And Mr. [Socrates] took it upon himself to decide that we were fraudsters and criminals and pedophiles and murderers. And my partner is Jewish, and he made a post that Jews are the scourge of the Earth. And that Jews should die in the ovens. And he has called me a pedophile a murderer, a fraudster, a con man, a terrorist. I mean the list goes on.Below in today's excerpt, you will see how I told Judge Jordan man to man I didn't appreciate that kind of rubbish directed at me.
From the earliest of age, we were taught about what happened to our people. Brett Kimberlin picked the wrong time and subject to fock with me. That utter bullshite probably woke me up more than the coffee I drank before the hearing.
There's something called right woos left, and I've done all I can as a blogger to expose it.
On the otherhand, Brett Kimberlin has an affiliate called The Lonestar Iconoclast, and this was what they once had on its cover.
If you look at the bottom bit, you can see they had published an article by an anti-semitic, conspiracy kook named Eric May.
Brad Friedman of BradBlog up until recently has had only one moderator. Her handle is Agent 99. She and her blogging buddies have been supporting anti-semitic sources for years. Myself and The Last Name Left have teamed up a lot confronting her and other anti-semitic pigs the last several years. I encourage folks to visit his blog.
I won't list everything I've done which shows clearly Brett Kimberlin couldn't have been more out of touch with reality with what he alleged I had posted. Here is some of it.
National Wingnut Appreciation Day
Brad Friedman's Moderator Tied to Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial
Michael Rivero Exposed As A Right Woos Left Jew Hater
Internet Fakes Creating Outrage At Jewish People
More on Rivero and Jew Hating
I could put up more links proving I have been adamantly opposed to internet Joooo hating, but the above should suffice. When I think of that Kimberlin allegation made in court, I can only think of one more thing.
Johnny Cash-Folson Prison Blues
Thrilla in Vanilla Part 5
I was fairly wiped out by the time I hit the witness stand. My opening schtick was disjointed. By the end I was able to catch a second wind and pick back up my game, especially when it was Kimberlin's turn to cross-examine. In hindsight, this thingie had been decided by the end of my cross-examination of Brett Kimberlin. Thinking baseball, at that point it was 22-3 in the last of the fifth inning. Kimberlin was thoroughly bested by a tired, sleepy, good kid from Massachusetts who had been driving all through the night to face down this nonsense.
BK: And, I mean, in that email, he says... it sounds like perjury, and I want his parole officers to find out that he has perjured himself. And uhm, that means Kimberlin should go back to jail. That's what he says, and that's what these kind of posts that he made all the time.
Socrates: Was there an if, or did I say was there a condition?
Kimberlin: That Kimberlin should be in jail. That's what he always wanted, you know, they should be charged with fraud. There should be investigations. He's asked people to investigate.
Judge: Next question, if you've got anymore.
Socrates: Uhm. Well. Do you think it's wrong for people to post about others who have committed crimes in the past?
Socrates: Hmm, okay. Uhm. I guess I'm done. I asked for evidence, and I'm not getting anything to work with here.
Judge: Alright, you can step down Mr. Kimberlin. Do you want to testify, Mr. [Socrates]?
Socrates: Yes, please.
Judge: OK, come on up here, and we'll swear you in.
Socrates: Do I, do I have to leave my documents?
Judge: You can bring them up if you want.
Socrates: I don't know if they'll do me any good, but.
(swearing in stuff)
Judge: Okay, state your name for the record, please.
Socrates: My name is [Socrates].
Judge: OK. Okay, Mr. [Socrates], what do you have to say?
Socrates: I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say, and if you want to set me some guidelines, I'll try to abide.
Judge: Keep in mind that the determination is whether certain statements by you led to damages to Mr. Kimberlin.
Socrates: I'll say this. Uhm, I apologize for delivering this brief today. I tried to get it in before today. It's only, it's about 6 pages. And, ah, it pretty much wraps up, it makes in a concise way, uhm, my argument that I did not cause, cause any, uh, financial or, uhm, any financial things. Uhm, I contend
Judge: Are you talking about this packet?
Judge: Mark this as Defendent's exhibit 1.
Socrates: I contend that reposting things that have been written by, uh, mainstream journalists, things that are in public, uh, court doc- records about Mr. Kimberlins' past, that, that does not constitute stalking or harassment. I was under the impression that stalking, well cyber, I was under, forget about stalking, that's, that's physical, going to someone's house, I was under the impression. Cyberstalking I am very aware of. I have been getting cyberstalked, and it has really picked up the last half a year. And I mention this, because what Mr. Kimberlin has supplied to the court has almost to a T, mirrored actual cybersmearing and slander against me.
Judge: That's not why we're here.
Socrates: OK, yes sir. I, uhm, I apologise. Uhm, alright, I'll just, ah, I'll just take a few, uh, a few minutes if I'm allowed. Uhm. I contend that no evidence has been supplied to the court that I wrote anything that was false. I have heard things alleged about me that I wrote, that I never wrote. For the record, I am 100% Jewish. So when I hear something about the scourge, Jews being the scourge of the earth, I, I want to know where he's coming up with that, and why I have to sit through and hear that. I know it doesn't have to do with the case, but that's how I'm feeling. Uhm, things that, I want to get to the causation. I want to know. I, I, I swear under penalties of perjury that I never called him a pedophile. I took very good care to phrase things as to the best of my ability. There was information written about, uh, Mr. Kimberlin possibly having, uh, an um awkward relationship with Julia Scyphers' granddaughter. I did not make that up. I'm just trying to defend myself for the specifics that he's claiming that I lied about him or asked him about. A perjurer? I, he, he, if he's been convicted of perjury, then how is it harrassing on my part to post that he's a perjurer? If he was, uhm, actually a murder suspect. I seem to recall him denying that. Maybe he didn't deny it. If I make a mistake, I apologise. If I, I'm not, I understand perjury is not a good thing. Um, and if I do mess up, I apologise, and I'll whatev-, um
Judge: What was the basis for you to say that he was a perjurer? Well first of all, did you say that? Did you state that?
Socrates: I read, read in Mark. Yes, I've read in that, uhm, he was convicted of perjury. I believe he was. I read about it in uhm Mark Singer, Mark Singer's book, uh, Citizen K.
Judge: What does that have to do with this case?
Socrates: Um, well, that's another way that um, that's another exhibit that shows that, um, Brett Kimberlin has indeed been a public figure. He went into a book deal with Mark Singer of the uhm, The New Yorker. Based on, uhm, I believe the impetus was, ah, Mr. Kimberlin's claims that he had sold marijuana to Dan Quayle which was never substantiated. From what I read from Mr. Singer's book, uh, he poured over documents, uhm. Apparently there was a list of, there was like, what is it? The Federal Drug and, Drug, one of those federal groups, like a drug agency. Uh, I believe they had a list of, uh, suspected high-profile individuals who may be involved in drugs. And I believe, that, uhm, Mr. Kimberlin somehow got access to that list, and, and since he grew up in Indiana, that he used that. So if he's claiming that I've been smearing him with, with uh blog posts about a public situation which was blasted, which was all over the news. I, I remembered it back then. I was kind of uh too young to really follow it, but I
remember there was someone uh in a prison claiming he had sold marijuana to Dan Quayle. And if he, if he was doing, I don't know if he was doing that, if he was doing that to ah, influence the uh the race, the election, then that's, uh, being a public figure. I'm not, I'm unsure about public figures in regards to high-profile criminals. Uhm, but I, I, I do see his name. His name is all over the internet beyond what I've written. I, I
Judge: Did you read the book Citizen K?
Judge: Does the K refer to Kimberlin?
Socrates: Yes. It was by Mark Singer of The New Yorker. There's uhm, there's a small blurb in one of the sheets I put in, that was put in.
Judge: Okay, is that your Exihibit 1, that we're talking about?
Socrates: Ah, yeah like somewhere in some of these yellow. I, I corresponded the ah the letter, so th the first one would be A. Uhm
Judge: Is that something you're offering as evidence?
Socrates: Yes, I'm offering all this as evidence for you to consider that, uhm, there th that he's a public figure, and that he has not proven that I wrote anything that was false or that hadn't been written before by other people. And in that, because he has, he is involved in these high-public cases, and he is. I mean he's listed in the ah, just recently he's got this campaign to uhm, against the- He's got, he's got this campaign against Andrew Breitbart of uh. He's the gentleman who helped Ariana Huffington start the Huffington Post. And uh, I mean I know it's your, it's not- I know it's your job to, and I feel for, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be funny, but uh, it's, it's in, it's in some of these fil--, in these documents, where he's contending that ah, I was in some, some type of ah, that I'm working for Andrew Breitbart, or it's a possibility. Uhm, I just believe that, uhm, there's just so much untrue about this lawsuit against me that uhm, the only thing holding it together is the, the default judgement. So, uhm, I, I need to just go after the causation as you've directed me, and ah uh, it may seem like I'm, I'm dredging up a uh retr-- I'm trying to sneak in a retrial, but I'm not. It's my, ah, it's my amateur status, but uh. I mean, it's only like five pages. I don't, I don't know if you have to decide this case today, but, uhm, these are just like, these are just examples to, to back my attempt to back-up uh points made about him being a public figure. Uhm, that things like, well none of it was false. And, uh, I would just like you to consider all, that there have been a lot of things said, alleged about me that even Mr. Kimberlin has had to, uh, conveniently erase from your, ah, your uh judiciating, your uh, whatever the word is for, deliberating. It, it, that there's- So I'm wondering what's left with the causation uh? Yes, I wrote
Judge: You use the word these. Are you taking about Defense Exhibit 1? This packet? Is this what you're talking about?
Socrates: Yes, that uhm, I'm just saying like that
Judge: That's what you're offering as evidence.
Socrates: That's my evidence that I didn't, that I, I didn't smear him, because I was just posting on a public figure about things that have already been written about in mainstream uh magazines and, ands newpapers and on television and in court for his various criminal hearings. Uhm, I'm not looking to, I, I'm not ah- and I, and that's why I asked him like what specifically have I written? So I hear like scourge of the Jews or the scourge, or uh, that I called him a pedophile. I didn't call him a pedophile. I didn't even call him a murderer. I called him a murder suspect of Julia Scyphers, and I did, I have written that his, his actions, his setting down those bombs in Speedway, Indiana event- did eventuate in uh Carl DeLong taking his life. And that, uhm, his parole, from what I read in the Indy Star from a recent article, he was in the news, in a recent article. Uhm, it, it appears that uh his parole had- He was let out, but then his parole was revoked because uhm, he failed to make restitution, restitution to uh the wife of Carl DeLong. And uh, one of the documents in here is from a court case. Uhm, where I believe he, he, he sued the wrong person and the court officer, or I forget. I'm not an expert on this specific story. But uhm, I know there are two court documents in here, and one of them he-- and I'm not trying to give you extra work. I mean to wrap this up. I apologize for not coming in sooner. Yeah, I believe if I did come in sooner, then I could've, we could've- But I'm not even allowed to say that. Uhm, so I'm just saying I want to see causation. Lori Grace is probably, I guess Lori Grace is, might be his best piece of, uh, of uh, his best item for debate, like whether I caused him some financial problems? I do not believe I should have to pay for any of his, whatever his court costs have been, because I haven't seen anything from his uh- I've seen no proof from him according to my defense. But uhm, on the Lori Grace, like ah, I tried to say, I messed up by testifying when I was not supposed to. The Lori Grace, she has her own public website, and she contends that she brought together- I wish I had brought that to show you as evidence. But uhm, she, by penalties of perjury, ah, Lori Grace has her own website. Ah, she's the granddaughter of uh Oliver Grace. I forget what he- he was like ah, a famous American Who's Who-type person, and uh. So she has a lot of money and uhm, I, I, I notice things about- I wasn't trying to destroy Mr.- I'd never try to destroy Mr. Kimberlin. Uh, it's just a fascinating story. It's not me alone who's fascinated by this. Uhm, it's been written on by ah, recently the Indy Star. Uhm, and as for Lori Grace, I did write her an e-mail, but she has her own website. She lists her e-mail address, and she wrote in a public figure kind of way that she was the one who brought together Brett Kimberlin, Cliff Arnebeck, and I'd have to see the article she wrote to, to, to better describe it. But my point is that in the blogging world, as bloggers, it's not stalking to interact with what people write. Cyberstalking is to follow people around the internet and cause them distress.
(to be continued)