Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

It’s hard to choose from among so many, but this may be my favorite of the whoppers that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has included in his pleadings filed in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness. The “reporter” he mentions is Bill Schmalfeldt.ECF 49-3The Gentle Reader who has been following the Cabin Boy’s™ antics for the past year or so may wonder if TDPK hasn’t ascribed obsessive and bizarre conduct to the wrong person. It’s the “reporter” who is subject to a peace order, not me. It’s the “reporter” who violated the order over 400 time in less than a month.

For the record—I was not forced to participate in mediation with the Cabin Boy™, but as a result of the mediation, I agreed to ask the State’s Attorney’s Office to drop the charges in exchange for Schmalfeldt’s agreeing to abide by the peace order and drop his appeal of the extension. He has reneged. I didn’t.

Why, I wonder, did TDPK feel threatened by my efforts to see the peace order enforced? Hmmmm. That might be an interesting question for a deposition, if the RICO Madness goes that far.

 

84 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


  1. one wonders if that may be one of the reasons Twinkie has been going off his nut lately, to distract from BK’s horrible court progess , or lack of…

    O.o


  2. I’m not sure it sounds so much like he’s feeling threatened by you trying to enforce the peace order, as it is him wanting to make you look bad. I mean if you treat poor, indigent, disabled Bill that way, what wouldn’t you do?

    And since they both seem to view any problem they have ever had as someone else’s fault, it looks like they are just reinforcing each other’s delusional seeming behaviour.


    • The whole peace order story from CBBS is transparently stupid to any who care to think for a minute about it. You don’t even need to know the background history, you can use really basic logic to get a pretty good idea of what is most likely to be going on:

      CBBS went almost his entire life without ever needing to send harassing emails, phone calls, etc. to Hoge and everything was completely fine back then. Then he harassed for a little while and was told to stop… he could just comply and everything would be fine like before. Roughly 99.99% of all the people on the planet could comply with the order with no impairment to any single solitary legal activity. CBBS is most definitely a part of that 99.99%. Why on earth would he not be? It’s quite an absurd argument that the order is any real imposition.

      On that note: It says something about the credibility of Karoli Kuns, that she smeared Hoge to her readers, and after all this time has walked away from the matter without informing her readers that the smear was based on a falsehood.

      It was also not good for credibility to have believed the story in the first place, but failing to correct the record is a serious moral failing, and the only right thing to do now is for her to “take her lumps” and just correct it, even if it might make her look bad or fail to elicit forgiveness from those wronged.


  3. So now there’s a valid reason to summon the “reporter” as a witness, and introduce the existence of the Peace Order, and all facts relating to it into the official record of the RICO case. Well done Brain, in exposing your Pinky to more public scrutiny.


  4. I am really late to this party. I spent the better part of today going back in time looking at back posts and getting a handle on the whole story. The skeptic in me doesn’t want to believe you, Mr. Hoge.

    In fact, my knee jerk reactions was you, Mr. Hoge, was a bully and an idiot.

    But i ignored my knee jerk reaction. I read two years of your blog. I followed links to other blogs. I did my best to follow the discombobulated past of a specific cabin boy, to mixed results.

    Mr., Hoge, I think you are a good honest man. I think you are in a rotten place. I believe that in year or so, you won’t be in a bad place. I came to your site wanting to hate and condemn you, and prove you wrong as a thinking human being. After days of reading, I can’t be that guy. My preconceived ideals are wrong.

    I really wanted CB to be right. He isn’t. They say confession is good. I’m confessing. I wanted to hate and despise you, Mr. Hoge. Instead, I respect you. My respect isn’t just for the Cabin Boy, it is for reading everything you’ve written for damn near two years. In the past couple of weeks, you’ve given me no end of laughs and joy.

    Bravo sir. Keep up the most epic fight.


    • Welcome Michael, I can’t speak for any others, but I found this very interesting even if I’m not always sure what you’re telling us. I hope you can give us more insight, especially by answering these two questions:

      1. How did it come about that you “came to [this] site wanting to hate and condemn [Hoge]”?
      2. Are there any special key facts, events, or arguments that were the most crucial in changing your understanding?

      I hope you can see that these questions are aimed at learning what is the best way to correct the record.

      On a side note, the trouble with Brett Kimberlin is much more centrally important. After all, CBBS’s attacks against Hoge began in an attempt to defend some of Kimberlin’s indefensible behavior. Plainly, the criminality of Brett Kimberlin is much more prolific and damaging than CBBS’s, even if you only count events since Kimberlin’s latest release from prison.


      • It was not the Kimberlin issue that brought me here. I got a note from a author friend about the “attacks” on CBBS’s books being DCMA’d. About three or four weeks ago, there was some serious alarm in my SciFi writers group that “right wing nut jobs are attacking free speech.” All sorts of ideas were played about the group, imagining that if we wrote a book that had “bad thoughts” some “nut case” would DCMA it and get it off the shelves. Thinking back, it may have been the peace order that initially caused alarm. But the DCMA was, to the group, the truly scary bit.

        Obviously, the information was more panic than fact.

        Initially, when as one of the few conservatives in the group I went to get more information, I happened on CBBS information first. While I found his writing difficult to read, that was my initial exposure.

        From CBBS, and just his website I might add, I initially found “more” information at Aaron’s site. Some fact checking later, I found Aaron’s situation truly horrible, and my trust in CBBS went down fairly fast. Of course, now I’m speaking of the Kimberlin matter, which I was completely unaware of.

        Reading Aaron’s background on Kimberlin made me somewhat interested in what was happening in the case. Of course Aaron linked here. I came here and found, initially through comments, more about Kimberlin but also one of the “evil right wing nut jobs” that DCMA’d an book.

        Interesting side note, and one of the things I’ve come to love about both Hoge and this website is the culture here. It was a “are you pondering” post, in which I had no reason to think would generate comments that went nuts with them. Clearly, Hoge’s dry wit was at work, and his regular readers caught it faster than me. It was then that I learned that sometimes the important information didn’t happen in Hoge’s writings as much as his writings PLUS his commenters. So thanks to figuring that out, I saw my first CBBS twitter meltdown. In real time. That’s eyeopening.

        Anyway, at this point I was having doubts about CBBS already, and wanting to believe my literary friends… but the doubt was there. Seeing the meltdown, I was convinced something more was going on. So I read every post on Hogewash concerning CBBS going back to at least Jan 2013. Maybe farther, I’m not sure.

        That, of course, sent me to some other sites. Where I learned of other things about CBBS. Many of them quite disturbing. I wouldn’t know about McCain, Popehat and a few other sites that I now check in daily at.

        That’s a long explanation of how I came here. As to key arguments that changed my mind…

        Let me paraphrase. The best way to discredit CBBS is to quote CBBS. Needless to say, I went back to my SciFi group with some key CBBS tweets I’d gathered. While some still want to believe that “the right” will stop at “nothing” to prevent “wrongful thinking” everyone at least recognizes now that CBBS is not the “Free Speech Hero” they thought he was. They even, some grudgingly, agree that the move to purchase the book rights was brilliant, smart and absolutely a first amendment issue that needed to be done. And I believe that happened AFTER I started looking into this. I may be wrong on that.

        As for me, I’m now “addicted.” And spoiled. Three weeks or so ago, Kimberlin and CBBS where not on my radar. I “caught up” with the whole story in that time frame. Now that I’m caught up, the slow plodding pace of the legal world isn’t entertaining. I have to remind myself that my three week stint represents months and years of the issue at hand. And that many of you have been watching (and not a few of you actively participating) for that entire time. I now, just as eagerly as many of you, wait in anticipation of a juicy TK Post of the Day.

        I’d add that when it comes to DCMA, there is a general feeling among sparsely published authors that DCMA is a tool of BigCorp to keep the little man down. Or a tool of copyright trolls. I kinda knew better as a photographer that it was also a fairly powerful tool for the little guy, but the stigma is out there. If any record needs to be corrected, it is the misconception of DCMA as a tool only in BigCorp’s quiver. The use of DCMA put “Hoge et al” in an interesting light to the uninformed. Does that make sense?


      • Applause! Very well done, Michael, thank you. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain so well.

        Three points I’d like to add:

        1. Though most here are not, as far as I’ve noticed, there are a few dems and libs who post here, and who are welcomed here by at least most, but probably by all.

        2. Many here agree that SchmalFOOL really doesn’t have a political ideology. That was put best by Popehat, imo:

        “…Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t have principles. Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t have values. Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t have beliefs. Bill Schmalfeldt has enemies, and then nothing, a black and dank and empty void of sullenness…”

        http://www.popehat.com/2013/08/06/true-threats-true-incitement-or-truly-crazy-the-rhetoric-of-deranged-cyberstalker-bill-schmalfeldt/#more-19332

        In case you haven’t read that post yet, be sure to note SchmalFAIL’s comments.

        3. You may enjoy reading the Prenda saga at Popehat, among others. Just use the search box on the right side of the window, a little below the Amazon search box. Caution: Make sure you have some time to spend on it before you start. It’s likely you’ll want to finish before you stop reading the various posts spanning years.

        Also, you may want to search Popehat for The Oatmeal. Another doozy, but often quite funny. And I could go on and on. But as you read at Popehat, you’ll catch on to some of the ongoing, or long-lasting cases that were followed.

        Again, thanks so much for explaining.

        WELCOME!


      • Frankly, given the history of Arthur C. Clarke, I don’t really expect to find much sympathy for the case against Brett Kimberlin among the science-fiction crowd.

        Nor, would I expect much sympathy from the Hollywood crowd given their support for Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.


    • Quite the opposite, as you found out.

      Lickspittles and Hogeists support free speech; like Ken White at Popehat, the general belief is that the solution to speech that you disagree with is more speech.

      Team Kimberlin, OTOH, is all about suppressing the speech of the other side, by any means necessary.

      “It is impossible to understand the politics of the Left without grasping that it is all about deniable intimidation.” — http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/12/30/the-crusade-of-innocents/ , via Instapundit.


      • I think it has less to do with the Left and more to do with the Lunacy.

        Yup. While the crowd here does lean conservative, I’ve yet to see anything anyone sane would consider right wing extremism. Lunatics, OTOH….


  5. There is no suit, and there is no suit, I just don’t believe him at all, this thinking that the courts are a free one way process for what bothers you is childish – almost as childish as doxing babies, no that’s criminal and so is using the courts


  6. One of the things Bill does that is especially heinous is his constant referring to AW as an disgraced fired attorney or variations on that. As someone who is somewhat familiar with employment law and who worked at a boutique law firm that specialized in bar complaint, and partnership agreements, mediations between lawyers (what fun) here is an education for you Bill – the following is strictly my opinion – but since you hve published the alleged letter firing AW I can give my opinion of it:

    Points
    No documented previous discipline was referred to in any reasonable depth

    The overwrought commentary about the state of his office provided no proof, legal files are messy, filing is never kept up its too labor intensive

    The comments about his work product are confidential and most certainly prohibited to be made public – this is in many states a permanent loss of lic or for an extended period of time suspension from the bar, also no of this was documented and was certainly self serving

    The firing of his wife was without cause and was due to her marital status

    The claims he was blogging on company time were again unfounded and posts have been scheduled to be published since the early days of word press, also much of the material AW participated in was work related matters of law, it was like answering the phone from an opposing attorney disputing a matter of law – that’s what lawyers do

    The firing was clearly political, they didn’t like what he did so they fired him then backward justified it – they are not the first firm to do this nor the last, their big mistake was publishing a scathing letter and firing his wife.

    But as an investigative journalist you knew all this right Bill? I didn’t approve of that silly site it, what he did, it might have put my family, my friends in grave danger and very real threat of loss of life, and we discussed it at length at another blog but guess what = its AW’s F4$%ing right to say and do what he wants without getting fired for it, it wasn’t about his employment, it wasn’t in his capacity in his job, he joked about other things, never ever bad mouthing the organization he worked for. Did he mean to put my life in danger, no, was it his fault that others in other places do the things they do? Hell NO!!! But none of this was on BK or your minds – you wanted to punish AW for confronting your bullying.


