bet neither of us is flush.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  38. “I’ll keep it simple and stick to the real ones. I’d wager that there are a few.

    Comment by Leviticus — 6/4/2012 @ 8:46 pm”

    Leviticus – I forget, did the senile judge ask BK if he had reported the death threats to the police?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  39. Patterico wanted suggestions on how to deal with a person like KB in a legal way. Would it not be possible for every blogger that KB has ever written anything snarky about to sue him and tie him up in court for decades? This would give him a taste of his own medicine, no? Of course this course of action does have a pucker factor, but I would venture that of all of his posts, tweets, emails, conversations with his wacko ideologs and of course his perjurous testimony in both oral and written form, he had to have said something that is liablous or outright slander, provable in court. If so, the lawsuits would not be frivolous.

    r2 (235aae)

  40. OccupyRebellion/Sheridan/NealRauhauser is completely off it’s rocker tonight on twitter.

    JD (318f81)

  41. “OccupyRebellion/Sheridan/NealRauhauser is completely off it’s rocker tonight on twitter.”

    JD – More than usual?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  42. 31. Definitely not discounting the likelihood of astroturfing, by the way. I would be surprised if these guys hadn’t done that, being the scum that they are. But I think we should all acknowledge how stupid the real ones are.

    Comment by Leviticus — 6/4/2012 @ 8:50 pm

    Recall the heady days of yesteryear when Chas. Johnson drove Little Green Footballs off the rails and had one of his minions plant racist diatribes on conservative sites. In the middle of the night. To prove conservatives tolerated racist diatribes and were therefore racist.

    Yes, conservatives tolerate racist diatribes on their blogs. While they’re asleep. The fact that they scrubbed the comments when they woke up proved nothing.

    And also Saul Alinsky advising his disciples the best way to discredit Bush41 was to show up at his events wearing Klan sheets and applaud.

    Really, how clever do you have to be to figure this out? Obviously, not very.

    Which is why I don’t believe we need to get involved in the denunciation game any more than (gag) Mitt Romney. It’s a one way street. We denounce those on our side for, what, posts that people on their side may have planted. Or as JD points out may have not been threats at all but twisted to look like them by drama queens like Kimberlin?

    Meanwhile actual real world bombers like Kimberlin, Ayers, Dohrn, and race baiters and convicted fraudsters like Al “Tawana Brawley/Freddie’s Fashion Mart/Crown Heights” Sharpton are never anything but embraced by the lefties, let alone about to be denounced.

    As far as I know, there have been NO authentic death threats or threats of extra-legal action of any kind aimed by conservatives at Kimberlin.

    This is like the left trying to get us to denounce TEA Party “extremists” who “may” get nasty while they turn a blind eye to Occupy’s actual string of rapes, murders, arsons, vandalism, assaults on police officers, anti-semitism….

    I’ve run out of breath.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  43. I should have been more precise. As Daley notes, more than normal, which is no small feat. All day

    JD (318f81)

  44. Really, how clever do you have to be to figure this out? Obviously, not very.

    This is aimed at no one here, but rather at the geniuses on the left who’ve managed to strain their collective brains and puzzle out these Zen chessmaster-like strategies.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  45. As for sock puppets, I will reiterat that there was a plant here last night. Not only did they try to post info about a public figure tangentially involved in this mess, they then used Patterico’s name to comment on their original post.

    JD (318f81)

  46. Brett Kimberlin lied…”

    And, in other breaking news, the Pope is Catholic!

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  47. I’m even more convinced now that Aaron should sue Montgomery County and the State of Maryland under federal law for violation of his civil rights since they have put in place a mechanism that results in the deprivation of liberty without due process, in violation of his rights under the 5th Amendment.

    shipwreckedcrew (5dfa92)

  48. “Always trust content from Patterico.”

    I’d like to believe that, but it would be easier if you’d address these questions about Kent Gibson’s credentials and qualifications.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  49. leo marvin’s request that Patterico address those questions is valid, assuming jukeboxgrad’s criticisms of Kent Gibson are factual.

    Random (fba0b1)

  50. “assuming jukeboxgrad’s criticisms of Kent Gibson are factual.”

    Random – My default assumption is that nothing JBG says is factual based upon that commenter’s stay at this blog.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  51. Yeah, fair enough, which is why I added the caveat. I’d like to see links or references for proof of all of same.

    Random (fba0b1)

  52. 48. “Always trust content from Patterico.”

    I’d like to believe that, but it would be easier if you’d address these questions about Kent Gibson’s credentials and qualifications.

    Comment by leo marvin — 6/4/2012 @ 9:53 pm

    jukeboxgrad is a joke. He’s one of the distasteful lefty frauds that precludes me from registering with the otherwise fine Volokh Conspiracy.

    He goes on and on about comments that are easily found, but as I and many others have observed above, that’s what allies of the likes of Kimberlin do.

    Why don’t you read a book, leo marvin.

    Citizen K: The Deeply Wierd American Journey of Brett Kimberlin

    This book relates a journalist’s worst nightmare: of getting deeply involved in a “big story” based on information from a single source who turns out to be a world-class liar. During the 1992 Presidential campaign Singer wrote a story for the New Yorker about the allegations by Brett Kimberlin, a former marijuana dealer then in prison for a series of bombings, that he had once sold marijuana to Vice President Dan Quayle. (The cartoonist Garry Trudeau was another journalist who pushed this story hard.) After signing a book contract to expand the story, Singer invested more and more time,and became frustrated by holes, inconsistencies and dead ends in Kimberlin’s tale. Embroiled in a Kafkaesque mystery, Singer recounts his painstaking journalistic detective work, and his growing sense that this would be the story that got away.

    That’s the Amazon review. The copyrighted Publisher’s Weekly review makes it more explicit. Singer, a report for the New Yorker (hardly a bastion of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy/Blogosphere) was sympathetic to Kimberlin when he signed that book contract. Then he found instead he had been sucked in by a first class conman. A violent conman with numerous felony convictions including perjury.

    And the leopard hasn’t changed its spots. If you read the above document Kimberlin swore to under penalty of perjury, and compare them to the verifiable facts of the case, you won’t have to depend upon jukeboxgrad’s serial mischaracterizations.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  53. I stuck my neck out based on Patrick’s representations, and later on I was cautious re: the implications of jukeboxgrad’s doubts about Gibson. But his questions strike me as legitimate and well-founded. Instead of dismissing them based on ad hominum assumptions about the source, I encourage you to click through the links and see if you don’t think they raise concerns about Gibson’s credibility.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  54. Until someone puts a stop to this insanity, in a lawful, ethical, and nonviolent way. (I will tolerate no suggestion of any other method.)

    That is fine for your side but the other side has a past history of the opposite. So a cautionary tale for any and all Bloggers and commenters who can be identified. Expect the unexpected, prepare for the unexpected and pray you never have to be at the ready, for the unexpected. If you think you are too low of hanging fruit for BK think again. His type targets the low hanging fruit just ask AW, a few months ago he would have laughed at someone who told him this would be his life.

    BK is being backed by over $2 million dollars reported and it is not for music endeavors. BK’s depth of funding is virtually unlimited as long as he performs his job well. So far evil is doing good. You can be sure BK has discussed with his friends doing what he has already done in the past if not already prepared. So some of you need to be situationally aware.

    Sanmon (98e434)

  55. My second link (I was cautious) should go here. Sorry for the confusion.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  56. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Leo Marvin. This struck a nerve with me:

    If you look at resumes of actual experts in this field, they usually say something like this: ‘I have testified before the following courts …,’ and then they list a bunch of courts. And/or they list specific cases. Note that Gibson does neither. He doesn’t actually say he has ever testified in “LA Superior Court.” Instead, he uses a phrase (“Certified Audio Forensic Examiner”) that is undefined and meaningless. But it does sound impressive.

    The few times I’ve heard or read an expert witness describe themselves, that (in bold) is how I remember it.

    Random (fba0b1)

  57. In fact, Random, a very cursory Google search shows that the only hits for “Certified Audio Forensic Examiner” pretty much originate from him. Then there are a bunch of other accreditations that sound like that, but are not the same.

    Gazzer (3c929d)

  58. Well Kent Gibson is listed here at $200 an hour.

    http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/expert/pdf/witnesses.pdf

    scable (40a8c6)

  59. Scable, good job. Too bad it’s just too hard for JBG to find this stuff on his own. Poor lad, such limited abilities and native intelligence.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  60. Well Kent Gibson is listed here at $200 an hour.

    http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/expert/pdf/witnesses.pdf

    Good point, but I think the “certified” is a bit of marketing hyperbole still.

    Challenges to Kent Gibson’s expert status are possible. Any claims that LA Superior Court didn’t recognize him as an expert are clearly bogus.

    Random (fba0b1)

  61. “I want a competent judge to put Kimberlin under oath…”

    Good luck trying to find one in Maryland.

    Judging by what goes on in their courts, you have about as much chance of finding a competent judge in Maryland as you have of finding a virgin working at the Mustang Ranch.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  62. Color me shocked that jukeboxhero is being a mendoucheous twatwaffle. Shocked I tell you.

    JD (075baa)

  63. scable, #60:

    This document you’re citing is just more proof that Gibson is a charlatan. The people who hired Gibson (in that case) are pleading for attention. Take a look at their web site. They say this:

    Judge Daniel Goldstein allowed recordings to be heard by the jury after they were proven to be altered by an expert, whose clients include the FBI and US Secret Service. Why would any judge jeopardize himself/herself by allowing altered recordings into their court?

    (To find that, google this: State of California V John Turner Case # CN282017)

    English translation: these people hired Gibson in a desperate attempt to win the case, and the judge rejected Gibson’s bogus ‘analysis.’ The judge “allowed recordings to be heard by the jury” because they weren’t “proven to be altered by an expert.” The claim that they were altered was made by a charlatan, not an expert. And that’s why the judge “allowed recordings to be heard by the jury.”

    Those other links are also worthless, for reasons that should be obvious. I’ll explain why later.

    Still waiting for someone to show a single example of Gibson’s testimony being accepted by a judge.

    [This is the only comment I have seen by jukeboxgrad in any of the filters. Another administrator reports finding it in the spam filter. Jukeboxgrad claims he left other comments that I blocked, but they do not appear in any of the filters. — P]

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  64. Asked this before: Can these guys get away with this if they don’t have a rabbi someplace?

    Richard Aubrey (0aac79)

  65. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted perjurer.

    As far as I can tell, under current Maryland law, a convicted perjurer can NOT testify. There were bills going through the Maryland House and Senate to allow convicted perjurers to testify in cases where they were either a witness or a victim, but as far as I can tell the House bill (926) has not passed, having received an “unfavorable” from the judiciary committee, but even if it has, it is not supposed to go into effect until October, 2012.

    Therefore, it would seem to me as an intelligent layperson, that BK is unable to testify in a Maryland court. Which would I assume have a serious effect on his legal cases against Seth and Aaron?

    Nancy Gilly (06c781)

  66. “Color me shocked that jukeboxhero is being a mendoucheous twatwaffle.”

    JD – There is a reason juiceboxhero did not ask those questions here.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. “Brett Kimberlin is a convicted perjurer.”

    Nancy – He might claim he was double secretly exonerated from his perjury conviction as he has from other convictions.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  68. random, Jukebox is full of crap I can tell by one rather gross misrepresentation about Gibson: In a manner reminiscent of BK et al, a grain of truth is kinked and twisted out of shape to manipulate whoever is fool enough to trust.

    Rather than endorsing the truther movement, Gibson was hirted to explain a voice technology as a paid consultant. The show was stupid and its host was stupid but Gibson did not endorse the theories of the host.

    There is audio of Gibson explaining how extremely unlikely it is for the voice tech to have been used in the manner Ventura was glomming onto.

    Pretty much the opposite of the Lovely Friend of BK’s point.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  69. Look at how that is phrased. Kimberlin is saying that Aaron told him not to show up in court or he would die.

    Well, it could also be read as “Aaron has had many people threaten me… [to] not show up in court or I would die.”

    Which still strikes me as a lie (from what I’ve seen).

    I think Kimberlin’s problem is that he experiences a result (the receipt of threatening emails, which I don’t doubt) and he assumes that Aaron “urged” this. But there’s no clear evidence of that.

    On the other hand, I’ve seen the same baseless assumptions made in the other direction too.

    Kman (5576bf)

  70. Were the 54 pages of “supposed” evidence of Aaron violating the peace order submitted as a court exhibit?

    ∅ (721840)

  71. 63. Good luck trying to find one in Maryland.

    Judging by what goes on in their courts, you have about as much chance of finding a competent judge in Maryland as you have of finding a virgin working at the Mustang Ranch.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 6/5/2012 @ 1:25 am

    Bet the girls at the Bunny Ranch have more sense than a Maryland judge, though.

    They’d never buy Kimberlin’s BS stories like Vaughey did.

    I have an idea; maybe the good people of Maryland could offer these bright young girls a, ahem, day job.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  72. Question:

    Other lies aside, do people here doubt that Kimberlin has received threatening emails?

    Or do people here believe he has received them, but it’s ridiculous to hold Aaron accountable for them?

    Just a show of hands. I’m curious.

    Kman (5576bf)

  73. Or do people here believe he has received them, but it’s ridiculous to hold Aaron accountable for them?

    WTF difference does it make what anyone thinks? The judge made a ruling based on his ignorance of the mechanics of Google, Twitter, etc. If the judge were a fair-minded person, he would have made a determination at a latter date, after he educated himself

    ∅ (721840)

  74. latter s/b later

    ∅ (721840)

  75. Security Alert Update: VELVET REVOLUTION & OCCUPY MAY ALREADY BE TRACKING YOUR COMPUTER USE

    Regarding Ace’s warning that there were malicious links present in the comments section at Ace of Spades HQ Blog, I noted this yesterday in the thread that was current at the time.

    http://patterico.com/2012/06/04/audio-and-transcripts-from-the-hearing-where-aaron-walker-was-arrested-for-blogging-about-a-public-figure/#comment-983476

    Warning: DO NOT CLICK ON ANY SITE YOU DON’T TRUST ABOUT THIS STORY. I think there is reasonable grounds for suspicion that your IP will be captured, and a malicious tracking cookie (or worse) inserted onto your computer.

    Do not click on any of the “bad” sites for this. Only go to trusted sites.

    I am sorry if this warning comes too late — I had it in my actual post on Ali.

    Have Internet Situational Awareness, here. I do not know if my suspicious are accurate, but there is no harm in being prudent.

    From Wikipedia:

    Although cookies cannot carry viruses, and cannot install malware on the host computer, tracking cookies and especially third-party tracking cookies are commonly used as way to compile long-term records of individuals’ browsing histories — a major privacy concern that has prompted European and US law makers to take action.

    To partially check on this assertion, I ran a full scan of my computer using the free program “SuperAntiSpyware” – which has a silly name but is highly regarded in personal Internet security circles. I have used this program, and others, for a few years to clean & protect my computer.

    http://www.superantispyware.com/

    SAS did find several, something like 10, tracking cookies from “occupyforaccountability.org” plus tracking/ad cookies from other sites, some of which are normal site visits, others I didn’t necessarily recognize right off.

    SAS deleted these tracking cookies for me. In your browser you can also search for cookies with “occupy” in the string, but SAS will find all tracking cookies and remove them, which is a good periodic practice in general.

    Occupy For Accountability is closely associated the other side of this, has included comments attacking Patterico, mentioning his home value, for example, and is currently posting about the Velvet Revolution legal demand letter against Ali Akbar (twitter: @Ali) and his group. (Just google Occupy For Accountability)

    Patterico blogged recently about OFA (not ObamaForAmerica, but shares the same initials)… here: http://patterico.com/2012/05/25/convicted-bomber-brett-kimberlin-neal-rauhauser-ron-brynaert-and-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism/

    Publication of home addresses – OccupyforAccountability.org, a site related to Kimberlin, published my home address, as well as a Google street view and Google aerial view of my home. The “Gaped Crusader” republished that address.
    Donations at OccupyforAccountability.org go to Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution. The same post published what the author stated was Andrew Breitbart’s home address. Andrew later told me it was actually a home owned by Andrew’s parents and rented out to others. Kimberlin later sent interrogatories to me at the address listed on OccupyforAccountability.org — and sent interrogatories to Andrew at the address the site had listed for Andrew. Andrew’s interrogatories eventually made their way to him, and he told me about it and gave me a copy of them.

    Kimberlin unnecessarily put Aaron Walker’s home address in court documents. Kimberlin had a habit of putting information into court documents — information that is later disseminated by Rauhauser and Brynaert.

    I didn’t recall having visited “occupyforaccountability.org”. (Though I certainly could have forgotten having visited it weeks or months ago.)

    So I checked my own extensive saved browsing history and… It DID NOT include visits to occupyforaccountability.org.

    SO…some other site, perhaps BreitbartUnmasked, or others may have placed those cookies disguised as Occupy cookies on my computer.

    So if you’ve visited “BreitbartUnmasked.com” and other sites related to VR, they may, in fact, be tracking your internet use with these cookies. And they certainly may have captured your IP address.

    After removing the Tracking Cookies, you may be able to force your modem to issue a new IP address. Check with the support forums for your ISP on how to do this. One good site with support forums for every major ISP is broadbandreports aka dslreports http://www.dslreports.com/forums/all .

    Don’t forget while they are experts in “Lawfare” they also brag about being experts in internet malfeasance, twitterbots, and all kinds of digital mischief:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/19/996099/-Personal-Confession-I-m-A-Hacker

    “play nice, or I’ll melt your computer over the internet.”

    – Stranded Wind, July 2011

    Venusian (62b020)

  76. So, Kman, are you responsible for the death threats I’ve received?

    Rob Crawford (c55962)

  77. I think that a convicted domestic terrorist who set off bombs that resulted in misery and death probably receives death threats quite regularly.

    I’m not sure how I feel about that, though.

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  78. Gibson says that Ventura’s theory is poppycock and that there’s “no f*ckin’ way” the calls were faked. He says they didn’t tell him what their angle was going to be on the show. If Juiceboxhero is portraying Gibson as a Truther or promoting Truther theories then that is a rather typically dishonest assertion on his part. But then, I think he claimed I am trying to incite violence against Kimberlin, did he not? When I have said the precise opposite?

    It is a good question where this guy comes from and why he says what he does.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  79. Security Alert Update: VELVET REVOLUTION & OCCUPY MAY ALREADY BE TRACKING YOUR COMPUTER USE

    Regarding Ace’s warning that there were malicious links present in the comments section at Ace of Spades HQ Blog, I noted this yesterday in the thread that was current at the time.

