Kimberlin Versus Socrates: The Thrilla In Vanilla November 14th, 2011 (Part 4)

artwork by Thusnelda


A concern troll over at the porn expert's blog has implied that my schtick isn't worth reading, that I have a big ego, and that I am no more a good source than Ron Brynaert. Well, if that's the case, I might as well state the obvious. I am at the top of the zeitgeist!

In this part, we will see that Brett Kimberlin continued to perjure himself. We will hear him allude to what Aaron Worthing has described as some double secret, exoneration agreement or wtf.

There was also another bit of perjury I'd like to delve into here, before we continue with reading the transcript of what took place on November 14th.

More Perjury (excerpted from below):

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.

Re: Final Service of Lawsuit
Friday, January 14, 2011 8:56 PM
From: [my redacted email address]
To: "Justice Through Music" [redacted Kimberlin email address], webmaster@mcccourt.com
Bcc: patterico@gmail.com
Stop emailing me, Speedway Bomber, or I will take this as being a form of cyberstalking.. Hey court system, check out this guy's history. He's a jail house attorney after having been convicted of domestic terrorism, impersonating DoD, perjury, and drug smuggling. Consider the source. STOP EMAILING ME KIMBERLIN. Hey court system, why are you catering to this guy? Get in touch with the good people of Indiana, their court documents, this guy's parole officer, the federal prisons he's been in, journalists, et al and you'll see what kind of convoluted mind you're dealing with. IF THIS GUY DOESN'T STOP EMAILING ME, I WILL CONSIDER IT CYBERSTALKING.

--- On Fri, 1/14/11, Justice Through Music [redacted email address] wrote:

From: Justice Through Music [redacted email address]
Subject: Final Service of Lawsuit
To: [my redacted email address], [my redacted email address]
Date: Friday, January 14, 2011, 7:22 PM ....

Take down request
Saturday, October 8, 2011 12:56 AM
From:
"Justice Through Music"
[redacted email address]
To:
[my redacted email address], [my redacted email address]
Mr. [Socrates]:

Please take this email as a formal legal request to remove all posts you have made on all websites which mention me or my organizations in any way. As you know, the Circuit Court has already issued a judgment against you for harassment, defamation and interference with business, and the District Court has issued a Peace Order prohibiting you from stalking, which includes online stalking. The District Court judge advised me that you would be violating the Peace Order by continuing to cyberstalk me and you could face arrest and imprisonment. You are under scrutiny by local law enforcement in Maryland and Massachusetts, and by the FBI in Boston and Baltimore. Every post you have made on any website since your arrest in Maryland has been copied and scrutinized by criminal profilers, and both Yahoo and Verizon investigators have been notified to monitor and stop your online stalking activities. Your posts telling people to visit Google cache to see posts that have been removed constitutes continuing stalking behavior. Your posts warning of future posts about me constitutes continued stalking behavior. Your posts justifying your conduct under First Amendment grounds constitutes continued stalking conduct.

I have consulted counsel and have been advised that your failure to remove all posts you have made about me and my organizations on various sites constitutes continued stalking as defined below. Therefore, I am asking you in writing to remove the posts within ten days or I will be compelled to ask the Circuit Court for a court order directed at the sites that host your posts which will notify them of your stalking behavior and the court orders against you. Moreover, I will advise the Circuit Court judge at the damages hearing that you have continued to use your past blog posts to harm me and my organizations by refusing to remove the blog posts. Finally, I will notify the District Court that you are violating the Peace Order by continuing to stalk and harass me, which will result in your arrest. Please do not write me back to advise me of any removals you may make. I will be immediately notified by the criminal profilers of each removal.

Please read the following carefully so you can fully understand why your conduct toward me constitutes stalking in the legal sense of the word and why the Courts have taken action against you.

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person , in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#cite_note-Bocij14-0 Cyberstalking is different from spatial or offline stalking, however it sometimes leads to it, or is accompanied by it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#cite_note-1
Definitions
Further information: Stalking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking
Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself. Technology ethics professor Lambèr Royakkers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamb%C3%A8r_Royakkers&action=edit&redlink=1 writes that:
"Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#cite_note-2
CyberAngels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberAngels has written about how to identify cyberstalking:
When identifying cyberstalking "in the field," and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation:malice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice, premeditation, repetition, distress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress, obsession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(psychology), vendetta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feud , no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment , and threats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threats .[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#cite_note-Bocij9-3
A number of key factors have been identified:

* False accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusations . Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#cite_note-4
* Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#cite_note-5
* Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.
* False victimization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_victimization . The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.

One final matter, if you comply with this request for removal, I will inform the court at the damages hearing that you have done so and that can be considered by the judge in mitigation of damages. On the other hand, if you do not comply, the Court will consider that in aggravation of damages.

Brett Kimberlin

Later I found out that it is not cyberstalking to send me court documents. However, the email sent by Brett Kimberlin was not an official court document, as far as I can tell in good faith. That is moot anyway. Clearly, Brett Kimberlin lied about not sending me any emails. He sent me this one on October 8th, 2011. Why did he lie?

Thrilla in Vanilla Part 4

Me: What other statements have I made, specific statements, and do you have proof of those statements to supply, so we can see this causation?
BK: Like I said, it's not just the defamation which was extreme in, to the nth degree, but it's the harassment. Continuous. I mean, he doesn't let up. He doesn't listen to anybody. He doesn't follow court orders. He doesn't remove stuff when asked to.
Me: Objection.
BK: And I
JJ: Overruled
BK: don't know where the next thing's coming from. I mean, you know, he writes an email saying that he wants to murder me to four people who are also bloggers. And then, you know, one of those bloggers felt concerned enough to contact the police, and then the FBI got involved. And, you know, it's turned into a nightmare. I've been contacted by Montgomery County police, [redacted] police, the FBI about this guy. You know, they sent me his picture, his car license plate numbers, everything, so that I you know
Me: Did you
BK: Sir, I [inaudible] a wire from the police department
JJ: Sir, he's saying it's a continuous
BK: FBI
JJ: process
BK: Right there about from the FBI
JJ: in a general sense
BK: You know.
JJ: rather than the specifics.
Me: That, I don't know how I'm able to rebut that BK: Here's the thing
JJ: Because
BK: Here's his murder
Me: I don't know how I'm able to go objection.
JJ: The murder statement is not part of this case
Me: I don't know how I'm allowed
JJ: Go to the next question, Mr. [Socrates], please.
Me: There's been no proof that I made a death threat.
JJ: You can make that argument later on.
Me: I'll try to remember.
JJ: You're here, only right now
Me: Okay.
JJ: to ask questions for Mr. Kimberlin.
Me: Alright, so you're saying that there's are there two things, defamation and, alright, I would like us to try to stick with one item at a time and try to focus in on the causation.

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.
Me: I don't- Yes, sir. And I, uhm, I contacted you by answering the uhm interrogatories, correct? That's the only way I contacted you?
BK: Yes.
Me: And wasn't it my obligation to respond to those interrogatories?
BK: Yes.
Me: Do you strike most, you've already stricken, so now you're saying that, uhm, we're only focusing in on my usernames of Prepostericity and socrates?
BK: I'm not striking anything. You asked me a question. I answered the question.
Me: So, you're contending that, uhm, from the Kid Kemona blog, uhm, do you believe that I wrote as anonymous army?
BK: I don't, I didn't even bring up the Kid Kenoma blog in my complaint. I mention socrates and Prepostericity. That's it, okay?
Me: Can you for the court, so you're contending that when we're looking for causation, that you're going to, we're only going to stick to socrates and Prepostericity as my usernames?
BK: Judge, I'm gonna object. I mean, he's got a list of forty names that he's used or not used, and he wants to.
Me: We're not
JJ: Yeah alright, I'm going to sustain the objection. We're not gonna get into, if you want to get into statements, okay, but if you want to talk about who's blogging what
Me: I'm just saying there's a pattern. I know.
JJ: What I'm saying to you is who's blogging what is not at issue. You have a default judgement entered against you on the claims that have been brought by the plaintiff. We're only here to talk about damages. If you want to ask about specific statements, and how they caused damage or didn't, you can do that.
Me: Sir, I've asked him about two of them, and I've asked for as many of as he can offer to the court with proof, so that you can decide whether what I wrote caused it.
JJ: Just ask him the question. How did statement X cause you damage?
Me: But we don't have any that, can you please provide to the court some statements that I made with proof that I made those statements, and how they caused you, and whether they were false?
BK: It's not just the statement. If he had written one article about me or something, that would have been one thing. This was a continuous pattern of harassment
Me: Objection.
BK: over three years.
JJ: Overruled.
BK: Over three years, most of it done anonymously, attacking me, my organisations, my partners, my business, my reputation, and it, it was persistent. It, it included false accusations. He, he went out and dug up, gathered information and and conflated it with, with other false information and made it sound like I was a, a monster. And he did this, he, he, he asked other people to, to, to do the same thing. He, he posted this stuff on blogs and, and, and tried to get an army of, of
Me: Have you supplied proof of that?
BK: people to, to, to come after me. I'm testifying. And uhm, this was done to harass me, and that's, that's the point. That's where it comes down to stalking. You know, it's not an isolated incident of somebody writing a single article but rather a pattern of stalking and harassment. It's online stalking. That's what it's called. Uhm, and you know. So
JJ: That's enough. Next question.
Me: Yes, sir.
JJ: It's a pattern of harassment which is what he's saying.
Me: Uhm okay, that, uhm, how many lawsuits have you filed over your lifetime?
BK: Have no idea.
JJ: Not relevant.
Me: Not relevant? Uhm, and just, just so we're clear on this, you, you're contending you were never sent back to prison for a parole violation?
JJ: He's already answered that.
Me: And you said no?
JJ: He's already answered that. Next question.
Me: Okay, I'll order a, a , a copy of the, okay, uhm. What statements have you brought to the court that you contend were part of the causation, that I, that I wrote? Can you please share that with the court. So we
BK: Again, again
Me: You don't have any?
BK: Stalking and harassment is
Me: Do you have any statements?
JJ: Don't interrupt.
BK: Each, each individual statement or act could be completely legal, but it's the pattern of unwanted series of actions by someone, you know, gettting repeatedly unwantingly disrupting my life every single day. When I would wake up, there would be a Google alert from Mr. socrates, Mr. Prepostericity, Mr. [my real first and last name] saying something about murder or pedophilia or fraud or, or terrorism or whatever
Me: What did I write about?
JJ: Don't interrupt him.
BK: It was, it was you know, over and over and over and over. And this is, this is what it comes down to, you know. Uhm, this is what stalking is, and this is what this man has done to me and he continues to do it right now. He's harassing me right now, bringing up 32 year old cases
JJ: It's not harassment. It's directly related to
BK: Well, okay.
JJ: to reputation.
BK: Okay.
JJ: Next question.
Me: Uhm, I guess I should try to wrap up.
JJ: That would be good.
Me: Uhm, and uh, hmmm. Could you, uh, am I only allowed to ask yes or no questions?
JJ: No.
Me: Uhm, could you share with the court, uhm, what you thought might have happened to Michael Connell and uh Karl Rove's
JJ: Uh, I don't
Me: involvement?
JJ: How does that
BK: Objection.
JJ: have something to do with damages?
Me: Uhm, well, if he's contending that by my calling him, uh, a conspiracy bunk uh, supplying conspiracy bunk, yet it can be shown that he has been a supplier of conspiracy bunk, then I don't see how there's any causation. I don't see how telling the truth about someone, uhm, becoming a public figure on a controversial issue.
JJ: You can explore, but I mean
Me: Did you
JJ: Wait a second. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like we could have a full day trial on whether something is true or not true on one given act. I'll give you a little bit of leeway, if you want to explore an area where you think what was stated was the truth, and therefore should not be compensable in damages. But you might want to ask if Mr. Kimberlin is even making any claims for damages based upon a certain set of facts. If he's not, then it doesn't matter if they're true or not.
Me: Uh-huh, but those usernames, uhm. Do you believe, uhm, my blogging on your alleging to have sold marijuana to Vice-Presidential candidate Dan Quayle caused you, uh, financial distress and/or emotional, financial problems and/or emotional distress?
BK: Judge, uh,
JJ: He's asking if that's part of your claim.
BK: That's not part of my claim.
JJ: Okay, that's not part of his claim, so it's not relevant.
BK: And second of all, you know, I have an excellent reputation in this community. I work with kids all the time. I work with Congress members all the time. I work with community leaders all the time. You know, this is the issue, not what happened 32 years ago. And my, you know, I have a wonderful reputation with my kids at school, uhm, in my very nice community of Bethesda. Uhm, and, you know, what happens to somebody when they're a kid, and they redeem themselves, and they come out and they, they have a nice job and that they're doing something for the community, I think is important. And to be constantly dragged down by somebody harassing me, you know, after I've done all these, these terrific things with young people and kids and showing that people should get involved with the world and, and engage and, and not, not do violent acts and things like that. I mean, one of my campaigns is stop domestic terrorism. It's all about not engaging in violent acts. And one of my campaigns on my uh uh uh, of my non-profit is to have, have these protesters in Middle East countries come out and speak out against their dictators. And uhm, these are the kind of things that I do. This is the reputation that I have. You know, of bringing people together and speaking out against injustice. This is what, what I devote my life to. I made some mistakes when I was a kid. I admit that. I've never said I didn't. I apologise for it. You know, some of those things have been put aside. I'm not on parole. That stuff was all dealt with through the Department of Justice. It's over.

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. But the point is, you know, he wants to keep pounding it and pounding it and bringing up old stuff. You know, accusations of all these terrible things that I was never even charged with and even that I was charged with and then have since been resolved. And, and he wants to ruin my reputation now. It's like I don't have any chance to redeem myself in a person's eyes like his. I just have to constantly deal with stuff that happened 32 years ago, and I have to, you know, I can't ever get ahead. I can't ever push my non-profit to get any extra cash because of him.
JJ: I gotcha.
BK: You know, that's it.
JJ: I gotcha. Okay. Anything else, Mr. [Socrates]?
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: Absoultely.
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.
JJ: What was your question, whether he contended he was a political prisoner?
Me: Uhm, I don't know how I can speak without getting into me testifying.
JJ: Okay.
Me: But there is something that I wanted to, that I'm trying to get at. I, I, I would like to just do a few examples. I don't want to overburden
JJ: It sounds like you're asking him about a case that is subject to a confidentiality agreement. So why don't you move on to something else. I don't think it's really related to the damage issue.
Me: But, do you claim that my posting about you having been a convicted bomber has caused you financial difficulties?
BK: Yes.
Me: What did I write about you being a convicted bomber that hadn't been published in main stream media?
BK: You've harassed me. You've done it continuously.
Me: What did I
BK: You never stop.
Me: I get it. I understand, sir.
JJ: Okay.
BK: You get
(Kimberlin getting agitated- inaudible, speaking over Judge Jordan)
JJ: I'm not gonna have you arguing back and forth.
Me: I'm not arguing.
BK: He gets his kicked off of one blog. He gets banned from a blog, and he goes and starts another blog. Or starts posting
JJ: You've made it clear. It's a continuing pattern. I got it.
BK: You know.
Me: Uhm, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the witness is acting hostile.
JJ: Well, I'll step in, if I need to. I don't right now.
Me: I just believe I'm not being able
JJ: Just ask your next question.
Me: to, uhm. Hmmm. Okay, I guess, uhm, there's nothing to ask you about specific comments that I've written, because they're not presented to the court to, uh, debate or uh, to judiciate over the causation. Uh, let's go to stalking then. I mean, there's got to be a finite set of ways that I've, you allege I've damaged your life. So, let's go to stalking, I guess. Uhm, have I ever called you at your house?
BK: No.
Me: Have I ever emailed you?
JJ: (coughs) Excuse me, let's just on the stalking issue, just a second, what are you contending your damages are from a stalking point?
BK: Well, like I said, it's a pattern of harassment. It's, it's a long [inaudible] a mental assault, in which I was repeatedly and unwantedly attacked.
JJ: So it's the repeated postings?
BK: Yeah, it's the repeated posting. I mean this is, this new phenomena online stalking. You don't have to call somebody at home. You don't have to
JJ: I don't need you arguing the case.
BK: Okay.
JJ: Go ahead. Let's move onto something else.
Me: I, I, uhm
JJ: We're repeating
Me: Okay.
JJ: at this point.
Me: Uhm, why did you ask about "Louis Aubuchont" in the interrogatories?
BK: Objection.
JJ: Okay, sustained.
Me: [inaudible] it's irrelevant?
JJ: Sustained, yeah.
Me: Okay. Uhm. Okay. Uhm, can, can you tell me anything specific that I wrote, I'll just ask this one last time. Can you give me anything substantial, specific, a quote that I've written that we can look at
BK: Yeah. You called me scum of the Earth or pond scum. You remember that?
[inaudible talking over]
JJ: Don't ask him questions. Just [inaudible talking over] wait a second. Just tell him the specifics. Fair question.
BK: Okay. Pond scum. Scum of the Earth. Uhm, you said I should be in jail forever.
Me: Do you have proof of that?
BK: Yes.
Me: Have you supplied it to the court?
JJ: Are you finished with the last answer on specifics?
BK: Are you asking me?
JJ: Yeah.
BK: Uhm, uh, well he called me a conman. He called me a pedophile, a murderer
JJ: Where did he call you a pedophile? Do you have that statement?
BK: a murder suspect. I, I don't have that statement, but it was in my, I believe in my original complaint.
JJ: Okay.
BK: And in his uh, again in his murder email, you know, he, he continues, he repeatedly said that he wanted to contact my parole officers and have me thrown in jail. And uhm, that uhm
Me: Can we read that back
BK: Sure
Me: and uh, take his specific statement and see if, that he just made, and see if they line up?
JJ: No.
Me: Okay, sir.
BK: And, I mean, in that email, he says Brett (to be continued)

Kimberlin Versus Socrates: The Thrilla In Vanilla November 14th, 2011 (Part 3)

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)

Kimberlin Versus Socrates: The Thrilla In Vanilla November 14th, 2011 (Part 2)

I'm always the last to know. I didn't realise until last night Brett Kimberlin's second absurd attempt to have me imprisoned was struck down by wise Judge Rupp the Magnificent.

Anyway, the best is yet to come in regards to revealing what happened on November 14th. I was there. It was incredible. You actually had to be there to truly start to understand how surreal Brett Kimberlin is as an individual.

There were a few court clerks, myself, Brett, that court copper, uhm, and Judge Jordan. That's it. Now, Jordan wasn't the kind of man to give me any credit. But I could sense what those few regular people in the room were thinking. It was, "Omg, wtf, this is incredible."

You can't lie and say someone else claimed Jews are the scourge of the Earth and should be put in ovens. What the hell is Brett Kimberlin's problem? And why the hell didn't Judge Jordan do his job? Kimberlin is obviously delusional. What is Jordan's excuse for being such an incompetent judge? He didn't even deliberate on all the presented documents. He didn't flinch once, each time Kimberlin said something obviously outrageous. Judge Rupp appears to be digesting every nook and cranny of this case. Judge Jordan mailed it in like a hack. How does someone like him get appointed to a Judgeship. He's the Frank Burns of judges.

some notes
*** This thing about Jews being the scourge of the Earth and should be put in ovens sounded like perjury to me.
*** Here's more that sounded like criminal perjury. Kimberlin said he didn't waterboard himself. Yet according to this link and this video, he was indeed waterboarded.

*** Velvet Revolution has a membership base of over a million people? Is that true?

*** Kimberlin said, "I've had to post his picture for my mother, my wife, and my kids to see what he looks like." Was Brett involved with the illegal uploading of Sept. 14th court audio that was accompanied by my driver's licence photo? Has Brett Kimberlin been working hand in hand with internet predator Neal Rauhauser to try to psychologically torture and silence me via cyber crimes and his illegal manipulation of the Montgomery County court?

*** "I've had to deal with the FBI." Really? And what was up with former ambulance chasing Judge Jordan asking, "Was that the murder threat from two months ago?" There was no murder threat, and Jordan shouldn't be promoting such lies in his court room. Imho, he should be reprimanded or worse for his handling of this case.

*** Brett said Lori Grace's support went down to 80%, but I think he meant it went down 80%.

*** Kimberlin is a deluded fabulist. He's a confidence man. Here's an example. He said no one informed him funding was stifled due to my posts. Yet that didn't prevent him from saying they did stop it, because they read my schtick after googling.

*** Kimberlin clearly perjured himself near the end of this part, when the discussion focused on himself as a murder suspect. Keep in mind that many documents, as prepared by Liberty Chick, were entered in as evidence proving I never defamed Brett Kimberlin. Judge Jordan messed up in that I proved this case had no merits. The judgement thus should have been $1 and no court costs. To repeat, imho, Judge Jordan should be censured, sanctioned, or whatever the fock is done to Judges who wet their pants like this while on the bench.

*** I never wrote Brett Kimberlin was a pedophile. I only posted what had been reported by reputable sources. As with his testimony saying I had written Jews are the scourge of the Earth and should be thrown in ovens, he outright perjured himself. In my humble opinion, Brett Kimberlin should be returned to prison and finish out his original sentence. Or maybe it's time for him to intimidate the Feds that he'll rat them out in regards to their double secret exoneration agreement, if they attempt to return him to the penitentiary.

Woohoo, over here Ricky Boy Jordan and Bwett, it's time to board the clue train.

(please note "Thrilla in Vanilla" was coined by historic good troll donkeytale)

Part 2: The Thrilla In Vanilla

Judge Jordan: What are the posts? I'm just hearing conclusions. I need to have the statements.

Brett Kimberlin: You mean, the actual, you want the physical post?

Jordan: Not the physical post but the words.

Kimberlin: He, like I said, he said I was a pedophile. He said that I was a conman, a fraudster. Uhm, he said that I was a murderer. That I was responsible for people's deaths.

These were just straight out. He didn't even mince any words. Uhm, he just came right out and said it.

Jordan: Those contained in your complaint?

BK: Yes. (papers shuffling) This was uhm, this was the order from the court originally where the court ordered him to remove all these posts and defamatory statements in them. Uhm, which he refused to do.

Jordan: Do you have any printouts of those?

BK: I didn't bring those.

I mean, in his, uhm, He filed this with the court recently, the plaintiff's interrogatories, you know. He says the same thing. That I'm a bomber. I'm a conman. That I'm a drug smuggler. I'm a murder suspect. I'm a uh spreading conspiracy bunk in pursuit of hefty donations.

Let's see. That uh, I mean, he just goes on and on and on. And the whole reason for this is that he wanted to destroy my business. I mean, he said it. He said it straight out.

You know, he wrote. I have an email that he wrote to this funder. (Kimberlin reads aloud my letter to Lori Grace available in Part 1.)

There's his email to a funder, a person that's been funding one of my organisations or both for years. [Judge: Okay] Uhm I mean, this was his whole intent to destroy the funding base for my business by posting garbage on Google. So people that read it. And and and, you know, when I got denied grants from different places like the USAID, which I had this one. It was, it looked like it was going to be granted, and then all of a sudden at the last minute, they did a Google search of me. And I'm sure Mr. [Socrates] will get a kick out of this, you know. They read his posts, and they decided not to give me that $1.25 million grant.

Jordan: Did they tell you why?

BK: Well, they're not gonna say I read Mr. [Socrates'] posts, you know. But, when they go to Google me and see this stuff. I mean, here's their denial, you know. USAID has completed its uh review of your submission, and your application was not selected.

I mean, that's that's what, I mean I know what they told me on the phone. Uhm, and and uh another grant was was denied the same, the same thing.

JJ: Did they explain any of that as to why (interrupted)

BK: They don't explain it in the letter, but Mr. [Socrates] posted this on August 10th. This is the donor that he wrote to, and he posted her picture on a post. And not only did he post her picture, but he says if high priced donors find out the truth about me, then they won't donate to me. And he's the one that's going to tell them the truth by with all these lies that he's saying. He wants to tell them that he was cyberstalked, defamed, and had death threats made on him due to my writing. It's not my money he's after. He's trying to hide his tarnished image from people like this funder.

And so this is his M.O.. He wants to destroy the business. He wants to destroy. I don't know how many people have not donated to us over the past three years because they've read his stuff.

But, you know, I've asked for a lot less than the donations that have been denied or these grants that have been denied. You know. The request to the State Department and the USAID were for a lot more money than what I've asked for in damages here.

So, I think we can presume that we've lost a considerable amount of money.

JJ: Well, the standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. You've got to show a causal connection between defamatory statements and losses. (Bk: Okay.) Financial losses. Uhm, so, the issue of presumption is not something I can go on.

BK: You know, in these cases of types of accusations of fraud. I mean, we're members in good standing with Network for Good, with Guidestar, with the Better Business Bureau. We've never had a single complaint against us ever in ten years. And yet this guy is out there, you know, saying that we're fraudsters and we're conning people and we're taking all this money from rich heiresses, you know. And it's ludicrous. I mean, (giggles) you know like I said, I deal with Congress members. I deal with civic leaders. I deal all the time with outstanding individuals, and and I never have this kind of of of stuff, you know.

But then people read this online and they say, Brad what's this about this guy saying this and that and da da da da da. And you know, I have to deal with it all the time. And that's what he wants. And that's what he gets off on.

JJ: What's the name of your organisation?

BK: I have two organisations, Justice Through Music, which has been in business for about ten years. The executive director is Jeff Cohen, and uhm it's a Bethedsa based operation. And we work with young people, mostly to get them involved with voting. We've registered tens of thousands of kids to vote. And we get them involved with social causes. We work with very famous artists and bands and get them talking to kids about the importance of getting involved with the world. And so on and so forth.

The other organisation is called Velvet Revolution. Velvet Revolution is an organisation that has over 150 organisations affiliated with it nationwide, with membership base of over a million people. And we have, we deal with a lot of issues. Uhm, presently we're dealing with the voting issues. We were instrumental in getting paper ballots placed in Maryland and many other states. And we're involved with anti-corruption campaigns against people in both government and corporations. And like I said, we work very closely with members of Congress on this.

JJ: Okay, are both of those entities incorporated or partnerships?

BK: No, they're Maryland based right here in (inaudible). They're non-profits.

JJ: They're both non-profit corporations? [BK: Hmm hmmm] Okay. And what do you have to say in terms of the ultimate financial loss to you personally, and how you tie that, if you contend it, to the defamatory statements that you've been talking about?

BK: Well, it's not just that. Like I said, in my complaint I allege interference with business too, and that was ruled in my favor. Uhm, so it's not just the defamation.

JJ: The problem with interference with business is you're the only party. So, what I'm getting at is what's the impact on you personally?

BK: Well, I mean as far as emotional you know, this guy threatened to murder me, and I don't know if he's gonna come to my house with a gun or not. I've had to post his picture for my mother, my wife, and my kids to see what he looks like.

You know, I've had to deal with the FBI.

JJ: Was that the murder threat from two months ago? [BK: Yeah.] That's not part of your lawsuit? [BK: No, well it's (giggles) August.]

Socrates: Objection
JJ: Overruled.

BK: But, the thing is I mean he's been, he did this anonymously keep in mind for three years. I didn't know who he was. I didn't know if he was down the street. I didn't know if he was, you know, in another state. Whatever. And it was this court that ordered Google to disclose who he was.

And so, you know I'm getting all this flack, you know these grenades thrown at me from all over the internet, and I'm wondering who is this guy? Where is he coming from? You know, is somebody paying him? You know, what's going on here? Is this opposition to my business?

So there was a lot of sleepless nights and emotional upset. My wife and kids were upset. And my mother was upset. And you know, I would get calls from people around the country wondering what is this guy? What is he saying? You know, and so you know as far as personal financial loss, I mean, like I said I put out personally out of my pocket, you know, roughly a thousand dollars, you know. But, but as far as emotional cost, I mean, it's been devastating. Uhm, you know, when these kinds of things happen you know, you're, things go not as smooth at home. You know, you're testy and upset and you know fearful, and things like that.

JJ: I understand what you're saying in terms of people don't tell you why you don't get funding. Can you tie that decision, those decisions directly to what Mr. [Socrates] has said about you that (interrupted)

BK: Well, like I said, I mean, I know that when he, you know, wrote this email to this lady, she freaked out, she called me up. You know, then he posted her picture online on a post, and you know, said that kind of stuff about her. I mean, and then you know she, she's a very well-liked person in California and does a lot of very respectable work out there. Uhm, and for him to post this stuff online, uhm and make her, put her in fear? I mean, she called, she immediately when she got that, you know, she sent it to me. She said, Brett what the heck is this? Who is this guy, you know?

JJ: Did she cut off her financial support?
BK: Uh, she severely diminished it, if that's what you want to ask. Uhm, I mean it's gone down to 80%, since she got that.

JJ: Did she tell you it was because of the postings?

BK: Uhm, she didn't say that exactly, no. I mean, she just, she's been more distant since then. And you know, just for your own, for proof, this is from Yahoo, and it shows. That's one of his email accounts. He's admitted that he's done this. So I don't (inaudible).

JJ: Yeah, I have an issue about the connection. It's drawing the connection of causation. (interrupted)

BK: But I can say this. You know, I don't make that much money in my business, you know. I take a salary of about $20,000 a year, and had I gotten these, you asked about my personal loss, you know, had we gotten these grants with the USAID or the State Department. Uhm, which again I can tell you they looked like they were going to be granted according to all the preliminaries were and all the discussions I had there, and then all of a sudden, they did a Google search, and they said they couldn't approve it, you know. And uhm, so had those been granted, my salary would have gone up considerably. (JJ: Okay.)

JJ: Anything else before Mr. [Socrates] has a chance to ask you questions, if he has any? [BK: No.]

Okay. Mr. [Socrates], you may ask questions. It's called cross-examination. [Mr. [Socrates]: Thank you.] But, I want you to understand, as I tell all parties that are not represented by an attorney, that if you want to testify, you come up here. We put you under oath, and you can testify. [Me: Okay.] This is an opportunity to ask questions but not for you to testify. And you can certainly ask him if such and such is true or not true. Uhm, but you ask questions. You don't make statements. Okay? And I'll let you know if you're not following what I'm talking about.

Mr. [Socrates]: I'll try my best, and I'm willing to testify. [JJ: Okay.] Uhm, I just took notes from listening to that. So uhm, I guess I should get to the, Brett Kimberlin just said that I wrote that Jews [JJ: You ask him.] Oh. Okay. [JJ: Mr. Kimberlin, is true such and such] Okay, I know he doesn't like me, and I'm sorry. You said that, Mr. Kimberlin, you say that I wrote that Jews are the scourge of the Earth. Do you have proof of that, or is that potentially slander? [BK: uh]

JJ: At this point, we're talking about damages. Okay, so there's a default judgement entered against you on the claims before the court primary (interrupted)

Mr. [Socrates]: Okay. Okay.

JJ: Wait a second. The crux of which is defamation. The only reason we're here now is to assess what damages, if any, should be awarded because of that defamation. [Me: Okay.]

Mr. [Socrates]: Uhm, and I can get, is there a tape recording of this? [JJ: Uh-huh.] Okay. Okay. I understand.

JJ: Okay. I know you're not an attorney. Just if you have questions (interrupted)

Mr. [Socrates]: No, I understand, and if uhm, my concerns are, my concerns are for another venue. I'll leave it at that.

JJ: Alright. Just ask him questions, if you have any questions.

Mr. [Socrates]: Uhm, were you convicted of setting bombs? [BK: Objection. JJ: Overruled.]

BK: Yes, I was convicted.
Mr. [Socrates]: Uhm, What did you supply to this court in terms of your criminal background history?
BK: Nothing.
Mr. [Socrates]: You didn't mention drug dealing?
JJ: Is that a question?
Me: I don't know if it's pertinent or not. I would just like to (stumbling a bit ugh). I'm trying to establish that (interrupted).
BK: He's trying to establish that 32 years ago I was convicted of something? [Me: What (interrupted).] 32 years ago?
Me: Well, what I'm trying to ask is what did, is there anything I posted that hadn't been posted before in main stream 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.]
Me: Uhm, (I think I did a wtf or wow just wow whisper sigh) You contend that, that I damaged, some of the reasons that I damaged your revenue stream for your non-profits was because I called you a bomber, for example?
BK: that's true.
Me: Were you convicted of setting bombs, and has that been highlighted by main stream media?
BK: It was reported 32 years ago.
Me: Are you a private individual or a public figure?
BK: A private individual.
Me: Have you posted videos of yourself as a musician? Did you, have you been on radio talk shows, the LA Steel Show?
BK: Have I appeared on radio shows?
Me: How many radio shows have you appeared on would you estimate?
BK: Very few.
Me: Very few. But you have been on them?
BK: Yes.
Me: And uh, how many videos have you put together with colleagues such as Cliff Arnebeck, Brad Friedman perhaps, that you have posted on youtube on behalf of the Velvet Revolution?
BK: Hundreds.
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.] What did I write to Lori Grace that was untrue or hadn't been published before by main stream media? I guess Mike Jesse of the Indy Star, I guess, on the Connell case. But uhm. [JJ: (starts to interject)] I'm sorry.
JJ: Your question is what did, what on the Lori Grace communication was not true?
Me: Yes.
BK: That I was a conman. That I was a fraudster.
Me: Have you ever been characterised as a conman by journalists such as Mark Singer?
BK: Not that I know of.
Me: Not that you know of. Uhm, let's see. I separated these documents by yellow sheets.
JJ: Why don't we mark your papers as exhibits. Are those extra copies?
(a bit of paperwork and whatnot)
Me: Why were you sent back to prison? Uhm. Alright, you are contending that my posting of things of information, you're contending that things that I have posted were false and malicious, false?
BK: We're not. I'm objecting. We're not getting into the case anymore. The default judgemant has been issued against him. [JJ: Okay.] We're on damages.
JJ: Well, a critical part of damages are issues of damage to reputation. So therefore, true statements are not compensable. Uh, so you certainly, the truth or falsity of a statement would be relevant to the court's consideration.
BK: What's the question again?
JJ: Your question was something about contending something was false?
Me: I'm sorry I lost my train of thought. I don't know if it's possible to.
JJ: You said something about what do you contend is false about what you said.
Me: Is there anything that I, uhm (interrupted)
BK: You've accused me of being a pedophile. You've accused me of being a fraudster and a conman.
Me: I would like to. Is there evidence that I called you a pedophile? I know we're not going back to the default being reversed, but (interrupted)
JJ: Just ask him. Where did he, where did you call him a pedophile?
BK: You posted that on your site.
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?

to be continued.