    • EPWJ – I, too, have been involved in investigating employment issues. The two things that jumped out at me, from past experience (and made me smell a rat), were: (1) the firing of his wife, and (2) the tone and quality of that email that BS loves to post to support his arguments. Anyone with a modicum of experience in the area of labor and employment issues would look at that email as something that helped Aaron Walker, not his employer.


    • Here we have another person, a lawyer no less, who seems to believe that the First Amendment binds private individuals and businesses. Another person who believes that as an employer I shouldn’t be able to fire whom I choose, when I choose, and why I choose. (I am well aware that the state has already stuck its great fat paws into that tent, but people who believe in small government believe it should not have.) Another person who believes that my freedom to associate is trumped by another person’s freedom to speak.

      Because you are a lawyer, would you please cite the statute or case law that gives AW a legal right to his job when his employer no longer wishes to employ him. (Obviously, if AW’s employer violated an employment contract, then what does and should control are the actual terms of that contract, and I do not, and presume you do not, know what those terms are.) Given that AW is a graduate of Yale Law and so presumably a quite knowledgeable attorney with some time on his hands, how has he fared in legally vindicating his purported right to force his employer to pay AW money against the employer’s will. I am not talking about his purported rights against Brett Kimberlin: those did not even survive a motion to dismiss (a fact that AW sensibly does not stress).


      • I think you’re talking to EPWJ, but what the heck.

        “Given that AW is a graduate of Yale Law and so presumably a quite knowledgeable attorney with some time on his hands, how has he fared in legally vindicating his purported right to force his employer to pay AW money against the employer’s will.” If he and his WIFE, who did not have the blog, vindicated their rights, the terms are usually confidential, and no one can talk about them.

        “Here we have another person, a lawyer no less, who seems to believe that the First Amendment binds private individuals and businesses.” In some cases they do, by law, state, federal, or both. In some instances, cities have adopted additional legislation.

        “Because you are a lawyer, would you please cite the statute or case law that gives AW a legal right to his job when his employer no longer wishes to employ him.” Unless one is currently practicing full time in this area, that would take at least a week’s worth of work. At least.


      • AW chose not to pursue any action despite being encouraged by others to do so. Like most of us here, he appears to also believe in at-will-employment. I didn’t see anyone here suggest anything different. But I haven’t read the entire thread yet, so maybe I will. 🙂


    • I had to come back with my cellphone to thumbs up your post again, EPWJ. I may have to hit it again with the other computers too. Wow. Great post.

      Hit yours a second time too, A Reader. 🙂


  7. Reader

    Whatever they may have accomplished legally against the employer, they have not done so on the basis of the First Amendment or AW’s purported “F4$%ing right to say and do as they want”.without consequences to employment. As for your comment about the state’s intervention into the employer/employee relationship, I believe I acknowledged the existence of such laws in my comment. I disapprove of them as being an unwarranted interference in a person’s right to freedom of association. That is a political argument, not a legal one, and not rebutted by a whole slew of statutes or ordinances. As for your comment that it might take some time for a lawyer to figure out whether what he wrote about the legal issue was nonsense or truth, perhaps the lawyer should have spent that time doing a modicum of research, particularly after representing that the writer had indeed specialized in area of law involved. The idea that an employee can say or do anything at all without consequence to employment is arrant nonsense: let’s see a citation that comes close to saying any such thing. Surely an expert should pretty quickly be able to come up with some kind of citation, even one that is not definitive.

    Now let’s go to the moral merits.of the employer’s decisions. Obviously this is extremely fact specific, and we know very few of the facts. So let’s just go with what we do know. AW ran a blog that almost certainly gave offense to many Muslims, and we know what too frequently happens in that case. He also aroused the attention of a man convicted of setting off bombs that injured entirely innocent people. Now as a business man, I would feel a reasonable concern about the safety of myself, the rest of my employees, and my customers if someone (or anyone closely associated with that someone) who has provoked the ire of people known or adjudicated to engage in random and frequently lethal violence was in my employ. What is being implied is that I must put myself, my employees, and my customers at risk of harm, potentially risk of death, for someone else’s speech. Based on Brett Kimberlin’s record and the record of the Muslim community, it is not unreasonable for an employer to conclude that AW had put the employer’s business, employees, and customers at risk.


    • Maybe I missed it, but I’m not seeing the argument you’re refuting, JeffM. I read the initial post as more of a fisking of the letter.

      Mrs. AW was fired without cause other than her marital status. She is married to a person who caught the attention of dangerous people. The firing wasn’t because of any act or failure to act on her part. But I’m not seeing anyone suggest the company isn’t free to do just that, in particular, I’ve never seen AW suggest it.


      • Jane

        I was, as Reader deduced, responding to the post by EPWJ at 10:59 today. In that post, he announced his expertise in employment law and stated: “but guess what = its AW’s F4$%ing right to say and do what he wants without getting fired for it, it wasn’t about his employment, it wasn’t in his capacity in his job,” In other words, EPJW was making an assertion about what the law currently is. Now of course the law may be such an ass that it requires employers to put their employees and customers at risk of being bombed by fanatics or criminals: I do not put any level of stupidity beyond the capacity of legislators. It seems, however, rather unlikely that such stupidity is widespread. I challenged EPJW in his self-proclaimed capacity as an expert to show that he correctly described the law.

        But I was also commenting on something else that disturbs me on many conservative blogs. Too many people who assert that they are in favor of small government are very quick to insist on government intervention whenever it suits their immediate needs. We see this for example in people who insist that their right to bear arms trumps the rights of property owners to control their own property. Back when I had small children, who played with their friends in my woods, I also had to deal with people hunting in MY woods despite its being posted. When I confronted one such clown, he pointed his rifle at me and babbled about the Second Amendment. Quite frankly, if I had had a gun with me that day, I’d have shot that loudmouth fool. Today when I no longer have small children, I give permission to bow hunters to use my land if they come to the door and ask politely, but I still do not give permission to people to use rifles to hunt my land, no matter how polite they are. See: it is MY land, and their right to bear arms does not extend to MY land.


      • I absolutely DESPISE Windows 8. (But sadly can’t afford a Mac.) I mean I have a deep, abiding, almost SchmalFOOLian loathing for it. I have tried to reply to your post twice now, JeffM, with Windows 8 deciding, apparently, I didn’t do it correctly (or more likely that it was too long), so it would just take me to another page for no particular reason. Arrrrghhhh.

