Posted on | August 13, 2014 | 70 Comments
“Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile,” Ali A. Akbar said Tuesday in Montgomery County Circuit Court, as he concluded his argument for dismissing the notorious bomber’s $1 million Maryland defamation lawsuit, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. Forty-five minutes later, Judge Eric Johnson issued his ruling, finding in favor of the defendants: bloggers Aaron Walker and John Hoge, Akbar and me.
The two-day trial concluded without the defendants ever having to put on the case for our innocence. Kimberlin presented his case — calling all four defendants as witnesses, presenting examples of our writing and even putting his own 15-year-old daughter on the witness stand to testify she was never molested by her 59-year-old father. When the plaintiff rested his case, the defense moved for dismissal.
After the close of Kimberlin’s day of “evidence,” the judge granted a motion for a directed verdict against him. Under Maryland law, that means the judge necessary found “a total failure of legally sufficient evidence to prove” Kimberlin’s remaining defamation claim. The judge didn’t just find Kimberlin’s evidence unpersuasive; he effectively found it irrelevant. . . .
Furthermore, even though the court ruled that Kimberlin could testify on his own behalf (despite a statute suggesting that people convicted of perjury may not), Kimberlin did not testify. Perhaps he was concerned about how testifying would expose him to a cross-examination that would lovingly recount his history of lawlessness, sociopathy, and crazed litigiousness. Perhaps he recognized the risk of a new perjury charge. Perhaps he realized that he would look ridiculous questioning himself. Perhaps he never planned to, and the purpose of this was always mere harassment. . . .
This result bodes well for Kimberlin’s remaining ludicrous and vexatious claims in federal court against a wide variety of people and institutions. The federal court will see the result and, no doubt, view Kimberlin with even more skepticism. The state ruling may have legal effect in the federal case — let’s let Brett Kimberlin discover why and how. And, most importantly, the trial shows that for all his braggadocio about having filed a hundred suits, Brett Kimberlin is too nutty and disorganized to do even a half-assed job in court. If only one could litigate by drug dealing, perjuring, and blowing the leg off innocent bystanders, he would have been an elite courtroom attorney.
Judge Johnson’s ruling Monday to let Kimberlin testify despite his 1973 perjury conviction (see chapter 7, pp. 46-50, of Kimberlin’s 1996 authorized biography, Citizen K) was the divine green light for Ali Akbar’s decision to go pro se, representing himself at the trial. Our highly competent attorney, F. Patrick Ostronic, had represented us pro bono since Kimberlin filed his meritless and vexatious suit nearly a year ago. Ostronic’s handling of pre-trial motions was as extraordinarily skillful as Kimberlin’s was inept. For example, Ostronic successfully argued that several of the allegations that Kimberlin made in his lawsuit — conspiracy, stalking, harassment, yadda, yadda, yadda — simply were not recognized as causes for civil claims under Maryland law. Stalking and harassment are crimes, not torts, and by suing us for these claims, Kimberlin was effectively attempting to appoint himself as prosecuting attorney, a role the infamous felon clearly covets for himself.
Any student of Christian theology knows that Satan is always the accuser, torturing us with the guilt of our sins, dishonestly attempting to convince us that our wickedness places us beyond the help of God’s grace. At the Day of Judgment, confronted by the infinite righteousness of God, we shall be unable to save ourselves from eternal destruction, except to claim the blood of Jesus as having atoned for our sins. Thus, to become a Christian requires first that we acknowledge what wretched sinners we are — “total human depravity,” in Calvinist doctrine, “sinners in the hands of an angry God,” as Jonathan Edwards so memorably phrased it — utterly helpless to deserve salvation by our own merit, and completely dependent on God’s mercy.
Jesus taught his disciples to pray that God’s will may be done “on earth as it is in heaven,” and there are times when divine providence is made so apparent by signs and wonders that the faithful may see the earthly path that God shows. So there was a lot of prayer Monday night, and it was as if God himself was telling Ali to go pro se. When Ali announced this decision in the courtroom, Judge Johnson called him, Ostronic and Kimberlin to the bench where, in a conference, the judge urged Ali to reconsider, and Kimberlin (himself proceeding as his own attorney) actually tried to argue that Ali shouldn’t be allowed to represent himself.
This is what poker players call a “tell.” Kimberlin’s haphazard and arguably unethical methods as a pro se plaintiff have been a weapon in his nearly four-year lawfare campaign against his critics, dating back to October 2010, when he sued Seth Allen and threatened to sue Patrick “Patterico” Frey and Mandy Nagy, writing in an e-mail to Patterico:
Judges don’t want to do anything prejudicial to a pro se litigant, which might allow him to appeal on the basis of perceived unfairness. In effect, this means that judges have seemed at times to bend over backward on Kimberlin’s behalf, cutting him breaks that a professional lawyer could never expect to get. No matter how dishonest and unethical he may be, as a pro se litigant, Kimberlin never has to worry about being disbarred. In some sense, then, a professional attorney is at a disadvantage against Kimberlin, who not only acquired vast experience as a “jailhouse lawyer” during his 17 years in federal prison, but is also absolutely shameless in the deceitful methods he employs while pursuing vexatious lawsuits to harass, discredit or intimidate his critics.
So when Ali Akbar announced he was going pro se, Kimberlin became visibly agitated by the prospect of going up against a defendant who might be similarly uninhibited by legal niceties.
Ask yourself this: If Kimberlin had fought so hard to overcome the prohibition on testimony by convicted perjurers, why didn’t Kimberlin ever actually testify at the trial? Do you think that maybe Kimberlin feared cross-examination by the crafty Ali Akbar, who might ask questions to which Kimberlin — as both witness and lawyer — would be compelled to object, or plead the Fifth Amendment?
The verdict: The innocent defendants won, evil lost, and Brett Kimberlin has vowed to continue his litigious harassment:
Kimberlin tells me he’ll appeal, and that as far as the bloggers go there’ll be “endless lawsuits for the rest of their lives."
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) August 12, 2014
Trying to out-crazy Stacy McCain? Case dismissed! @instapundit
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 13, 2014
— Stephen Sheiko (@stephensheiko) August 13, 2014
— Ali A. Akbar (@ali) August 13, 2014
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 13, 2014
The trial transcript and audio will cost more than $900 — readers are urged to go to BomberSuesBloggers.com and chip in $10 or $20 to help defray that expense — so we’ll have to wait to get the official highlights of the trial, including my own “colorful” testimony, and Ali Akbar’s masterful arguments. (Hint: Ali was a champion debater and mock trial participant in high school.) But the bottom line is this: Brett Kimberlin lost, and lost badly, because lies can never ultimately prevail in battle against the truth, nor can evil ever hope to triumph where good men have courage and trust in that great Truth that is eternal and infinite.
To God be the glory. Selah.