My supposition is this: Since fully 90% of parole violations are “technical” in nature, that is, in violation of one of the conditions of parole (in Kimberlins case, failure to pay a court imposed judgment in a CIVIL case, not the case in main), these cases are usually handled by a junior associate US Attorney, overworked and underpaid, that make a “deal” for time behind bars and release conditions. The usual practice is an offer of a few years (1-3) back in prison and up to 5 years on supervised release.
Back in prison, he could play the martyr, be free of the financial obligation of the civil case while incarcerated and make plans, knowing that he played the system. Once released in 2000, he simply continued his activities while on up to the maximum five years supervised release. That means that by 2005, he was a free man, no parole, no supervision, nothing. From here, his lies and delusions (as well as his propensity to scams) would lead to the “secret exoneration” fallacy.

‘Lasher’ on post #66 of the DU thread wrapped it up very nicely and put a bow on it: “This guy reminds me of Charles Manson.”

The Raw Story is also a profoundly dishonest site.  But I do like to go there occasionally and leave comments.  I am sure that they consider me their Anamika, but the difference is I am right.  

That this lying, murderous POS is responsible for Aaron Walker’s arrest, the three SWATtings and your flight, Stacy, is beyond comprehension. 

I think, though, that Aaron’s situation is going to backfire on them.  Any reasonably competent lawyer should be able to make mincemeat out of Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin once they get him back in court. 

Thanks to all our bloggers who are enduring this persecution on our behalf. 

Free Robert Stacy McCain…

his lies and delusions (as well as his propensity to scams) 

Oh, the ironic self-righteousness.

Don’t project so much, Saul.  Karma is indeed a bitch.

Yes it is. Redemption and a complete turning away from crime means advocating honesty and truthfulness in all things.

The background is interesting.

By the way, anyone, what is Larisa Alexandrovna’s surname? Google does not tell me; it’s probably easy enough to find, if you’re not possessed of my inferior google-fu. 

So you’re saying he’s a typical leftist.

From Wikipedia : “Alexandrovna was born in the Soviet Union to Jewish parents Aleksander Yurovich, a physicist, and Klavdia Borisovna, an accountant. In the Soviet Union, Jews were discriminated against by the state. She has written of her childhood that even as a child, she was able to understand that her family was treated differently”
So, she could have used either one.

Well played sir!

Yes, but I am thinking she could have utilized either one, patronymic or metronomyc as her surname. Just as she is utilizing her father’s first (patronymic) name to write under.

Well, no. In Russia her own patronymic — based on her father’s name — would be her middle name. It’s legitimately hers and if she wanted to write without using her surname it has the advantage of being easy to remember, and for those who know her personlly easy to recognize.

Of course, if she’s married to Scott Horton, maybe her surname is Horton.

 Russian custom is that one may adopt either one’s mother’s maiden surname or one’s father’s surname. Thus, Svetlana Josefovna could take either her father’s chosen surname – and be  “Stalina” – or use her mother’s maiden surname, as she did, “Aliluieyeva”. It’s slightly unusual – but not unheard-of – to use one’s mother’s surname. But, while I am aware that a very few people have chosen to dispense with surnames altogether, generally speaking, in Russian, the use of the first name and patronymic indicates that one at least knows the individual socially.

I find it odd that Larisa Alexandrovna does not list a surname anywhere I can find it. Simply put, she could be anyone, if I cannot tie her to a surname and a history.

The “secret exoneration” text is so bizarre, you have to wonder if she is a sock puppet rather than a meat puppet.