    Warning: DO NOT CLICK ON ANY SITE YOU DON’T TRUST ABOUT THIS STORY. I think there is reasonable grounds for suspicion that your IP will be captured, and a malicious tracking cookie (or worse) inserted onto your computer.

    Do not click on any of the “bad” sites for this. Only go to trusted sites.

    I am sorry if this warning comes too late — I had it in my actual post on Ali.

    Have Internet Situational Awareness, here. I do not know if my suspicious are accurate, but there is no harm in being prudent.

    From Wikipedia:

    Although cookies cannot carry viruses, and cannot install malware on the host computer, tracking cookies and especially third-party tracking cookies are commonly used as way to compile long-term records of individuals’ browsing histories — a major privacy concern that has prompted European and US law makers to take action.

    To partially check on this assertion, I ran a full scan of my computer using the free program “SuperAntiSpyware” – which has a silly name but is highly regarded in personal Internet security circles. I have used this program, and others, for a few years to clean & protect my computer.

    Google SuperAntiSpyware for a free download.

    SAS did find several, something like 10, tracking cookies from “occupyforaccountability DOT org” plus tracking/ad cookies from other sites, some of which are normal site visits, others I didn’t necessarily recognize right off.

    SAS deleted these tracking cookies for me. In your browser you can also search for cookies with “occupy” in the string, but SAS will find all tracking cookies and remove them, which is a good periodic practice in general.

    Occupy For Accountability is closely associated the other side of this, has included comments attacking Patterico, mentioning his home value, for example, and is currently posting about the Velvet Revolution legal demand letter against Ali Akbar (twitter: @Ali) and his group. (Just google Occupy For Accountability)

    Patterico blogged recently about OFA (not ObamaForAmerica, but shares the same initials)… on May 25: “convicted-bomber-brett-kimberlin-neal-rauhauser-ron-brynaert-and-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism”

    Publication of home addresses – OccupyforAccountability DOT org, a site related to Kimberlin, published my home address, as well as a Google street view and Google aerial view of my home. The “Gaped Crusader” republished that address.
    Donations at OccupyforAccountability.org go to Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution. The same post published what the author stated was Andrew Breitbart’s home address. Andrew later told me it was actually a home owned by Andrew’s parents and rented out to others. Kimberlin later sent interrogatories to me at the address listed on OccupyforAccountability DOT org — and sent interrogatories to Andrew at the address the site had listed for Andrew. Andrew’s interrogatories eventually made their way to him, and he told me about it and gave me a copy of them.

    Kimberlin unnecessarily put Aaron Walker’s home address in court documents. Kimberlin had a habit of putting information into court documents — information that is later disseminated by Rauhauser and Brynaert.

    I didn’t recall having visited “occupyforaccountability DOT org”. (Though I certainly could have forgotten having visited it weeks or months ago.)

    So I checked my own extensive saved browsing history and… It DID NOT include visits to occupyforaccountability DOT org.

    SO…some other site, perhaps BreitbartUnmasked, or others may have placed those cookies disguised as Occupy cookies on my computer.

    So if you’ve visited “BreitbartUnmasked DOT com” and other sites related to VR, they may, in fact, be tracking your internet use with these cookies. And they certainly may have captured your IP address.

    After removing the Tracking Cookies, you may be able to force your modem to issue a new IP address. Check with the support forums for your ISP on how to do this. One good site with support forums for every major ISP is broadbandreports aka dslreports see: dslreports DOT com/forums/all .

    Don’t forget while they are experts in “Lawfare” they also brag about being experts in internet malfeasance, twitterbots, and all kinds of digital mischief:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/19/996099/-Personal-Confession-I-m-A-Hacker

    “play nice, or I’ll melt your computer over the internet.”

    – Stranded Wind, July 2011

    Venusian (62b020)

  80. Other lies aside, do people here doubt that Kimberlin has received threatening emails?

    Or do people here believe he has received them, but it’s ridiculous to hold Aaron accountable for them?

    Just a show of hands. I’m curious.

    I think it’s rank speculation. My guess is that it’s possible.

    I would never accept Brett Kimberlin’s word for it, though. Would you, Kman?

    Which leaves us in the position of just guessing that someone whose bad deeds are widely publicized might get death threats. They might and they might not. I don’t know. All I know is that I obviously disapprove.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  81. I was able to collect 38 newspaper articles and compile them into an album at imgur.com

    Here it is.
    http://imgur.com/a/mRVUR

    A pastebin with all the news article onto a plain text sheet
    http://pastebin.com/21NkZLjW

    Please do click on the link guys.

    There are gems like this

    INDIANAPOLIS (UPI) — Accused Speedway bomber Brett C. Kimberlin Monday was sentenced to a stiff term of 12 years in prison by a federal judge who said Kimberlin was likely to “spread human misery” once he was free.

    Judge James K. Noland is basically a prophet in a sense.

    Kaitian (b51c21)

  82. Well, it could also be read as “Aaron has had many people threaten me… [to] not show up in court or I would die.”

    By you. If you want to read words that aren’t there.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  83. The judge in the last hearing seemed to want the two of them to go out in the parking lot and settle things man on man.

    This is all so confusing to the layman. Do we report crimes with the expectation that they will be investigated? Do we tell the truth in court with the expectation that perjurers will be punished? Because as a strategy that isn’t looking so hot right now.

    I have to reassure myself that eventually these guys will run into a judge and a jurisdiction that won’t put up with this crap. But MD seems to be a pretty safe place to play these sorts of games. The more left wing the locale the greater the systemic rot.

    Voluble (6bfee6)

  84. 73. Question:

    Other lies aside, do people here doubt that Kimberlin has received threatening emails?

    Or do people here believe he has received them, but it’s ridiculous to hold Aaron accountable for them?

    Just a show of hands. I’m curious.

    Comment by Kman — 6/5/2012 @ 6:51 am

    I know he doesn’t get threatening emails he can attribute to Aaron, Kman, and if you had an ounce of sense you’d know it, too.

    He complained about a lot of things before the judge. Tweets, Google alerts, blog posts, and comment threads.

    But not once did he complain about threatening emails to the judge.

    He showed the judge “thousands and thousands” of tweets from Aaron’s twitter account.

    Not one email. Go through the transcript.

    If he’s getting threatening emails, it’s from people who know him personally.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  85. I would never accept Brett Kimberlin’s word for it, though. Would you, Kman?

    Well, if it’s a lie (that he received death threats in email), it’s a stupid lie to try to make. He has to know that, at some point, a judge is going to ask to SEE those “death threat” emails.

    That’s why I tend to believe at least that part is true.

    It’s his assertion of a direct link from those emails back to Aaron — that, in my view, is dodgy to say the least.

    Kman (5576bf)

  86. He has to know that, at some point, a judge is going to ask to SEE those “death threat” emails.

    Except the judge AW got admits he’s from the Royal Typewriter generation so he was clueless as hell as to how the internet works. Just took Kimberlin’s lie at face value. I’ve read all of the AW blog posts and there was not one post by AW threatening BK.

    Kaitian (b51c21)

  87. I am convinced that Kimberlin has received emails. If they had clear death threats, he would have presented them. I am confident that the pure death threat is rare or noneexistent. Probably a bunch of “Someone ought to …. “. Hell, I got a collection of those thanks to a couple of loons over the years including Deb F.

    SPQR (b59bf6)

  88. Security Alert Update: VELVET REVOLUTION & OCCUPY MAY ALREADY BE TRACKING YOUR COMPUTER USE

    Regarding Ace’s warning that there were malicious links present in the comments section at Ace of Spades HQ Blog, I noted this yesterday in the thread that was current at the time.

    Warning: DO NOT CLICK ON ANY SITE YOU DON’T TRUST ABOUT THIS STORY. I think there is reasonable grounds for suspicion that your IP will be captured, and a malicious tracking cookie (or worse) inserted onto your computer.

    Do not click on any of the “bad” sites for this. Only go to trusted sites.

    I am sorry if this warning comes too late — I had it in my actual post on Ali.

    Have Internet Situational Awareness, here. I do not know if my suspicious are accurate, but there is no harm in being prudent.

    From Wikipedia:

    Although cookies cannot carry viruses, and cannot install malware on the host computer, tracking cookies and especially third-party tracking cookies are commonly used as way to compile long-term records of individuals’ browsing histories — a major privacy concern that has prompted European and US law makers to take action.

    To partially check on this assertion, I ran a full scan of my computer using the free program “SuperAntiSpyware” – which has a silly name but is highly regarded in personal Internet security circles. I have used this program, and others, for a few years to clean & protect my computer.

    Google SuperAntiSpyware for a free download.

    SAS did find several, something like 10, tracking cookies from “occupyforaccountability DOT org” plus tracking/ad cookies from other sites, some of which are normal site visits, others I didn’t necessarily recognize right off.

    SAS deleted these tracking cookies for me. In your browser you can also search for cookies with “occupy” in the string, but SAS will find all tracking cookies and remove them, which is a good periodic practice in general.

    Occupy For Accountability is closely associated the other side of this, has included comments attacking Patterico, mentioning his home value, for example, and is currently posting about the Velvet Revolution legal demand letter against Ali Akbar (twitter: @Ali) and his group. (Just google Occupy For Accountability)

    Patterico blogged recently about OFA (not ObamaForAmerica, but shares the same initials)… on May 25: “convicted-bomber-brett-kimberlin-neal-rauhauser-ron-brynaert-and-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism”

    Publication of home addresses – OccupyforAccountability DOT org, a site related to Kimberlin, published my home address, as well as a Google street view and Google aerial view of my home. The “Gaped Crusader” republished that address.
    Donations at OccupyforAccountability DOT org go to Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution. The same post published what the author stated was Andrew Breitbart’s home address. Andrew later told me it was actually a home owned by Andrew’s parents and rented out to others. Kimberlin later sent interrogatories to me at the address listed on OccupyforAccountability DOT org — and sent interrogatories to Andrew at the address the site had listed for Andrew. Andrew’s interrogatories eventually made their way to him, and he told me about it and gave me a copy of them.

    Kimberlin unnecessarily put Aaron Walker’s home address in court documents. Kimberlin had a habit of putting information into court documents — information that is later disseminated by Rauhauser and Brynaert.

    I didn’t recall having visited “occupyforaccountability DOT org”. (Though I certainly could have forgotten having visited it weeks or months ago.)

    So I checked my own extensive saved browsing history and… It DID NOT include visits to occupyforaccountability DOT org.

    SO…some other site, perhaps BreitbartUnmasked, or others may have placed those cookies disguised as Occupy cookies on my computer.

    So if you’ve visited “BreitbartUnmasked DOT com” and other sites related to VR, they may, in fact, be tracking your internet use with these cookies. And they certainly may have captured your IP address.

    After removing the Tracking Cookies, you may be able to force your modem to issue a new IP address. Check with the support forums for your ISP on how to do this. One good site with support forums for every major ISP is broadbandreports aka dslreports see: dslreports DOT com/forums/all .

    Don’t forget while they are experts in “Lawfare” they also brag about being experts in internet malfeasance, twitterbots, and all kinds of digital mischief:
    “Personal-Confession-I-m-A-Hacker” at kos

    “play nice, or I’ll melt your computer over the internet.”

    – Stranded Wind, July 2011

    Venusian (62b020)

  89. @SPQR,

    Yep, it was impossible to not receive emails as Brett Kimberlin set up Google Alerts to warn himself of anything being posted about him on the internet. I can say Brett Kimberlin a thousand times and Brett Kimberlin would get it in his inbox.

    See what I’m doing? 3 new strings are created so Brett Kimberlin should be getting 3 google alerts for this. Oh I did it again, Brett Kimberlin.

    Kaitian (b51c21)

  90. Kman, Kimberlin attempts every kind of lie. The bold, the shameless, the clever, the stupid, the half-truth, the exagerration, the sideways dissemble, the false alibi, the over-lie… the self-righteous lie – getting or allowing others to lie for him…think of a way, and he has done it that way.

    You can visit two passages from the book about his sept 1 alibi in the audio thread. I thought the secret room business interesting

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  91. 85. He has to know that, at some point, a judge is going to ask to SEE those “death threat” emails.

    Except the judge AW got admits he’s from the Royal Typewriter generation so he was clueless as hell as to how the internet works. Just took Kimberlin’s lie at face value. I’ve read all of the AW blog posts and there was not one post by AW threatening BK.

    Comment by Kaitian — 6/5/2012 @ 7:37 am

    Exactly. Keep in mind, the judge thought those 54 pages of tweets Kimberlin gave him were emails.

    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.

    Aaron should have anticipated this and brought a newspaper. A lot of people don’t spend a lot of time reading blogs or twitter. He knew that’s what this proceeding would be about. If he had brought something like a newspaper he could have demonstrated to the judge that a blog or tweet is like an opinion article (a very short one on twitter) that anyone can write. And a blog comment is like a letter to the editor.

    And none of it is contact with Kimberlin anymore than an article and letters to the editor in the Washington Post is contact with the President of the United States.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  92. Yep, it was impossible to not receive emails as Brett Kimberlin set up Google Alerts to warn himself of anything being posted about him on the internet

    Re: the emails BK refers to (and quotes from) in the embedded document above — did they come from the Internet (and subject to a Google Alert)? Or were they private emails (supposedly) sent to him?

    Kman (5576bf)

  93. There were no private emails. Read the transcript.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  94. Great post, Patterico.

    Juiceboxhero reminds me of the other strange liars that twist facts to such a degree it’s hard to believe they did so in earnest

    Why didn’t he ask these questions here? Why didn’t he email Patterico? This is a serious matter… why dissemble about it?

    One explanation is if he wanted to knowingly push disinformation, hoping to make this serious matter seem like a two sided one. Both sides inciting, both sides relying on kooks, both sides lying. That’s one of the most savvy myths employed by Brett’s side.

    It’s also completely untrue. If someone has a concern about claims, they should ask it directly instead of planting it somewhere else.

    Kent did a good job, and restrained his conclusions to what the evidence could support. And anyone can listen for themselves. The similarity between the voices compared is very convincing.

    But it’s no surprise to me that they are smearing Kent. Anyone who does the right thing becomes a target. If a lawyer represents Aaron, they will become a target. So will their family, in all probability. Any judge rules the right way? Target. Any prosecutor upholds the law? New target. I start to worry that that fact combined with the convoluted story has pushed some weaker souls to pretend they haven’t noticed this story.

    And yeah, in most cases, I think it’s a bona fide ‘they’ working in coordination. But whether it is or not, those who promote this crap should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

    Dustin (330eed)

  95. 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)

    Steve57 (958caf)

  96. The judge didn’t understand how Kimberlin got Aaron’s twitter feed.

    I sighed the first time I noticed that.

    If Brett had something like what the warrant suggests, I am sure this would have been prominently advertised.

    However, I wouldn’t be surprised if they planted something and then tried to keep our attention off of it.

    That Brett is associating with Neal in this specific matter should make everyone suspicious of every comment’s authenticity. IP addresses should be required. Why do Brett and Neal get the benefit of the doubt (such as with the ‘not brett kimberlin’ site)? Seems like the judge should have required some kind of authenticating for every single threat.

    And if someone is threatening Brett and Neal, prosecute them. And if all of the truly threatening stuff is from behind a proxy and appears to be a fabrication, take that into account.

    I noticed a lot of brand new commenters on a serious of blogs following what seemed like a script. They all read like they were written by the same person.

    Funny that we didn’t see any such comments before Brett needed a case based on their existence.

    Dustin (330eed)

  97. Or were they private emails (supposedly) sent to him?

    [facepalm]

    ∅ (721840)

  98. Dustin, can you give an example?

    Kaitian (b51c21)

  99. There were no private emails. Read the transcript.

    I’m talking about the emails referred in the arrest warrant statement.

    Kman (5576bf)

  100. Another verifiable lie.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  101. The emails are the Google Alerts he set up for himself. It’s how he was able to get the thousand count because people were blogging about Brett Kimberlin so I wouldn’t be surprised if there was tens of thousands of the string “Brett Kimberlin” giving him this absurd count. He passed them off as all personal effort done by Aaron Walker.

    Kaitian (b51c21)

  102. Seriously, Kman, do you think if Kimberlin had received private emails, addressed to his inbox, which would demonstrate actual contact either with Aaron or with someone “incited” by Aaron in time to get an arrest warrant before the hearing, he wouldn’t have brought them to the hearing?

    Steve57 (958caf)

  103. Dustin, can you give an example?

    Comment by Kaitian — 6/5/2012

    In retrospect, I should have preserved a few because if you read them all together you’d probably immediately suspect they were written by the same person.

    All I did when I saw them was write the blog owner and ask that they be removed. The fastest response in deleting them was Aaron’s, btw. And he told me that he wanted to know any time I saw such things, so he could eliminate them quickly. The idea he actually sought this material is preposterous and projection, given Brett and Neal’s talk about Aaron’s ‘hate blog’ triggering violence if he’s outted, right when they and Ron outted Aaron.

    Anyway, I noticed similarities in tone, grandiosity, and a pattern of noting addresses or referencing how they need to be noted, and then a talk about going there and doing something. I realize I’m being vague, but I don’t want to contribute to their meme.

    RSM has a post up talking about Brett’s pride at using the N word repeatedly, which I was glad to be reminded of as Brett likes to claim his enemies are bigots. Everything they do is projection. They are the ones posting people’s homes and talking about wives finding husbands dead and wishing for “painful and untimely demise” of critics.

    For some reason, they love accusing people of what they are doing. I think they hope this angers their targets into making mistakes.

    Dustin (330eed)

  104. I shouldn’t have quipped “another verifiable lie.” I meant had he said he had received any individual correspondence, person-to-person, in his inbox it would be a verifiable lie.

    But of course, he didn’t say that so neatly.

    Apparently he’s discovered, like us, that every single person in Maryland’s judicial system has advanced no further technologically than the age of sail, just like Judge Vaughey.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  105. Seriously, Kman, do you think if Kimberlin had received private emails, addressed to his inbox, which would demonstrate actual contact either with Aaron or with someone “incited” by Aaron in time to get an arrest warrant before the hearing, he wouldn’t have brought them to the hearing?

    Well, I thought he referred to emails in the hearing. I’m told he didn’t, but I don’t have time to listen to the full audio again.

    Kman (5576bf)

  106. I wouldn’t underestimate the amount of time Brett, Neal, Ron, and Brad will waste trying to occupy the time of as many right of center bloggers as they can. This is how they earn a living. It is their job.

