It was six years ago today that Brett Kimberlin tried to use his iPad to take a picture of Aaron Walker in the waiting area outside Judge Rupp’s courtroom in the Montgomery County Courthouse. Given the context of the of the statements The
Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin had made, Aaron interpreted Kimberlin’s movements as threatening, and he acted to disarm Kimberlin by taking the large object Kimberlin was brandishing out of his hands.
Things went downhill from there, and TDPK built a false narrative around the event which resulted in a bogus peace order against Aaron, Aaron being arrested on a false charge related to that order, and six years of follow-on lawfare. Oh, and lots of adverse publicity for Brett Kimberlin.
BTW, taking a photograph in a Maryland courthouse without permission from a judge is against the law.
The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin rattles on and on about false narratives. He’s a primary source of them himself. Consider these paragraphs from his second amended complaint in the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.That’s clearly designed to give the impression that Justice Through Music Project (or Velvet Revolution US) and, thus, Brett Kimberlin were deriving income from the State Department because of participation an “International Leadership Program.” Let’s look a bit deeper.
First, the actual program run by the State Department is called the International Visitor Leadership Program. There doesn’t seem to be any U. S. Government record of JTMP or VRUS participating in the program.
Second, there doesn’t seem to be any record of payments from the Department of State to either Justice Through Music Project or Velvet Revolution US for any purpose during the “three years prior to 2012.” The industrious Gentle Reader may verify that at usaspending.gov.
This doesn’t mean that TDPK never talked to foreign visitors at some sort of State Department event. He may have. But if he did, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he or his not-for-profits were being paid as a contractors or grantees by the government. However, most taxpayers would agree that is was not an unwise decision to refrain from using a convicted felon in a such a potentially sensitive role.