By now ye know Brett Kimberlin's attempt to have me found in contempt of court fell more flat than a soda pop left open for a week.
What you may not be aware of is Brett got the court to issue a peace order against me. This is what the case file ordered on 10/13/2011 and expires on 04/13/2012 states:
SHALL NOT ABUSE
SHALL NOT CONTACT
SHALL NOT ENTER RESIDENCE
SHALL STAY AWAY FROM EMPLOYMENT
Hmmm. I've never done any of those things. Keep in mind that this is not a criminal case. The order was given by a family court.
Brett kimberlin failed to get Judge Jordan to order me to cease posting on this topic. Hence, everything I have posted since November 14th has been my way of setting the record straight. I didn't want anyone to be left wondering wtf I had written to end up in this situation.
While there is still plenty o'stuff for me to rewrite from the material deleted during the default era, I am pleased as punch feeling that most of the stuff I needed to get across has been posted. Thus, I have been able to move on with my life. I continue to be carefree and happy. Yay!!!!
Brett Kimberlin appears desperate for the truth to reside offline. Since he did snot accomplish his primary goal on November 14th to permanently censor me, he decided to go with the Plan B family court schtick. Kimberlin is adept at crossing t's and dotting i's. However, once he is actually at a hearing, his lack of attorney skills becomes quite evident.
On January 12th, Kimberlin submitted the following:
ORDER COMPELLING [ME] TO PERMANENTLY REMOVE BLOG POSTS
The COURT having found that Defendant [Me] has violated this Court's October 13, 2011 final Peace Order by continuing to harass Plaintiff, hereby ORDERS Defendant [Me] within five [5] days of the entry of this order to permanently delete the following harassing blog posts he made after the Court's final Peace Order as identified by the following url's:
I'll list those in a second but first read the judge's decision. His cursive writing was a bit difficult to read, but this should be very close if not exact to what he decided.
No action in ligent of impartial pending criminal charges, failure to allege contact by Perp with Petitioner and prior (11/17/11) referral of Petitioner to the Office of the State's Attorney.
That was decided on January 28th. One word sums that up: FAIL!
The truth is now known that I have committed no crimes. The only mistake I made was letting a dumbass lawsuit fall into default, because I was naive enough to believe a writ of summons had to actually be put in my hands.
Here are the recent blog entries Kimberlin wanted removed:
*** Patterico's Pontweetifications
*** Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin Wants Me Imprisoned
*** Motions Filed Against Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin
*** Incestuous Relationships Parts 1 and 2
*** Michael Connell Was Never Threatened By Karl Rove
*** A Quandary
*** Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin Wins Frivolous Lawsuit!
*** Sadistic Cybersmearing and the Roots of Blogging Fascism
*** No, I'm actually not a right wing operative
*** Is Brett Kimberlin Headed Back To Prison?
artwork by the lovely and talented Thusnelda
Hmmm. So it appears this lame story is starting to wind down. It appears Brett Kimberlin is running into nothing but brick walls in his attempts to have me imprisoned and censored.
As for Neal Rauhauser, I have read his words for the last time. Against my better judgement, I read one of his recent emails. That will be posted below. I have also been advised due to his Kookpocalypse schtick, that I should request a restraining order against him and contact the police. That being said, I do not fear that internet predator one bit.
Any more emails he cyberstalks me with will be filed away for potential further use. I don't suffer fools.
Removing my name from your blog?
Hey [Me],
Saw your post about filing a report - it would be enormously funny to forward your police department that crap you've written about me and have it entered as a matter of fact on the case. You know, I think so much of you as a human being that I am going to do that for you this evening - I'll post a screen shot of the mailer containing the CD, OK?
Ever given any thought to removing every single post you've got with my name in it and just going away before you get hauled into court again here in Maryland? It's something to consider.
Neal
--
mailto:nrauhauser@gmail.com//
GV: 202-642-1717
This douchebag is an internet predator, period. What he did to me at Daily Kos was criminal cybersmearing. You can't make up lies about someone and out their real name and address and have that be kosher.
So Neal, here's my reply, since I know you have no life and read every word I post. It's obvious your life's ambition is nothing other than to harass innocent people on the internet. The truth is now easily known about what you are, and that you are despicable. Oh, and say hello to my good buddy Johnny Cash. Loser.
From the not so reliable Wikipedia but perhaps accurate in this instance.
* Unique visitors: 81,000,000[citation needed]
* Page Views (in history): >1,000,000,000[10]
* Visitors per day: 50,000,000[10]
* Reach: 4%[11]
* Registered Members: 180,000,000[10]
* Once the 13th most visited site on the Internet[10]
First, lets look at the backstory through socratisation. The movie and music industries for a very long time have been part and parcel of corrupt capitalism. Fat pigs have been raking it in at the expense of fair play. Here are a few examples, starting off with some old-movie fetish.
With all due respect to Cary Grant, Clark Gable, Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford, they were not the be all end all for acting talent. Through development of the cult of personality, Movie moguls amassed huge amounts of dough off of those brand schticks.
Much more talented thespians never reached such heights of stardom. There were also many more gifted actresses such as Peg Entwistle who never had a chance. She tragically took her own life by jumping off the Hollywoodland sign. She definitely had some baggage to begin with, but it was the Hollywood star system which was the final straw in her making such a sorrowful decision.
Jump ahead and take a look at all the crap currently put out by Hollywood. There's a movie called Drive starring some untalented scrub named Ryan Gosling, and that flick is currently rated an absurdly high 8.1 at IMDB.com. It is pure crap. Only a complete idiot would shell out ten to fifteen dollars to watch such drivel.
The same is going on with music. A select few money sellers get pimped out, while millions or whatnot numbers of talented folks never get a chance to make it as musicians.
In short, the movie and music barons have had their bluffs called. We the people are sick and tired of their piss poor "products." The internet has enabled us to cut out the useless providers. They have asked for this backlash, since they pretentiously expected us to swallow their backwash. Nearly all of us would have been willing to pay for stuff, if uhm, the stuff was actually good. It isn't, so fock them. As the great philosopher Joseph P. Dirt once quipped, "It's all about the consumer."
So here came Megaupload with a different and more democratic vision. In a few years it was able to build up a big base of members and visitors. Its plan was to press forward with something called Mega Box. It was basically gonna give talented no-names the chance to finally become successful, an opportunity not allowed by the music industry.
This utterly freaked out the fat cats. And the movie industry was gonna be next in line for eventual obsoletion.
At the end of this mailed in entry are a bunch of links, so the reader can check out for herself what is being said by the zeitgeist. One numbnutted devil's advocate is saying, to paraphrase, "Oh, no way is this bottom line about Mega Box being a threat to the music industry."
Some people simply like the sound of their own voices. They get a cheap thrill out of being anal retentive contrarians in spite of the obvious.
There are tons of websites that could have been just as easily taken down. Megaupload was attacked, because they posed a serious threat to the music industry status quo. This specific seizure had nothing to do with piracy. Copyright law being the rationale is nothing less than a limited hangout.
The music and movie industries couldn't care less about we the viewers and listeners. This is why no one other than capitalist pigs and authoritarian personalities are sympathising with their plights.
The ptb's might have won this battle, but long-term they will fall flat on their fat fock faces. Masses of regular guys and gals will simply reorganise and develop the next Mega Box and Megaupload. Or perhaps that people empowering company will be able to fight back and reestablish itself.
I hope this will be my last post on this unfortunate situation, until there is an update or resolution from Judge Rupp.
This blog entry will show in detail how Brett Kimberlin lied early and often on November 14th, 2011 after having been sworn in under penalties of perjury.
I've had enough of being this man's punching bag. I do not fear him nor any of his mickey mouse legal ploys.
Here's hoping Judge Rupp the Magnificent is busy soaking in every nook and cranny from the case #339254 file. The following are what I sincerely believe to be eight counts of perjury committed by Brett Kimberlin on November 14th.
This is what I would like to see happen. At a minimum, I want the judgement reduced to one dollar, with no court costs, and the removal of Jordan's court injunction Kimberlin refuses to accept is meaningless. I never defamed him. He got his chance to supply evidence on November 14th and presented squat. All I have been doing since then is expressing my 1st Amendment constitutional rights. No defaming. No breaking any fictitious interpretation of a sky is blue don't break the law Triple F order.
Best case scenario would be Judge Rupp reversing the default judgement and then the whole case as frivolous. I have provided him with two means by which to do that. Judge Jordan almost did so on Sept. 14th. However, he ruled that since Masachusetts' law allows for rent-a-cops to tape a writ of summons to one's door, that constitutes a legal service. I never saw that summons. But all the t's had been crossed with dotted i's, thus legally it had been delivered. In Maryland that wouldn't have counted. But Jordan was against me the whole way. He wasn't about to use his powers of interpretation to help my cause.
Nonetheless, since Kimberlin has messed up by having the case reopened, I have been able to write up motions pertaining to new discoveries. Massachusetts' service law states that a summons must be served with the seal on it or in the name of our glorious state. I forget the exact wording. The bottom line is it wasn't. Furthermore, Maryland's High Court has decided before not to accept another state's service law, since such "convenient" rent-a-cop procedures violate the 14th Amendment right to due process. We shall see how this turns out. I am not sure if there will be a next hearing, or whether Judge Rupp will simply make rulings without such a hearing.
Without further ado.
Eight Counts of Perjury
Count #1
The only things I actually said below are that Kimberlin has been apparently running confidence schemes with Brad Friedman of BradBlog in order to garner donations, and that BK has been convicted of domestic terrorism. I never said there was clear cut proof of pedophilia or murder.
That being said, his setting bombs did lead to Carl DeLong's suicide, and previous courts have agreed. Kimberlin's failure to pay up to the widow did lead to his parole being revoked in 1997. He didn't get out of prison until 2001. That's a far span of time from thirty two years ago. He was never exonerated for the Speedway bombings, despite that lie circulated through associate Larisa Alexandrovna claiming otherwise.
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.
When police began looking for a motive in the Scyphers slaying, they found there'd been a recent family clash. Julia Scyphers' daughter, Sandra Barton, had become involved with a man who seemed to Mrs. Scyphers to be inordinately close to one of Barton's young daughters. Mrs. Scyphers told friends she was so concerned that she'd arranged for both of her granddaughters to come live with her. Whether or not Mrs. Scyphers' fears were correct (no charges were ever filed to that effect), this incident led investigators to start looking at Brett C. Kimberlin.
