Category: Neutral Objective Journalism

Exit, Lying: Smear Site Quits After Being Named Walker v. Kimberlin Defendant

Posted on Comments

Readers who have been following The Kimberlin Files these past four months may recall that, as soon as I began reporting on convicted terrorist bomber Brett Kimberlin’s “lawfare” harassment of blogger Aaron Walker, I came under attack by the Twitter sockpuppet troll account (a “synthetic presence,” you might say) known as “Breitbart Unmasked.”

This Twitter account was/is linked to a Web page, created in February, that originally targeted Andrew Breitbart but which, since Andrew’s March 1 death, has become increasingly obsessed with attacking (a) enemies of Brett Kimberlin, (b) enemies of Neal Rauhauser, and (c) people who had something to do with exposing the 2011 Anthony Weiner cybersex scandal.

I took alarm when I saw — and this was May 17 or 18, I forget — that “Breitbart Unmasked” had been trying to “dox” Ace of Spades.

Oh, hell, no you won’t.

A couple days ago, William J. Hoge reported that the person or persons behind “Breitbart Unmasked” had been named as a John Doe co-defendant in Aaron Walker’s federal lawsuit against Brett Kimberlin (not to be confused with the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin case going forward separately in Prince William County, Virginia). So today, as also reported by Hoge, “Breitbart Unmasked” posted a dishonest and self-serving farewell entitled, “Breitbart Unmasked Closes: The Free Speech Debate.”

That farewell is not linked because (a) Rauhauser has a hacker-ish habit of infesting Web sites with all sorts of nefarious viruses, and (b) we don’t feed the trolls, so if you want to read it, you’ll have to go look for it yourself, but I warn you to use an anonymizer.

Is it possible to deconstruct in detail all the lies “Breitbart Unmasked” tells? Yes, but I’m trying to get ready for a trip to Ohio, and nobody else wants to waste that much time when it’s much simpler to say, as Mary McCarthy once said of Lillian Hellman, “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ ”

Buried amid all the dishonest noise, however, the stupid troll’s farewell post includes one telling (and stupidly accidental) admission:

That was what excited us at BU, the challenge of debating Andrew Breitbart on any topic he chose to be interested in. So when he died it threw BU into a conundrum. We went round and round over what to focus on and what the site could be about with him gone. . . .
Those stories have been very interesting because they are about a topic that many like to debate about, which is free speech. And since Andrew was debating with BU about free speech the night he died we decided to run with it; and the rest is history as they say.

Except, unfortunately for you, fool, we know exactly who was “debating” (actually, harassing) Andrew Breitbart on Twitter the night he died — and you can go see for yourself, Neal Rauhauser.

No “Breitbart Unmasked” in Breitbart’s timeline, see?

Rauhauser seems to have deleted the account with which he was harassing Andrew the night of Feb. 29/March 1. Neal created several such Twitter accounts (along with various “Occupy” and “Anonymous”-themed accounts) in 2011, and has since deleted most of the ones that got “outed” as his creations. 

As was his habit, Breitbart had re-Tweeted the most venomous of the Tweets with which Rauhauser was attacking him on the night of Feb. 29, and Breitbart also re-Tweeted a message by one of his conservative friends who called out Rauhauser by name:

Neal Rauhauser has told so many lies he can’t keep track of his lies, and he’s deleted more Web content than most people will ever create. He’s done this over and over, and every time you catch him in a lie — once his malevolent deceits have been exposed — Rauhauser always does two things:

  1. Deletes the exposed lie;
  2. Claims victimhood; and
  3. Begins plotting vengeance against those who exposed him for the vicious dishonest coward he is.

Yeah, good luck with your predictable modus operandi this time, Neal.

Everything has been screencapped and the caches have been saved, and if you think that Aaron Walker’s lawyers are stupid, you’ve got another think coming. And I haven’t even begun to explain the accidental revelations you made in your idiotic bragging posts last weekend, before you “unpublished” those.

Yeah. Saved ’em all. Every single one.

 

 

 

 

THE KIMBERLIN FILES:

 


#tcot Some Helpful Random Advice

Posted on Comments

Ever had one of those Rodney Dangerfield days? Yeah, I’ve had about four consecutive months of them. It ain’t easy being me.

Because I had to move — thank you, Brett Kimberlin! — a check for money earned in July, which should have arrived earlier this month, got sent to the wrong address. Today, I’m trying to scrounge up enough cash to get on the road to Ohio to cover the Romney-Ryan bus tour, while constantly being attacked by a swarm of (a) leftist trolls and (b) misguided conservatives who can’t seem to comprehend the meaning of “social engineeering.”

Young people should be advised that if they ever achieve any small measure of success in their lives, they will be hated more for their achievements and virtues than for their faults and failures. Trying to keep focused on actual work under such conditions is extraordinarily difficult. It has taken tremendous effort to continue doing things that are positive and helpful, rather than constantly swatting back at certain people who seem to have decided that my services are of negligible value, so that I may be thrown under the bus — casually, at a whim — for refusing to abandon my friends.

What good would my friendship be, if I were not a loyal friend? And why would adults, who are certainly old enough to understand the value of morale to the success of any endeavor, go out of their way to demoralize me at a time like this? If this is not pure malicious spite, what is it?

“Experience keeps a hard school, but a fool will learn in no other,” Benjamin Franklin sagely advised, and you may inquire of Barrett Brown what lessons he learned on his road to self-destruction. You may write to him at this address:

Barrett Brown #45047177
Mansfield Law Enforcement Center
1601 Heritage Parkway
Mansfield, TX 76063

Tell Barrett I said “hi.” The misguided fool let himself be drawn into someone else’s quixotic delusion and drove himself insane.

I never hated him, but Barrett evidently decided three years ago that I would make a convenient target and, by the time he finished destroying himself, he had forgotten why he hated me.

It’s both humbling and scary to see things like that. God knows how tentative my own grip on sanity has been at times, and how lost I would be if not for God’s blessings, including readers whom I thank sincerely for your continued prayers and support,

— Robert Stacy McCain

 





 

Walker v. Kimberlin Case Moves Forward

Posted on Comments

“Kimberlin is an inveterate and shameless liar, who was convicted of perjury before he graduated high school and who has been called a ‘top-flight con man.’ It is an injustice and a disgrace that an infamous criminal like Kimberlin should be permitted to continue harassing such an innocent and honorable citizen of Virginia as Aaron Walker.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “Speaking of Terrorists,” Sept. 11

When last we left the story a week ago, Aaron Walker’s attorney had filed a “Motion to Compel Discovery” in the lawsuit against convicted terrorist bomber Brett Kimberlin. And as I said:

I’m not generally a legal-document fanboy, but [Walker’s attorney Dan] Backer really rips Kimberlin apart in this one.

Remember that Walker is himself an attorney, yet in this case wisely has retained the services of Backer, while Kimberlin — who has filed more than 100 court actions as a “jailhouse lawyer” — has chosen to represent himself, with predictably unfortunate results:

Last Friday, two motions were heard in the Circuit Court in Prince William County (VA). The first was Mr. Kimberlin’s Motion for Continuance that we examined a few days ago. Denied! The second was Mr. Walker’s Motion to Compel Discovery which was, of course, granted. . . .
I haven’t seen a copy of the order yet, but if the judge was generous and allowed him the normal 21-day response time again, Brett Kimberlin now owes answers by 5 October. Under oath.

William J. Hoge’s emphasis on the phrase under oath represents the biggest danger to Kimberlin, a man seemingly incapable of telling the truth. And as Walker himself points out, Kimberlin has actually indicated he’ll plead the Fifth Amendment — in a civil suit?

If you visit Walker’s site — and you should — please be sure to contribute to his legal defense fund. Sometimes the best defense . . .

The ‘Accuse the Accusers’ Strategy: Attempting to Explain Social Engineering

Posted on Comments

If I told you what inspired this, you wouldn’t believe it. Remember that on May 17, I was planning to go cover the G-8 Summit when I saw a blog post by Aaron Walker that caused me to change my mind: This was a story more interesting and newsworthy than whatever I might have reported from Camp David.

So it stunned me to find myself unjustly accused, even though I knew very well how this routinely happens to people who are targeted by what I’ve referred to as the Kimberlin-Rauhauser Axis. Having recovered from the shock, and restrained my temper, I sent the person an e-mail, which I share with readers in order to give them an insight into the motives and methods of these devious bastards:

Overlooking any offense that I might take . . . I think you have misunderstood entirely what is happening, and how you – entering the play in the penultimate scene of the second act – are confusing people, in assistance of a cause with which I am reasonably certain you are not sympathetic.
Since May 17, I have been covering a story that is both interesting and newsworthy. This is not a story about me, or you, or Ali Akbar. It is not a story about Patrick Frey or Aaron Walker or Mandy Nagy. This is a story about Brett Kimberlin, and about Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser.
Very early in my reporting on this story, I was warned about Rauhauser’s “social engineering,” by which means he uses online communications to manipulate people’s perceptions for his own purposes. At the time, I thought I understood what was meant by the phrase “social engineering,” but looking back after four months, I realize that Rauhauser’s arsenal of methods is far more complex than I could have imagined in May.
Had you been on this story as long and as deep as I’ve been on it, you would see quite clearly the relevance of this – Rauhauser’s manipulations – to the attacks on Ali Akbar and others, myself included. When you first contacted me with these outrageous accusations, I was angry, but when I learned the substance of your suspicions and had time to reflect, I relaxed a bit: Rauhauser again!
Exactly how Neal did this, I don’t know. Rauhauser is adept at exploring networks, accumulating information, and then soliciting unwitting assistance in attacks on his targets from their friends and acquaintances. These methods sow conflict and suspicion around Neal’s targeted enemies, and thus undermine their effectiveness as opponents. I’ve watched Rauhauser do this to many people, as part of a larger strategy I’ve described as “accuse the accusers,” and am not the least surprised to see the same methods used against me.
As I say, it’s difficult to explain this to someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to study it in depth over time. “Accuse the accusers” serves three simultaneous purposes:

  1. To distract – As is well documented, Rauhauser has been acting as an agent of Brett Kimberlin since last year, and when Aaron Walker’s 28,000-word account called new attention to Kimberlin’s activities, Neal began working to change the subject, to make the story about Kimberlin’s “enemies,” and not about Kimberlin himself.
  2. To discredit – Negative information about Neal’s targets (in this case, Walker, his associates and allies) is acquired through research, and incorporated into a narrative calculated to undermine the target’s credibility. It is often the case that fact and fiction are intermixed, connected by an interpretive framework that is tendentiously pejorative.
  3. To defend – Anyone who arrives at the story once Rauhauser has begun accusing the accusers is immediately confronted with a confusing welter of information, and the confusion serves the purpose of defending the client Kimberlin and his agent Rauhauser. Unless you were present to witness the story from its actual beginning (i.e., Kimberlin’s “lawfare” harassment of Walker), you will fail to realize that the attacks on Walker’s allies (including Ali Akbar) were part of the accuse-the-accusers strategy, and are thus a deliberate distraction.

Perhaps you see, without my pointing it out, the purely utilitarian purpose of this method from a legal standpoint, in the context of “lawfare” that involves civil litigation and criminal charges. In any such conflict, the accuse-the-accusers strategy allows Kimberlin and Rauhauser to claim that any legal complaint against them is an act of retaliation. “So-and-so is doing this because I exposed his wrongdoing.” This is quite explicitly what Kimberlin has done to Aaron Walker, and the intricate overlapping of accusations and counter-accusations has deeply confused many journalists who have tried to report the story. Accustomed to the idea of “balance,” even reporters who are deeply skeptical of Kimberlin feel obligated to solicit “his side” of the story, which results in their publishing his profoundly dishonest narrative of events. It’s like being assigned to cover the Tate-LaBianca murders and giving equal time to Charles Manson: “The Evil Pigs Who Deserved to Die.”
Ali was “doxed” by Rauhauser, and the accusations were made against the National Bloggers Club, for just such purposes as I have described. The fact that some conservatives have joined in the “just-asking-questions” campaign against Ali, or the legitimacy of their curiosity, do not change the fact that the strategic purpose of this attack is the defense of Kimberlin. Once you understand this motive, and understand Rauhauser’s methods, the accusations against their targets – Walker, Frey, Ali, whoever – can be clearly seen as deliberate distractions.
Part of the success of this “accuse the accusers” strategy is explained by the fact that people take such things personally. If you accuse me of lying, I become angry at your accusation and retaliate with counter-accusations. You then solicit assistance from your friends, demanding that they rally to your support in the conflict, and I do likewise, each of us demanding that neutral parties choose sides in the dispute: “You cannot be friends with him, because he has attacked me unjustly.” Thus divisions are created, each of us is isolated from potential allies, and this benefits … whom?
Having watched this occur with other of Neal’s targets, I’ve determined that I will not be lured into that trap of letting emotional reaction override my rational understanding of what is happening. The problem with getting people to understand this phenomenon is that it is so complex, confusing and crazy that when you describe it, people who haven’t actually seen it in action think you’ve lost your mind. Yet there are now enough witnesses to the workings of the accuse-the-accusers strategy and Rauhauser’s social-engineering methods that I describe all this to you with confidence, and will publish this e-mail at my own blog, so that others may be forewarned.
One last thing, [–]: Once you or your friends become involved in a conflict with Neal Rauhauser, beware of “coincidences,” and be skeptical of any accusation made against your friends, whatever the source or whatever “evidence” is offered in support of the accusation. People have been manipulated without their knowledge, and you may ask The Lonely Conservative what evil deceptions have been practiced in this regard. Or perhaps you can ask Barrett Brown how it was that he was incited to the dangerous madness that got him arrested last week.
Sincerely,
— RSM

