So this is the third part of a
series I have written about the numerous proven lies Brett Kimberlin has told
in his silly
RICO complaint against me and numerous others. You can read the first and second parts here
and here. The reasoning for this exercise is as
follows. Brett Kimberlin has theorized
that lying to the FBI is criminal obstruction of justice under various federal
statutes. Bill Schmalfeldt has claimed
that the complaint or a document substantially similar to the complaint has
been delivered to the FBI for the purpose of opening a RICO investigation
(oddly, no one from the FBI has contacted me about the complaint...). So if 1) lying to the FBI is criminal
obstruction of justice and 2) Brett actually turned over this complaint or
something substantially similar to the FBI, then he provably lied to the FBI
and therefore, according to his own legal theory, committed obstruction of
justice.
Now a few people on twitter and
in comments have asked something to the effect of “why are you tipping your
hand?” But the thing is, I am not. First, these are lies, which means that 1)
they are factual assertions, 2) that are untrue, and that 3) Brett knows they
are not true. I mean that is the
difference between merely being wrong and lying—that the person knows it is
untrue. So, logically speaking, I am not
telling Brett anything he doesn’t already know.
And it serves a valuable
purpose. It helps in the PR “war” over
this, because any logical person concludes that “if Brett Kimberlin is lying to
us about things we can prove are lies, why should I believe him on the stuff we
don’t know, one way or the other?” And
it gives rise to the quite reasonable (and correct) deduction that this
complaint is ultimately frivolous and filed solely to harass.
Now, on the other hand, I will
not be talking about the quite laughable legal errors in Kimberlin’s document
and I ask once again that no one point out his legal errors. After all, we don’t want to educate Scrappy
Doo:
So let’s get to today’s
mendacious language from the complaint.
On page thirteen, paragraph fifty six of the amended complaint he writes
(please note that all grammatical errors are in the original):
Defendants conspired
to intimidate State Attorneys in Montgomery County and Howard County Maryland,
and Judge Richard Jordan and Judge Cornelius Vaughey in Montgomery County after
they rejected Defendants’ false narratives.
Specifically, Defendant Walker defendant Walker defended Seth Allen’s
online attacks of Judge Jordan, and then Defendant Walker, using the pseudonym
Aaron Worthing, filed pleadings for Mr. Allen defending those attacks.
That’s only part of a paragraph
(the next line concerns itself with Vaughey), but there are a ton of lies
packed in just that part and I don’t want to take on too many lies at
once. There are other lies in that very
same paragraph I will address in a future post
Well, first, we have never
intimidated state’s attorneys or judges anywhere, period (and thus, logically,
didn’t conspire to intimidate them, either).
In regard to the state’s
attorneys, we have protested what we considered wrongheaded decisions in
choosing not to prosecute Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt for their
conduct, asked those officials to change their minds, and asked other people to
communicate the same messages if they happened to agree. That is not only not intimidation but it is
conduct that is specifically protected by the First Amendment, guaranteeing the
people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We are allowed to tell the government when we
think they are doing the wrong thing, including if they are failing to
prosecute what we consider to be criminal conduct. If that is intimidation, then the Trayvon
Martin’s family has intimidated officials in Florida (and to my knowledge, they
haven’t).*
As for the Judges, as I will show
in a moment I have not even criticized Judge Jordan. As for Vaughey, for the most part I will
focus on what Brett claims we did to Vaughey later in another post, but I will
say I have only criticized his ruling
which ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent by name... as
did Judge Rupp, when he overturned it.
You know, because District Court judges in Maryland can’t ignore
controlling Supreme Court precedent, especially when it comes to what kinds of
speech are protected. But that is all I
did: criticize his ruling, which is something lawyers do in and out of court all
the time. I never said anything that
could be remotely characterized as intimidation of the judge.
And as for the proof of that, I
ask anyone to show me one word I have written or said that constitutes
intimidation of any of these people, let alone conspiracy to intimidate.
Second, he is lying when he says
“Judge Richard Jordan... rejected Defendants’ false narratives.” The allegedly false narratives Brett has
cited include 1) that he got me fired from my job, 2) that he tried to frame me
for a crime, 3) that he was involved in SWATting. So pretending that all three
are false, here is the key: none of those narratives were in front of Judge
Jordan. He didn’t rule up or down on
them, because they were not in front of him.
For instance, I was fired effectively on January 9, 2012. Judge Jordan’s last hearing in Kimberlin v.
Allen was on November 14, 2011. A
different judge was involved in the case on January 9, 2012. And of course January 9 was the first day in
Kimberlin’s attempt to frame me for a crime, and my SWATting occurred many
months later. None of our “narratives,”
false or not, were before Judge Jordan, period.
Oh my God...
Third, I have never defended Seth Allen’s online
“attacks” of Judge Jordan (and even if I had, it would not be criminal to do
so). First, I am not even fully aware of
the breadth of what Seth Allen has said about
Judge Jordan, but I have seen him criticize Jordan harshly. It’s protected speech, but like many things
you have a legal right to do, it was a poor decision. That’s not to say one can never criticize a
judge (after all, I just got finished saying that I criticized Vaughey), but if
you do, you should almost always make your criticism temperate, and you should
back it up with facts and/or the law.
The criticism that I saw from Seth was just angry venting and not
persuasive. I think in all frankness it
shouldn’t have been said and risked harming his cause for the cheap thrill of
venting online.
Indeed, if you search for
“Jordan” on my blog, here are all the references to the Judge (excluding
instances where I was merely quoting where Brett was talking about him).
First, in this
post discussing a protective order hearing between Brett Kimberlin and his
wife, I wrote two passages mentioning Judge Jordan. First I wrote an analysis of Jordan’s prior
encounter with Brett Kimberlin and rather than criticizing him, I opined that I
believe the judge had figured out what was really going on, writing:
This suggests—but
does not prove—that Judge Jordan didn’t believe that Brett Kimberlin actually
had been defamed at all.
For the record, that means I
believe that Judge Jordan was demonstrating appropriate insight. That is actually, technically praise of the
judge, not criticism, let alone an “attack” or the defense of an “attack” by another. In the same post I also wrote this:
[Kimberlin] also
falsely stated, again, that I had assaulted him, and he falsely stated that I
had threatened Judge Jordan and other wild accusations. I don’t believe any of this improved Brett’s
credibility and that was without me having a chance to speak up for myself.
Second, in this
post, I discussed an alleged death threat by Seth Allen (more on that
another time) and explaining that it had nothing to do with Kimberlin v. Allen, writing:
That “death threat”
was not in fact part of the suit at all as Judge Jordan indicated twice in the
November 14, 2011 hearing, first in this exchange...
I go on to quote Judge Jordan
explaining to Brett that the alleged death threat was not part of his suit
against Mr. Allen.
Third, in this
post, I responded to Brett Kimberlin’s mischaracterization of Judge
Jordan’s ruling. The judge issued an
injunction against Seth Allen telling him not to defame Brett Kimberlin and
tortuously interfere with his business.
But before he issued that injunction, he made an off-the-cuff remark
where he recommended that Seth just leave Brett alone and blog about other
things. But Brett repeatedly and falsely
claimed that this advice was part of the order.
So first I quoted from a letter where Brett said:
I want to be left
alone. That’s what Judge Jordan told
Seth Allen to do, but he refused to comply with that order...
And then in my fisking response,
I wrote:
Really, Brett? That was an order and not just a
recommendation? Can you prove that? Because I don’t trust you to even know the difference
let alone to be honest about it.
And indeed I am not the only one
who interpreted Jordan’s remarks as merely a recommendation and not an
order. This is an exchange between Judge
Rupp and Brett Kimberlin, on the January 9, 2012 hearing:
THE COURT: Well, the
order says he's to enjoin permanently from engaging in tortious conduct
constituting defamation of or interference with business relations of the plaintiff,
Brett Kimberlin.
MR. KIMBERLIN:
Right. Uh-huh. And so --
THE COURT: So what
is it that he's done that leads you to believe he's violated this order?
MR. KIMBERLIN: And,
you know, at the time, Judge Jordan was very clear to him. He said “I want you
to leave this man alone. I want you to quit blogging about him. I want you to
quit talking about him.” And I can read you from the transcript, if you want.
It's on page 7.
THE COURT: It's one
thing to say that --
MR. KIMBERLIN: No.
THE COURT: -- but
this is what's ordered here.
MR. KIMBERLIN: 1 I
know, but I --
THE COURT: Defamation,
interference of business relations.
MR. KIMBERLIN:
Right.
THE COURT: And to
talk about somebody doesn't constitute[e] defamation.
In other words, if it wasn’t in
the order, Judge Rupp wasn’t going to enforce it. And Judge Jordan wouldn’t have either.
So where in any of that is my
supposed defense of Seth’s “attacks” (which presumably merely means
“criticisms”) on Judge Jordan?
Nor did any of my filings (which
I pointed out in part
one were not submitted for Seth
Allen but for myself and to protect my own interests) even talk about Judge
Jordan. The only appearance Judge Jordan makes is in any of them is in my motion to
quash as an unnamed judge in the transcripts of the November 14, 2011 hearing
and those were only quoted to show evidence that Brett Kimberlin had lied to
the court.
Because the truth is I don’t have
very much of a problem with anything Judge Jordan did in that case. To the extent that I have investigated what
he did in this case, he didn’t do anything radical or wrong. I didn’t say that out loud before now, because
it is uncomfortable to criticize a former client. But it has always been my assessment and I suggest
that any lawyer reading what Seth wrote would think the same thing: that his
criticism was unjustified. The reality
is that Seth Allen always wrongly scapegoated Judge Jordan for Seth’s own
failure to protect his own legal interests.
Once Seth Allen defaulted, Judge Jordan didn’t have many options and as I
indicated above, I believe Judge Jordan did decide by the end of the case that Seth
probably hadn’t defamed Brett Kimberlin at all and thus only awarded nominal
damages. Seth Allen’s anger was entirely
misplaced, which is a recurring theme with him, being angry at those who tried
to help him as best they could, instead of the people who were doing everything
they could to harm him.
Oh and of course he mendaciously states
that I was filing briefs anonymously, without noting that the judge had given me
permission to do exactly that, and thus trying to make the judge believe I did
something improper.
So let’s review, including the
lies from the previous posts, with the new lies being underlined:
Lie #1: claiming I filed anything for Seth Allen or helped Mr. Allen to file anything himself (repeated
in the passage featured today.)
Lie #2: claiming that I filed anything “attacking” (including
criticizing) any of the judges in Kimberlin
v. Allen.
Lie #3: claiming none of the Defendants have ever contacted him for
comment about the SWATting story.
Lie #4: claiming I have intimidated anyone, ever (and
necessarily that anyone “conspired” with me to intimidate anyone).
Lie #5: claiming that Judge Jordan rejected our allegedly
false narratives.
Lie #6: claiming I have defended Seth Allen’s “attacks”
on Judge Jordan (which as best as I can tell were just criticisms, albeit
intemperate, ineffective and ill-advised ones).
Mendacity #1: when he gives
the impression that I intervened in Kimberlin
v. Allen out of the blue and motions on my own initiative when in fact each
and every one of them were filed in response to some action Brett took directed
at me. I have no standing to intervene,
otherwise.
Mendacity #2: when he fails
to note that he instructed many of the defendants not to harass him, which
includes unwanted contact making it more difficult to contact him for a response
to the SWATting story.
Mendacity #3: when he
pretends his denials have any value whatsoever.
If his denials are meaningless then why is it even relevant whether we
contacted him to obtain it?
Mendacity #4: when he pretends that I did anything
improper by filing motions in Maryland anonymously, when I was given specific
permission by the court to do exactly that.
Be sure to tune in tomorrow for
part four.
---------------------------------------
* As I have often said, while I
do not agree with the decision to prosecute George Zimmerman in the first
place, and I don’t agree with the Martin family putting pressure on Florida
officials to seek such prosecution, I have always recognized the family’s God-given
right to do so.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the
harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get
us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten
years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here,
you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video
evidence. If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the donation link on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for
snark and site updates. And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for
free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
History here.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that
any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment