The Popehat Signal: Help Fight Evil In Maryland

Print This Post

115 Responses

  1. Grifter says:

    I'm probably not qualified in anything you would need, but if some legwork (or eye work, I suppose, for research) is needed, you have my axe!

  2. radar says:

    Could you explain in greater detail to us laymen out here how exactly this guy manages to avoid ever paying the judgment awarded to Carl DeLong's widow??

  3. sburch79 says:

    I'm a Florida attorney. You'll probably have attorneys who are infinity more qualified than I am lining up to help, but if I can do anything to help I will.

  4. Walls says:

    > I firmly believe that Kimberlin could just as easily have achieved the same result with a different crowd of followers on the right, had he chosen to shout "Benghazi!" instead of "Diebold!"

    That is an extremely questionable comparison.

  5. Bearman says:

    Nigel…love the new Popehat Signal Image

  6. Hoare says:

    I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV.
    Denny Crane

  7. If I can be of any assistance, let me know. I'm more than happy to do legal or factual research or to proofread filings and offer my (novice) thoughts.

    And for those asserting that this is a conservative/liberal issue: I volunteered through three Obama campaigns and often find McCain's views to be loathsome, particularly on the revenge porn front. I'm as interested in protecting the speech of those I agree with as those I don't.

  8. Kaisersoze says:

    Great work Ken, thanks for all you do.

  9. CJK Fossman says:

    @Ken

    I imagine you'll post information about the defense fund when it becomes available.

  10. Anonymous Lurker says:

    Retired, but I can dust off the law degree, and have an active bar admission.

  11. damon says:

    Oh god, not again.

  12. Zack says:

    @Walls: It could have been "Obamacare!" "Lois Lerhner!" "NSA!" or any one of a thousand other words. The point stands: there are yellow-dog republicans as surely as there are yellow-dog democrats; there are scumbag republicans as surely as there are scumbag democrats.

    To the point at hand: Unlicesensed but degreed recently graduated mechanical engineer in northeast S.C., willing to contribute to any factual or technical research that needs to be conducted, or in any other way I can help. Would love the chance to have even a tertiary hand in combatting this crap.

  13. naught_for_naught says:

    Holy crap, Ken. Where have I been? I don't understand how this guy merits the attention of conservative bloggers and not liberal bloggers though. Is it his connection to earth shoes? I don't get it. BTW, in the case you cited, Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527, 528-29, are you the same White as this defendant?

  14. Blah says:

    Brett Kimberlin is a seriously evil scumbag, the kind that isn't even interesting to read about on an academic level. Every aspect of his being is repulsive and every time his name comes up I get the sense that my lunch is having a very, very hard time not leaping out of my stomach in sheer disgust.

  15. Dan says:

    I don't understand how this dickbag has any supporters.

  16. Jon says:

    @naught_for_naught

    That was O.I. White, not Ken.

  17. Ed Borg says:

    "People support him for the same reason that people got into Ted Bundy's Volkswagen Bug."

    I am so stealing that line.

  18. Drew says:

    If the issue is this superficially partisan, why isn't pacific legal foundation getting involved?

  19. Xenocles says:

    "That summary omits that Mr. Kimberlin is also a convicted perjurer."

    I was on the fence about Kimberlin until then; that really put it over the top.

  20. Queue Bill Schmalfeldt and his pro-Kimberlin rantings shortly…

  21. sorrykb says:

    The defendants may be right-wing and Kimberlin may have convinced his followers that he is progressive, but it's not a right wing or left wing issue. It's an issue about freedom of expression.

    Thank you.

    And to any progressives who are for rigidly ideological but unprincipled reasons inclined to support this jackass: Stop it. You're not helping. You're just making progressives look bad.

  22. Ken Mencher says:

    I might be able to help with research…but I'm definitely in for a defense fund, as with a toddler in the house, that's more my speed… ;p

    This knucklehead deserves everything the Popehat signal delivers…

  23. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    Sociopaths (and from your description, Kimberlin certainly SOUNDS like one) love to insinuate themselves into a political faction that sees itself as embattled, knowing that such groups will hesitate to disassociate themselves from 'one of their own'.

  24. Sam says:

    I don't have anything constructive to add, other than Go Popehat! But, all this Kimberlin talk reminded me of a particular episode of South Park and I enjoy injecting levity into serious discussions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Hat

  25. Blah says:

    [quote]And to any progressives who are for rigidly ideological but unprincipled reasons inclined to support this jackass: Stop it. You're not helping. You're just making progressives look bad.[/quote]

    Staunch partisans need no extra help looking bad, regardless of which color flag they fly. The state of politics in this country is completely disheartening, you can't have any kind of serious debate without idiots all around shouting "DEMONCRATS!" this or "CONSERVATIVE HICK!" that.

  26. Marta says:

    I know that you need expert assistance and legal volunteers.

    But perhaps there will come a time when the assistance of people like me–bright, able, committed people with time to offer, can help you get where you want to be. When that time comes, perhaps a database of people like me that you can call on for assistance? When you've got that part done–the database of people you can call on–I'll hope that my contacts are in it, and that you'll call on me.

  27. sorrykb says:

    @Blah: Quite true, sadly.

  28. Clovis Sangrail says:

    This will not be the first time I will have volunteered to subscribe to a fund tio defend people from this evil person's litigation. I do so again now.
    As a UK citizen, can I respectfully suggest, however, that your legal system is broken?
    If your judges cannot call bulls*** on this sort of action then something is seriously wrong.

  29. Zack says:

    @Clovis Sangrail: They CAN call bullshit on this sort of action; it's rare, however, because judges in the U.S. (at least on the state level) rotate frequently, taking different cases at different times, because of the massive workload these judges have.

    Complicating the matter further, state judges are usually elected (some are appointed like federal judges, but not many), so they can change and can have their minds on the will of the people as opposed to the law.

    This means it's difficult for any individual judge to see when a particular plaintiff is being litigious.

    They're also reluctant to place restrictions on people's ability to sue because the courts are a traditional stronghold of "remedies of last resort" for those disenfranchised by other mechanisms.

    It's a lot easier in federal courts from what I understand- in federal courts, judges are essentially assigned to a set area, and stay in place for life. However, they're cautious about those restrictions as well, because there's far more, and far more stringent, review in federal cases.

    It's not that the legal system is broken- it's that it is burdened from an abundance of caution and a dual-soveriegnty system that has both drawbacks and advantages.

  30. wgering says:

    Why can't there ever be a free speech emergency that requires construction or special-effects work?

    I'll click a defense fund link as soon as one appears so I don't feel totally useless.

  31. Joe Schmoe says:

    I have a feeling another blogger is about to be added to the complaint

  32. ZarroTsu says:

    I immediately replaced every instance of Kimberlin with
    "Darth Kimberlin" in my head while I read it.

    Then the more the article went on, the less funny and more gravely correct it became.

  33. Gorshkov says:

    Just out of curiosity – how effective *is* the popehat signal? How often does it actually get a useful response?

  34. Ken White says:

    Just out of curiosity – how effective *is* the popehat signal? How often does it actually get a useful response?

    Almost always.

  35. Cat G says:

    @Joe Schmoe – While Ken may not enjoy dealing directly with vexatious litigation against him (or he may love the chance to lay a smack down), I would find any kind of lawsuit targeted at Popehat over a free speech issue to be on par with climbing into a hungry tiger's cage and poking it with a stick. While wearing a vest made out of juicy, dripping, raw steak.

  36. repsac3 says:

    Wish to associate myself with Adam Steinbaugh's whole 11:09 am comment. I've had differences of opinion with a few of Kimberlin's detractors (some involved in this or a prior "… vs Kimberlin" suit, some not), but I have no interest in seeing anyone silenced (except out of embarrassment at being so God-awful verbally ugly or wrong, I mean.)

    Put me down for a little in the fund when it comes, and take wgering (1:36 pm) up on the offer of special effects, somehow… Folks'd prolly volunteer for jury duty if the show had more smoke and flames (as opposed to smoke and mirrors). Something to consider, that…

  37. Dion starfire says:

    There's nothing political about this. Even if Kimberlin were a rabid supporter of (a cause I believe in) there's no way I'd support him or his behavior (not even the stuff after he's been released from prison), and I can't imagine all but the most rabid conservative (or anybody with a 10th-grade education, for that matter) supporting him either.

    Still, if somebody tried to censor (via lawsuit or what have you) a person for claiming Kimberlin's a decent person who's done great work, I'd step to that idiot's defense just as surely as I would to the person Kimberlin is suing (if I had anything useful to offer, that is).

  38. Trent says:

    The problem with our political division in this country is that real evil hides within that division and Kimberlin appears to be exactly that kind of evil. It is my fervent wish that more people would open their eyes to the lies and evil being perpetrated on both sides of the partisan spectrum (in particular how it's being used to divide the country to the benefit of the plutocracy) and refuse to play the partisan game.

    Oh and I'm stealing that wonderful Bundy comparison too.

  39. AlphaCentauri says:

    Having a special effects person on hand might come in useful if Kimberlin submits some video evidence. I recall him claiming to have been assaulted and some low-quality video monitor images being used to refute it.

  40. Pierce Nichols says:

    This appears to be a tale of a vile person (Kimberlin) suing slightly less vile people (RS McCain et al, and largely by dint of not being convicted bombers and perjurers). Normally I'd just pop up some popcorn and sit back to point and laugh, because I love watching awful people fight each other. It's probably a character defect.

    However, Kimberlin's tactics represent a general threat to the Internet and robust political debate… and therefore I feel compelled to defend people I find thoroughly contemptible.

    So when is the defense fund link going up?

  41. EPWJ says:

    Ken

    Can someone contact Mrs. DeLong and have discuss ways to recover the judgment? He seems to have resources to travel internationally, certainly he can be forced to pay for his crimes

  42. EPWJ says:

    and discuss ways to recover the judgement.

  43. EPWJ says:

    okay cant type or write today…..

  44. Wondering says:

    Why is he not still in jail?

  45. Matthew Cline says:

    the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that it was not defamatory to call a radio host a "pedophile" when that radio host had joked on the air about sexually abusing the child of a rival radio host; he basis of the opinion was clearly stated.

    So (for 1st Amendment purposes) whether a statement is serious vs joking/satirical/parodic is a matter of opinion? As an example, Vox Day's claim that (paraphrasing) "Scalzi is an admitted rapist" is a protected matter of opinion because Scalzi wrote a satirical piece where he said he was a rapist?

    Within an hour of posting this, Popehat's Twitter account started to receive a flood of spam followers — more than 20,000 in a few hours. It's a tactic used to silence people by flooding them with spam followers and then reporting them to Twitter on the bogus grounds that they have bought followers. Others who have criticized Kimberlin or the Kimberlings have also been subjected to it. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

    It's obviously a series of false-flags by the evil anti-Kimberlin people. /sarcasm

  46. MW says:

    If you come across need of someone with a Information and Networking Tech background, I'm more than willing to help pitch in.

  47. battywriter says:

    In response to: "I have a feeling another blogger is about to be added to the complaint"

    I wouldn't wish a lawsuit on anyone, (I am also a lawyer, for my sins) and Ken has a family, a law practice, and associates that need scarring. That said, I would pay extra to watch the slapdown that would ensue.

  48. Matthew Cline says:

    From the complaint:

    Defendants falsely wrote that other targets of theirs were part of “Team Kimberlin” and published that Plaintiff controlled, paid, and directed this vast network of “unsavory” operatives.

    I've only followed this whole thing via Popehat and a few posts by Aaron at his blog, but the impression I got was that "Team Kimberlin" merely means "Kimberlin and those who support him", without implying that his supporters were paid, controlled, or directed by him, or that the "team" was a "vast network".

    Defendants have prohibited from their attacks against Plaintiff by raising funds online using his name and their false narratives, court filings and defamatory publications to demonize him. They have also obtained other things of value such an online traffic to their websites. [emphasis added]

    I'm surprised that Popehat/Ken was included as a defendant.

    Defendants published these false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff even though they knew that Plaintiff had told them to leave him and his family alone.

    IANAL, but I don't think this has anything relevance to a claim of defamation.

    From the "harassment" section:

    Defendants have refused to leave Plaintiff alone and they have published and continue to publish false and defamatory articles and tweets about Plaintiff
    on a regular and even daily basis.

    And once more he claims that writing about him constitutes harassment.

  49. Matthew Cline says:

    @Cat G:

    While Ken may not enjoy dealing directly with vexatious litigation against him (or he may love the chance to lay a smack down), I would find any kind of lawsuit targeted at Popehat over a free speech issue to be on par with climbing into a hungry tiger's cage and poking it with a stick. While wearing a vest made out of juicy, dripping, raw steak.

    Steaks made from tiny, tiny ponies.

  50. Ken, I deeply appreciate your assistance in this matter. Throughout my 15 months covering this story, I have deliberately avoided resorting to either civil lawsuits or criminal complaints to defend myself against the relentless harassment I've endured. All I have sought is to continue telling this story, which I believe is both important and interesting.

    It is important to understand that this is not a story about Brett Kimberlin's targets. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is of Aaron Walker, et al. This is a story about Brett Kimberlin, who could have been sentenced to 230 years in prison when he was convicted in 1981. Prosecutors were shocked when the judge sentenced Kimberlin to only 50 years. He eventually served only 17 years which — in view of all the circumstances — could be seen as an injustice itself.

    That this dangerous criminal should have then deceived people into making him a progressive celebrity . . . words fail.

  51. Caleb says:

    Recent law school grad in NoVa. Recently took my bar exams, expect to hear back in October. But I'm familiar with MD civil law and have time to spare. Let me know if I can help.

  52. SKF says:

    If help with legal research from a 3L is wanted, I'm willing to help (although I'm in MN not MD).

  53. Sami says:

    Ew. I feel kind of like I got something gross and slimy on me just reading that.

    I really don't understand people who become supporters of "people" like Kimberlin. I mean, yes, he's claiming progressive causes, but… he could make a special statement saying, "By the way, also, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a creepy misogynist with terrible policies on basically everything," and it would annoy me because I don't WANT something like him on my side.

    Also, how does he have this much media access in prison? Seriously, I'm all on favour of the fair treatment of prisoners, but someone convicted of violent crime being able to maintain ready access to his Google alerts and also cut an album seems a little excessive.

  54. Sami says:

    Oh, I see, he's been released. Well, that's… dubious.

  55. Fritz says:

    I've been aware of the Kimberlin story for awhile now, though I haven't followed all its twists and turns, and I'm wondering, is there any way to make him stop abusing the legal system? That is, are his abuses legally actionable or just an annoying misuse of the system?

  56. Ollie says:

    There isn't much I can do, I'm just a marine science student with a pet interest in law…. but if there's any defense fund, or anything that needs to be researched, I can help with that.

  57. sorrykb says:

    Marta wrote:

    perhaps there will come a time when the assistance of people like me–bright, able, committed people with time to offer, can help you get where you want to be.

    Popehat's Army!

  58. Graham Martin says:

    I am admitted in Maryland, but my practice is in administrative law. As such, I would be glad to help as attorney of record, but would want to ensure that the defendants get expert counsel in the process. Hit me up if you need me!

  59. Justin says:

    If assistance from a 3L law student in the DC/Montgomery County area would be useful, I'd be happy to help out any way I can.

  60. Rob says:

    Clovis Sangrail • Sep 17, 2013 @12:53 pm
    As a UK citizen, can I respectfully suggest, however, that your legal system is broken?

    Considering the amount of libel tourism that happens in the UK due to a seriously low bar for defamation, isn't this a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? ;)

  61. wgering says:

    @AlphaCentauri: I do primarily practical effects. I've done video work before, but I wouldn't call myself an expert at it.

    Although I may go with @repsac3's suggestion and do a pyro rig that would shoot out geysers of censor-scorching flames for Team Popehat's entrance. "Let's see you chill THAT speech, censorious asshat!"

  62. JW says:

    I'm good for help with the defense fund.

    I want a good and solid fist pump, when the hammer eventually comes down on Kimberlin.

  63. Chris says:

    Although I may go with @repsac3's suggestion and do a pyro rig that would shoot out geysers of censor-scorching flames for Team Popehat's entrance. "Let's see you chill THAT speech, censorious asshat!"

    Can you do a giant flaming taint for them to snort?

  64. Woff1965 says:

    One of the good things about the UK court system is that serial vexatious litigants can be barred from suing people without the courts permission.

    Have to agree that our libel laws are a disgrace though.

  65. En Passant says:

    Woff1965 wrote Sep 17, 2013 @9:41 pm:

    One of the good things about the UK court system is that serial vexatious litigants can be barred from suing people without the courts permission.

    Same is generally true in the USA, but threshold requirements for the honor varies among the states. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 391 et seq. is one example of a statutory definition, and procedural requirements.

  66. I was Anonymous says:

    @sorrykb:

    How many divisions does the Popehat have?

  67. Anony Mouse says:

    I don't understand how this dickbag has any supporters.

    Tribalism trumps all, and the dickbag knows it and knows how to exploit that.

  68. Ampersand says:

    I'm just a cartoonist, but if you ever need a cartoon mocking this asshat, let me know. Also, I'll put something in the legal defense fund jar when it exists.

  69. Luke G says:

    Ampersand, I'm only supposed to see you at Ethics Alarms! You've crossed the streams, dogs sleeping with cats, mass chaos!

    And also: I was in a good mood til I was reminded that Kimberlin existed this morning. Then it got better again when I realized he's going to get beaten again.

  70. RedTonic says:

    If a donor link comes up, count me in. IANAL, but I'm willing to lay down some (filthy progressive accountant!) cash against this prick.

  71. azazel1024 says:

    I am no lawyer, but I did stay at a…

    Actually I live a county over from Montgomery. Any chance of an update down the line of court dates/times? I'd be rather interested to show up to a hearing in the case(s).

    Otherwise, I wish there was something I could do.

    He would be the person everyone would be voting for if they took the T-shirts and bumper stickers "Why vote for the lesser of two evils, vote Cthulu 2016" seriously.

    I am big on free speech. However, I also feel like there comes a point where the crimes you have commited are heinous enough that you should lose a lot of your basic protections. Call me a fascist if you will, but just like convicted felons lose their 2nd ammendment rights and a large number of their other rights are forever curtailed (4th ammendment), I also believe they should have stricter limitations imposed on their 1st ammendment rights.

    Its fine if you want to spew just about anything, including relatively hateful things, so long as you aren't active inciting violence. I may choose not to listen to you or speak against your speech or encourage others to speak against you. You can't clean the slime from under the rocks unless you allow it some daylight to see what you are doing.

    However, I do feel like when you have been convicted of a felony, you have choosen to abuse society by commiting a crime, therefore you should lose some of your ability to say whatever it is you want (IE hateful speech). Sure, that can be a very grey area…but I personally don't care.

  72. Scooby says:

    @azazel1024- I would agree in full if by "felony", you meant things that were felonies at common law a couple hundred years ago. You know, the big ones like robbery and murder and battery- serious crimes causing actual harm to real victims.

    Since so many things are felonies now, I can't even be in favor of losing the right to vote and bear arms for the common felon, much less gagging them.

  73. Sami says:

    Considering the rate at which America imprisons its population, particularly the minority population, I'd argue that losing the right to vote for committing a crime is also rather unjust.

    In Australia, the discussion point is whether criminals should have the right to vote while incarcerated. We take the view that if you've been deemed fit to rejoin society, you should actually get to rejoin society.

  74. Dustin says:

    Not a legal point, but a moral one. Kimberlin has never admitted wrongdoing in his bombings, impersonating the government, or committing perjury. He's never compensated his victims. He's never apologized for the framejob of Aaron Walker.

    Rejoining society is a valuable component of criminal justice. I want all but the most awful criminals to have a good future with investments in our society like a good job and a family. But before they rejoin society they need to be remorseful for their mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, and it's the ones who don't think they were mistakes that you have to watch out for.

    Ken's showing bravery by standing up so prominently against Brett. It's no laughing matter and I will do whatever I can to help. Likely little more than a donation, but still, I admire those who stand up to these thugs.

  75. JAWolf says:

    @radar, for the most part, he keeps himself in poverty. He lives in his mom's basement and is paid minimally through the nonprofits he heads. I suspect that an audit of those nonprofits would show that he uses them for more support than his base salary. But that's just a hunch.

  76. Clovia Sangrail says:

    @Rob
    "Considering the amount of libel tourism that happens in the UK due to a seriously low bar for defamation, isn't this a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? ;)".
    Absolutely! Both black as pitch. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be cleaned up a little.

  77. Pablo says:

    JAWolf, among other things, the nonprofit owns his vehicles, and rents office space in his mother's house. Your hunch is correct.

  78. David C says:

    But before they rejoin society they need to be remorseful for their mistakes.

    I would argue that even THAT is not always needed in every case. But in THIS case, we're talking about a bomber getting out of prison BEFORE serving his entire sentence, right? I think that here, remorse is most certainly needed. Also, failure to compensate his victims if he is able to do so (and legally required to do so) should result in immediate revocation of his parole. I fail to see why that is not automatic.

  79. Joshua says:

    ""For three consecutive summers, 1974 through 1976 [when the child was aged ten through fourteen] …"

    There's an error of some kind there. Someone who was 10 at any time in 1974 couldn't have been more than 13 by the end of 1976 (allowing for a birthday at midyear).

  80. Amber says:

    @azazel1024
    Can you legitimately claim that Sally Harpold chose to abuse society, by purchasing the cold medicine for her husband, and then her daughter?
    CF: http://tribstar.com/local/x46868452/Wabash-Valley-woman-didn-t-realize-second-cold-medicine-purchase-violated-drug-laws or if you would prefer Ken White's reporting http://www.popehat.com/2009/09/28/handcuffed-grandmothers-should-just-shut-up-and-think-of-the-children/

  81. timb says:

    well, we all got to make a living somehow.

    Still, since I'm busy, I wonder what Maryland's false light tort looks like? I imagine their false light tort would require him to prove harm and he would have trouble doing that. For all of Kimberlin's misdeeds, calling him a pedophile is just rank speculation and gossip. With all the things one can call him: destroyer of lives, drug dealer, liar, etc, why one needs to add something unproven is strange.

    Then again, I just read a post of Stacy McCain where he creepily described a woman's nipples over and over again, so "strange" may be a requirement of everyone in this little fracas.

    And, half of them will need legal counsel from the other half. Way to go, Ken!

  82. David C wrote:
    [...]

    >Also, failure to compensate his victims if he is able to do so (and legally required to do so) should result in immediate revocation of his parole
    [end of quote]

    I wouldn't go that far (there may be genuine uncertainty as to how much compensation is appropriate, and whether his effort is adequate), but he certainly should not have standing to sue anybody. If he suffers a genuine *serious* wrong, he can persuade the DA to sue on his behalf, on the understanding that an innocent defendant gets his legal expenses paid, and that perjurious BS is punished by a *long* return to prison.

  83. timb says:

    I firmly believe that Kimberlin could just as easily have achieved the same result with a different crowd of followers on the right, had he chosen to shout "Benghazi!" instead of "Diebold!"

    Does it follow that he might have different enemies, as well? In other words, some of the people who now hate him would overlook his actions? I'm think of Stacy "Emmett Till had it coming" McCain or Ali "give me your credit card" Akbar?

    We will never know

  84. Angstela says:

    I'm somewhat late to the party, but if someone who is very good at reading large amounts of materials (technical or otherwise) and then summarizing and collating them can be of any assistance, just point me in the right direction and let me loose.

  85. Arion Wind says:

    Don't know if I am too late to help, but Maryland (Baltimore) Jurisprudence student (with an Associates in Paralegal Studies) here and willing to help. They just got us a new law library on campus and everything, and I am more than willing to lend a hand with research and writing briefs, if needed.

  86. azazel1024 says:

    @Scooby – Yes, I agree. Sort of the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" dealie. Not all Felonies should qualify for it, but violent ones certainly should and maybe a few others.

  87. Dion starfire says:

    I hope the Popehat shirts (or at least a lapel pin) are available in time for the court appearance. Would be especially delicious if the legal team delivering the legal smackdown to Kimberlin were all wearing them.

  88. Ollie says:

    Here's a thought: Sell the popehat t-shirts to make money for the defense fund. I would buy a shirt in a heartbeat if the profit went to a legal smackdown of a censorious asshat.

  89. Zack says:

    @Timb:
    http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_07_27_archive.html#3755173238238515614

    "Was Emmett Till wrongly murdered? Of course. But thousands of Americans are murdered every year. Being a victim of murder, however, does not qualify one for sainthood."

    Yes, that totally sounds like he's endorsing Emmett Till's murder.

    "He was not merely walking down the street one day, selected at random, and killed simply because he was black. Till in fact was killed in response to his own action, by two men whose interest in him was specific and personal."

    Again: he's not saying that Emmett Till's death was justified, he's just saying that the people killing him had a personal reason for doing so OTHER than race.

    "Till's killers were the husband and brother-in-law of the woman whom Till insulted. It wasn't the Klan. It wasn't a racist mob. It wasn't some evil redneck sheriff. This was a personal crime, rather than a public crime."

    Again: his argument was that the crime itself was similar, essentially, to the stories we see about honor killings in some Muslim families. He's not saying that race didn't play a factor- it certainly emboldened them- but he's saying that they would have committed the same crime if Till had been white.

    I don't AGREE with him on that point, but I do disagree with your misrepresentation of his point. It's frankly a lie to say that he accepted or endorsed Till's death- he disputes the relationship race bears to it, but that is not endorsing his death.

    Again: I'd say he was wrong, and there was a strong racist element in Till's death, but it's not correct to lie about what he said and what he believed.

  90. AlphaCentauri says:

    I have serious problems with laws restricting voting by felons. The same government chosen by election shouldn't have too much latitude in excluding the people it doesn't want to vote, either because it has the authority to charge people with felonies, or because it controls access to the vital records needed for voter identification.

    For census purposes, prisoners are counted in the legislative district where they are incarcerated. Yet they can't vote there. It provides incentive for rural state legislators for promote policies that increase incarceration rates, without the risk of being voted out of office when those policies have negative effects in urban areas.

  91. Dr. Wu says:

    Goodness. A certain individual sounds like a total fucking douchebag.

  92. Delvan says:

    I'd be happy to provide pro bono technical consulting if the cases veer into my area of knowledge.

  93. Michael says:

    How does one establish damage to one's reputation when one's reputation has long been maximally tarnished?

  94. Matthew Cline says:

    How does one establish damage to one's reputation when one's reputation has long been maximally tarnished?

    For anything written about him that falls under libel per se he doesn't have establish damages, since damages are assumed. He'd still has to establish all the other facets (prongs?) of defamation.

  95. TheOtherMatt says:

    This appears to be a tale of a vile person (Kimberlin) suing slightly less vile people (RS McCain et al, and largely by dint of not being convicted bombers and perjurers). Normally I'd just pop up some popcorn and sit back to point and laugh, because I love watching awful people fight each other. It's probably a character defect.

    Just because you don't agree with their political opinions doesn't mean that they are ipsofacto awful people. Conservatives are as a general rule some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

  96. flip says:

    Can someone explain to this IANAL why someone got sentenced for 50 years and then was released after less than 20?

  97. wgering says:

    “I say things a lot of people are afraid to say. Yeah, ‘Teen Dream’ is about fucking a teenage girl. Every guy who’s seen a good-looking teenage girl has thought about it…”

    Kimberlin is taking the mantra of "Think of the Children" and running with it, I see. Probably not in the direction intended by the phrase's progenitors though. Ick.

    It's people like Kimberlin that make me hope I never have a daughter.

  98. wgering says:

    @Chris: That would certainly be the most…interesting build I've done so far.

    And "Pyrotechnic Perineum" would be quite an eye-catcher on a resume…

    If you want to snort it you have to sign a waiver though.

  99. Dustin says:

    If one thinks the difference between a terrorist and a regular blogger, no matter his opinions, is slight, he's either a troll or insane.

    Anyway, that's why we need a freedom of speech. You don't need a freedom of speech to say things that the fascists agree with.

  100. Alan Bleiweiss says:

    I don't care what label people have if they defend this criminal – the guy. by simply liking him or supporting him in any way, they take the position that it's perfectly acceptable to murder innocent humans.

    I mean for cryin out loud – bombs?

    He's disgusting, deplorable and needs to be doing the haldol shuffle so he can't continue to exploit the legal system.

  101. Alan Bleiweiss says:

    oops – that's the Thorazine shuffle. When I get riled up, I get my pharmacology references all twisted…

  102. Black Betty says:

    I think Kimberlin is going for Censorious Asshat two years in a row.

  103. Michael Hiteshew says:

    If Kimberlin got any worse, he's be offered a professorship at NYU or a gig as co-host on MS-NBC.

  104. Robert White says:

    Is this guy doing this from jail or is he out on the street now?

  105. Robert White says:

    @Flip: Probably because we needed the space to house those terrible pot fiends! Plus this guy is _white_ and jail is no place for a white guy in this country… apparently…

  106. Renifer says:

    Kimberlin is obviously a scumbag, but being attracted to a sixteen or even a fourteen year old does not mean one is a pedophile. He will win this case unless they can find evidence of him being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Not that acting out as a ephebophile or a hebephile is any less revolting. Well, actually it is less revolting. If Kimberlin is banging a adult-shaped 16 year old, it is far less revolting than if he is banging a 9 year old. I actually have to ask why he is banging anything other than his own hand after setting off bombs.

  107. According to the Wikipedia article (to which Ken linked, and which hasn't been altered since) the perjury for which Kimberlin was convicted amounted to "No, I have not sold LSD," which was infinitesimally more wicked than "No, I don't know where the escaped slaves are hiding"; so I wouldn't bring it up as evidence of his bad character. Lying to witch-hunters or other evildoers doesn't make you a bad person. (Or a good one, obviously.)

  108. Wow the first amendment guru

  1. September 17, 2013

    […] is in process, and I intend to respond to the suit in a timely manner. Ken White has put up the Popehat Signal; I expect that will generate a great deal of interest in the […]

  2. September 18, 2013

    […] Ken's initiative to help bloggers who are attacked for what they write by putting up the Popehat Signal, a call for lawyers and supporters to back a blogger who has been threatened or sued by what Ken […]

  3. September 26, 2013

    […] The Popehat Signal: Help Fight Evil In Maryland | Popehat […]

  4. October 9, 2013

    […] the whole thing. Last night, while researching my defense against the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit – in which a convicted felon is suing me and four others for $1 million — I was studying the […]

  5. October 11, 2013

    […] Brett Kimberlin’s estranged wife filed those charges on July 29, and I reported the charges she filed. The charges were subsequently dropped, for reasons unclear to me, but Brett Kimberlin has sued me and four others, claiming he is a victim of “malicious prosecution, conspiracy to abuse process, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, har….” […]

  6. October 12, 2013

    […] The Other McCain The Daley Gator The Camp of the Saints Hot Air Dead Citizen's Rights Society Popehat Instapundit Roger Kimball That Mr. G Guy Evi L. Bloggerlady ViralRead Gun Safety Blog Day By Day […]

  7. October 14, 2013

    […] sued, too. That’s right: Link my blog, quote my blog, and you could be added as a defendant in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. […]