This blog is dedicated to the memory of David Weintraub, who took on insidious astroturfers and won.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Kimberlin Versus Socrates: The Thrilla In Vanilla November 14th, 2011 (Part 4)

artwork by Thusnelda

A concern troll over at the porn expert's blog has implied that my schtick isn't worth reading, that I have a big ego, and that I am no more a good source than Ron Brynaert. Well, if that's the case, I might as well state the obvious. I am at the top of the zeitgeist!

In this part, we will see that Brett Kimberlin continued to perjure himself. We will hear him allude to what Aaron Worthing has described as some double secret, exoneration agreement or wtf.

There was also another bit of perjury I'd like to delve into here, before we continue with reading the transcript of what took place on November 14th.

More Perjury (excerpted from below):
Me: So, uh, let's go with stalking. How, did, did I recently contact you?
BK: Yes.
Me: By email?
BK: By mail.
Me: What about by email?
BK: Nope.
Me: I didn't recently write you an email?
BK: Never.
Me: Did you recently write me an email, after I had asked you not to?
BK: Nope
Me: No?
JJ: He answered no, just
Me: I would like to
JJ: You can testify, when you, when it's your turn to testify. Just ask the questions.
Me: He just per-, I contend that he perjured himself.
JJ: Just ask questions.

Re: Final Service of Lawsuit
Friday, January 14, 2011 8:56 PM
From: [my redacted email address]
To: "Justice Through Music" [redacted Kimberlin email address],
Stop emailing me, Speedway Bomber, or I will take this as being a form of cyberstalking.. Hey court system, check out this guy's history. He's a jail house attorney after having been convicted of domestic terrorism, impersonating DoD, perjury, and drug smuggling. Consider the source. STOP EMAILING ME KIMBERLIN. Hey court system, why are you catering to this guy? Get in touch with the good people of Indiana, their court documents, this guy's parole officer, the federal prisons he's been in, journalists, et al and you'll see what kind of convoluted mind you're dealing with. IF THIS GUY DOESN'T STOP EMAILING ME, I WILL CONSIDER IT CYBERSTALKING.

--- On Fri, 1/14/11, Justice Through Music [redacted email address] wrote:

From: Justice Through Music [redacted email address]
Subject: Final Service of Lawsuit
To: [my redacted email address], [my redacted email address]
Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 7:22 PM ....
Take down request
Saturday, October 8, 2011 12:56 AM
"Justice Through Music"
[redacted email address]
[my redacted email address], [my redacted email address]
Mr. [Socrates]:

Please take this email as a formal legal request to remove all posts you have made on all websites which mention me or my organizations in any way. As you know, the Circuit Court has already issued a judgment against you for harassment, defamation and interference with business, and the District Court has issued a Peace Order prohibiting you from stalking, which includes online stalking. The District Court judge advised me that you would be violating the Peace Order by continuing to cyberstalk me and you could face arrest and imprisonment. You are under scrutiny by local law enforcement in Maryland and Massachusetts, and by the FBI in Boston and Baltimore. Every post you have made on any website since your arrest in Maryland has been copied and scrutinized by criminal profilers, and both Yahoo and Verizon investigators have been notified to monitor and stop your online stalking activities. Your posts telling people to visit Google cache to see posts that have been removed constitutes continuing stalking behavior. Your posts warning of future posts about me constitutes continued stalking behavior. Your posts justifying your conduct under First Amendment grounds constitutes continued stalking conduct.

I have consulted counsel and have been advised that your failure to remove all posts you have made about me and my organizations on various sites constitutes continued stalking as defined below. Therefore, I am asking you in writing to remove the posts within ten days or I will be compelled to ask the Circuit Court for a court order directed at the sites that host your posts which will notify them of your stalking behavior and the court orders against you. Moreover, I will advise the Circuit Court judge at the damages hearing that you have continued to use your past blog posts to harm me and my organizations by refusing to remove the blog posts. Finally, I will notify the District Court that you are violating the Peace Order by continuing to stalk and harass me, which will result in your arrest. Please do not write me back to advise me of any removals you may make. I will be immediately notified by the criminal profilers of each removal.

