Transcribing the Trial of Brett Kimberlin v. Walker et. al (Part 4)

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga^®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave him, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

This is continuing a series I began with this post and continued with this post and this post.

And like the last three times, I am going to start off by asking for your help in paying for the real, full transcript from this week’s proceedings by donating to Bomber Sues Bloggers!  If you want to see the whole thing (except for a few redactions), then donate!

And bluntly, we need this transcript, so we can present it in the RICO case.  It will hopefully give us collateral estoppel on numerous issues, especially the ones where he is seeking a preliminary injunction against us, since the primary argument is that we have been calling him a pedophile.  Under collateral estoppel, the court will say “you had your day in court, and we are not litigating these issues twice.”  It might help us dismiss all or part of the action.

Blegging out of the way, let’s continue.  And if you need any background, I suggest you go to the first post in this series, here.

Last time, the judge sent the jurors on break for lunch as I was midway through my testimony.  Murphy’s law was having its way with me, in that the rain kept picking up literally every time I got ready to go from one building to the next.  If I was the type to believe in karma I would guess it was universe balancing out some of the good fortune I had been having and would be coming soon.  Who knows?

Hey!  What did I do?

Anyway, so pretty quickly I was back on the stand again by 1:40 in the afternoon, and this went on for another 25 minutes.  And yes, popcorn was on trial.

But first up, we are talking about his daughter, for some reason.  As the judge repeatedly pointed out, she is not a party to this case.  So any harm she suffered is irrelevant.  But of course Brett’s game is to try to get sympathy from the jury by any means possible because legally speaking, he had no case.  And further, Brett has been literally lying about my words for a while.  Here is the post he is about to ask about.  He has claimed that I have said that his daughter should suffer because of the corruption of the blood.  And bizarrely, he expected me to admit to his lying story, but instead I was able to ingratiate myself to the jury, I think.  And again, you are smart enough to know I am not objective, here:

Kimberlin:       Have you stated on your blog that people have a right to attack my daughter because of corruption of blood?

Walker:            No.  I have literally said the opposite of that.  I said one of the things that makes this country great is that we judge people by them.  Not by who your father is, not by who your daughter is, not by anything.  And I talked about how, in the Treason Clause, they do away with the principle of the corruption of the blood.  I specifically cite that as an example of what makes America great.  We do not judge people by race, religion, or, who your parents are.  Even when you are a traitor, we do not judge your children by your treachery.  Even when you’re a terrorist.

I know, I am subtle sometimes.

Alas after a little wrangling, he tries again:

Kimberlin:       Did you say in a blog post “I wish there was some way to bring Kimberlin to justice without his elder daughter or any of his family being dragged into this.  But Brett has made this impossible”?

Walker:            I was lamenting the fact that your daughter is suffering as the result of your misconduct.

One thing that isn’t coming across, by the way, is the way he kept presenting altered versions of documents.  He very often failed to present true and correct copies of anything, and no one knew why, but as a result he couldn't admit what he might otherwise might have been able to admit.  Not that it would have made a difference, but it was a stunningly disorganized presentation.

Next we talked about the defense fund we set up for Mrs. Kimberlin.

Kimberlin:       Then you used that money to hire an attorney, another attorney, to represent my wife?

Walker:            I did not use the money.  As I recall, John Hoge decided to loan several thousand dollars to your wife, to help her get an attorney.  And as of last I heard, he is still in the red on that.

Kimberlin:       So he loaned it to her.

Walker:            No, it’s not a loan to her.  We were hoping that he would get it back from donors.

Booyah (for John).  I don’t know if John wants to comment on this, but as I understand it, he lost a couple thousand dollars on that.  Perhaps Christian modesty is restraining him from saying that, but it’s out now.

And as if all this hadn’t been stupid enough, we got to Everyone Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day:

Kimberlin:       Now, you started a... you were involved in a campaign Everyone Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day, right?  Or something to that effect?

Walker:            I did not start...

Kimberlin:       No, I said you were involved with it.

Walker:            Involved, how?

Kimberlin:       You participated in it.

Walker:            A number of people started doing it, I know it was being done, I said frankly... I was humbled to see people rising up to help protect me.  They literally took the attitude of if Brett’s going to sue Aaron, he’ll have to sue me, too.  And hundreds, I don’t even know how many people, took that attitude, that if Brett’s going to continue to abuse the courts against Aaron, they’re going to do it to...  I’m sorry, I get emotional because I was moved by how many people stood up for free speech with me.

And I said, I said, I can’t ask you folks to participate.

