Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

How does an attorney whose license to practice is suspended make a living? One possibility would be lots of part-time jobs.

Here are a few of organizations for which Kevin Zeese “works.” The websites shown in the table list Mr. Zeese’s affiliations the organizations.ZeeseOrgsHmmmm. The usual suspect organizations.

33 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

    • He was not the guy who was with Kimberlin, and who the Cabin Boy falsely told the court was his “assistant”, when I attended a proceeding.

      • Are you saying CB’s phony assistant was same guy with Kimberlin at trial? The wording is a little ambiguous to me.

      • I’m saying that the guy Kimberlin brought with him to CB’s hearing was not Zeese. It was that guy whom CB represented to the court officials as his “assistant”. I don’t know who he was, but he was apparently employed by Kimberlin (or one of his ‘charities’)

        You do know that Kimberlin was the one that toted CB back and forth to court right? I mean showing up for hearing you are not a party to isn’t stalking or anything…..

      • I knew about Brett Kimberlin showing up with CB (and had also heard about the “hired help”) before, yes. Is there a description of the person? Ive never heard that, if there is. So he also came with Kimberlin to witness his big flop in BKs own case? Was he lurking outside or did he sit in?

  1. I, for one, am very relieved that there is someone with legal training who’s so closely involved in what Kimberlin is doing. This means he’s in a great position to help Kimberlin’s victims to track down whether there is any connection between these orgs and Kimberlin’s criminal behavior. Months ago, on twitter, I have several times pointed out to Mr. Zeese that he could be a lot of help in that area.

    Given the amount of aid Mr .Zeese has given to Kimberlin’s projects – including aid to Kimberlin’s efforts to abuse the law to get “revenge” on his critics – it’s morally incumbent upon Mr. Zeese to make sure he helps undo any of the damage Kimberlin is doing.

    • That presumes, of course, that Zeese has been duped, is unaware of what is going on and who he is dealing with. That if he were just apprised of the situation, he would realize “oh my stars I am working with a convicted terrorist I had better change my ways!”


      Good luck with that.

      • I’m not saying he was duped or not. In either case, if are any repercussions are in play regarding his status\non-status as a lawyer, or with the IRS for example; I am sure he has enough information of others that could be useful in making a plea deal.

  2. How about Zeese and NORML?

    I think its quaint to think that because Zeese has legal training that means he might look at BKs activities and suddenly gasp “oh my stars this is immoral I must disengage.”

    I will just say RSM has a phrase: bad causes attract bad people.

    • Maybe he can be somehow induced to change his mind, at least with regard to helping Kimberlin.

      It’s possible he has information about Kimberlin’s dealings which would be very useful to Kimberlin’s victims.

      • Well, as far as lip service to certain causes go, I am kindred spirit to Mr. Zeese in some respects. For example, I support efforts to reel back the “drug war”, oppose data trawling and.or surveillance that has the effect of a general warrant, and want fair elections with audit-able records (though he might not like my desire to for polls to demand identification, and barring of felons and non-citizens from voting, and stricter rules for absentee voting).
        His activist and organizer career is kind of grifty to my eyes, however sincere his beliefs, and he should be having nothing to do with the likes of Brett Kimberlin.

        But I am interested to know just how long his license to practice has been suspended. He has made much of his admittance to the US supreme court, but to gain admittance you have to be admitted to the highest court in ones state, territory or possession or DC, and he seems now not to have a current license in DC as he once did, has none in Maryland or Virginia…

        Maybe the suspended license is a very recent thing – and it is even possible that DC screwed up the paperwork. I do notice he let his Eastern District creds slide into dormancy in 2008. Just how long has he been “off the grid” in DC? Does he have a license somewhere else?

      • Onlooker: I was glad to see that you are not a supporter of felons voting. Neither am I. I believe that any convicted felon, short of a restoration of their rights by the Governor of their state or a Presidential pardon, should not be allowed to vote. The loss of one’s right to vote is a consequence of a felony conviction. As is the right to firearms. There are policies and procedures in place to allow truly reformed individuals to petition to have their rights restored. I do not think there needs to be any other process or changes to the laws regulating such. There are a few states that allows felons to vote after completion of their sentence (most notably California — I know, go figure) but the majority of states do not and I go along with that majority on this issue.

      • Paul, I would actually disagree with you here, to a certain extent. Rights like gun ownership and voting are such fundamental rights that they should, by default, be restored to a felon after the state says they have served their time/completed their punishment. I would accept allowing them to be withheld further as part of their sentencing, i.e. a person convicted of murder using a gun could be denied ever getting their right to own a gun back. But by default, if you have completed your punishment, you are returned to full rights as a citizen. Otherwise, you are still being punished.

      • Restoration of voting rights should take a: effort and b: demonstration of character and living habits that show respect for law and society.
        The best argument for automatic restoration of voting rights is one where you might find some sympathy from me: there are too many felonies and felony prosecutions related to non-violent crimes or crimes that shouldn’t be crimes.
        But that’s a different issue.
        And even then it’s weak sauce, since those are the persons most able to rehabilitate themselves and restore themselves to some usefulness in the world.
        Once you have committed a very serious crime, many rights are suspended and ought to be so until there is good reason to restore them. Franchise to felons x- and they are criminals until they die or the conviction reversed – should require a demonstration that the person will conform to rules, lawful behavior, and make some contribution to maintaining ordered liberty.

      • So you continue a part of their sentence for life? Talk about cruel and unusual punishment….

        should require a demonstration that the person will conform to rules, lawful behavior, and make some contribution to maintaining ordered liberty.

        We impose no such tests to accord you your rights in the first place – how can you justify testing for them now? Using your logic, by the simple fact that there are a number of people convicted of crimes each year, it proves that we can’t assume all people will behave as you request on their own, so we must therefore “require a demonstration” from each person upon obtaining adulthood that they will behave. I shudder to think of such a condition.

      • So you continue a part of their sentence for life? Talk about cruel and unusual punishment….

        So I take it you are against sex offender registration as well?

      • The permanent revocation of certain rights stems from English common law, the foundation of the legal system in this country. It is not a modern anomaly.

      • Well guys, I know, that as a convicted federal felon, during my plea proffer process, it was spelled out very plainly that my sentence included the suspension of the right to vote and the right to possess weapons. The second involves swords, bows, knives, etc. excepting kitchen knives and nothing carried on my person with a blade longer than 3″. All agreed to and accepted by signature on each component part of the sentence.
        And no, I was not convicted of a violent crime nor was I found to be a violent person needing special restrictions. These are the required consequences of committing a federal felony.
        I understand and agree that our rights are endowed by God and that government just limits them. I’ve just about completed five years of supervised release (quite a long after incarceration for a non-violent crime — Brett only was given three years of supervision upon his release the second time). Ten years after I am released from supervised release, I can begin the process to request restoration of my voting rights. From what I’ve read, it takes between 3 and six years and about $100,000.oo to do so.
        Not going to happen in my case. I won’t waste the money if I live that long. A much better use for the money is as Christian charity.

    • If someone commits a sex crime, then they should be put on the sex offender registry. If someone commits a gun crime, then they should be banned from owning guns. Neither one should prevent you from getting your right to vote back when your sentence is done. If you are convicted of voter fraud, THEN you should lose your right to vote forever.

      As I was trying to say: I see no problem with an extended punishment that is related to a the crime you committed. Any other fundamental right should restored when your sentence is complete. Otherwise, you are making someone a second-class citizen, without full rights.

  3. I guess the “Bradley Manning Support Network” hasn’t been active for a while. Shouldn’t it be the “Chelsey Manning Support Network?” I don’t see how anyone on the far left would be anything other than “supportive” of Manning’s decision to become “Chelsey.” It is probably just a defunct website that, so far, takes in more in donations that it costs to maintain. That might be true of the rest of list as well.

    • It’s worth it to maintain the sites even if they don’t bring any money in. They serve as “evidence” that the nonprofits are doing something and spending money for advocacy.

  4. The “activism” gig seems to be a fair means of supporting one’s self. Margaret Flowers, an apparently devoted communist (cloaked in the usual social justice/progressive jargon) is partnered with Zeese in some endeavors. She not only left practice (for assorted reasons depending on which source you read) but has allowed her license to practice lapse (since sometimes in 2012).

Leave a Reply