Fresh after yesterday’s legal setback, Kimberlin finds out that he lost his appeal in his attempt to hold Seth Allen in contempt.
As you will recall, Kimberlin attempted to frame me for assault in a confrontation after a hearing on January 9. The hearing itself was to determine whether or not Seth Allen was in contempt of a November 14, 2011 order prohibiting Allen from defaming or tortiously interfering with Kimberlin’s business relations. As I mentioned this morning, Judge Rupp found that nothing that Seth had written constituted defamation and thus it did not violate the order.
I don’t remember any more whether I mentioned this to you, but then Kimberlin appealed that decision to the Court of Special Appeals (the mid-level appellate court in Maryland). And you can read it for yourself.
Any person may appeal from any order or judgment passed to preserve the power or vindicate the dignity of the court and adjudging him in contempt of court, including an interlocutory order, remedial in nature, adjudging any person in contempt, whether or not a party to the action.
So what the statute is saying is that if you are held in contempt, you can appeal that decision. But in law, what you don’t say is as important as what you do say. We call that principle expressio unius, which I explain in a very different context here. And applied here it means that you only get to appeal if you are held in contempt. If you ask the court to hold someone in contempt and they refuse, tough on you. There is no appeal from that.
So he spent all this time and money (because you have to pay to get an official transcript created), to appeal a decision for which there is no appeal.
So for those keeping track this week, the score is
Freedom of expression: 2.
Brett Kimberlin: 0.
And as a side note, no I am not getting along with Seth Allen any more. But that has nothing to do with my belief that a miscarriage of justice was done in the case of Kimberlin v. Allen, and my belief that just like with me, he should no longer be subject to a prior restraint. As Near v. Minnesota makes it clear, even the fear of defamation is not justification for a prior restraint, 283 US 697, 701 (1931) (striking down a prior restraint of a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper”). I do not have to agree with a man on anything at all, in order to recognize a violation of freedom of expression.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed communication. I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him. Frankly try not to even been within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report. And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. As you will see by the time I am done telling my story that this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sound fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence. If you would like to donate and help my wife and I in this time of need, please go to this donation page or use the PayPal buttons on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment