I'm always the last to know. I didn't realise until last night Brett Kimberlin's second absurd attempt to have me imprisoned was struck down by wise Judge Rupp the Magnificent.
Anyway, the best is yet to come in regards to revealing what happened on November 14th. I was there. It was incredible. You actually had to be there to truly start to understand how surreal Brett Kimberlin is as an individual.
There were a few court clerks, myself, Brett, that court copper, uhm, and Judge Jordan. That's it. Now, Jordan wasn't the kind of man to give me any credit. But I could sense what those few regular people in the room were thinking. It was, "Omg, wtf, this is incredible."
You can't lie and say someone else claimed Jews are the scourge of the Earth and should be put in ovens. What the hell is Brett Kimberlin's problem? And why the hell didn't Judge Jordan do his job? Kimberlin is obviously delusional. What is Jordan's excuse for being such an incompetent judge? He didn't even deliberate on all the presented documents. He didn't flinch once, each time Kimberlin said something obviously outrageous. Judge Rupp appears to be digesting every nook and cranny of this case. Judge Jordan mailed it in like a hack. How does someone like him get appointed to a Judgeship. He's the Frank Burns of judges.
*** This thing about Jews being the scourge of the Earth and should be put in ovens sounded like perjury to me.
*** Here's more that sounded like criminal perjury. Kimberlin said he didn't waterboard himself. Yet according to this link and this video, he was indeed waterboarded.
*** Velvet Revolution has a membership base of over a million people? Is that true?
*** Kimberlin said, "I've had to post his picture for my mother, my wife, and my kids to see what he looks like." Was Brett involved with the illegal uploading of Sept. 14th court audio that was accompanied by my driver's licence photo? Has Brett Kimberlin been working hand in hand with internet predator Neal Rauhauser to try to psychologically torture and silence me via cyber crimes and his illegal manipulation of the Montgomery County court?
*** "I've had to deal with the FBI." Really? And what was up with former ambulance chasing Judge Jordan asking, "Was that the murder threat from two months ago?" There was no murder threat, and Jordan shouldn't be promoting such lies in his court room. Imho, he should be reprimanded or worse for his handling of this case.
*** Brett said Lori Grace's support went down to 80%, but I think he meant it went down 80%.
*** Kimberlin is a deluded fabulist. He's a confidence man. Here's an example. He said no one informed him funding was stifled due to my posts. Yet that didn't prevent him from saying they did stop it, because they read my schtick after googling.
*** Kimberlin clearly perjured himself near the end of this part, when the discussion focused on himself as a murder suspect. Keep in mind that many documents, as prepared by Liberty Chick, were entered in as evidence proving I never defamed Brett Kimberlin. Judge Jordan messed up in that I proved this case had no merits. The judgement thus should have been $1 and no court costs. To repeat, imho, Judge Jordan should be censured, sanctioned, or whatever the fock is done to Judges who wet their pants like this while on the bench.
*** I never wrote Brett Kimberlin was a pedophile. I only posted what had been reported by reputable sources. As with his testimony saying I had written Jews are the scourge of the Earth and should be thrown in ovens, he outright perjured himself. In my humble opinion, Brett Kimberlin should be returned to prison and finish out his original sentence. Or maybe it's time for him to intimidate the Feds that he'll rat them out in regards to their double secret exoneration agreement, if they attempt to return him to the penitentiary.
Woohoo, over here Ricky Boy Jordan and Bwett, it's time to board the clue train.
(please note "Thrilla in Vanilla" was coined by historic good troll donkeytale)
Part 2: The Thrilla In Vanilla
Judge Jordan: What are the posts? I'm just hearing conclusions. I need to have the statements.
Brett Kimberlin: You mean, the actual, you want the physical post?
Jordan: Not the physical post but the words.
Kimberlin: He, like I said, he said I was a pedophile. He said that I was a conman, a fraudster. Uhm, he said that I was a murderer. That I was responsible for people's deaths.
These were just straight out. He didn't even mince any words. Uhm, he just came right out and said it.
Jordan: Those contained in your complaint?
BK: Yes. (papers shuffling) This was uhm, this was the order from the court originally where the court ordered him to remove all these posts and defamatory statements in them. Uhm, which he refused to do.
Jordan: Do you have any printouts of those?
BK: I didn't bring those.
I mean, in his, uhm, He filed this with the court recently, the plaintiff's interrogatories, you know. He says the same thing. That I'm a bomber. I'm a conman. That I'm a drug smuggler. I'm a murder suspect. I'm a uh spreading conspiracy bunk in pursuit of hefty donations.
