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

Thursday, January 19, 2012

The Thrilling Conclusion of Thrilla in Vanilla

I dominated this thingie from start to finish, yet in the final minutes Judge Jordan showed that he hadn't been paying attention.

He has an authoritarian personality. People like that have a natural disdain for INFP's such as myself, one of the idealist dreamers. It's now on the public record that he listened to the most utter bullshite imaginable and let it slide.

He's got to be one of the worst judges I've ever come across. The only one I can think of worse than him was the South African dude Biko clobbered. I don't remember his name, because I read that book a couple decades ago.

The only judges I know of are those from tv and movies I can barely remember. I guess Jordan is a better judge than the one Pacino shouted at, "You're out of order. This whole trial's out of order."

Jordan is definitely nowhere as good a judge as the one My Cousin Vinny went up against, the Herman Munster dude. Hey Jordan, if you're reading this, hey buddy, buy a ticket for the next clue train and don't go back to Rockville and waste another year of the taxpayers' money.

As for Kimberlin, we now know how things turned out for him in the Thrilla in Vanilla.

I'll also add this. Donkeytale is waaay off-base thinking this thingie was anything other than Rumble in the Jungle. The heavy hitting, nutroot e-thugs came after me. Kimberlin came after me. For months on end, I went rope-a-dope.

Now who's having the last laugh? Hey Triple F, when you finally get caught up reading about the Michael Connell Threatened by Karl Rove hoax, or how Kimberlin perjured himself multiple times under your watch, yet you were still giving me shite up to the very end, you're gonna feel like a completely overprivileged, vanilla, self-righteous, full of yourself, not as important as you think you are idiot.

I'm a bad man. I'm on top of the zeitgeist. And so is donkeytale. p:>


*** At the beginning here, I mention how Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and BradBlog are closely associated, and how it's unlikely the judge would have a clue. But then he said he knew what I was talking about. Wtf?

*** People shouldn't stop giving money to Velvet Revolution because of Brett Kimberlin. They should stop giving money to them, because they run wild hoaxes and never adequately explain what they have ever actually accomplished with the apparent millions they have raked in.

*** Brett Kimberlin kept going on and on and on and on and on and on and on some more about how I was dredging up something from 32 years ago. He said he never had a parole violation. The dude was lying out of his ass or utterly delusional. Exonerated? I highly doubt that.

And if the Maryland court doesn't charge him with perjury, imho, they will be in collusion with Brett Kimberlin. His parole was clearly revoked, and he didn't get out of prison until 2000 or 2001.

Brett Kimberlin has made a major mistake. If I was him, I'd plead insanity. If he's mentally ill, then he needs help.

Sometimes people are truly delusional. I saw this flick A Beautiful Mind, a true story, and the main dude did see things that simply weren't true. That could be what's going on here.

*** I wish ye could have heard that dude's voice to go with the text. It was pretty wild to experience; the intonations, the drama, the perjury, the lack of even one bit of evidence to back his case, the delusion that a default judgement actually meant anything other than a non-win win.

I'm very proud of having exposed him and Brad Friedman of BradBlog and others on so many levels. Someone had to do it.

*** Check out Judge Jordan at the end stick his butt into my final statement. What a pretentious, self-righteous, know-it-all bugger. I was hitting my final statement stride.

Why didn't Jordan check to see if Kimberlin had perjured himself? Is it because he's a hack or worse? On Sept. 14th, Jordan said I could request a new judge, and I did. Yet there he was ready to go, when I showed up on November 14th.

This wasn't about 32 years ago. It was about Kimberlin lying about not having been thrown back into the slammer in the later 1990's.

Wake the fock up, Judge Richard E. Jordan! You were kissing his arse at the end talking up how he's involved in good stuff now. The guy is involved in spreading outrageous conspiracy bunk which has brought in tons of money.

Triple F, did you ever consider I might have been telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Were you suffering from cognitive dissonance that day? You hate Boston Red Sox fans or wtf?