Please understand that I’ve watched this happen, and seen people allow themselves to be manipulated, and do not wish to blame the victims, as it were: There are people angry at me whom I have not wronged, but who did not realize that they were being deceived, and my attempts to alert them to the deception were (of course) rejected as self-justification. It’s absolutely amazing to witness, and until it happens to you, it’s impossible to know how the targets feel.

OK, this isn’t the worst I’ve ever had to deal with, and to repeat: I am not deceived. I am not distracted. And I sure as hell ain’t afraid.

Where Angels Fear to Tread

Posted on Comments

Lee Stranahan is already pursuing legal action against Bill Schmalfeldt, aka “Liberal Grouch,” a blogger who apparently decided to make his bid for online immortality by assisting the attacks on enemies of what I’ve called the Kimberlin-Rauhauser axis.

Stranahan says Schmalfeldt has made grievously defamatory accusations against him, the accuracy of which Stranahan disputes, and the case has already proceeded far past the point that a wise lawyer would advise Schmalfeldt to exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination. One does not defend oneself in such a dispute by “doubling down” with further accusations against the plaintiff and — important point — the plaintiff need not be wholly innocent in order to do you damage, especially if it can be proven that the defendant is motivated by malice.

All of which is a necessary preamble to this:

Every editor in Christendom just drew a sharp breath at this folly. Reporters know to be very careful in describing their sources, especially if they are engaged in what a lawyer once described to me as “asserting private knowledge.”

Now, Stranahan says he has been falsely defamed by Schmalfeldt. What would be Schmalfeldt’s motive to do so? What did Stranahan ever do to Schmalfeldt that would inspire this?

Stranahan’s attorneys might reasonably suggest to a court that the source of the misidentified photos — “someone I trust” — is someone who bears a grudge against Stranahan, and who has been feeding defamatory information to Schmalfeldt, thereby using Schmalfeldt as the agent (witting or unwitting, it makes no difference) of a personal vendetta.

And because this particular material — the misidentified photos — is admittedly false, then the source of this false material cannot be protected under a First Amendment claim. As long as Schmalfeldt’s attacks on Stranhan consisted of true and accurate facts, he could not be compelled in discover to reveal his sources for these materials. Once he published a clear falsehood and said that this falsehood originated with “someone I trust,” then the identity of that trusted source is directly material to any case Stranahan may bring against him, because it at least seems to suggest that Schmalfeldt may be acting as the agent of a third party in his attacks on Stranahan.

When I tried to explain this to the thick-headed Schmalfeldt, he seemed incapable of comprehending his error. Well, said he, I have retracted the falsehood, which was not libelous.

Yes, but insofar as you have revealed that you are not doing your own research, but are relying on the work of “someone I trust” — now proven to be unreliable — then it is reasonable for Stranahan to suspect that every other accusation you’ve made against him, whether true or false, originated with this same source.

There must be some reason Schmalfeldt’s source was concealing himself — i.e., using Schmalfeldt as a proxy, rather than making this claim under his own name — and this erroneous claim to have photos of Stranahan’s wife is just the sort of seemingly minor mistake that can sink a defendant in a libel case. The plaintiff’s lawyer starts pulling at that one tiny thread, and the whole sweater might come unraveled.

Advice to Bill Schmalfeldt (and to any other journalist paying attention): Be careful about jumping into purely private disputes, and claiming to “know” things about the disputants that cannot be clearly demonstrated from publicly available materials.

Whatever made Schmalfeldt decide to start attacking Stranahan, at some point during his attack, Schmalfeldt was relying on an unreliable third party as a source for private information.

Readers will recall that in June, Screed of Momus published what was asserted to be information from an interview with Neal Rauhauser’s ex-wife. This was the exact sort of thing that I would never publish myself. I think no reporter of any experience would touch a story about allegations in a divorce or a custody dispute without actual documentation — transcripts of depositions, etc. But Screed of Momus did publish it, and we’ve seen nothing in the past two-and-half months contesting that report, which thus acquires credibility simply by the lack of rebuttal.

At the same time, however, any reporter would be unwise to claim to know — independently of that source — anything about the marriage and divorce between Neal and Nancy Rauhauser. This is what attribution is all about, and is why relying on anonymous sources is so inherently risky, which is where the “two source” rule comes in. There have been times in the past where I’ve been lied about, and have not bothered to disprove the lie, knowing that if someone should then try to attack me with secondhand lies of which they have no direct knowledge, I could then destroy them. All of which is by way of caution.

No one’s paying me to teach a seminar, however, and if Schmalfeldt is taught a lesson, it will not be my lawyers who do the teaching: He has zero credibility, there is no reason anyone should believe anything he says about anyone and, heeding the sage advice of Andrew Jackson’s mother, I’ve never sued anybody for libel or slander.

But I keep thinking about the interrogatories filed against Brett Kimberlin in the Aaron Walker case:

There will be a hearing on the Motion to Compel Discovery on Friday, 14 September.

Hmmm. What if I told you that Kimberlin has invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination — a most unusual claim in a civil lawsuit — in attempting to avoid discovery? And what’s this?

The name redacted in Exhibit B is that of someone who was a minor child at the time of the events in question.

Exhibit B? Question 11? Fifth Amendment?

Just asking questions . . .

Speaking of Distractions …

Posted on Comments

. . . the Obamaphiliac media has spent today trying to convince us that what Mitt Romney said about Obama’s self-inflicted foreign policy debacle is actually a worse disaster than the failed policy itself. Here is Mitt Romney’s statement:

“Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world. This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it’s disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom, and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.
“Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And, of course, with these words, I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones, who have left behind, as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation, and I know that the people across America are grateful for their service and we mourn their sacrifice.
“America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.
“I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.
“The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests. Over the last several years, we have stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril, if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.
“We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter.”

Is there anything wrong with that? I see no problem, but there’s a lot of kvetching out there, some of it from Republicans.

Ed Morrissey noted that Romney took questions after his press conference, whereas President Gutsy Call did not.

Meanwhile, following on the theme established by the New York Times — “It’s that evil anti-Muslim movie to blame!” — an MSNBC host decides that the producer of the evil movie should be prosecuted, because obviously this obscure video (that nobody ever heard of before) is the only reason America is hated by the savage mobs whipped up by Muslim Brotherhood propagandists.

Why do they hate us? BECAUSE THEY HATE.

When you know that people are attempting to distract you, it’s a lot easier to pay attention to what they’re trying to distract you from.

This is also true, by the way, of Brett Kimberlin and his friends trying to distract us from their increasing legal jeopardy. Yesterday, I told you that Aaron Walker’s attorney has filed a motion to compel Kimberlin to stop delaying discovery in Walker’s Virginia lawsuit against Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser and Ron Brynaert.

Predictably, in the past 24 hours we’ve seen a blitz of harassment and distraction from various pro-Kimberlin accounts on Twitter. Among the memes they’ve been pushing: Lee Stranahan once took pictures of naked women — shocked! shocked! — and Patterico once said bad stuff about people (including me and Jeff Goldstein) in chats with notorious douchebag Barrett Brown.

Yawn.

It’s all a familiar “accuse the accusers” ploy and, having watched for nearly four months as Team Kimberlin used these tactics used to foment animosity and suspicion among their targets, it doesn’t deceive or distract me for a minute. If these sockpuppets and trolls posted indisputably authentic video of Aaron Walker and Mandy Nagy having a three-way with a goat, I’d shrug it off as just another lame distraction attempt. As I told someone in a phone conversation this morning, these tactics can only deceive the weak-minded.

The details of their accusations are irrelevant to the purpose — i.e., to obstruct justice by attempting to discredit anyone who might possibly pose a threat to Kimberlin’s tax-exempt hustle.

Brett Kimberlin has basically admitted this in court documents: He regarded Seth Allen’s blogging, and Mandy Nagy’s October 2010 article about his heinous criminal history, as endangering his support from liberal donors. Once the falsehood of his denials had been exposed — once his self-serving claims to have been framed and subsequently “secretly exonerated” were understood to be outright lies — it was understandably more difficult for Kimberlin to solicit big-money contributions to his “progressive” 501(c) empire, which collected more than a half-million dollars in 2008.

All the attacks Kimberlin and his friends have made against Seth Allen, Mandy Nagy, Patrick Frey, Aaron Walker, et al., must be understood in this context: These are defensive counter-attacks, an attempt by Kimberlin to protect himself from the ugly truth about what kind of monster he really is.

C’mon, Brett: Who killed Julia Scyphers, and why?

You don’t decieve me. You don’t distract me. You don’t scare me. And there is no statute of limitation on murder, Brett.

William J. Hoge has now posted the interrogatories in the case of Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., and there will be time later to discuss these very interesting questions.

Some of the sockpuppet trolls on Twitter were just now mocking my occasional references to prayer. Kimberlin has been an avowed athetist since childhood. So it would never occur to Brett that it was anything more than an unfortunate coincidence when his progressive buddies at the Justice Department had their jobs endangered because a bunch of jihadist savages in Libya went nuts about an obscure video. The FBI might be under new management come next January, and who knows what they’ll find if they start investigating Kimberlin’s racket?

God moves in mysterious ways.

And the prayers of the faithful are answered every day.

Speaking of Terrorists …

Posted on Comments

. . . it’s the 11th anniversary of 9/11, and the Truthers are blaming Bush again. Jimmie Bise Jr. says he’ll take the Truthers to the woodshed tonight on his award-winning podcast, The Delivery:

While you’re eagerly anticipating that epic ass-whupping, let’s talk about another terrorist, a guy named Brett Kimberlin.

Maybe you’ve heard of him.

William J. Hoge has posted a link to attorney Dan Backer’s Aug. 16 “Motion to Compel Discovery of Defendant Kimberlin” in Aaron Walker’s lawsuit against Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser and Ron Brynaert, and it’s a doozy, folks. I’m not generally a legal-document fanboy, but Backer really rips Kimberlin apart in this one.

Kimberlin is attempting to evade discovery — i.e., the process by which evidence and testimony are obtained in civil proceedings — and Backer notes one tactic on Page 6 of his motion (click here to read it on Scribd):

Defendant Kimberlin has arbitrarily selected a date [Dec. 15] approximately four months away in which he has stated he will answer the discovery with various defensive motions including sanctions against Counsel.
Defendant Kimberlin has stated he selected this date because: “I am cooperating with the FBI and other law enforcement officials regarding several issues involving your client and I believe that the resolution of those matters will have a bearing on this case.” . . .
Given Defendant Kimberlin’s history, Counsel takes him at his word that he has in fact contacted the various law enforcement agencies he asserts. His complaining of harassment to law enforcement, however, is unremarkable. Defendant Kimberlin has repeatedly attempted to have Plaintiff arrested . . .
Yet, absent an independent request by a law enforcement agency, Defendant Kimberlin’s complaining to law enforcement about Plaintiff is insufficient to delay discover in this case, which is already eight months old. The reasoning put forth by Defendant Kimberlin appears simply to be another delaying tactic to thwart discovery and, by extension, justice in this case.

What Backer is describing here is Kimberlin’s typical “accuse the accusers” tactics: Kimberlin has always — always — attempted to discredit his antagonists by accusing them of criminal wrongdoing. If you’ve read Mark Singer’s 1996 book Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin, you know that Kimberlin has never — never — admitted guilt for the crimes of which he was convicted and sent to prison. Instead, he blames others, defaming the police, prosecutors, witnesses and judge in his 1981 trial. While in jail awaiting trial in the Speedway Bombing case, Brett Kimberlin plotted the murders of the prosecutor and a key witness against him:

Brett C. Kimberlin schemed to elude justice with a series of bizarre plots designed to murder, maim and rob his enemies, create havoc . . . and discredit the chief government prosecutor. . . .
On sheets of yellow legal pad, Kimberlin asked another inmate in the Marion County Jail to arrange for the murder of Bernard L. (Buddy) Pylitt, the former first assistant U.S. attorney who coordinated his prosecution.
The offer contained a list of 10 names, including a potential prosecution witness, Robert Scott Bixler. Some names had crosses next to them. These indicated those marked for murder, it was learned. . . .

Kimberlin remains unrepentant for his crimes, and the dishonesty of his denials has turned his entire existence into one vast lie, including his false accusations against Aaron Walker. And now, in his attempt to evade discovery in Walker’s lawsuit, Kimberlin claims that he is “cooperating with the FBI and other law enforcement officials”!

Hey, FBI: Why don’t you ask Brett about Julia Scyphers?

Julia Scyphers was the grandmother of a pre-teen girl Kimberlin was said to be “grooming.” She was shot dead at her home in 1978. Authorities told Joe Gelarden of the Indianapolis Star they believed the Speedway Bombings were a misguided effort by Kimberlin to distract police investigating the Scyphers murder. Her murder is still an open case, although an eyewitness identified a member of Kimberlin’s drug-smuggling gang as the trigger man.

Kimberlin is an inveterate and shameless liar, who was convicted of perjury before he graduated high school and who has been called a “top-flight con man.” It is an injustice and a disgrace that an infamous criminal like Kimberlin should be permitted to continue harassing such an innocent and honorable citizen of Virginia as Aaron Walker.

Pray that the courts of the Commonwealth will rectify that injustice.

UPDATE: Linked by Dan Collins at The Conservatory — thanks!

UPDATE II: Linked by Bill Quick at Daily Pundit who laments “that 9/11 itself has become a sort of degraded political dog whistle used to ‘expose anti-Muslim bigots.'” Indeed, I was watching MSNBC today — I watch, so you don’t have to — where Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post seemed to be arguing that the worst consequence of 9/11 was that it unjustly cast suspicion on Muslims. The resemblance between this idiotic attitude and the “anti-anti-Communist” posture of some liberals during the Cold War is, I think, not entirely accidental.

Kimberlin-Rauhauser Axis Targets Romney Campaign Staffer Bill Murphy

Posted on Comments

Brett Kimberlin could have been sentenced to 230 years in federal prison

Brett Kimberlin’s non-profit 501(c)4 Velvet Revolution is part of an apparent effort to destroy Mitt Romney’s online rapid-response team by targeting Bill Murphy, a young Internet operative who has helped improve the campaign’s social-media presence.

In an item posted Saturday on the Democratic Underground site, Velvet Revolution promoted an article accusing Murphy of “fraud” for his role earlier this year in the National Bloggers Club.

Formed in February at the annual “Blog Bash” during the Conservative Political Action Conference, the club honored Andrew Breitbart with one of its first awards and has helped defend bloggers targeted by Kimberlin’s lawsuits and other harassment. During last week’s Republican National Convention, the club co-sponsored a “Blog Bash” that featured former RNC chairman Haley Barbour and a guest list that included Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner, Amy Kremer of Tea Party Express, author Katie Pavlich and CNN contributor Dana Loesch.

Kimberlin, who spent 17 years in federal prison for his role in a weeklong bombing spree that terrorized an Indiapolis suburb, has gained renewed notoriety for his “lawfare” harassment of conservative bloggers. In May, Kimberlin and his associate Neal Rauhauser were among those identified by Patrick “Patterico” Frey as suspected of being involved in a “SWATting” hoax that sent police to Frey’s residence.

In June, 85 Republican members of Congress signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting an investigation of the use of “SWATting” as a political intimidation tactic:

Investigators have concluded that the majority of SWAT-ting cases utilize voice over Internet (VOIP) connections between the suspect’s computer and a distant telephone network, and then dialing 911. This enables the suspect to falsify their identifying information, such as their telephone number and address, and make it nearly impossible for emergency dispatchers to identify or track the true origin of the call, or even pin-point calls from VOIP connections.
Some of these calls involve embellished schemes, including armed suspects and hostages, and in some instances, the caller claims that he has just killed someone. Moreover, the caller knowingly uses the identifying information of another person, who is usually an adversary of the caller. This elaborate hoax is all done with the goal of having law enforcement swarm the home of the caller’s foe, which only incites fear in and tarnishes the reputation of an innocent person.
Even worse, SWAT-ting is quickly becoming a scare tactic used against political bloggers, essentially stifling those bloggers’ First Amendment rights. Just last month, a popular blogger in the state of Georgia, Erick Erickson, became the latest victim of SWAT-ting. During the Erickson’s family dinner, sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to Erickson’s home after receiving a 911 call reporting an accidental shooting that appeared to have come from Erickson’s address.

In 2010, Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution non-profit launched an “Indict Breitbart” campaign, accusing the Internet news entrepreneur of criminality. Breitbart fired back with a 3,600-word article by Mandy “Liberty Chick” Nagy that exposed Kimberlin’s criminal past as a major drug smuggler who became notorious as Indiana’s “Speedway Bomber.”

In 1981, Kimberlin was sentenced to 50 years in federal prison, but served only about a third of that sentence before his release in 2001. Within four years, Kimberlin had formed two non-profits — Velvet Revolution and the Justice Through Music Project — that have collected more than $2 million in donations, including contributions from the Tides Foundation, the Barbra Streisand Foundation and the Heinz Foundation.

Last year, Kimberlin’s online efforts were augmented by his alliance with Neal Rauhauser, a consultant to Democrat candidates who was a speaker at the 2010 Netroots Nation conference sponsored by the liberal Daily Kos site. Rauhauser has described his role as “solving problems in the social media work space for political campaigns and causes.” Several conservatives have begun to suspect that Kimberlin and Rauhauser are part of a Democrat-backed attempt to impede conservative New Media efforts in the 2012 election cycle, replicating in many ways the 2010 online harassment campaign against Tea Party activists that became notorious as “TwitterGate.”

Rauhauser has a habit of promoting farfetched conspiracy theories. When Democrat Rep. Anthony Weiner was caught in a cybersex scandal last year, Rauhauser (writing at Daily Kos under his “Stranded Wind” alias) claimed that Weiner was the victim of an Oklahoma-based “Christian Infowar Militia.”

More recently, Rauhauser has accused Kimberlin’s critics of being part of elaborate conspiracies. In February, Rauhauser sent to law enforcement agencies a massive cache of documents with a summary article titled, “Breitbart’s ISR Cell?” That article alleged that Andrew Breitbart and others, including Frey, were part of an organized plot involving the security firm HBGary.

In June, Rauhauser sent a series of e-mails to a Republican congressional staffer asserting that the SWATting of conservative bloggers were part of a “complex fabrication from the Breitbart camp.” Rauhauser accused Breitbart.com contributor Brandon Darby of being the “true source” of the illegal fake 911 calls. Rauhauser subsequently forwarded those e-mails to some of Darby’s associates, along with a thousand-word document that outlined a bizarre conspiracy theory involving Darby as well as the GOP consulting firm Hynes Communications.

Raushauser’s mention of the firm, run by conservative New Media strategist Patrick Hynes, was apparently an effort to involve the Romney campaign in a smear against Darby and others on Rauhauser’s enemies list. This connect-the-dots tactic has now been extended to Murphy, who joined the Romney campaign in June after working for two months as a volunteer with the National Bloggers Club.

The article highlighted Saturday by Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution was written by Alex Brant-Zawadzki, a Huffington Post blogger and graduate student at the University of San Francisco. Brant-Zawadzki has frequently assailed the Tea Party movement as “neo-Nazis” and “teabaggers.”

Brant-Zawadzki’s article (“Romney Staffer Committing Charitable Fraud“) refers to the American Liberty Alliance, a Tea Party-oriented project launched by Eric Odom in 2009 that was subsequently dissolved, as well as the National Bloggers Club, as points of association between Murphy and Ali Akbar, a conservative New Media strategist who is president of the National Bloggers Club. Brant-Zawadzki’s claim that the club is a “fraud” appears to be based entirely on the fact that the non-profit has not yet filed its first report with the Internal Revenue Service. Yet as Akbar has explained, the club was only organized in February of this year, and has up to one full year to report its activities to the IRS.

Brant-Zawadski has multiple online connections to Neal Rauhauser, and his article about Murphy was based in part on research by Ron Brynaert, who accused Brant-Zawadski of “ripping me off.” Brynaert, along with Kimberlin and Rauhauser, was named by Frey as suspected of complicity in Frey’s July 2011 SWATTing.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!