Today is the tenth anniversary of Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day. The basis of my participation in that blogburst was a post titled Who is Brett Kimberlin?
* * * * *
Today is Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day. This post is rather long because it quotes from court opinions and transcripts laying out facts that are matters of public record. He has been harassing bloggers who post truthful information about his past.
Here’s some information about Mr. Kimberlin from 637 N.E.2d 121 (1994) Brett Coleman KIMBERLIN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Sandra Sue DeLong, Personal Representative for Carl David DeLong, Deceased, and Sandra Sue DeLong, Appellees(Plaintiffs below). No. 49S02-9406-CV-524. Supreme Court of Indiana:
Following the trial court grant of plaintiffs-appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, a jury trial resulted in judgments against defendant-appellant Brett Coleman Kimberlin in the sum of $360,000 for personal injuries to Sandra Sue DeLong and $1,250,000 for the wrongful death of Carl David DeLong.
Carl DeLong, 44 years of age at the time of his death, had been married to Sandra, then 43, for 23 years. The couple had one son, then age 18, who lived in the DeLong home, and a married daughter, approximately 22 and the mother of the DeLongs’ grandchild. A Vietnam War veteran, DeLong had been employed for 17 years at Detroit Diesel Allison Division of General Motors Corporation, most recently as a parts inspector, and was a captain in the United States Army Reserves. Proof of damages offered at trial included medical expenses of $35,656.57 and funeral and burial expenses of $4,132.85. His annual income in 1982, the year preceding his death, totalled approximately $31,500.00 in addition to non-wage benefits valued at $4.75 per working hour. Evidence also indicated that his projected annual retirement income at age 65 would have been $21,480.00.
Considering these circumstances, the jury finding of damages in the amount of $1,250,000.00 does not appear outrageous at first blush. The verdict does not indicate passion, prejudice, or partiality rather than reasoned assessment. We decline to find the wrongful death judgment to be excessive.
As to the damages awarded for Mrs. DeLong’s separate personal injury claim, the defendant asserts that the $360,000 verdict was approximately 18 times her special damages and therefore excessive. In response, the plaintiff notes evidence demonstrating the particularly painful nature of her injuries from the bomb blast and her ordeal during treatment, including multiple surgeries and permanent continuing pain and impairment established by medical testimony.
A personal injury award is not excessive where (1) the award was not based upon jury prejudice, partiality, or corruption, (2) the jury has not misunderstood or misapplied the evidence, (3) the award was not based upon consideration of an improper element such as liability insurance, and (4) the award was within the parameters of the evidence. … In the present case we find no basis for finding the verdict for Mrs. DeLong’s injuries to be excessive as a matter of law.
I can find no record of Mr. Kimberlin ever paying the $1.6 million judgement owed to Mrs. DeLong. Indeed, his failure to pay wound up causing the revocation of his parole from federal prison. Here’s what is recorded in 12 F.Supp.2d 487 (1998) Brett C. KIMBERLIN v. Stephen DEWALT, Warden FCI-Petersburg. No. Civ.A. AW-97-3829. United States District Court, D. Maryland. 12 F.Supp.2d 487 (1998) Brett C. KIMBERLIN v. Stephen DEWALT, Warden FCI-Petersburg. No. Civ.A. AW-97-3829. United States District Court, D. Maryland:
On June 27, 1997 the United States Parole Commission revoked Brett C. Kimberlin’s parole. On November 10, 1997 Kimberlin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the revocation.
On June 11, 1980 petitioner was sentenced to four years following his conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana.
On November 3, 1980 petitioner received a consecutive 12 year sentence following his conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for possession and illegal use of Department of Defense insignia, illegal use of the Seal of the President of the United States, and impersonation of a federal officer. …
On June 4, 1981 petitioner received a consecutive five year sentence following his conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for receipt of explosives by a convicted felon.
On December 30, 1981 petitioner received a 50-year concurrent sentence from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for possession of an unregistered destructive device, unlawful manufacturing of a destructive device, malicious damage by means of explosives, and malicious damage by means of explosives involving personal injury. As set forth in his presentence report, during a six day period in September, 1978 eight bombs made of Tovex 200 dynamite were detonated in the Speedway, Indiana area. One bomb, placed in a gym bag in the Speedway High School parking lot, detonated on September 6, 1978, when it was picked up by Carl and Sandra DeLong after a high school football game. Sandra DeLong received permanent nerve damage caused by bomb fragments in her leg. Her husband Carl lost his right leg and two fingers. Carl DeLong received additional injuries to his inner ear, stomach, chest, neck and arm due to bomb fragments, and endured a series of operations. … On February 23, 1983 Carl DeLong committed suicide at the age of 44.