The Thrilling Conclusion of Thrilla in Vanilla

Socrates: Uh, yes I was, but uh I believe those three, those three have been shown to have a close association, and uh, I mean, unless, unless we get into specific, uh like what happened, uh I don't believe that the, the judge- I mean we're basically speaking to the judge. So unless the judge is blogging in his private time, I don't think he knows what we're talking about.

Kimberlin: Judge, I have no further questions.

Jordan: I know what you're talking about.

Socrates: Okay.

Jordan: Uhm, you can step down, Mr. [Socrates].

Socrates: Thanks.

Jordan: Do you have any other evidence, Mr. [Socrates}?

Socrates: Uh.

Jordan: I don't mean more statements, cause you've had your chance. Have a seat over there. Do you have any other documents? I've got your exhibit 1.

Socrates: I would only be able to have them after, and but I'm gonna say it. I'm not, uh, I mean, I could, I just want to emphsize that if I'm unable to add any more doc- send in any more documents, that I'm just saying for the public record, that uh to check into that Michael Connell story, check into what I blogged, and I stand by what I wrote. And if I, uh, I just stand by what I wrote. I didn't. It was a fascinating story, in my opinion. Like many people, I don't like people not owning up to what they did. Or if he wants to say he didn't do that, then tell us why, give us either, I don't know. It's fascinating. I don't know what to say. I don't if there's any more to cover on Mr. Kimberlin. So I mean, if you think he's a private individual. I mean, it's not, there's no end game, sir. I'm being sincere. There's no end game.

Jordan: Okay, so that's all your evidence?

Socrates: Uh

Jordan: Unless there's more, you know. We're closing down your part of the case.

Socrates: Uhm,

Jordan: Unless you've got something else.

Socrates: No, just more of my babblings.

Jordan: Okay.

Socrates: So I'm done.

Jordan: Alright. Uhm, I've heard the evidence, but if either of you wants to sum things up in two or three minutes, I'll hear you.

Kimberlin: Uhm, Judge, like I've said, I've been involved with this non-profit for ten years roughly and dealt with thousands of people, and no one has ever done what he's done to me. I mean, it's been constant. It's, it's been brutal. Uhm, you know, I have a thing called Google uh Google Alerts that alert me if my name does happen to come up on anything, anywhere in the whole country. Really, the only alerts I usually ever get are about him, uhm and, so you know for him to say he's just telling the truth, I mean, it's- If someone writes an article about me or my past, it's one article, and that's it. It's done, and people move on the next day. There's no moving on with this guy. It's like constant barrage every single week, every day. Whatever, you think he's gone, and then boom! It's like, you know whack a mole. He's back up again, you know, blogging. And then he, you know, he, he, he posted some stuff last year, and then he bragged about that he's now part of the zeitgeist!!! Because he's exposed Brett Kimberlin past, you know, from 32 years ago. And now, you know, all these right wing bloggers know about it and all this. And he's you know, he's got this huge head about him over this. And, and, and then you know he goes on, and he, you know, talked about this over and over for the last year about how he's the zeitgeist, because he exposed Brett Kimberlin. And Brett Kimberlin is involved with these non-profits, and, and everybody should stop, you know, giving money to these non-profits, because of Brett Kimberlin did something 32 years ago.

You know, and, and he talks about, you know, I haven't been exonerated. Well, he doesn't know what happened with the Justice Department lawsuit. He doesn't know. But he goes out and says, I know he's never been exonerated and all this stuff. Well, I'm not getting into that here. You know, but I can tell you for a fact and everybody here, I'm not on parole. I had a 50 year sentence. I'm no longer serving that sentence. So something happened, and that's as far as I'm going to go with that.

But, but at the same time, you know, for him to keep pouring this stuff out day after day after day, when I have to deal with kids, and I have to deal with Congress members, and I have to deal with community leaders, and I have to deal with non-profits, and all this. You know, every day, I get people Google searching me. Well how's this Brett Kimberlin doing? Oh you know they want to find out something good that I've done, you know helping the Green Part- the Green Movement in Iran or some, some kids that got hurt here in Bethesda or something like that, they don't find that out. They see his garbage, you know, 32 years ago murders and bombings and pedophilia and fraud and all this other stuff. I mean, it's constant, constant, constant.

He doesn't want to give me a leg up to get, to get. You know, there's no redemption. I have no redemption. It's like a ball and chain. This guy's my ball and chain. You know, it's like constant. And, and, and that's why I sued. You know, he was asked many times over and over under his assumed names stop this attack on Brett Kimberlin.

You know, he hasn't done anything to you. He's doing great stuff now. He's working, doing with children, and, and, you know has a family and stuff like that. Leave him alone. He would not stop. He wouldn't stop when the court asked him to stop. He wouldn't stop when the police asked him to stop. You know, and even after the judge found against him on default judgement and then ruled that he has to pull the blogs, he wouldn't pull the blogs. He had a court order. Pull those posts! He wouldn't do it. Google had to do it. Google had to step in and pull the posts.

And then even after that, he's telling people go to the Google cache and find these articles, that I've written about him. This is the truth. You need to know this about this guy. He is something terrible. He's a monster.

You know, this is what I've been dealing with every single day for years. And, you know, I finally had enough, you know, and I'm sorry that I had to bring it into the court and all that. You know, but I didn't know where it was coming from. I didn't know who he was. You know, and I have a right to live my life, to, to redeem myself, to be a, a outstanding member of society, which I am.

And, and I, I don't need this guy, you know, uh uh, throwing all this garbage at me constantly. You know, for whatever reason. You know, whether it's fascinating or the truth or I don't- You know, that's not the point. You know, it's harassment, and it's stalking, and it's defamation. And he, he, uh, you know, he throws in this stuff that a little bit about the truth from my past, and he, he makes it out to be something terrible. And, and, and you know, I, I, I think he should be held accountable, you know, for the full amount of damages. Thank you.

Jordan: Okay. Mr. [Socrates].

Socrates: Okay, uh, the main thing here is that Mr. Kimberlin has shown no causation. He, this whole lawsuit of his has been a total slander and smear job on me. This guy is a total public figure who has an extensive criminal, criminal past. He, he even uh denies what has been proven in law. He brings up some fictitious exoneration yet doesn't share it, even though that may be relevant to this case.

He's a public figure. Uhm

Jordan: Why, why don't you, uhm, why don't you just let him, leave him alone?

Socrates: Well, yeah so

Jordan: Why don't you just let him overcome his past?

Socrates: I'm not his [inaudible]

Jordan: He's involved in stuff right now that sounds very positive, why don't you

Socrates: No, he's, uh, the Michael Connell- I'm pretty much done. I mean, we're here in court. I'm done, but this guy you should look into it. Really look into it, and if you give this a fair shake, I believe you'll start to see that he's a public figure, and that I have not been stalking him.

He came out with a video. Can I sit, or am I supposed to stand?

Jordan: You're supposed to stand.

Socrates: I'm sorry about that.

Jordan: If there's a physical reason, you can.

Socrates: No, I'm fine.

Jordan: The question is why don't you leave him alone?

Socrates: I have left him alone. He sent me an email.

Jordan: When's the last time you blogged about him?

Socrates: Uh, I, I don't count those what he said I, I'm still blogging on him. I'm not- I haven't blogged on him like since, since that, that injunction. Maybe, you know, I slipped in like a mysterious like we'll see what happens, and maybe I can talk about it, but I can't really say anything type of thing. Or, or I admit like I put in a sentence or two, uhm you know, if you write site and then the colon and then uh and no space and then you put in the website, not the http but uh the website and then dot com or net, and then you put in your search phrases, then you can get to the Google cache.

