The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Aaron “Worthing” Walker v. Sally Kohn on the Law and the Constitution

So I had a lot of fun last night.  I even made Twitchy, which is always cool.  But the problem with twitter is that it is like a river of thought and if you miss what someone says, it floats away from you and it is hard to retrieve later.  And I suspect a few people want this preserved for posterity, if only to know that Sally Kohn is clueless.  And read all the way to the end to see how bad it is.

So yesterday Kohn was debating with various people on the right, mainly lawyers, and she was going very, very wrong on the law.  I replied a few times trying to correct her, was ignored, and then kind of throwing up my hands in amusement, I wrote this:


Which might seem mean at first glance, but give me a moment.  I make my case.

So she deems to respond to that, and then she deleted that response, which led to this…


And to be fair to her, much later she gave me an answer to that question:


Which is fine with me...


But that is getting ahead of ourselves.  At the time, I didn’t know why she deleted it, but... you ever have someone ask you the wrong question?  I had a moment like that about a month ago.  Brett Kimberlin had sued me, in part, because I said I thought he was a pedophile.  At one point in the trial, he had me on the stand and asked me why I thought he was a pedophile.  I then gave a recitation of about five minutes explaining in detail why I believed this to be the case, and by the time I was done, I am pretty sure the jury thought he was one, too.  (You can read the transcript from that trial, here.)  I decided to have a similar level of fun with Ms. Kohn.

Or as one tweeter put it succinctly:


Strap yourself in.  This is going to be fun.

So I began:


Now most of the time I linked to her tweets and then pointed out her errors.  So in most cases I will show you the tweet I am responding to, and then my critique.  Thus, first, I linked to this tweet:


And then I responded, thusly:


(So, the link in that tweet is back to the tweet I was critiquing...)


Next I linked to this tweet:


And my critique:


Next, her tweet:



I should say “viewpoint discrimination by the government.”


This time I used a picture of a pair of tweets to show what I was responding to:



For instance, I wrote a piece about how Ariel Castro might have violated the Thirteenth Amendment, here, although much of my analysis was mooted by Castro’s subsequent suicide and burning in hell.  I don’t think any other part of the constitution can be violated by private conduct, but I could be wrong.




Similarly my next critique used photos of tweets:





Next I critiqued this tweet:


My critique:



It would have had better logical symmetry if I pointed out that you can name something specifically that protects freedom of religion, but oh well.







Typo: "buying" should be "buy."







I went on to quibble with whether she understood what “semi-automatic” means, but she claimed she did.  Which makes the reference to semi-automatic weapons, weird, but oh well.  Moving on:



Besides responding to my explanation of what semi-automatic means, claiming she did know after all, she responded to my claim that there is no right to gay sex:


My reply:


Lest you think I am exaggerating, read for yourself.  If you think that the Dred Scott case was just about the Missouri Compromise, you are in for a nasty surprise.  To quote its vile opinion:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit

If you need a shower now, I won’t blame you.  I will note that it has been repudiated by the Fourteenth Amendment as thoroughly as any decision has been, as discussed in my post, here.

Kohn is also kind of missing the point.  Conservative reject, as a rule, the theory of living constitutionalism referred to above.

She also laid down a pair of challenges.  First she asked this:


I replied:


Then her second challenge:


That linked to this tweet (which she had responded to, before):


I replied:




Just so you don’t strain your eyes, let me rewrite it here in normal text.  I said (with slightly improved grammar):

There are many kinds of business that are engaged in expression: newspapers, radio stations, movie studios, printshops and even wedding photographers.

I believe the correct reading of the First Amendment says that if any anti-discrimination law has the effect of treading on these kinds of companies’ First Amendment rights, that such laws are unconstitutional as applied.

But suppose the courts don’t agree with me?  Then tomorrow states could pass laws forbidding discrimination based on viewpoint.  And thus a gay printshop business owner could be forced to help the Westborough Baptist Church make anti-gay signs.

Indeed, right now in New York, there is a statute prohibiting employers from discriminating against people for participating in political campaigns and engaging in any other lawful activity, off-hours and off-premises.  You can read it, here.  Is it very much of a stretch to say that a state might make it illegal, say, for McDonalds to refuse service to someone because they are a Democrat, or a Republican?

Anyway, two minutes later, she posted this to the world at large:


And my response:


“Rage quit” is a term from gaming.  It comes from when someone does so badly playing that they quit the game, typically in anger.

And moments later she retweeted this bit of passive aggressiveness.


One can’t be sure that Ms. Filipovic was referring to me.  There were a lot of people disagreeing with Kohn.  Some were lawyers, some were not.  But as I said a moment ago, most of what I said was not obscure legal doctrine: they were what I considered common knowledge.  Although to mangle Chuck D’s words, common knowledge ain’t all that common.  For instance:


But one nice thing about my credentials is that whenever a person tries to intellectually “pull rank” on me, or others, I can often “one up” them:


But as I noted subsequently:


Indeed, as I am writing this, I see she says it wasn’t directed at me.