Let's see. That uh, I mean, he just goes on and on and on. And the whole reason for this is that he wanted to destroy my business. I mean, he said it. He said it straight out.
You know, he wrote. I have an email that he wrote to this funder. (Kimberlin reads aloud my letter to Lori Grace available in Part 1.)
There's his email to a funder, a person that's been funding one of my organisations or both for years. [Judge: Okay] Uhm I mean, this was his whole intent to destroy the funding base for my business by posting garbage on Google. So people that read it. And and and, you know, when I got denied grants from different places like the USAID, which I had this one. It was, it looked like it was going to be granted, and then all of a sudden at the last minute, they did a Google search of me. And I'm sure Mr. [Socrates] will get a kick out of this, you know. They read his posts, and they decided not to give me that $1.25 million grant.
Jordan: Did they tell you why?
BK: Well, they're not gonna say I read Mr. [Socrates'] posts, you know. But, when they go to Google me and see this stuff. I mean, here's their denial, you know. USAID has completed its uh review of your submission, and your application was not selected.
I mean, that's that's what, I mean I know what they told me on the phone. Uhm, and and uh another grant was was denied the same, the same thing.
JJ: Did they explain any of that as to why (interrupted)
BK: They don't explain it in the letter, but Mr. [Socrates] posted this on August 10th. This is the donor that he wrote to, and he posted her picture on a post. And not only did he post her picture, but he says if high priced donors find out the truth about me, then they won't donate to me. And he's the one that's going to tell them the truth by with all these lies that he's saying. He wants to tell them that he was cyberstalked, defamed, and had death threats made on him due to my writing. It's not my money he's after. He's trying to hide his tarnished image from people like this funder.
And so this is his M.O.. He wants to destroy the business. He wants to destroy. I don't know how many people have not donated to us over the past three years because they've read his stuff.
But, you know, I've asked for a lot less than the donations that have been denied or these grants that have been denied. You know. The request to the State Department and the USAID were for a lot more money than what I've asked for in damages here.
So, I think we can presume that we've lost a considerable amount of money.
JJ: Well, the standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. You've got to show a causal connection between defamatory statements and losses. (Bk: Okay.) Financial losses. Uhm, so, the issue of presumption is not something I can go on.
BK: You know, in these cases of types of accusations of fraud. I mean, we're members in good standing with Network for Good, with Guidestar, with the Better Business Bureau. We've never had a single complaint against us ever in ten years. And yet this guy is out there, you know, saying that we're fraudsters and we're conning people and we're taking all this money from rich heiresses, you know. And it's ludicrous. I mean, (giggles) you know like I said, I deal with Congress members. I deal with civic leaders. I deal all the time with outstanding individuals, and and I never have this kind of of of stuff, you know.
But then people read this online and they say, Brad what's this about this guy saying this and that and da da da da da. And you know, I have to deal with it all the time. And that's what he wants. And that's what he gets off on.
JJ: What's the name of your organisation?
BK: I have two organisations, Justice Through Music, which has been in business for about ten years. The executive director is Jeff Cohen, and uhm it's a Bethedsa based operation. And we work with young people, mostly to get them involved with voting. We've registered tens of thousands of kids to vote. And we get them involved with social causes. We work with very famous artists and bands and get them talking to kids about the importance of getting involved with the world. And so on and so forth.
The other organisation is called Velvet Revolution. Velvet Revolution is an organisation that has over 150 organisations affiliated with it nationwide, with membership base of over a million people. And we have, we deal with a lot of issues. Uhm, presently we're dealing with the voting issues. We were instrumental in getting paper ballots placed in Maryland and many other states. And we're involved with anti-corruption campaigns against people in both government and corporations. And like I said, we work very closely with members of Congress on this.
JJ: Okay, are both of those entities incorporated or partnerships?
BK: No, they're Maryland based right here in (inaudible). They're non-profits.
JJ: They're both non-profit corporations? [BK: Hmm hmmm] Okay. And what do you have to say in terms of the ultimate financial loss to you personally, and how you tie that, if you contend it, to the defamatory statements that you've been talking about?
BK: Well, it's not just that. Like I said, in my complaint I allege interference with business too, and that was ruled in my favor. Uhm, so it's not just the defamation.
JJ: The problem with interference with business is you're the only party. So, what I'm getting at is what's the impact on you personally?