On October 23, 1983 a Marion County, Indiana jury awarded $360,000 to Sandra DeLong for her injuries, and $1,250,000 for the wrongful death of Carl DeLong. …
Sandra DeLong attempted to collect on her judgment by obtaining a writ of attachment against petitioner’s prison commissary account after a United States Probation Officer informed her that petitioner regularly transferred money to someone outside the prison. Petitioner promptly sued Mrs. DeLong, her lawyer, the probation officer, and various Bureau of Prisons and Department of Justice officials for money damages. Petitioner’s action was not successful. See Kimberlin v. U.S. Department of Justice, 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir.1986).
In 1992 Sandra DeLong obtained a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upholding the disbursement of money previously seized from petitioner by the FBI toward payment of her judgment.
On February 13, 1994 petitioner was released on supervised parole in this district. Petitioner inherited $155,147 from his father’s estate. Additionally he developed business deals (including an oil project, a prefabricated housing project, a power plant project, a flower mill project, a tire contract and others) in Ukraine through a partnership known as LADA; entered into a recording contract; and entered into a book contract in favor of BKE, Inc., a corporation petitioner established and controlled. The book contract, an agreement between BKE, Inc., writer Mark Singer, and Knopf Incorporated (a subsidiary of Random House), centered around allegations petitioner had made in the 1988 federal election campaign concerning his sale of marijuana to Dan Quayle, and petitioner’s subsequent treatment by the Bureau of Prisons. As of February 10, 1997 BKE, Inc. had received $339,000 in proceeds from that book, with another $225,000 in “guaranteed income” from the contract expected later that year. …
Despite a healthy income, petitioner continued to resist paying the DeLong judgment, which had been reinstated on June 13, 1994. In a July 12, 1994 letter to Probation Officer Koehler, he threatened to go into bankruptcy if enforcement of the judgment was to occur, and claimed that he was personally judgment-proof, with his assets and income protected under “corporate veil.” … Petitioner then proceeded with further unsuccessful appellate litigation attempting to set aside the judgment. Following the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, petitioner continued to ignore the outstanding judgment. On May 16, 1996 he submitted a mortgage loan application denying that he had any “outstanding judgments” against him. A $308,000 mortgage loan was approved for the purchase of a house in Bethesda, Maryland.
During this time, publicity connected to the release of petitioner’s book, Citizen K, generated the attention of staff of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. On October 11, 1996 the Committee’s chief investigator informed the Commission’s general counsel that certiorari in the DeLong matter had been denied by Supreme Court the previous year. The Commission in turn requested the United States Probation Office in Baltimore to review petitioner’s financial circumstances and to provide the Commission with an opinion as to the probable enforceability of a special condition of parole requiring petitioner to satisfy the judgment. In a January 8, 1997 interim report, Probation reported petitioner’s statements that the bulk of his income had been derived from the book proceeds, and that a $100,000 payment from Knopf was imminent. Petitioner’s January 28, 1997 letter detailing his financial position also was forwarded to the Commission.
On February 10, 1997 the Commission imposed a special condition of parole ordering petitioner to “immediately undertake, in good faith and with all diligent effort, to pay the final civil judgment …” in Kimberlin v. DeLong. Petitioner was further ordered to submit a payment plan for Commission approval and to take no measures to transfer or otherwise dispose of any assets owned or controlled by him without the permission of his probation officer. Because the Knopf payment was the only immediately available source of income or wealth, it was specifically identified, and petitioner was told to direct all future payments from Knopf, Inc. to Sandra DeLong. Petitioner additionally was prohibited from taking any action “that has the effect of delaying or otherwise frustrating the prompt satisfaction by you of any part of this special condition.”
Petitioner submitted objections and appealed the decision. On April 28, 1997 the Commission’s National Appeal Board affirmed the decision to impose a special condition that petitioner pay the Indiana civil judgment.
Rather than comply with the special condition, petitioner submitted a directive permitting Knopf to “deposit any monies which would otherwise be due me personally from Knopf (Random House) with Sandra DeLong.” On February 17, 1997 petitioner, who previously had claimed 100% ownership of BKE, Inc. on previous tax returns and appeared to control the corporation’s accounts which he used for personal expenses, first claimed that BKE, Inc. was wholly owned by his sister. Notwithstanding petitioner’s January 25, 1997 claim that $225,000 in “guaranteed income” was due from Knopf, once the special condition was in place, nearly-concluded settlement agreements between Knopf and nine of petitioner’s associates fell apart.
Despite these maneuvers, Mrs. DeLong on April 18, 1997 obtained an order from the Marion County, Indiana Superior Court garnishing the Knopf book money in order to satisfy a judgment which by then amounted to $1,610,000 plus interest and costs. The next day, petitioner notified Mrs. DeLong’s counsel that he would go into bankruptcy unless she settled with him on his terms. One week later Cynthia Kimberlin and her fiancé filed an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding against petitioner in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland.
As a result of all of that, Mr. Kimberlin was subject of a parole revocation process.
On June 6, 1997 the revocation hearing was convened at the United States Courthouse in Baltimore. Petitioner’s witnesses included his mother and a friend, Julia Karamin. Probation Officer Ramsburg testified for the Commission. Petitioner claimed that the February 10, 1997 Notice of Action had deprived him of all income, and he requested a continuance in order to obtain appointed counsel. He claimed that his mother had filed a $150,000 lien against his house, tying up its use as an asset. He also requested a continuance because various witnesses were not present, including his sister, mortgage loan officer Tim Rood, and his personal assistant Monika Kosior. Officer Ramsburg opposed the extension requests, testifying that by petitioner’s previous statements he had recently received substantial income from LADA and $339,000 since 1993 on his book contract, with no documented explanation of where the money had gone. The examiner denied the continuance because it appeared petitioner had sufficient assets to hire counsel, and because petitioner admitted that he was given Form CJA-22 but did not submit it at or following the preliminary interview. …
Officer Ramsburg testified concerning her interviews with mortgage loan officer Rood concerning petitioner’s failure to list the Indiana civil judgment on his mortgage application. By her testimony, Rood initially disclaimed having any knowledge of the judgment at the time the loan was made. After being interviewed by Ramsburg, Rood sent letters and spoke with petitioner alleging that he had been told about a judgment that petitioner had said was void and unenforceable. Petitioner testified that he did not conceal the judgment and believed that it no longer valid, and presented a letter from an attorney to support that claim. The examiner found the lawyer’s letter to petitioner did not actually report the judgment to be void, and concluded that petitioner had fraudulently concealed a significant financial liability, either by failing to disclose it, or by providing false and misleading information regarding its validity. …
Next, petitioner denied any attempt to avoid the special condition and offered to settle with Mrs. DeLong for $30,000. He further contested Officer Ramsburg’s testimony concerning the sudden changes in his financial situation after the February 10, 1997 Notice of Action. The examiner found that petitioner used “deceitful maneuvers to hide his ability to pay” and that his “relatives and friends are obviously acting to help him by filing claims and liens to protect his money and property from being available to satisfy the victim’s judgment.” The examiner further found that the “evidence against [petitioner] was provided by the subject himself,” and that at no time did petitioner “indicate any concern or empathy for the victim.” Finally, the examiner found that petitioner’s settlement offers were not undertaken in good faith; concluded that petitioner had resisted parole supervision by Officer Ramsburg “in every way he can,” and recommended revocation of parole with a presumptive parole date of two years. … Petitioner was taken into custody at the conclusion of the hearing.
On June 27, 1997 the Commission adopted the examiner’s recommendation, revoking petitioner’s parole …
Mr. Kimberlin was returned to prison where he remained until June, 2001. Note that is four years after he was taken back into custody rather than the two years initially adopted by the Parole Commission. He was serving a 50 year sentence. While he has been released, I can find no record of whether or not he is still on parole or whether the parole is still supervised.
Mr. Kimberlin has recently denied under oath that he had his parole revoked for failing to pay Mrs. DeLong. This is from the transcript of Brett Kimberline (sic) v. Seth Allen, Civil No. 339254, Circuit Court for Montgomery County Maryland:
Q [Seth Allen] Were you released and then sent back to prison for a parole violation, for failure to pay compensation to the, Ms. Delong (phonetic sp.), the wife of Carl Delong, who took his own life after those bombs —
A [Brett Kimberlin] No.
Q — tore up half his body?
A No, I wasn’t.
Mr. Allen is one of the bloggers against whom Mr. Kimberlin has sought a peace order. Mr. Kimberlin made a similar claim in his case against another blogger Aaron Walker. In the transcript for Brett Kimberlin v. Aaron Walker, Civil No. 8444D, Circuit Court for Montgomery County Maryland we find:
Q You were sued for it and there was $1,000,000 judgment in favor of his widow against you, right?
Q It was a condition of federal parole that you pay that judgment, correct?
A You’re getting into nuances.
Q Well, it’s not a nuance that your parole was revoked because you didn’t, is that correct?
A Not exactly[.]
Who is Brett Kimberlin? He is a convicted felon. His record of convictions includes perjury, drug dealing, possession of explosives by a felon, impersonating a police officer, causing injury by bombing, and more. From the transcripts of the recent Maryland Circuit Court cases, it looks as if there is a prima facia case of perjury again.
Bloggers have been posting truthful information about Brett Kimberlin, and he has been responding with abusive and bogus action in the courts. It’s a shame that some honest bloggers had to suffer his abuse before the rest of us began to react. Now that we are awake, I believe that Mr. Kimberlin will regret having picked on Stacy McCain, or Seth Allen, or Aaron Walker, or Patterico, or Liberty Chick, or anyone else.
One final note. While he was serving time for the Speedway bombings, Mr. Kimberlin claimed to have sold drugs to Dan Quayle when the former VP was in school. [See 6 F.3d 789 (1993) Brett C. KIMBERLIN, Appellee, v. Michael J. QUINLAN, et al., Appellants. No. 91-5315. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit] The DEA investigated his claims and determined that they were false. Another apparent lie.
* * * * *
I’m not done with him yet.