And so did Mark Singer:
Early that afternoon, [Brett] Kimberlin went downtown to meet with Forrest Bowman. Along the way, he said, he passed a newspaper vending machine and saw the Indianapolis News's proclamation BOMBING SUSPECT IS LINKED TO MURDER.
"I saw this headline about the bombing investigation and I bought a newspaper and started reading it," he told me [reporter Mark Singer]. "I think: Oh, this might be interesting. And then I read the first couple of paragraphs--about a Broad Ripple business man--and I realize they're talking about me and I'm just floored."
Mark Singer, Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin (1996), page 98.
Me: Well, what I'm trying to ask is what did, is there anything I posted that hadn't been posted before in mainstream 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.]
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Is waterboarding torture? Brett Kimberlin, the Director of Justice Through Music, a DC based non-profit dedicated to peace, wanted to know and to show the public actual waterboarding and torture. He therefore agreed to be the subject of a music video featuring various means of torture used by U.S. officials and military personnel over the past few years.
The video was filmed in the winter at an abandoned prison under actual conditions. He told his "captors" not to hold back, and to make it real. The video, now on YouTube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=p2yOzV0BPMs, is called "Exile" and it is a scathing indictment of torture and extreme rendition complete with hoods, guns, handcuffs, hanging, deprivation and humiliation. It has been viewed over 20,000 times on various Internet sites since its release a few months ago.
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.]
In the belly of the voting-reform movement is a man who personifies this paradoxical lack of credibility in the service of a credible cause. Brett Kimberlin was convicted in 1981 of a series of bombings in Indiana. By his own account, he dealt "many, many tons" of marijuana in the 1970s. Most famously, he is the man who from his prison cell alleged that as a law student Dan Quayle bought marijuana from him. Quayle repeatedly denied the charge, and it was never substantiated. In e-mails and Web postings from Kimberlin's two organizations, Justice Through Music and Velvet Revolution, he intersperses occasionally useful pieces of information about the problems of e-voting with a hefty portion of bunk, repeatedly asserting as fact things that are not true. Kimberlin, in short, is an unlikely candidate to affect an important issue of public policy.
And yet he has. Kimberlin has found a home in the blogosphere, digging up and disseminating an indiscriminate gush of anti-e-voting material. In turn, a loose network of lawyers, congressional staff members and academics have filtered that torrent, verifying and using parts of it for their cause, many of them without knowing Kimberlin's background. Most notably, he played a key, behind-the-scenes role in a Princeton study issued last September that Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute says "caused a significant alteration in the debate" over e-voting. The office of Rush Holt, the leading congressional advocate of reform, has called Kimberlin "influential" in the movement.
Me: Yes, sir. Uhm, do you think private individuals get mentioned, uhm, are you aware of The Wizard of Odd article from Time Magazine on yourself?
BK: Yes.
Me: Do you think this is the type of thing that a private, that's done, type of article that's written about private individuals?
BK: Private individuals get written about all the time.
Me: Uh-huh.
BK: It doesn't matter if you have an article written about you that you're not, that you're a public figure. I'm not a public figure. Me: Have you, have you emerged as a public player in controversial issues? BK: No. Me: Such as election fraud? BK: No.
After last week's presser, Velvet Revolution's Brett Kimberlin sat down to follow up with Arnebeck and attorney/investigative journalist Bob Fitrakis, who participated in both the original '04 election lawsuits and has reported in detail on the related matters continuously since then at the Columbus Free Press.
BK: Judge, I think he's asking if I've ever interviewed anyone? [JJ: hm-hm] I assume. I have interviewed people, and those interviews are online. JJ: Okay. BK: But they're not, there's never a picture of me. I'm just a voice interviewing a Congress member or a lawyer or a JJ: Are you identified on them? BK: No. JJ: By name or anything? BK: Never. Me: I think that needs to be verified.
Kimberlin was paroled in 1994 after serving about 13 years of his 50-year sentence. But when he made no effort to pay the DeLong judgment his parole was revoked in 1997 and he went back to prison for about four more years, released again in 2001.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Rehearing denied by Kimberlin v. United States Parole Comm'n, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13886 (D.C. Cir., July 6, 2004) ...
OPINION
[*2] The district court correctly concluded that appellant's habeas petition is moot. In his petition appellant challenged decisions of the United States Parole Commission (USPC) revoking his parole and delaying his reparole...
Me: 32 years ago, uhm, would more recently than 32 years ago were you sent back to prison for a parole violation? BK: No. No. I'm not on parole. You keep telling people Me: No. JJ: One second. BK: He's telling people I'm on parole. I'm not on parole. Me: I don't know if he's on parole. I apologise. JJ: You can't talk over each other. BK: Well ... JJ: Next question. Me: More recently than 32 years ago, from your original trial if that's the date you're getting to, were you released BK: I am not on parole. Me: Were you released and then sent back to prison for a parole violation for failure to pay compensation to uh, Mrs. Delong, the wife of Carl Delong, who took his own life after those bombs tore off half his body? BK: No, I wasn't.
Count #7
[email excerpt sent by me to Brett Kimberlin asking him to stop emailing me (January 14th, 2011)]
[email excerpt by me sent to the Speedway Bomber on October 11th, 2011 asking him yet again to stop emailing me.]
[Harassing email sent by Brett Kimberlin to myself on October 8th, 2011.]
Now read what he said under oath on November 14th.
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.
Count #8
It is outside of access to open source information to confirm or rebuke Kimberlin's claim of being exonerated for the Speedway bombings. Common sense says that there was never any "double secret" exoneration agreement made between Brett Coleman Kimberlin and the U.S. Justice Department.
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....
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: Absolutely. 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.
(later on in his closing statement)
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.
This concerned their motion to lift the stay in the King Lincoln case to allow them to subpoena Michael Connell. The subject of this news conference was widely disseminated over the blogosphere, including news that Karl Rove was being targeted as the principal perpetrator in a state RICO claim, and that Michael Connell was a key witness in this claim. VR created the web site Rovecybergate.com as a vehicle to keep people informed, build interest and solicit and receive funds to support the Ohio litigation in federal court. VR has been involved in several other election related lawsuits in the past.
I have received five tips since July 17, 2008 from an unidentified person that I have named "the tipster” and who I will say is “he" in this declaration. He said that he is close to the McCain campaign and that he knows of Michael Connell and details that bear on the King Lincoln Bronzeville v Blackwell case pending in Ohio. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 below deal with each of those tips.
8. July 19, 2008-You are "right on the money about Connell and Rove stealing the election." However, Rove has protected himself with a go-between, I won't tell you who it is. Connell has been designated a ”limited hangout" and the Administration will not protect him. I am not calling you because l want to be a hero, this is something personal between me and McCain. Rove has something on Connell's wife, or at least they can allege that Heather Connell was
involved with some money laundering involving a foreigner (and he used the name Kirby, either as an individual or company). lf Connell does not take the fall for this, Heather will be prosecuted for money laundering. I am going to give you a riddle and Spoonamore should know what it means: McCain is focused on six dot, dot, dot and then dot, dot, dot.
9. July 21, 2008- The go between is Jeff, the guy who runs SmartTech in Chattanooga. He is Rove's secret weapon and he is the firewall between Connell and Rove. Don't get fixated on Ohio, this scheme has ties to Enterprise, Alabama.
10. September 18, 2008- Spoon has ”opened a shit storm," but that they ”are still doing what they planned." (ie rig the election) Connell is in danger from Rove. Connell will talk if we can get to him.
11. October 1, 2008--People are nervous, Connell will take the fall, the system that Connell created is still in place in Ohio, ”They only changed the scenery. Not the stage." Connell has been reading the articles and they are strong.
12. October 22, 2008, Jeff Averbeck has ten teams working under him with a lead person and that each team is assigned a different state. Karl Rove is controlling the entire operation but there are firewalls between him and the teams. The "team leads" are expected to converge on Chattanooga before the election to tweak their election plans. SmartTech receives funds and then divides some of those funds between the teams and these funds are "federal funds." SmartTech has a plethora of front companies covering for these teams but I do not know their names. Some of them are somehow affiliated with or have done work for the Oakridge Testing Facility and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The teams are separate in case one or more gets taken down the others will continue their work.
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:>
Notes
*** 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.
"It's hard to be humble, when you're as great as I am."
"If you dream of beating me, you'd better wake up and apologise."
"I got nothing against no Viet Cong. No Vietnamese ever called me a 'nigger'."
"Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs?"
"Boxing is a lot of white men watching two black men beat each other up."
"I done wrestled with an alligator, I done tussled with a whale, only last week I murdered a rock, injured a stone, hospitalized a brick. I'm so mean I make medicine sick."
"There's not a man alive who can whup me. I'm too fast. I'm too smart. I'm too pretty. I should be a postage stamp. That's the only way I'll ever get licked."
Notes
*** Mandy Nagy didn't share the email with the court. One day a local donut eater showed up, and we hashed out what happened. He seemed satisfied with my schtick, that it had been a piss poor attempt at humor. He told me he'd have to notify the "Speedway Bomber" and etc. and so forth. He said I might be arraigned in the Taunton Court, but he was unsure of that. I never did get into any trouble with the Massachusetts court, because there was never a death threat. Unlike the police state which exists in Maryland, Massachusetts is a fairly progressive state and not sooo easily duped, unless of course some Whitey blames a Black man for killing his wife.
*** Haha, I am rewinding the bit where Judge Jordan is asking me to do him a favour, and it sounds like he put on the Boston accent schtick, as in "Do me a favah." Boston accents rule!!!!!
*** Earlier Jordan had condescendingly asked me if I watched tv, in an attempt to get me to focus in on court protocol. But what I saw was that Kimberlin didn't seem to be under any obligation to simply answer my questions and could go off on tangents or whatnot having nothing to do with original questions. So, that's why when it was my turn to be cross-examined, I figured that was how the game was gonna be played. It's like with baseball and strike zones. Every umpire has a different strike zone schtick. Thus, I played it the way Jordan had established his. And when a trial is umpired that way, it becomes rather difficult to remember original questions.
*** This was a garbage lawsuit, PERIOD!!!! No police ever asked me to stop blogging. I'd have to search through all the rubbish to see what the original preliminary injunction ordered. It may not have even told me I couldn't blog on this case or anything. I don't remember. It did get 21 DFQ2 blog entries deleted. I know that. There's something called Freedom of Speech in this country. Brett Kimberlin is a notorious public figure. His Velvet Revolution has been running outrageous bunk for years and then asking for donations based on such utter nonsense. The truth is on my side.
Kimberlin Cross-Examination
Jordan: Okay. Have a seat. Is that all you want to say on direct examina-, direct testimony?
Socrates: Uhm.
Jordan: You don't need to repeat yourself. I'm gonna think uh, I think I got your points. I'm about to turn you over to Mr. Kimberlin for any questions that he's got.
Socrates: Just uhm, I ah respond, I think. I'm fairly sure I responded to each one. I don't know if it ah- I'm not sure if there's anything I missed to respond to.
Jordan: Okay.
Socrates: So I guess I'm done.
Jordan: Alright. Mr. Kimberlin, do you have any questions?
Kimberlin: Yes, sir. How many blog posts have you made about me on any forum or blog over the last five years?
Socrates: A lot.
Kimberlin: How many?
Socrates: Five years? I don't have the exact number.
Kimberlin: How many, how many blogs have you posted about me on?
Socrates: I don't have the exact number, maybe, I don't know. I'm not trying to hedge. I've posted a lot on you. I found it fascinating.
Kimberlin: Have you talked to other bloggers, uh, by phone or by email asking them to also post about me, your, your, to follow up your posts about me?
Socrates: Hmmm. No.
Kimberlin: Have you talked of uh, uh
Socrates: I, I was, uh, I emailed, uhm, it was when Mandy Nagy came out. She's the one who, ah, who, who uh shared that, that uh unfortunate email with the court. Uhm, I'm friends with- I'm friendly with her, and uh, I haven't spoken to uh Assistant District Attorney Patrick Frey in a while. But we used to email, and uh, discuss the story. Uhm, I told him I, I liked Mr. Singer's book, and uh, I think uh, Patrick Frey picked up a copy. Uhm
Kimberlin: Did you talk to
Socrates: I gave Patrick Frey some links, that I thought he'd be interested in. Like uh, I uncovered uhm an interesting court document from the, uh, the- I'm not sure what it was. But ah, you had like uhm, you put uh, some type of, you made some type of affidavit. Or it was, I just found it fascinating the Connell story, uh, concerning these alle- these I don't know if they were allegations, or if they were uh theories uhm about whether Karl Rove uh might have killed Michael Connell, because of uh, the uh- Cause Michael Connell was going to uh maybe uh. Your associate Larisa Alexandrovna, who said that you said you were exonerated and won a huge settlement for the bombing, uh- That's kind of one of the reasons why I wrote a lot about you, because I didn't understand why you just didn't own up to setting the bombs. I mean, setting the bombs and the guy died
Kimberlin: Objection. Objection, Your Honour.
Jordan: Yes, it's beyon- It's beyond the scope of the question. Sustained. Why don't you go on to the next question.
Socrates: What was the ques- Yeah, yeah uh
Jordan: The question was just [inaudible], and you went on and on. Just
Socrates: Sir
Jordan: do me a favour.
Socrates: Yeah, I'm sorry.
Jordan: Try to listen to the question and try to just answer the question.
Socrates: There might have been one other uh, but I don't get along with him. He was on the list. We might have uh, we might have had a few private messages about it. There was uhm. When you, I think, I believe I saw
Jordan: The question was the number of blogs, and you said basically
Socrates: Alright, I thought we were on to uh my interactions with bloggers encouraging them or to blog on him. Uh, there might have been one time, uh, one of the names on that list that wasn't me. He was a moderator at another blog I had. Uhm, he, he posted. Uh, I think Mr. Kimberlin did a photo- He was somehow shaking hands with Karl Rove, is that correct? I mean alright, it's not cross-testimony. I'm done. I have nothing to hide. Uhm.
Jordan: Next question please.
Kimberlin: So, have you ever called uh me the personification of scum on a blog post?
Socrates: Well, of course. I mentioned it earlier today.
Kimberlin: Have, have you ever unm stated on a blog post that you think I should go to jail for defrauding people?
Socrates: Uhm, I wrote that I thought you should be investigated for fraud. Uhm, and I did write that if you had, well I'm not sure. I know I wrote, I wrote in the private emails that weren't, I wasn't expecting would be for public consumption, that if you, if you had committed perjury, in, in somehow in this trial, that you, that your parole should be revoked. But you say you're not on parole, so I, I, you know, I, I apologise for thinking you're still on parole.
Kimberlin: Have you ever stated that you wanted to, uh, that you hoped or wanted my non-profits to be dead or be killed or some such word?
Socrates: Nah, I'd have to see, I'd have to see like what you're talking about in its context.
Kimberlin: Have you ever uh indicated that you, that you wanted to, to stop the funding uh sources from into to the non-profits I'm involved with?
Socrates: Are you, if you provide something from the blog, then I can say whether I think I wrote it.
Kimberlin: [inaudible]
Socrates: I don't
Kimberlin: It's a simple question. Have you ever asked people not, not to fund us?
Socrates: Well you read, I did write the letter, the email to Lori Grace.
Kimberlin: Yeah, but I'm talking about
Socrates: So
Kimberlin: a blog post, did you ask people not to send in money to us, not to
Socrates: I don't think anyone should send you uh five, ten bucks, and I, I don't think anyone should send you any money, to be honest.
Kimberlin: Have you ever said though on a blog post?
Socrates: Uhm, as a blogger, I, I, I can't remember specifics. I wasn't, it wasn't you personally. The only thing that would have been personal about it, would be because I felt ah it was wrong, it was wrong for someone to not just own up to their crimes. I mean, that's the only thing where I might have uh had a bit of uh animosity toward you. And I, I really didn't think that Michael Conn- the Mich- Like the domestic terrorism campaign. You have uh, you're looking for donations uh for uh against domestic terrorism, which is a worthy cause. But here you are convicted of a horrendous bombings in Speedway, and while you're known as the Speedway Bomber. Uhm, and like unless you can show this- You're saying you were exonerated, but it's closed. I mean, I'm sorry, that wasn't good enough for me. It seemed like you were spreading some type of lie, that you were some political prisoner, when you're just making, when, when you're just spinning things. Such as that Je-, that I'm a Jew
Kimberlin: So you don't know what
Socrates: That Jews are the scourge. It's like what you- It's like that Wizard of Odd article as an exhibit. The guy writes like you do put in some good stuff, but then it's mixed in with a lot of other stuff that's unsubstantiated. Th th, and then you miss, you, you omit things. Like you admitted to tell this court that you were- From what I hear, I didn't see the file, but I, from what I, from what I'm uh, I'm under the impression that you made it appear to this court that you are a private individual who had maybe dealed some marijuana. But as I, as I provided in the first page of the of uh my defense against uhm damages and and with the uh the exhibits that uh, there's a long list of things. Like uh, impersonating a Department of Defense insignia. What, you're saying that the uh, the people who caught you doing that were lying?
Jordan: I think we've gone beyond the question.
Socrates: Sorry.
Jordan: Next question.
Kimberlin: Uhm. So for thr-, for two or three years you have posted scores if not hundreds of posts about me or comments or something on, on various blogs using various names including socrates and Prepostericty and so on. Is that true?
Socrates: No, not 'so on' the way you're putting it.
Kimberlin: Okay. Okay.
Socrates: I need him to be specific.
Kimberlin: Okay. Prepostericity and socrates.
Socrates: Sorry for that.
Kimberlin: Right?
Socrates: Yes, those are my two usernames, and if anyone
Kimberlin: Have you been banned from blogs for, for posting false or defamatory or inappropriate or uh otherwise
Socrates: Not for those. Not for those.
Kimberlin: for not following
Jordan: Let him finish the question.
Kimberlin: Have you been banned from any blogs?
Socrates: Yes.
Kimberlin: How many?
Socrates: Uh, I don't know.
Kimberlin: Have you been accused of harassing other people?
Jordan: It's not really relevant.
Kimberlin: No, it's not. Have you, uhm, what is your end game in coming, in, in, in targeting me?
Socrates: Mark Singer wrote
Kimberlin: What was your end game? What, what did, what did you want to accomplish?
Socrates: It's, it's the uh- What's, I, I forget the rest of the title from Mark Singer's book, the incredible- There's just something so fascinating about it. I remember you from when you were on the tv, and you were saying you sold pot to Dan Quayle. And then, then all of a sudden, I was, was blogging for Brad Friedman. Uhm, and I'm going off on a tangent. Uh, the end game, there's no end game. It's obviously- You want to know what the end game is, uh, that's probably irrelevant to uh You- the judge.
Kimberlin: No, I, uh, I, I mean, I know what the end game is, but, but I want you to admit what the end game is.
Socrates: Here again, uhm, I find that the uh the Plaintiff- He did this at the beginning of this of our, of our 9:30 the session or when we started, and he's been doing it throughout. He's been, uhm, making comments
Jordan: I don't need your commentary. I just need you to answer his question, and it does go to the issue of whether it was done maliciously.
Socrates: The, the uhmm
Kimberlin: Have you done this out of malice?
Socrates: No, it's I find your story fascinating. Utterly fascinating. I did then, uhm, it's still fascinating.
Kimberlin: Have, have you, have you used blogs to try to call me out? To say something like, come on Brett, answer me, after making some scurrilous allegation?
Socrates: I didn't make scurrilous allegations
Kimberlin: Okay.
Socrates: at you.
Kimberlin: Okay, after an allegation of criminal conduct or fraud or misconduct or anything like that?
Socrates: Can you repeat that please?
Kimberlin: Have I ever responded to you on a blog in any of, ever on any of your posts?
Socrates: Uhm, I think you sent uh copies of uh court papers, and that was it.
Kimberlin: Okay.
Socrates: You never actually, you never responded to any of the content.
Kimberlin: Right.
Socrates: We've never interacted on a blog, I don't believe..
Kimberlin: Exactly. Every time that you blogged about Velvet Revolution or Justice Through Music or BradBlog, has it always included some comment about criminal activity by me?
Socrates: No.
Kimberlin: Or, or
Socrates: No.
Kimberlin: Have, have most of them been? Have you tainted almost every post you've made about Velvet Revolution or BradBlog with some reference to me or my past?
Socrates: No. I, I've an extensive blogging history. You're just- My, my uhm, my blogging on Brett Kimberlin was uh, it, it it's not, it's just a small part of what, of what I blogged on. It just happened to be uh one of the, the, the ones uhm
Kimberlin: Did you ever consider the possiblity that this could harm my reputation or the reputation of my family?
Socrates: I don't think, I don't think your reputation could be harmed any worse than it is. I mean, it's on the public record.
Kimberlin: How about my kids?
Socrates: I don't even know if you have kids.
Kimberlin: Well I do. I have two. And how about my
Socrates: Congratulations.
Kimberlin: How about my wife?
Socrates: I don't know your wife, and I don't need to know your family.
Kimberlin: No, well
Socrates: And I've never written about your family.
Kimberlin: Have you ever considered the fact that you saying these things, that it could harm uh their reputation as well, because they're, they're my family?
Socrates: I just wrote the truth. I, I see nothing wrong about writing the truth about a public figure.
Kimberlin: Writing the truth over and over, and when you get banned for, for, for that
Socrates: That's irrel- We already decided that was irrelevant, because we'd have to go through a trial of, uh, what happened on that website.
Kimberlin: I realise that, but I'm saying people asked you to stop writing
Socrates: People like Larisa Alexandrovna, your associate.
Kimberlin: Asked you to stop. The court asked you to stop. The police asked you to stop.
Socrates: No.
Kimberlin: You never stopped.
Socrates: No, wait no. I, I say no. I don't agree on all that. It's too quick. I need, I need to hear one
Kimberlin: Did anyone ever
Socrates: thing
Kimberlin: ask you to stop blogging about me?
Socrates: Uh, well, do you mean like uhm the court orders?
Kimberlin: Anyone?
Socrates: Uh, yeah, this court wanted me I believe the prelimine- blah, the preliminary injunction, ah, was for me to cease all blogging on Brett Kimberlin, so I stopped. I mean, I'm sorry if I somehow crossed the line by saying uh, by giving one of those, uh, those search tips about how to search somthing in ah Google cache. Uhm, but ah Larisa Alexandrovna, she told me to stop, uh. She called me a stalker on Daily Kos, uh, by Markos Moulitsas' blog. She called me a stalker for my articles, those couple articles I wrote on Daily Kos.
Kimberlin: Were you, were you banned by Daily Kos?
Socrates: Uh, a lot of peop- I was.
Kimberlin: Were you banned from Democratic Underground?
Socrates: Yes, but uh
Kimberlin: Were you banned from BradBlog?
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
(Coming Soon: The thrilling conclusion to Thrilla in Vanilla, not a Quinn Martin Production)
notes
*** The hearing that followed a few days later was not criminal. It was in a family court and pertained to another Brett Kimberlin attempt to get me into trouble. I didn't even have to be there. He has refused to back the "f" off. And now hopefully justice will finally be served, and he will be charged with criminal perjury.
*** There was never a murder threat. The prosecutor filed nolle prosequi on Sept. 15th. I didn't even have to face a judge. Yet, as with soooo much to do with this case, Judge Jordan was obviously not paying attention. That will be made clear by the end, when ye will see him praising Mr. Kimberlin for all the good he is currently doing. Jordan shouldn't have taken Kimberlin at his word to the extent he did while simultaneously treating me like a potential criminal. Hence, imho, Judge Jordan is a hack. Imho, that should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
*** I was very nice to Judge Jordan. I had to be. But now since we are back on equal footing, the truth has to be told about him. An eye needs to be kept on his judiciating, before he potentially mismanages a lot of other trials, akin to how he did this one.
*** I was really spent at this point and awaiting my second wind. I misspoke and referred to this trial as criminal, when indeed it was a civil trial. It was quite ironic to see a law abiding citizen as myself with no felonies getting completely railroaded by one of the most notorious criminals to emerge from Indiana in the second half of the 20th Century. That is whose butt Jordan was kissing. It certainly wasn't mine.
*** Retraction: Earlier I have referred to Judge Jordan as a rookie judge. According to this link, he started as a judge on March 13, 2009 and was re-elected for a fifteen year term on November 2, 2010.
*** Kimberlin never left comments on my blog. What he did was leave the writ of summons and other court motions and whatnot he was up to on DFQ2, as if that was legally serving me. Uhm, no.
Thrilla in Vanilla part 6
Socrates: 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.
And I never did that. I never followed Mr. Kimberlin around the internet. I haven't posted on him uhm. So I contend Lori Grace opened herself up to be emailed, because she left her email address. And uh, there's a lot of, the, the Michael Connell case, uh, I wanted her to know that they were, that there's a theory being circulated. Uh, Mr. Kimberlin was involved and Cliff Arnebeck and it's in the Ohio courts, and this can all be verified, unlike other things that have been tried to be put into this court room, where it's been alleged that Karl Rove threatened Michael Connell, because he was, he was about to spill the beans on, on the 2004 election being stolen. And I noticed that. I'm what's considered a trollbuster, an amateur internet cybersleuth. We're not malicious. We don't, we don't go after people like this Kid Kemona's been going after me or "Louis Aubuchont" has been going after me. And I reported that to the [redacted] Police Department, that I've been getting cyberstalked.
Uhm, I recently emailed, I probably broke that peace order, because I had to write Mr. Kimberlin a second time to stop contacting me.
Jordan: I don't think you want to go there right now.
Socrates: Okay, yes sir.
Jordan: You're not an attorney. So you'd be subjected to criminal prosecution.
Socrates: I definitely do not want to be arrested. And uh, I'm not from Maryland. I don't even know where he uh, I don't care where he li-, I don't want to hurt him. I don't- I pose no threat, for the public record. Uhm. In my defense for that alleged murder threat, it was a bad piece
Jordan: I don't know if you want to go there. Mr. Kimberlin's already testified that the murder threat alleged is not part of this case, and it's my
Socrates: Okay.
Jordan: My recollection is that you may have criminal charges pending based on that.
Socrates: There's something scheduled for in a few days.
Jordan: Do you have an attorney for that case?
Socrates: Uhm, I'm not really sure what's on with that. I
Jordan: It's not part of this case, because it's not part of Mr. Kimberlin's claim. And it doesn't
Socrates: I appreciate you
Jordan: make sense for you to go there and make statements about something that might be pending on a criminal matter involving you.
Socrates: I appreciate that, sir. Uhm. So, I'm just, to wrap up, it's not stalking to uh, I've- Us bloggers get accused of stalking when, because we keep responding to individuals. And uh, I, I did not, I mean I was writing on my private blog which, which has public comments. Uhm, Mr. Kimberlin and no one else ever wrote anything. I mean, it was right there. He never left a comment. I would have, I would have okayed it. I would have debated with it. Uhm, you know like, he had every opportunity to interact with me on my blog. But what he did was instead, I believe, he left comments about this criminal case on my blog, which I wasn't sure was true or not until, uh, until recently.
Uh, I knew it was real, but I didn't realise the uh, how important it was. And I thought I was just going to lose, maybe get my entries deleted, and my real name found out. I didn't know there, I didn't know someeone could actually you know be awarded
Jordan: Six million dollars? Socrates: Huh? 2.8, what is it, $2.8 million he wants? Jordan: There are claims for actual and punitive damages both exceeding a million. Socrates: Yes uhm, my contention is that he, it's not really the money he's after. He's trying to uh, he, I mean, I came up with, I came up with damaging uh cybersleuthing of open source materials. Like in response to him saying that one of my recent comments that one of my ideas was uh, and if I'm not allowed to, I won't do it. But I was thinking what if I just posted open source information with the links without any commentary by myself?
If I'm not allowed to do that, then I mean, you can say that, and I'm like I will be in contempt of Your Honour. But that's all I wrote about one of the things, that he's mentioning. I, I was curious, like, what if I just wrote, you know within copyright laws? You know, I'm not going to copy Mr. Singer's whole book. Uhm, like just to keep my commentary out of it. And that's basically what it is. I apologise for uh a few nasty comments I made. The personification of scum. I've admitted I shouldn't have written that.
Uhm, but I contend nothing I wrote was ah false, and thus there's no causation of damages. There's no ah. If he's having, if he's having emotional damages, psychological damages, because of what he contends, I don't understand that either. Because I haven't written anything that was false. He had every opportunity to respond to my blog. He could have written like, well, are you finished? Why don't you stop? I'm trying to get on with my life. If he had done that, I might have stopped. But instead I got sued.
Uhm, nothing I wrote was false. Nothing I wrote was false. If, and, and, I mean, private individuals do not, this is only an inkling of how public a figure he is. And uh, so that's basically it. I put in my argument. Much better than me going on and on, it's in here and links up with the exhibits and that's, I guess that's my two contentions. That uh, he's a public figure, and that there's no causation. And the only other thing I can think of is that uh I shouldn't have to pay his court costs. If anything, I would like him to pay. If there are no damages, I would like him to pay me for the gas mileage, and the wear and tear on the car
Jordan: Well that's, that's not before me. Okay, so that's your summary?
Socrates: I, I, I would like to see where the damages are. I, I didn't hear any, I didn't see any causation.
Jordan: Okay.
Socrates: If there were damages based on true facts, I don't know how, that just doesn't seem to make sense to me
Jordan: Okay, okay.
Socrates: how someone can be liable for posting true things, and that's it.
Jordan: Okay. You made that point.
Socrates: I'm done.
Jordan: I admit uh in evidence Defendant's exhibit #1 and as well as the Plaintiff's exhibits, including the Plaintiff's statement on damages which is exhibit two for the Plaintiff. And I need to take another quick break. If you folks need to use the restroom or something, fine, but please be back here in a few minutes. And uh, no interaction between the two of you.
Socrates: I would like- Thank you. Court Babe: All rise. Court stands in recess.
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.
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?
Kimberlin: Objection.
Judge: Sustained.
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?
Socrates: Yes.
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?
Socrates: Yes.
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.