Please read the following carefully so you can fully understand why your conduct toward me constitutes stalking in the legal sense of the word and why the Courts have taken action against you.

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person , in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress. Cyberstalking is different from spatial or offline stalking, however it sometimes leads to it, or is accompanied by it.
Further information: Stalking
Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself. Technology ethics professor Lambèr Royakkers writes that:
"Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)."
CyberAngels has written about how to identify cyberstalking:
When identifying cyberstalking "in the field," and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation:malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta , no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment , and threats .[4]
A number of key factors have been identified:

* False accusations . Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or
* Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.
* Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.
* False victimization . The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.

One final matter, if you comply with this request for removal, I will inform the court at the damages hearing that you have done so and that can be considered by the judge in mitigation of damages. On the other hand, if you do not comply, the Court will consider that in aggravation of damages.

Brett Kimberlin
Later I found out that it is not cyberstalking to send me court documents. However, the email sent by Brett Kimberlin was not an official court document, as far as I can tell in good faith. That is moot anyway. Clearly, Brett Kimberlin lied about not sending me any emails. He sent me this one on October 8th, 2011. Why did he lie?

Thrilla in Vanilla Part 4

Me: What other statements have I made, specific statements, and do you have proof of those statements to supply, so we can see this causation?
BK: Like I said, it's not just the defamation which was extreme in, to the nth degree, but it's the harassment. Continuous. I mean, he doesn't let up. He doesn't listen to anybody. He doesn't follow court orders. He doesn't remove stuff when asked to.
Me: Objection.
BK: And I
JJ: Overruled
BK: don't know where the next thing's coming from. I mean, you know, he writes an email saying that he wants to murder me to four people who are also bloggers. And then, you know, one of those bloggers felt concerned enough to contact the police, and then the FBI got involved. And, you know, it's turned into a nightmare. I've been contacted by Montgomery County police, [redacted] police, the FBI about this guy. You know, they sent me his picture, his car license plate numbers, everything, so that I you know
Me: Did you
BK: Sir, I [inaudible] a wire from the police department
JJ: Sir, he's saying it's a continuous
JJ: process
BK: Right there about from the FBI
JJ: in a general sense
BK: You know.
JJ: rather than the specifics.
Me: That, I don't know how I'm able to rebut that BK: Here's the thing
JJ: Because
BK: Here's his murder
Me: I don't know how I'm able to go objection.
JJ: The murder statement is not part of this case
Me: I don't know how I'm allowed
JJ: Go to the next question, Mr. [Socrates], please.
Me: There's been no proof that I made a death threat.
JJ: You can make that argument later on.
Me: I'll try to remember.
JJ: You're here, only right now
Me: Okay.
JJ: to ask questions for Mr. Kimberlin.
Me: Alright, so you're saying that there's are there two things, defamation and, alright, I would like us to try to stick with one item at a time and try to focus in on the causation.

So, uh, let's go with stalking. How, did, did I recently contact you?
BK: Yes.
Me: By email?
BK: By mail.
Me: What about by email?
BK: Nope.
Me: I didn't recently write you an email?
BK: Never.
Me: Did you recently write me an email, after I had asked you not to?
BK: Nope
Me: No?
JJ: He answered no, just
Me: I would like to
JJ: You can testify, when you, when it's your turn to testify. Just ask the questions.
Me: He just per-, I contend that he perjured himself.
JJ: Just ask questions.
Me: I don't- Yes, sir. And I, uhm, I contacted you by answering the uhm interrogatories, correct? That's the only way I contacted you?
BK: Yes.
Me: And wasn't it my obligation to respond to those interrogatories?
BK: Yes.
Me: Do you strike most, you've already stricken, so now you're saying that, uhm, we're only focusing in on my usernames of Prepostericity and socrates?
BK: I'm not striking anything. You asked me a question. I answered the question.
Me: So, you're contending that, uhm, from the Kid Kemona blog, uhm, do you believe that I wrote as anonymous army?
BK: I don't, I didn't even bring up the Kid Kenoma blog in my complaint. I mention socrates and Prepostericity. That's it, okay?
Me: Can you for the court, so you're contending that when we're looking for causation, that you're going to, we're only going to stick to socrates and Prepostericity as my usernames?
BK: Judge, I'm gonna object. I mean, he's got a list of forty names that he's used or not used, and he wants to.
Me: We're not
JJ: Yeah alright, I'm going to sustain the objection. We're not gonna get into, if you want to get into statements, okay, but if you want to talk about who's blogging what
Me: I'm just saying there's a pattern. I know.
JJ: What I'm saying to you is who's blogging what is not at issue. You have a default judgement entered against you on the claims that have been brought by the plaintiff. We're only here to talk about damages. If you want to ask about specific statements, and how they caused damage or didn't, you can do that.
Me: Sir, I've asked him about two of them, and I've asked for as many of as he can offer to the court with proof, so that you can decide whether what I wrote caused it.
JJ: Just ask him the question. How did statement X cause you damage?
Me: But we don't have any that, can you please provide to the court some statements that I made with proof that I made those statements, and how they caused you, and whether they were false?
BK: It's not just the statement. If he had written one article about me or something, that would have been one thing. This was a continuous pattern of harassment
Me: Objection.
BK: over three years.
JJ: Overruled.
BK: Over three years, most of it done anonymously, attacking me, my organisations, my partners, my business, my reputation, and it, it was persistent. It, it included false accusations. He, he went out and dug up, gathered information and and conflated it with, with other false information and made it sound like I was a, a monster. And he did this, he, he, he asked other people to, to, to do the same thing. He, he posted this stuff on blogs and, and, and tried to get an army of, of
Me: Have you supplied proof of that?
BK: people to, to, to come after me. I'm testifying. And uhm, this was done to harass me, and that's, that's the point. That's where it comes down to stalking. You know, it's not an isolated incident of somebody writing a single article but rather a pattern of stalking and harassment. It's online stalking. That's what it's called. Uhm, and you know. So
JJ: That's enough. Next question.
Me: Yes, sir.
JJ: It's a pattern of harassment which is what he's saying.
Me: Uhm okay, that, uhm, how many lawsuits have you filed over your lifetime?
BK: Have no idea.
JJ: Not relevant.
Me: Not relevant? Uhm, and just, just so we're clear on this, you, you're contending you were never sent back to prison for a parole violation?
JJ: He's already answered that.
Me: And you said no?
JJ: He's already answered that. Next question.
Me: Okay, I'll order a, a , a copy of the, okay, uhm. What statements have you brought to the court that you contend were part of the causation, that I, that I wrote? Can you please share that with the court. So we
BK: Again, again
Me: You don't have any?
BK: Stalking and harassment is
Me: Do you have any statements?
JJ: Don't interrupt.
BK: Each, each individual statement or act could be completely legal, but it's the pattern of unwanted series of actions by someone, you know, gettting repeatedly unwantingly disrupting my life every single day. When I would wake up, there would be a Google alert from Mr. socrates, Mr. Prepostericity, Mr. [my real first and last name] saying something about murder or pedophilia or fraud or, or terrorism or whatever
Me: What did I write about?
JJ: Don't interrupt him.
BK: It was, it was you know, over and over and over and over. And this is, this is what it comes down to, you know. Uhm, this is what stalking is, and this is what this man has done to me and he continues to do it right now. He's harassing me right now, bringing up 32 year old cases
JJ: It's not harassment. It's directly related to
BK: Well, okay.
JJ: to reputation.
BK: Okay.
JJ: Next question.
Me: Uhm, I guess I should try to wrap up.
JJ: That would be good.
Me: Uhm, and uh, hmmm. Could you, uh, am I only allowed to ask yes or no questions?
JJ: No.
Me: Uhm, could you share with the court, uhm, what you thought might have happened to Michael Connell and uh Karl Rove's
JJ: Uh, I don't
Me: involvement?
JJ: How does that
BK: Objection.
JJ: have something to do with damages?
Me: Uhm, well, if he's contending that by my calling him, uh, a conspiracy bunk uh, supplying conspiracy bunk, yet it can be shown that he has been a supplier of conspiracy bunk, then I don't see how there's any causation. I don't see how telling the truth about someone, uhm, becoming a public figure on a controversial issue.
JJ: You can explore, but I mean
Me: Did you
JJ: Wait a second. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like we could have a full day trial on whether something is true or not true on one given act. I'll give you a little bit of leeway, if you want to explore an area where you think what was stated was the truth, and therefore should not be compensable in damages. But you might want to ask if Mr. Kimberlin is even making any claims for damages based upon a certain set of facts. If he's not, then it doesn't matter if they're true or not.
Me: Uh-huh, but those usernames, uhm. Do you believe, uhm, my blogging on your alleging to have sold marijuana to Vice-Presidential candidate Dan Quayle caused you, uh, financial distress and/or emotional, financial problems and/or emotional distress?
BK: Judge, uh,
JJ: He's asking if that's part of your claim.
BK: That's not part of my claim.
JJ: Okay, that's not part of his claim, so it's not relevant.
BK: And second of all, you know, I have an excellent reputation in this community. I work with kids all the time. I work with Congress members all the time. I work with community leaders all the time. You know, this is the issue, not what happened 32 years ago. And my, you know, I have a wonderful reputation with my kids at school, uhm, in my very nice community of Bethesda. Uhm, and, you know, what happens to somebody when they're a kid, and they redeem themselves, and they come out and they, they have a nice job and that they're doing something for the community, I think is important. And to be constantly dragged down by somebody harassing me, you know, after I've done all these, these terrific things with young people and kids and showing that people should get involved with the world and, and engage and, and not, not do violent acts and things like that. I mean, one of my campaigns is stop domestic terrorism. It's all about not engaging in violent acts. And one of my campaigns on my uh uh uh, of my non-profit is to have, have these protesters in Middle East countries come out and speak out against their dictators. And uhm, these are the kind of things that I do. This is the reputation that I have. You know, of bringing people together and speaking out against injustice. This is what, what I devote my life to. I made some mistakes when I was a kid. I admit that. I've never said I didn't. I apologise for it. You know, some of those things have been put aside. I'm not on parole. That stuff was all dealt with through the Department of Justice. It's over.

You know, I had a fifty year sentence for something I didn't do. And it's been resolved. They, they don't have me on parole. I have no committment at all to that old case. But the point is, you know, he wants to keep pounding it and pounding it and bringing up old stuff. You know, accusations of all these terrible things that I was never even charged with and even that I was charged with and then have since been resolved. And, and he wants to ruin my reputation now. It's like I don't have any chance to redeem myself in a person's eyes like his. I just have to constantly deal with stuff that happened 32 years ago, and I have to, you know, I can't ever get ahead. I can't ever push my non-profit to get any extra cash because of him.
JJ: I gotcha.
BK: You know, that's it.
JJ: I gotcha. Okay. Anything else, Mr. [Socrates]?
Me: Uhm, so part of the damage that I've caused you, uhm, you believe is because, are you claiming because I blogged about you claiming you were an exonerated, did you ever claim that you were an exonerated, uh, political prisoner?
BK: I've never claimed that publically.
Me: You, you deny setting the bombs that you were convicted of?
BK: Absolutely.
Me: And
BK: Absoultely.
Me: you admit you weren't exonerated?
BK: Judge, Mr. [Socrates]
JJ: Just answer the question because
BK: Mr. [Socrates] is trying to get into a lawsuit that was filed against the Department of Justice. It was settled in a confidentiality agreement, and I'm not going to discuss it. I'm gonna object.
JJ: What was your question, whether he contended he was a political prisoner?
Me: Uhm, I don't know how I can speak without getting into me testifying.
JJ: Okay.
Me: But there is something that I wanted to, that I'm trying to get at. I, I, I would like to just do a few examples. I don't want to overburden
JJ: It sounds like you're asking him about a case that is subject to a confidentiality agreement. So why don't you move on to something else. I don't think it's really related to the damage issue.
Me: But, do you claim that my posting about you having been a convicted bomber has caused you financial difficulties?
BK: Yes.
Me: What did I write about you being a convicted bomber that hadn't been published in main stream media?
BK: You've harassed me. You've done it continuously.
Me: What did I
BK: You never stop.
Me: I get it. I understand, sir.
JJ: Okay.
BK: You get
(Kimberlin getting agitated- inaudible, speaking over Judge Jordan)
JJ: I'm not gonna have you arguing back and forth.
Me: I'm not arguing.
BK: He gets his kicked off of one blog. He gets banned from a blog, and he goes and starts another blog. Or starts posting
JJ: You've made it clear. It's a continuing pattern. I got it.
BK: You know.
Me: Uhm, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the witness is acting hostile.
JJ: Well, I'll step in, if I need to. I don't right now.
Me: I just believe I'm not being able
JJ: Just ask your next question.
Me: to, uhm. Hmmm. Okay, I guess, uhm, there's nothing to ask you about specific comments that I've written, because they're not presented to the court to, uh, debate or uh, to judiciate over the causation. Uh, let's go to stalking then. I mean, there's got to be a finite set of ways that I've, you allege I've damaged your life. So, let's go to stalking, I guess. Uhm, have I ever called you at your house?
BK: No.
Me: Have I ever emailed you?
JJ: (coughs) Excuse me, let's just on the stalking issue, just a second, what are you contending your damages are from a stalking point?
BK: Well, like I said, it's a pattern of harassment. It's, it's a long [inaudible] a mental assault, in which I was repeatedly and unwantedly attacked.
JJ: So it's the repeated postings?
BK: Yeah, it's the repeated posting. I mean this is, this new phenomena online stalking. You don't have to call somebody at home. You don't have to
JJ: I don't need you arguing the case.
BK: Okay.
JJ: Go ahead. Let's move onto something else.
Me: I, I, uhm
JJ: We're repeating
Me: Okay.
JJ: at this point.
Me: Uhm, why did you ask about "Louis Aubuchont" in the interrogatories?
BK: Objection.
JJ: Okay, sustained.
Me: [inaudible] it's irrelevant?
JJ: Sustained, yeah.
Me: Okay. Uhm. Okay. Uhm, can, can you tell me anything specific that I wrote, I'll just ask this one last time. Can you give me anything substantial, specific, a quote that I've written that we can look at
BK: Yeah. You called me scum of the Earth or pond scum. You remember that?
[inaudible talking over]
JJ: Don't ask him questions. Just [inaudible talking over] wait a second. Just tell him the specifics. Fair question.
BK: Okay. Pond scum. Scum of the Earth. Uhm, you said I should be in jail forever.
Me: Do you have proof of that?
BK: Yes.
Me: Have you supplied it to the court?
JJ: Are you finished with the last answer on specifics?
BK: Are you asking me?
JJ: Yeah.
BK: Uhm, uh, well he called me a conman. He called me a pedophile, a murderer
JJ: Where did he call you a pedophile? Do you have that statement?
BK: a murder suspect. I, I don't have that statement, but it was in my, I believe in my original complaint.
JJ: Okay.
BK: And in his uh, again in his murder email, you know, he, he continues, he repeatedly said that he wanted to contact my parole officers and have me thrown in jail. And uhm, that uhm
Me: Can we read that back
BK: Sure
Me: and uh, take his specific statement and see if, that he just made, and see if they line up?
JJ: No.
Me: Okay, sir.
BK: And, I mean, in that email, he says Brett (to be continued)

No comments: