If I understand correctly, one of those interrogatories asked for copies of all email written or received by Kimberlin through the Breitbart Unmasked website, from a particular date (I don't remember which) through the filing of the lawsuit. Any discussion about the swattings of conservative bloggers, between Kimberlin and his associates, might provide for interesting reading. Was Kimberlin involved in those swattings? Does he know who did them?
As for prevailing on the claims of defamation and false light, it would seem to me, a non-lawyer layman, that any commentary about Kimberlin's criminal convictions could not possibly qualify as defamation, since those crimes are documented fact and well publicized. The only thing that he might prevail on (or so it seems to me) is defamation for being falsely accused of the swattings against various conservative bloggers.
Did any conservative bloggers or pundits actually accuse Kimberlin of being behind the swattings? Or did they merely voice their suspicions? One or two may have stepped over the line. If so, can Brett Kimberlin be defamed any further than his own past has done? Is Brett Kimberlin defamation proof? Some of the legal briefs I have read in the case say that he is, i.e. that it is not possible to harm Kimberlin's reputation any more than he has already harmed it himself. The briefs cited prior cases that support this, i.e. that someone with a particularly unsavory past cannot be legally defamed, and thus his claims for defamation cannot stand.
In any case, today's court decision is good news for the defendants. Now the case can focus on the only truly relevant matters, assuming Kimberlin answers all interrogatories by July 10. If he does not, I would expect the case to be dismissed for all defendants.
2 comments:
I hope this much was obvious, but I'm spelling it out anyway:
Brett appears to have hired Neal Rauhauser a few years ago, to help "manage his reputation," meaning, harass his enemies and coordinate with (being charitable here) troubled people who will go along with the harassment and parrot attacks directed at Kimberlin's enemies.
By the time Kimberlin hired Rauhauser, this was known to be a Rauhauser tactic, so Kimberlin would have known this is what he was paying for. Furthermore it is also a Rauhauser tactic to arrange for some of the "troubled people" to actually place the SWATting calls themselves, possibly using IP telephony services which are not easily traceable to the criminal placing the call. It is most likely that Brett discussed the use of this tactic with Rauhauser, and since it was used repeatedly against Kimberlin critics, it's safe to assume Kimberlin also approved of it.
This is not the same as saying Kimberlin placed the calls himself - nobody has accused him of this - although clearly he bears some culpability. It isn't even the same as saying Rauhauser placed the calls himself. Both are too cowardly for that so they set up other people to take that risk.
Criticizing Kimberlin (and Rauhauser) for the use of these tactics is both proper and productive. The reason I say it is productive is that you can see they've ceased using these tactics against Kimberlin critics, presumably out of fear that it would draw too much heat. We should continue to vocally compare Kimberlin's ACTUAL behavior against what he SHOULD do, in order to get him to tone down his tactics. For instance, in July 1978, Brett Kimberlin had his drug smuggling colleague, William Bowman, to shoot Julia Scyphers dead, as retaliation for Scyphers' role in denying Kimberlin access to a young teenaged girl he'd been seeing since she was aged 10. Now, Kimberlin no longer has people who annoy him shot, and I believe this is because he's no longer willing to attract so much heat to himself. For him to hire Neal Rauhauser to harass his critics is a much gentler tactic and it shows that Kimberlin can be gradually tamed by the public response to his actions.
Conclusion: We should continue to react strongly (using fair, responsible, and just actions ONLY) to Kimberlin's injustice, to pressure him to fix his behavior. To the extent that he continues to be a constant unrepentant recidivist, we should explore options of using the criminal justice system to protect others from him.
I have suspected Rauhauser's hand in this, because if what I have read about him is true, he is a ruthless individual. However, we don't know for sure, but it is reasonable to be suspicious. Yes, I have read that Mr. Scyphers identified Bowman as the shooter of his wife. Unfortunately, Mr. Scyphers died soon after and could not testify against him. I understand Bowman had an alibi and even passed a lie detector test, so the police could not charge him. In any case, BK is bad news and has been so for a very long time.
Post a Comment