BK: Well, I mean as far as emotional you know, this guy threatened to murder me, and I don't know if he's gonna come to my house with a gun or not. I've had to post his picture for my mother, my wife, and my kids to see what he looks like.
You know, I've had to deal with the FBI.
JJ: Was that the murder threat from two months ago? [BK: Yeah.] That's not part of your lawsuit? [BK: No, well it's (giggles) August.]
BK: But, the thing is I mean he's been, he did this anonymously keep in mind for three years. I didn't know who he was. I didn't know if he was down the street. I didn't know if he was, you know, in another state. Whatever. And it was this court that ordered Google to disclose who he was.
And so, you know I'm getting all this flack, you know these grenades thrown at me from all over the internet, and I'm wondering who is this guy? Where is he coming from? You know, is somebody paying him? You know, what's going on here? Is this opposition to my business?
So there was a lot of sleepless nights and emotional upset. My wife and kids were upset. And my mother was upset. And you know, I would get calls from people around the country wondering what is this guy? What is he saying? You know, and so you know as far as personal financial loss, I mean, like I said I put out personally out of my pocket, you know, roughly a thousand dollars, you know. But, but as far as emotional cost, I mean, it's been devastating. Uhm, you know, when these kinds of things happen you know, you're, things go not as smooth at home. You know, you're testy and upset and you know fearful, and things like that.
JJ: I understand what you're saying in terms of people don't tell you why you don't get funding. Can you tie that decision, those decisions directly to what Mr. [Socrates] has said about you that (interrupted)
BK: Well, like I said, I mean, I know that when he, you know, wrote this email to this lady, she freaked out, she called me up. You know, then he posted her picture online on a post, and you know, said that kind of stuff about her. I mean, and then you know she, she's a very well-liked person in California and does a lot of very respectable work out there. Uhm, and for him to post this stuff online, uhm and make her, put her in fear? I mean, she called, she immediately when she got that, you know, she sent it to me. She said, Brett what the heck is this? Who is this guy, you know?
JJ: Did she cut off her financial support?
BK: Uh, she severely diminished it, if that's what you want to ask. Uhm, I mean it's gone down to 80%, since she got that.
JJ: Did she tell you it was because of the postings?
BK: Uhm, she didn't say that exactly, no. I mean, she just, she's been more distant since then. And you know, just for your own, for proof, this is from Yahoo, and it shows. That's one of his email accounts. He's admitted that he's done this. So I don't (inaudible).
JJ: Yeah, I have an issue about the connection. It's drawing the connection of causation. (interrupted)
BK: But I can say this. You know, I don't make that much money in my business, you know. I take a salary of about $20,000 a year, and had I gotten these, you asked about my personal loss, you know, had we gotten these grants with the USAID or the State Department. Uhm, which again I can tell you they looked like they were going to be granted according to all the preliminaries were and all the discussions I had there, and then all of a sudden, they did a Google search, and they said they couldn't approve it, you know. And uhm, so had those been granted, my salary would have gone up considerably. (JJ: Okay.)
JJ: Anything else before Mr. [Socrates] has a chance to ask you questions, if he has any? [BK: No.]
Okay. Mr. [Socrates], you may ask questions. It's called cross-examination. [Mr. [Socrates]: Thank you.] But, I want you to understand, as I tell all parties that are not represented by an attorney, that if you want to testify, you come up here. We put you under oath, and you can testify. [Me: Okay.] This is an opportunity to ask questions but not for you to testify. And you can certainly ask him if such and such is true or not true. Uhm, but you ask questions. You don't make statements. Okay? And I'll let you know if you're not following what I'm talking about.
Mr. [Socrates]: I'll try my best, and I'm willing to testify. [JJ: Okay.] Uhm, I just took notes from listening to that. So uhm, I guess I should get to the, Brett Kimberlin just said that I wrote that Jews [JJ: You ask him.] Oh. Okay. [JJ: Mr. Kimberlin, is true such and such] Okay, I know he doesn't like me, and I'm sorry. You said that, Mr. Kimberlin, you say that I wrote that Jews are the scourge of the Earth. Do you have proof of that, or is that potentially slander? [BK: uh]
JJ: At this point, we're talking about damages. Okay, so there's a default judgement entered against you on the claims before the court primary (interrupted)
Mr. [Socrates]: Okay. Okay.
JJ: Wait a second. The crux of which is defamation. The only reason we're here now is to assess what damages, if any, should be awarded because of that defamation. [Me: Okay.]
Mr. [Socrates]: Uhm, and I can get, is there a tape recording of this? [JJ: Uh-huh.] Okay. Okay. I understand.
JJ: Okay. I know you're not an attorney. Just if you have questions (interrupted)
Mr. [Socrates]: No, I understand, and if uhm, my concerns are, my concerns are for another venue. I'll leave it at that.
JJ: Alright. Just ask him questions, if you have any questions.
Mr. [Socrates]: Uhm, were you convicted of setting bombs? [BK: Objection. JJ: Overruled.]
BK: Yes, I was convicted.
Mr. [Socrates]: Uhm, What did you supply to this court in terms of your criminal background history?
Mr. [Socrates]: You didn't mention drug dealing?
JJ: Is that a question?
Me: I don't know if it's pertinent or not. I would just like to (stumbling a bit ugh). I'm trying to establish that (interrupted).
BK: He's trying to establish that 32 years ago I was convicted of something? [Me: What (interrupted).] 32 years ago?
Me: Well, what I'm trying to ask is what did, is there anything I posted that hadn't been posted before in main stream media? And what would that have included? Such as that you were a murder suspect in the death of Julia Scyphers.
JJ: Is that a question, whether there were prior posting of allegations? Is that your question?
Me: Is there anything, Yes.
BK: That's never been posted before to my knowledge.
Me: It wasn't written about by Mark Singer of the New Yorker?
BK: Never heard of that.
Me: You never heard of Mark Singer?
BK: I said I never heard that.
Me: You never, you never knew that you were a [BK: I was not] You're saying you weren't a suspect in the murder of Julia Scyphers?
BK: I was never a suspect, no.
Me: You were never a suspect? [JJ: What he said.]
Me: Uhm, (I think I did a wtf or wow just wow whisper sigh) You contend that, that I damaged, some of the reasons that I damaged your revenue stream for your non-profits was because I called you a bomber, for example?
BK: that's true.
Me: Were you convicted of setting bombs, and has that been highlighted by main stream media?
BK: It was reported 32 years ago.
Me: Are you a private individual or a public figure?
BK: A private individual.
Me: Have you posted videos of yourself as a musician? Did you, have you been on radio talk shows, the LA Steel Show?
BK: Have I appeared on radio shows?
Me: How many radio shows have you appeared on would you estimate?
BK: Very few.
Me: Very few. But you have been on them?
Me: And uh, how many videos have you put together with colleagues such as Cliff Arnebeck, Brad Friedman perhaps, that you have posted on youtube on behalf of the Velvet Revolution?
Me: Did you or did you not waterboard yourself as a publicity stunt or for some type of, to make a political statement to the public on a controversial issue?
BK: I didn't waterboard myself.
Me: You didn't waterboard yourself? [BK: No.] What did I write to Lori Grace that was untrue or hadn't been published before by main stream media? I guess Mike Jesse of the Indy Star, I guess, on the Connell case. But uhm. [JJ: (starts to interject)] I'm sorry.
JJ: Your question is what did, what on the Lori Grace communication was not true?
BK: That I was a conman. That I was a fraudster.
Me: Have you ever been characterised as a conman by journalists such as Mark Singer?
BK: Not that I know of.
Me: Not that you know of. Uhm, let's see. I separated these documents by yellow sheets.
JJ: Why don't we mark your papers as exhibits. Are those extra copies?
(a bit of paperwork and whatnot)
Me: Why were you sent back to prison? Uhm. Alright, you are contending that my posting of things of information, you're contending that things that I have posted were false and malicious, false?
BK: We're not. I'm objecting. We're not getting into the case anymore. The default judgemant has been issued against him. [JJ: Okay.] We're on damages.
JJ: Well, a critical part of damages are issues of damage to reputation. So therefore, true statements are not compensable. Uh, so you certainly, the truth or falsity of a statement would be relevant to the court's consideration.
BK: What's the question again?
JJ: Your question was something about contending something was false?
Me: I'm sorry I lost my train of thought. I don't know if it's possible to.
JJ: You said something about what do you contend is false about what you said.
Me: Is there anything that I, uhm (interrupted)
BK: You've accused me of being a pedophile. You've accused me of being a fraudster and a conman.
Me: I would like to. Is there evidence that I called you a pedophile? I know we're not going back to the default being reversed, but (interrupted)
JJ: Just ask him. Where did he, where did you call him a pedophile?
BK: You posted that on your site.
Me: Where is the proof? (silence) How can I cause damage to your ventures by calling you a pedophile, if I didn't call you a pedophile?
to be continued.