Admitting in court you are a peodophile

Some readers may recall the case of Brett Kimberlin in the US. Kimberlin is a convicted bomber, perjurer, drug runner and has various other crimes to his name.

Since his release from prison, he’s made a habit of attacking those who call him what he clearly is.

One of his lawsuits is against various conservative bloggers, filed in the state of Maryland. (There’s also a federal case). That case came to trial this week.

Obliviously, with his convictions, the idea that calling him a terrorist is not deformation. So the case ended up focusing on the allegations of paedophilia, a crime which he appears to have committed but not been convicted of. 

Here’s one version of what happened: 

In order to prove a defamation case in Maryland, the plaintiff must prove that what the defendant said or wrote was false. Brett Kimberlin could not do that. After putting his older daughter, Aaron, Ali, Stacy, and me on the stand, he had produced no evidence of falsity. He had no case. With the jury sent out of the courtroom, Judge Johnson incredulously asked him, “Is it your theory that you can come into court and say, “I was defamed,” and rest your case?” Because TDPK had offered no evidence for the jury to consider in its deliberation, the judge ruled that there was no case, and gave a verdict in favor of the Aaron, Stacy, Ali, and me as a matter of law.

Clearly, his first step would be to show that he was not a paedophile. But outside of calling his own daughter as a witness (which proves pretty much nothing), he called the people he himself was suing. That didn’t go so well.

But I knew things were going to go very bad for Brett when he asked me the question “why do you believe I am a pedophile?”  You do notask a guy with a semi-photographic memory a question like that.  So I went over Jessica/Debbie Barton, another fifteen year old girl he told singer he had been “romancing,” his teen dream, and then as I was getting to his wife, I got interrupted, but I got to that story a few minutes later.  He did not enjoy, for instance, hearing me recite the story his wife told me about her walking in on him kissing her twelve year old cousin.  In short I was able to recite most of the facts laid out inthis post (which this title is riffing off of) and he clearly regretted it.

…

 

One thing that kept occurring, also, is Brett kept expecting me to spontaneously blurt out his narrative, rather than, you know, reality.  So he asked me if I said that we should destroy his daughter’s life “because of the corruption of the blood?”  All of this comes from having written this post which, as you might notice, does not say that at all.  So I remember specifically answering “no, I have literally said the opposite.  I have said that we should as much as practicable shield your daughter from the effects of your misconduct.”  

Here’s the thing: if someone acuses you of a crime, and you sue them for deformation, your first job is to show that they are wrong. Really wrong. Reading these accounts of the trial, Kimberlin really didn’t bother to do that. He didn’t even come close to trying.

So, the court had no choice to (effectively) declare that “Brett Kimberlin is a paedophile” is a true statement. I mean, he didn’t bother to refute it, did he? And it wasn’t like he had spent months of effort filing a case in order to “clear his name”. If he had the proof, that was the time to present it. If he didn’t have it, he should have withdrawn the case.

Biggest legal backfire in history? Quite possibly.

Advertisements

Lawyers and Harassment

This really stood out in Aaron Worthing’s description of his recent hearing to remove an illegal (and utterly dishonest) restraining order:

Of course the highlight of the hearing came when my attorney sought to cross examine Kimberlin.  Of course he gave Kimberlin an epic cross-examination back on April 11, but today he was more focused but equally effective.  Interestingly, he didn’tgo through the entirety of Kimberlin’s criminal history, or indeed any of it.  But he did ask Kimberlin about when I was SWATted, about a week and a half ago and Kimberlin went into a rage at the suggestion.  He called it a “despicable” question, falsely claiming that I and others had blamed him for it “without a shred of evidence” (in fact when I wrote about the SWATting, and talked about it on the radio, I was careful not to blame him because I can’t prove he had anything to do with it).  But he was absolutely furious at even the simple question of whether or not he was involved in it, shaking his finger at my attorney in rage and saying to him, “You’re harassing me” by even asking the question.  That is, a lawyer asking a person a question in court is harassment, according to Kimberlin.

It’s interesting to compare and contract the two cases.

Both Kimberlin and Sperling:

• Furiously claim harassment when lawyers simply do their job
• Lash out at anyone else who gets involved
• Try to use the law to destroy other people
• Lie as readily as most people tell the truth
• Have previously been in trouble before the courts
• Have won court victories having presented false information to the court
• Present altered versions of reality to their supporters
• Made their name by defaming a famous person
• Are trying to destroy the carrers of ethical lawyers who have annoyed them

But they also contrast a lot too:

• Kimberlin wants people to stop telling the truth, Sperling wants the right to keep lying
• Kimberlin uses proxies and sock puppets, Sperling goes on the internet herself
• Kimberlin made his name when he lied about Quayle. Sperling came into the public eye when she threatened to tell the truth about her affair with Laws
• Kimberlin is trying to shut down free speech in a country that values it highly. Sperling is getting away with nasty lies in a country that is more measured about it.

Anyway, if you haven’t already go and have a read about Brett Kimberlin over at Aaron’s Blog.

Brett Kimberlin is a Terrorist

Please note: Every time you post on the internet about Brett Kimberlin, he gets emailed a copy of your post.

Now, if you call him a terrorist, he gets upset by this.

Given he is a convicted bomber, it is in no way deformation to call him a terrorist. It is to call him a pedophile, because that matter has not gone before the court. So I’m not calling him a pedophile – he isn’t.

He’s also got a history of lots of other crimes including perjury. In fact he’s such a shameless liar, he’s gone out and got peace order against someone right after a judge told him in no uncertain terms that his last peace order was completely and utterly invalid.

But the idea of annoying a terrorist, particularly a terrorist who’s using the court system to shut down and intimidate people who call him what he is, appeals to me.

So hence the post.

(I know it’s supposed to be Friday, but what the hey – let’s get the party started!)