        Back now from my 2nd laptop-preserving break from the awful Windows 8. Here’s hoping 3rd time’s the charm, although I won’t try to recreate the original post. That never works for me. You’ll just have to trust me that it was ever so much better than what follows. 🙂

        My main point is that perhaps I’m projecting a bit of my own feelings about how reprehensibly AW and his wife were treated by his former employer onto EPWJ’s post, but I still don’t see what you saw there. I read it as an opinion about Right v. Wrong, not as an assertion of legal fact (particularly as there was no citation), and, as I mentioned (if that bit wasn’t in one of the attempted posts that 8 ate), a fisking of the awful letter.

        From what I’ve read of, from, and about AW, he’s pretty well in line with your views about intervention and rights. If I’m understanding you correctly, so am I. Just as employers have a right to at-will firing in many cases, we all have a right to think the employer behaved abominably, and to disagree with their actions.

        I uninstalled FireFox from all of our computers and forbid its use in our home. I have suggested and even strongly suggested that others do the same, depending on my relationship with them. FireFox had the legal right to fire their employee, but I have a right to think it was terrible and an attack on free speech.

        If we all have to self-censor or risk losing our jobs if we disagree with a loud (imo) minority, then what good is our first amendment? I don’t know how long AW or his wife worked for their former employer, but IIRC, the FireFox employee had spent much of his career developing that company.

        The employer had a right to refuse to risk the safety of their other employees and their business. But doesn’t that make pretty much anyone an employee only at the will of TDPK?

        There’s a reason SchmalFAIL has tried repeatedly to do the same thing – it worked for TDPK, at least to the degree of punishing his enemy, though not in shutting him up.

        With hindsight it appears that TDPK was unable to interest the religious community to avenge him. We can assume he tried, because of the threats to BlogBash and the tiny terrorist’s silly costume.

        The brothers with the flipping houses show recently canceled before airing, FireFox, AW, where does this end?

        There are always consequences to free speech; some good, some not, some neutral. But again, I ask, what good is a right to free speech if by speaking one is at serious risk of ending their career, being unable to provide for their family?

        I don’t expect you to have a solution. But I also don’t expect EPWJ to have one either. It’s not an easy problem with a clear answer. One thing I think we can agree on, though, is that we don’t need government involved in figuring it out.


    • If they wanted to fire AW, fine. But that letter…I think that letter was impolitic, at best, and likely to cause them harm.

      Also, it was under seal, and shouldn’t have been published.


      • Dianna

        Actually, I do not much care whether the letter was impolitic because I suspect it was disingenuous at best and perhaps untruthful. So it was far worse than impolitic. However, if it was a private letter that became relevant to a court case and was filed under seal, then of course it was wrong for anyone to have made it public. That wrong is probably not attributable to the employer. I’ll give you three guesses as to the probable culprit.

        Jane

        I posted a comment later that agreed that AW and his wife were treated badly and recognized that perhaps EPJW was really making a moral rather than a legal point. Furthermore, if his point was that AW had been defamed, I do believe that the state has a duty to make the victims of provable defamation financially whole if asked to do so. I am not so suspicious of government as to deny it the power to prevent consequence-free defamation.

        I also recognize the gravity of the dilemma that you articulated. The only solution that I see is that people who try to harm economically those with whom they disagree politically should be given multiple tastes of their own medicine. As soon as it happens to enough liberals, we shall all be told how awful such behavior is.


  8. I presume Aaron and his spouse had at-will employment. Barring some contracts where rights are negotiated away, employees are not slaves and can quit when they please in Virginia; an employer can sever your employment whenever and whyever he feels like, so long as it is not in violation of public policy (e.g., you won’t do something illegal) or resulting from membership in a protected class.

    It’s very clear that but-for BK targeting Aaron and his office with creepy calls, Aaron and his wife would not have lost their jobs. BK actually takes responsibility for the “achievement” of getting Aaron fired. BK says it’s because he exposed Aaron’s work on a website that BK believes is somehow reprehensible. The truth is no one in the office objected particularly to drawings of Mohammed. They would have been scared of crazy fanatics targeting the whole office for the actions of one person who didn’t roll over and play sharia.
    People are afraid of retaliation from muslim religious fanatics who go apeshit over anyone who doesn’t pretend their religion must be tip-toed around. They are also afraid of BK, who is a prison convict bomber who maybe likes other bombers and will take care to whip up as much frenzy as he can to “get” his enemies. And Aaron was his enemy because he gave Seth Allen some free advice about BK’s persecutory lawsuit. BK took care to imply that the office would be targeted. It’s all well and good for the employer to stand up for free speech but obviously most business aren’t in the business of standing for ideals. They are for making money and going about their business. They blamed Aaron for participating in an activity that resulted in creepy calls and scared employees. The letter was very plainly ass-covering for the firm. Maybe they just didn’t like him and were glad for an excuse, but it’s pretty obvious they just wanted to get rid of him because DON”T YOU KNOW ANY BETTER MUSLIMS WILL KILL YOU.


    • Yes, exactly, Onlooker.

      And other bombs can kill, like those set off in Speedway, Indiana by Brett Kimberlin of Justice Through Music Project (JTMP) and Velvet Revolution (VR).


      • Mr. BK trades on the fear, pain and suffering he has caused. He loves to scare people with it.


    • Brett Kimberlin directly acted, and his actions brought harm to Aaron but its Aaron’s fault.

      That’s the mentality of a complete sociopath.


  9. Jeff,

    1. ;awyers, especially those in DS are prohibited from publically speculating about the abilities of another attorney, there is a nuanced difference between opposing counsel and those working together in a firm. The firing was IMO not only actionable but crossed close to a criminal act. You dont have the right to do anything to employees, regardless of RTW status. Here they took an entirely unverified account of a nonexistent threat in Va, i was 90 miles from IRAN blogging w/ AW and nothing happened to me, as a reason for a wrongful job action. All they had to do was eliminate the position, but they wanted revenge, to hurt and to injure a man who has lead an exemplenary life


    • I am still waiting for any citation at all to the proposition that there is a legal right that means “its AW’s F4$%ing right to say and do what he wants without getting fired for it, it wasn’t about his employment, it wasn’t in his capacity in his job.” By the way, what is the felony you are implying AW’s employer committed?

