Patterico's Pontifications

9/18/2012

Aaron Walker Wins Motion to Compel Against Brett Kimberlin

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:11 pm



Given that Kimberlin announced his intention not to comply until months after the deadline, this is no surprise. However, it’s a positive development:

106 Responses to “Aaron Walker Wins Motion to Compel Against Brett Kimberlin”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (83033d)

  2. If he still doesn’t submit to discovery, that means he’s in contempt of court, right?

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  3. The court initially misreported the ruling as a denial, and Brooks Bayne cheered — and mocked Aaron. He must be crushed to learn that Kimberlin actually won.

    Whose side is he on again?

    I think it’s pretty clear, no?

    Patterico (83033d)

  4. If he still doesn’t submit to discovery, that means he’s in contempt of court, right?

    I’m no civil law expert, but I believe that’s how it works, yes.

    Patterico (83033d)

  5. It shouldn’t require men like Dan Backer to have your back in order to have freedom of speech in this country. But in this case it does. And I truly believe that some people will either learn the right lesson from this saga (that terrorizing people into silence is counter productive) or they will learn the wrong one (that eventually, you can exhaust the innocent and get away with it).

    I know this was a pretty obvious easy win, but it’s good.

    I am curious how Brett will try to lie his way out of this. It seems like more of his lies are being caught lately, and he’s starting to realize it. I don’t think he realized this day would come when he got started. And if he hadn’t messed with Aaron Walker, I guess maybe it never would have.

    Dustin (73fead)

  6. Breitbart Unmasked (“Not Brett Kimberlin”) is tweeting that he will drag on the case for years if need be.

    Patterico (83033d)

  7. There have been two clerical errors so far that made it look like Aaron failed when he did not: one saying the federal lawsuit was dismissed (it wasn’t and the error has been corrected) and one saying that the motion to compel was denied (it wasn’t and the error has been corrected).

    Breitbart Unmasked gloated after the first error, and had egg (was it egg?) on his face after it was revealed the gloating had no basis in fact.

    But I think even Kimberlin realized he wasn’t going to win a motion to compel where he was blatantly refusing to provide ANY discovery. The only person I saw gloating over the latest error was Brooks Bayne.

    Patterico (83033d)

  8. he will drag on the case for years if need be.

    Of course he will. What happens when it’s time for a judge to evaluate the contempt for the process Brett has shown? Oh, I know, suddenly a horde of trolls will accuse that judge of being part of the conspiracy.

    But that’s why I have tuned out of some of this. There’s an endlessness to it.

    Dustin (73fead)

  9. We’ve all tuned out, and I think that’s part of the strategy.

    For me, part of it’s staying healthy. I tune out because I have largely moved on with my life, and while they continue to try to hurt me, it bounces off me these days. I can’t be preoccupied with it. The trolls have no life, but I do.

    We can’t sit there and spend our life refuting lies. I’ve seen how little effect their lies have, and it helps me to be serene about it.

    But I recognize that Aaron still has this court battle going on, and it seems like it’s worth reporting good news when it emerges.

    Patterico (83033d)

  10. never forgive.

    never forget.

    never cease watching for another attack.

    stay on them Pat: it’s your best defense. scum hate the light.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  11. There are endless smears, lies, half truths… and the only way to answer them requires one to shine a spotlight on them. It’s exhausting and counter productive. Ignoring it accomplishes more and saves a lot of time.

    But as far as the real world is concerned, Aaron has kept his resolve and a powerful legal battle rolling with the help of some able allies. And it’s not really about him. This mess had affected a lot of innocent people, and as I was saying earlier, if these tactics work, this will become a lesson that will change political activism in this country.

    Dustin (73fead)

  12. I wasn’t trying to disagree with redc1c4. Shining a spotlight on these scumbags has been a valuable accomplishment.

    Dustin (73fead)

  13. Delete this if you want, Patterico; but someone needs to say something to Mr Walker about the idea that a person who is looking for a job shouldn’t be up ’til 3:00 in the morning every night burning up Twitter. It’s not gonna look good to a prospective employer.

    I would say something but he isn’t gonna listen to me.

    RWS (9d1bb3)

  14. The other day I was interviewing a prospective employee, and at one point I asked him “What do you do with yourself when you’re not working?” and he responded “I usually stay up until 3AM sending tweets,” and I said “Get the hell out of here!” and he says “No, really,” then I said “I’m not making an exclamation, I really want you to get the hell outta here!”

    Icy (84c440)

  15. Mr. Den Beste, I only practice in Texas, but with that caveat:

    It’s true that a party’s refusal to cooperate with pretrial discovery can result in that party being found in contempt of court. Usually that’s at the end of a long string of defiance, however.

    Typically the drill is:

    (1) One side seeks discovery (through interrogatories, or a request for production of documents, or a request for admissions, or a notice of deposition on written or (more typically for substantive witnesses) oral examination.

    (2) The other side resists and refuses to cooperate; to protect its rights and avoid waiver, the uncooperative party must make its specific objections in writing and before the responses were due.

    (3) The party seeking discovery seeks court enforcement, which may take the form of simply setting the uncooperative party’s objections for hearing, or which may also be combined with a motion asking for an order overruling all objections and compelling cooperation.

    That’s what was heard today, as I understand things, in Mr. Walker’s case, and such an order (or combination of orders). Such an order may, but need not and often does not, include some minimal sanctions (typically an award of attorneys’ fees associated with the motion to compel); I don’t know if anything like that was sought by Mr. Walker’s attorneys, or ordered against Mr. Kimberlin, and it wouldn’t be a bad sign for Mr. Walker if they weren’t.

    (4) It’s typically the continuing refusal to comply with an order explicitly overruling objections, and/or definitely compelling discovery responses on a specified timetable, which then becomes the basis for a motion by the party seeking discovery to have the uncooperative party held in civil contempt of court. Generally speaking, trial courts are entitled to, and routinely do, take into account the entire circumstances of the in weighing what compulsion types and degree of is appropriate. But among the range of options are the striking of claims or defenses or other pleadings, up to and possibly including entry of judgment against the offender “by default” without a trial; (further) awards of attorneys’ fees; fines; and, potentially, jail time (with release being conditioned upon willingness to comply).

    Most trial judges whom I’m appeared before in the last 32 years of practice would have been extremely skeptical of Kimberlin’s good faith, given his absence of any legitimate excuse for his noncompliance. The grounds Kimberlin asserted were all ludicrous and illegitimate on their face, and they’re a red flag in suggesting that a litigant is indeed willing to flout the court’s authority. But most trial judges, at least at the first hearing on such a discovery dispute, will focus on fixing things and giving a strong warning against future misbehavior.