As I replied:


Ms. Filipovic is a lawyer, after all.  While we might debate how common “common knowledge” actually is, surely she recognizes how clueless Kohn is, right?  I mean it isn’t necessary to get a law degree to know how clueless Kohn’s claims were, but if you have a law degree, how can you not know this?  How could a person be a lawyer and not know this, or even get a law degree and not get this?

I mean obviously Ms. Kohn can’t have had any legal education because her knowledge of the law falls below what I consider to be common knowledge of the general public who don’t have law degrees.  So she can’t possibly have a law degree, right?  Right?

Um, with apologies for the language, I found out that this wasn’t completely true (update: bad link in tweet, but this is the correct one):




I had a private conversation during all of this, and originally I said to that person that I thought Kohn’s problem was she lacked the humility to know what she didn’t know.  But with this additional information, God Lord, I don’t know how she can write this stuff.

Seriously, I have no explanation for the display she put on.  Is she actually this clueless?  NYU is a good law school, and frankly I can’t think of a single law school that would let students graduate without this basic understanding of the law.  Hell, her bio states that she was a “Root Tilden public service scholar,” which is given to “outstanding” law students.  And yet, she doesn’t know this?  Maybe she once did and doesn’t now?  Or maybe she is lying, playing “stupid like a fox”?  But the lie is so dumb and so obvious I don’t think even most liberals would buy it and for what purpose would she lie?

Seriously, I am at a loss.

Anyway, read for yourself and decide for yourself, as always.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.


And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Transcript 2.0 in Adjudicated Pedophile Brett Kimberlin’s State Case (Updated)

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that adjudicated pedophile Brett Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave him, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

I love the smell of
popcorn in the morning...
Yesterday I made a trip to the Montgomery County Circuit Courthouse and picked up a new, somewhat corrected copy of the transcript from last month’s trial of Kimberlin v. Walker et. al.  That would be the case where Brett Kimberlin accused me and my friends of falsely describing him as a pedophile and lost on the issue of falsity.  I won’t explain a lot of how this new transcript came to be, just yet.  For now, I will simply say that the original was riddled with errors.  Mind you, all transcripts have errors, or at least things that people disagree on.  But for instance, the original transcript had my friend John Hoge apparently taking over our lawyer’s job for him when I was on the stand.  It was really bad and so we got a new one.

I will update this post, or write a new post, explaining what went on to bring this into existance but for now it is worth noting the following about these new transcripts:

1)  They are now the official transcripts.

2)  A great deal of personal information has been redacted.  We even redacted out the name of the daughter, even as she testified on the stand.  Her father doesn’t seem to care overly much about the harm he is doing to his daughter in this, but I do.  (And as usual, if you see something you think we should have redacted, but didn’t, let me know.)  Also, you will notice that the page jumps from around 53 to 122 in the first transcript—that is an ugly deletion of the entire jury selection process.  Since we had a directed verdict, literally all of that was irrelevant and I don’t want to risk even a one in a thousand chance of an error.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Vile: Brett Kimberlin is Apparently Threatening to Make His Daughter File Suit Against Us

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave him, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

As John Hoge has reported this morning that Brett Kimberlin is filing a silly motion seeking a written judgment in the case that we won just about two weeks ago (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).  Vexatious litigant files vexatious filings and all that.  Ali Akbar also writes on that, here.

The more significant news is that Brett is either about to file, or is threatening to file a new lawsuit, in federal court, and according to my lawyer it might include a minor plaintiff “pro se” which sounds like his daughter.  So Brett’s prediction to Dave Weigel...


...is already proving true.  Apparently two weeks of vacation didn’t calm him down at all.

Of course there is a lot to say about that, but the most hilarious fact is she can’t file on her own behalf, and he can’t sue on her behalf without a lawyer.  That’s not just my opinion, but of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  From Allen v. Dorsey (2006):

First, to the extent that Allen seeks relief on behalf of his minor children, he may not so do.  Federal courts uniformly do not allow parents, guardians or next friends to appear pro se on behalf of a minor or incompetent person. See Wenger v. Canastota Central School District, 146 F.3d 123, 124 (2d Cir. 1998); Devine v. Indian River School Board, 121 F. 3d 576, 581-82 (11th Cir. 1997); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F. 3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986). This prohibition is designed to protect the interests of the minor or incompetent person from being compromised by one who lacks the legal training necessary to adequately protect them. It also recognizes that lay persons are not bound by the same ethical obligations placed upon lawyers. See Brown v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 168, 172 (E.D. Va. 1994).

So if Brett wants to file suit, he needs to go lawyer-shopping.  And one seriously doubts any lawyer will take it—it’s a loser from start to finish.  Certainly no lawyer will take it on contingency.  If he wants her to sue, he will not be able to file suit sans sweat.

That being said if you want to help the victims of this lawsuit abuse, hit the freaking tip jar at BomberSuesBloggers.  Or as I said this morning to my co-defendants:


Joking aside, donate.  And thank you for all your support, be it financial, moral or spiritual.

And yes, to put his daughter continually in the middle of all of this is vile, IMCPO (in my Constitutionally-protected opinion).  Did he learn nothing from Judge Johnson's disgust at trial?

Thursday, August 21, 2014

“Stop or I Will Shoot;” Ferguson and Deadly Force by Officers of the Law

Update:  It turns out that the use of deadly force to stop a non-violent felon from escaping might be criminal under federal law.  So my analysis would be incomplete.  See below for details.

So I admit I had a hard time getting into this whole Ferguson mess.  After all, this whole thing started on August 9, 2014, when Mike Brown was shot to death by Officer Darren Wilson.  You know what I was doing on that day?  I was driving up to see my lawyer to prepare for my testimony that coming Tuesday.  So my mind was on other things as the community got outraged and riots started happening.  So once it was going, then I had trouble getting to the bottom.  As I said to a friend, “I’m looking for an on-ramp.”  And it took a few days to find it.

Let’s start with something really basic.  It is not conservative to blindly trust the police.  While law and order is a good thing, and indeed necessary to protect other freedoms, nothing is more conservative than to be appropriately skeptical of government.  And that guy or girl with a gun and a badge?  They’re the government.  And like any arm of the government it can be used for good or ill.  I think most cops are just trying to do the right thing.  But even the most well-intentioned can do the wrong thing.  I don’t want you to think I hate cops, either.  There just has to be an appropriate balance, where we are appropriately skeptical of power, but not actively prejudiced against it (and those who exercise government power), either.

But at the same time, I was starting to hear some bad, familiar notes.  A shooting where the facts were not known, but lots of people seemed to assume they knew who was right and who was wrong.  Profound ignorance of the law in this area.  A seeming assumption that because the shooter was white and the man shot was black that this was automatically murder.  And people saying that the case is emblematic of larger problems.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Transcribing the Trial of Brett Kimberlin v. Walker et. al (Final)

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave him, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

This is continuing a series I began with this post and continued with this post, this post and this post.  This is the last in that series.

And like the last few times, I am going to start off by asking for your help in paying for the real, full transcript from this week’s proceedings by donating to Bomber Sues Bloggers!  Don’t whine to me you aren’t seeing the whole thing!  Donate, and read it all (minus a few redactions to protect the innocent).

And bluntly, we need this transcript, so we can present it in the RICO case.  It will hopefully give us collateral estoppel on numerous issues, especially the ones where he is seeking a preliminary injunction against us, since the primary argument is that we have been calling him a pedophile.  Under collateral estoppel, the court will say “you had your day in court, and we are not litigating these issues twice.”  It might help us dismiss all or part of the action.

Blegging out of the way, let’s continue.  And if you need any background, I suggest you go to the first post in this series, here.

And let me take this opportunity to say thank you for the McCainalanche for this series.  It’s greatly appreciated.

Do I really have to tell you that
you need popcorn for Stacy
McCain's
 testimony?
So last time we finished the testimony of myself and went over the testimony of John Hoge and Ali Akbar.  Next up we have Stacy McCain, so we are clearing the decks, so to speak.

Even the recordings don’t quite capture how angry Stacy seemed to me.  And again, that’s not a criticism—he had a right to be angry—but you do worry how the jury was going to take that.  I think on balance, there was enough funny about his presentation that he came off well.  And if the jury was wondering why they were there by that point—and they might have been—McCain’s anger at being there would jive well with their feelings.

Early on, Brett attempted to paint Stacy as a racist.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Transcribing the Trial of Brett Kimberlin v. Walker et. al (Part 4)

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave him, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

This is continuing a series I began with this post and continued with this post and this post.

And like the last three times, I am going to start off by asking for your help in paying for the real, full transcript from this week’s proceedings by donating to Bomber Sues Bloggers!  If you want to see the whole thing (except for a few redactions), then donate!

And bluntly, we need this transcript, so we can present it in the RICO case.  It will hopefully give us collateral estoppel on numerous issues, especially the ones where he is seeking a preliminary injunction against us, since the primary argument is that we have been calling him a pedophile.  Under collateral estoppel, the court will say “you had your day in court, and we are not litigating these issues twice.”  It might help us dismiss all or part of the action.

Blegging out of the way, let’s continue.  And if you need any background, I suggest you go to the first post in this series, here.