      Fundamentally, however, you and I disagree: I do, and you don’t, believe that the law ought to give the person obliged to pay money the right to determine to whom that obligation extends. You would use the state to coerce others into supporting financially AW’s right to speak and would use the state to coerce others to associate with someone they do not wish to associate with. I do not see those as legitimate tasks of the state.

      By the way, I do not think that I ever said that an employer could do “anything” to an employee: an employer may not rob an employee or assault an employee. If I ever said otherwise, then I mis-spoke and admit that that is, and should be prohibited, by law. Nor did I say that under current law employers are not constrained in when they can terminate employment: I am quite familiar with the hoops that the law can make you jump through before terminating someone. I am saying, however, that current law permits termination of employment under many circumstances. Furthermore, I am saying that employers have and should have both a right and a duty to protect their business, themselves, their employees, and their customers from financial or physical harm. The fact that you personally do not believe that provoking Muslim fanatics or convicted bombers represents a risk of retaliation is opinion that is not well supported by the record. I assure you that if AW was continued in employment and a bombing had occurred at his place of employment, the lawyers would have been lining up to sue the employer for negligence. Moreover, the harm need not be physical: a business need not risk a boycott over the public activities of a senior employee.

      I get that you are a friend of AW’s and believe that he and his family have suffered because of political speech. In a perfect society, that would not happen, but, unlike progressives, I do not believe that any human society can be perfected. I also can understand the emotion that wishes AW’s employer had been more courageous. But AW’s lawyer had not volunteered to be put at risk, and I see no reason, especially without knowledge of many other potentially relevant facts, to conclude that the employer, employees, and visitors to the place of employment must be dragooned to stand in support of AW..


      • Of course they shouldn’t. BK is ultimately to blame though. If they took BK’s veiled threats too seriously, he took great care that they did. He succeeded in harassing the workplace and alarming the people who worked there.

        I thought their weakness, panic and disingenuous handling of the situation was reprehensible, but the former is human and the cya part unfortunately is, too….but it’s that part that can go legally wrong, mainly in trying to turn an ordinary firing into a firing for misconduct – trying to cheat someone out of employment benefits or prevent them competing by damaging their reputation, something like that.


      • Jeff , I’m waiting for you to cite where its okay for an employer to fire someone and his wife and publically humiliate them all on the word of a convicted bomber, a serial felon, sure they had the right to fire except where the law and the employment contracts and state and local law says otherwise, which they do, in spades, any reasonable attorney is going to tell any firm that you don’t discuss the reasons for letting someone go, an employer has all the control and the state realizes that – has for decades – I cant begin to cite the volumes of code and case laws where you are totally and completely wrong.


  10. In virginia you can fire someone for a completely irrational reason. It’s not necessarily good for business to do so, and lying about OTHER things being to blame can rise to the level of a professional ethics or legal wrong, whethee criminal and or civil (eg. reputational damage or defamation, etc) – especially if it’s to create a “for cause” firing (to cheat people out of leave compensation or unemployment benefits) when the employee has engaged in no significant workplace misconduct. If the employer is trying to cover his ass to forestall claims of wrongful termination, as this one was, he will be as harsh as he can. It may well be they didn’t like him and wanted to fire him and never thought of a way before – or never gave it much thought until they were scared by Brett Kimberlin. But it’s very clear they were really upset that Aaron had made the firm a target of creepy calls
    and promised, scary results – that apparently would go away if Aaron lost his job.


    • Um, uh, I meant to post exactly this, along with Onlooker’s other posts on this topic. And, um, uh, yeah, the posts that 8 ate were almost exactly like this. Ok, ok, ok, they would have been exactly like these, or as good, if I could have phrased it as well as Onlooker’s posts. 🙂


  11. BKs MO repeated with the Blogbash venue. Of course, he didn’t have that much luck summoning protestors, and had to wrap his own stupid head in hipster Kafiyeh.


  12. Onlooker

    I agree with you that, based on what we know, which is virtually nothing, AW’s employer at least appeared to over-react. They may have felt compelled to justify their actions, but it appears that their justification was not truthful. If for example AW had in fact a messy office and such messiness had previously been disclosed as an offense potentially punishable by termination, I am relatively confident that the messiness had been noted previously and essentially waived. But previous waiver does not necessarily require future waiver.

    I also completely agree that Kimberlin’s actions in taking steps to terminate the employment of people with whom he had a political disagreement were morally reprehensible. The courts, however, seem to have decided that his actions were not even facially tortious. It is difficult for me to agree that if the initiator has no civil liability, then the innocent party caught in the middle is a criminal. EPJW’s stance is the typical prog stance: I disagree with what you did or how you did it, and therefore you are a criminal who should be jailed or at least fined.


    • Depending on what a lawyer practices, he or she may spend quite a bit of time on a case that raises peripheral but relevant issues, like employment law. That is very different from practicing it exclusively, full time, but it does give you a broad base of knowledge. As I explained before, that broad base of knowledge is nuanced and varies widely from state to state, and even between cities in the same states. Your demands for legal citations and analysis – in the comment section of a blog – come across as rather imperious, and you may not mean it that way, but they do. Lawyers get paid to research, document and explain what you are asking for here.

      Don’t shoot the messenger because you may have legitimate grievances over the way things stand now. In a nutshell, some of the legislation that governs this area of law (and you can argue whether it is truly constitutional or not) are civil rights laws and, believe it or not, the Constitution itself. The federal government uses its authority under the interstate commerce clause to govern some behavior. In other cases, business licenses, which are granted by states, are used to govern behavior. Historically, this occurred in the 1960s as a means to eliminate racial discrimination.

      Again, this is the way the law is today, and there are literally volumes of cases and statutes on point.


      • Thanks for explaining, A Reader.

        Um, and this too, yeah, this was also in the posts that 8 ate. 😉


    • Jeff, educate yourself on the facts first, his employer didn’t fire him an outside firm did and had nothing but nothing to do with AW, firing his wife – WHICH they admitted was wrong. Lawyers, employers are greatly cautioned to give reasons for terminations – remember the employee has no recourse, they depend on the previous employer’s not bad mouthing them to get a job, its long been established that giving negative reasons is a big loser.


  13. “Michael” said waaaay too much and knew toooo much in his explanation.
    I have many emails and DM’s from people claiming that they “happened upon my situation” this way and that way, and then used all types of examples and distractions.
    Michael seems very crafty. Just my two cents.


    • One must always be aware that agents provocateur move among us; I, myself, would ask none of you to trust me on anything I have said, as I post semi-anonymously.

      Let my words stand alone.


    • The Sci-Fi angle has a ring of truth. That community is under a lot of internal pressure and strife right now. The claim of false DCMA attacks can be a clarion. If Michael is a conservative in that community; it’s almost as hazardous as being conservative in Hollywood. You can still work, but you’re not running with the “in” crowd.


    • I wonder if our host would confirm that he has ‘Michael hits’ in the last 2 weeks on all his old blogs going back for two years. Seems like a lot of investigative reading by someone wanting to confirm dcma take down complaints. Just asking.


    • I like your blog and I don’t agree that Michael looks suspicious.

      By the way if some one ever asked me to link them to background information about NR I would probably end up choosing to link to a couple posts on your blog since it’s a well organized source of information. It is even conceivable that a reason NR’s socks are so darn interested in you is that you already did a pretty good job of explaining some facts, which would otherwise be tough to dig up, in an easier to understand way.


      • Thanks, and at first glance it seems(ed) very suspicious. Only time will tell.
        When you get bit and burned as much as I have, (or left “holding the bag” as Neal says, (LOL) I tend to be very suspicious)
        Point taken tho BKWatch


  14. Interesteing conversation.

    Knowns: AW ran a blog aimed at pointing out the intolerant nature of radical islamists. (Apparently BK is sympathetic to the cause of radical islam because), BK made a point of contacting Mr. & Mrs. AWs employers with commentary regarding the blog and the nature of radical islam. The timing of both terminations is remarkably close to the contact by BK. AW was unsuccessful at suing BK for tortous interference with business etc., but he did spell out his case quite well. The publication of the termination memo is a violation of personnel privacy policies and probably statutes.

    Known unknowns: The separation clauses in AW’s contract with his former employer. Ditto his wife. AW’s previous performance history etc. (no offense Aaron, I take you at your word). The details of any efforts by Mr. or Mrs. W. to seek recompence from their employers OR NOT!

    Conclusions: BK did with malice endeavor to disturb the peace of the employers well being. The employers chose the expedient, albeit cowardly, route and severed their relationships. AW’s employer did provide a non-BK related reason for his termination. The publication of the termination memo while probably illegal was done for the explicit defamation of AW.

    EPJW, I think Jeff is correct that the absolutism of the First Amendment reference is incorrect. However, the moral impetus is commendable. It’s probably not illegal that AW got fired, but it sure is chicken [redacted].

    JeffM, Hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdia don’t help. Ease up. If you make it a screaming match then your arguments are lost in the noise. I for one will stop reading someone who insists that their challenges be answered, and will not balance their own argument with measured responses.

    Climbs down off soap box. Walks away.


    • Jeff wasnt saying that he was being a troll, its easy to troll, especially when you are factless, clueless, you are allowed to have conversations, blog, go to temple, go to mass, go to soccer, without getting fired by your employer, especially based on the word of a convicted perjurer, then humiliated, then have your wife fired then humiliated, etc etc, I would tell anyone here if they don’t see the difference, the BK has won, and won handily, you all might as well hit the donate button at billy’s place, and testify against the people owning and running this blog and don’t let the blog door hit you in the split personality

      geezus


  15. I’m disgusted.

    You people call yourselves “Lickspittles”?

    Here you are having an intense disagreement and not one libel, harassment, or butthurt. Why, it’s like you want people to see how adults actually disagree!

    Have you no shame?

    Now, you have until 9 PM tonite, and if I don’t see some “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, well, let’s just say I have a LOT of clocks….

    Govern yourselves accordionly.


  16. Gus

    I do not think I engaged in hyperbole. Some rather extreme statements were made: that employers have no rights to terminate anyone except for things that are directly attributable to their performance and that a particular employer may have engaged in criminal acts. These rather extreme statements were made by someone who implied possession of special knowledge in employment law. Under those circumstances, I do not think it unreasonable to ask for some kind of justification for those statements besides a mere ipse dixit. Nor do I think I used an unreasonable tone. Asking for support for someone’s statements is not being imperious: it is how adults settle intellectual disagreements. However, if it is offending others, I shall cease.

    Reader

    I think the comment above at least partially responds to you as well, but you may have missed some of my previous comments. My primary point is not about the current state of the law, but rather the inconsistency of calling for small government except when it happens to be inconvenient. This is not a point that would resonate with Bill Schmalfeldt or Brett Kimberlin because they are ideologically statists. But it should resonate with many readers here. Freedom of association is just as much a valuable right as freedom of speech. The remedy for a business acting stupidly when it is caught in a cross fire with a convicted bomber on one side should not be state coercion to accept the risk, however slight, of being bombed. Perhaps Gus believes my assertion that fearing retaliation from people with a documented record of random and potentially lethal violence is reasonable is hyperbole. I do not think so.

    In any case, if my tone offended people, I am sorry. I was trying to express vigorous disagreement with EPJW in a civil but forceful way. If I failed, then I apologize to all concerned, especially to EPJW.


    • Understood. If there is a kneejerk reaction on the right on this topic, I think it’s because conservatives are tired of having to hide or apologize for their beliefs, while the left gets to call them racist-sexist-bigot-homphobes with impunity.


      • Thanks Reader. Actually, I was expressing what I believe to be a fairly common right-wing point of view to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. I think, however, that many people are naturally disappointed that the courts did not impose monetary damages on Brett Kimberlin for what he did to the Worthings and are lashing out at the employer in emotionally understandable frustration. Indeed, upon rereading EPJW’s initial post, it started with anger over the phrase “disgraced, fired” attorney. We cannot dispute the firing: it is admitted on AW’s blog. But being fired does not mean disgraced. There are many reasons for being fired, and many of them do not disgrace the one terminated.

        Furthermore, as I said before, there is reason to suspect that the letter from AW’s former employer did not truthfully describe the real reason for his and his wife’s terminations, and lying about someone’s professional competence is defamation per se. I have no quarrel with the idea of the state protecting people from demonstrably false assertions of incompetence. If that is what EPJW was driving at, I missed it.


      • There is more than “reason to suspect” that the attorney for Aaron Walker’s former employer was less than truthful. The facts indicate that the attorney was willfully lying. First, he tried to claim that Walker was fired, in part, because his office was badly disorganized. The same letter indicated that his former employer discovered this fact only after they had fired him. While the lawyer falsely claimed incompetence as a pretext for firing Aaron Walker, he could not muster any pretext for firing his wife. He flatly claimed she was an innocent victim of the situation, and, offered to settle. Nor, could the incompetence pretext explain why Aaron Walker was physically prevented from recovering his possessions from his office.

        Now, as to talk about the dismissal of at-will employees, it simply isn’t an issue here. The company had the option of saying they were dismissing at-will employees. They did not avail themselves to that option. The company is not claiming that is what happened. Aaron Walker is not claiming that is what happened. Why are you?


    • Jeffm

      your are an concerned person who deliberately wanted to be the smartest and the most “pure” person in the room, when you lose your job, see your wife get fired, stalked in a parking lot by a guy who was planning to blow up more people before he was caught, the arrested, then banned from even defending himself – then praytell come here and tell me about the dangers of blogging my 6.5 years, my interrogations in Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, tell me wonderkund – tell me all about all the threats to security in a office somewhere in the mass of Virginia glass forrest – tell us about this imminent threat and so forth please enlightenus with this deep and visceral knowledge you have instead of wrapping yourself in a clock of smoky intellectual detachment

      lord oh mighty – get a grip


  17. Jeffm

    correct, however, At will states the courts have stripped that completely and totally away I can tell you that employers want inquiries in writing and will only confirm date of hire and date left – no one wants to get into a massive court battler where some employers have actually gone to jail for trying to ruin the lives of ex employees – not to go down a huge road that can consume literally years, but no one should fire anyone based upon a unverified 3rd party comment especially from a huge convicted felon and perjurer and then his wife and then publically broadcast it and lie about it – Bill knew the termination was wrong, he keeps crowing about it and AW’s blog was not in any search engine, not in any type of broadcast mode it was as dormat as my IQ.


  18. A few responses to different comments.

    First a global comment. A few people speculated that my employer didn’t like me and was looking for an excuse. Absolutely wrong. One thing that was particularly hurtful was that the President of the company was my marital godmother. And yet when I really needed her to have my back, she ditched me.

    Second, politics had nothing to do with it from their end. The President is in fact a very conservative and very proud first generation American whose story is actually pretty inspiring. The CEO is less so, but bluntly he was very much the kind of guy who only looked at the bottom line. He had no moral sense of things. This is something the President supplied. They had a yin yang thing going there, where he was mostly the numbers and she was mostly a people person and together they were better than they were separeately. Incidentally, the President is the CEO’s mother, but lest you think anything negative about that, I can tell you in no uncertain terms she is very lucky to have had a son who was that talented in running a business. She could not have hired better, as far as I can tell.

    Then I will respond to specific people:

    EPWJ

    > The firing was clearly political, they didn’t like what he did so they fired him then backward justified it – they are not the first firm to do this nor the last, their big mistake was publishing a scathing letter and firing his wife.

    Respectfully, I would disagree. It wasn’t politics. They were afraid, primarily of Brett, but also of blowback from Everyone Draw Mohammed Day.

    I think Brett can get violent again, in a direct way (as opposed to the indirect ways he tries to put my life in danger). But it will be something he reaches at length: not something he begins with.

    Also, I think the other thing you are not highlighting is that they had two reasons to be very worried I would sue them or at least report them to the EEOC.

    1) I was fired immediately after I came out as learning disabled.

    2) I was fired arguably for religious expression—that is blaspheming Mohammed.

    Now, in both cases, it would be dishonorable for me to say I was fired for that reason. I was fired because they were scared. That is why they had to fire my wife, too, because they were scared she would be targeted, too. At most, maybe you could stretch the prohibition on religions discrimination in employment to this, but honestly it just didn’t seem honorable.

    But here’s the thing. It is very common for aggrieved ex-employees to lie to the EEOC just to cause a business trouble. You know this, probably, but not everyone reading this knows this. I am speaking generally, not as to anything this company had to deal with because that topic is off limits. Even in at will employment states like Virginia, many have come to feel there is, practically speaking, no such thing as at will employment: you always have to fire for cause.

    So they had to come up with a reason, a pretext. And that was what that memo as.

    Jeff probably doesn’t like that reality, and I tend to agree with him. There are entirely too many specious claims of racism, sexism, etc. But it is reality.

    Also as a point of fact, my wife objects to ya’ll saying she was humiliated by her old employer. She was wronged, not humiliated.

    Finally, my employer did not broadcast that memo. Brett did after getting it under seal.

    JeffM

    I think the hidden assumption is that I could cook up a bogus civil rights suit, as outlined in my comment to EPWJ

    > how has he fared in legally vindicating his purported right to force his employer to pay AW money against the employer’s will.

    I haven’t sued them because the actual reason—fear of Kimberlin—was legal. But you fire a person without cause at your very real peril. I outlined two ways you could be validly sued and even if the employer wins, they lose the cost of suit.

    > I am not talking about his purported rights against Brett Kimberlin: those did not even survive a motion to dismiss (a fact that AW sensibly does not stress).

    Yes, the judge ruled contrary to law on that point.

    I will add that your comment seems inappropriately hostile for a discussion of law and philosophy.

    > Now let’s go to the moral merits.of the employer’s decisions.

    This is where your argument falters. Morally I was on solid footing, imho. How did I offend Muslims? By engaging in protected speech.

    How did I offend Brett Kimberlin? By offering a person free legal advice.

    Neither one of those things are culpable acts. And the evil ones in both cases are the terrorists.