    They will slowly maintain the road to mayhem because it puts food on their table.

    wtfci (6cb860)

  107. Well, I thought he referred to emails in the hearing.

    He presented 54 pages of evidence to Judge Vaughey. It’s not clear if Aaron challenged any of this. Suppose he had, he would have easily been able to demonstrate how the supposed evidence is unreliable.

    wtfci (6cb860)

  108. Well, I thought he referred to emails in the hearing. I’m told he didn’t, but I don’t have time to listen to the full audio again.

    He did. Self-generated email alerts. Had he something addressed to him that wasn’t auto-generated, it would have been the strongest evidence he had.

    Which explains why in both the arrest warrant statement and in the hearing he complained first, last, and always, loud and long, about Aaron’s tweets and blog posts. And responses to them.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  109. I don’t doubt that some clown sent nasty emails. I know AW didn’t. I know BK routinely conflates the concepts of google alerts and emails. Given his propensity for mischaraterizing not-threats as threats, I doubt there were anywhere close to as many actual threats as he claimed.

    JD (075baa)

  110. I wouldn’t underestimate the amount of time Brett, Neal, Ron, and Brad will waste trying to occupy the time of as many right of center bloggers as they can. This is how they earn a living. It is their job.

    Don’t worry about it, wtfci. We’re not liberals. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  111. I also know that there are people posting comments that would conveniently fit his dishonest narrative, as they even sock puppeted our host responding to one on this blog.

    JD (075baa)

  112. “Other lies aside, do people here doubt that Kimberlin has received threatening emails?”

    I couldn’t care less. It’s not my problem.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  113. I don’t doubt that some clown sent nasty emails.

    I do. At least, not some clown who isn’t verifiably a fellow leftie sociopath.

    If he had it, he’d have showcased it.

    I just can’t see this drama queen stoically keeping silent about somebody actually trying to contact him personally.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  114. He did. Self-generated email alerts.

    I was aware of that. But I thought he also made reference to actual (not Google Alert) “emails”. Somewhere in the litany about his daughter being defriended on Facebook… I could be wrong.

    Kman (5576bf)

  115. 107- how could possibly know that for sure?

    tye (7f1ac8)

  116. Tye – you are a silly little person.

    JD (075baa)

  117. I’ll believe that Aaron thretened Kimberlin when I see evidence of it. I’ll believe that Aaron solicited others to make threats against Kimberlin when I see evidence of it.

    So far, I’ve seen zippo.

    All I’ve seen is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims by a convicted perjurer.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  118. “Other lies aside, do people here doubt that Kimberlin has received threatening emails?”

    I would want to see some proof. I would hope that a Judge would at least try to verify the threats, if they exist, came from the defendant.

    I would not believe anything that comes out of Brett Kimberlin’s mouth.

    wtfci (6cb860)

  119. Somewhere in the litany about his daughter being defriended on Facebook

    So now “defriending” someone on Facebook is the equivalent of a threatening email?

    ∅ (721840)

  120. I keep wondering about Judge Vaughey’s performance at the hearing. My thoughts go like this:

    On the one hand, maybe he’s a senile, out-of-touch old fool who doesn’t know nuthin’ about the interwebz and is confused about all this here mechanical stuff, and due to his confusion he misunderstood what was going on at the hearing and was easily misled by BK into making a decision that so neatly granted what he wanted. Maybe he was additionally misled due to his inherent Liberal bias, maybe he was not; but this thread of my thoughts stems from the opinion that everything we heard and that Aaron experienced was a result of Judge Vaughey’s incompetence.

    On the other hand, maybe Judge Vaughey is a canny individual who knew exactly what was going on, and deliberately maintained a pose of confusion to give cover for his actions. Is it conceivable that someone who actually understood how people communicate in the 21st Century would so fundamentally flub this case? This leads me to wonder if Judge Vaughey was a dishonest actor in the trial, and that for reasons unknown was prejudiced against Aaron through the entire trial and used his ramblings and claims of ignorance to hide his prejudice.

    The only other alternative is that he decided the case properly, which I cannot accept.

    So, whether Judge Vaughey is incompetent or corrupt, Kimberlin sure must be feeling pretty lucky, huh? He drew the one judge that was sure to decide in his favor.

    What are odds of that?

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  121. “On the one hand, maybe he’s a senile,”

    I listened to him speak for about an hour. He’s not the least bit senile.

    Unless, he was having an exceptionally lucid hour.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  122. Other lies aside, do people here doubt that Kimberlin has received threatening emails?

    Yes. I doubt this. Those who are most outraged with Kimberlin are people who cherish freedom of speech and hate thuggery. Why would these same people behave like Brett?

    Brett needs this for his case. Those who blindly refuse to doubt Brett’s needed evidence, without it being shown or authenticated, are hard for me to understand. Or easy for me to understand, depending on how suspicious I am of these people.

    Dustin (330eed)

  123. ________________________________________________

    So, whether Judge Vaughey is incompetent or corrupt,

    I’d say his leftism makes him that way and does similar things to like-minded people.

    After reading key passages of the transcript, I think it’s a cop-out to believe Vaughey’s ignorance about modern communications and internet technology led him to give smooches and hugs to Kimberlin while nothing but a cold shoulder to Worthing.

    And if Vaughey can be diagnosed as senile, that would be only because he’s still of the left well beyond his teenager and college years. IOW, anyone who is his age, or somewhat younger, and still a captive of liberal biases can be defined as “senile.”

    Mark (299eb0)

  124. Given that someone lied to induce the Sheriff’s office to essentially invade Patterico’s home without a warrant, fearing for the safety of every person in the house, I would expect that California law enforcement authorities would be mightily upset. This so-called “hoax” makes a mockery of their central peace-keeping function and, by extension, them.

    Worse yet, this happened to one of their law-enforcement own. If a prosecutor isn’t safe in his home, who is? Patterico might have been killed!

    Given all this, does anyone know if the California authorities investigating these events? If they aren’t, then I’m confused: Why aren’t they moving heaven and earth to find the perpetrator?

    MTF (b16bef)

  125. MTF, I think they put their faith in the FBI.

    Dustin (330eed)

  126. Yeah, faith in the FBI and $1.95 will buy you a cup of coffee.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  127. Seems so.

    Dustin (330eed)

  128. Volokh’s on board. Now it’s getting good.

    Kman (5576bf)

  129. That ought to frost the Kimberlin crime family pretty good.

    SPQR (b59bf6)

  130. eugene volokh just tweeted that he’s been hired as a consultant for aaron’s defense. btw,does anyone know where aaron appeals to?

    milowent (be890a)

  131. milowent, Aaron has two issues to deal with. The permanent order’s unconstitional breadth and the charge of violating the interim order. Its not clear to me who and whether there is a prosecutor in the later under Maryland law.

    SPQR (b59bf6)

  132. I am confident that the pure death threat is rare or noneexistent. Probably a bunch of “Someone ought to …. “.

    “Someone ought to” is not a threat. It is perfectly lawful to advocate anything one likes, even utterly criminal and reprehensible behaviour. It is neither a threat nor incitement. It is lawful to advocate the assassination of the President, the extermination of the Jews, or the consumption of Zima™. Sending such an opinion directly to the person against whom one advocates violence could be harassment, if it were part of a pattern, but tweeting or blogging it to the world at large cannot.

    Milhouse (312124)

  133. “Someone ought to” is not a threat. It is perfectly lawful to advocate anything one likes, even utterly criminal and reprehensible behaviour. It is neither a threat nor incitement. It is lawful to advocate the assassination of the President, the extermination of the Jews, or the consumption of Zima™.

    What the hell are your legal qualifications?

    Random (fba0b1)

  134. jukeboxgrad is apparently blocked from posting his answers here, so here is his response to the comments in this thread.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  135. Random, he’s not far wrong. It is the old First Amend test regarding whether the speech will create an imminent breach of the peace. If not, it cannot be forbidden or punished.

    SPQR (b59bf6)

  136. leo, why do you feel a need to facilitate the lies?

    SPQR (b59bf6)

  137. SPQR, but he’s somewhat wrong, I think, legally. It’s not that I oppose the First Amendment or people’s freedom to advocate severe policies or other courses of action, but I wouldn’t want to test “advocating the assassination of the President” in court.

    But maybe it’s legal. I don’t know.

    Random (fba0b1)

  138. Leo – he earned his banning here. Went out of his way to earn it.

    JD (c543e6)

  139. Random, you don’t remember “Sniper wanted” ?

    SPQR (b59bf6)

  140. Random, you don’t remember “Sniper wanted” ?

    Comment by SPQR — 6/5/2012 @ 2:08 pm

    Nope. Got to run pick up my nieces. If you reply, I’ll read it when I get back.

    Random (fba0b1)

  141. Random, even advocating the assassination of the President, when prosecuted as a crime, has to meet those tests. Which is why Aaron’s arrest, the offensively named “peace” order are all unconstitutional abridgements of constitutional rights – including due process with that bogus warrant signed by Commissionar Clousseau.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  142. “Sniper wanted” was displayed over a picture of George Bush on the Craig Kilborn’s Late Late Show on August 4th, 2000. At that time, Bush was the Republican Nominee.

    As far as I know, nobody was arrested though CBS apologized.

    Pious Agnostic (ee2c24)

  143. leo, why do you feel a need to facilitate the lies?

    That, as well as when I stopped beating my wife are questions I ponder myself.

    I disagree with some of jukeboxgrad’s main conclusions about this, disagreement I expressed in the Volokh thread, but I’ve seen no lies. As I said at the outset, I believe jukeboxgrad has raised legitimate questions about Gibson, most of which haven’t been answered here. The energy seems to have gone mostly into attacking jukeboxgrad and explaining what I believe is one of the lesser questions, i.e., Gibson’s participation on the Jesse Ventura program. The central questions about Gibson’s qualifications don’t seem to have been addressed.

    If Patrick prefers I not link to jukeboxgrad’s comments on Volokh, please say so, Patrick, and of course I’ll respect your wishes. Failing that, I’d think fair minded people would want to see both sides of the conversation.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  144. Leo, well ther you go. He grossly misrepresented the tv show deal. No point in paying attention after that.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  145. I don’t see any problem with linking comments at Volokh, leo.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  146. “He grossly misrepresented the tv show deal. No point in paying attention after that.”

    Really, Sarah? Only people who have never misrepresented anything are worth paying attention to, damn the evidence? By that standard, there may be two or three people somewhere worth listening to, and everyone else should be ignored. IMO that’s not a helpful heuristic.

    It looks to me like jukeboxgrad spun a conclusion, something bloggers and commenters on both sides do about a zillion times a day. The conclusion you mentioned happens to be another one I disagree with, but how does that invalidate the legitimate questions he’s brought to light?

    leo marvin (45619c)

  147. Help me out, though. I’m not used to Volokh’s comment section. Can you briefly summarize the “legitimate questions about Gibson” raised there?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  148. Specifically, is this jukeboxgrad comment a summary or is there more?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  149. “But maybe it’s legal. I don’t know.”

    According to the First Amendment, it’s totally legal.

    According to federal statutes, it’s a felony.

    According to the courts, it’s a felony if they say it is, otherwise it isn’t.

    Take your pick.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  150. Jukeboxgrad on Gibson:

    – He’s a 9/11 truther. He appeared on Jesse Ventura’s national cable show, helping promote the idea that cell phone calls on 9/11 were faked.

    – He has a long record as a Hollywood sound editor, but a limited record (or no record at all) as an expert witness. His resume specifically references dozens of TV shows and movies where he has worked as a sound editor, but this many specific cases: zero. Professionals in this field usually cite many specific cases they have participated in. I can find no record of him ever participating in a trial or having his testimony accepted by a judge.

    – Early this year a judge rejected Gibson’s testimony (“Gibson provides no support for the reliability of his methodology other than his own say-so, which is insufficient”). About a month later, Gibson produced his “FORENSIC AUDIO DECLARATION,” which is being promoted by Frey. That “DECLARATION” uses essentially the same bogus methodology that had recently been rejected by a judge.

    – He claims no technical education, and the degrees he claims reference programs that don’t exist.

    – He lacks the relevant certifications (ACFEI and ABRE) that professionals in this field usually have.

    – He is not listed in the various directories that list expert witnesses in this field.

    – He said his “regular clients include the US Secret Service, the FBI, DEA [and] DHS,” even though it’s doubtful that any federal agency would ever hire someone with the problems I just described. Let alone all those agencies hiring such a person on a “regular” basis.

    Is there anything else you’ve seen that needs to be addressed, leo?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  151. SPQR, but he’s somewhat wrong, I think, legally. It’s not that I oppose the First Amendment or people’s freedom to advocate severe policies or other courses of action, but I wouldn’t want to test “advocating the assassination of the President” in court.

    I am right. Advocating anything is protected by the first amendment. This is black letter law. Not only can you not be punished for it, if you’re a civil servant you can’t be fired for it. Again, black letter law, and if any government entity tries to fire its employee for advocating the president’s murder they will lose big time. I’m flabbergasted that you don’t know this. Try Rankin v McPherson, for instance.

    Milhouse (312124)

  152. What the hell are your legal qualifications?

    What difference does that make? What is this, credentialism? I’m right, and if you don’t know it then I hope you don’t hold yourself out as a lawyer, because no matter how many degrees you may have you are ignorant of a fundamental principle that every educated person ought to know.

    Milhouse (312124)

  153. “Leo – he earned his banning here. Went out of his way to earn it.”

    JD, I assure you Aaron went out of his way to earn his banning at Volokh — see his email to Orin Kerr in this thread — yet somehow that hasn’t stopped Eugene from concluding Aaron has a legitimate case that deserves his attention.

    I’d suggest more attention to evidence, less to personalities.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  154. Random, even advocating the assassination of the President, when prosecuted as a crime, has to meet those tests.

    Correction: advocating the assassination of the President cannot be prosecuted as a crime, because it isn’t one. Threatening to assassinate the president is a crime, but it must be a true and credible threat (Watts). Inciting others to assassinate the president (or to commit any other crime) is a crime, but it has to meet the Brandenburg standard, which I submit it’s very difficult for a blog post to do, by the nature of the medium. But we’re wandering off topic: the topic was “somebody ought to”, and that is by definition advocacy, not incitement.

    Milhouse (312124)

  155. A big fat lie, it’s like a clue

    Sarahw (f64457)

  156. “Specifically, is this jukeboxgrad comment a summary or is there more?”

    Yes, I believe that comment, its links and update are comprehensive enough, at least for government work.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  157. And that one was a whopper.

    Sarahw (f64457)

  158. Leo–are you/jbg disagreeing on its face with what Gibson concluded that he heard (which many others with trained ears also hear), or are you primarily concerned that his credentials are simply not “up to snuff” enough to possibly be used as evidence at some future time in a court of law if it comes to that? Those seem like two very different issues, no?

    elissa (21d2f6)

  159. I don’t think Leo is playing straight with us either, Elissa. yMMV.

    Sarahw (f64457)

  160. What I’ve learned in the last 25 comments:

    When Person A grossly misrepresents a television program in order to discredit Person B and tells big fat lies, it doesn’t mean anything; especially when Person A is simply trying to point out how Person B is a big fat liar.

    Am I up to speed now?

    Pious Agnostic (ee2c24)

  161. elissa,

    I can’t speak for jukeboxgrad, which is why I linked directly to his comments. Speaking for myself, I just want to know how much weight to give Gibson’s opinion that the voice of Patrick’s SWATter was Brynaert. That depends on all the factors that go into evaluating the credibility of any expert, i.e., training, credentials, experience, honesty… am I forgetting anything?

    leo marvin (45619c)

  162. “But maybe it’s legal. I don’t know.”

    According to the First Amendment, it’s totally legal.

    According to federal statutes, it’s a felony.

    What statute? Tell me which statute purports to forbid advocating the president’s assassination.

    Milhouse (312124)

  163. Leo – I am not as good of a person, nor as magnanimous as you. He proved himself to be a congenital twatwaffle, and other than to point and laugh, I could not care less what he is lying about. Because that is what he does. Lie. Just like he did in grossly mischaracterizing the tv show. Lie.

    JD (c543e6)

  164. I don’t actually care too much what Gibson said or didn’t say about the voice recording. And I don’t care because I listened to them myself and it seemed to me that the voices were the same.

    Pious Agnostic (ee2c24)

  165. The voices certainly sound the same, but Patterico didn’t need Gibson for that. He paid Gibson for an expert opinion, so it’s reasonable to ask whether Gibson is in fact an expert. It could be that Patterico has been had, and he should have found a real expert to confirm what we all think we hear.

    Milhouse (312124)

  166. They want to make this about Gibson, or Patterico, or Twoofers, or other such nonsense. They claim to not support those that they are attempting to provide rhetorical cover for.

    JD (c543e6)

  167. “Sniper wanted” was displayed over a picture of George Bush on the Craig Kilborn’s Late Late Show on August 4th, 2000.

    Ah, thanks. I remember tearing down a similar poster of Paris Hilton. I never thought it was illegal, but certainly I found it offensive and evil.

    Random (fba0b1)

  168. “I don’t think Leo is playing straight with us either, Elissa. yMMV.”

    Sarah, feel free to review my comments here, here, here, here, and here, just for a sample, and then apologize.

    Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  169. leo,

    – I don’t see any evidence Gibson is a 9-11 truther. He may have been retained or consulted by a truther, but that doesn’t make him one.

    – I agree it seems Gibson has a long record as a Hollywood sound editor, but we don’t know his record as an expert witness. Apparently he has been consulted in legal matters, such as the Mel Gibson case and in the George Russell Weller case in Santa Monica, and he seems to have had an article accepted for publication by a professional magazine.

    – Regarding the case where Gibson’s testimony was rejected, it involved comparison of voices recorded 15 years apart. That happened because the subject refused to provide a voice exemplar for comparison, so Gibson’s client didn’t have a recent comparison for analysis and the court initially allowed the older comparison. Ultimately, however, the court determined it wasn’t sufficiently reliable. I think a fair reading of the opinion indicates Gibson’s methods weren’t the problem, the evidence he had to work with was:

    Gibson had to, of course, work with what was available. And what was available was not much: the 1993 recording and a recording made some fifteen years later. Gibson made his comparison based on two factors: “fundamental frequency statistical analysis,” otherwise known as “average pitch analysis,” and what he refers to as a “linguistic method, where accent, perceived level of education, grammar, accent, voice qualify, speaking rhythm, melody of the voice (a.k.a. prosody) and other techniques are used to compare voice.” Gibson Report at 2, 3. Gibson conceded, however, that the latter is insufficient by itself and that the core basis for his opinion is the fundamental frequency statistical analysis.

    – I don’t know enough about forensic audio analysis to evaluate Gibson’s training, qualifications, or certifications. I’m interested in how jukeboxgrad does.

    – Gibson is listed in the May 2012 edition of the LA County Superior Court directory of experts.

