Full transcripts of the proceedings and relevant background will be published in due time, but the most important lesson of today’s hearing is this: Kimberlin, a cunning and manipulative amateur “jailhouse lawyer,” is often able to get his way in court, not matter how wrong he is, but is generally unsuccessful against any client represented by an attorney who has studied Kimberlin’s legal tactics.
Zoa Barnes has beaten Brett Kimberlin before. Today, while the hearing could be called a draw — neither plaintiff got the protective orders they sought against each other — it was really a defeat for Brett in his persecution of Tetyana, who managed to put this in the record:
Zoa Barnes presented Tetyana’s case by calling her to the stand and having her explain how she met Brett at age 14 in Ukraine and how their relationship and marriage had flowed over the succeeding years. . . . When Brett tried to cross examine her, he kept stumbling over the rules of evidence and proper procedure.
Brett was a 40-year-old federal parolee when he went to the Ukraine and met the 14-year-old girl who became his wife. This is now a matter of public record, uncontradicted sworn testimony. How do Brett Kimberlin’s few remaining supporters expect to justify and defend such behavior by a “progressive activist”? Or did I overlook the part of the progressive agenda that endorsed Ukrainian child brides?
Do you want to see Tetyana Kimberlin vindicated? Do you want her to have the best possible legal assistance against Brett Kimberlin?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure you do.
Kimberlin v. Kimberlin: Tetyana’s Lawyer Defeats the Perjuring Criminal Sociopath http://t.co/F4FSgOoEwb Sucks to be #BrettKimberlin
From what I’ve read, yes, artificial hormones in the food supply do play a role in some of the cases of VERY early puberty that have been coming up recently.
In my view, drawing a number out of a hat and using it as an excuse to burn people at the stake IS apathy and indifference. Or at least refusal to live in the real world.
Not to beat up on you, but what you clarify what you’re talking about, specifically? Is it sex, or is it marriage?
Not all that true. Marriages – especially among the peasantry and poorer urban classes – were frequently delayed into the mid-twenties. This was discovered mostly by feeding vast quantities of church records into computer databases, and in this way, discovering that the idea that “most people” married in their teens was not right. There were, of course, cases of girls as young as 12 (Margaret Beaufort to Owen Tudor is an example I remember off-hand) being married, but they tended to be in classes where making a living was not as much of a concern.
Also, consult the novels of the early 19th century, and the ages of (say) Jane Austen’s heroines, and the other, marriageable women around them.
False in general, and false specifically in Maryland.
Neither. I’m talking about the automatic assumption that a 14-year-old is a “child” (until the 14-year-old shoots a liquor store clerk, in which case he or she is suddenly eligible to be “tried as an adult”).
Arbitrary standards set by politics are more and more replacing actual “societal norms.”
I’m perfectly willing to believe that Kimberlin was creepy in this instance because he seems to be creepy in general. If I was on the jury when a 41-year-old Kimberlin was on trial for having sex with a 14-year-old, I’d be very open to the argument that he was an adult exploiting a child. But I’d want to see the argument actually made/proven, not just be presented with the number “18” as drawn from a hat and expected to vote to convict.
Not sure whether you are replying to me, or to Diana. For the record, Maryland raised its age of consent from 14 to 18 in 1899. At that time, the age of consent in Florida was 10. In Delaware it was 7.
All standards are arbitrary to a certain extent. 18? 21? 8? 11? A bright line like this puts the burden of regulating behavior on the adult, where it belongs.
I’m not sure where you see the conflict between my claim (“Throughout most of history, 14 was an eminently marriageable age”) and yours (“Marriages – especially among the peasantry and poorer urban classes – were frequently delayed into the mid-twenties”).
Very true. I wrote extensively on this very subject a few years back. Not sure if links take in discuss, but I’ll paste in the URL and see what happens:
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2007/10/blast-from-past-age-of-reason.html
I disagree that age of consent laws are based solely or even largely on politics. A big reason for raising age of consent laws is the impact of pregnancy on physically immature females. Contrary to popular belief, once a female menstruates, she is not physically mature. Yes, she can get pregnant. She also has a significantly higher chance of having a low birth weight child, and the attendant health problems that will dog that child, plus injury to the mother’s own reproductive tract. There are charities in Africa set up solely to provide surgery to repair fistulas caused by such pregnancies. Just picture the wall between the vagina and anus disappearing, and imagine living with that.
This.
There are sound psychological and maturity (both physical and brain maturity) reasons for both age of consent laws as well as age of majority laws in this country. The logic behind them is to protect the immature majority from themselves and those who would exploit them.
Anyone who advocates what Mr. Knapp appears to be advocating are supporter of the Hunt family viewpoint, either as a direct supporter or as a deluded pseudo-conservative playing into the liberal agenda. The other option is that Mr. Knapp is a concern troll.
Here’s the mystery that I’d love to see some reporting on, if possible.
What the heck was Brett Kimberlin doing traveling to the Ukraine while on probation?
Either building a network for drugs/weapons or looking for a child bride. I think a mixture of both …
FYI, a “marriageable” age was exactly what it it is now, since at least 1777: parental consent required before age 16…(and as far back as the 1600s one could not independently marry if an apprentice or under the governance of parents.).
“FYI, a “marriageable” age was exactly what it it is now, since at least 1777: parental consent…” — Eleanor D http://t.co/NA62sKfBgP
“The other option is that Mr. Knapp is a concern troll.” — rmnixondeceased http://t.co/vAYZSokMjU
Kimberlin v. Kimberlin: Tetyana’s Lawyer Defeats Perjuring Criminal Sociopath http://t.co/CF2YR3rhNp via @rsmccain #tcot
Why do you hate truck drivers???
RT @OwainPenllyn: Kimberlin v. Kimberlin: Tetyana’s Lawyer Defeats Perjuring Criminal Sociopath http://t.co/CF2YR3rhNp via @rsmccain #tcot
As the son of a truck driver, I demand satisfaction! Take back your insult of them or it’s pistols at dawn!
Given his involvement with drug trafficking and terrorism, how did he get a passport? How did he get the visa?
Kimberlin v. Kimberlin: Tetyana’s Lawyer Defeats the Perjuring Criminal Sociopath http://t.co/YJJS6epQZA
Singer’s book discusses his contacts and excursions to Ukraine. His connections apparently start with a cell-mate, and a love interest he developed in the teen niece of same.
My memory is vague about his business there but it did include this cellmate, and there was at least some pretense of making themselves of use in finding missing American servicemen “lost” in Soviet prisons
Early marriage in the 17th and 18th century was not common in England or English colonies. Elopements of young women were made virtually impossible after measures were taken to stop clandestine marriage, without a trip to Gretna Greene.
Why on earth do you want to be on Twitter at all? That’s the best solution.
Yeah … right
I always wondered if the Kimberlin and #FreeKate sagas would find a common ground. It was apparently only a matter of time. I wonder if “Team Kimberlin” will fall back on the claim that it was “consensual?”
So…what you’re saying is, that since they used to marry children “back in the day”, the State of Maryland should just let Brett Kimberlin get away with raping a 15 year old girl because he illegally married her when she was 16?
Actually, what are you saying?
Only in an extremely fevered imagination would it be possible to turn what I actually said into what you say I’m saying.
Then what does your statement have to do with this case? Because what I have just laid out, are the facts of this matter.
He raped a 15 year old girl for two months and then forged documents so that he could illegally marry her. He did this without consent of the law or her family. So there is no legal or “historical” precedent for what he did.
So again, what are you saying that has any relevance to this case?
I’m with you.
Come to think of it, throughout most of history, slavery was legal. Now we have these “advanced” societies (nice use of scare quotes there) deciding for us who can own whom.
Ridiculous.
I said what I said — or, rather, wrote what I wrote.
I decline to accept your illiteracy and/or mendacity as my problem.
I am neither illiterate nor lying. And as you said, you did write what you wrote. The problem is that it has NOTHING to do with what happen to Tetyana Kimberlin. So you can act like a juvenile and call me names all you like. It doesn’t change anything. Your statement is still utterly irrelevant and at the very least…strange.
Loved the language, though. Simply charming. I suspect you fancy yourself a writer. Good luck with that.
Have a nice day.
I’ve been writing professionally for more than 30 years, and making my living as a writer for about 15. Luck has nothing to do with it.
It’s a peculiar section of the book, full of tall tales and grandiosity.