Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
Breitbart Unmasked has published an article with Matt Osborne’s byline that states that I committed perjury during the Kimberlin peace order hearing last Friday. The facts debunking that claim have been laid out here and here. There’s one more bit of information that the Gentle Reader should know.
On 29 August, 2013, Breitbart Unmasked published an article with a byline of “Xenophon” titled LEE STRANAHAN AND AARON WALKER SMEAR A TEENAGER’S FAMILY AND TRY TO SNUFF OUT HER CAREER. Osborne has admitted that he used that byline at BU during that period. That article contains the following block quote from Twitter:Given that the “proof” of my alleged perjury was the “fact” that I has sent the “Brett Kimberlin uses news story …” tweet that Lee Stranahan actually sent and given that Osborne included the original proper version in his earlier BU article, it is reasonable to conclude that his erroneous reporting is the result of a reckless disregard for the truth.
I demand retraction of and apology for all false statements published by Breitbart Unmasked concerning me and any matters related to the Kimberlin peace order.
UPDATE—The 29 August, 2013, Breitbart Unmasked article has been taken down from the BU site, but it is available on the Wayback Machine. Additionally, the entire BU site has been routinely backed up offline, and I have the original html code for the post in hand.
I see that Matt Osborne doubled down on his defamatory post over the weekend and tripled down on it yesterday.
I believe that he as made a very unwise choice.
Mrs. Hoge received a couple of interesting emails today. Someone is trying to use her identity to sign up for a Disqus account in order to post comments at Breitbart Unmasked.Mrs. Hoge also received this email related to Bill Schmalfeldt’s new SRN.Of course, she hasn’t tried to comment at BU, and she has no interest in SRN. (She prefers to listen to WYPR out of Baltimore for NPR talk and jazz and WETA-FM from Washington for classical music.)
I can understand why a member of Team Kimberlin would rather have someone else’s identity instead of his own. OTOH, I am not amused by someone trying to steal my wife’s identity.
In what passes for investigative journalism among the incompetent, Bunny Boy of Breitbart Unmasked (No, I won’t link to it.) has written that Paul Lemmen is not ordained because he checked with the Orthodox Church in America, and they aren’t aware of Fr. Paul’s ordination.
There are many varieties of Orthodox communions: Greek, Syrian, Coptic, Russian, and Armenian to name a few. Fr. Lemmen’s ordination was not in one of the Russian communions. Since the OCA is a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church, they aren’t aware of his ordination. They also don’t have any records of the ordinations of my cousin’s husband (who is an Episcopal priest) or of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis).
Witness impeachment is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. A party may impeach a witness by cross-examining the witness about facts which reflect poorly on the witness’s credibility. One does not impeach one’s own witnesses on direct examination—unless, of course, you are The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin. This is from his direct examination of Ali Akbar during the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. trial.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Mr. Akbar, have you ever been convicted of a felony?
MR. AKBAR: Yes.
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, I believe it goes to his honesty.
MR. AKBAR: Going to impeach me?
THE COURT: Well —
MR. OSTRONIC: You called the witness.
THE COURT: What are you impeaching him for? It’s your witness. You’re calling your own witness and impeaching him?
I’m not making this up. TDPK expected to use Ali Akbar’s testimony to get evidence into the record after attempting to impeach him as an unreliable witness. Go figure.
I’ve mentioned in an earlier post that one of the basic rules of examining a witness in court is to never ask a question unless you know what the answer will be. TDPK repeatedly violated that rule.
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m not asking you to give me a mission statement. I’m asking you —
MR. AKBAR: All right. What was the question again?
MR. KIMBERLIN: — a simple question. You know — have you ever raised, through the National Bloggers Club, or Bomber Sues Bloggers, or Rally.org, any money for any purpose to deal with me, my name, or any of these legal issues?
MR. AKBAR: I’d like to answer no, but clarify, if I may. We’ve raised relief funds for bloggers who have lost their jobs, families who have been attacked, families like mine. My mother and my brother have been attacked by your blog, BreitbartUnmasked.com, and —
MR. KIMBERLIN: I object. I object.
MR. AKBAR: — we’ve raised money. We’ve raised relief money.
THE COURT: Well, this is your question. You wanted to know if he raised any money —
MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, but he’s saying it’s my blog. I didn’t have a blog.
MR. AKBAR: Breitbartunmasked.com.
THE COURT: You can’t — if you think you’re not going to like the answer, don’t ask the question. You asked him if he’d raised the money —
MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, I’m just saying, you know, he’s making a statement that’s false.
Accuse the accuser.
So TDPK has said that Bretbart Unmasked isn’t his blog. We’ll see about that.
Bunny Boy has a headline story over at Breitbart Unmasked about a young criminal being caught with IEDs. (No, I won’t link to it.)
Apparently, Brett Kimberlin was unavailable for comment.