Kimberlin:       I just asked you a simple question.  Were you involved in that?

Walker:            Again, that’s a vague term, so I’m trying to explain exactly what my quote-unquote participation was.  So I said to them, I can’t ask you to help.

Kimberlin:       How many blog posts do you think were generated from Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day?

Walker:            I don’t know.

Kimberlin:       Thousands?

Walker:            Possibly.

Kimberlin:       Tens of thousnads?

Walker:            Yes, and none of them defamatory as far as I know.

You can read the post I wrote on the subject, here.  And if you were ever wondering if I was thankful to everyone who participated, I think that’s your answer.

And then we get to popcorn on trial.  Oh, I wish I was making that up.

Kimberlin:       I had another question.  In a lot of your blog posts you put this graphic, popcorn graphic, and tell people to get out the popcorn.  Can you explain that?

Walker:            [Chuckles]  Let’s see here, I believe very strongly in the idea that of being a happy warrior, to show cheer and, you know, vim, even in the face of adversity.

Kimberlin:       Okay.

Walker:            You have been suing me, filing peace orders, filing criminal charges, etc., for almost three years, Mr. Kimberlin.  And so it is my way of showing people that I am cheerful as I do this.  Get out the popcorn, we’ll have some fun.

Kimberln:        This is entertainment, right?

Walker:            It’s what?  Am I supposed to cry every time you sue me, Brett?  It’s getting to be tedious.

Ahem: Booyah.

He also got into the prior peace orders, falsely stating that Judge Johnson vacated Judge Vaughey’s earlier peace order (it was Judge Rupp who did that), and I corrected the record definitively.  John has told me that he believed, by Judge Johnson’s expression, that this was when he remembered the prior case.  I don’t know because my attention was elsewhere.  Brett also went on to claim I had promised to lay off him in front of Judge Johnson, which I had never, ever done.

Then Brett started to get worked up asking me over and over whether anyone in an official position bought into my “narrative.”

Kimberlin:       Have you ever gotten a federal judge, a state judge, a state’s attorney, in Howard County, in Carroll County, in Montgomery County, anywhere, to say, yes, Brett Kimberlin is what you profess I am.

Walker:            Ah, yes, Patrick Frey, for example, a—

Kimberlin:       That’s not, that’s not, he’s not an official, he’s a blogger, another [unintelligible] tea bag blogger.

Walker:            He is an assistant district attorney.

(So, whoops, a Deputy District Attorney, but whatever.)

Seriously, you have to listen to it to appreciate how wild Brett was.  And I doubt that went over well with the jury, though I wasn’t observing him.  John said he was focusing on the foreman and he was rolling his eyes and he caught similar expressions.  He got particularly mad at my very calm and correct response of Patrick Frey, because I went off his script.  He went on for a full minute, whipped up, and then said he had no further questions.  Patrick and Ali also had no questions, so that was it for me.

So next, he called John Hoge.  He was up for twenty-three minutes.  A lot of it is hard to give us a good quote.  John’s answers were often very short, so it took several minutes to get out all of things.  It was like nailing jellyfish to the wall.  But here’s a real highlights:

Kimberlin:       You started this campaign called Everybody Blog About the Howard County Prosecutors, can you tell us why that got started?

Breaking in, he really needs to stop asking why we do what we do.  Continuing after an objection was overruled from Ostronic:

Hoge:              Yes.  Mr. Walker and wife showed me credible evidence that you had in fact stalked them in the parking lot of the Howard County District Courthouse in Ellicott City, and when Mr. Walker and his wife went to talk to the State’s Attorney’s office, they were told by Assistant State’s Attorney Brewer that if they didn’t want to be harassed, they should stay out of Maryland.  And that didn’t strike me as a responsible way for a state’s attorneys office, whether they’re going to nolle pros and not follow up on the charge or not, that just struck me as a very unfortunate attitude for a state’s attorney’s office.  And so I felt they should be held accountable.

Brett goes on to ask how it worked, but frankly it’s the same thing he said when he announced it, and so it is easier to read for yourself, here.  The key thing is that the jury heard a second person tell Brett he had stalked my wife.  (I had said it, but I don’t think I transcribed that part.)  Hopefully, by then, the court and jury was starting to get a fuller sense of what was going on here.

Most of the rest was pretty uneventful.  Brett talked about the charges that John had filed against Schmalfeldt and on cross-examination by Ostronic the full context came out, more or less.  Akbar made the point through John that neither he nor the National Blogger’s Club controls John’s blogging.  I would have said the same thing, but Ali didn’t ask, probably because we wanted the last thought to be Brett acting like a wild man.

Next came Akbar.  He only spent ten minutes on the stand, and it did not go well for Brett, either.  Really, for all of us, the case was practically non-existent for Akbar, but this is about malice, not merits, so Brett has ploughed forward.

Here’s the first question.

Kimberlin:       Mr. Akbar, have you ever convicted of a felony?

Akbar:             Yes.

Ostronic:         Objection.

Court:              Sustained.

Kimberlin:       [Long pause]  You honor, I believe it goes to his honesty.

Akbar:             [under breath] Impeachment.

Court:              Well, I [unintelligble]...

Ostronic:         He called the witness.

Court:              ...impeachment of course.  You’re calling your own witness and impeaching him?

Kimberlin:       No, I’m trying to show that he’s a fraudster.

Akbar:             Objection.

The objection was sustained, ultimately.  Folks, when you call a witness, you are offering him as someone who supports your position, even if they are plainly not on your side.  You don’t get to do that, and then impeach him.  Now if we had to put on a defense and Akbar was called to the stand by himself or Ostronic, then impeachment would be appropriate, but not when Brett called him.

Brett then gets into the finances.

Kimberlin:       Has the National Bloggers Club or Bomber Sues Bloggers [A.W.: psst!  Donate!] raised any money surrounding me, or my name, or opinions, charges, allegations, or anything.

Akbar:             The National Bloggers Club is an organization that’s apolitical...

Kimberlin:       I’m not asking for a mission statement.  I’m asking...

Akbar:             What was the question again?

Kimberlin:       ...a simple question.  Have you ever raised, through the National Bloggers Club, or Bomber Sues Bloggers, or Rally.org, any money, for any purpose, to deal with me, my name, any of those legal issues.

Akbar:             I’d like to answer no, but clarify, if I may?

Kimberlin:       [audible sigh]

Akbar:             We’re raised relief funds for bloggers who lost their jobs, families who have been attacked, families like mine, my mother and my brother have been attacked by your blog, Breitbart Unmasked.com and we’ve raised, relief money.

Kimberlin:       I object, I object.

Court:              Well, it’s your question.  [Unintelligible due to cross talk.]

Kimberlin:       I don’t have a blog.

Akbar:             BreitbartUnmasked.com.  [A.W.: Don’t go to the site.  I don’t consider it safe.]

Court:              You can’t...  if you think you’re not going to like the answer, don’t ask the question.  Ask if [unintelligble.]

Kimberlin:       I’m saying, he’s making a statement that’s false.

Akbar:             So we haven’t raised any money to, for people to blog about you, to attack...

And then Brett cuts him off.  After a moment longer they get into whether Akbar tweeted that he was a pedophile:

Kimberlin:       Did you write a tweet on July 27, 2013?

Akbar:             I’m not aware of what I wrote on that date.

Kimberlin:       So, “we uncovered Brett Kimberlin’s big secret, he’s a pedophile with other pedophiles around his children”?

Akbar:             You have a convicted child pornographer [A.W.: Craig Gillette] filming your fourteen year old daughter’s music videos.

Kimberlin:       Hold on.

Akbar:             And you sent him to my party, at the event you referenced with Mr. Hoge to harass minors who were at my party, Mr. Kimberlin, so I believe the content of tweet to be true, too, but I cannot recall that.

Ali tells me that he saw one juror’s eyes bug out when he talked about the music videos.  I didn’t see that, but it makes sense to me.

Also after Akbar objected to a question and it was sustained, Judge Johnson said this:

Court:              Just for the record, this gentleman represents himself, so... it’s kind of a two headed witness.  He’s representing himself and he’s a witness at the same time.  So that’s the reason that he gets away with making objections.

This is in contrast to me, the judge explains.  I had objected to privileged information coming in, the judge said I can’t object, so my lawyer did.

So...  Ali Akbar is the two-headed witness.  Heh.

Annnd that seems like a good place to stop.  The next edition will be when Stacy McCain gets on the stand and that was, um, colorful.  So I imagine that is going to take a while to transcribe and then I think I will get snippets from the judgment.  I won’t go through the whole judgment, because poor Judge Johnson had to go around and around with Brett on that, but I will get you some representative samples.

What?  You want to read all of it?  Well then, dear reader, donate to Bomber Sues Bloggers!  Okay?  Otherwise, don’t complain to me.

But still remain a happy warrior.  And eat popcorn if you are so inclined.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

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.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start. conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.