Triple F
socrates
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.
(to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment