Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for May 24th, 2012

How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Introduction

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/24

Originally published by Aaron Worthing.

This post is part of a larger series of posts.  See herefor a fuller explanation.]

[Important Note: I have uploaded a number of documents onto the internet and reference them in this post.  In all cases, I have endeavored to remove all personal information from these documents, such as addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, etc.  If I have by oversight included any personal information, please inform me in the comments or by email and I will seek to rectify it immediately.  I have also redacted certain information that was privileged.]
Dear reader, I have been holding back a story from you for over four months.  A crime was committed against me—indeed, several have been—but I was afraid to publicize it, because it would have the effect of fully and completely “outing” me.
Well, today I break that silence, starting with my name.  It’s Walker.  As in Aaron Walker, not “Aaron Worthing” as you have known me for now over two years.
And I am going to tell you about how Brett Kimberlin attempted to frame me for a crime.  He attempted to make authorities in Maryland believe that on January 9, 2012, as we were both exiting a courtroom, I essentially beat him up.  You will see him claim that I “decked” him, that the sheriff’s deputies had to separate me from him, that I kept coming at him and the deputies had to restrain me.
And then you will see video of the incident and realize that all of this is a lie.  I will even show you a second video that contrasts Kimberlin’s words with the video footage.  That is right, you are not going to have to believe my word.  You will only have to believe your eyes.
This is a long post, but that is because there is a lot to tell.  And we do have to start with some background.
—————————————

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

______________________
Permissions declaration.

If you like what you read and you know Brett Kimberlin’s history, feel free to hit my tip jar found in my sidebar.

Advertisements

Posted in Brett Kimberlin, Constitution, crime | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 1: Background.

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/24

Originally published by Aaron Worthing.

(This article has multiple scribd applications, so it would be advisable to see the original article, linked above.)

[This post is part of a larger series of posts.  See here for a fuller explanation.]
Previously: Introduction.
Even if you have been following the posts in what I am calling “The Kimberlin Saga,” there are some things I didn’t share and in any case it helps to put it all in one place.  Of course if you want to go back and read all the posts in this “saga,” I suggest you use this link. But I am going to take a few minutes to give you the major points of what happened before.  And I am going to write this as if you know nothing about me, because hopefully I will be attracting many new eyeballs with this post.
So let’s start with me.  Now that you know my real name, who is this Aaron Walker guy?  What secrets are revealed now that I have removed my mask?  Am I in a secret conspiracy with the Chamber of Commerce, the late Andrew Breitbart, and/or the Freemasons?
Actually no.  In truth, “Aaron Walker” is really kind of a nobody.  The reality is that Aaron Worthing, my online alter ego, has had a greater impact on the world than Aaron Walker.  Aaron Walker is simply a lawyer of reasonable professional accomplishment, but not exactly a superstar, either, who has a hobby on the side of blogging under the pseudonym “A.W.” and later “Aaron Worthing” (always making it clear that both were the same person).
As Aaron Worthing, I have had a pretty good run as a blogger.  I have blogged, commented, etc. on the internet almost continuously for about ten years, but let’s keep it to the last few years.  A few years ago, I created this site “Allergic to Bull.”  I also participated in the free-speech, anti-terrorism protest called Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and even created a website dedicated to it, called “Everyone Draw Mohammed.”  I talked about my participation in that movement, here and here.  And this Wikipedia article on the movement as a whole is fair and mainly accurate as of this writing (Wikipedia articles are notorious for being “strategically edited” by people with an agenda).
In October of 2010, I was contacted by J. Patrick Frey, a.k.a. “Patterico” of Patterico’s Pontifications.  Patrick is a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles in the hard core gang unit.  I think it is fair to say that we were acquaintances who mutually admired each other’s writing at that time, but we were not yet friends.  But he was about to go on a vacation for two weeks and he needed someone to serve as guest blogger while he was gone, to keep his regular readers happy.  So he honored me by asking me to do this for him, and I happily agreed.

And then when he got back he told me that, gosh, his workload was murder and could I stay on a guest blogger and pick up the slack?  So I did, and two weeks ended up being a little over a year.  But Patrick always intended it to be a temporary thing and so in December of 2011, he asked me to leave and I won’t say I don’t miss it, but I think I was very gracious about it.  And as I was leaving I revealed publicly that Aaron Worthing was a pseudonym, in a post.

Now one thing that was going on from the beginning of my tenure at Patterico’s Pontifications in the background was the Brett Kimberlin story.  Patrick published a couple posts about him.  The first post he wrote was this one, supplementing a post at Breitbart’s site by Mandy Nagy.  Kimberlin then threatened to sue both of them, mentioned in posts here and here.  Patrick challenged Kimberlin to name one falsehood in his post; Kimberlin couldn’t.  But that didn’t stop him from making this threat: “I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money[.]”
But for me I just didn’t find the story very interesting.  Don’t take that as criticism of Patrick.  What makes a story interesting to a blogger is a matter of the very particular preferences of each blogger.  Patrick found something fascinating about it, but in my mind it was “ho-hum, another domestic terrorist accepted by liberals despite his crimes.”  Horrifying, yes, but not quite shocking anymore.  It was like Bill Ayers all over again.  It was hard to see the significance of it.
Of course Brett Kimberlin is an awful human being.  I realized that even before we truly crossed paths, and I am only more convinced of this today.  He is a convicted terrorist (bomber, specifically), known as the Speedway Bomber.  Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1993).  He earned that title by settling off eight bombs in six days in the community of Speedway, Indiana.  Here’s what the Sixth Circuit wrote about him:
Kimberlin was convicted as the so-called “Speedway Bomber,” who terrorized the city of Speedway, Indiana, by detonating a series of explosives in early September 1978. In the worst incident, Kimberlin placed one of his bombs in a gym bag, and left it in a parking lot outside Speedway High School. Carl DeLong was leaving the high school football game with his wife when he attempted to pick up the bag and it exploded. The blast tore off his lower right leg and two fingers, and embedded bomb fragments in his wife’s leg. He was hospitalized for six weeks, during which he was forced to undergo nine operations to complete the amputation of his leg, reattach two fingers, repair damage to his inner ear, and remove bomb fragments from his stomach, chest, and arm. In February 1983, he committed suicide.
Later in a civil suit Kimberlin was found to be liable for Carl DeLong’s death and the injuries to the widow DeLong. Kimberlin v. DeLong, 619 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. 1993).
Kimberlin was indeed convicted of thirty three offenses related to those bombings.  Besides the more obvious bombing-related counts, he was convicted of illegal use of a Department of Defense insignia, and illegal use of the Presidential Seal.  That might seem puzzling until you realize that the materials Kimberlin used to build his bombs couldn’t exactly be bought at the local Piggly Wiggly.  They are highly regulated explosive substances.  So he had to forge documents, with Presidential Seals and Department of Defense insignias, to obtain the materials.  So it is right to say he is a convicted document forger.  That will become important later.
By the way, you might also ask why he committed his spree of domestic terrorism.  Well, that was never proven, but according to the Indianapolis Star and Mark Singer, in his book Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin, the police had a theory.  It started with a young woman named Jessica Barton, the daughter of Sandi Barton and the granddaughter of Julia Scyphers.  Kimberlin had a relationship—he claims it was platonic—with Sandi Barton and through her, he came in contact with this young girl.  How young?  When they first became acquainted Jessica was ten years old and Kimberlin was twice her age.  (Citizen K, page 76.)  And there is this passage from Singer’s book:
For three consecutive summers, 1974 through 1976, they  took vacations of a week or longer in Disney World, Mexico, and Hawaii.  Sandi couldn’t get time off from work, so on these summer trips it was just the two of them-Brett and Jessica.
Eyebrows levitated. A drug-dealing colleague had memories of conversations with Kimberlin that struck him as odd: “We’d see a girl who was pubescent or prepubescent, and Brett would get this smilie and say, ‘Hey, what do you think? Isn’t she great?’ It made me very uncomfortable.”  Another recalled Kimberlin introducing Jessica as “my girlfriend,” and if irony was intended, it was too subtle to register.  To a coworker at IU-PUI, Sandi confided that Kimberlin was “grooming Jessica to be his wife.” To another, Sandi explained that though Kimberlin’s relationship with Jessica was chaste, he intended “to wait for her and would marry her.”
(Page 78.)  So Julia Scyphers—who you remember is Jessica Barton’s grandmother—allegedly became concerned about this relationship and was very vocal in her concern.  Kimberlin claims there was no such conflict with Scyphers, but according to Singer and the Indianapolis Star, this was contradicted by the statements of others, such as that of Judith Johnson, an employee of the management company that serviced the Barton family’s apartment.  She reported to the police that Scyphers tried to have the locks changed—possibly to lock Kimberlin out—and someone prevented the maintenance man from changing the cylander (this might have been Sandi Barton, Julia’s daughter and Jessica’s mother).  Ms. Johnson then reported this encounter afterward:
Brett C. Kimberlin came to our office. He came into my office and closed the door, talked very low, was nervous, introduced himself as living with Sandra Barton, 68 POC #A, and stated he had lived there for a good many years. He told me that his girlfriend’s mother was harassing them, that she hated him and their situation (living there with her daughter and grandchildren) … he said that Mrs. Barton’s mother was insane and that he wanted them to get away from her but that Mrs. Barton was afraid of her mother and would not stand up to her.
(Emphasis added, page 81.)  So then next thing you know, Julia Scyphers was murdered:
On July 29, 1978, Speedway resident Julia Scyphers, 65, answered a knock at her door. A man she didn’t know was standing on her stoop asking about items she’d recently tried to sell at a yard sale. She let him into the garage to look at the items and he shot her in the head.
Mrs. Scyphers’ husband, Fred, 68, heard the bang and came out in time to see a car pulling out of the driveway. He would later tell police he’d gotten a glimpse of the man who’d come to the door.
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.
(Source.)  So according to Singer and the Indianapolis Star, the police’s theory went like this (this whole paragraph is based on their claims): Kimberlin starts having this questionable relationship with the very young Jessica Barton.  Of course one can only speculate whether anyone’s suspicions were valid, but according to witnesses (besides Kimberlin who denies this) Julia Scyphers suspected something was seriously wrong and was very vocal about it.  Then someone gunned Scyphers down, and a lead suspect was a Kimberlin associate.  According to Singer and the Star, the police suspected this was a murder-for-hire ordered by Kimberlin himself.  Mind you, none of this could ever be proven, but it was what the police suspected, according to those sources.  And shortly after that, the Speedway bombings began—the police believing that these bombings were done to distract from their Scyphers investigation—all according to Singer and the Star.
Which I admit makes very little sense.  I mean if you believe the theory attributed by Singer and the Star to the police, he tries to get away with a crime by… committing other crimes?  But that hits on an important point.  As I have said to several people when explaining this, it is useless to try to make sense of his conduct.  All one can do is recognize the conduct he has engaged in.  But I believe that explaining the workings of his mind in a way that makes sense is impossible—because I believe that he does not think like a rational person.  At least that is my opinion.  Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Also, these were not the only crimes he was convicted of (or suspected of).  He was also convicted of conspiracy to distribute 10,000 pounds of marijuana.  And he was convicted of perjury.
Nor did his immoral behavior end there.  As noted above, he was found liable for the death of Carl DeLong and for the injuries to the widow DeLong, and as a result of that civil suit against him he owed her over a million dollars.  He then started to come into money, particularly as the money from Citizen K started to roll in.  After all, the book was written under contract with Singer, so that he got some money from that (even though it was far from the flattering portrayal that Kimberlin had probably hoped for).  So the DeLong widow attempted to take some of those profits as part of an effort to collect on her debt.  The parole board later found that Kimberlin had done just about everything he could to prevent the widow Delong from collecting her debt and indeed found his conduct to be so deplorable that they revoked his parole—an extraordinary action for a parole board to take.  This passage from case of Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F.Supp. 2d (D. Maryland 1998) is particularly damning:
The [parole] examiner found that petitioner [Kimberlin] used “deceitful maneuvers to hide his ability to pay” and that his “relatives and friends are obviously acting to help him by filing claims and liens to protect his money and property from being available to satisfy the victim’s judgment.” The examiner further found that the “evidence against [petitioner] was provided by the subject himself,” and that at no time did petitioner “indicate any concern or empathy for the victim.” Finally, the examiner found that petitioner’s settlement offers were not undertaken in good faith; concluded that petitioner had resisted parole supervision by Officer Ramsburg “in every way he can,” and recommended revocation of parole with a presumptive parole date of two years… Petitioner was taken into custody at the conclusion of the hearing.
So he is not exactly a prince among men.
Anyway, throughout 2011, I was also vaguely aware that in the background that Kimberlin had sued a blogger/commenter named Seth Allen in the Montgomery County, Maryland lawsuit known as Kimberlin v. Allen (case number 339254v).  You can look it up, here.  And you can look at the complaint, here, and the amended complaint, here.  I will probably do a post in the future discussing all the dissembling going on there, but bear in mind that many of the statements attributed to Seth were not actually written by him.  For instance, Kimberlin has claimed that Seth advocated for the extermination of Jews, and if you might think this is an odd position for a person who is actually Jewish to take that would be because he didn’t actually say that.
I can also say that the complaint doesn’t appear to be sufficient as a matter of law.  But Seth ended up with a default judgment against him and on August 22 and 23, 2011, he was looking for help.  And because I kind of lived kind of close to where this was going on, he sought out my help.  The problem was that I am not an attorney in Maryland, so I couldn’t do very much for him.  But I briefly provided him a little legal advice.  Of course some of it is privileged, but I share the unprivileged part of our interactions, here.  And that was the end of it.  Or so I thought.
But Brett Kimberlin learned that I had provided Seth that brief, slight, free legal help and that was enough to make me a target of his anger.
The Maryland case went on.  There was a hearing on November 14, 2011, to determine what damages would be awarded to Kimberlin for this supposed defamation.  You can read the transcript of that hearing, here.  He was awarded the grand sum total of…  $100, and court costs, which resulted in much mockery from Patrick.  But Kimberlin was also given an injunction that commanded that Seth shall never defame Kimberlin or tortiously interfere with his business relations.  And as he is wont to do, Kimberlin very quickly decided that Seth had violated this order and demanded that Seth be held in contempt in a hearing set for January 9, 2012.
And that is when he decided to drag me into this.  In an email I have published at this site before, written just after midnight on December 15, 2011, he remarkably asked that I ask Seth to waive attorney client privilege so that I could testify against him, and if I didn’t, he would subpoena Google in order to get my information.  You can read that email, here.  And then after waiting only two business days, he filed that subpoena and a motion to compel spinning a wild conspiracy theory, which I shared with you here.  You can read a scan of the document, here.  You remember that line above where I jokingly asked, “[a]m I in a secret conspiracy with the Chamber of Commerce, the late Andrew Breitbart, and/or the Freemasons?”  Well, it isn’t entirely a joke to Brett Kimberlin.  Kimberlin has gone on record as believing that I have been “conspiring with, advising, and aiding abetting [sic] Mr. Allen for over a year regarding” Seth telling the truth about Kimberlin’s deplorable past.  Mind you, he has no proof of this, and indeed no evidence of it.  All he has is evidence of contact, between a lawyer and a guy being sued, after he was sued, which isn’t even unusual when you think about it.  And he has indicated in conversations with my counsel, Beth Kingsley, that he believes that the conspiracy includes Andrew Breitbart and/or the Chamber of Commerce, but there is no word on whether he thinks the Freemasons are involved.
And there is some debate in my circle of friends about whether he actually believes this or not.  I don’t know; I can’t say.  I do know, however, that it is what he said in that document.  But I have also learned not to trust anything that Kimberlin claims to be true.  He has no compunction about lying about easily verifiable facts as you will see.  So… who knows what he really thinks?  I can only describe his conduct.
Of course in talking to my friends I came to believe that what this really was, was a prelude to Kimberlin stalking and harassing me.  As I have shown before, Kimberlin has at least two people—Ron Brynaert and Neal Rauhauser—who at the very least have proven to be willing conduits for any information that Kimberlin wants to put out in the public sphere.  For instance, in regards to Brynaert (a former editor of Raw Story), when Seth Allen was arrested, Brynaert knew of this within twenty-four hours, even though this had not appeared in any public record at the time (see here).  When Kimberlin filed his motion to compel, Brynaert also knew of it within twenty-four hours (see here, an excerpt from Brynaert’s blog).  On December 30, 2011, Kimberlin wrote an email to my then-attorney, Beth Kingsley, accusing me of a violation of legal ethics by trying this case in the press, accusing her of having a conflict of interest because she represented the organization known as ACORN and arguing that she was responsible for my alleged ethical violations.  (See here, and my response, here).  On December 30, Mr. Brynaert suggested I was unethically trying this case in the press (see here).  On January 1, 2012, just after midnight, Brynaert alluded to the fact that my lawyer once represented ACORN (see here.)  On January 6, he suggested Ms. Kingsley was responsible for my supposedly unethical conduct (see here).
Indeed, Brynaert is only one degree of separation from Brett Kimberlin.  He has guest blogged at Brad Friedman’s “The Brad Blog” and Mr. Freidman is an admitted business partner of Mr. Kimberlin (see here).  Further, Brynaert has received emails sent by Kimberlin (see here),  and has acknowledged in a recent tweet that “I will gladly testify for @AaronWorthing if Kimberlin sues him over courthouse incident since Brett lied to me about it”—thus admitting that Kimberlin had been feeding him information about the case from the start.
Turning my attention to Neal Rauhauser, whom Kimberlin has described in court as his “associate,” he has obviously served as a conduit for information only available to Brett Kimberlin.  For instance, Rauhauser published a document on the Scribd document-sharing service (the same one I am using).  I revealed the existence of this document on this blog and he promptly made it disappear.  As I wrote at the time, “Don’t bother making it disappear, Neal, because I have already preserved it.”  And indeed I did.  You can read a copy of that document, preceded by a screenshot from the Scribd page indicating his authorship, here.  It includes numerous images of documents related to the Kimberlin v. Allen litigation, including letters addressed specifically to Brett Kimberlin.  The document also included wild accusations that Seth was being paid by one of a number of persons, including myself, to bring up Brett Kimberlin’s deplorable past.
And this crew—Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser and Ron Brynaert—had a long history of stalking and harassing others, and I expected the same to happen to me if Kimberlin got my real name.  I talk about that history to a degree here, but bluntly there are a lot of things they have done that I know about, that the victims have asked me to be silent about… for now.  Besides, would you want a convicted domestic terrorist with a grudge against you to have your name and home address?
So on December 29, I filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and an opposition to Kimberlin’s motion to compel Google to reveal my identity.  That isn’t a typo, on “subpoenas.”  By then he had also subpoenaed Comcast, but did so without informing me—I discovered it by searching the Maryland Judiciary Case Search website on my own.  This is a regular pattern with several people reporting that when he was required to serve documents on others, he often would fail to do so and then claim he had.
In any case, my response—which you can read, here—argued that Kimberlin was abusing the discovery process in an attempt to stalk and harass me.  It also argued that the underlying injunction that he was seeking to enforce should be dismissed in any case because it was obtained in significant part by false testimony.  I brought three examples of his dishonest statements to the court’s attention, but here is the most easily proven example.
Q [Seth Allen] Were you released and then sent back to prison for a parole violation, for failure to pay compensation to the, Ms. Delong (phonetic sp.), the wife of Carl Delong, who took his own life after those bombs —
A [Brett Kimberlin] No.
Q — tore up half his body?
A No, I wasn’t.
I have linked it before, but you can read the transcript, here.  That would be on Page 40, lines 12-18.  And of course what he said was not true: he had his parole revoked for precisely that reason, as you can read, here.  I also said in my response that the court should consider reporting Kimberlin to the appropriate authorities for charges of perjury.
Now for reasons more complicated than they are interesting (but if you are curious, you can read up, here), I was essentially forced to retain a lawyer pro bono for a small procedural matter in relation to the suit named Beth Kingsley.  She is the ACORN lawyer that Brynaert mentioned earlier.  And Brett Kimberlin began to call and email her.  It started with veiled threats to my lawyer’s livelihood, and to file frivolous ethics charges against her and I in an email I have already shared with you.  How frivolous were they?  So much so that he claimed I was violating a rule that didn’t exist.  Yes, really.
Then he proposed a settlement.  Normally, the privacy of settlement negotiations should be respected, but what he wrote in this is in fact key evidence of his intent to frame me, so I think I am justified in sharing this.  (And there is no rule against sharing it in public—it’s just sort of a cultural norm.)  You see on that date, January 3, 2012, I had never met the man.  I had never spoken to him, emailed him or indeed contacted him by any means whatsoever.  And yet already on that date he was talking about filing criminal charges against me.  Here’s what he said he was going to offer me—a not-so-veiled threat:
Please take this letter as an offer to settle issues between me and your client known as Aaron Worthing.  This settlement will allow Mr. Worthing to maintain his anonymity.
1.         I will withdraw my subpoenas for Comcast and Google to identify Mr. Worthing filed in Kimberlin v. Allen.
2.         I will forgo any future litigation concerning Mr. Worthing, including bar complaints, sanctions, civil suits, criminal complaints, peace orders and other administrative actions.
3.         I will not make any public statements about Mr. Worthing, and will not ask others to make any public statements or posts on the Internet about him.
4.         I will not make any future attempt to identify Mr. Worthing in any manner.
(Emphasis added.)  Here is an embedded copy of that offer:
So he was already talking about criminal complaints and peace orders against me, when we had never even met, when he had no just cause to do such a thing.
And notice something else, here.  All of this was started with him claiming that he wanted my testimony.  But there was no attempt to obtain that testimony in that offer.  Indeed, it was all about shutting me up—getting me to withdraw my response and to take down my truthful postings about him on the internet.  Oh, and apologizing and saying I should leave him alone—as though he hadn’t come after me first.  I mean, read the archives of this site.  Before Kimberlin came after me, I only mentioned him in a post once, and it was in response to his conduit Ron Brynaert attacking me for my slight representation of Seth.  This is therefore the sum total of what I had written about Brett Kimberlin before he came after me:
Brynaert is almost certainly referring to [Kimberlin v. Allen], involving the alleged defamation of Brett Kimberlin, the convicted terrorist known as the Speedway Bomber.  I suppose next he will assert that I have defamed bin Laden.  Seriously, defamation is a cause of action for damage to reputation; does Kimberlin even have a public reputation capable of being damaged?
Everything else I had written about Kimberlin was in response to his thuggish behavior.  But according to him, I was the supposed stalker.
Now I did want to try to get out of the immediate situation relatively unscathed so I did authorize my attorney to make a counter offer.  So as we were considering how we would respond, Kimberlin sent my attorney these emails:
Because I have decided to redact his email address, it is sometimes unclear who is the sender or recipient in that copy.  However, in each case, it is an email exchange between Beth Kingsley and Brett Kimberlin, ultimately being forwarded to me.  Notice how his sole focus is silencing me, not obtaining my testimony.
So we made a counter offer and let a few days go by.  On January 5, according to his own documents, he made up his mind to reject the offer.  He filed a motion to withdraw the subpoenas.  Here’s a copy of it, with only my birthdate, my address, my then-current employer, and my employer’s address redacted.  Please take the time to read the whole thing and see the amount of personal information he chose to put into this document:
Remember folks, according to Brett Kimberlin, I am the stalker.  And yet he decided to put this “stalkerish” amount of information into this public document.
On the same day, he sent a letter to the FBI, the Virginia State Police, the Fairfax County Police and the Prince William County Police (I lived in Prince William but worked in Fairfax).  This is a copy of that letter, with the same information redacted.
Notice that he wrote that “there exists the very real probability that Mr. Walker could be subjected to serious harm or death now that his identity has been exposed.”  Since he was the one who exposed my identity on that date, and indeed at that time, he was the only person exposing my identity, he was confessing to having engaged in a course of conduct that he believed could get me killed.
But of course I didn’t know he had filed that.  So he chose to send me a copy of it, by email on January 7, a Saturday morning.  I immediately informed my work about the situation, fully expecting the harassment my friends had suffered to arrive at their doorstep and realizing that at this point in time they had a right to know.  And then I planned to come to the contempt hearing January 9, 2012—the following Monday.
And that brings us to the day of what I have since referred to as the January 9, 2012 incident.
—————————————

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

______________________
Permissions declaration.

If you like what you read and you know Brett Kimberlin’s history, feel free to hit my tip jar found in my sidebar.

Posted in Brett Kimberlin, Constitution, crime | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 2: The January 9, 2012 Hearing.

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/24

Originally published by Aaron Worthing.

[This post is part of a larger series of posts.  See here for a fuller explanation.]
So I went to the Montgomery County, Maryland Circuit Court on that morning to address Mr. Kimberlin’s blatantly improper Motion to Withdraw.  I hoped to ask for the document to be sealed and for Kimberlin to be sanctioned.  I will mostly let the transcript of that day speak for itself, but obviously there are things that do not appear in it, so I will supplement it with my commentary occasionally.  For starters, when the court case was called, I immediately stood up at the same time as Kimberlin and came forward about a step behind him.
THE COURT: Civil 339254, Kimberlin versus Seth Allen. And you are?
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m Brett Kimberlin.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WALKER: My name is Aaron Walker. I am the blogger known as Aaron Worthing. And I have an emergency motion against Mr. Kimberlin for his gross misconduct in this case, and I’d like to be heard. I know it’s unusual.
THE COURT: It’s not here on your proceeding.
MR. WALKER: I understand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So I’m not going to hear it.
MR. WALKER: Your Honor, he filed an improper motion before this Court on Friday. I had no notice until Saturday morning that he had done that. He has, in a blatant attempt to stalk and oppress me, he has put —
THE COURT: Hold it. Hold it.
MR. WALKER: Yes. I’m sorry.
THE COURT: First off, you don’t have any right to be saying anything.
Let me break in.  At this point, Kimberlin burst out laughing, so the next sentence is directed at him:
THE COURT: And you don’t have a right to be laughing.  There’s a motion to withdraw as moot plaintiff’s motion to compel seeking identity of Aaron Worthing.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes.
THE COURT: And then there’s a, plaintiff’s response to Aaron Worthing’s motion to quash. And you’re Mr. Worthing?
MR. WALKER: Well, I’m Aaron Walker, and I blog as Mr. Worthing, that’s correct.
THE COURT: Are you requiring that he come to court today?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Judge, initially I, he’s an anonymous blogger who’s been involved with the stalker.
Notice in Kimberlin’s mind it somehow reflects on the lawyer to be “involved with” an alleged “stalker,” meaning Seth Allen.  Kimberlin thinks that Seth Allen is so self-evidently evil that he doesn’t deserve even the slight legal help I gave him.  On the other hand, do you think Kimberlin has a problem with all the lawyers who represented him, a convicted domestic terrorist and drug dealer?
THE COURT: But why are you, why is he here?
MR. KIMBERLIN: And so, I didn’t ask him to be here.  He just foisted himself on this hearing.
THE COURT: Well, he says he’s been summonsed.
MR. KIMBERLIN: No.
MR. WALKER: Well, no, no, no.
MR. KIMBERLIN: He wasn’t summonsed.
MR. WALKER: If I may explain, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WALKER: He did actually initially ask me to testify today in his initial correspondence with me. If he’s not interested in my testimony today, then I would ask why he has subpoenaed this Court in order to obtain my identity.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I withdrew that.
THE COURT: It’s been withdrawn.
MR. WALKER: Yes. But I understand, but why did he do that in the first place?
THE COURT: Well, it’s been withdrawn, so it’s, he says it’s withdrawn. It’s moot.
MR. WALKER: But Your Honor, if you look at what he has filed today, all he had to do in order to file that motion was to tell the Court that he obtained my information. He did not have to even say my name. Instead, in this public document now, he has put my name, he has put my home address, he has put my birth date, he has put the high school I went to. He put the fact that I dropped out of high school in this. He put the fact that I received a GED. He put the fact that I went to the University of North Texas. He went and put in the fact that I sued the law school admissions council. He put in the fact that I was admitted to Yale Law School and graduated in the class of 2002. He put down my current job with my current employer and their address as well.  His intent in doing this was so that it becomes a public record so that him and his friends can put this out into the public so they can stalk and harass me. It is plain on the face of this. And I would ask Your Honor to swear him in and ask why he put all this unnecessary information in this, in this filing.
THE COURT: Well, it’s been withdrawn as moot.
MR. WALKER: Well, I’m talking about the motion to withdraw itself.
THE COURT: Well, it’s done. It’s no longer in effect.
MR. WALKER: But this is a public document. And his friends will then take this public document, his motion to withdraw as moved, and they will put it out, and then put out all of my information.
At some point in all of this—and I think it was about now—I saw the judge look through the file and read.  I believe he was looking at the document itself, and I could be wrong, but I believe I heard him say, under his breath: “What the…?”  And after he was done looking, I sensed a shift in his demeanor.
THE COURT: Are you asking that this be sealed?
MR. WALKER: I would like this to be sealed. I would like –
THE COURT: Any objection to sealing it, Mr. Kimberlin?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Judge, this –
THE COURT: Say yes or no.
Now let me pause here and ask you a question, dear reader.  Let’s imagine that Kimberlin cared about my safety.  Let’s imagine that he didn’t want to create “the very real probability that Mr. Walker could be subjected to serious harm or death” as he said in that letter to law enforcement.  Then wouldn’t he jump at the chance to seal it?  If he was acting in good faith, wouldn’t he happily put it under seal?
So why exactly does he object to this?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I object.
THE COURT: Why?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Why?
THE COURT: Yes, why. Why should all of this be a matter of public record?
MR. KIMBERLIN: This man has engaged in stalking with the defendant in this case.
THE COURT: Well, there’s no order against him in this case.
MR. KIMBERLIN: No, there’s no order against him.  But he –
THE COURT: So why is he even a part of this case?
MR. KIMBERLIN: He did it anonymously. Initially, I wanted to call him as a witness. And then when I filed the motions to call him as a witness, he began trying the case in, on his blog. He filed every, he posted every motion on his blog. And he kept accusing me of all kinds of terrible things on his blog. And he ridiculed me. He taunted me. He threatened me. He had people posting on his blog that I was a terrorist and a pedophile and all this other stuff.  And he engaged in unethical behavior.  He said that he represented the defendant in this case as an anonymous person. He can’t, a lawyer cannot represent someone as an anonymous person. He asked to be identified. I mean, he went on his blog and said I am representing, I entered into an attorney-client privilege relationship with Seth Allen as Aaron Worthing. And he’s not even a lawyer in this jurisdiction. He lives in Virginia. He can’t represent somebody as a fake person, in a pseudonym.
You can search on this blog.  I have never threatened him, except to say that if he breaks the law I will ensure that he will face the consequences proscribed by law (which any citizen is allowed to do).  And the people “posting” he is referring to are commenters.  This blog is a one-man show.  Those who call him a “terrorist” are of course, right.  And the only commenter talking about his suspected pedophilia, was stating in his opinion that he had an inappropriate relationship with Jessica Barton, which given what I quoted to you from Singer’s book, seems like a pretty reasonable opinion to me if you credit Singer’s reportage.  As for his assertions that I have behaved unethically, I have addressed them here.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I mean, that’s — and so he put himself out there to be identified. I mean, if he’s a lawyer, fine. I have a right to determine if he’s a lawyer. He can’t say that he’s anonymous and he’s representing Seth Allen. It just, it didn’t make sense. And so I said, well, I need to find out who this guy is. If he’s saying he represents somebody in a case against me, then I need to be able to identify him. And so I identified him. And I didn’t want him to come out and say — the reason I put all that information in the document was because Mr. Worthing has called me a liar over and over and over. And I wanted to, everybody to know –
Notice that part: “I wanted… everybody to know[.]”  He was admitting that this was for the world’s consumption.
THE COURT: Why is this even in the court? This is incredible to me.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I know. It’s really incredible.
THE COURT: No. I mean, the whole thing is incredible. I’m going to, there’s a motion that was, to quash that was filed on behalf of, it was filed originally by –
MR. WALKER: If you’re looking, it’s Seth Allen, I suspect.
THE COURT: No. It was filed by Elizabeth –
MR. KIMBERLIN: Kingsley.
THE COURT: — Kingsley.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yeah.
MR. WALKER: Oh, that would be the attorney who represented me in the past.
I had technically “fired” Ms. Kingsley that morning—not for cause, but because I was representing myself from there on in.
THE COURT: And she filed a motion to file anonymously or to file under seal.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Right.
THE COURT: And she’s filed that. And I’m going to grant the request to file this anonymously or under seal.
You can read that motion, here.  Basically it was asking the court to create a mechanism by which I could challenge Kimberlin’s attempts to out me without outing myself.  We presented the court two different alternatives, and with this action, the court basically said, just then, “go ahead, do either approach.”  Brett Kimberlin will later read much more into this decision than is actually there.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
THE COURT: And I’ll grant the request to seal the information that’s contained at Docket Entry 114, which is the motion to withdraw as moot.  [To me]  All right. Sir, that concludes your –
MR. WALKER: Actually, I would like a little more relief, if you don’t mind me taking a moment.
THE COURT: That’s it. No. I’m done. You’re done.
MR. WALKER: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.
And for the most part that was the end of my involvement in the hearing.  The transcript doesn’t quite capture how hostile the judge was to my even being there, and you know what?  I completely understand.  I think by the end he saw that I was genuinely aggrieved to a degree, but I can understand why he didn’t want me there at all.
Now there is one more part where Kimberlin was being misleading to the court and I attempted to intervene and correct the record.  Bear in mind, Seth didn’t show up for this hearing.  He lives in the Boston area on a fixed income and couldn’t afford to make the trip.  He did file motions to appear telephonically, but apparently they don’t allow that in Maryland (and let me say as a matter of constructive criticism, that this rule should change).  So no one was there to defend Seth, and so I attempted to break in to correct the record.
For instance only seconds before I attempted to intervene, Kimberlin said this:  “And, you know, he calls me all kinds of things. He calls me a terrorist. He calls me a cyber smearer. He calls me a pedophile. He calls me a perjurer.”  Kimberlin was implying that these statements were defamatory—that is untrue and harmful of his reputation.  Well, of course two of those  terms (“terrorist” and “perjurer”) were absolutely true and I was concerned that the judge didn’t know that.  A lawyer has a duty of candor toward the tribunal that I take very seriously.  So it was about then that I attempted to intervene, peacefully:
MR. WALKER: Well, Your Honor, if I may, I’m sorry to break in a second time.
THE COURT: You know, I had a sheriff up here, because I didn’t think one would be needed. I’m about to get a sheriff to escort you out of the courtroom.
MR. WALKER: I don’t understand –
THE COURT: You’re not breaking in. Sit down.
MR. WALKER: I felt a need to explain something to the Court, if I could.
And yes, that makes me look a little bad, but that is because I am here to tell you the truth, warts and all.
And that was my last involvement in the hearing at all.  But I did stick around, because I wanted to know how things went for Seth.  I was considering blogging about it at the time.  And listening to it, my fear that the judge didn’t get it—that he didn’t know about Kimberlin’s horrible criminal background—was unfounded.  And to be self-critical, I should have figured that out from listening to the other hearings that day.  What struck me as I listened to the other cases (Kimberlin’s was the last to be called), was that this judge had clearly done his homework.  He knew most of the files back and forth and remembered a great number of details from every case off the top of his head.  So I should have known that even though Judge Rupp had not sat in on the whole case, that he would have read the majority of the relevant documents, which would have brought out Kimberlin’s deplorable past.  Now in one moment I will share with you an embedded copy of the whole transcript and you can read through it at your leisure, but here’s the moment where it became the most clear that Rupp got it, that he understood exactly who Kimberlin was:
MR. KIMBERLIN: I mean, it’s like I said, this is all since November 14th, this stuff. And it’s all about my business, and it’s all about me. I mean, I was arrested 32 years ago on a case. I got out of jail. I did my time. I run two non-profits in this, in this wonderful city working with kids and congressmembers and community leaders. And you know, I have two kids and a wife. And this guy will not leave me alone. He wants to post stuff that happened 32 years ago. You know, he dug up 32-year-old mug shots of me that I had never even seen before, that had never been posted.
THE COURT: Well, that doesn’t constitute defamation.  It’s all true.
So the court went on, looking at post after post at Seth Allen’s blog and deciding that one post after another didn’t constitute defamation and therefore it didn’t violate the order.  I didn’t see which exact posts Rupp was talking about, but you can deduce much of it from reading the transcript.  So if you are curious—and in the name of full disclosure—embedded here is a full copy of the transcript of that hearing.
So that takes us through the hearing and it was after that hearing that what I call the January 9 incident occurred.
—————————————

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

______________________
Permissions declaration.

If you like what you read and you know Brett Kimberlin’s history, feel free to hit my tip jar found in my sidebar.

Posted in Brett Kimberlin, Constitution, crime | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off on How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 2: The January 9, 2012 Hearing.

How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 3: The January 9 Incident.

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/24

Originally published by Aaron Worthing.

[This post is part of a larger series of posts.  See here for a fuller explanation.]
 As the hearing ended, I gathered my things and got up.  Because of this I found myself about a step behind Kimberlin as he left.  Kimberlin has feebly claimed I was “following” him in an attempt to claim I was harassing him—but it was only in the sense that I knew of no other way to leave the building available to me.  Anyway, so Kimberlin turns to me and says, “I would suggest, Mr. Walker, that you leave me alone.”
I replied, “I will continue to tell the truth about you.”  And then he continued to leave and I decided to ask him a few more questions in the hope of getting an admission out of him, asking him why he didn’t call me to the stand that day, given that I was supposedly such a vital witness.  I said to him at one point, “The truth is you didn’t want my testimony, you just wanted my identity.”
And he turned to me and in a flash of anger, he said, “And I got it!
During this exchange we had moved out of the courtroom, and into the waiting area outside.  Shortly after he said those words, he took about two steps back and with a smirk, he raised his iPad as though to use it.  Here’s what I wrote about it in my criminal complaint against him, and it is the truth (I will embed it later):

 

On January 9, 2012, I was leaving court at the same time as Mr. Kimberlin when Mr. Kimberlin raised his iPad as though to use it.  Knowing that Mr. Kimberlin had deep malice toward me and knowing his criminal history, I was afraid he was about to do harm to me so I took the device from him.  Because of the malice he had toward me and his criminal record, I believe I had a reasonable fear of bodily harm in that situation, justifying the invocation of self-defense.  Even so, I only used the minimum force necessary to protect myself from this perceived danger.  Specifically, I snatched iPad from him (he offered no resistance) and kept it from him, without ever once making contact with his body.  I did not strike his body with my own.  I did not push him.  I did not wrestle with him.  I did not strike him with the iPad as he later alleges.
That was the judgment I made about his conduct when I had no time to think, when I had to make a snap decision.  As I waited, holding the iPad away from him I had time to think and to replay the event in my mind.  As I thought about it I realized that more than likely Mr. Kimberlin only attempted to take my picture.  I concluded that it was unlikely that the device was a bomb because I believe Mr. Kimberlin is too much of a narcissist to ever risk his own life.  Therefore when the sheriff’s deputies arrived at the scene, I stated my belief that Mr. Kimberlin had taken a picture of me.  Mr. Kimberlin denied that this occurred.  I asked the officers to inspect the iPad for photographs.  I did not see them do this, but they represented that they did, and I trust their word.  I asked to inspect it myself, but they refused this request.
So basically I took his iPad out of fear for my safety—he is a convicted bomber after all—and then held it away from him peacefully.  Courtroom staff told me that they had called the sheriffs deputies.  I don’t remember my precise words, but I urged them to do exactly that.  And the deputies arrived shortly afterward.  At that point I gave back the iPad (giving it to a deputy who passed it along to Kimberlin) and accused Kimberlin of attempting to photograph me, which is against the rules in the courthouse.
Since then, Brett Kimberlin has essentially claimed that I not only took the iPad but I beat him up while doing so, and he filed charges for assault based on that claim.  He has at times claimed that I have “decked” him, that I punched him repeatedly, that I wrestled with him, that I pushed him, that courtroom staff had to separate us, that sheriff’s deputies had to separate us, that I kept coming at him repeatedly and they had to hold me back.  I will show you in just one moment where he said all of that—all of the documents, transcripts, etc.—but there is one way Brett Kimberlin fatally miscalculated.  It never occurred to the rocket scientist that there might be security cameras in the courthouse that captured the whole thing.
Well, either that or he knew this was a possibility and didn’t care.
The video itself takes a bit of introduction.  It was recorded using ViconNet’s proprietary software and while apparently the camera feed to the main security station is continuous, the recording is not.  Let me use the testimony of Lt. Col. Bruce Sherman, of the Sheriff’s office, to explain to some degree, taking his testimony from the April 11, 2012 hearing related to this:
Q [Reginald Bours III, my attorney] Tell me about the system that these photographs are taken with or these videos are taken with.
A [Lt. Col. Bruce Sherman] There’s a Vicon system that has a number of hard drives, maybe two or three hard drives. I’m not exactly sure about the electronics, but there is a rack in the Sheriff’s office on the T8 level in the courthouse that records video feeds from cameras that are installed in the courtrooms, installed in the hallways in the courthouse, pursuant to a security study done by the National Center for State Courts some years ago.
They typically — some of them are fixed cameras.  Some of them are directable cameras and they record what I would call multiplexed video. In other words, it’s not a continuous stream of photographs. There are maybe 16 cameras being recorded on one hard disc and it will switch from each of those 16 cameras, as I understand it, take a fraction of a second, switch to the next camera, and then it gets multiplexed. Then there’s a software kind of set up that allows it to separate those pictures out again.
So the video feed to their hard drives is continuous, but the recording is not.  Instead it only takes a “snapshot” at certain intervals and the video is going to be a series of these snapshots, shown in order.  Here’s a screenshot of the video, with some helpful arrows on it:

Of course you can see where I pointed out where I was, and where Kimberlin was (the easy way to remember is that I am about half a foot taller than Kimberlin).  And notice that there is a time stamp at the bottom left of the screen.  Each “snapshot” will tell you down to the second when it occurred.  And by watching the intervals, I estimate that the actual gap between images is around 1.75 seconds; that is, there is about 1.75 seconds between each snapshot.
Finally, because this is extremely raw video, you need to wait a minute before anything happens at all.  Or you could fast forward…
So without further ado, here is the video:
Feel free to watch it more than one time.  Now whose version of events lines up more with what you just saw?  Mine, where I say (as I have always said) that all I did was that I took the iPad from him and nothing else?  Or his various accounts?
But in fact Kimberlin went a lot further than that.  This convicted document forger went as far as to produce fake photographs and fake medical records in an attempt to convince law enforcement that I had so brutally beat him that I put him in the hospital.*  In short, he attempted to frame me.

—————————
* I say that his medical records and photographs were fakes, as a matter of logic.  I know I didn’t strike the man once and hopefully by the end of this story you will believe me.  So there is no way he was actually injured the way he claimed.  So when he produced photographs there are only three logical possibilities, as far as I can see: 1) the photographs are fakes—where he put on makeup or used software Photoshop—to make himself appear bruised when he was not, 2) the photographs are real but were from a prior injury or 3) he was really bruised that day, but not by me.  Either way, they are fakes.  Likewise, Kimberlin’s medical records cannot genuinely reflect injuries I gave him, so therefore there are only two possibilities: either this convicted document forger forged medical records, or he was genuinely injured that day, but not by me.  And in both cases there is the possibility that he had someone beat him up for him, or even caused himself harm.  But bluntly, I think it is more likely that the documents were just phony in some fashion.  It better fits with the criminal conduct he has engaged in, in the past.
—————————
—————————————

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

______________________
Permissions declaration.

If you like what you read and you know Brett Kimberlin’s history, feel free to hit my tip jar found in my sidebar.

Posted in Brett Kimberlin, Constitution, crime | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 3: The January 9 Incident.

How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 4: What Kimberlin Said about the January 9 Incident.

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/24

Originally published by Aaron Worthing.

(This is a very long article, replete with Scribd applications and other sorts of things, which might not get attached with my copy/paste, so do read Aaron’s original. Also, you will find the article below the fold here.) Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Brett Kimberlin, Constitution, crime | Tagged: , , | Comments Off on How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 4: What Kimberlin Said about the January 9 Incident.

How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 5: The Effect of Kimberlin’s Lies.

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/24

Originally published by Aaron Worthing.

(This article is very long and contains very many scribd applications (which likely won’t get past the copy/paste visual editor, so go to Aaron’s original to see it) so I am putting it below the fold.) Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Brett Kimberlin, Constitution | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 5: The Effect of Kimberlin’s Lies.

How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 6: Trying (And Failing) to Get Justice in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/24

Originally published by Aaron Worthing.

[This post is part of a larger series of posts.  See here for a fuller explanation.]
So once I had the video, I decided to make another attempt to get the State of Maryland to concern itself with what Kimberlin had done to me.  There was serious doubt among my circle of friends whether they would do anything, but as I said to them, “I can’t say they aren’t doing anything about him, until I give them a chance.”
So I filed for another Application for Statement of Charges, you can read the whole thing here but this is the main part (starting after the January 9, 2012 incident):
Mr. Kimberlin has subsequently [to the January 9 incident] claimed that I essentially beat him up.  Many of these statements can be proven absolutely false by video evidence obtained from the Sheriff’s Office or other objective evidence.  By that, I mean that you do not have to believe my word that he was lying; you can believe either the video evidence or the testimony of disinterested third parties.
On January 9, 2012, at 12:31 p.m. Mr. Kimberlin filed an Application for Statement of Charges with the Commissioner’s office.  Bear in mind that Mr. Kimberlin later claimed to lose sight in one eye, and that he needed to be [seen] in the ER that evening, and yet his first action, rather than getting treatment, was to file charges.
Kimberlin stated in the Application that (in relevant part):
[Aaron Walker] attacked me physically while exiting the courtroom.  He hit me on the shoulder and chest and pushed me, and grabbed my iPad away from me and refused to return it.  Mr. Walker has been [page break] harassing me and stalking me online for months, and as we were exiting [the courthouse / Room 5/ Floor 9, he] said he was going to continue harassing me, and as we left the courtroom, he grabbed my iPad, hit me in the face, shoulder and chest and wrestled the iPad away from me.  Several people witness [sic] this event and the police were immediately called.  They got my iPad back and safely excorted me from the building.  Mr. Walker tried to come at me several more times but was restrained.
A copy of that Application is attached as Exhibit B.  The video evidence establishes that this is false.  First, when viewing the video, any person can see that I did not “tr[y] to come at [Kimberlin] several more times” nor did any third person restrain me.  Further it is implausible to claim that I struck him three times, pushed him and “wrestled” with him.  As you may or may not know, there is a camera constantly pointing in that direction providing a constant feed, but the digital recordings are not constant.  Instead the software extracts a “snapshot” from the camera at intervals of roughly 1.75 seconds, most likely to save space on the hard drive.  To believe that I struck him three times (“in the face, shoulder and chest”), you would have to believe that I timed each action precisely between “snapshots” so that you not only don’t see the blow, but you don’t see any movement from me indicating that I was about to strike, or had just struck, and you don’t see any reaction from Brett Kimberlin in terms of being knocked by the blow or recovering from it.  The same can be said of his allegations that I wrestled with him or pushed him; one would have to believe that both my actions and Mr. Kimberlin’s actions were timed perfectly so that the complete motion was missed by the “snapshots.”
He also applied for a peace order on the same day (January 9).  In that petition for a peace order, he stated that:
Mr. Walker assaulted me while leaving the courtroom.  He hit me in the face, chest, & shoulder and took my iPad, and threatened to harass me more.
A copy of that petition is attached as Exhibit C.  We can see the same claim that I hit him in the face, chest and shoulder and it is equally, provably false here.  After this he went for an ex parte hearing to obtain a temporary restraining order.  After being sworn in, he stated under oath that everything in the petition was true, thus adding perjury to the charge of filing a false petition for a peace order.  He also stated under oath that he was having trouble seeing out of his right eye.
Using that petition and his perjured testimony reaffirming the truthfulness of that petition, he obtained a temporary peace order against me.  Using his false statements in his application for charges—as well as anything he might have said or presented to the State’s Attorney in person—he convinced the State’s Attorney office to file charges against me and to sustain them for two months.
On February 8, 2012, a final peace order hearing was held (after a continuance).  In sworn testimony, Mr. Kimberlin stated that “He [Walker] decked me in the eye and wrestled with me.”  Again the video evidence flatly contradicts this claim.  Mr. Kimberlin was plainly never “decked”—that is knocked down by a punch, usually to the face.  And at no time did any “wrestling” occur.
He also stated that at one point that:
A man that followed us out of the courtroom raced back into the courtroom and told two people that were working for Judge Rupp that he was attacking me and attacking me. They came out and told him to get off of me and they called the police. Nine police came up to the — or, sheriffs came up there and separated him. He had my iPad in his hand at the time and refused to give it back.
The claim that anyone—courtroom staff or not—told me to get off of him is false, and I am confident that interviews with witnesses will verify this.
Later in the same hearing, he misrepresented his criminal record.  Specifically he said: “I was charged with a crime 33 years ago. I was released from prison. I’ve done my time.”  In fact, Kimberlin was charged—and convicted—of at least 35 separate crimes that I know of, over the course of five different trials.  A claim that he was charged with a single “crime” is simply false.
And this wasn’t an isolated incident.  He has repeatedly referred to his criminal past as though it was only one case, one charge.  For instance he states at one point in the same hearing that that “he [Walker] takes what I have done and he throws this criminal charge of mine over and over and over in my face.”  He has made the similar statements—falsely stating that he has only been convicted of one crime—throughout the case of Kimberlin v. Allen, although they were not made under oath.  But I mention this to show that this was not a slip of the tongue but a deliberate pattern of deception.
At the same hearing, he produced photographs purporting to show his injuries and even medical records claiming serious trauma to his eye and a cracked rib.  These were necessarily fakes and proof that Mr. Kimberlin was actively fabricating evidence in an effort to frame me.
Finally, there was another peace order hearing on April 11, 2012 in the Circuit Court, a de novo appeal.  I do not have a copy of the transcript yet, but I can state from memory that he repeated his lie, under oath, that I struck him repeatedly and that I essentially beat him up.  Remarkably he stated under oath that he believed that the video was consistent with these statements.
He also admitted again on April 11 that he took a photograph of me in the courthouse and he offered no valid defense to this action.
As I said, the video demonstrates that Kimberlin has repeatedly lied about the incident.  I have a copy of it, and I will gladly make a copy of it for you.  What it shows is consistent with only my account.  While it doesn’t capture every movement and every moment, several things are absolutely clear from it:
1.         I did not knock him down.  Not once.  So his statement on February 8, 2012 that I “decked” him is clearly false.
2.         His statement in his application for charges that “Mr. Walker tried to come at me several more times but was restrained” is false.  No third party ever physically restrained me.
3.         His claims that I repeatedly struck him, pushed him, wrestled with him, etc. are implausible.  One would have to believe that each blow was struck in perfect timing with the recording equipment and that Mr. Kimberlin recovered each time before the next “picture,” because there was no sign of either movement—my alleged striking him, or his reaction to being struck.  The same can be said for his allegations of pushing and wrestling.  The only time when it was at all possible, according to this objective evidence, for Mr. Kimberlin to have been struck was when I first took the iPad from him. Of course I didn’t strike Mr. Kimberlin, but speaking objectively that is the only moment where a third party would believe it was even possible that I might have struck him in the video feed.
In addition to that, it would not be difficult to locate the persons who were there that day and ask if any of them told me to “get off of me [Kimberlin]” as he alleged on February 8 in perjured testimony.
In summary I believe that Mr. Kimberlin:
1.         Made false statements to law enforcement officers in violation of Md. Criminal Law Code § 9-501 by claiming he did not take a photograph of me when in fact he did.
2.         Filed a false petition for a peace order in violation of Md. Courts And Judicial Proceedings Code § 3-1503.1.
3.         Made false statements on his application for charges, in violation of Md. Criminal Law Code § 9-503.
4.         Perjured himself on January 9, 2012, by falsely stating under oath that the contents of his petition for a peace order was true in violation of Md. Criminal Law Code § 9-101.
5.         Perjured himself on February 8, 2012 by numerous false statements outlined above.
6.         Perjured himself on April 11, 2012 by claiming essentially that I beat him up, under oath.
But there is a reason to charge him that is more compelling than that outline.  Mr. Kimberlin set out to frame me for a crime I did not commit.  This convicted document forger produced false photographs and false medical records to lend his claims verisimilitude.  In doing so, he has tricked the State’s Attorney Office into being an instrument of oppression over me.  Since these charges were filed against me, I have lost my job and have been unable to obtain new employment.  At a time when my finances took a serious hit, I was also required to hire counsel to defend against these charges and it cost me about $7,000.  Yes, in theory I might be able to recover from Mr. Kimberlin, except that Mr. Kimberlin has a long history of evading judgments against him.
As a friend of mine said, Brett Kimberlin is about to figure out that doing this is either a really good idea, or a really bad one.  If he is not prosecuted for this blatant and evil attempt to frame me, then you will be telling him that the laws against perjury—and other false statements—are meaningless.  And you will be telling him that all he has to do is falsely claim another person has committed a crime against him, and the State’s Attorney will put that person through hell.  The State’s Attorney should be offended that Mr. Kimberlin has manipulated this office in this fashion and it should be eager to see Mr. Kimberlin suffer consequences for his conduct.
So that is my second criminal complaint (the exhibits are omitted from the scan, but frankly you know by now what each of them are).
The following week I did a follow up visit at the State’s attorney’s office, where I was asked to fill out some forms.  To accommodate my dysgraphia—it makes it hard to write by hand but doesn’t affect my typing skills—I typed it out manually on my computer in their waiting area and printed it out there.  I knew I would have to do something like this from the last time I filed charges with them, so I had a lot of it already written out which I could copy and paste, but I had to do a lot of the typing right then and there.  So it was not the most ideal conditions and there are some typos and a lot of it is simply repetitious.  But you can read the document, here.
Well, I found out on May 1, 2012 that they had dropped the charges.  It was frankly the last straw with me and led to my decision to go public and write this post.  The next day I received a rare personal letter from the State’s Attorney’s Office.  I will block out the name of the author (it is the same guy who also dropped the previous charges I filed, but not the same woman who dropped the charges against me), but otherwise I will let it speak for itself:
I have written this man an email in return.  This is the body of the email:
Mr. [omitted],
I received your letter of April 25, 2012 and respectfully I would like to correct some factual misconceptions in it.  First, you write that “Judge Everngam apparently credited Mr. Kimberlin’s testimony and, consequently, extended the peace order against you until August 8, 2012.”  That is true, but incomplete.  First that hearing occurred before I received a copy of the video surveillance of the incident on January 9, 2012.  After that hearing, I filed an appeal and received a trial de novo in Circuit Court (case number 8444D), and this time we had the video evidence.  After the judge saw that video, he plainly concluded that all I had done was what I had forthrightly said I had done from the beginning: I took his iPad from him.  He then found that Kimberlin failed in the first instance to even meet his burden—without considering any evidence or arguments that the defense had to offer—and that peace order was lifted.  I just got a copy of that transcript yesterday, and am attaching a copy to this email for your convenience.
That misunderstanding may have also led you to the incorrect legal conclusion that the Peace Order is presently active.  Of course in the name of full disclosure Kimberlin has appealed the denial of a peace order but bluntly his appeal has zero chance of succeeding as a matter of law.  I will be happy to illuminate that point for you if you consider that to be important, but the short answer is that Kimberlin is challenging the vitality of centuries-old rules of evidence.
You also seem to believe that this is some kind of mere civil “spat.”  But even a normal “spat” justifies the involvement of law enforcement when they do not respect the bounds of the law.  So ordinarily a husband and a wife arguing is not a matter of your office’s concern however loudly and angrily they argue.  But if one spouse begins to batter the other, it becomes a matter of state involvement.  And it doesn’t matter who was right or wrong in the underlying argument.  You are absolutely not allowed to hit the other (indeed you are not allowed to hit anyone, except in self-defense).  That is when a mere domestic dispute becomes rightfully the concern of the state.
And maybe in an ordinary civil case, you would prefer not to get involved.  I can appreciate that.  But what Kimberlin did went far outside of what is acceptable behavior in any civil dispute.
The man attempted to frame me for a crime.  He produced false medical records and false photographs and used that evidence to manipulate your office into depriving me of my freedom—up to ten years!  And the way you prosecute a man for trying to frame another is by prosecuting him for his false statements.  That is what I am asking you to do.
He did this because I briefly represented a man he was suing, and because I dared to tell the truth about his deplorable criminal record and his misconduct in court.  When I told the Court and I told the world that I believed he committed perjury on November 14, he threatened to file criminal charges unless I silenced myself.  That is, he tried to intimidate a person from exercising their God-given right of Freedom of Expression.  And when I didn’t buckle to that pressure he did exactly as he promised—he filed false criminal charges against me.
And if you look at the video and read my criminal complaint—the 5-6 typed out pages I attached to the application for charges—you will see absolute proof that he did indeed lie under oath and that he filed a false police report.  I would ask you to call up Mr. Kimberlin and ask him to tell you the exact minute and second in which I “decked” him, or exactly when the sheriff’s deputies “separated” us, or when exactly I was supposedly coming at him over and over and restrained by those deputies.  Those are all things Kimberlin has claimed under oath and the video evidence proves to be absolutely false.
Indeed, on that disk I gave to Ms. Hull, I included a video entitled “Kimberlin Presentation02.wmv.”  It is crudely made (because I am a lawyer and not a videographer), but I think it is effective in juxtaposing what the video shows of the incident with what Kimberlin said about it.  I challenge any person to watch that video and conclude that Brett Kimberlin did not lie repeatedly about the incident of January 9, 2012.  As we speak a friend of mine who is a professional video editor is creating a better version of it for release to the general public.
And let me say something about the last complaint.  When Kimberlin first filed these charges against me I came to the State’s Attorneys office in the Circuit Court building and asked to speak with someone about the charges.  I knew from the application for charges he filed that what he said was objectively false.  And I wanted to make sure you knew about the character of Brett Kimberlin and by comparison my clean criminal record.  But your office refused to speak to me.  I don’t mean you specifically, but the whole office as a matter of policy apparently won’t speak with people they are charging with a crime.
So I had two goals when I filed the first set of charges against him—and you will note that what I brought to the commissioner was actually three charges against Kimberlin: extortion (threatening to file false criminal charges), filing false criminal charges and for what I believed was perjury on November 14, 2011.  The first goal was I simply believed that he did commit those crimes against me.  But I also hoped that it would force your office to finally talk to me, to get my side of the story, and start to see that Brett Kimberlin is a man not to be trusted.  Because that was what was so frustrating to me: nobody was asking for my side of the story.  I could have told you from the beginning that there were easily verifiable lies in the application for charges he filed against me, even before I learned there was video evidence.  And perhaps if your office had simply spoken to me, we could have avoided the disastrous personal consequences I have suffered because Kimberlin tricked your office into filing charges against me and pursuing them for almost two months.
This is not a simple spat.  The man tried to frame me for a crime and in the process tricked your office into inflicting harm upon me for his sick motives.  And I have done nothing to him but briefly provide legal advice to someone he hated, and to tell the truth about his deplorable past and his misconduct in court.
And every day I face the risk that he might do this to me again.  I assume you will never let that happen in Mongomery County again because I assume you are a conscientious public servant.  But what assurance would I have that Brett Kimberlin won’t claim I beat him up in Anne Arundel or Howard County?  And what can you do to protect a third party who might not even know about this history?  This man has to be taught that there are consequences to his actions and the world has to be shown—in the form of a conviction—that Kimberlin is known to frame others.
So with that in mind, I respectfully ask that you work with me to reinstate the charges against Kimberlin.  An injustice was done to me, and to some extent I will never get back what was taken from me.  But you can at least give me justice.
Respectfully,
Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
I have not, as of this writing, received a response.
—————————————

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

______________________
Permissions declaration.

If you like what you read and you know Brett Kimberlin’s history, feel free to hit my tip jar found in my sidebar.

(Note my copy/paste of Aaron’s article, while quick and easy in visual editor, may likely leave out some visual tools Aaron used, so do visit his original.)

Posted in Brett Kimberlin, Constitution | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off on How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 6: Trying (And Failing) to Get Justice in Montgomery County, Maryland.

How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 7: How You Can Help!

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/05/24

Originally published by Aaron Worthing.

[This post is part of a larger series of posts.  See here for a fuller explanation.]
So this is where you, dear reader, come in.  There are several things you can do to help me out.
First, please spread the word far and wide about this story.  Tweet it, blog it, Facebook it, link it, whatever.  If you are a reporter and would like to talk to me about this and even view the un-redacted documents, let me know at any of my emails, including AaronJW72@gmail.com.  I will be happy to speak with you.
Second, you can write to the State’s Attorney of Montgomery County.  I did not name the subordinate responsible for the inaction, but ultimately it is the responsibility of John McCarthy, the State’s Attorney himself.  You might also consider writing to the Governor, or the Attorney General of Maryland.  Be polite.  You will not help me by being foul or insulting.  Simply state that you believe a grave injustice has been done to me—if you happen to agree—and ask them politely to see to it that justice be done.
This is his office’s contact information:
State’s Attorney for Montgomery County
50 Maryland Avenue, 5th Floor
Rockville, Maryland  20850
240-777-7300
Third, and importantly, I will be setting up a defense fund very soon.  This will not be limited to my case, but to all victims of Kimberlin and his crew because there are more of them than I am disclosing in this post.  Their goal is to get anyone who crosses them fired, impoverished by continual and frivolous legal actions and so on.  They have already cost me $7,000 and my job.  You can help make sure that this will not happen to others and, yes, help me pay my legal expenses.
Fourth, if you are hiring, I need a job.  I can work as a lawyer, blogger, researcher or any number of things.  Feel free to contact me by email if you think you can offer me something.
Fifth, if you donate to his organization, please stop.  It is apparent to me that this man does little else with his life other than harass people who dare to tell the truth about him.  If he had an ordinary job where he actually had to work 9-5, maybe he would have no time to bother people for telling the truth about him.  This isn’t a legal threat, but simply an observation of reality.  If you donate to his charities, you are helping him to torment me and others.  His charities might do excellent work, but as long as they employ him, they also support this criminal and immoral conduct.
Besides, can you really trust this man with your money?  Look at the video and look at what he said about this incident.  Is he a trustworthy man?  In my opinion, he is not.
I want to thank you for reading my story.  If you have read this far, you have put a lot of effort to get here and I appreciate it.  And anything you do to help will be equally appreciated.  By sheer shamelessness, Brett Kimberlin has damaged a lot of people’s lives, including my own.  Hopefully we can fight back against him.
–Aaron Walker
 
—————————————
I will make this offer to Brett Kimberlin.  If I have gotten any fact wrong, and you can prove it, I will happily issue a correction.  But there are two important limitations on that.  First, I will only issue corrections of fact; I am entitled to my opinions as a matter of First Amendment law.  Second, I will only issue corrections if you prove me wrong—and by proof I mean something other than your word.  Email any such requests for a correction to me or I am unlikely to notice.  You know my email address.
—————————————
You can go back to the beginning of this series, here.
—————————————

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

______________________
Permissions declaration.

If you like what you read and you know Brett Kimberlin’s history, feel free to hit my tip jar found in my sidebar.

Posted in Brett Kimberlin, Constitution, crime | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off on How Brett Kimberlin Tried to Frame Me for a Crime—Part 7: How You Can Help!

 
%d bloggers like this: