Category: Neutral Objective Journalism

Earlier today, I remarked that how much “it makes me angry to think honest law-abiding citizens must condescend to answer the lies of a creature like Brett Kimberlin.”

Really, I’d rather ignore this — leave it to the lawyers, friends say — but I must assist in my defense, and today was doing some research inspired by “Plaintiff Motion and Memorandum for Preliminary Injunction.” And I swear, I trembled in rage at the unconscionable effrontery of this scoundrel in shamelessly lying about me:

Readers are invited to search for some example of the alleged “defamatory attacks” on Brett Kimberlin’s daughter that I have ever published on this blog. Have I “threatened to take depositions” from anyone in this lawsuit? Absurd! I have asked the court to dismiss this vexatious lawsuit, which is a farrago of lies. Interrogatories, discovery, depositions — I have no interest in any of that. Kimberlin sues me and then, in filing a motion for an injunction to stop me from writing about his meritless litigation, falsely accuses me of threatening to “take depositions” from people whom I have never so “threatened”?

The nerve!

There are some passages of Brett’s Paragraph 10 that I will not comment about, but I will mention that Kimberlin — a notorious drug smuggler, perjurer, forger and bomber who served 17 years in federal prison — is rather tardy in his indignant zeal for strict obedience to the law. If Brett Kimberlin had always been so scrupulous in his respect for law (as he now complains the defendants have not been), it’s quite likely no one ever would have heard of this sociopathic pipsqueak.

Exactly one person is responsible for Brett Kimberlin’s reputation as an infamous criminal. That person is named Brett Kimberlin.

As for the infliction of “irreparable harm” and “psychological trauma,” perhaps someone should ask Brett Kimberlin where was his tender sensitivity in this regard when it came to, inter alia, Debbie Barton’s grandmother and Carl Delong’s widow.

It makes me angry even to read Brett Kimberlin’s lies, much less to have to respond to them. “Attacks on a minor,” indeed!

 

BOMBER SUES BLOGGERS

 

Readers will please excuse the lack of blogging today. There are busy days I don’t mind, when I am busy doing things I want to do. Then there are busy days when, unfortunately, I am compelled to pay attention to Brett Kimberlin’s dishonest allegations in the Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al, in which four co-defendants and myself are being sued for one meellion dollars for telling the truth about Brett Kimberlin. You may ask around among my co-defendants whether I derive any enjoyment from dealing with a plaintiff who was described in 1999 by Slate as “the convicted bomber, habitual liar, and all-around sociopath who claimed to have sold drugs to Dan Quayle.”

Being sued by a lying sociopath is only fun if you have nothing better to do with your time than to refute his lies, and there are many other things I’d rather do. Nevertheless, in honor of George Washington’s birthday, I’ve decided to spend today compiling some research into accessible formats — work which I wish could have been done by someone else, but if you want something done . . .

Anyone interrupting me in this work can expect to get an earful. I have tried to ignore this thing as much as possible, because it makes me angry to think honest law-abiding citizens must condescend to answer the lies of a creature like Brett Kimberlin, who was notorious as a liar before I ever wrote one word about him.

“. . . a world-class liar . . .”
— Amazon.com

“. . . a top-flight con man . . .”
— Publisher’s Weekly

“. . . a fairly typical hustler . . .”
— Library Journal

“. . . a man whose idea of the truth is utterly malleable
. . . a dangerous smooth talker . . .”
— Kirkus Reviews

Knowing that Brett Kimberlin’s dishonesty has been so notorious for so long, perhaps you can understand why it is irritating to have to confront his lies, as though it were insufficient refutation to say, “Of course it is untrue — Brett Kimberlin is a liar.”

So I am compelled to keep working at this today, and ask your patience at the lack of blogging. But there is this bit of news: Nominations for the 2014 Blog Bash Awards are out, and my reporting on the Kaitlyn Hunt case is nominated.

And now, back to the Siberian salt mines . . .

 

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

May 19, 2012, was a Saturday, two days after I first saw Aaron Walker’s 28,000-word account of how he says Brett Kimberlin tried to “frame” him for an assault charge. I’d dug into the story and, by Saturday, was ready to write a linear account of the story.

“File it and forget it” — it’s a habit.

You hit the deadline and move on to the next story. And I’d forgotten all about that post from May 2012 until, while doing a bit of online research this evening, I happened onto a post by Professor Donald Douglas at American Power that quoted it at length:

Kimberlin’s infamous criminal past could scarcely have been a secret to those who funded his organization. Kimberlin became a national political celebrity during the 1988 presidential campaign because of his claim, made while he was still serving time in federal prison, that he had once sold marijuana to Dan Quayle, who was then the Republican candidate for vice president.
Kimberlin offered no proof for that unsubstantiated allegation, but it drew the attention of award-winning journalist Mark Singer. A reporter for the New Yorker, Singer was initially sympathetic to Kimberlin, and the two men split an advance for a book deal to tell Kimberlin’s story. Singer ended the co-authorship deal after he became disillusioned by Kimberlin’s habitual dishonesty. In 1996, Singer published Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin, which exposed Kimberlin as a “world-class liar” and “first-class con man.”
In fact, according to both Singer and Indianapolis Star reporter Joseph Gelarden, prosecutors suspected a particularly sinister motive for the Speedway Bomber’s terroristic rampage: To distract law enforcement officials who were investigating the July 29, 1978, murder of Julia Scyphers, the grandmother of a pre-teen girl toward whom, Gelarden wrote in 1981, Kimberlin had “strange affection … questionable relationship.”

You can read the whole thing. The point of quoting it now is that Brett Kimberlin’s notoriety — his status as a public figure with a nasty reputation — is not something created by myself or by any of the other co-defendants in Kimberlin’s lawsuits. The original sources were cited, and anyone could look it up for themselves. And then there was this attention-grabbing headline:

For Brett Kimberlin, It All
Started With A Little Girl

I didn’t write that headline, but like I said, you could look it up.

 

BOMBER SUES BLOGGERS

 

 

The title quote is from John Hoge’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Oppositions in the federal RICO lawsuit Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al. Hoge is proceeding pro se — acting as his own lawyer against Brett Kimberlin, who is doing the same — and it’s interesting to contrast Kimberlin’s accusations with Hoge’s defenses, knowing that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Hoge today posted Kimberlin’s opposition, which begins with this exercise in verbose gesturing:

Nary a day goes by without Defendant Hoge falsely accusing Plaintiff of some sort of crime or malfeasance, if not in a court filing then on his blog. This harassment has been ongoing for the past two years, and it goes to the heart of Plaintiff’s Complaint, that this pattern of defamatory intimidation and constant “threats of doom” are being done to retaliate and chill Plaintiff’s right to redress.

This is just nonsense. What, pray tell, is “defamatory intimdiation,” and how is Hoge — a defendant in two separate lawsuits filed by Kimberlin — acting to “retaliate,” simply by arguing his case?

Kimberlin seems upset that the defendant is defending himself!

Kimberlin has been neither defamed nor harassed by Hoge, but the Plaintiff evidently hopes that repeating these allegations will impose his beliefs on a federal judge. It’s the Jedi Mind Trick Theory of Law, and amusing to watch, knowing that Kimberlin’s RICO complaint is a gigantic wad of legally flawed fact-deficient gibberish.

So Hoge has replied to Kimberlin’s opposition, and I’m sure he’ll want to discuss that on his own blog — to retaliate by defamatory intimidation and chill! — but I hope my co-defendant doesn’t mind if I quote a few of his pro se sentences:

Plaintiff has attempted to remedy the deficiencies in his Amended Complaint by alleging new “facts” and new bases for his claims . . . but that should be done in an Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his Complaint a second time, he should seek the Court’s leave to do so. In the meantime, the Court should disregard Plaintiff’s new allegations until they are properly presented in a new Amended Complaint. . . . Defendant Hoge opposes allowing a second Amended Complaint. The various Defendants’ Motions and Replies have pointed out facts not alleged and legal points improperly raised. Plaintiff’s ongoing demonstrations of bad faith strongly suggest the likelihood of his using another Amended Complaint as an opportunity to fill in those blanks with false information. The Court should dismiss the instant suit with prejudice in favor of all Defendants.

What Hoge is saying is that Kimberlin — whose complaint is a carnival of errors — should not be permitted to benefit from the defendants having pointed out the holes in his complaint.

The complaint is fatally flawed and Kimberlin, having compounded his errors through his “ongoing demonstrations of bad faith,” deserves to lose. But I suppose it’s “harassment” to say this.

UPDATE: Mirabile dictu! Hoge has now posted the entirety of his Reply to Plaintiff’s Oppositions, so you can read it all there.

 

 

 

Earlier today, I took notice of false allegations Brett Kimberlin made against me in filing for an injunction in the million-dollar Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. Just to further illustrate the manifest absurdities the defendants must deal with, here is another sentence from that same filing:

This claim follows Kimberlin’s bizarre assertion that a disclaimer on Aaron Walker’s blog is understood by “his readers … as code to take … vigilante action.” Kimberlin refers the court to “Exhibit B,” among which alleged “death threats” we find this:

That’s a screen-cap from the blog Charlie Foxtrot, but does the man in the photo wielding the enormous rifle look familiar?

It’s University of Tennessee Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

Kimberlin tried the same thing in June 2012, using Professor Reynolds as “Exhibit E” in a motion he filed against Walker, at a time when Walker was forbidden to blog about Kimberlin by a court order (which was subsequently overturned). It’s encouraging to see that Instapundit has moved up from “Exhibit E” to “Exhibit B,” and with some luck, he may eventually make it to “Exhibit A.”

But really, you’re nobody in the blogosphere until you’re a defendant . . .

 

 

RECENTLY:

• Jan. 31: Brett Kimberlin Lies Again
• Jan. 28: ‘Mr. Kimberlin’s Fantastic Allegations’
• Jan. 23: Another Brett Kimberlin Lie?
• Jan. 13: Brett Kimberlin Allegedly Alleges
• Jan. 13: Kimberlin Lawsuit Hearing Today

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

“Kimberlin seemed to be the only one with a possible motive — to distract police attention from the Scyphers murder and delay or halt their quiet investigation of him.”
– R. Joseph Gelarden, Indianapolis Star, “Kimberlin case a maze of murder, deceit,” Oct. 18, 1981

“I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money . . .”
— Brett Kimberlin, Oct. 11., 2010, e-mail to Patrick Frey

John Hoge mentions that Brett Kimberlin has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the vexatious Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit” and in doing so — as might be expected — Kimberlin lies. He asserts that I have “attacked Plaintiff’s daughter in numerous posts” and “harassed her,” although he provides no example of the attacks or harassment he claims because, of course, it’s not true.

Hitherto, the preliminary proceedings in the case have required us to proceed as if Brett Kimberlin’s allegations were true, but his motion for an injunction will require examination of relevant facts in the case. Anyone who thinks this will be to Brett Kimberlin’s advantage is unfamiliar with Kimberlin’s profound hostility to truth.

 

BOMBER SUES BLOGGERS