    We cannot, as a society, let the terrorists bully us, whether they are trying to bully us into suppressing freedom of religion and expression in the case of islamofascists, or in the case of Kimberln, bully lawyers into not helping people in need. And make not mistake, Brett is not only a threat to freedom of speech but the right to receive counsel. We have to live brave lives. Their failure is not a sin, per se, but it was not the moral behavior. Morality imposes obligations on people, not merely prohibitions.

    And I would add that there really was no danger at all from Islamofacsists. You think Matt Stone and Trey Parker walk around with armed guards all the time?

    If you want to get a deeper dose of my thinking on moral right of free speech, which is greater than the legal right, read here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/12/freedom-of-speech-is-larger-than-first.html

    > I’ll give you three guesses as to the probable culprit.

    Brett blamed a spy. Yes, really. You can’t make this stuff up. I mean, *Brett* can, but…

    > If for example AW had in fact a messy office and such messiness had previously been disclosed

    My office was on the messy side. And the door was open, so I guess they just suddenly decided that day to fire me.. But it gets worse than that. The boxes he complained about, having no order, etc.? I was told specifically to do that. Basically one of my first cases with them was involved a contract that disappeared. That is they signed a contract and then someone lost the contract (this was before my time). So the President was paranoid about other documents disappearing and forbade me from throwing out any copies of many documents. I said to her, “I do not have time to organize spare copies that I don’t need that I was literally going to throw out.” So she said, “just throw it in boxes. Then if anything goes missing we can go through it.” So he was claiming as a reason to fire me, my doing exactly what they told me to.

    And I never did anything but company business on company time. I did sometimes use the office after hours to do my own stuff, but there you go.

    > It is difficult for me to agree that if the initiator has no civil liability,

    Ordinarily committing tortuous conduct that gets a person fired is a tort. Indeed it is actually a crime in Virginia. Again, the judge ruled contrary to law.

    A Reader

    There is no settlement. I never sued them, or threatened to. I was entirely honorable in how I treated them, even as they did everything possible to piss me off, especially that attorney.

    Jane

    > But doesn’t that make pretty much anyone an employee only at the will of TDPK?

    Especially considering that Brett did this to the guy who was screwing Brett’s wife. Now on one hand, every guy understands to some degree why Brett was angry. While Brett’s behavior is inappropriate, we all understand, to a degree, the motive. No one likes the thought of their wife screwing anyone else, even if you have gone through a divorce. But most of us are adults about it unlike the Montgomery County Midget.

    But I say “to a degree” because Brett is also an incredibly racist guy who called the same man a n—–r and did the same to Akbar. So now Dominoes has fired a black man in part due to fear of an anti-black racist terrorist. That is not only a moral problem but a potential legal problem, seeing that a jury might find that this would not have happened to the paramour if he was white.

    > With hindsight it appears that TDPK was unable to interest the religious community to avenge him. We can assume he tried, because of the threats to BlogBash and the tiny terrorist’s silly costume.

    Another theory is he thinks I am deathly afraid of them and he was trying to freak me out. I had no idea that he was there, and I am pretty sure I could have recognized him given that his wife was there, too. Certainly when he posed in that CIA hat his goal was to freak us out.

    Onlooker

    > It’s very clear that but-for BK targeting Aaron and his office with creepy calls,

    Brett never verifiably called the office before I was fired. I was preemptive and told my employers to watch out for this situation. It was my responsibility to warn them and so I did.

    He also informed the police that he was about to out me, saying it would put me in danger. So he intentionally put my life in danger, by his own words. That resulted in a visit by the police that probably added to them feeling freaked out.

    Later on, about a month after I was fired, the same a—hole lawyer says they had received threats that they were going to face massive protests by Muslims. I figured at the time it was Brett’s gang and the silliness at Blog Bash last year only confirms it.

    I will add that the lawyer who wrote that, their outside counsel, has always been kind of a d—k. I used to work directly for him and he was the worst kind of boss. He would tell you to do X.

    Then if you questioned whether X was the right thing to do, or if it was the right way to do it, he would get irritated and tell you not to question him.

    Then when you followed X exactly as he ordered and it doesn’t work, he blames you for not anticipating the problem.

    *He* had a deep personal dislike for me. The people he worked for, not so much.

    > The truth is no one in the office objected particularly to drawings of Mohammed.

    Not even the muslim who worked for us. He knew my heart and understood the spirit of the protest.

    Gus

    > Apparently BK is sympathetic to the cause of radical islam because

    Actually I don’t think he liked several cartoonists attacking mohammed for being a pedophile. I wonder why?

    > BK made a point of contacting Mr. & Mrs. AWs employers with commentary regarding the blog and the nature of radical islam

    See corrections above.

    > (no offense Aaron, I take you at your word

    It is hard to offend me. You have to work harder than that.

    > AW’s employer did provide a non-BK related reason for his termination.

    Partially. They cited BK in the memo.


    • Thanks for clearing all of that up, Aaron. I hope we can all (mostly) agree (mostly) about the nature of the reprehensible conduct of TDPK, and the at least wrong-headed conduct of the former employers.

      I don’t think I’d like to work for a company where TDPK has the last word on employee retention, kwim?


  19. AW

    I didn’t put those in because of the reasons – however they were in no danger never were but th point was Bill new it was bogus and was smearing u my fault is I responded to a troll, who derailed the entire point which was about disingenuousness and the smear campaign


      • when someone starts blah blah blah – I don’t read them – if they are stupid in the first paragraph – the IQ fairies are not going to dust the successive opus’

        ahh he was milhousing trying to be the purest in the room, detached – eh you had it coming, yawn, mjuslims are noble sensitive cxreatures, yaaawn, rtw god given right, ummm no, negated by any casual statement or employee manual or on the receipt of an annual review rtw is such a farce – no one can fire anyone at will without consequences – try and fire people repeatedly in VA – it has one of the most indexed unempl payroll tax rates – nothings exactly what it seems

        but the whole point was the nasty comments from bill

        but the comment express has left the rails and soon we will be talking sock puppet Fridays

        didn’t mean to cause u concern or stress, I have slowed in my old age..


  20. Humiliated is a strong term not used for the weak but describing an attack that was completely unwarranted

Leave a Reply