from Time Magazine's Wizard of Odd
Time Photo Illustration: Kimberlin:
Chriss Wade for Time; Voting Machine:
Brent Humphreys / Redux for Time
The phrase Thrilla in Vanilla, coined by donkeytale, was no doubt pure brilliance on his part. However, what has been going on here has been more akin to the Rumble in the Jungle with Ali and his rope-a-dope.
Brett Kimberlin should have walked away with his shallow default win. Now that he has reopened the case, he has asked to be investigated for perjury. He has perhaps also opened the door to be investigated for collusion with others in regards to my being harassed via cyber crimes. It does appear Brett Kimberlin has been relaying information to internet predator Neal Rauhauser, who then has shuffled such info over to fake internet journalist Ron Brynaert.
Anyway, I will go with the schtick developed in the previous part of this eight part series. We'll start with notes and then proceed to more testimony from the November 14th court session.
Notes
*** Since there was no proof in the case file of what I allegedy said, there was zero proof of causation to so-called damages, period. With a number of examples below, it should become clear to impartial readers that Judge Jordan did mail in his judging responsibilities by not looking closely at the whole file. He was, imho, clearly biased against myself and in favour of Brett Kimberlin. His attitude, to me, reeked of let's get this thing over with, for I have arrest warrants to sign and a club sandwich in chambers going stale.
*** I hate to harp on Judge Jordan, but his "next question" schtick was bizarre. Why didn't he ask Kimberlin what his sentence was, when he got paroled, and whether he had ever broken that parole? Clear cut criminal perjury was committed by Speedway Bomber Brett Coleman Kimberlin. Judge Jordan missed out on his chance to make a positive, judicial impact. He choked.
*** More perjury:
Me: Have you, have you emerged as a public player in controversial issues?
BK: No.
Me: Such as election fraud?
BK: No.
One need only look at his efforts with Ohio 2004 and his hoaxing it up with Cliff Arnebeck to realise that was yet another Kimberlin lie made under oath. Being a public figure doesn't mean one has to be all over tv or the internet. He may not be big time in our faces, but he has been somewhat visible. As Mark Singer informed us many years ago, Brett Kimberlin apparently has had the desire to become a public icon.
*** More proven perjury:
Me: Have you, have you emerged as a public player in controversial issues?
BK: No.
Me: Such as election fraud?
BK: No.
Me: Haven't you posted video, haven't you been on videos of yourself discussing election fraud issues, with uh, for example Cliff Arnebeck and posted those on youtube?
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.
JJ: You're conducting cross-examination. You can ask questions.
From a Brad Friedman "article" titled, GOP Tech Guru Mike Connell 'High IQ Forrest Gump...At Scene of Every Single Crime' Say Ohio Attorneys
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.VR Speaks to Ohio Lawyers About Karl Rove and Election Fraud
Liar, Liar pants on fire!
*** In the last part, we saw how Brett appeared to be saying he's never been involved with waterboarding. Links were supplied proving otherwise. Here's a screenshot from his youtube video.
Me: Where is the proof? (silence) How can I cause damage to your ventures by calling you a pedophile, if I didn't call you a pedophile? How did I
JJ: Do you have a copy of the statement where that is?
BK: I do. I didn't bring those with me though. I mean he's written hundreds of posts about me. Literally.
JJ: Is that in your complaint?
BK: Yes.
JJ: That specific one?
BK: I believe so.
Me: Do you (to Kimberlin), (to Judge) do you want me to wait?
JJ: No, go ahead.
Me: Do you contend that I wrote a parody site with your image on it? Is that part of the damages? I know, I believe you entered that into this? Do you believe that, did I write that parody site? Uhm, or who did? Who wrote that parody site? Did Google get back to you?
BK: Judge, he's asking
JJ: What are you asking about a parody site?
BK: He's asking about
Me: Well, he
BK: Another. I filed a motion to disclose who wrote a parody site [JJ: Uh-huh.] with my image on it, and it's pending before the court.
JJ: Okay. Is that part of your claim here?
BK: No, it's
Me: He's dropping that?
BK: No, I'm not dropping it. I'm just saying
Me: Well, if he's not dropping it
JJ: Wait a second. We'll talk
BK: I filed that motion about a month ago and haven't heard back from the court on it.
JJ: In this case?
BK: Yeah. And Google said that they would comply with the court's orders since about it to tell me who put up that image.
JJ: Okay, but the parody site is not part of your claim for damages?
BK: It's not his specific site, as far as I know yet.
JJ: Okay.
Me: Okay uhm
JJ: You know, I'm gonna take a very quick break. I've got two detectives to just return a search warrant. Uhm, Deputy, I appreciate you being here. If you can hang with us. Mr. [Socrates] is subject to a protective order with respect to Mr. Kimberlin. And that's in large part why we've asked for you to be here. Okay.
Court Babe: All Rise (schwing)
(recess)
Court Babe: Rise
JJ: Please have a seat. Pardon for the interruption. There might be more, because I'm doing two things today. I'm doing court, and I'm due in chambers with what's called duty reviews. So, there's search warrants or things like that need to get signed. I need to do that. Go ahead Mr. [Socrates}.
Me: I appreciate that the court is trying to figure out causation. I'm not allowed to make a statement.
JJ: You can make a statement, when it's your turn to testify. Right now
Me: I follow, sir.
JJ: You watch tv? Cross-examination?
Me: Hmm-mmm.
JJ: This is a witness for you to ask questions and cross-examination.
Me: Thank you.
JJ: If you
Me: I understand. Did I cause, so you're contending that my blogging about you being a perjurer, having been convicted of being a perjurer, caused you financial damage?
BK: I'm saying that your three year campaign
Me: I want that question answered.
JJ: Hold up.
BK: I'm saying that your three year campaign against me, posting stuff all over the internet on scores of blogs or many blogs, and calling me everything under the book, uhm, and regurgitating stuff that happened
Me: We're going to
JJ: Wait a second. Let him finish.
BK: 32 years ago is an unwarranted harassment and defamation. You've harassed me. You've harassed me continuously for three years, until I exposed you. And then you continue to harass me. And you're continuing to harass me now. And you're trying to get stuff in the record, so that you can post it online. I know what you're up to, Mr. [Socrates].
Me: I object! He's making psychoanalysis of me that's
BK: (Talking over me)
JJ: Don't argue back and forth. Overruled. Next question.
Me: (quick sarcastic chuckle) I would like us to get into specific details of you mention certain key phrases that, I mean I'm not, look, I don't want a general picture. We get it. You think, uhm, I'm making a statement. Well, I won't continue with the certain train of thing, because I do, I do need a ruling from Your Honour about whether he, Brett Kimberlin is a public or private figure, in my opinion. Humbly. Uhm, what (a bit frustrated)
JJ: I haven't heard enough to make that determination.
BK: I object anyway. That's not an issue here. It's not an issue in damages.
JJ: It would be an issue in damages. It goes to reputation.
BK: I don't even post on my blogs. I have a family. I work behind the scenes. This man has taken an organisation that involves many people, many people, and taken something that happened 32 years ago in my past and tried to destroy my business and my organisation, and all these other people that are associated with me by targeting me, and it's a hit job. It's a hit. It's a harassment. A hit job that this guy is conducting on me.
JJ: Okay.
BK: you know.
JJ: Next question.
Me: So you don't think it's relevant what you were convicted of in the past? And that's why you didn't include it in this lawsuit?
JJ: I think he's made it clear.
Me: Okay.
JJ: 32 years ago.
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. [JJ: Okay.]
Me: I believe I'd have to check
JJ: That's that's your question. Get to the next question.
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.
Me: Haven't you posted video, haven't you been on videos of yourself discussing election fraud issues, with uh, for example Cliff Arnebeck and posted those on youtube?
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.
JJ: Okay.
Me: I think that needs to be verified.
JJ: You're conducting cross-examination. You can keep asking questions.