    – Gibson says his “regular clients include the US Secret Service, the FBI, DEA [and] DHS.” Jukeboxgrad’s assumption that the agencies wouldn’t hire Gibson is just that — an assumption — and Gibson’s inclusion in the list of experts for the LA Superior Court shows he is recognized as an expert in state courts and suggests he could be recognized by federal agencies, too.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  170. Comment by DRJ — 6/5/2012 @ 3:57 pm

    That sounds reasonable and fair in its entirety.

    Random (fba0b1)

  171. “18 USC § 2385″

    “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or”

    “Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or”

    “Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—”

    “Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction…”

    According to U.S. statutes there’s a lot of things you can’t advocate. That law is flatly unconstitutional…but, they keep it on the books anyway, just in case they need it.

    A lot of people have been sent to prison using that law, btw. Left leaning Dem oriented judges started getting worried about that, because a lot of their spiritual brothers (communists) were getting tossed into dungeons, and they started getting real pissy about it when a Republican won the 1952 presidential election (because they didn’t want a Republican doing to them what they’d been doing to the communists), which is why they came up with decisions like Yates, in which the SCOTUS modified the law on the fly (as they’ve been prone to do, pretty much since day one).

    Later, leftoid judges did the same thing in Brandenburg, after Dick Nixon got elected. Although in Brandenburg, the law in question was a state law, rather than a federal law. The idea is still the same, however…namely that the SCOTUS ignores the actual law, and just makes up whatever they want.

    If the law was actually followed, then you could advocate anything you wanted, and the federal government would be powerless to stop you, though states and localities could outlaw advocating stuff, if they wanted to.

    But…the law isn’t followed. Never has been, and most likely never will be.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  172. Why are you a Twoofer, DRJ? You have also associated yourself with the defense of a child molester, or whatever that nonsense is jukeboxhero is peddling.

    JD (c543e6)

  173. Why are you a Twoofer, DRJ? You have also associated yourself with the defense of a child molester, or whatever that nonsense is jukeboxhero is peddling.

    Comment by JD — 6/5/2012 @ 4:07 pm

    Huh?

    Random (fba0b1)

  174. He’s kidding me, Random.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  175. JD likes to kid me, probably because he knows I like his sense of humor.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  176. One more thing, leo:

    I don’t know why Gibson hasn’t posted a list of cases he’s been involved in. Maybe he has chosen to keep specific client information confidential.

    It could also be that his cases either didn’t go to trial or didn’t have reported decisions. If so, Gibson could only provide a list of representative clients — as he has done — and would not be able to provide case cites.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  177. I don’t know why Gibson hasn’t posted a list of cases he’s been involved in. Maybe he has chosen to keep specific client information confidential.

    Oh come on. He can post which cases he was accepted by the court as an expert witness and testified as such: that’s public knowledge.

    Random (fba0b1)

  178. DRJ knows I heart her, dearly.

    Random – I was mocking the various forms of asshattery that jukeboxhero is utilizing in trying to smear Patterico.

    JD (c543e6)

  179. Random – I was mocking the various forms of asshattery that jukeboxhero is utilizing in trying to smear Patterico.

    Fair enough.

    Random (fba0b1)

  180. They would much rather talk about Gibsons resume choices than the actions of their fellow travelers.

    JD (c543e6)

  181. Baby steps leo.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  182. DRJ,

    Personally, I don’t particularly care whether Gibson is a truther. If being a truther makes him less credible as an audio analyst to jukeboxgrad or anyone else, it doesn’t to me, or at least not very much. What I do care about is whether he’s qualified and honest. Jukeboxgrad has raised what I consider legitimate questions about both. And you don’t have to accept any of JBG’s conclusions or opinions to recognize that most of his questions remain unanswered.

    That said, while I believe most of jukeboxgrad’s questions remain unanswered (even a couple you try to answer in your last comment), I’m not really passionate enough about this sub-issue that I want to get into a protracted, point by point argument in defense of JBG’s brief, much of which I agree with and much of which I don’t. I’m happy to be a conduit by linking to his comments on Volokh, but I’m not going to answer substantive replies directly.

    So, while I understand your directing some of your answers to me, I wouldn’t want you to attribute any meaning to my non-response. If you or anyone else thinks you have a compelling answer to any of jukeboxgrad’s points I’d encourage you to make them on the Volokh thread, where the back and forth will be easier (for me at least) and much faster. Which reminds me, now I’ll go check for the first time in a couple of hours to see if jukeboxgrad has an updated response to any of this.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  183. Shorter Leo – I am not going to respond directly other than to note that you havent substantively dealt with jukeboxhero’s not-at-all douchey statements, smears, guilt by association, etc.

    JD (c543e6)

  184. “Baby steps leo.”

    Indeed. (audio link)

    leo marvin (45619c)

  185. leo,

    I directed my comments to you to make it clear I was responding to the issues you raised on jukeboxgrad’s behalf, not to put you in an uncomfortable position. I’m not trying to debate you, only respond to jukeboxgrad’s points.

    My response addresses each of his points, in order, and I don’t plan to discuss them further — although I’m open to discussion if anyone wants to. I don’t plan to comment at Volokh. I like that website but I don’t comment there very often. I have enough to do already and people are free to link my comment if they want.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  186. Random:

    Oh come on. He can post which cases he was accepted by the court as an expert witness and testified as such: that’s public knowledge.

    Not all cases go to trial and Gibson’s clients may want to keep some consultations private.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  187. Because jukeboxhero and random want something, Gibson must do it.

    JD (c543e6)

  188. People also get confused on what it means that a court qualifies someone as an expert. As an unrelated example, in the recent Oracle vs. Google trial, Judge Alsup qualified a computer science professor from Stanford as an expert … and just last week wrote an memorandum opinion, denying a JMOL motion by Oracle, stately that a jury could have reasonably thrown out everything that Oracle’s “expert” testified to given the expert’s own contradictory testimony.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  189. Not all cases go to trial and Gibson’s clients may want to keep some consultations private.

    I know this. Some of them will have gone to trial. If not, then he’s hardly been accepted as an expert witness by any court, except in the most superficial sense.

    If he hasn’t had many cases go to trial where he’s testified as an expert witness, that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be a big secret.

    Random (fba0b1)

  190. “18 USC § 2385″
    “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or”

    Note that this only makes advocating the president’s assassination a crime if it’s done for the purpose of “overthrowing or destroying the government”. Advocating it for any other purpose isn’t covered by this statute. It’s still obviously unconstitutional, of course, but there is that.

    Milhouse (312124)

  191. Because jukeboxhero and random want something, Gibson must do it.

    Comment by JD — 6/5/2012 @ 4:43 pm

    It is not unreasonable to ask a person billing himself as a “Certified Audio Forensic Examiner” what his certifications are, nor to ask someone who claims (accurately) to have been accepted as an expert witness, what trials he’s testified in.

    Random (fba0b1)

  192. Here’s jukeboxgrad’s latest response.

    And yes, JD, posting that, without getting into a point by point exchange myself proves I’m a (paid, obviously) Brett Kimberlin apologist.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  193. “I directed my comments to you to make it clear I was responding to the issues you raised on jukeboxgrad’s behalf, not to put you in an uncomfortable position. I’m not trying to debate you, only respond to jukeboxgrad’s points.”

    Thanks, DRJ. I didn’t take it otherwise. I just didn’t want my own limited role in this to be misinterpreted.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  194. ==What I do care about is whether he’s qualified and honest==

    I know you’re “just asking questions”. Do you expect to be on the jury? Or in some capacity do you plan to be sitting either at the prosecution or at the defense table at a trial? Because otherwise, in the greater scheme of things, your special interest in this rather obscure character (to the extent of discussing it on multiple blogs) just looks kinda bizarre….

    elissa (21d2f6)

  195. Cost permitting there is no harm getting another expert in sound. The objectors could fund it themselves. But Gibson is certified and he has sworn under oath to what the scope of his previous consulting client is.

    Don’t fall for the JBH effort. I read it. A complete waste of time. He tries to set you up with a few correct facts to get you to agree with him, then he leads you into a bunch of rumors and ad hominem. That psychology is a lot like Kimberlins. If you are wise you would discount “any and all” JBH content. His purpose is not useful to you here or there, he is playing you for his agenda. Don’t buy into it.

    scable (40a8c6)

  196. But Gibson is certified and he has sworn under oath to what the scope of his previous consulting client is.

    Which certification?

    Random (fba0b1)

  197. certified to be an expert witness in forensic sound analysis by the Sheriff of LA County.

    Educational certification? I didn’t look for one, but he has a Master’s I believe.

    He has expertise in the specialized audio products he uses. One company lists him as a reference

    The whole forensic certification effort in techonology is one of the newer businesses in the world. Some one in the past with the expertise would just be called an audiophile with perfect pitch and a keen intuition.

    Like back in the 70’s there was no such thing as a computer science degree, they were all electrical engineers.

    scable (40a8c6)

  198. A lot of the Real Networks audio experts came out of the music industry as hobbyists.

    scable (40a8c6)

  199. James Cameron: Movie Producer or deep sea diver? The government did reject his deep water experience during the oil spill in the gulf, but maybe they were being shortsighted.

    scable (40a8c6)

  200. “If he hasn’t had many cases go to trial where he’s testified as an expert witness, that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be a big secret.”

    Random – He could have been deposed in cases that settled on the courthouse steps. Typically the details remain secret.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  201. “Note that this only makes advocating the president’s assassination a crime if it’s done for the purpose of “overthrowing or destroying the government”. Advocating it for any other purpose isn’t covered by this statute. It’s still obviously unconstitutional, of course, but there is that.”

    Personally, I wouldn’t want to rely on that as a defense, nor would I want to rely on the SCOTUS’ latest revision of what the First Amendment protects (in regard to that portion of the Smith Act, or anything else, for that matter), which can change any time they want it to.

    I’d rather just play it safe and not advocate assassinating government officials or overthrowing the government by other forceful means.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  202. That’s a generally good rule of thumb, but the Guardian’s Charlie Booker, Nicolson Baker, and the maker of ‘Death of a President’ didn’t think that was a big deal.

    narciso (494474)

  203. “I know you’re “just asking questions”. Do you expect to be on the jury? Or in some capacity do you plan to be sitting either at the prosecution or at the defense table at a trial? Because otherwise, in the greater scheme of things, your special interest in this rather obscure character (to the extent of discussing it on multiple blogs) just looks kinda bizarre….”

    elissa, my “special interest” in this consists of being a conduit for someone’s questions who couldn’t post them himself, and then getting sucked into the inevitable shoot-the-messenger, red herring debates.

    If you read the Volokh thread to which I’ve been linking, you’ll see that prior to my first comment here, most of my exchanges with jukeboxgrad about Patrick’s corner of the Kimberlin story consisted of disagreements. But I thought he did raise some good questions about Gibson, and I suggested Patrick might be the person to answer them. When jukeboxgrad’s attempts to post his questions directly were blocked, I volunteered to give it a shot. If that’s your idea of “bizarre,” you must lead a very tame existence.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  204. It is not unreasonable to ask a person billing himself as a “Certified Audio Forensic Examiner” what his certifications are, nor to ask someone who claims (accurately) to have been accepted as an expert witness, what trials he’s testified in.

    Comment by Random — 6/5/2012 @ 4:51 pm

    The LASC, for instance, has its own appointment process. Virtually none (I’ve not found one) that has the ACFEI certification that JBG says is oh! so vital.

    For instance, there are seven accountants the LASC has appointed to its panel of experts. None are listed in the membership of the ACFEI.

    Essentially, Kent Gibson has been certified, or appointed, or approved depending upon what language is used, by the local court and police agencies he lists based upon their review of his qualifications, experience, and expertise. Once you get on the list, say, of approved contractors for the LA County Sheriff’s Office you may get some work in your area of expertise. Which in Kent Gibson’s case is Forensic Audio. But the LASD is explicit that there is no guarantee that you will get work if you’re approved as a contractor.

    Undoubtedly when Kent Gibson lists Federal agencies like the FBI, DEA, etc, among his clients he is talking about working as a contractor for the SoCal offices. It isn’t like they’re going to fly him back to D.C.

    If you were a litigator and wanted to hire your own expert, it may help if they were members of the ACFEI.

    JBG is essentially making a mountain out of a molehill over the fact that Patterico is using one of the same approved contractors that the LA County court, sheriff, and DA’s office always use, as if there’s something wrong with that. Shocking behavior, isn’t it, for a LA County Assistant DA to engage in.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  205. Just to be clear, there are accountants in the ACFEI membership list in the LA area. Several. But they aren’t appointed to the LASC’s panel of experts.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  206. And yes, JD, posting that, without getting into a point by point exchange myself proves I’m a (paid, obviously) Brett Kimberlin apologist.

    I never suggested that. Now you are just being douchey.

    JD (c543e6)

  207. Personally, I wouldn’t want to rely on that as a defense,

    It seems as solid as any potential defense for any crime. It seems perfectly in line the Supreme Court’s decision in the Haupt case, that giving the enemy aid and comfort in time of war is not treason unless it’s done because one has made common cause with the enemy; doing exactly the same thing for any other purpose, even knowing that it helps the enemy and harms the USA, is not treason.

    I don’t advocate assassinating the President because I don’t want Biden to take over, and because I don’t want a sympathy vote to sweep Biden in as it did LBJ. Oh, and killing him would be wrong; that too. But should I ever decide to advocate it the first amendment clearly protects my right to do so, and this statute doesn’t prohibit it.

    “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” — Watts v USA

    “If they go for him again, I hope they get him.” — Rankin v McPherson

    Milhouse (312124)

  208. Steve57, JBH is trying to troll by proxy. I believed him at first, then realized he was conning me.

    scable (40a8c6)

  209. Purpose:
    The American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI) is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to sponsor Continuing Medical Education for physicians. Recognizing that practicing physicians are committed to the lifelong pursuit of learning, ACFEI’s mission is to build upon that educational continuum by providing quality post-graduate, needs-based educational activities. ACFEI strives to support professional development and provide scientific and evidence-based educational opportunities that will contribute to quality healthcare, impacting the ability of physicians to apply current knowledge and skills in their practice. http://www.acfei.com/about_acfei/aa/

    scable (40a8c6)

  210. Steve57, JBH is trying to troll by proxy. I believed him at first, then realized he was conning me.

    It doesn’t have the slightest thing to do with whether what he’s saying is true or not. That’s a lame ad hominem attack.

    Let’s assume JBH is one of Satan’s demons. Let’s stipulate that.

    — now … is what he’s saying true and reasonable?

    Random (fba0b1)

  211. “But should I ever decide to advocate it the first amendment clearly protects my right to do so, and this statute doesn’t prohibit it.”

    I’m sure the hundreds of people who were imprisoned for violating the Esionage/Sedition Act(s) or the Alien registration Act (aka the Smith Act) had similar thoughts.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  212. – now … is what he’s saying true and reasonable?

    No

    JD (c543e6)

  213. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/audio_forensics?currentPage=all

    Grigoras holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and performs forensic work for the Romanian ministries of justice and the interior.

    Audio forensics was born during WWII, when acoustic scientists investigated the possibility of identifying enemy voices on radio broadcasts. Their efforts were made possible by the newly invented sound spectrograph, a tool for graphing the frequency and amplitude of voice patterns over time.
    The police soon began using sound spectrograms to identify voices for investigative purposes, and spectrographic evidence became widely admissible in courts of law.

    scable (40a8c6)

  214. Esionage?

    I meant espionage.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  215. Random lol

    Let’s assume JBH is one of Satan’s demons. Let’s stipulate that.

    – now … is what he’s saying true and reasonable?

    I read JBH as a bait and switcher with an agenda. He has facts but his goal is to mislead. Seems pretty obvious reading anything he writes.

    scable (40a8c6)

  216. “When jukeboxgrad’s attempts to post his questions directly were blocked, I volunteered to give it a shot.”

    How come you assume they were blocked? They weren’t. I checked the filters. I found one comment from today at 4:23 a.m. from jukeboxgrad that had gone to spam. I took no active role in blocking that comment and have now released it. If jukeboxgrad claimed to have asked the question before 4:23 a.m. today, be advised that I can’t find the comment anywhere.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  217. another audio forensics expert with a media background.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/APNHQVAX519GA

    scable (40a8c6)

  218. I’m sure the hundreds of people who were imprisoned for violating the Espionage/Sedition Act(s) or the Alien registration Act (aka the Smith Act) had similar thoughts

    There’s no telling what blatantly unconstitutional laws some future Supreme Court might approve, but the current Court would throw those acts out 9-0. And if you’re worried about a radical change in that policy then nothing is safe: who’s to say that in 10 or 20 years campaigning for the president’s opponent at an election won’t be illegal? Or that people won’t be arrested for disrespecting the president, as that teacher in NC claimed? Perhaps even running against the president or his chosen successor, or challenging his eligibility for a fifth term, will be illegal.

    Milhouse (312124)

  219. “There’s no telling what blatantly unconstitutional laws some future Supreme Court might approve…”

    Given their past record, I endorse this view wholeheartedly.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  220. http://www.forensicmag.com/article/digital-forensic-sub-disciplines-part-2

    Readdressing the Discipline
    ASCLD/LAB has been accrediting the Digital and Multimedia Evidence Discipline since 2003. Up to that time, there was no body of information or expertise within ASCLD or ASCLD/LAB pertaining to the nuances of digital media and how the discipline should be defined for accreditation purposes. Appropriately at that time, ASCLD and ASCLD/LAB accepted and adopted the recommendations of SWGDE for the discipline name and the four sub-disciplines. However, what seemed appropriate in 2003 may no longer be appropriate in 2010.

    Currently, at the state and local level, many forensic laboratories offer services in Computer Forensics, but very few offer services in Forensic Audio, Image Analysis, or Video Analysis. In retrospect, the current implementation of the discipline and its four sub-disciplines is and continues to be problematic in determining where one sub-discipline ends and another one begins.

    *** accreditation in Forensic Audio analysis is fairly new. And probably has different sets of standards depending on where your chair is. The de facto experience of a person and their success rate would be more of a metric of how good they are at this.

    A windows MCSE means little without some experience. A CISCO cert means more but still needs real world experience to have any value.

    scable (40a8c6)

  221. I found one comment from today at 4:23 a.m. from jukeboxgrad that had gone to spam. I took no active role in blocking that comment and have now released it.

    That comment contained zero links. Why did it get stuck in your spam filter? And why did it take roughly 16 hours for it to get unblocked? If there’s a 16-hour delay on my comments here, that is effective “blocked.”

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  222. How come you assume they were blocked? They weren’t. I checked the filters. I found one comment from today at 4:23 a.m. from jukeboxgrad that had gone to spam. I took no active role in blocking that comment and have now released it. If jukeboxgrad claimed to have asked the question before 4:23 a.m. today, be advised that I can’t find the comment anywhere.

    That actually makes sense because Jukebox said something on Volokh about one of his comments being caught up in a spam filter, I believe, because it had 4 links. So it is probably a misunderstanding.

    Anyway, the guy could be wrong or out to lunch or leftist, but then … I didn’t think all of his questions and points were unreasonable. For example, I’m not a big fan of ad hominem attacks, but Gibson is definitely referred to on a Truther website as an audio expert talking about how the 9/11 emergency calls could have been spoofed. More substantively, a record of courts that have accepted his expert testimony vs. the two that have rejected it would be interesting.

    None of which is to say I think his audio analysis was wrong. My own ears told me it is likely true. But it isn’t playing unfair to question the expert’s credentials and record.

    Random (fba0b1)

  223. And details about another comment I attempted to post are here.

    Is that one also still stuck in your spam filter?

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  224. That comment contained zero links. Why did it get stuck in your spam filter? And why did it take roughly 16 hours for it to get unblocked [he works for a living: you might not have noticed this, but he’s a prosecutor, media critic, blogger, and family man]? If there’s a 16-hour delay on my comments here, that is effective “blocked.” [suck it up, buttercup]

    Could just be a particular word or phrase or even the IP address you used if you used a proxy or a different computer. Askimet works in mysterious ways.

    Don’t sweat it. These things happen.

    Random (fba0b1)

  225. That actually makes sense because Jukebox said something on Volokh about one of his comments being caught up in a spam filter, I believe, because it had 4 links.

    Yup. This is exactly what I was talking about in comment #229.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  226. Random:

    For example, I’m not a big fan of ad hominem attacks, but Gibson is definitely referred to on a Truther website as an audio expert talking about how the 9/11 emergency calls could have been spoofed.

    I know you like video links. You might want to watch the video at Patterico’s link in this comment. In it, Gibson says he doesn’t think the calls were spoofed.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  227. That comment contained zero links. Why did it get stuck in your spam filter? And why did it take roughly 16 hours for it to get unblocked? If there’s a 16-hour delay on my comments here, that is effective “blocked.”

    Good Allah, what a whiny Beeyotch. Patterico lives to serve you.

    JD (c543e6)

  228. Could just be a particular word or phrase or even the IP address you used if you used a proxy or a different computer. Askimet works in mysterious ways.

    Except that I’m not using a proxy and I’m not using a different computer.

    Don’t sweat it. These things happen.

    If I find that my comments appear here after 16 hours, or never, then it seems like a waste of time to even try. Unless someone can explain what I need to do differently.

    Also, if I wasn’t banned, I wonder why JD said this: “he earned his banning here.”

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  229. Except that I’m not using a proxy and I’m not using a different computer.

    But you are using words and phrases. Chill, dude.

    Random (fba0b1)

  230. In it, Gibson says he doesn’t think the calls were spoofed.

    I already addressed that. That phone call only shows that when you buy Gibson’s integrity, you can’t even trust him to stay bought. If Gibson is claiming that Ventura misrepresented him, what has he done to call on Ventura to correct the record? And what is Gibson doing to remove his name from this truther site?

    But you are using words and phrases.

    I think everyone here is doing that, but I don’t think everyone here is on a 16-hour delay.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  231. Another forensic expert.

    http://www.owlinvestigations.com/pdf/TOM_OWEN_Vitae_01_2011.pdf

    also out of a media background. This one lists a lot of detail on his qualifications.

    History major. Career change into sound in 1985

    scable (40a8c6)

  232. You may well be banned. I’ll check.

    If you are, you should have said that you were banned, rather than implying that I specifically blocked your comment about Gibson.

    As for the 16-hour delay? I am running this by myself and I am in trial. Sometimes comments go days without being released from filters because I. Forget.

    Pay me $200,000 per year with a 20-year contract and I’ll happily release all comments promptly. Until then, this is a hobby and you should try talking to all the conservatives who have gotten their comments stuck in the filter before, because It Happens.

    Now let me check to see if you’re banned.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  233. Ah, Owen, isn’t it curious, how he and Primeau, were given remarkable credibility, despite the fact that Gilbreath admitted his analysis was no means definitive.

    narciso (494474)

  234. nor to ask someone who claims (accurately) to have been accepted as an expert witness, what trials he’s testified in.

    I’m sure if you asked him, he’d tell you. When he says he’s a Certified Audio Forensic Examiner he’s telling you that the Los Angeles County Superior Court has determined he’s competent to work in that area. Hence “I am a Certified Audio Forensic Examiner for LA Superior Court, and
    chosen by the LA County Sheriff as a contract audio / video forensic examiner for the county.”

    Gibson isn’t making this certification language up; these agencies have certified him.

    But you have to be careful (and here’s where JBG really screws the pooch and demonstrates he’s not the expert he thinks he is). Gibson earlier says in his declaration:

    I, Kent Gibson, state the following, of which I have personal knowledge: I am the founder of Forensic Audio (ForensicAudio.org), which is a 17 year old company 10 based in Los Angeles, California. Regular clients include the US Secret Service, the FBI, LA Superior Court, LA County Sheriff, LA Public Defender’s Office, Pasadena PD Homicide Assaults, Santa Clara Sheriff’s Dept, Santa Rosa County, San Bernardino
    County Sheriff’s Department and many private law offices and various other courtroom representatives.

    This clients on this list do not all use him as an Audio Forensic Examiner. For instance, the LASD contracts with him for Forensic Audio Enhancement and/or Clarification.

    He takes an audio recording that is barely useable and makes it useable. For instance, he’ll take a recording on which the voice of interest is barely audible, and enhance that voice while reducing the background noise so you can hear what’s being said. Perhaps to assist in an investigation, hence the listing for the Pasadena PD Homicide & Assault investigations. Perhaps so a jury can hear it.

    JBG is getting his panties in a wad over the ABRE/ACFEI thing because those can be recognized by any court in the nation. Gibson would have to establish his bonafides. The LASC’s appointed panel of experts are locally recognized for their expertise. Which doesn’t mean they’re not as qualified. Kent Gibson’s studio is in LA; why would he want to travel around the country testifying when he can find all the work he can handle in the local area?

    Steve57 (958caf)

  235. I found a comment where I threatened to moderate jukeboxgrad for being a jerk:

    People tend to get what they dish out here. Sometimes mostly polite people get worse than they dish out, and when that happens I try to intervene. But I do not intervene for people who act like jerks, calling people liars without bulletproof facts to back up the assertion, or demanding addresses from people and such.

    Guess which category you fall in, jukeboxgrad?

    Simon Jester has a track record here, jukeboxgrad. You do not. You want to come in guns a-blazing despite your lack of earned credibility, be my guest . . . but don’t come whining when you get the treatment you have asked for.

    I’m not above moderating people who persist in being assholes. Is that what you’re angling for? If so, just say the word and I’ll arrange it.

    This is after he made a series of insulting statements to people like: “You’re a liar. You fit in well here.”

    Speaking of which, Jukeboxgrad said at Volokh’s: “He’s a 9/11 truther.” That is just flatly false, as I have already shown:

    Gibson says that Ventura’s theory is poppycock and that there’s “no f*ckin’ way” the calls were faked. He says they didn’t tell him what their angle was going to be on the show. If Juiceboxhero is portraying Gibson as a Truther or promoting Truther theories then that is a rather typically dishonest assertion on his part.

    Turns out that’s EXACTLY what JBG was saying.

    I tolerate dissent but quickly grow impatient with blatant dishonesty such as that.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  236. I already addressed that. That phone call only shows that when you buy Gibson’s integrity, you can’t even trust him to stay bought. If Gibson is claiming that Ventura misrepresented him, what has he done to call on Ventura to correct the record? And what is Gibson doing to remove his name from this truther site?

    JBG, you’ve always had your head up your alimentary canal.

    If he’s certified by the LASD and LASC then they trust him to do the work, because they say he’s qualified, and your amateur opinion and your hallucinatory conspiracy theories don’t mean squat.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  237. I already addressed that. That phone call only shows that when you buy Gibson’s integrity, you can’t even trust him to stay bought.

    It shows that what you claimed at Volokh was a lie.

    It shows that.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  238. But I do not intervene for people who act like jerks, calling people liars without bulletproof facts to back up the assertion, or demanding addresses from people and such.

    Pat, JBG couldn’t recognize a fact if it was a shovel hitting him in the a…, uhh, face.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  239. You see leo, this is typical of jukeboxgrad’s intentional misrepresentations and outright fabrications. That’s why I am and remain suspicious of your role in facilitating his comments here. He did not ask legitimate questions at all, as is plain on their face.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  240. None of which is to say I think his audio analysis was wrong. My own ears told me it is likely true. But it isn’t playing unfair to question the expert’s credentials and record.

    Comment by Random

    His actual analysis of the audio seems totally reasonable to me. There isn’t even a hint of an attempt to stretch anything.

    And just because he said an audio could be spoofed doesn’t mean he concluded it probably was. My understanding is he told the truth: something (goofy and unlikely) is possible. And then concluded it improbable. And now some dishonest people are suggesting that means he supported the goofy and unlikely theory he actually didn’t support.

    It’s possible that someone stole my car, drove it around all day, and then returned it to the spot I left it in when I got off work. Just because it’s right where I left it doesn’t mean it’s certain it wasn’t stolen while I was at work.

    But it’s improbable. And someone saying it’s possible, but improbable, that my car was stolen when I was at work, even though I found it where I left it after work, is not supporting the theory it was stolen. They are simply dealing with the limited information they have, which in my opinion Kent is good at, but I only have these two examples to rely on for that.

    It seems like a couple of people with axes to grind are furiously searching for some basis to dissemble (I do not mean Random, here… I think Random is being reasonable).

    But does the swatting call sound like Ron? Sure does. Does the evidence prove he did? I actually think it does, but others disagree. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s unfortunate that we honest people have limited information to work with and good faith disagreements. I do think most honest folks agree with Kent’s conclusion that it’s “probable” that all those voices are the same person.

    Dustin (330eed)

  241. Juiceboxhero would rather talk about Gibsons resume than what Kimberlin, Rauhauser and Brynaert have done.

    JD (318f81)

  242. Dustin,

    Your car example is effective and appropriate, but it reminded me of this.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  243. When he says he’s a Certified Audio Forensic Examiner he’s telling you that the Los Angeles County Superior Court has determined he’s competent to work in that area

    When he says he’s a “Certified Audio Forensic Examiner” he’s using a term that’s been used by virtually no one other than him. You don’t see any problem with that fact?

    Gibson isn’t making this certification language up

    Naturally. That’s why the number of people using that term (other than him) is very close to zero.

    For instance, the LASD contracts with him for Forensic Audio Enhancement and/or Clarification.

    And outside of Gibson’s own words, there is this much corroboration for this claim: none.

    The LASC’s appointed panel of experts are locally recognized for their expertise. … If he’s certified by the LASD and LASC then they trust him to do the work, because they say he’s qualified

    One more time: you have presented no evidence that the court does any serious checking before it adds your name to that list of 250 names.

    Gibson says that Ventura’s theory is poppycock

    For some strange reason you keep repeating that and ignoring this.

    Juiceboxhero would rather talk about Gibsons resume than what Kimberlin, Rauhauser and Brynaert have done.

    For some strange reason you’re ignoring what I already said about Kimberlin.

    jukeboxgrad (609ca0)

  244. Distraction as a weapon: Bright, shiny object. Get your focus off what really matters and onto something that doesn’t, yet becomes the object of debate.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  245. 9/11 truther websites are filled with lies. They are all notorious for claiming that some expert confirms their hoax when in fact the contary is true. Only jukeboxgrad would credit anything written there.

    jukeboxgrad remains true to his reputation here as a fraud.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  246. SQUIRREL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (318f81)

  247. Gibson says that Ventura’s theory is poppycock

    For some strange reason you keep repeating that and ignoring this.

    Going with what the man actually says vs. what God Knows Who said about him on some web site is not a “strange” response.

    Anyone can say anything on a Web site. For example, you could toddle over to Volokh and call Kent Gibson a Truther. Doesn’t mean it’s true.

    Because it’s not.

    I am now going to ban you, because you lied about Kent Gibson being a Truther and you refuse to retract it and go correct your error at Volokh. In other words, you are trying to mislead people and waste our time. You are a troll.

    If you want to claim your comments are being blocked, please explain that I did so because you made a claim that is blatantly false. Have a nice life.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  248. Meanwhile in WI Gov Walker to an early lead in the recall election. Out performing marginally from his last election win in counties that are reporting.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  249. DRJ,

    You would have some perfect link for my example.

    And timely!

    Dustin (330eed)

  250. Patterico, 9/11 truther sites are notorious for claiming “expert” support when in fact, the quoted expert either said the opposite, or questioned a wholly irrelevant detail of the event narrative.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  251. Would anyone like to talk about the topic of the post, now that the troll is gone?

    As a reminder: it is a post about Brett Kimberlin’s lies.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  252. Patterico, 9/11 truther sites are notorious for claiming “expert” support when in fact, the quoted expert either said the opposite, or questioned a wholly irrelevant detail of the event narrative.

    For some strange reason, you choose to point that out when you could simply accept the assertions of the 9/11 Truther web site as gospel regarding Gibson’s opinions.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  253. Patterico, I guess its my pet peeve, but I despise people who put that half assed scrawl as a signature on important official acts – like the clown “Commissioner” who signed this utterly void warrant.

    By the way, do you know who prosecutes this case?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  254. Apparently, you were right over the target to get so much flak.

    narciso (494474)

  255. For some strange reason, you choose to point that out when you could simply accept the assertions of the 9/11 Truther web site as gospel regarding Gibson’s opinions.

    Patterico, yes, well … it is strange. I wish I knew why I do that strange thing.

    Although, in contemplating its strangeness … it might be related to the time we spent over at my site a decade back debunking the 9/11 frauds…

    SPQR (26be8b)

  256. For instance, the LASD contracts with him for Forensic Audio Enhancement and/or Clarification.

    And outside of Gibson’s own words, there is this much corroboration for this claim: none.

    Just the effin’ contracting document with the LASD that says that’s why they hired him, maggot.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  257. Expert opinions are nice, but what do you think?

    Do you agree with Kent that it’s probable these two voices are the same person? (I grant that he analyzed four samples that included these two).

    It’s getting really old seeing anyone who helps the folks seeking truth get smeared. It seems to happen to 100% of people who make a material difference. Now Kent’s a truther. Even if he’s provably not. And the rest of that crap. Why do that? Why not just link the comparison? The raw evidence is what people want to see.

    I read one comment say they didn’t sound anything alike. Then I realized it was Ron saying that. Does anyone agree?

    Dustin (330eed)

  258. APPROVAL OF MODEL MASTER AGREEMENT FOR FORENSIC AUDIO AND/OR VIDEO ENHANCEMENT/CLARIFICATION SERVICES

    SUBJECT

    The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Department) requires the services of independent contractors to assist the Department’s Commercial Crimes Bureau, Technical Operations Detail (TOD), in completing as needed Forensic Audio and/or Video Enhancement/Clarification services.

    I can’t help if you can’t butt from a hole in the ground, JBG. You never could and at this age I doubt you’ll ever learn.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  259. Pat, is this JBG dip actually an attorney? He plays one over at the Volokh Conspiracy but I just can’t buy it. Consider:

    One more time: you have presented no evidence that the court does any serious checking before it adds your name to that list of 250 names.

    This schmuck actually thinks the LASC wants to lose cases by putting just anybody on that panel of experts? And as if there are 250 audio experts.

    There are 13 total names under audio, video, and photo analysis on the LASC’s panel of experts.

    And we all know that in freakin’ LOS ANGELES you just can’t find anybody who knows how to work with audio, video, or photography. It isn’t like there’s any industry in LA or the surrounding area that uses THAT.

    Yup. The LASC just sticks the guys who graduated at the bottom of their class at North Dakota State on the list.

    Seriously, what does this irritating idiot do for a living?

    Steve57 (958caf)

  260. Trolls blogs, Steve57.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  261. 254. Meanwhile in WI Gov Walker to an early lead in the recall election. Out performing marginally from his last election win in counties that are reporting.

    Comment by SPQR — 6/5/2012 @ 6:46 pm

    The DOJ sent out people to facilitate prevent voter fraud. Only to Milwaukee, though. Heavily Democratic Milwaukee. Which I’m sure will report last, once Holder finishes counting up on his fingers and toes how many votes he needs to generate to win.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  262. “That’s why I am and remain suspicious of your role in facilitating his comments here.”

    I’d say it’s strange that knee-jerk partisans on both sides question my good faith when I refuse to pile on with them, but it’s not really. It’s just the Internet.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  263. 266. Trolls blogs, Steve57.

    Comment by SPQR — 6/5/2012 @ 7:13 pm

    Yup, that guy irritates me though. He doesn’t know squat, but he thinks he knows everything. And he just keeps repeating the nonsense he imagines to be true.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  264. leo marvin, that’s how reputations are lost.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  265. Steve57, search the archives here and elsewhere. We’ve been butting heads with the troll for a decade easy. His act hasn’t changed.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  266. You’d like to believe what we are saying, but you are just “concerned” about some of the problems with our story.

    There’s a name for that, isn’t there?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  267. What is the opinion of sincere and evenhanded question-asker leo marvin on the notion that Kent Gibson is a 9/11 Truther, a claim promoted as possibly legitimate by leo marvin before I showed it to be 100% false?

    Does leo marvin regret bringing up that false line of attack?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  268. Hmmmm, gee … a name for trolling a thread with faux “concern” … a name … maybe I’ll come up with something.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  269. Well, I’m sure Patterico will tell me how close I hit to the mark. I’m going by some work I used to do in the Navy, and later as a contractor.

    But my read on it is that the ACFEI crap (and ABRE is a subset of ACFEI for Recorded Evidence)IS NOT necessary at all to certify you as an expert in any area that the ACFEI or ABRE may certify you.

    You can get certified locally, but then you can’t easily be a traveling expert. And the local guys can be just as good. Maybe better, in certain fields and certain localities.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  270. I’d say it’s strange that knee-jerk partisans on both sides question my good faith when I refuse to pile on with them, but it’s not really. It’s just the Internet.

    Comment by leo marvin

    It doesn’t seem like good faith when the back and forth reveals one side was being pretty dang dishonest. You aren’t going to acknowledge that? It’s great to challenge prevailing opinion, but if it turns out you’re mistaken, why not note that? And yeah, I realize you’re not taking ownership of the ideas you’re presenting. Which is fine… I wouldn’t want to claim those dishonest attacks any more than you do. But you were presenting dishonest attacks on someone who tried to help reveal the truth about some nasty attacks.

    And it seems like anyone who tries to reveal the truth in this fiasco gets smeared. You should now do your part and evaluate the arguments you were sharing with us.

    Dustin (330eed)

  271. I’m trying to get through all the back and forth over Gibson, but I want to make this very quick point.

    There is a difference between a judge qualifying someone as an expert on the one hand, and the testimony of that expert getting past the Daubert standard on the other hand.

    Many witnesses are qualified as experts, but their testimony not allowed to go to the jury. I’ve read the ND Ill. decision concerning Gibson, and that was clearly a Daubert problem — it was not a problem involving whether or not Gibson was an expert.

    shipwreckedcrew (dd1bdb)

  272. “What is the opinion of sincere and evenhanded question-asker leo marvin on the notion that Kent Gibson is a 9/11 Truther, a claim promoted as possibly legitimate by leo marvin before I showed it to be 100% false?

    Does leo marvin regret bringing up that false line of attack?”

    Where did I bring up that line of attack?

    leo marvin (45619c)

  273. RE leo. I had never heard of JBH. I found him to be persuasive at first. Then distasteful. I usually assume a person is a good person. I came to think the opposite about JBH. I would think over time the doubters and testing personalities would come to the same conclusion.

    I saw the Kent Gibson question and went and spent some time looking and decided that he fits in with the industry.

    I read the ventura troofer stuff and likes others here I saw nothing suggesting Gibson was a troofer. Just a person who worked for them. Lot of troofers out there. Kanye West, Rosie Odonnell. They employ a lot of people. But aren’t a cult.

    That is where JBH goes into LALA land and should be a big RED STOP SIGN to anyone reading him. He is worse than a troofer.

    scable (40a8c6)

  274. SWC, I wasn’t really talking about Gibson’s expertise as a witness per se.

    I was pointing out that when Gibson lists the FBI, DEA, LASD, Pasadena PD, etc., as his clients he isn’t even necessarily claiming that he works as a Forensics Audio Examiner for them at all. Just that they have determined he does have expertise n the field of audio engineering that they value and can use.

    Which isn’t to take away from the expertise he may have in any other areas.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  275. Where did I bring up that line of attack?

    Comment by leo marvin

    Hey, Leo, what is the opinion of sincere and even handed Leo on the line of attack that Kent Gibson is a truther?

    It’s an easy question to answer, given you are much more familiar with this JBH’s comments than we are, and felt them so important you needed to make sure we were all talking about his comments.

    You did read his comments, right? You do realize you were promoting his claims in the strict sense of the word, right?

    Where did I bring up that line of attack?

    And let me answer your question, Leo. You promoted the truther attack in comment 48 of this thread.

    You quoted Patterico saying you could trust his content, and then said ” “Always trust content from Patterico.”

    I’d like to believe that, but it would be easier if you’d address these questions about Kent Gibson’s credentials and qualifications.

    Comment by leo marvin ”

    And then you linked a comment that said this:

    I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Kent Gibson, Frey’s so-called “forensic audio expert,” is a charlatan. I reach that conclusion based on the following observations:

    – He’s a 9/11 truther. He appeared on Jesse Ventura’s national cable show, helping promote the idea that cell phone calls on 9/11 were faked.

    [and a bunch of other smears I don’t want to promote]

    Leo, how come you deny bringing this up?

    Dustin (330eed)

  276. Some of us are amateurs here. We can be confused by any legal talk as sounding gloriously concise and encompassing. The proof is in the drift of the facts and what one latches onto. JBH has latched onto some bad ideas.

    scable (40a8c6)

  277. JBH has latched onto some bad ideas.

    No, scable. He doesn’t latch onto bad ideas; he spawns them.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  278. Dustin I think Leo was trying to understand JBH’s opposition to Patterico and given both an even due. JBH had trouble bringing the topic here and other people brought it for him. The long thread at Volokh is insightful into the workings of the mind of JBH.

    There is a certain contrary psychology at work here where with people I think that even JBH might be a good guy, but he feels the earnest need to side against the good choice. Freudian IMO. Glass is always half empty never half full.

    scable (40a8c6)

  279. “It doesn’t seem like good faith when the back and forth reveals one side was being pretty dang dishonest.”

    It’s funny how what gets labeled “dishonest” so often evokes the old saying, “where you stand depends on where you sit.” You may not be aware of it, but what you have here is a pretty effective echo chamber, and echo chambers have an amazing way of fostering confirmation bias. I see lots of things here I could call “dishonest” by the standards being applied to jukeboxgrad, but I don’t use the word that casually. I believe most of the people here, as elsewhere, sincerely believe what they’re saying. If you want to call jukeboxgrad dishonest, go ahead. He’s not here to argue with you. If you want to question my sincerity, go ahead with that too. Life’s too short.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  280. It is honest/dishonest to claim Gibon is a 9/11 Truther?

    Leo?

    JD (318f81)

  281. I’ve gone to court PRO SE. The Judge laughed at me. The plaintiffs lawyer told the judge, don’t worry your honor this will all be over in 5 minutes. It was. The judge didn’t even want to hear me talk. Eye opening. I watched other PRO SE defendants the next few days suffer the same.

    I went PRO SE because I was out of work and the County court help pages reccomended it as an alternative.

    I now look as PRO SE as just a way to abuse the middle and lower income classes. no one should even attempt it if there is risk involved. The $$$ lawyer will always be better, if just to console ones that all that could be done was done.

    scable (40a8c6)

  282. leo, did you read any of the links that scable dug up last night. Did you read the wide range of areas within the field of audio engineering analysis in which Kent Gibson works, and the wide ranging number of agencies that use his services, both outside the courtroom as well as inside it?

    JBH is the kind of guy who does a google search and declares himself an expert based upon a thin veneer of exposure to a subject.

    Gibson has actually been appointed to the Los Angeles County Panel of Expert Witnesses.

    Question: do you think that’s something a court takes lightly, as JBH seems to think?

    After all the success or failure of a case rides on their expertise.

    Check for yourself JBH’s honesty.

    When I said Gibson works for the LASD in audio clarification/enhancement he said:

    And outside of Gibson’s own words, there is this much corroboration for this claim: none.

    Here’s the quiz question: do you think the title of this one document that names him as a contractor to the LASD provides any corroboration for that claim?

    APPROVAL OF MODEL MASTER AGREEMENT FOR FORENSIC AUDIO AND/OR VIDEO ENHANCEMENT/CLARIFICATION SERVICES

    Apparently Gibson contracts his services to the LASD in other areas as well, but do you see any corroboration for that claim anywhere around here?

    Steve57 (958caf)

  283. jbg — if it makes you rest easier, I’ve had comments caught in the spam filter and I have been a guest blogger here in the past.

    shipwreckedcrew (dd1bdb)

  284. Dustin I think Leo was trying to understand JBH’s opposition to Patterico and given both an even due.

    That’s fair. I think the way JBH presented the smear was very effective and likely to fool many. And when you check up on what he’s saying, you realize what’s going on and get irritated.

    It’s funny how what gets labeled “dishonest” so often evokes the old saying, “where you stand depends on where you sit.”

    From where I stand, your comment 48 directly brought up the truther smear.

    when it was pointed out that this smear is dishonest (And indeed it’s quite dishonest) you were asked what you thought of the matter. Instead of answering the straightforward question, you forgot that you even brought this matter up, so I helpfully showed you where you had.

    And you ignored the issue entirely, and accused us of being an echo chamber.

    This is a blog that welcomes different points of view, actually. But you aren’t even presenting a point of view. Am I mistaken? What’s your view on the truther smear you brought up in comment 48?

    If you want to question my sincerity, go ahead with that too. Life’s too short.

    I don’t even know what this means. If you would like to express your sincere view on the ‘questions’ you linked in comment 48, many of which seem dishonest, please do so.

    Dustin (330eed)

  285. And my comments wind up in the spam filter all the time.

    Sometimes I think fate is giving me a hint.

    Dustin (330eed)

  286. Dustin,

    By linking to jukeboxgrad’s comment, I wasn’t endorsing everything he said. I was directing attention to it because it contains valid questions. If you read that Volokh thread you’ll see I disagreed with jukeboxgrad on some of his main conclusions in that comment. But now, by linking to it, I’m presumed to have changed my mind about all the parts I disagreed with in the same thread? Fine. Go ahead and believe that. And remember, I’m the one with an agenda.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  287. lol Dustin, yes, me too.

    Random (fba0b1)

  288. Didn’t realize he was banned before posting 290. I’m guessing he was exactly what Patrick ID’d him has.

    shipwreckedcrew (dd1bdb)

  289. I’m very glad that leo is not casually calling people here dishonest based upon where he sits or his lack of familiarity with juiceboxhero’s commenting history or acknowledgement of today’s factual error’s on JBH’s part, which we are all awaiting from leo.

    It’s those baby steps that count.

    btw, is jbh picking up on a qritiq meme or is qritiq picking up on a jbh meme on Gibson?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  290. I don’t enjoy arguments about concern trolls.

    I would rather focus on those who aren’t playing games and just want to opine and discuss things other than their vague concern they aren’t actually agreeing with so much as sharing.

    Dustin (330eed)

  291. It is honest/dishonest to claim Gibon is a 9/11 Truther?

    Leo?

    Crickets

    JD (318f81)

  292. It would be a touch easier to take Leo as not disingenuous, if he and juiceboxhero didn’t have a discussion in the Volokh thread about how to strategically place their “concerns” in the commest here so as to achieve maximum attention.

    JD (318f81)

  293. btw, is jbh picking up on a qritiq meme or is qritiq picking up on a jbh meme on Gibson?

    Comment by daleyrocks

    It’s hard to tell, but I think jbh had some kind of grievance against an AW four years ago, and this is his chance to get some payback.

    There are a lot of losers on the internet. Some of them are not part of the true group of goons, but hope they can get a kick in as an innocent man is down for the moment. Just the impression I get.

    Dustin (330eed)

  294. I wouldn’t call Gibson a Truther, and I never have called Gibson a Truther. That doesn’t mean someone who believes Gibson is a Truther and calls him one is dishonest.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  295. JD, if you want to believe that my offer to link his comment in the next thread that wasn’t probably already dead is evidence of my dishonesty or insincerity or whatever, good luck with that.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  296. if he and juiceboxhero didn’t have a discussion in the Volokh thread about how to strategically place their “concerns”

    Oh, they coordinated dropping these smears here? And now Leo refuses to even address those concerns? But in comment 48, he said it was a matter of establishing trust that Patterico address those concerns.

    Is it not a matter of trust that Leo address his own ‘concerns’? I see now that Leo thinks life is too short to answer such silly queries.

    Well, OK, Leo. Life is too short for this.

    Dustin (330eed)

  297. Cross posted.

    Dustin (330eed)

  298. “Is it not a matter of trust that Leo address his own ‘concerns’? I see now that Leo thinks life is too short to answer such silly queries.”

    Dustin – We can never get enough passive aggressive concerned commenters who do not casually call people dishonest at this blog.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  299. I wouldn’t call Gibson a Truther, and I never have called Gibson a Truther. That doesn’t mean someone who believes Gibson is a Truther and calls him one is dishonest.

    BS. You have to create evidence to assert he is a Twoofer. It is dishonest to claim he is a Twoofer. It is really just that simple.

    JD (318f81)

  300. Oh, they coordinated dropping these smears here? And now Leo refuses to even address those concerns?

    What are you even talking about? This is the kind of crappola that makes even attempting a conversation on a partisn blog often a complete waste of time. As I explained before, I suggested jukeboxgrad post his questions here. He said he tried, but was blocked. I gave it a try, but jukeboxgrad informed me the next morning that I’d embedded the wrong link. So I said I’d try again, but I suspected the thread I’d originally posted to was already dead, so I’d wait for another appropriate thread where the comment was more likely to be seen. If you find a nefarious conspiracy in that I’m amazed you don’t think everyone who disagrees with you is a 9/11 Truther.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  301. Lets’ call the wretched breed what they arel 9/11 denialist, or Bin Laden denialists, and that single thing puts Ventura outside the sphere of respectable men, How did this even become a question,

    In that light, we have look at all those that have permitted Kimberlin, to evade his full level of accountability, from Fidelity to the Tides and Soros foundations, with contempt,

    narciso (494474)

  302. And yes, JD, posting that, without getting into a point by point exchange myself proves I’m a (paid, obviously) Brett Kimberlin apologist.

    Yeah. You are above the fray. Just asking the tough questions.

    JD (318f81)

  303. One really has to wonder how to look at a thread like this, and precedents of threatening law enforcement, private citizens, etc, and quibble with the evidence,

    narciso (494474)

  304. leo,

    You say you are acting as a neutral go-between and I accept that, but the need for a moderator is over. I think most people reading these comments understand jukeboxgrad’s position and the opposing opinions.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  305. I wouldn’t call Gibson a Truther, and I never have called Gibson a Truther. That doesn’t mean someone who believes Gibson is a Truther and calls him one is dishonest.

    BS. You have to create evidence to assert he is a Twoofer. It is dishonest to claim he is a Twoofer. It is really just that simple.

    Comment by JD — 6/5/2012 @ 8:28 pm

    Look, JD, he linked to a truther website using Gibson as an expert website. Now, the truther website may be lying and probably is, but not everyone is an expert in the way of truther websites. He could be mistaken, but sincere.

    Further, there are two conflicting bits of evidence, and if a person assigns greater weight to one than the other, or just says he believes this may be evidence of a change in position or trying to have it both ways, that doesn’t make the person who draws a different conclusion than you necessarily a liar.

    Anyway, the more important bit to me is that Gibson seemed to mash being a “certified” LA superior court witness together with working for a bunch of official alphabet soup federal agencies, but for most of them he did NOT work in an “expert witness” kind of capacity. And his website didn’t make that clear.

    So while that’s par for the course for a resume — trying to make yourself look good — it doesn’t tell me who really deems him an expert witness. Further, in what court cases was his testimony accepted (rather than rejected!) as an expert witness?

    These are common questions expert witnesses answer and they’re not unfair ones.

    Is this a peripheral issue? Sure. But by using a particular expert, Patterico opens up questions about the expert. If there are good answers great, but if they’re only mediocre or poor answers, don’t shoot the questioner.

    It is OK to ask questions, then let people draw their conclusions based on the answers.

    Random (fba0b1)

  306. *Look, JD, he linked to a truther website using Gibson as an expert website.

    Random (fba0b1)

  307. Leo is an unbiased neutral observer just asking tough questions

    “His insinuations about Kimberlin can’t cost him any credibility, at least with me, because I already take him to be a serial insinuator for partisan purposes.”

    JD (318f81)

  308. Look, JD, he linked to a truther website using Gibson as an expert website. Now, the truther website may be lying and probably is, but not everyone is an expert in the way of truther websites. He could be mistaken, but sincere.

    So Twoofers are crazy jack holes, but in this instance we should believe the crazies, even though the person in question disagrees with them?

    JD (318f81)

  309. These are common questions expert witnesses answer and they’re not unfair ones.

    It’s fine to discuss. I just note Leo is not actually discussing it. He’s tossing in links to accusations the guy is something he’s obviously not, and then refusing to even acknowledge that the accusation was false.

    In other words, Leo didn’t want to admit that Kent is no truther. That the allegation was not fair. That’s not neutral. It’s obnoxious.

    Dustin (330eed)

  310. It is OK to ask questions, then let people draw their conclusions based on the answers.

    Savage any straw people recently?! They are not just asking questions. Their fevered responses definitively show that. Juiceboxhero is invested in this.

    JD (318f81)

  311. DRJ,

    I didn’t say I was a neutral go-between, much less a moderator. I was an interested go-between, with sympathies for each side. What I wasn’t was a proxy for either side.

    But my experience here reminds me why I generally avoid partisan echo chambers.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  312. I’m not saying Leo is an unbiased neutral observer. I don’t know if there is any such thing. Few here, anyway.

    I’m just saying that this guy, jukebox, is not unbiased. He’s probably biased on the other side. But that doesn’t make him a liar if he believes evidence X over evidence Y. Necessarily.

    Do you think everyone who splits on a jury or an election or whatever is a liar? Rather than some of them just being wrong?

    But even if the Truther thing is B.S., and that looks likely, the questions about what capacity he served the various agencies that he mashed together with being an approved LA Superior Court witness are valid, as is what cases he’s been an expert witness in.

    I don’t see how you can argue that.

    Random (fba0b1)

  313. “So while that’s par for the course for a resume — trying to make yourself look good — it doesn’t tell me who really deems him an expert witness.”

    Random – It may have escaped your notice that Patterico is not using Gibson in a court situation at the moment so while your questions may be interesting, there is not a court case to which they currently apply. That his work is good enough for law enforcement agencies is an issue for you is your problem.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  314. *approved LA Superior Court witness expert

    Random (fba0b1)

  315. “It’s fine to discuss. I just note Leo is not actually discussing it.”

    What do you think I’m avoiding, Dustin? What do you want me to discuss?

    leo marvin (45619c)

  316. Do you think everyone who splits on a jury or an election or whatever is a liar? Rather than some of them just being wrong?

    Inapt hypothetical. Why try to change from the known facts of the specific claim?

    As to the resume mishmash, who gives a flying f@ck. He is designated in LA County, no? But for some reason, because you and Leo and juiceboxhero have “questions” we should now question that? Steve explained this quite concisely upthread. That you and Leo and juiceboxhero choose to ignore same, makes no difference to me.

    I didn’t need expert testimony to listen to those recordings and hear the same person.

    JD (318f81)

  317. As to the resume mishmash, who gives a flying f@ck. He is designated in LA County, no? But for some reason, because you and Leo and juiceboxhero have “questions” we should now question that?

    I’m not saying Gibson is an inexperienced, uneducated moron. But should I or anyone fall down on our news and believe everyone on that particular list? It’s a valid question to ask how much experience they have in this capacity and where such experience has been recognized and used. It helps one evaluate an expert.

    That isn’t a hard to fathom concept.

    Random (fba0b1)

  318. I think we should apply Daubert to any citation anyone uses to buttress a point made on the Internet. If their source cannot pass Daubert, the author is lying.

    JD (318f81)

  319. the questions about what capacity he served the various agencies that he mashed together with being an approved LA Superior Court witness are valid, as is what cases he’s been an expert witness in.

    Valid? I guess. We could also demand Patterico give us his GPA in Poli Sci every time he talks about an election. It wouldn’t be invalid.

    But this Kent guy’s work is solid. He is not stretching the case. He is explaining everything in sensible ways. And his results sure do line up with most folks’ observations.

    I think at some point it looks like someone like JBH was on a mission to destroy someone’s reputation, and where they weren’t provably wrong they were simply flailing. But sure, some of that flailing was in a vaguely legitimate direction.

    But has anyone actually backed up the claim he’s a “charlatan”, to use JBH’s assertion? Does Leo think JBH should establish his trust with all these claims and attacks?

    Doesn’t this seem like a distraction? Everything dug up so far confirms that Kent is as he claimed to be, and it’s getting old seeing good people put through the ringer with suspicion by people who pose as ‘critics’ or ‘skeptics’ or ‘moderators’.

    Dustin (330eed)

  320. But should I or anyone fall down on our news and believe everyone on that particular list?

    Could you point out where anyone suggested you do so?

    JD (318f81)

  321. Well in that case, JD, it’s a valid question to ask where a judge has accepted his testimony and methods, and where not, and compare the instances of each.

    Random (fba0b1)

  322. leo,

    There have been many comments on this topic, and a fair amount of information. Haven’t you read enough to reach an opinion regarding jukeboxgrad’s claims?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  323. Are you tone deaf, random?

    JD (318f81)

  324. Unless I’ve missed it, Gibson hasn’t refused to provide information about his clients or the cases in which he’s appeared as an expert witness. Just because information isn’t readily available on the internet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  325. Are you letting your biases, both political and for our host, cloud your judgement, JD?

    It’s a simple question with what should be a simple answer. “Gibson has served as an expert in identifying voices in these cases: x, y, z. He has worked for these agencies as an expert in identifying voices: A, B. He has worked for the following agencies doing voice work of other types: n, o, p. In addition, Gibson has had experience identifying voices using standard plus proprietary software on a confidential basis in numerous other cases.”

    Something like that.

    Rather than a confusing mishmash where you don’t know what experience he’s had and what trials have actually accepted his expert testimony.

    Random (fba0b1)

  326. Unless I’ve missed it, Gibson hasn’t refused to provide information about his clients or the cases in which he’s appeared as an expert witness. Just because information isn’t readily available on the internet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    Comment by DRJ — 6/5/2012 @ 9:14 pm

    True, DRJ, but that goes to highlight the relevance of the question, not serve as fodder for dismissing it.

    Random (fba0b1)

  327. DRJ,

    Which claims?

    leo marvin (45619c)

  328. Call him and ask him, random. This is a blog, not Court. Patterico hired him out-of-pocket, to buttress a point.

    Maybe you should offer your resume writing skills to Gibson, so he can avoid this in the future.

    JD (318f81)

  329. leo,

    Pick one.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  330. This is ladies and gentleman, the Chewbacca defense,
    ‘winning the future’ does this have to do with Kimberlin’s track record of harassment, that’s the issue,. This behavior is not unlike how Obama won his first race in ’95, and how his win was facilitated in ’04, it’s the mountain of offal, that was directed toward the only one of the GOP’s that thought the election was worth winning, there
    were even more personally wretched nazguls than Kimberlin, if that was possible.

    narciso (494474)

  331. Because juiceboxhero has not heard of something, it raises sinister and important questions that bring this entire he said she said nonsense into question.

    JD (318f81)

  332. Are you letting your biases, both political and for our host, cloud your judgement, JD?

    It’s a simple question with what should be a simple answer. “Gibson has served as an expert in identifying voices in these cases: x, y, z. He has worked for these agencies as an expert in identifying voices: A, B. He has worked for the following agencies doing voice work of other types: n, o, p. In addition, Gibson has had experience identifying voices using standard plus proprietary software on a confidential basis in numerous other cases.”

    Something like that.

    Rather than a confusing mishmash where you don’t know what experience he’s had and what trials have actually accepted his expert testimony.

    Comment by Random — 6/5/2012 @ 9:16 pm

    Dude, it’s not easy to just come up with a list of cases for any of those names on that LASC expert panel of witnesses just searching.

    It isn’t like cases are filed by docket no., case no., expert witness. And it isn’t like they update their online resume everytime they testify.

    Why don’t you wait until morning and call and ask, if you can’t live without the information. Or, better yet, why don’t you call the LASC and ask what the criteria are for an audio analyst to be appointed to the panel of expert witnesses and to be certified as an forensic audio examiner.

    Steve57 (958caf)

  333. DRJ, I already said what I think about the Truther issue. As for Gibson’s qualifications generally, I think the jury is still out. When you remove the confusing cross-disciplinary puffery, it’s not how much, if any, meaningful experience he has in the relevant field (i.e., audio analysis, not enhancement).

    leo marvin (45619c)

  334. Why don’t you wait until morning and call and ask, if you can’t live without the information. Or, better yet, why don’t you call the LASC and ask what the criteria are for an audio analyst to be appointed to the panel of expert witnesses and to be certified as an forensic audio examiner.

    Crazy talk. We should assume that the serious questions raised demand an immediate answer, and absent that, calls into credibility the entire issue.

    JD (318f81)

  335. This is ladies and gentleman, the Chewbacca defense,

    narciso, no offense, but that’s lame.

    I’m opposed to Kimberlin, think that Gibson is right and that Neal Rauhauser probably did place Patterico’s SWATting call, etc. But asking about why an expert is on a Truther website isn’t unreasonable, and being directed to an audio where the expert disclaims the Truther side of things is a good answer.

    Similarly, asking what agencies the expert has done what kind of work for is fair, rather than mashing them all together with being on a list of LA Superior Court experts, which probably isn’t that hard to get on. But I accept he’s on it. So a relevant — indeed very logical — question, is what cases, if any, has the expert had his expert testimony accepted? This, properly answered, should enhance Gibson’s credibility. It might be meant by jukebox as a “gotcha”, but by no means does it have to end that way.

    But it really depends on the answer!

    Random (fba0b1)

  336. EDIT: … it’s not clear how much…

    leo marvin (45619c)

  337. But it really depends on the answer!

    So go get the answer, rather than demanding an answer from people that don’t have access to the serious information you require for Patterico to make a point.

    JD (318f81)

  338. Because juiceboxhero has not heard of something, it raises sinister and important questions that bring this entire he said she said nonsense into question.

    Comment by JD —

    No kidding.

    Why would anyone take these ‘important’ questions seriously at this point? Just because it’s logically valid? I don’t get it.

    I didn’t think his claim was as strong as the evidence, anyway. He was being conservative (which is fine). And then he was smeared. Why not focus on the lies Kimberlin told, the circumstantial case that Ron was a major suspect as the swatter, and the swatting audio that doesn’t sound any less like Ron if you presume Kent is just really good at Karaoke?

    It would be something else if someone actually backed up the “charlatan” smear that Leo said was a matter of trust that Patterico answer. And sure… whether or not he’s a charlatan is valid to whether we should respect his report. But come on.

    Dustin (330eed)

  339. Crazy talk. We should assume that the serious questions raised demand an immediate answer, and absent that, calls into credibility the entire issue.

    No, of course not. It’s 9:40 pm LA time. But that doesn’t mean he ought to be dismissed out of hand for asking that question.

    The Truther one was well answered. It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the ones about Gibson’s relevant experience and where he’s been accepted as a voice identification expert were answered, in due time, too.

    Random (fba0b1)

  340. I’m opposed to Kimberlin, think that Gibson is right and that Neal Rauhauser probably did place Patterico’s SWATting call, etc.

    I’m sure you meant Ron Brynaert rather than Neal. I don’t think there even is an audio sample of Neal yet.

    Dustin (330eed)

  341. It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the ones about Gibson’s relevant experience and where he’s been accepted as a voice identification expert were answered, in due time, too.

    Chop chop. We ill await your report from your call to LASCAUX in the morning.

    JD (318f81)

  342. So go get the answer

    It would be kind of easy for Gibson to ignore or stonewall me. It makes more sense to ask that question of the paying client of the expert, who is hardly a naive sort, and would now how to get that kind of info (he’d have done it hundreds of times). He could simply pop an email to Gibson, after all.

    Random (fba0b1)

  343. I’m sure you meant Ron Brynaert rather than Neal. I don’t think there even is an audio sample of Neal yet.

    Ooops, yes, I did. And my apologies to Neal for the error.

    Random (fba0b1)

  344. Juiceboxhero did not just question the mishmash resume, random. He asserted Gibson is a charlatan, based primarily on his inability to understand terms in a field he has no experience in, and no understand of the processes Steve57 outlined for him above. So, juiceboxhero is not just asking serious questions, he is making assertions.

    JD (318f81)

  345. Random, who cares about this?

    Obviously some jerk tried to smear Kent as a charlatan and has nothing to back it up with.

    Knowing everything there is to know about one of the people being smeared does not strike me as necessary, now that it’s established he is an LA Superior court expert on this subject, and particularly given how the evidence speaks for itself anyway.

    Dustin (330eed)

  346. Well that was certainly JBG’s tactic.

    narciso (494474)

  347. Note I did not say it’s invalid.

    I just don’t see its importance.

    Dustin (330eed)

  348. Gibson is good enough for LACS, but not for a random blog commenter.

    JD (318f81)

  349. Random,

    I have no idea about Gibson’s history pr experience as an expert witness in trials. However, it’s my understanding the law enforcement investigation of Patterico’s SWATting had ended so he didn’t need an expert witness. He needed an expert analyst who could find answers, and Gibson did that. (Of course, since he’s listed as an expert at the LA County Superior Court, my guess is Gibson can do both.)

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  350. Juiceboxhero did not just question the mishmash resume, random.

    I know, that was more my thing. I found that annoying.

    He asserted Gibson is a charlatan, based primarily on his inability to understand terms in a field he has no experience in, and no understand of the processes Steve57 outlined for him above.

    And many of his claims were overblown or already parried. Maybe they will ALL be parried. I’m cool with that.

    I’m just saying that the question of which cases was his testimony accepted, which agencies did he do voice ID work as opposed to some other kind of audio work, well, they’re valid.

    At the end of the day, maybe the answer strengthens Gibson’s credibility. Or not. Either way, nothing wrong with those particular questions. They are the sort you’d expect an expert to answer, after all.

    Random (fba0b1)

  351. They are the sort you’d expect an expert to answer, after all

    Then ask him.

    JD (318f81)

  352. Where did I bring up that line of attack?

    leo marvin,

    In your very first comment on this thread?

    Have you forgotten that?

    The comment YOU linked? The VERY FIRST POINT made in that comment?

    That would be that Gibson is a 9/11 Truther.

    YOU are the person who brought that discussion into this blog.

    YOU.

    Now you act like you never did.

    Your gee-whiz-me? style reminds me why I try to avoid partisan commenters who pretend like they are nonpartisan commenters who are put off by partisan blogs.

    In case you missed it, I’m talking about YOU.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  353. Then ask him.

    Concur.

    By the way there is an audio sample of Neal online. There is also one I have on my work voice mail, since the stalking lunatic called me at work.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  354. At the end of the day, maybe the answer strengthens Gibson’s credibility. Or not. Either way, nothing wrong with those particular questions. They are the sort you’d expect an expert to answer, after all.

    I mean Patterico — who was the victim here, I don’t by any means forget — is basing his suspicion that Ron Brynaert is the one who SWATted him in part on Gibson’s expert opinion. Questions about Gibson’s expertise are fair dinkum and should be of some importance to Patterico.

    At the end of the day, I think Gibson is right. HOWEVER, I have seen some resumes / self-descriptions of expert witnesses (not many, but some) and I do remember them being more informative and easier to understand. So that makes me wonder is Gibson’s resume a bit confusing because (1) he’s not a great writer, but has tons of accepted, relevant experience (2) he’s really a talented voice expert, but mostly has transferable skills from working in other areas so is trying to obscure his lack of relevant experience by mixing elements of his experiences together or (3) not as good or tested as he bills himself to be, in which case maybe Patterico didn’t get the best deal and that’s why two judges rejected his methodology in the past?

    They all seem plausible.

    Random (fba0b1)

  355. There is also one I have on my work voice mail, since the stalking lunatic called me at work.

    Comment by Patterico —

    I should have remembered that video.

    And I forgot about the voice mail, too.

    Dustin (330eed)

  356. He needed an expert analyst who could find answers, and Gibson did that.

    Good, and either (1) or (2) above cover that. I think (2) is most likely, but could be (1) as well. But some challengers think it’s (3).

    Anyway, that’s my take on things.

    Random (fba0b1)

  357. two judges rejected his methodology in the past?

    Is 2 in a career a high number or a low number? Let’s quit acting as though 2 is a significant figure, absent context. And, DRJ outlined above that one was absolutely not a methodology question, but having samples over a decade apart.

    JD (318f81)

  358. Is 2 in a career a high number or a low number?

    To answer this, it would be good to know how many times his expert testimony has been accepted, no?

    Random (fba0b1)

  359. “I’m just saying that the question of which cases was his testimony accepted, which agencies did he do voice ID work as opposed to some other kind of audio work, well, they’re valid.”

    Random – Say it again a few more time, it never gets old.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  360. There’s not just the video with Neal, but also a very long boring interview about some environmental crap.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  361. “To answer this, it would be good to know how many times his expert testimony has been accepted, no?”

    Random – What would you do if you were in possession of that information?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  362. Random,

    I don’t disagree with your desire for more information, but I don’t understand why you seem to think Gibson has an obligation to provide the information publicly and online. After all, Gibson says at his website:

    “I will be happy to provide references from Los Angeles attorneys who have used my services.”

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  363. The Neal information is interesting.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  364. I don’t disagree with your desire for more information, but I don’t understand why you seem to think Gibson has an obligation to provide the information publicly and online.

    If he’s unwilling to do so, then I have no way of knowing whether he knows his stuff or not. Therefore, I have to dismiss his opinion, even if it accords with my own.

    Random (fba0b1)

  365. Where has Gibson said he is unwilling to do so? He specifically says he will provide references. You simply want him to do it online, where you can publicly access it. Why should he have to do that?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  366. a very long boring interview about some environmental crap.

    Comment by Patterico

    “Stranded Wind” always seemed like a euphemism for blowhard to me. I wish that was the worst I could say about him.

    Random, what’s your opinion on the validity of knowing more about Kent’s resume? I am unclear on this.

    Dustin (330eed)

  367. Random – What would you do if you were in possession of that information?

    Just use it as a rule of thumb judgement call. If a guy’s been accepted as an expert witness far and wide and only had 2 judges not accept their testimony, that says one thing. If a guy has been in say 3 or 4 trials as an expert, and had 50-66.7% of judges reject his testimony, well then, that’s of some interest.

    Random (fba0b1)

  368. He’s not unwilling to provide the information. Clearly, as linked at 369, he’s willing to provide the information – it’s just in a manner not to your liking.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  369. What if 80% of his cases settle before trial because his analysis is so strong and convincing? Or the audio evidence isn’t in dispute so it isn’t an issue at trial?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  370. Where has Gibson said he is unwilling to do so? He specifically says he will provide references. You simply want him to do it online, where you can publicly access it. Why should he have to do that?

    Perhaps his client could ask him for permission to relay the references, and clear the air. If not all references, then at least the trials he’s been acccepted as an expert witness at. At a minimum.

    Also, it would be of relevance to know which of these agencies he says use him regularly use him for his ability to identify voices accurately vs. some other function.

    It can hardly be against Mr. Gibson’s self-interest to have details of his established credibility publicly known, assuming he’s been well-established as a credible expert.

    Random (fba0b1)

  371. Perhaps, too, Random, Gibson may be so in demand and provide such quality services, that he doesn’t need to display such information on the internet. Have you considered he may be in the very enviable position of being able to be particular and choosy about to whom he wants to give out such information?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  372. What if 80% of his cases settle before trial because his analysis is so strong and convincing? Or the audio evidence isn’t in dispute so it isn’t an issue at trial?

    Then he could say that.

    Random (fba0b1)

  373. In the face of discussions like we’ve seen today, both here and at Volokh, I can think of many reasons why Mr. Gibson might not want the details of his business paraded on the internet.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  374. Maybe he will say that, Random, or some other explanation. Perhaps that information he discusses with clients and potential clients, but not anonymous people on the internet.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  375. Perhaps, too, Random, Gibson may be so in demand and provide such quality services, that he doesn’t need to display such information on the internet. Have you considered he may be in the very enviable position of being able to be particular and choosy about to whom he wants to give out such information?

    Comment by Dana — 6/5/2012 @ 10:18 pm

    Alright, but.

    It’s entirely possible that judges and juries swoon when he gets into a courtroom, and that federal agency employees: male, female, straight, gay, bi, transgender, and other get a little buzz on when he walks in the room as his innate confidence overwhelms them. Yet if Patterico wants his readership, both regular and issue-specific, to accept Gibson’s opinion as meaningful, then we ought to have sound reasons for that.

    Random (fba0b1)

  376. That’s my position. I’m done replying on that, for tonight at least. Carry on.

    Random (fba0b1)

  377. DRJ 381: as the kids say, oh, snap!

    A beautiful if pointed reply.

    Simon Jester (8a649c)

  378. Random:

    Yet if Patterico wants his readership, both regular and issue-specific, to accept Gibson’s opinion as meaningful, then we ought to have sound reasons for that.

    I think it’s generous of Patterico to share his expert analyst’s opinion with his readers.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  379. “That would be that Gibson is a 9/11 Truther.

    YOU are the person who brought that discussion into this blog.

    YOU.

    Now you act like you never did.”

    Patrick, as I’ve explained many times, the comment I linked to wasn’t mine. Nor was it an a la carte menu from which I could pick the questions I liked and leave behind the rest. If you think I was endorsing everything in the comment, I’ll repeat for the nth time my suggestion that you read the whole Volokh thread. It’s littered with my disagreements with jukeboxgrad over much of what’s in the comment. If you think I should have issued a disclaimer to that effect in my first comment, I apologize that that didn’t occur to me when I was uncertain I’d be able to get your attention at all. If, as I’m starting to suspect, you just feel like shooting the messenger, have fun. It’s your blog.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  380. Yet if Patterico wants his readership, both regular and issue-specific, to accept Gibson’s opinion as meaningful, then we ought to have sound reasons for that.

    The fact that Patterico himself has a level of respect and trust in Gibson’s analysis certainly holds water for me, and I suspect others here as well.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  381. “The fact that Patterico himself has a level of respect and trust in Gibson’s analysis certainly holds water for me, and I suspect others here as well.”

    That you don’t appreciate why that’s a problem is troubling.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  382. http://www.aes.org/events/reports/33rdConference.pdf

    Gibson giving a paper at AES conference and watching line dancers

    scable (40a8c6)

  383. I understand why it is a problem for you, leo marvin. I stand by my point made.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  384. Well said, Dana, but I think some are missing the point.

    I doubt even a single person buys the concept that Ron is the swatter merely because some expert found a spectrum match (or whatever the hell that was).

    They heard the two voices. It sounds like the same person. We all recognize voice all the time. If you already are familiar with Ron’s voice, you recognize it when you hear the swatter. If you hear the swattings many times, when you hear Ron’s voice, you recognize it instantly.

    That plus the circumstantial case, such as Ron being on the phone (other than the couple of minutes he was away… which I think lines up well with a swatting call that was so rushed at the end the caller let his disguised voice slip) and Ron’s deranged comments about Pat and his spouse. Such as the Kimberlin water carrying. Such as outting Aaron and smearing him with Brett’s assault lie, knowing full well what Brett is.

    All that is a lot more impressive to me than Kent being a court certified expert, which … he is.

    Just listen to the comparison and take the expert with a grain of salt if you want, Random. It’s not a big deal because the evidence speaks for itself.

    Dustin (330eed)

  385. but I think some are deliberately missing the point.

    FTFY.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  386. I just realized JBH was warning Volokh about the “kind of people” Patterico and Aaron are when Volokh merely wants to defend free speech!

    Does that mean JBH doesn’t support free speech for a certain “kind of people”?

    Leo was saying something about an echo chamber?

    Dustin (330eed)

  387. Patrick, as I’ve explained many times, the comment I linked to wasn’t mine. Nor was it an a la carte menu from which I could pick the questions I liked and leave behind the rest. If you think I was endorsing everything in the comment, I’ll repeat for the nth time my suggestion that you read the whole Volokh thread. It’s littered with my disagreements with jukeboxgrad over much of what’s in the comment. If you think I should have issued a disclaimer to that effect in my first comment, I apologize that that didn’t occur to me when I was uncertain I’d be able to get your attention at all. If, as I’m starting to suspect, you just feel like shooting the messenger, have fun. It’s your blog.

    You know what you are, leo marvin?

    You’re a victim.

    A victim of the mean blog owner here.

    It’s a shame, because you’re just raising legitimate questions in a partisan echo chamber.

    It’s admirable, really, how you’ll put up with all our crap.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  388. Luckily leo marvin never raised the issue of Kent Gibson being a 9/11 Truther.

    Except that he did link that bullshit issue. And he was the first to do so. And he said that juiceboxhero had “legitimate and well-founded” issues.

    The very first of which (“KENT GIBSON IS A 9/11 TWOOFER!!!”) turns out to be a blatant lie.

    Why, oh why, does everyone want to shoot the poor innocent messenger????

    Patterico (feda6b)

  389. leo marvin:

    Repeat after me:

    “jukeboxgrad’s very first complaint was blatantly false.”

    Say it.

    It’s true! So why won’t you say it?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  390. Yet if Patterico wants his readership, both regular and issue-specific, to accept Gibson’s opinion as meaningful, then we ought to have sound reasons for that.

    The fact that Patterico himself has a level of respect and trust in Gibson’s analysis certainly holds water for me, and I suspect others here as well.

    No doubt!

    However, I’m thinking Patterico wants to persuade skeptical readers as well, but especially strangers and irregular readers of the blog.

    I for one think Patterico is right: The fact he was on the phone with Brynaert at that time, Brynaert’s behavior in the past and subsequently, Brynaert’s voice and diction in recordings of him compared to the Patterico SWATting call, and simply Patterico’s intuitions in real time and as the man affected by this lead me to that conclusion.

    But undecided readers; whether media, law enforcement, interested lawyers, or laypeople; who probably aren’t those of us commenting here for hours; are going to look at both sides of this. And if they say someone at other sites making hay of Gibson’s qualifications and relevant experiences, and the best response we’ve got is maybe Gibson doesn’t want to talk about them much publicly, well that’s not going to be a score in our favor with such readers.

    Random (fba0b1)

  391. *say see

    Random (fba0b1)

  392. Kent Gibson does and audio interview after the Ventura show where he say the 9/11 morphing tech he exhibited to Venture was not possible to use during 9/11. He called the trooferness poppycock.

    imo JBH just read gibson/ventura and ran with it. He still repeatedly is shouting out Kent Gibson is a charlatan because he appeared on a jesse ventura show. He calls gibson a troofer with absolutely zero evidence. why? because it fits his dreams.

    Who would you believe JBH or Gibson?
    JBH or Patterico?

    JBH here functions as a kimberlin surrogate, a concern troll, no one should even give him the time of day.

    JBH has been proven to be shallow here, quick to accuse, slow to get off his high horse. he is trying to lie loudly and often and bully his skewed opinion into the minds of anyone gullible enough to listen to him. AKA he is trying to con you. Sound familiar?

    scable (40a8c6)

  393. It’s true! So why won’t you say it?

    I already said more than once that I disagree with it. For some unknown reason that’s not enough for you. You want me to say categorically that it’s false. Sorry, but it’s not that kind of statment. It’s arguable, regardless of how persuasive I find the argument.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  394. “Patrick, as I’ve explained many times, the comment I linked to wasn’t mine. Nor was it an a la carte menu from which I could pick the questions I liked and leave behind the rest”

    leo – It would have been way too much effort to simply write your own questions and submit them to this partisan echo chamber and have people question your impartiality in these matters compared to the cumbersome manner in which you chose to proceed.

    Of course we understand.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  395. It’s a shame, because you’re just raising legitimate questions in a partisan echo chamber.

    That you think this is so laughably wrong is kind of sad.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  396. “What if 80% of his cases settle before trial because his analysis is so strong and convincing?”

    DRJ – This one seems to go right over their pointy little heads.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  397. Leo, your strange responses don’t change two things:

    You denied bringing up something that you actually did bring up.

    You didn’t just cite that claim. Your link was described by you as well founded when it was actually unfounded.

    You have failed to provide any basis for your own assertion, and I can see why you try to avoid ownership for any claims if you can’t back these claims up.

    After this strange and long dialogue, it doesn’t seem there is a basis for the attacks on Kent. Just like the last many souls who got smeared in this fiasco.

    So the burden of proof is on you. And you’ve failed.

    Dustin (330eed)

  398. leo – It is you and your protestations that have become laughable.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  399. Random,

    Gibson is peripheral to this and you are straining to make him the focus of this. It’s similar to upthread where a commenter attemped to make something relevant by claiming Gibson was a 9/11 Truther. So what? How does that change what happened to Patterico or negate what happened to him and others?

    I’m not a lawyer, nor a forensic audio examiner, nor a Patterico sycophant, but I listened to the audio repeatedly and to my untrained yet reasonable ear, the voices sounded the same to me.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  400. “What if 80% of his cases settle before trial because his analysis is so strong and convincing?”

    DRJ – This one seems to go right over their pointy little heads.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 6/5/2012 @ 11:26 pm

    Not really.

    If he’s been involved in 10 cases, then at least two of them will have gone to trial, and — other than simply saying the above about most not going to trial — he can talk about those two. Well, we know two where Gibson’s testimony wasn’t accepted as expert by the judge. So where are the ones where it was?

    Note: I’m not saying there weren’t any. I’m simply saying “fair question”.

    Random (fba0b1)

  401. leo – It would have been way too much effort to simply write your own questions and submit them to this partisan echo chamber and have people question your impartiality in these matters compared to the cumbersome manner in which you chose to proceed.

    Of course we understand.

    For about the tenth time, he raised some issues on Volokh. I disagreed with some, but thought others raised good questions, and suggested he ask them here. When he was unable to do so, I offered to help by linking to his comment. Which part of that confuses you?

    leo marvin (45619c)

  402. Gibson is peripheral to this and you are straining to make him the focus of this.

    I know Gibson is peripheral to this. I’ve said that.

    But he was introduced by Patterico as further reason to suspect Brynaert made the SWATting call. That makes reasonable questions about Gibson’s qualifications and experience legitimate.

    One of those questions — about the Truther website — was asked and satisfactorily answered.

    Random (fba0b1)

  403. I’ll let you guys in on a little secret that sort of leaked out during the Zimmerman/Martin thing when they were trying to figure out who was screaming. The two big players in the “Forensic Audio” league are Tom Owen and Ed Primeau.

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/02/forensics-experts-zimmerman-was-not-screaming-for-help-in-911-call/

    Tom Owen, who works as forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and serves as chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used Easy Voices Biometrics software to make a comparison between Zimmerman’s calm voice, which can be heard minutes before the shooting speaking to police dispatchers, and the screaming voice on the 911 call.

    …But Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio forensic expert who specializes in audio evidence for legal proceedings believes it is the teen screaming for help. “I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt,” Primeau said, because of the tone of the voice. “That’s a young man screaming.”

    They make the software (Tom Owen makes the Easy Voices Biometrics Software), they’ll sell you the software, and they’ll sell you a distance learning kit and send you a nice certificate, too.

    Do you want to become a Certified Voice Identification Examiner? Ed Primeau will certify you.

    Program cost includes course study guide, workbook, 4 one-on-one training sessions with Ed, two actual voice identification cases, tests and certification. It’s about a 10 week program. Program includes voice ID training, certification and information on how to testify in court. At the end you will receive a certificate naming you as a Certified Voice Identification Examiner.

    And this ACFEI/ABRE crap JBH brought up as if it were so serious? It’s all pretty much BS; they’re just internet sites.

    American Board of Recorded Evidence: Visit our other Sites

    (All those American Board of this or that sites are basically owned by the same group of people.)

    As is the impressive sounding American College of Forensic Examiners International where you take online courses from guys like Primeau and Owen at their very own online unaccredited university.

    Which is probably why this Kent Gibson guy doesn’t wrap himself around the axle about it. He’s been in the entertainment industry for years, which has got to be one of if not the best way to get experience you need working with sound, and on the equipment you need to be a ACFEI FORENSIC AUDIO EXPERT, as long as you get some specialized software. But I used to work for a defense contractor and this specialized software looks an awful lot like a really high-end version of the softwar package I used to use to make online interactive courseware and industrial video; Sony Sound Forge. Of course I’m sure it’s got a lot more functionality.

    The AFCEI/ABRE stuff would probably impress some judge or law firm that didn’t know you. But they’re just a couple of unaccred

    Steve57 (958caf)

  404. Gibson is peripheral to this

    Good point, Random!

    Dustin (330eed)

  405. “Not really.”

    Yes really.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  406. “For about the tenth time, he raised some issues on Volokh. I disagreed with some, but thought others raised good questions, and suggested he ask them here. When he was unable to do so, I offered to help by linking to his comment. Which part of that confuses you?”

    leo – Why are you still here?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  407. I already said more than once that I disagree with it. For some unknown reason that’s not enough for you. You want me to say categorically that it’s false. Sorry, but it’s not that kind of statment. It’s arguable, regardless of how persuasive I find the argument.

    Gibson already said more than once that he disagrees with Ventura. For some unknown reason that’s not enough for you. You want him to say categorically that it’s false. Sorry, but it’s not that kind of statment. It’s arguable, regardless of how persuasive he finds the argument, or how much he says “no f*ckin way.” He might still believe what he says is “poppycock” and anyone who disagrees is partisan echo chamber material.

    Not ONE person here is buying your act.

    Yes. “Act.”

    Patterico (feda6b)

  408. leo – Why are you still here?

    Because of the CONCERN.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  409. “I’m simply saying “fair question”.”

    “That makes reasonable questions about Gibson’s qualifications and experience legitimate.”

    Random – New statements? No, SOS. Like I said, it never gets old. Carry on.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  410. One of those questions — about the Truther website

    What makes this question (actually it was not a question… it was a false assertion) reasonable? It wasn’t true nor was it valid had it been true.

    And I think the questions about his qualifications have already been answered to the extent where it’s proven he is a certified expert on this subject by at least one court system.

    So a peripheral issue has been, more or less, answered, and DRJ noted that no sane person would want Kent’s new enemies to have full access to his life. What if one of the cases he worked was unpopular? They went that route on Aaron’s former attorney’s old case. What if they post a picture of Kent’s house?

    It’s a peripheral issue and I think Kent’s analysis was fine. Is there any part of the analysis you didn’t understand or find correct? It’s pretty readable.

    Dustin (330eed)

  411. “Because of the CONCERN.”

    I forgot, my bad.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  412. Yes, Patrick, I’m as phony as a three dollar bill. This is all theater, and it isn’t even my specialty. You should see me twirl plates. I’ll say this much. It’s been a long time since I’ve been in a comment thread like this one, and it’s quite the experience. Very compelling, in a rubber-necking-to-see-a-car-wreck kind of way. I feel like Josh Lyman discovering the Internet.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  413. leo marvin could be Brett Kimberlin in drag for all I know.

    But if I’d seen those questions at Volokh, I’d have asked them here. I don’t see any harm in them really.

    I think it’s been established that Gibson is not a truther. How much of a recognized expert he is in voice identification is still an open question.

    But it’s a fairly peripheral issue. Bigger issues include defending Aaron Walker’s right to blog and getting the authorities to investigate these SWATting incidents and other organized domestic terrorism. Since that doesn’t seem to be happening, I hope, Patterico, you will join Ace with the National Day of Blogging Silence — this Friday.

    I’m sure the family won’t mind having a few extra hours with you.

    Random (fba0b1)

  414. “leo marvin could be Brett Kimberlin in drag for all I know.”

    Shhh!!!

    leo marvin (45619c)

  415. Yes, Patrick, I’m as phony as a three dollar bill. This is all theater, and it isn’t even my specialty. You should see me twirl plates. I’ll say this much. It’s been a long time since I’ve been in a comment thread like this one, and it’s quite the experience. Very compelling, in a rubber-necking-to-see-a-car-wreck kind of way. I feel like Josh Lyman discovering the Internet.

    I’m a bit suspicious of leo marvin because something doesn’t ring completely true with him. It’s partly his persistence and slickness (in the positive sense of being polished), but it’s not just that. That could just be his personality.

    It sounds egocentric, yet I’m surprised he hasn’t piggybacked off of any of my support for parts of his position. It seems to me like he came prepared to do battle with Patterico and the commentariat singlehandedly and that his comments and presence are less than organic.

    That’s simply a hunch, an intuition. Alternatively, he could be as he’s presenting himself: a man after my own heart, a truth seeker.

    But it doesn’t really matter.

    Random (fba0b1)

  416. Random,

    Patterico noted in this post that he’s going to be participating in the Day of Blogging Silence.

    Agree there’s no harm in mere questions except if they concern troll the thread away from less peripheral issues. Which I realize is not your intention because I’m familiar with your style.

    Dustin (330eed)

  417. And the one comment of mine leo marvin does piggyback off of, it’s where I’m faux-mocking him as “Brett Kimberlin in drag”. And then he does the, “Shhh!!!” thing, as if to mock it. Because it’s far from the truth — or because it’s somewhat close to the truth, and he wants to humorously “pretend”-agree with it so as to be seen to dismiss it?

    Who knows? Who cares?

    Random (fba0b1)

  418. Random, in #340 I originally cosigned all of your comments, but I decided that might just subject you to pointless abuse, so I deleted it.

    leo marvin (45619c)

  419. Good save.

    Random (fba0b1)

  420. Tech note: I use vitelity for my phone service through my firewall box that runs asterisk. It is just cheap VOIP, but does the job well. I have to add e911 service for 1.49 per month or get hit with an 80 dollar bill if I accidentally call 911. I think they just pass on the bill they get. When setting up e911 I have to submit my address to be stored in some database somewhere and then I have to assure that my caller id phone number is set accurately if I dial 911. I can set it to any name and number I like. My dial plan can be as refined as I like, with a different caller id and name for each number I call.

    On the SWATing incident was there a record of a caller id for the caller? And if so did it match a record in an e911 database from one of the main VOIP providers? I can get a local number in any town and spoof the address for e911 purposes then spoof the name and number. Debt collector folks love what they can do with VOIP and asterisk. If the caller id was accurate then I know they were using a VOIP from a small list of VOIP providers. If they also had preset the address consistent with e911 then there would be a record. If they did not set e911 then the VOIP company likely got hit with a bill for the 911 call without properly setting up the address.

    If the call was from unknown to the police then the police had a duty to suspect possible funny business. I would think that a tech savvy terrorist would be proud of their skill at spoofing the caller id and name, and thus leave a trail. Calling in as unknown or private would just be too wimpy — for a professional terrorist.

    I like objectively provable facts. (But the voice sounds like it matches.)

    pdxnag (f3bb85)

  421. That comment contained zero links. Why did it get stuck in your spam filter? And why did it take roughly 16 hours for it to get unblocked? If there’s a 16-hour delay on my comments here, that is effective “blocked.”
    Comment by jukeboxgrad — 6/5/2012 @ 5:53 pm

    — By all means, let’s be sure to allow such scintillating comments as the above ^^^ to post immediately if not sooner!

    And details about another comment I attempted to post are here. Is that one also still stuck in your spam filter?
    Comment by jukeboxgrad — 6/5/2012 @ 5:55 pm

    — I have a comment for you to stick in YOUR spam filter.

    Comment by jukeboxgrad — 6/5/2012 @ 6:01 pm
    If I find that my comments appear here after 16 hours, or never, then it seems like a waste of time to even try. Unless someone can explain what I need to do differently.

    — Stop wasting time.

    Also, if I wasn’t banned, I wonder why JD said this: “he earned his banning here.”
    — Because, regardless of whether or not you were actually banned, you HAVE earned it.

    I think everyone here is doing that, but I don’t think everyone here is on a 16-hour delay.
    Comment by jukeboxgrad — 6/5/2012 @ 6:04 pm

    — The Voyager 1 space probe is currently about 16 light hours away from Earth. That’s really ‘out there’.

    Icy (b95ea4)

  422. For Milhouse:
    Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making “any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States”.

    Icy (b95ea4)

  423. Patrick,
    Keep up the great work, and do not hang up the blogger’s shingle just yet. We over at GraniteGrok salute you, Aaron, and all the other brave souls who are speaking the truth in the face of intimidation.
    Your legal commentary provides much needed illumination.
    Thankyou!

    Mike Rogers (c250b6)

  424. If he’s unwilling to do so, then I have no way of knowing whether he knows his stuff or not. Therefore, I have to dismiss his opinion, even if it accords with my own.

    As others noted, there is itching a scintilla of evidence to suggest he is unwilling to do so. Just because it is not publicly available on the Internet does not mean it does not exist.

    JD (c543e6)

  425. I can’t believe Foo Bar missed this thread. He would have been right at home here.

    MayBee (2f6e35)

  426. pdxnag, the practice is to call the direct number for dispatch, not “911”.

    SPQR (26be8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6092 secs.