Last time, the judge sent the jurors on break for lunch as I was midway through my testimony.  Murphy’s law was having its way with me, in that the rain kept picking up literally every time I got ready to go from one building to the next.  If I was the type to believe in karma I would guess it was universe balancing out some of the good fortune I had been having and would be coming soon.  Who knows?

Hey!  What did I do?
Anyway, so pretty quickly I was back on the stand again by 1:40 in the afternoon, and this went on for another 25 minutes.  And yes, popcorn was on trial.

But first up, we are talking about his daughter, for some reason.  As the judge repeatedly pointed out, she is not a party to this case.  So any harm she suffered is irrelevant.  But of course Brett’s game is to try to get sympathy from the jury by any means possible because legally speaking, he had no case.  And further, Brett has been literally lying about my words for a while.  Here is the post he is about to ask about.  He has claimed that I have said that his daughter should suffer because of the corruption of the blood.  And bizarrely, he expected me to admit to his lying story, but instead I was able to ingratiate myself to the jury, I think.  And again, you are smart enough to know I am not objective, here:

Kimberlin:       Have you stated on your blog that people have a right to attack my daughter because of corruption of blood?

Walker:            No.  I have literally said the opposite of that.  I said one of the things that makes this country great is that we judge people by them.  Not by who your father is, not by who your daughter is, not by anything.  And I talked about how, in the Treason Clause, they do away with the principle of the corruption of the blood.  I specifically cite that as an example of what makes America great.  We do not judge people by race, religion, or, who your parents are.  Even when you are a traitor, we do not judge your children by your treachery.  Even when you’re a terrorist.

I know, I am subtle sometimes.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Transcribing the Trial of Brett Kimberlin v. Walker et. al (Part 3)

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave him, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

It's always more fun to watch
freedom prevail with popcorn!
This is continuing a series I began with this post and continued with this post.

And like the last two times, I am going to start off by asking for your help in paying for the real, full transcript from this week’s proceedings by donating to Bomber Sues Bloggers!  You aren’t reading the whole story.  I don’t have the energy to transcribe all of it, or even most of it.  I am hitting on a few specific highlights, but there’s a lot more to be read here.  If you want to see the whole thing (except for a few redactions), then donate!

And bluntly, we need this transcript, so we can present it in the RICO case.  It will hopefully give us collateral estoppel on numerous issues, especially the ones where he is seeking a preliminary injunction against us, since the primary argument is that we have been calling him a pedophile.  Under collateral estoppel, the court will say “you had your day in court, and we are not litigating these issues twice.”  It might help us dismiss all or part of the action.

Blegging out of the way, let’s continue.  And if you need any background, I suggest you go to the first post in this series, here.

Last time I promised we’d get to my testimony, and we will.  But look this is almost like live blogging, and I forgot that we had a real revelation in the next bench conference.  First, Brett announced his first witness was going to be his eldest daughter.  So our attorney objected (because she had nothing relevant to say and it was a blatant ploy for sympathy).  Judge Johnson, meanwhile, just didn’t want a fifteen year old girl in the middle of it.  That results in this exchange:

Court:              What’s her testimony?  Is that that little girl?  [A.W.: Brett’s youngest was in the courtroom.  The oldest, whom Brett wanted on the witness stand, was outside.]

Ostronic:         Not that little girl but another girl.

Court:              You... she’s not a party in this case.

Kimberlin:       She’s not a party, she’s a witness.

Court:              To what that they did?

Kimberlin:       That they harmed me and my family and she’s, you know, I ask you to give me a chance to make that [unintelligible]

Court:              But she can’t testify what?  Her school and all?  That is not relevant.

Kimberlin:       She can testify that I’m not a pedophile.  She can testify that...

Court:              How can...?  She can testify that you never did anything to her.

Kimberlin:       Or anyone she knows.

Court:              Or anyone that she knows.

Ostronic:         I will stipulate that he never did anything to her.  We’ll stipulate to that.

Kimberlin:       No.  I want her... I want the harm, there’s harm… these people… this jury needs to know the harm that this has caused my family.

For those that are not lawyers, to stipulate means to admit a fact as a matter of law.  It means the jury would have been told that the parties agreed as a matter of fact and law that Brett never touched his daughter—the only actual relevance that her testimony might have.  That meant her testimony was not needed, technically.  But that was not good enough for Brett, because his passion play was more important to him than the welfare of his children.

A few minutes later, the court talked to Brett about whether his daughter’s denials were sufficient:

Court:              If these individuals said that you’re, that you’re a pedophile, the best person to testify about that is you.  To put your 15 year old daughter, talk about, talk about harm, put a 15 year old kid in a courtroom in front of a jury and ask her questions about pedophilia?

As I have said, the judge all but called this child abuse.  Seriously, you do not hear how annoyed Judge Johnson is at his insistence that he put her on the stand.