I didn't mention by name. I did mention uh, I do admit to that. I mean, I wasn't trying to be malicious. And he was searching that out. But uhm, he, he came out, he's contending that he's a private individual. He put out a video. It was a remake of uhm, the Jonh Lennon song, War is, uh, his war song, and that got an incredible amount of youtube hits. It's just preposterous to think, to call him anything but a public figure.

I'm done. I'm not a stalker. I never stalked him. There's nothing. Nothing's been proven. There have been so many smear jobs on me, that uh, I don't know what you can believe from him. And I'm not, I'm not a stalker. And I, and I refuse to be turned into a prisoner or a convict, when I've done nothing wrong.

I blogged on a public figure, sir, and I'm sorry I'm getting emotional. But I mean, I didn't do anything wrong. He didn't show, he didn't show- the only thing he showed mentioned turned out he had to admit he doesn't have any proof of.

So what is up with this? He's, he's ah, he's just going with the default judgement. So, so fine. He won the default, because I was an idiot not to show up on time, because I had no money and no real way to get down here. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't ah. I messed up. I have no one to blame but myself for the default. But, I mean, I don't see the causation. I, I really don't. I, I didn't write any lies. He hasn't shown that I wrote anything, I mean, untruths that led to him losing money.

Maybe he has shown that he lost some money because of my blogging. But it wasn't just me. There were other people, and it was his, it was his responsi- He could have written on my blog. He could've said, like you know, that's not true. I mean, he's saying I called him a pedophile, when I didn't. And that to me appears to be slander, but I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not gonna go on for hours here. Uhm, it's literally out of my hands this whole thing. I don't see what else I can say. I'm done.

You don't have to worry about me. I don't want to go to prison. I've never been in jail before except for like a dui, but uhm, never convicted. I mean, I'm not a criminal. I'm not violent, and I'm not going to do anything to him. And I'm pretty much done blogging on him. Especially if you say you may never blog on him again. Whatever that means, I won't do it. Because, but I don't think I should pay him a cent. I don't see what the thing is here, where I should pay him money.

It's not my fault if truthful things written about him has caused him emotional distress. It's not, it's not my- I'm not saying he's Adolph Hitler, but uh pick someone who's done something similar to what he did, and it's not, it's not the public's responsibility to uh to give him a leg up and to forgive him, especially when he's still denying it.

And uh, I mean your court even puts these things in the public record. Like people can go to the web, the Maryland case research, I think that's what it's called. They can plug it in, and they can see it. So, and I mean, I showed you right here, there's all these documents from his past. You've got the Dan Quayle thing. I mean, I don't know what else I have to do to show he's a public figure. And with a public figure, there's a much, it's just different for the causation.

I, I asked him to show the court what I said that was either a lie or that hadn't been written before that was the truth that caused him to lose money. I'm done. He could've- I don't know. I'm sorry. I just- I'm sorry. I, I don't- I'm not really, I'm sorry that I'm uh, I'm sorry that I'm not a lawyer. I'm sorry I don't have a lawyer. That's it, sir. That is the bottom line here. I'm sorry that I couldn't afford a lawyer, and I'm sorry that I came down here without a lawyer, because, because in civil cases, poor people have no rights. I don't mean to offend you, but it's my opinion that poor people in civil cases have next to no rights, and, and freedom of speech is about who has the most money. And that, and uh, I just, uh, that's it. I think I've said it all. Alright, he hasn't proven one thing that I wrote. I mean, if my calling him the personification of scum uh caused him such mental distress, then uh, I mean, did he provide uh his counseling sessions, where the, the actual tort evidence on that? I mean, ah, ah, I mean I'm pretty sure a blogger calling some- a public figure the personification of scum is not gonna cause them to lose their money.

Uhm, what did I write to Lori Grace that wasn't true? And Lori Grace had her own website. She supplies her email. What do bloggers do? Why would they put their email up, if they're not saying email me? Did she tell me to stop emailing her? Did I email her more than once? No. What did I, what did I write to her that was false or that was wrong to do?

And if you look at her website, if you, if you investigate it, you'll see that she was writing about her involvement with Brett Kimberlin and uh Cliff Arnebeck and Stephen Spoonamore. That's the guy. There was another individual I had forgot about. And then if you look into, uhm, the Michael Connell threatened by Karl Rove hoax, if you look into what I actually wrote, there's no lies in that. I mean, I can uncover it for you. I'm jeopardising myself with perjury, if I'm gonna make things up.

I'm not the one calling, saying someone said something about. I mean, I'm Jewish, and I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna. I'm done. I'm done.

Jordan: It's unfortunate that this matter didn't go to trial, because it does complicate the damage issue. Uhm, but.

Mr Kimberlin, the Plaintiff has the burden of proof uh to show actual damages. There is a concept called defamation per se, but Maryland law still requires a showing of actual damages. And uh, I've got to find actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence in order to award damages.

Uhm, there are varied ways before the court in all honesty or generalised statements. I don't see specific quotes. Uhm, there are words that you reference, uh, not in context, and I don't have the actual statement so and so did this or that on a certain date and is therefore guilty of some offense, and that that is an untrue statement.

Uh so, the concern I have is that the statements that I've got before me are very generalised as supposed to specific uh statements directed to your person. Uh, the major uh concern I have and the difficulty I have in awarding actual damages is that the causal connection between whatever statements were made that were defamatory and the financial impact on you is uh not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

You can say well this grant money has dropped down uhm you know in U.S. uh United States grant that might have gone through, that was looking good, but then it fell though. Uhm, that is some circumstantial evidence. But I don't find it to be sufficient evidence to prove actual damages. Uhm, and this is uhm, I also can't t- uh, I also can't uhhh be blind to uh 1st Amendment issues, and whether statements that were contained in blogs were statements of uh truth and uh, whether the uh, they did have an impact on your reputation.

Uhm, I am going to order a permanent injunction that Mr. [Socrates] will not defame Mr. Kimberlin or interfere with his business. Uh, I, I cannot under the 1st Amendment order that there be nothing said about Mr. Kimberlin ever again. But I will say to you, Mr. [Socrates], it's, it might be the legal ruling but morally get off this guy's back. Let him get on with his life. Let him get on with his business.

He's doing productive, positive things. You might not agree with what he's doing, but he's contributing to society in a positive way. Let him get away from his past. 32 years is a long time, and, and even though you say you're you know propounding the truth, uhm, what for? I mean you made, you've made some points. They're out there. That information was past. It's, Mr. Kimberlin should be allowed to get on with his life.

I'm gonna uh, because there was a uh a default uh on the claims themselves uh, I'll award what is considered really nominal damages of a hundred dollars. But a final injunction that you are ordered not to defame, not to interfere with his business. And if you write about him, then you write at your peril of whether what you're writing falls under those categories. And you can be in front of the court on contempt of court and can obviously be subject to a future lawsuit.

This is something that's caused you I would assume some angst. And, you know, in different circumstances, maybe even a different judge, you end up with, you know, a huge dollar judgement against you.

Kimberlin: One question. Can I get costs?

Jordan: Uhm, court costs? That's what you're asking for?

Kimberlin: Yeah, just uh the cost of the filing and subpoeanas and all that. I think it was about 800 bucks.

Jordan: Uhm, I will award court costs. Now, what the clerk considers to be court costs, I don't know if it is that amount or not, you know?

Kimberlin: Okay.

Jordan: Because that's sort of a term of [inaudible]

Kimberlin: So ah how is that determined?

Jordan: I'll have a written order that'll issue, that'll award costs. Uhm, th- that the uh defendant is to pay costs.

Kimberlin: Okay.

Jordan: Court costs, okay.

Kumberlin: Judge, I want to thank you for your time. I really appreciate it.

Jordan: Well, I mean, I'm sure you're not exactly thrilled with the outcome, but

Kimberlin: Well yeah

Jordan: Defa-, defamation, interference with business, they're very difficult matters to prove and to tie together. Uhm,

Kimberlin: I mean the, the injunction I think is good, and the default judgement is good. I'm happy with that.

Jordan: Alright. Well, I'm

Socrates: Thanks, thanks for letting me ah continue to blog, as long as I don't defame.

Jordan: And I would just say just use

Socrates: I never did.

Jordan: Be, be human about it. Mr. Kimberlin shouldn't have to

Socrates: Was he, was he human about me?

Jordan: I don't want, I don't want you talking to me.

Socrates: Okay.

Jordan: Let him go on with his life. Don't, he doesn't need to have his kids and his wife reading stuff about him on the internet. I'm just saying from a moral standpoint, give him a break. Okay. Thank you very much.

Kimberlin: Thank you. Thank you.

Jordan: Have a good day. Mr. Kimberlin, why don't you [inaudible]. I'll give you about a five minute head start. I don't want you guys bumping into each other in the elevator given the fact that there's a protective order.

Kimberlin: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Jordan: Okay, thank you. Mr. [Socrates], if you wouldn't mind just having a seat in the court room until uh 25 of 1. Five minutes.

Socrates: As long as I can go and don't get arrested, I'll be happy.

Jordan: You're not, you're not gonna get arrested.

Socrates: They didn't, they ah

Jordan: You can call the next case.

Socrates: I was

Jordan: I uh, I've gotta deal with another matter.

Socrates: Aaaah [inaudible]

Jordan: Deputy [inaudible], I am very much grateful for your being here. I know it was maybe not the most uh exciting use of your time, but uh

Socrates: Ah, come on, this was gold. Now I'm off to (end of audio). The last word was probably blog, lol, which would have been a euphemism for weed hunt.


Dust92 said...

'why don't you just leave him alone?... he's involved with positive stuff now'

What's positive about getting people to donate to prevent wild conspiracies?

Why shouldn't the fact this man has conned people with ridiculous stories (IE Citizen K) or has a conviction for perjury be discussed in public? People should know who they are dealing with.

I don't understand where this judge gets off demanding people explain why they are using their free speech to discuss the truth about public figures... particularly a convicted bomber. When the courts convicted Kimberlin of a felony, it was an expression of public outrage with his conduct. Why should judges ask people to justify discussing that?

It's really aggravating. I can see why you've been so pissed off about it.

Kimberlin really got lucky. Did the judge consider this man's criminal record? He said he was exonerated in secret... did he verify that (or rather... laugh at how ridiculous it would be to expect you to abide by an fake exoneration you aren't aware of)?

It seems that when Kimberlin said he was exonerated, the judge should have been more alarmed. I realize the judge can't take a side and can't demand one said prove their case, but damn. It's ridiculous.

It's important to continue talking about it. Next time someone asks you to explain why you said what you did, just say "it's important to share the truth about a man who tries so hard to silence the truth".

It's not like Julia Scyphers and Carl Delong can speak out about Brett Kimberlin now.

socrates said...

Thanks for the post, Dustin. A few people have recommended I chill out attacking Judge Jordan, but hopefully it's now understood why I was so disappointed in his performance.

I've an errand to do, but one idea I have for a new one is to highlight Kimberlin's perjury concerning never having had his parole revoked.

He also lied a number of other times. The Jews are the scourge of the earth thingie, maybe that wasn't perjury, as I can't remember if he'd been sworn in yet. I googled a bit and believe he picked that up from thinking I was writing as Socrates on a white supremacist blog.

I sincerely believe he is headed back to prison. I do not believe he ever had his parole scrubbed. Thus, it appears he still has about 18 or 19 years left to serve.

A while back at Patterico's you were wondering how I could feel any sympathy for him. I saw your point. But it's like this. I don't believe that there are concrete truths such as good and evil. I truly believe there is a mental health issue causing all of this, and imho, he never received help for it.

That doesn't mean I think he should be a free man, especially because he committed perjury while trying to run a law abiding citizen such as myself into serving time.

I also feel sorry for Jordan. I know I shouldn't. But I admit to being a contradictory fella.

Judge Jordan's gonna feel like the biggest idiot on Earth, when he realises, if he hasn't already, that he now looks like a complete jackass.

The thing he needs to remember is that Kimberlin has major skills for getting well-meaning people to buy his schtick. There was Doonesbury. There was Mark Singer. There were others.

Finally, for purposes of this post while leaving the election fraud hoaxes to the side, since Kimberlin had his parole revoked in 1997, that means we are not talking about 32 years. We are talking approximately 14 to 15 years. And seeing how he continues to lie about things such as that, and since he is such a public figure, we can't let this slide. I agree with you we must keep talking about it until true justice is served.

Dustin said...

I think the way you're criticizing the Judge here is very effective and even constructive.

One of the ways Ron and pals win is when they provoke outrage. Even when outrage is justified, a lot of people dismiss it. It's unfair. It's even worse when you're outraged with a judge, even though the situation is even more unfair and the outrage is actually more justified.

Keep it up, btw.

I respect where you're coming from in wishing Brett would just be kept from hurting more people, rather than actually hating him. It's easy to assume you're correct that he's just mentally messed up. Personally, I disagree. I think he's simply evil, I think he knows he's doing wrong, and I think he will do whatever he can to continue.

I also think you're right that he's headed back to prison. That's a big reason things are starting to flow differently. The fight isn't this online contest right now. But please keep it up. You've certainly earned your free speech (not that you should have had to).

socrates said...

Things do appear to be happening offline and not on.

Maybe you can ask Patterico with his connections to find out about his parole situation. I found something from 2004. I'll provide the link soon. It appears to be the most up to date activity Kimberlin has undertaken concerning his battle for exoneration and/or having his parole given an early termination.

I simply don't believe him, especially when he lied in so many other ways, including never having had his parole revoked or emailing me.

The problem is it's very difficult to get someone charged with perjury in a civil case.

So if we could figure out his exact situation, then we could drop a dime to those folks, if he is indeed still on parole. I see no way he could have been exonerated. I do believe Larisa Alexandrovna saw something. But I think she is some ditzy writer wannabe who was snookered just like so many before her.

At a minimum, I would like to see the injunction removed and my liability chopped down to a buck and no court costs. Though I do believe I have given Judge Rupp the wherewithal to reverse the default. That would be the best case scenario. Default reversed and the case summararily dismissed.

By the way, that allegation I wrote Jews are the scourge of the earth and should be put in ovens was made under oath. It may not be enough to get him charged with perjury, but from what I see, there were eight counts, with perhaps five of them being rock solid to indict. But I am a layman. These are only my opinions.

The best I can do is document and ship them to the court. I am kind of tired of this whole thing and want to get on with my life.

socrates said...

Ron Brynaert is clearly a waste of time. I think we've collectively done well in regards to him and Rauhauser. My schtick has always been to beat down trolls and then move on. Some of them, like you have said, are feisty and tough to get rid of. I'm hoping at some point we will no longer have to hear these names. As for creeps like Qritiq and the Kenoma shim, they are best ignored. Though if there is a lawsuit, Kenoma's identity will be found out. It is one of the most sadistic losers on the internet. It started trolling this board a couple years ago. People like it and Qritiq are so useless, they have to leach onto real bloggers such as ourselves to feel any relevance. It's a real shame. And if Brynaert is not a paid fake and simply insane, then I do feel sympathy for him, even though he is one heck of a nasty maggot in his own right. I simply feel bad for people who are insane. Even Rauhauser to a degree. Kimberlin is a whole other matter. While we have no proof he was a pedophile and murdered Julia Scyphers, we do know he set down those bombs which led to Mr. DeLong's death. He needs to own up to that.