    Thus, my guess is that Mr. Kimberlin is still some weeks away from contempt-of-court proceedings.

    However, as to the intention to “drag on the case for years,” that’s a ridiculous threat even from someone with unlimited resources to litigate (and I doubt Mr. Kimberlin has unlimited resources). Trial judges will not permit a vigorously contested case like this one to “drag on” when one side isn’t complying with court orders. Kimberlin could credibly threaten to drag out these contempt proceedings for weeks, perhaps. But the cost of doing so will undoubtedly become losing the case without a trial as a result of discovery sanctions. Unless he cooperates in a meaningful way that will satisfy an already skeptical court (as evidenced by today’s rulings), he’s unlikely to be able to drag out this case past the end of this year, much less for more “years” beyond that, even considering the possibility of appeals.

    Beldar (e25f85)

  16. That ought to have read, “entire circumstances of the case in weighing ….”

    Beldar (e25f85)

  17. A last point:

    When his goal really is to drag things out, the pro se litigant (proceeding without counsel, as I understand to be the situation with Mr. Kimberlin’s defense) is poorly situated. If you don’t know the rules and procedures and how they’re supposed to function in theory, you simply can’t be very effective at exploiting them in practice. Mr. Kimberlin’s clownish attempts to drag things out — suggesting, for example, that everything simply be put “on hold” in the case until December — reveal that he doesn’t actually have a clue about how to stall effectively, nor how to get away with that. Instead, he’s likely to continue to stall ineffectively, which is very likely to be punished in reasonably short order.

    Beldar (e25f85)

  18. Good for Aaron!

    Colonel Haiku (6e54a9)

  19. Beldar –

    I found that very helpful in increasing my understanding, but would you please extend your explanation further?

    That is, “punished” how? When?

    I have no sense of the sanctions or even the timeline going forward.

    jim2 (44e6b9)

  20. This is not Kimberlin’s first rodeo, and he has effectively stalled to this point. We do not yet know what the judge granted – we don’t know whether there was a sanction, or whether any exceptions to discovery were accepted by the judge. (For example, there are several questions in the discovery re: Patrick Frey, which he could argue – if he showed up in court to argue it – has nothing to do with the case Walker brought.)

    Now, the appropriate response would have been to have raised an objection to those things rather than to say he had an absolute immunity to all discovery, but it kicked the can down the road.

    Also, Kimberlin is an experienced liar. He will no doubt answer those things about which there is no proof or at least dispute dishonestly. And anything else expect minimal responsiveness – just enough to say that he answered, but certainly not providing anything incriminating. So, for example, he might produce emails between him and Rauhauser that talk about meeting up to get a birthday gift for his young children, or going to an old folks home to take a dog to pet or something like that – he will only produce docs that place him in a favorable light.

    If Walker and his attorney believe that this is not responsive, they will have to get on the docket again and prove that Kimberlin is not meeting the order. So, again, more time and money being spent – and it isn’t like Kimberlin has something better that he could or should be doing – that’s his gig, hassling people.

    blaster (c7bde0)

  21. Patrick:

    I tune out because I have largely moved on with my life, and while they continue to try to hurt me, it bounces off me these days. I can’t be preoccupied with it. The trolls have no life, but I do.

    Kudos. I know I’m in the minority here, but I’ve always thought that making a big thing out of these guys (“ZOMG! THE CONVICTED TERRORIST AND PERJURER IS GOING TO EXPLODE THE COURTHOUSE WITH HIS IPAD!!!11!!1!”)… makes a big thing out of these guys.

    In truth, these guys are gnats, and should be treated with the same degree of attention as one would treat a gnat.

    RWS:

    Delete this if you want, Patterico; but someone needs to say something to Mr Walker about the idea that a person who is looking for a job shouldn’t be up ’til 3:00 in the morning every night burning up Twitter. It’s not gonna look good to a prospective employer.

    I’m not sure it makes any difference. Most employers do a Google search on perspective employees, and unfortunately they will find more troubling things (from an employer’s prespective) about Aaron than the timestamp of his tweets.

    Kman (5576bf)

  22. They will find out Kmart aka Ms Doubtfire has an obsession with AW. Ewwwwwww

    JD (e4479f)

  23. “(For example, there are several questions in the discovery re: Patrick Frey, which he could argue – if he showed up in court to argue it – has nothing to do with the case Walker brought.)”

    That simply reinforces Beldar’s point. The pro-se litigant simply doesn’t know how to make the arguments he needs to make to draw out the case, or sometimes even present a competent defense.

    Just as we saw with the previous fight between Walker and Kimberlin where BK couldn’t get documents admitted; Kimberlin simply doesn’t know the rules of the court. He will continue to find his efforts stymied by competent lawyers who do know the rules and how to apply them.

    No judge is going to hold Kimberlin’s hand through these proceedings and show him how to tie up Walker for months. Nor are they going to help Kimberlin present his case. He can expect some forbearance from the court on content and form, but substantively he’s doomed without a lawyer.

    egd (d580cc)

  24. They will find out Kmart aka Ms Doubtfire has an obsession with AW. Ewwwwwww

    True. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it. It was nine years running last I checked, but that was several months ago. Imagine going from one page to another for a decade, to criticize the same person… Marathon trolling.

    But I guess I’m feeding the troll, who has presented a lot of the same talking points Breitbart Unmasked has.

    Kman’s wish for people to leave Kimberlin alone is again noted. But that’s not what Patterico was saying. The kimberlin story deserves the wide audience it has and Patterico and others (like Mandy Nagy, Robert Mccain, and Lee Stranahan) have done something important and valuable in reporting the story. Same for Aaron Worthing, whose work on this story probably bothers Kman for petty reasons.

    Anyway, back to ignoring Kman.

    That is, “punished” how? When?

    I have no sense of the sanctions or even the timeline going forward.

    Comment by jim2

    I’d like to hear the answer to this question as well. Are we just talking about attorney’s fees as already mentioned? Is jailtime a possibility? Is a verdict on the larger matter at hand?

    Dustin (73fead)

  25. Kimberlin simply doesn’t know the rules of the court.

    The impression I get is that he thinks he’s an expert because he’s filed 100+ lawsuits and been through so many criminal trials. But he picked an enemy who would stand up for himself and push back, and this time he actually needs to be effective in court instead of just at time wasting bully.

    … I wonder what he’s told his allies about these proceedings. Those default judgments against Neal and Ron aren’t going away.

    Dustin (73fead)

  26. Most employers do a Google search on perspective employees

    — Says who?

    Icy (23c030)

  27. Most employers do a Google search on perspective employees

    – Says who?

    Most of my clients who employ people. As well as, you know, researchers:

    “[T]he truth is that good interviewers, like good candidates, take time to do some research on the person or people they are planning to meet. Research by ExecuNet showed that 77% of recruiters said they used search engines to find background data on candidates. Additionally, 35% admitted they eliminated a candidate because of what they found online.”

    Kman (5576bf)

  28. Yet Kmart Ms Doubtfire is proud of his stalking.

    JD (e4479f)

  29. When I read that Joe Brooks screenshot showing Ron inviting Joe to cooperate in secret with Ron and then attack Ron publicly, I immediately thought about Kman’s criticism of Ron, and how it stood in contrast to the rest of his behavior (such as the ‘stop talking about Kimberlin’ nonsense).

    I hope my opinion is wrong, but Kman does not appear to be capable of sanity when it comes to the target of his ten year campaign. I’m not surprised Kman is now saying his opinion of Aaron relates to Aaron’s employment search. That’s the kind of attitude I would expect.

    Aaron, like all of us, deserves to be able to work without his reasonable political views being held against him. I think he should just relocate to Texas where that attitude is more common.

    Dustin (73fead)

  30. I was thinking the judge should lock up Kimberlin and his lackys, and put them on bread and water until the pain in their intestines compels then to cooperate.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  31. I’d like to hear the answer to this question as well. Are we just talking about attorney’s fees as already mentioned? Is jailtime a possibility? Is a verdict on the larger matter at hand?

    Under the Federal Rules a failure to cooperate with discovery can lead to sanctions under Rule 37, including:

    – Taking disputed facts as conclusively established;
    – Attorneys fees;
    – Default judgment; and
    – Contempt of Court.

    This is all at the discretion of the judge.

    egd (d580cc)

  32. I hope my opinion is wrong, but Kman does not appear to be capable of sanity when it comes to the target of his ten year campaign.

    “Campaign”? Dustin, you really have to understand that there are people who don’t live in a world of Internet battles and conspiracies. You live in that world, which is why you so readily accept the “stalking” lie that Aaron threw out there, and that Kimberlin is a threat to all humanity, or whatever. And while you are entitled to your worldview, please resist the temptation to pigeonhole me into it.

    I feel sorry for the self-important Keyboard Kommandos of the right. Like Captain Queeg concerned about the strawberries, they seem totally oblivious to the larger things in life, some of which are not ON the Internet.

    Kman (5576bf)

  33. ‘Delete this if you want, Patterico; but someone needs to say something to Mr Walker about the idea that a person who is looking for a job shouldn’t be up ’til 3:00 in the morning every night burning up Twitter. It’s not gonna look good to a prospective employer.’

    I don’t know about you guys, but my employers (when I still worked for a living) didn’t try and set my bedtimes for me.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  34. The governing rules will be those of the Virginia state courts, and I haven’t consulted and don’t know those. egd quoted (#31 above) the corresponding rule from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and although those rules aren’t directly applicable to Mr. Walker’s case in the Virginia state trial courts of Prince William County, the Commonwealth of Virginia probably has something pretty close to Rule 37 if it’s like most states.

    The modern trend is to continue the historical practice of giving trial judges very broad discretion in overseeing discovery, but specifically with respect to discovery sanctions, to try to channel those in some more specific directions. That’s been done mostly in an effort to reduce seemingly arbitrary or excessive results, but also to discourage an ugly trend toward “litigation by sanctions” in which maneuvering the other party into a sanctions punishment was becoming a popular litigation tactic.

    A typical modern case on discovery sanctions, and the current controlling one in Texas, for example, is Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1991):

    In our view, whether an imposition of sanctions is just is measured by two standards. First, a direct relationship must exist between the offensive conduct and the sanction imposed. This means that a just sanction must be directed against the abuse and toward remedying the prejudice caused the innocent party. It also means that the sanction should be visited upon the offender. The trial court must at least attempt to determine whether the offensive conduct is attributable to counsel only, or to the party only, or to both…. The point is, the sanctions the trial court imposes must relate directly to the abuse found.

    Second, just sanctions must not be excessive. The punishment should fit the crime. A sanction imposed for discovery abuse should be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purposes. It follows that courts must consider the availability of less stringent sanctions and whether such lesser sanctions would fully promote compliance.

    Again, that’s not a statement of Virginia law, so it doesn’t apply to Mr. Walker’s case against Mr. Kimberlin. But I would be very surprised if there weren’t close analogs to this in every state, and it’s certainly consistent with the federal court trends too.

    Under this sort of reasoning, a first or even a second offense — the first typically being a mere failure to comply with the rules, the second perhaps being a failure to comply with an order compelling discovery — will not, by itself, typically justify such harsh sanctions as the striking of pleadings or defenses, the imposition of judgment by default, or jail time. (In an unfortunate turn of phrase for a civil-court setting, these are sometimes called “death-penalty” sanctions — not because any humans are executed, but because the offending humans’ legal claims or defenses are being stricken by the trial court as a procedural sanction, with no trial and without regard to the merits of the claims or defenses so stricken.

    When the complaining party can show to the trial court a continuing pattern of discovery abuse or noncompliance — despite earlier warnings and lesser sanctions (typically with deadlines and maybe with awards of attorneys’ fees and perhaps also associated out-of-pocket expenses, e.g., for court reporters or wasted travel) — then trial judges have the discretion to order some, all, or any combination of these kinds of remedies and punishments.

    How, and on what timetable, this all plays out is going to vary from case to case even within the same court and state. About all I can say is that if Mr. Walker’s case were pending in the Texas state civil courts in which I routinely practice, outright defiance of the rules — which is Mr. Kimberlin’s current stance, when his frivolous objections are properly recognized as such — followed by outright noncompliance with an order compelling discovery would land the litigants back in court in a matter of weeks after the next missed deadline.

    My expectation is that the order compelling Mr. Kimberlin to cooperate with discovery in Mr. Walker’s case probably contains one or more deadlines for his further compliance. If he misses one or more, or if (as is even more likely) an issue arises with respect to the completeness or his discovery responses, I would expect Mr. Walker’s lawyers to immediately bring that to the trial judge’s attention through an appropriate motion, which likely would result in another hearing and another ruling.

    But judges tend to become more specific with their requirements, more likely to shorten deadlines, and forgiving of any noncompliance as these disputes persist. If the order compelling discovery signed this week gives Mr. Kimberlin, for example, 30 days to comply fully with Mr. Walker’s lawyers’ efforts to conduct pretrial discovery, and if Mr. Kimberlin doesn’t comply in full and on time, the next order would likely have a shorter deadline; the likelihood of attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses being awarded would go up; and the judge’s remaining patience will be that much closer to exhausted.

    If so, it’s not at all inconceivable that there could be a large handful of further discovery hearings, and quite a series of calibrated and increasing sanctions and deadlines — all before the end of this year, assuming (as is reasonable) that Mr. Walker’s lawyers continue to bird-dog this case.

    Beldar (e25f85)

  35. I loved the request for discovery letter. Kimberlin will have to write a novel to satisfy that one.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  36. Meant to write (in #34): “with respect to the completeness of his discovery responses …”

    Beldar (e25f85)

  37. Argh! (Pirate Day!) Also meant: “and less forgiving of any noncompliance as these disputes persist …”

    Beldar (e25f85)

  38. Perhaps BK could ask Judith Miller what happens when you don’t comply with a Court Order?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  39. “I feel sorry for the self-important Keyboard Kommandos of the right.”

    Why?

    I have a woman who loves me, a slew of kids, two nice houses in the country, a ton of money in the bank, and can afford to spend most of my time dicking off on the internet when it amuses me to do so.

    I got everything I need, and then some.

    I’d reserve my pity for folks who aren’t doing so well, if I was you.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  40. In Illinois, civil discovery is “everything with the exception of privilege or work product”. Judges do not like to be bothered with these things. They want the attorneys to work it out. I have only contested discovery through a motion for a protective order and in camera hearing of a claim of protected information. I have had adversaries who themselves preemptively drafted a protective order served alongside their recovery request.

    Discovery need not be, and most always is not, dilatory, vexatious, or harrassing.

    Beldar alluded to it in an earlier comment. Kimberlin does not know what he’s doing. When I wanted to “bust balls”, I challenged the plaintiff’s complaint. We settled a case on a third amendment complaint, once. The judge hated us. 😉

    nk (875f57)

  41. I should mention one other thing lest I leave some of you under a misimpression:

    Civil courts don’t normally impose jail time. They don’t “award” that sort of relief to the litigants who come before them, even on those occasions when “the people,” in the form of a city or state government or the federal government, are civil litigants.

    But civil courts do have the power to compel compliance with their orders through the “contempt of court” mechanism. And for the more common type of contempt proceedings, so-called “civil contempt,” the jail time is not imposed as a punishment as such, but rather merely to compel compliance. The offender, called the “contemnor,” is said to “hold the keys to his own jail cell” because he can secure his release immediately upon his agreement to comply.

    Although it’s theoretically possible, it’s extremely rare as a practical matter for a civil-court litigant to be ordered to do jail time for civil contempt of court.

    But it’s not nearly so rare for a defiantly uncooperative civil-court defendant’s pleadings to be stricken and the civil plaintiff suing him to be awarded judgment by default. And one circumstance in which that sometimes happens is when the defendant refuses to testify or turn over evidence based on an assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: if it’s a legitimate invocation of privilege (which is not an easy question), the civil trial judge can’t use either civil or criminal contempt of court powers to compel the defendant to waive that privilege, but the Fifth Amendment does not protect such a defendant from seeing a civil judgment entered against him by default.

    My guess is that the next big fight in the Kimberlin litigation will be over whether Mr. Kimberlin’s privilege assertions are legitimate or bogus, and even if they are legitimate, what they’ll cost him to maintain in this civil lawsuit. But that’s just a guess.

    Beldar (e25f85)

  42. *third amended* No troops in the house ;), just that the plaintiff’s complaint was not sufficient to grant relief.

    nk (875f57)

  43. “Kimberlin does not know what he’s doing.”

    That’s usually the case with folks who have numerous felony convictions.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  44. If Kimberlin knew what he was doing, he would have done his “failure to state a cause of action” equivalent. And then one more on the amended complaint. And then one more on the second amended complaint. And then one more on the third amended complaint. And the judge finally telling to shut up, his motion for summary judgment which is without prejudice. And then he answers. And let’s Aaron play the same game with his answer.

    nk (875f57)

  45. Thank you, Beldar!

    I hate to bother you any more but, if BK plays it out to the end, you’re saying the other party would be awarded a default judgement.

    If it is only monetary damages and BK has in the meanwhile shown a lack of assets (he lives in his mother’s basement, I think I read), then is that the end? That sounds like what happened to OJ, who was able to live well despite the huge civil judgement against him.

    The relationship between the civil jail time and the default monetary judgement scenarios still escapes me. That is, is it one or the other? Both?

    jim2 (44e6b9)

  46. Civil contempt is compliance. It is limited. And, constitutionally, it stops if it shown not effective to enforce the court’s order.

    Sanctions such as fees and costs, exclusion of evidence, and even default, are separate issues.
    And even with default, it is only default on liability and not on damages.

    Stay out of court.

    nk (875f57)

  47. Kimberlin will not go to jail in this case unless he literally spits in the judge’s face.

    nk (875f57)

  48. I wouldn’t put that past him, both literally and figuratively.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  49. Dustin, you really have to understand that there are people who don’t live in a world of Internet battles and conspiracies. You live in that world, which is why you so readily accept the “stalking” lie that Aaron threw out there

    Kman, I did not use the work stalking. Why the quotation marks?

    I have noticed that you have been following Aaron around. He’s blogged at a variety of places… as best as I can tell, you have followed him or repeatedly condemned him for his activities in every single case for about ten years.

    I think it’s weird.

    I think your behavior in zealously defending Kimberlin (which is my opinion of your behavior) does not seem compatible with your commentary condemning Ron, but I do not know what the reason for that is. It reminds me of that message Ron sent Joe offering an ‘attack me in public while working with me in private’ deception.

    You have been caught rejecting Aaron’s views on many occasions where you turn out to not have read his post or the link he is summarizing… in short, you are malicious and unfair to him and this has been a pattern for quite some time.

    For all your insults, I do not think I spend nearly as much time online as you do, and I am quite sure I do not spend as much time obsessing over those I disagree with as you do. And also, I do not make it personal and engage on that level for YEARS. I prefer to disagree on the merits.

    I do think Brett Kimberlin is an awful monster, and I have explained this in terms of the effect he had on the lives (and death) of his victims. You do not agree, and I do not care.

    Dustin (73fead)

  50. Thanks for the insightful comments, nk and Beldar.

    NK, I have seem Brett use that ‘failure to state a cause for which relief can be granted’ argument before, so perhaps he is on to that tactic.

    This is an important issue and a lot of people deserve some answers to a lot of the questions Aaron is raising.

    Dustin (73fead)

  51. btw, Kman, those families terrorized by Kimberlin’s apparent defenders are not living on the internet. Just because you do not care about them does not mean they do not matter.

    Aaron really is pushing back the most effectively, and your need to dismiss his cause is a much better example of internet obsessing than anything you’ve managed to offer.

    Dustin (73fead)

  52. Kudos. I know I’m in the minority here, but I’ve always thought that making a big thing out of these guys (“ZOMG! THE CONVICTED TERRORIST AND PERJURER IS GOING TO EXPLODE THE COURTHOUSE WITH HIS IPAD!!!11!!1!”)… makes a big thing out of these guys.

    In truth, these guys are gnats, and should be treated with the same degree of attention as one would treat a gnat.

    I don’t need or want your kudos. I don’t share your attitude in the slightest, and the fact you act this way shows that either a) you haven’t paid attention to the harm they have caused to so many people or b) you completely lack empathy for those victims or c) you’re sucking up to them so it doesn’t happen to you too.

    My attitude is not that they don’t deserve publicity. My attitude is that they got it. Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day was a rousing success,* and the harassment of Aaron Walker, myself, and many others has been nationwide news — on Yahoo News, CNN, and many other national outlets. The swatting issue has made its way into the halls of Congress, with dozens of Congressman and one courageous Senator backing us. Everybody knows who the people are in Kimberlin’s crew — and no decent person will ever have anything to do with them ever again.

    That is done. There is no need to continue fighting it forever when all that has been accomplished.

    Which is QUITE a different point from the one you made.

    *Unlike Everybody Two People Blog About Lee Stranahan Day.

    Patterico (83033d)

  53. sigh. You said that a lot better than I did.

    Dustin (73fead)

  54. I’m not sure it makes any difference. Most employers do a Google search on perspective employees, and unfortunately they will find more troubling things (from an employer’s prespective) about Aaron than the timestamp of his tweets.

    Comment by Kman — 9/19/2012 @ 6:40 am

    Oh really? – and what would that be – what I look for in a attorney is not someone who shrinks away from controversy and knows how to fight and keeps on fighting and even though I have serious disagreements with Aaron, I would certainly hire him if he practiced in the states I reside or have business interests in.

    I think there is a certain jealousy on your part.

    Besides the fact that you are very creepy and I could pass that along to your employer who btw could have very strong interests with some of my clients Kman

    Now how do you feel? Polluting the internet seeding unfounded and without merit comments about him to deliberately damage and to do real harm to his reputation.

    EPWJ (d84fb0)

  55. That was uncalled for.

    JD (dbb735)

  56. JD

    Yes I agree It was uncalled for by Kman to do what he does – it does remind me of someone else though

    I always watch what employers think and when Kmans employers find out one day what he has been doing on the internet they probably are not going to be as thrilled or impressed as one might imagine.

    Its not my doing – I didnt ask him to type it

    EPWJ (d84fb0)

  57. I have a very low threshold of people threatening Pat or Aaron.

    EPWJ (d84fb0)

  58. I hope you sleep well at night. Resorting to their tactics is one of your go-to practices.

    JD (dbb735)

  59. Actually, at least according to Kman, Ron B already went to Kman’s HR department.

    If that episode was presented accurately, then kudos to Kman for standing up to a thug. Unfortunately, that episode is isolated and in apparent contradiction to other episodes, so I’m not sure what to make of it.

    Nobody deserves to have their livelihood put in jeopardy merely for expressing opinions. Trying to terrorize people is a different matter.

    Dustin (73fead)

  60. I have a very low threshold of people threatening Pat or Aaron.

    Comment by EPWJ

    I get what you’re saying. Kman’s comment about Aaron’s prospects ‘finding things out’ reads like a warning to them… an attempt to influence them and harm Aaron. It’s a low blow and an attempt to kick someone while they are down.

    but I thought you were just sarcastically turning that around on Kman for satire. If you weren’t, please do not react to Kman’s lame behavior with any kind of contact with his workplace. Just call him out right here.

    Dustin (73fead)

  61. JD

    You are presuming something that hasnt happened, nor will happen. I dont ruin pweople lives – I dont interject in their personal lives until they make an overt act and an overt act is like calling Qatar CID and saying things that got me hauled off the street and questioned. Yeah, that was a blog in Texas upset over Ramos and Compean.

    Or someone here quite possibly from this blog who posted pictures of my oldest on a porn site

    But I can see your concern, many people dont want to be held responsible for their actions and words. They are brave yelpers on the net but cowards in the rift of life.

    Kman meant to do Aaron harm, I just pointed out that his employers, his clients are probably not going to be as appreciative of his behavior (especially that behavior) as Kman thinks they will be.

    Its a chilling statement but it doesnt mean that I will be the one to inform them nor have anyone on my behalf do it

    Its not my doing JD, Kman is a grownup, an officer of the court, sworn in. He should know better than to make unfounded assertions about someone’s employment record or employability.

    And in the end, Everyone finds out who you are or what you say in the end. Sometimes it takes years, sometimes just mere weeks

    I’m not terrorizing anyone just pointing out that

    Nobody deserves to have their livelihood put in jeopardy merely for expressing opinions

    I agree, so why did Kman do that?

    EPWJ (d84fb0)

  62. why did Kman do that?

    It’s impossible for me to understand. There are people in this fiasco who I have learned are truly selfish and malicious… and even then I wouldn’t try to take away their livelihood (usually they don’t have one, as it turns out destructive people can’t build much of a life). To do that for far less… it is just alien to me.

    Dustin (73fead)

  63. but I thought you were just sarcastically turning that around on Kman for satire

    I’m glad you caught the sarc Dustin.

    EPWJ (d84fb0)

  64. Glad I was right on first impression. Carry on.

    Dustin (73fead)

  65. Dustin

    In a way I’m trying to help turn Kman and understand that harming people is not really what he wants to do. And for JD to understand that I dont harm people just because they dare to disagree with me.

    Heck I have 3 daughters, 3 sisters, and their innurmerable allies who keep me in my place – believe me.

    Life’s to short to have Kman throw his life away trying to ruin someone elses in something that everyone should have supported Aaron 100%. If Kman was in Aarons place I would have sent him money.

    EPWJ (d84fb0)

  66. Or someone here quite possibly from this blog who posted pictures of my oldest on a porn site

    Who?

    JD (dbb735)

  67. I don’t tweet, but I have been up until 4:00 am, twinking my case, many times. Two hours of sleep, a cup of black coffee, a piece of hard bread, going over the file again, and five cigarettes driving to the 9:00 am call. Getting the case dismissed in the hallway with the ASA and the police officer.

    I have been called a fixer because my defendant’s case was dismissed as I was walking up to the bench.

    nk (875f57)

  68. But I can see your concern, many people dont want to be held responsible for their actions and words. They are brave yelpers on the net but cowards in the rift of life.

    Do you ever get tired of your act?

    JD (dbb735)

  69. Who?

    As a father I need to justify my concern to you?

    JD, I understand that you think sometimes you are doing good in your behavior on this blog and mean the best of intentions

    EPWJ (d84fb0)

  70. You suggested it might have been someone here. You didn’t think someone might ask who here would do such a thing?

    I am causing nobody harm. Your passive aggressive nonsense just drives me nuts. You can’t help it, and it is one of my many flaws that I respond to you at all.

    JD (dbb735)

  71. i don’t support epwj threatening Kman’s work, but Kman is directly contributing to an environment where that kind of thing is just part of politics.

    Because i dared to represent someone Kimberlin hated and dared to speak out about him when he turned his thuggish eye toward me, Kimberlin has framed me for one crime, falsely accused me of another, filed two bogus peace orders that didn’t survive the rules of evidence (properly applied), tried (and succeeded) in getting me and my wife fired, and has tried to get my bar license pulled.

    These kinds of tactics either have to be repudiated, or pretty soon people on both sides of the aisle will be doing it. and elections won’t be about facts, issues, or anything like that, but which side has the meaner thugs.

    I don’t support EPWJ’s breath of a threat to Kman’s livelihood, but Kman doesn’t support me stopping a man like Kimberlin, so there is a certain rough justice in it all. But I will continue to advocate that we take the high road, even with a tool like Kman.

    Ultimately he is a small jealous man, and that is what he is all about. He, perversely, envies me. He’ll deny it, but that is what he has been about. But as i said to a friend, he is the kind of person I used to call a stalker, until I met Brett Kimberlin. Today i see him as just a dust mite, of no consequence.

    And no I don’t think he is doing this out of fear of Kimberlin or anything like that. He has enough surface decency to resist that when Brynaert came after him. At most maybe team Kimberlin is whispering in his ear to encourage his bad tendencies. Or he beclowning himself all on his own. I think the latter is more likely.

    I do think it is interesting that he is so eager to write off Brett Kimberlin as insignificant. I think when the truth comes out, that will turn out to be false. There is a reason why Neal Rauhauser has said the right is setting him up to be this year’s Bill Ayers: because he is afraid there is enough beef there to it.

    Aaron "Worthing" Walker (23789b)

  72. I don’t share your attitude in the slightest, and the fact you act this way shows that either a) you haven’t paid attention to the harm they have caused to so many people or b) you completely lack empathy for those victims or c) you’re sucking up to them so it doesn’t happen to you too.

    Well, I reject (a), (b) and (c). I think Kimberlin caused harm to people three decades ago, but I think most of what is transpiring in the present is essentially flame wars, albeit severe. I’m not convinced that anyone on “Team Kimberlin” is behind the swatting (there are a lot of nutjobs out there on both sides of the political spectrum who act independently).

    I’m not insensitive to what has happened to Aaron, and being marginally harassed by Brynaert himself, I’m not entirely objective. But I do recognize that a completely objective person coming into this dispute will likely see it as it is — a Hatfield/McCoy-like feud with virtually no social purpose or goal other than to screw the other guy(s) over.

    And nobody’s hat is completely white. For example, Aaron did — under the legal technical definition of the term — assault Kimberlin in the courthouse, and the tape shows that. That Kimberlin apparently lied about the extent of his injuries or the circumstances of the assault doesn’t alter or negate that inconvenient fact that Aaron did commit assault.

    And I mention that NOT to show allegiance to one side over the other, but merely to demonstrate that nobody has the white hat here. An objective person (i.e., a judge) stumbling into this is going to have a hard time distinguishing between the tactics of Team Hatfield (internet disparagement and use of courts to “stop” the other guy, all the while claiming victimhood) and the tactics of Team McCoy (internet disparagement and the use of courts to “stop” the other guy, all the while claiming victimhood).

    Both sides suffer from a sense of self-importance, too. Aaron writes above that Neal believes “the right is setting him up to be this year’s Bill Ayers”. Well, I have news for Neal: most of “the right” doesn’t know or care who you are, just as most of “the left” doesn’t know or care who Aaron is. This is all taking place in a very small bubble of the blogosphere, which — sorry to say — is itself only a tiny part of the broad political and social spectrum.

    Now, maybe I’m wrong about all of this, and Team Kimberlin really does pose a threat to democracy or whatever. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong. But I just don’t think I am.

    But I do know that both sides claim they want the harassment to end so they can just go about with their lives. And I am baffled as to why neither side can seem to leave the other side alone. It’s not the injustice — it’s the senselessness of Aaron losing his job, of all this money going into lawyers’ pockets, of all this time being wasted — that’s what really baffles me. All being done (by both sides) in the name of Stopping He Who Must Be Stopped.

    But as I say, I know I’m in the minority here. You all can throw your barbs at me, or play armchair psychologist and try to conjecture whose side I’m really on, or what my “real” angle is. But I swear to God — my honest position is… I don’t get it. I really don’t. It seems like everyone should have bigger fish to fry, and not obsess over “some dude on the Internet” (which is all Aaron should be to Kimberlin, and all that Kimberlin should be to Aaron).

    Fire away.

    Kman (5576bf)

  73. Bugger off. That you don’t get it is obvious. That you conflate defense of oneself with the offensive actions of another shows that your asshattery knows no bounds. Then kmart tries to play the victim as we might throw barbs at him. Do t be a dishonest douchenozzle and people won’t throw barbs at you, Ms Doubtfire.

    JD (dbb735)

  74. Do t be a dishonest douchenozzle and people won’t throw barbs at you, Ms Doubtfire.

    I don’t have a problem with people throwing barbs at me, JD. It’s to be expected here, especially on this topic.

    But what part of my opinion was “dishonest”? Do you think I don’t believe what I wrote? That I believe something different?

    Kman (5576bf)

  75. Nobody is forcing Kman to be here, telling us which causes are unworthy, insulting anyone who cares about Aaron’s plight.

    Kman’s defenses of Kimberlin have been ridiculous.

    Dustin (73fead)

  76. Dustin:

    Kman’s defenses of Kimberlin have been ridiculous.

    Do you REALLY take what I wrote to be defending Kimberlin? I mean, has it become such that if I don’t give a full-throated condemnation of him, I’m defending him?

    Kman (5576bf)

  77. It is dishonest when you conflate AW’s actions with that which Team Bret have done to him. Fundamentally dishonest. But that is what we expect from you.

    JD (dbb735)

  78. “play armchair psychologist”

    Kman – Don’t look now, but that’s just what you finished doing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. “play armchair psychologist”

    Kman – Don’t look now, but that’s just what you finished doing.

    Well, if I did, then I’m an armchair psychologist who is throwing his arms up and admitting that he doesn’t understand anyone’s motives.

    Kman (5576bf)

  80. Do you REALLY take what I wrote to be defending Kimberlin?

    You have evolved to just saying ‘leave him alone’ (which is his position), but yes, you have defended him.

    has it become such that if I don’t give a full-throated condemnation of him, I’m defending him?

    No, of course not. That’s absurd. You are dishonest to summarize things that way, but we’re used to it.

    Dustin (73fead)

  81. You are dishonest to summarize things that way, but we’re used to it.

    I guess you don’t know what that word means. I’m stating how I see things. That you see things differently doesn’t mean that I’m being “dishonest”. It just means you disagree with how I see it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  82. Nope. Now you are back to being a sophist.

    JD (dbb735)

  83. did he ever leave there JD?

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  84. What are the odds that it wasn’t somebody on Team Kimberlin that selectively SWATted Team Kimberlin’s perceived enemies?

    Icy (981d7a)

  85. “What are the odds that it wasn’t somebody on Team Kimberlin that selectively SWATted Team Kimberlin’s perceived enemies?”

    Icy – I’ll bet somebody just randomly picked those people and it had nothing to do with Kimberlin. For reelz!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  86. Kman, here is where you are defending Kimberlin: ” I think Kimberlin caused harm to people three decades ago, but I think most of what is transpiring in the present is essentially flame wars, albeit severe.

    That’s a defense of Kimberlin, period. Your attempt to deny it? Unconvincing is the kindest word.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  87. JD – Free speech is just not that important to Kman. People should just submit to thugs who use tactics which attempt to harass them into silence.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  88. That’s a defense of Kimberlin, period.

    Well, you say potato. Again, just because I’m not attacking him as strongly as you would doesn’t mean I defend what he’s done.

    Kman (5576bf)

  89. Kmart is from the Obama School of Denying Reality.

    JD (dbb735)

  90. That’s because neither party can give the facts without spin.

    Take, example, Aaron’s repeated statements that Kimberlin got him fired. That’s stated as fact.

    But all we know is that Kimberlin contacted Virginia legal authorities about Aaron’s Muhammad-mocking site, and one of Virginia authorities took it upon himself to talk to Aaron’s employers, who in turn freaked out over Kimberlin.

    Are people telling me this was Kimberlin’s plan all along — that he knew the detective would go to Aaron’s workplace and that Aaron’s employers would react that way — or was it just a fortuitous outcome (from BK’s standpoint)?

    And by the same token, Kimberlin is obviously connecting dots of his own — making conclusions that don’t exist about the nature of the people who are against him.

    So I wouldn’t criticize Pareene. It’s hard to get the “details right” when the paranoid sources on both sides are certain they are dealing with a nefarious evil mastermind, and are happy to spin the story which puts them in the best light and their sworn enemy in the worst.

    Comment by Kman — 7/10/2012 @ 9:20 am

    That was quite a hack job.

    Whether Kimberlin “initiated” this depends on your point of view. Aaron did something which Kimberlin took to be harassing,

    Breathtaking.

    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?

    Disgusting. Given all the times Aaron has condemned threats and asked people not to engage in them, Kman is ‘open to’ the idea of holding Aaron responsible for threats which appear to be astroturf in the first place.

    And Kman studiously ignores anything that shows Brett’s complicity or guilt, while twisting everything as harshly as he can to ‘ask’ if Aaron could be the villian.

    Aaron sounds like someone who made his bed and doesn’t want to lay in it.

    That was regarding his being fired, but Aaron’s workplace did indeed have fear of Brett Kimberlin showing up. Kman came back to this meme in this thread with the comment EPWJ reacted to.

    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?

    Comment by Kman — 6/5/2012

    And here is Kman’s one defense. Ignorance. As Steve showed from the transcript Kman studiously ignored:

    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

    Kman responds by suggesting there really are emails and Kimberlin just didn’t mention them when asked point blank, because Brett had made the suggestion of emails previously. In other words, Kman dismissed hard evidence in order to promote Kimberlin’s just exposed con. Hack job.

    A LOT of people, including both presidential nominees, did stupid things in their youth. Kimberlin is an extreme example of that, but the relevance of his past crimes strikes me as not particularly important today

    Remember, Kman claims he is not defending Kimberlin.

    It’s beat-up-on-a-lefty time. It’s bullying. It has little do to with the First Amendment, except that the First Amendment, I admit, protects your right to be a bully. “Look guys. We found a lefty with a past. Let’s get him!”

    Because frankly, when it comes to today’s actions, — the ones that are relevant in my view — I don’t see much difference between Kimberlin’s tactics and Walker’s,

    Yep, Kman claims he isn’t defending Kimberlin. The tactics of blogging honestly about Julia Scyphers or Carl Delong or Kimberlin’s false charges: those tactics do not resemble what Ron, Neal, and Brett had done.

    “Not Brett Kimberlin” went after family just last night. When did Aaron use a tactic like that? He never has and he never will. I only see outing and references to family from one side.

    Kman conflating thuggery with honesty is his most routine Kimberlin defense. It’s clear at this point he knows exactly what he’s doing.

    Anyway, if intimidation was/is his goal, I would say he’s won, given the way you all obsess over him as the Unrepentant Convicted Bomber™ who must be stopped.

    Comment by Kman — 7/10/2012

    I’m sure Kimberlin appreciates that, Kman, but the truth is that he wanted this story to go away, so that his organization wouldn’t be exposed. That was the whole point all along. Kimberlin lost on his own terms. That he is a scary person is no victory except in your words. That Aaron refuses to be intimidated and regained his freedom of speech is a more meaningful victory.

    It is because of this: in any rational worldview, other than Kman’s of course, the fact that someone was making phone calls to your employer, making fraudulent ethics complaints about you to the bar, and who had associates who were tweeting threatening messages about your children, your wife and spreading your home address … well that might be of concern … if that someone had been convicted for a violent criminal spree that resulted in maiming someone and was suspiciously involved in a murder.

    But not to Kman. Nope, to him, its just mean to even think about Kimberlin’s violent criminal history. Mean ol’ meanies.

    Comment by SPQR — 7/10/2012

    SPQR’s comment needs to be repeated.

    That’s a great justification, Kman, isn’t it?

    I also like the ‘he is unrepentant and denies his terrorism’ point, but SPQR is more on target.

    Everything Kimberlin has done gets a “move along, nothing to see here”. Honestly exposing Kimberlin’s crimes gets a ‘you’re a bully and you brought this on yourself’.

    Dustin (73fead)

  91. Mean ol’ meanies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  92. I guess you don’t know what that word means.

    I called you dishonest because you said

    if I don’t give a full-throated condemnation of him, I’m defending him?

    You used a dishonest straw man that your dozens of defenses are merely not “a full-throated condemnation”. I have shown that you are indeed defending him. That’s what makes you dishonest. The lying.

    Dustin (73fead)

  93. Dustin:

    Honestly exposing Kimberlin’s crimes gets a ‘you’re a bully and you brought this on yourself’.

    You know what, Dustin? If the evidence was so overwhelming that Kimberlin was committing actual “crimes”, then you should have no problem getting a D.A. to file criminal charges. (And I could say the same thing to Kimberlin & Co about the “crimes” that Aaron or others are allegedly committing).

    “Crime”. This is indicative of my point: both sides are too entrenched in the EEEEEEVILNESS of the other side that, to an outside observer, the whole thing looks kinda obsessive and breathlessly over-hyped. And if I seem to scoff, that is why.

    And by the way, making ME the target here doesn’t detract from my point.

    Kman (5576bf)

  94. You are a victim, kmart.

    JD (318f81)

  95. No one is forcing you to continue with your Kimberlin defense campaign, Kman. For someone who doesn’t think this story is important, you sure do care a lot about telling people to stop talking about it.

    Dustin (73fead)

  96. My plaintiff’s work is mostly not worth talking about, but I took an ungodly glee one time evicting a tenant from hell — his furniture in the alley and his pregnant wife sitting on the curb and crying. They drew the first blood.

    nk (875f57)

  97. I took an ungodly glee one time

    Human nature can be like that.

    Dustin (73fead)

  98. For example, Aaron did — under the legal technical definition of the term — assault Kimberlin in the courthouse, and the tape shows that.

    No, he didn’t, and no, it doesn’t. Liar.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  99. Aaron did something which Kimberlin took to be harassing,

    No, AW did something that Kimberlin called harassing. See the difference?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  100. He has offered a more spirited defense of Kimberlin than Kimberlin did, in some respects.

    That ipad was being used to commit a crime, and Aaron was the victim of this crime. That’s just a fact. It’s proven. Kman doesn’t care about that. Ignore that. The bad part is how Aaron stopped this crime by taking the ipad and giving it to the police. Because Aaron didn’t know what the convicted bomber was doing and only had a split second to react, he grabbed it. I can’t say how I’d have reacted. The fear of Kimberlin setting off another bomb is a real fear that many families have to deal with due to the thuggery on display. Any electronic device is a potential weapon when in the hands of a convicted bomber.

    Anyway, Aaron taking the ipad with intention of giving it to the police, which stopped a crime of recording people in a court building, is not assault and it’s not battery. Aaron did not come close to placing anyone in reasonable fear for their safety, and certainly didn’t intend to. Aaron is a much larger man than Brett, and if he had wanted to be a physical bully, he would not have been so mild.

    Aaron has proven that Brett lied, smearing Aaron with an assault story before Brett realized there was video proof of what actually happened. Brett offered evidence of severe physical trauma on his face, lies about being restraining Aaron, lies about Brett being decked (knocked down), wrestling…. the video shows that Aaron merely took the ipad (recording people in a court building perhaps so this footage could be used to intimidate others who would stand up to Brett) and gave it to police.

    Kman repeats the smear. One of many of Brett’s smears that Kman supports despite the evidence.

    It is shameful, but these people are without shame.

    Dustin (73fead)

  101. Suppose Aaron had pulled out a recording device to illegally film Brett in that courtroom, and Brett had taken that device and given it to police, and then Aaron had lied to those police saying no recording was made (and later this lie was exposed).

    I bet Kman would say all of this behavior was bad.

    And if Aaron had whipped out the recording device in anger in close physical proximity to Brett, Kman would probably say that was assault.

    But because the roles in this story are reversed, and the ‘everything Aaron does is really bad, and everything done to Aaron is no big deal’ rule is applied to reach this perverse conclusion Kman promotes.

    Dustin (73fead)

  102. Dustin:

    That ipad was being used to commit a crime, and Aaron was the victim of this crime. That’s just a fact. It’s proven. Kman doesn’t care about that. Ignore that. The bad part is how Aaron stopped this crime by taking the ipad and giving it to the police. Because Aaron didn’t know what the convicted bomber was doing and only had a split second to react, he grabbed it. I can’t say how I’d have reacted. The fear of Kimberlin setting off another bomb is a real fear that many families have to deal with due to the thuggery on display. Any electronic device is a potential weapon when in the hands of a convicted bomber.

    See, this is where would lose an objective person listening to this. You can claim that Aaron grabbed the iPad to prevent a crime OR you can claim that Aaron “didn’t know what the convicted bomber was doing”, but you look silly claiming both within the same paragraph.

    I could go, point by point, through the rest of your comment, but it is clear that you don’t know what constitutes assault, even at the misdemeanor level, under Maryland law (yes, “merely taking the iPad” counts, as does Aaron approaching BK uttering threats). I will say that Aaron’s fear of Kimberlin setting off a bomb is indicative of the ramped-up silliness that characterizes much of this feud.

    That said, I don’t dispute you one iota that BK exaggerated the events that transpired, and I seriously doubt the extent of his claimed injuries (he doesn’t have a white hat either, a point I apparently need to re-state). But that doesn’t make it go from “assault” to “not assault”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  103. If the evidence was so overwhelming that Kimberlin was committing actual “crimes”, then you should have no problem getting a D.A. to file criminal charges

    The evidence AW took to the Montgomery County DA is overwhelming; but that’s not worth much when the DA in question doesn’t want to mess with Kimberlin.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  104. I could go, point by point, through the rest of your comment, but it is clear that you don’t know what constitutes assault, even at the misdemeanor level, under Maryland law (yes, “merely taking the iPad” counts,

    No, it doesn’t.

    as does Aaron approaching BK uttering threats)

    What threats?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  105. I’m afraid that number’s ex-directory abilify sales 2011 ” Net total paid (sum of approved adjustments/voids and paid original claims)

    nogood87 (7cb911)

  106. Mens polo shirt Play ralph lauren shop ,
    A huge role In Men’s Fashionunique menswearLittle could Rene Lacoste have imagined which the shirt which hehttp://www.ukpolosralphlaurens.com/#001
    built to help him play tennis comfortably would some day rule the joy of http://www.cheapralphlaurenpolosuk.com/#002
    men’s fashion and be universally accepted because the shirt for those Polo Ralph Lauren outlet ,
    physical activities. Today there are numerouspoloralphlaurenukonline.com

    trefResse (3f56bd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1139 secs.