Me: Yes. Just trying my best. Okay, uhm, we'll skip ahead to, uh, I'm having trouble with my eyesight. The printout's kind of small. I'm looking at the exhibit K; Chamber of Commerce Raises Security Concerns After Group Puts Bounty On CEO. Have you been publicly involved in a campaign against the Chamber of Commerce?
BK: Have I? No. Not me. My organisation has a campaign called Stop the Chamber dot com. And it exposes
Me: How is that not you then involved?
JJ: Don't interrupt him.
BK: It's not me. It's my organisation, or it's an organisation in which I'm involved with. That's it. The organisation is not me. There's a lot of people involved with these organisations.
Me: Your Honour, can I ask you a legal question?
JJ: You're conducting cross-examination. If you need clarification for something you can.
Me: Okay.
JJ: I can't give you legal advice.
Me: Uhm, here's an exhibit that I was able to include. I wasn't
JJ: You'll have a chance
Me: Do you
JJ: You'll have a chance to testify.
Me: Do you contend that from the Kid Kenoma blog that you submitted to the court, are you claiming that I was all those usernames?
BK: I
JJ: That's not going to damages. Let's stick to. There was a very real issue about defamation, interference with business, etc. and connecting those torts to damages. That's fair game. But we're not gonna go into the background.
Me: Does Lori Grace, I understood, Sir, Does Lori Grace have a public website?
BK: I don't know what Lori Grace has.
Me: You don't know that Lori Grace has a website?
BK: I have no idea.
Me: Are you aware that she has something called the Sunshine
BK: I have no idea.
Me: You have no idea what she does?
BK: No.
Me: Are you aware that she wrote an article on her website about, uhm, putting together, bringing together yourself and Cliff Arnebeck, and uh, concerning issues on election fraud, that that's been posted on her website?
BK: I have no idea.
Me: Okay. uhm, I don't have the proof of that Your Honour, but I can by penalty. I know. I'm sorry.
JJ: you'll have a chance to testify. Let's move on.
Me: Okay. Yes, sir. I'd like to get, I understand, Sir. Uhm, which usernames are you contending, so we can focus in on the causation, which usernames of mine are you contending caused you damages? We've already ruled out the parody website. I guess that's to the side. What usernames on this long list you supplied to the court do you contend I wrote as, and for each one, what did I write that was false and caused you anxiety and caused you to lose money?
BK: Socrates, Prepostericity.
Me: Anything else? Any of the other ones?
BK: Those are the two main ones.
Me: Then why did you supply this long list of all these usernames? What was the purpose of that?
BK: Objection
JJ: Yeah. Sustained.
Me: I'm just
JJ: It's not going to causation or damages.
Me: I just. I can't button up.
JJ: You'll get a chance to testify.
Me: Okay.
JJ: On relevant issues.
Me: Are we done with that scourge of the, what are you contending I said about the Jews, that they're the scourge of the people, and that caused you
BK: Objection.
Me: That's the type of thing that caused you financial damage? That I wrote that?
JJ: Okay. The part of the question about whether that statement caused
BK: (inaudible)
JJ: damages is appropriate.
BK: That statement did not cause damages.
Me: That statement did not cause damage? You're removing that from this case?
JJ: Okay
BK: That's not part of this case.
JJ: Move on.
Me: Uhm, you're contending that I blogged that you're a pedophile, and that caused you damage?
BK: Yes.
Me: Do you have proof of that statement, so we can see the causation is actually true?
BK: It's defamation per se.
Me: But do you have the actual words that I allegedly wrote that called you a pedophile, so the court can see that what you are alleging is true? You know, if it's true. How can something cause something, if it's not true?
BK: Yeah, I don't have that in the.
Me: So you're gonna take that away?
BK: I'm not taking anything away.
JJ: The question is where that, is your question where that was posted or?
BK: It was posted on his blog, I believe.
Me: I'm contending that it's immaterial, because he's supplied no proof that I wrote that. And I didn't. I'm sorry. I know. I'm sorry for that last statement.
JJ: Okay.
Me: What other statements have I made, specific statements, and do you have proof of those statements to supply, so we can see (to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment