Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Uh-oh... THIS GUY!!!?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:00 AM
Original message
Uh-oh... THIS GUY!!!?
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 01:02 AM by troubleinwinter
Regarding this thread offering a reward: "VelvetRevolution and its co-founder Justice Through Music are offering a $250,000 reward for information about vote fraud..." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I did a bit of looking around, because: Don't we have to be careful who we associate with??!!?


I was curious about 'Justice Through Music' as co-founder of VR.

The mailing address for Velvet Revolution and Justice Through Music is one same Post Office Box.

Justice Through Music Project's 2005 year-end 990 shows $33,878 on hand at end of accounting year 2005. So might I assume Velvet Revolution's contrubution to the 'Reward' is $225,000 or so?

The Director (and only paid employee) of Justice Through Music is Brett Kimberlin.

Brett Kimberlin, sentenced to fifty years for drug distribution and eight bombings in Indiana... is the infamous "Speedway Bomber". He bragged of smuggling and dealing literally tons of drugs.

Kimberlin was serving time for placing and detonating a series of explosive devices in Sept. 1978 in Speedway, Indiana. In the most serious incident, Kimberlin left a gym bag in the parking lot of the Speedway High School. Carl Delong picked up the bag and the explosives detonated, tearing off his lower right leg and two fingers. Delong's wife also suffered serious injury from bomb fragments. Kimberlin is also serving time for other offenses, including impersonating a federal officer, illegal use of the Department of Defense insignia, illegal use of the Presidential seal, receipt of explosives, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. http://www.ndsn.org/feb95/quayle.html


In fact, after being convicted of the Speedway, Indiana bombings, he sued the widow of one of his bombing victims for "violating his constitutional rights." http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1991/watch19911...


Kimberlin is a well known character, after a book was written about him:

Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin
by Mark Singer

"This book relates a journalist's worst nightmare: of getting deeply involved in a "big story" based on information from a single source who turns out to be a world-class liar."
.....

"Kimberlin turns out to be a top-flight con man."

....
"A book about a true psychopath..."

http://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Deeply-American-Journey-K...


Maybe the bomber, "world class liar", "top-flight con man", dope smuggler, drug dealer has turned over a new leaf (though there are plenty of marijuana links on JTM site).

Is it smart to have our cause of election reform tied to a known, convicted bomber?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
habitual Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. it is good to know people investigate these things. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Agreed.
This is a bit unsettling. I googled Brett Kimberlin and there is a crapload of info to read up on. Yikes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. Nice work!
In this climate one must be very careful. The media machine is hungry for anti-american scapegoats to take the scandals off the news and help the GOP steal/win another election.

I would not support anything this guy does. It sounds like he should be in a home, convalescing from a frontal lobotomy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kiouni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. If irrefutable evidence of vote fraud were uncovered,*
they'd smear the squealer if it were the Pope.






*Imho, it already has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Having a convicted bomber on board seems to give them a good head start?
Think it'd be smart to disassociate from the person? Or no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Who's associating?
One would actually be associating with the person with the relevent info.

Or, more precisely, the facts presented by said person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. As the Pope would be an untrustworthy source, yes.
We need CREDIBLE sources. And, for the record... Former Hitler Youth John Ratzinger is credible on exactly nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. See #9.
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 01:19 AM by RUMMYisFROSTED
ETA: Agreed on the Pope, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
8. Looks like some DUers in Election Reform had similar concerns
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 01:19 AM by Emit
From Dec '04:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:1TRVMFLnBwwJ:www.de...

Edited to add, isn't Brad from bradblog associated with Velvet Revolution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
11. k&r
:hi:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
12. I didn't even click on those threads.
Nobody should be looking for monetary reward for evidence of voter fraud. Bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
13. WOW!..GOING TO GOOGLE RIGHT NOW!!..NEED TO DO SOME HOMEWORK!! N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
14. Top notch investigating!
If only journalists were that good! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
15. This man is dangerous
Here's his bio from the website for his band, Epoxy:

Epoxy arose out of the hellish depths of Bretts time in prison for exercising his First Amendment rights to speech and political activity. Without any trial, Brett was hauled off to federal prison after being targeted by right-wingers who wanted to punish him for being a musician, writing a book and speaking out about politics.

Brett spent all of his time in the prison music room, writing, playing, and singing his songs. He put together a band, and every day or two he wrote a new song, and then played it later that evening. He relied on, what he calls, an intuitive crap meter to discard anything frivolous. The prisoners loved the band, and the crowds kept getting larger until the right-wingers passed a law to take all electric musical instruments out of the prison. So Brett and the ACLU sued, and he got to keep rocking while his status as a political prisoner increased. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and FAMM all took up his cause, and he was eventually released after tons of media coverage and a long running feature in Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury.

Once free, he let a few select music heads hear what he had spent the last several years doing. This started the rush to get it out as quickly as possible. Epoxy quietly went into studios around Washington D.C. and recorded 35 songs live, fully analog. Those songs were whittled down to 15 and mixed by a famous producer who chose to use a pseudonym because he loved the band but was encumbered by legal prohibitions. On August 15, 2002, the indie Pollen Records released the debut album, titled Nothing Else, while the big labels made their offers.
--------------------

Kimberlin drew a 51-year sentence for bombings that severely injured several people. I don't know why he's walking free again but I would run like a rabbit from anything that he is involved with. He is a delusional psychopath who will drain anything of value from those who fall under his influence.

Thanks for making the connection.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. he does seem like an authority on intuitive crap meters
I could imagine him arguing that he was framed for the bombings -- and how the hell would I know? I was 12 at the time. But he makes it sound as if he were arrested for playing Woody Guthrie metal songs or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
16. Shit.
Thanks for investigating this, Trouble.
IMO, this association is the last thing election reform people need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
17. you know, you read this
and you think you know... but I know Brett... and I know the story of his arrest and what really happened. he has been funding the voter fraud allegations, the afterdowningstreet people, etc... you simply don't know what you are talking about. oh, and he was also the same person who found Clint Curtis, and Diebthroat. wow, he must be a con man after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. I am simply asking a legitimate question.
I appreciate your input.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. I understand... I am not
trying to attack you, i am simply shocked to see this, that is all. the latst time this came up was in a threat made tot him over his protest of the baker/carter election commission. so i apologize if i seem to be in attack mode, i am not at all. i am just shocked and surprised. anyway, i agree that you have a right to ask questions and i provided the answer below down thread. i wish this whole post could be deleted because the man has been through a great deal already. anyway, sorry if i seemed to attack. not my intention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. So, tell us the story of his arrest and what really happened.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about pot issues, but bombs...that's a bird of a different feather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. I can
Only say that he was wrongly convicted, released, sued the government and won. As part of the agreement, he cannot discuss the particulars publicly. By the way, the real interest in those articles calling him a con man is that no one points out that he was the guy who - during the Regan/Quayle election, who came forward and blew the whistle on Dan's little drug problem... see, Brett sold him dope. I wonder why a guy who sued the government and won would suddenly be a con man? Swift boat anyone?

Anyway, I know him. I vouch for him. The reason he has so little money by the way, is that he spends it all on promoting causes, like election fraud. He helps Brad Friedman, Clint Curtis, and so forth.

Take it or leave it, but for what it is worth, I vouch for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. What about his original conviction for the bombings?
:shrug: I read he won parole and then he was put back in jail until 1994 due to the Quayle issue. But what about his original conviction where he was to serve 50+ years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. he was
convicted wrongfully and he even served time for something he did not do while is attorneys fought the conviction... it was overturned, he was exhonirated, and then he sued and won!

he was put into jail because he was talking about Danny Quayle's drug habbit... welcome to Amerika :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. His conviction for the bombings was overturned? I don't think so
In 1980, Kimberlin was imprisoned for his conviction in the 1978 Speedway bombings in Indianapolis. He was sentenced to serve 51 years.

In 1988, prisoner Kimberlin was put into detention in 1988 after he attempted to hold a press conference about selling dope to Quayle.

In 1993, Kimberlin appealed for his release because his parole, originally set for 1993, was reset for 1998 after Bush 1 was elected. It was later rolled back to 1994.

In 2003, Kimberlin sued employees in the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons for unlawful denial of press access.

I have found nothing that says his original conviction for the bombings was overturned. Or proves that he sold dope to Quayle, for that matter.

I will have to leave it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. ah, you are confusing dates
and stories....

and the source on this is whom? i too shall have to leave it... clearly, he is a menace to society, that damn Rock the Vote, Justice Through Music, Velvet Revolution, election reform, civil liberties activist... as for finding no proof that he sold dope to Danny, well, i must say it his his word against Danny's, in the end... is it not? what proof would there be? a credit card stub? a money order? an invoice?

i have not denied he sold pot, in fact i actually said so... oh boy, those evil post sellers. but you are right... a man who has spent the last 17 years of his life doing work on behalf of the American citizen should be locked up forever for having sold pot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. My dates are not confused
And your belittling tone doesn't serve you well. But if you want chapter and verse:

In 1980, Kimberlin was imprisoned for his conviction in the 1978 Speedway bombings in Indianapolis. He was sentenced to serve 51 years.
Detailed in a 1995 newsbrief from the National Department of Drug Strategy:
http://www.ndsn.org/feb95/quayle.html
And also in the Columbia Journalism Review's 1997 review of Mark Singer's book:
http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/2/books-con.asp

In 1988, prisoner Kimberlin was put into detention in 1988 after he attempted to hold a press conference about selling dope to Quayle.
Outlined in this letter written by Senator Carl Levin in 1992:
http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/kimberlin.html

In 1993, Kimberlin appealed for his release because his parole, originally set for 1993, was reset for 1998 after Bush 1 was elected. It was later rolled back to 1994.
Reported by AP in a story reprinted by Hemp News:
http://www.crrh.org/hempnews/hn_10.html

In 2003, Kimberlin sued employees in the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons for unlawful denial of press access.
Posted 3.03.2003 on AppellateBlog, with a PDF of the complete ruling available at an embedded link. For your convenience I have included the URL for the PDF.
http://appellateblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_appellateb...
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/90-1549.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Okay, let's get the basics out of the way
First off, I am not belittling you. I am stunned that you would link to Senator Levin's letter, but actually cite a line and not the most damning parts of the letter. Second, the first two references are based on the smear job by the journalist who did not do his job to begin with and who did not have the courage to stand with his source. So, dare I say they are not relevent.

But let's address Levin's letter.. why were they working so hard to silence Brett if he was lying? That completely undercuts the smear job done on him in retaliation in that book... Senator Levin's letter alone is enough to make this argument a moot point.


let's cite it here in full (emphasis added)


Mr. President, in May of this year, the New York Times ran an article about a 1988 incident involving a federal prisoner by the name of Brett Kimberlin and allegations that the Bureau of Prisons had tried to silence him for political purposes. Although the article appeared almost four years after the incident, it contained information that had recently come to light in a related court case. It was the first time I had read about the Kimberlin matter in any detail, and I found it startling.

The Times reported that when Kimberlin began making allegations involving then vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle just before the 1988 election -- and the press began to pay attention to those allegations -- the Bureau of Prisons took a number of actions to silence him. The Times reported that after calls from the Bush-Quayle campaign to the Justice Department, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons Michael Quinlan took a highly unusual course of action. He personally canceled a press conference arranged by local prison officials in response to several press requests to interview Kimberlin. He then personally ordered Kimberlin placed in administrative detention, or "the hole" as it is referred to by the prisoners. Both events took place only days before the November 1988 election.

The prison released Kimberlin from detention the following day. But when he later attempted to give an interview to a group of reporters by telephone, the Bureau put Kimberlin back into administrative detention for a week, until well after the election. A month later, when the press again began to pay attention to Kimberlin's allegations, the Bureau again returned him to administrative detention.

The Times article suggested that the Bureau of Prisons had violated prison rules in its effort to silence Kimberlin. Such an allegation, if true, would violate our fundamental principle of a fair and open government.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, I initiated a subcommittee investigation into the facts behind the New York Times article and the Kimberlin detentions. Let me make clear that the focus of this investigation was not to examine the validity of the allegations made by Kimberlin but solely whether, in 1988, the Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Justice engaged in improper conduct in the Kimberlin matter to advance a political purpose.

After my Subcommittee staff reviewed press accounts, public documents in a pending court case filed by Kimberlin against key officials in the Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Justice, and other information, I sent a list of questions to Mr. Quinlan, Mr. Loye Miller who headed the public affairs office of the Department of Justice in 1988, and the Justice Department itself. My questions were not answered specifically or by the person to whom they were addressed; the Justice Department responded in narrative form on behalf of all three addressees.

I responded with a letter identifying the many questions that had not been answered and requesting interviews with Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Miller. The Justice Department answered, again on behalf of both Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Miller, denying my request for interviews, but providing some additional information. The additional information did not, however, lay to rest important questions in this matter.


the rest of Senator Levin's letter follows:


Those questions go to a fundamental concern: guaranteeing that the power of our federal government is not used to silence individuals for political purposes.

Without interviewing Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Miller, I can go no further in the investigation. Were these ordinary times, I would convene a Subcommittee hearing and call these individuals and others to testify under oath to the facts pertaining to the cancellation of Kimberlin's press conference and his detentions by the Bureau of Prisons.

However, these are not ordinary times -- we are in the final month of a Presidential election -- and holding a hearing would probably lead to charges of politics. That would deflect the public's attention and the attention of the agencies involved from the important substance of the issues involved. Consequently, I have decided not to hold a hearing at this time, but to present my findings as well as the outstanding questions to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter dated today to the Inspector General and a report describing my investigation be included in the Record in full immediately following these remarks.

The report addresses four key events in the Kimberlin chronology, all flashpoints of what appears to be improper government action to isolate Kimberlin. These are: the decision by Bureau Director Quinlan on November 4, 1988, to cancel a press conference arranged by local prison officials and three separate decisions by the Bureau of Prisons on November 4, November 7, and December 22, 1988, to confine Kimberlin in administrative detention. The information we have about each of these events is based upon our review of depositions taken in the pending civil case, court pleadings and decisions, our own interviews, and the responses to our questions by the Department of Justice.

Mr. President, after reviewing that evidence and given the refusal of the Justice Department to allow interviews of Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Miller, I can only conclude that the cancellation of Kimberlin's November 4th press conference and his subsequent administrative detentions were actions taken by the Bureau of Prisons for political purposes. The primary purpose was to keep Kimberlin's allegations that he sold marijuana to Vice President Quayle in the 1970's out of the 1988 campaign. Whether these actions occurred on the independent initiative of Mr. Quinlan or other federal employees or at the request of the Bush-Quayle campaign is a question that remains unanswered.

The evidence of political considerations in the Kimberlin matter is as follows:

We know that the most senior officials in the Bush-Quayle campaign -- Jim Baker, Lee Atwater, Fred Fielding, Stu Spencer and Joe Canzeri, as well as Vice President Quayle himself -- knew about Kimberlin's allegations and his efforts to publicize them.

We know the Bush-Quayle campaign believed that the public's attention to the Kimberlin allegations could have serious consequences. Mark Goodin, the campaign's deputy press secretary, has stated in a deposition that:

"Oh, I don't think there was any doubt about what could happen. I have seen this kind of thing play out before. I made it very clear when I approached other senior officials of the campaign that it could be -- it was something that we needed to take seriously and deal with seriously because of its potential for adverse publicity."

Mr. Goodin conveyed that sentiment to the Justice Department in a conversation described in a 1989 memorandum prepared by Mr. Miller in which he states that Mr. Goodin "noted the obvious: that the closer to the Tuesday election that the story were to break, the more attention it was likely to get, and the better the chance that it could have at least some adverse effect on the Bush-Quayle chances." Stu Spencer, Quayle's campaign manager, stated in his deposition that he, too, took the Kimberlin allegations seriously because, "Late charges can be devastating."

We know that the campaign monitored the situation closely. Mr. Goodin, the campaign's key link to the Justice Department, stayed in constant touch with the Department on the Kimberlin matter. As Mr. Goodin stated in his deposition:

"Over a fairly substantial period of time, it is fair to characterize my contact with the Department of Justice as fairly close contact. ... It's certainly fair to say that I kept close tabs on the issue through the Department of Justice."

A December 1988 memorandum prepared by Mr. Quinlan for his superiors also reveals that at least one unidentified person from the campaign -- Mr. Goodin has said it wasn't him -- telephoned the Bureau directly to inquire about Kimberlin's media contacts.

We know the Justice Department, through Mr. Miller, agreed to keep the campaign informed and, in fact, kept Mr. Goodin apprised of key developments in Kimberlin's attempts to reach the press with his allegations. Mr. Goodin then kept Mr. Baker and other top campaign officials apprised of the key developments.

We know that the campaign, the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons fielded frequent calls from the press in the final days of the 1988 election about the Kimberlin allegations.

We know that Mr. Quinlan became personally involved to a highly unusual, if not unprecedented, degree in the decisions made with respect to Kimberlin: first, he personally ordered the cancellation of the press conference arranged by the prison; second, he personally ordered Kimberlin placed in administrative detention; and third, he requested and reviewed transcripts of Kimberlin's telephone calls during this period.

We know that Mr. Quinlan was aware of and concerned about Kimberlin's contacts with the media. The December 1988 memorandum he prepared for his superiors began, for example, by stating that, "As you know, Kimberlin's allegations ... have received additional media attention in the last several days." Later in that memorandum, Mr. Quinlan pointed with satisfaction to the fact that his earliest decision in the Kimberlin matter, to allow an interview by NBC, resulted in "no news outlet carr the story in the pre-election period."

We know that there are serious gaps and inconsistencies in the Bureau's explanations of the substantive basis for its actions in the Kimberlin matter:

First, Mr. Quinlan canceled the November 4th press conference arranged by local prison officials by citing a purported policy against inmate press conferences, which local prison officials had never heard of, has never been put in writing, and was not applied by the Bureau to monthly press conferences held by a former Member of Congress incarcerated in federal prison in 1986 and 1987.

Second, Mr. Quinlan justified placing Kimberlin in detention on November 4th by claiming he'd received information that Kimberlin feared for his safety from other inmates, despite a contemporaneous finding by the prison that no such inmate threat existed, and despite inconsistent and questionable evidence of how that information reached the Director late at night in an out-of-town hotel.

Third, the Bureau's decision to return Kimberlin to detention on November 7th, the day before the election, relies on unclear documentation and suspect timing, lacks an identifiable authorizing official, and has been justified by inconsistent explanations.

Fourth, the Bureau's explanations for placing Kimberlin in detention on December 22nd were found unconvincing by an independent hearing officer who determined that Kimberlin was innocent of the rule infractions charged.

Key individuals must be directed to explain these inconsistencies, contradictions and gaps in the Kimberlin story. Because the Justice Department has refused to permit Subcommittee interviews of two of these individuals, Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Miller, and a Subcommittee hearing is not feasible at this time, I've taken the investigation as far as I can. That is why I have asked the Inspector General to become involved.

If the conclusion of the Inspector General is similar to mine -- that the Bureau took these actions against Kimberlin to isolate him for political purposes -- the Inspector General should identify the federal officials involved and recommend appropriate disciplinary action.



So we are left with the original crime, which he served 8 of his 51 year sentence... odd, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Basics:
Kimberlin was imprisoned in 1980 for bombing and other crimes.

Kimberlin was still an inmate in prison in 1988, when he was put into "administrative detention" ('solitary confinement') apparently in order to keep him from telling his Quayle story to the press. (this is the subject of the Levin leter)

Kimberlin was eventually paroled in 1994.

He served 14 years. 1980-1994.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #45
51.  To answer your questions and correct your misperceptions
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 06:59 PM by SheWhoMustBeObeyed
...the first two references are based on the smear job by the journalist who did not do his job to begin with and who did not have the courage to stand with his source. So, dare I say they are not relevent.

The first link predates the release of Mark Singer's book by more than a year.
ndsn.org link: dated February 2005 (per ndsn.org)
Citizen K: released Oct 22, 1996 (per Amazon.com)

These links establish that Kimberlin was convicted of crimes beyond mere pot dealing, which you belittled as my main concern. I give fuck-all about pot dealers. But then none that I have known have been convicted of planting bombs.
------------------------------------------------------
I am stunned that you would link to Senator Levin's letter, but actually cite a line and not the most damning parts of the letter.

I linked Sen. Levin's letter because it gives the most thorough and credible overview of the 1988 situation, which the Democrats considered using as ammunition against the GOP in the 1992 campaign. My line is not a quote from it, it is a summary of Kimberlin's legal status in 1988. There is no denying that Kimberlin was punished for his efforts to hold a press conference. My point is, he was already an inmate at the time he was placed in solitary confinement. He was not imprisoned for his allegations; his imprisonment was made worse.

To state it another way: his status as a political prisoner had nothing to do with the bombings for which he was originally convicted.

To state it yet another way: Political detention bad. Bombing and maiming also bad. Two bads don't make a good guy.
------------------------------------------------------
So we are left with the original crime, which he served 8 of his 51 year sentence... odd, no?

Is it? And was it only eight years?

"Brett Kimberlin was sentenced to fifty years after his convictions related to the distribution of marijuana and some bombings in Indiana. Like me, he was convicted under the old law, which meant that he was eligible for parole after he had served ten years. Kimberlin brought some loud publicity to his life, however, and as a consequence of his having made some powerful enemies, he did not receive favorable parole consideration until after he had served 15 years. Under today's more punitive system, he would have served significantly longer."
http://www.michaelsantos.net/citizenk.html
Michael Santos is a long-term federal prisoner who met Kimberlin when they were both incarcerated at a facility in Oklahoma. His statement about Kimberlin's eligibility for parole is backed up by the AP story reprinted in Hemp News.
------------------------------------------------------
Kimberlin is not some innocent college dope dealer who was shanghaied on a bombing charge because somehow the Feds knew he was selling pot to a future Vice President back in the early 70s. Whatever his secret settlements, they are not related to the crime for which he was originally convicted, the crime which raises my most serious concerns:

"Kimberlin was serving time for placing and detonating a series of explosive devices in Sept. 1978 in Speedway, Indiana. In the most serious incident, Kimberlin left a gym bag in the parking lot of the Speedway High School. Carl Delong picked up the bag and the explosives detonated, tearing off his lower right leg and two fingers. Delong's wife also suffered serious injury from bomb fragments. Kimberlin is also serving time for other offenses, including impersonating a federal officer, illegal use of the Department of Defense insignia, illegal use of the Presidential seal, receipt of explosives, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana." (per ndsn.org)

edit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
44. If you vouch for him lala
Then I stand TALL with you...kpete
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. thanks my friend...
and thanks for the kind PM the other day... just been too crazed to respond :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
18. Shades of Bozos for Bush....
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 03:40 AM by AntiFascist
and I wouldn't doubt that there are plenty of Bozos who are trying to bring down any movement that might be a threat to Republican control of government.

On edit: some preemptive reporting - this was being investigated by Wayne Madsen back in April 2005. He claimed that Kimberlin had also infiltrated the Kerry campaign "big time" having used his daughter in one of the Kerry commercials. He also claims he interviewed Kimberlin who told him that $100,000 of reward money came from a donor in Ohio and another $100,00 from one in Florida. Take that for what it's worth and the source it came from. The question I would have is, why is this being talked about now, right before the mid-terms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
67. I have to clarify something.....

and I hate to dredge up this thread again, but: John Dean (former DUer "Bozos for Bush" - no he's not the famous Watergate figure) has pointed out to me that the email he forwarded to me about Madsen's investigation into Justice Through Music and surrounding entities were purely Madsen's own conclusions and not Dean's. John never drew any of his own conclusions about the founders behind Velvet Revolution, in fact he fully supports Brad Friedman's efforts.

As for the posters who suggest that Kimberlin is some sort of Charles Manson figure and anyone associated with Velvet Revolution has fallen under his control, this is just ridiculous!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DTinAZ Donating Member (325 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. "poster" not "posters"
Only one person made that rather extreme comparison. Others are asking honest questions, asking for information, and questioning all the various contradictions that should be obvious to the impartial observer.

DT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
19. Have Congressional elections been overturned in the past?
"The information must result in an overturning of a congressional election and a conviction of the person or persons responsible for the fraud."

I don't know of any US Congressional election that has ever been overturned due to irregularities such as election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojowork_n Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
50. Election thieves punished?
I was curious myself, so I looked around a little bit and lo and behold, I discovered that the ne'er-do-wells may actually be rewarded.



Here's one writer's opinion about the "most corrupt election in U.S. History", the theft of a Senate race:



"...the most wonderful example of a stolen election that I've ever come across, was how Lyndon Johnson won the Senate in Texas in 1948. He did it in a very large number of ways, but what it came down to in the end was that he was trailing by about 120 votes. It was six days after the election, and it seemed like all the votes were in and one of his operatives in Jim Wells County, which is down near the Rio Grande River on the Mexican border, changed that 7 to a 9, gave him 200 more votes, and he ended up the winner.

When they inspected the voting ledger, they saw that the last 200 names had been written in in alphabetical order in a different color of ink from all the rest. And Coke Stevenson, who was the losing candidate, went down to Jim Wells County with Frank Hamer, the marshall who caught Bonnie and Clyde 15 years earlier. They went through this list and tried to find the people on the list, and they found every irregularity conceivable.

The story which I go into is quite extraordinary, not only because LBJ stole that election, but that he got away with it when his theft was so brazen. He essentially got away with it because it was a primary election rather than a general election, so the ultimate authority was the Democratic Party. The executive committee of the Texas Democratic Party took a crucial vote, and people were so afraid to vote against LBJ that some of them didn't even show up to the meeting..."

The absolutely last, critical vote came when LBJ's operative searched the building for a couple of people who were missing and found one of them skulking in the mens' toilet and hauled him out and forced him to vote for LBJ, and that was the end of that. They voted against conducting further investigation, and he became the senator.


http://www.alternet.org/story/32262 /

(And only God, a few ghosts -- Jack, Lee Harvey, Dorothy? -- and a small roster of unknowns can tell us how ultimately heinous and corrupt a precedent was thereby set.)

The most thought-provoking aspect of this whole election history article is the writer's observation that voting inequity is so apple-pie American, it was enshrined in the Constitution. The congressional representatives of Southern slave-holding states were permitted to include 60% of their kidnapped foreign workers in their district's population count, but those persons were permitted 0% of a vote on election day. The mechanism was there merely to multiply the number of Southern, slave-holding congressional representatives who were allowed to cast votes in the hallowed halls of our federal legislative bodies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
21. 
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 04:04 AM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
23. interesting Trouble! another nom to get it up with the other threads
on the reward

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
25. I don't believe these are the same person. One was sentenced to
51 years in prison for the bombings...the other ran Rock the Vote and had a case about Free Speech. I see no mention of Velvet Revolution or Rock the Vote or Justice Through Music in any reviews or summaries of the book.

Are you sure this is the same guy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. same person...
he was wrongly convicted, jailed, served time and then won his case of a wrongful conviction and was exonerated. he sued the government and won. he has since used that money to pay for things like Rock the Vote, etc. the only "crime" he ever committed was that he sold weed when he was in his 20s... and he sold it to high power republicans i might add (see above post of mine).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DTinAZ Donating Member (325 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. an indepent link supporting this...
won his case of a wrongful conviction and was exonerated


please? Mr. Kimberlin has been involved in a LOT of court cases, going all the way up to the SCOTUS. So many, that it's virtually impossible to sort them all out. It would be nice to have some independent confirmation. I tried looking in the (relatively new) news archive search funtion at Google News, but didn't find what you're talking about.

DT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. i have an idea...
given that as part of the agreement, he has not been allowed to discuss it, consider how someone sentenced to 51 years on terrorism charges is not in jail? how is it someone like this is simply let go and has a clean record on this original charge? how many court cases would a fight to be cleared require?

better still, since you seem to believe you have an idea of what the truth is here (and frankly, you don't), based on some smear pieces that appear in Google searches, perhaps you can expand your research out and look through legal filings? you seem to have spent some time already on this topic, so why not take a few more minutes and do some of the work?

you may also wish to contact him directly, he is more than happy to privately discuss as much as he can.

but i do not have a link nor am i going to spend the day looking for one to documents that i have seen first hand, and don't even know if they are in the public sphere, given that the government made silence part of the agreement to begin with. i know him and vouch for him. take it or leave it. Brad Friedman also vouches for him, take it or leave it. David Swanson vouches for him, take it or leave it. and the late Andy Stephenson, also ironically attacked as a fraudster, also was Brett's friend. everyone he is close to, as well as members of Congress he works closely with, were all informed by him of the situation and everyone is quite comfortable with the facts of the story, which are supported by court documents and various agreements and attorneys (those who worked to get him cleared).

so off you go, find the links... and share them with the class.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DTinAZ Donating Member (325 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. oh well...
In order to actually research this, I think I'd need access to LexisNexis, "versuslaw.com" and a heck of a lot of time, none of which I have...sorry.

Taking people's word on this may be fine for some, but for those of us who are naturally more skeptical (akin to "Doubting Thomas," I suppose), it will probably take more.

And despite my low post count (mostly indicative of the aforementioned shortness of available time), my personal involvement in election fraud and the various online personalities goes back pretty far and I've frequently put my money where my mouth is, including giving (twice) for Andy's medical care.

I wrote to Velvet Revolution this morning, alerting them to the quetions about Kimberlin being raised on DU, and what I received back was pretty vague, but I won't post the contents of private emails.

My doubts weren't fueled only by "smear pieces that appear in Google searches," but you'll have to take my word for that...

DT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. no no, do not take my word for it... that is not what i said...
i said "take it, or leave it" and you have left it, which is fine. when you have the time, perhaps you can do more research and decide on your own. as for the journalist joker who wrote that book... he seems to want to blame a source for his own bad reporting... first off, he should have been prepped for the onslaught that was going to come of the Danny pot story, instead he folded and ran away. secondly, to run a story, especially that story using a single source is not only stupid, it is a career ending mistake. finally, to use a source without doing research on their background, so you know what you are working with, is sloppy and goes back to what I said about a bad journalist blaming a source for journalistic shorts cuts he took and errors he made.

Brett has never been a source of mine, but were I in that position of the stoned Danny story, i would want to investigate the source all the way back to when they were a zygote. i would make the source take a polygraph, because for something like this you may only have the one source... they would have to go on the record... they would have to give details that can be confirmed independently, even if the big claim would be impossible to confirm with others... for example, you get a date of a transaction, where it took place, what the temperature was out that day... how the alleged drug buyer, Danny Q, arrived, what was he wearing, and so forth... you would verify as much as you could... for example, was Q in the vicinity of where Brett says the buy took place? if he was too far away, for example, it can be proved that he was visiting his parents several states away (meaning the drive would not be possible, unless he stopped to sleep at various ins) or if there was no record of him ever owning that car, then the story is dead... but to run a story like that, base it on a single source and not bother knowing who your source is, what their deal is, what their motives are, nor taking the time to do basic journalistic work does not make your source a lier... it simply makes the journalist a bad journalist.

the Google pieces that appear are based on the journalists book, after he wet himself... it is a smear piece and it is not accurate for a reason... the journalist is trying to blame his shoddy reporting on his source.

again, i have not asked you to "Just trust me, take my word for it." I said, I vouch for him, take it or leave it. big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Thanks for all the additional info, llrr.
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 04:07 PM by Kurovski
It's been very helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. sure, just don't want to
see someone doing good work turned into something he is not... i know it is all very strange, so i understand the questions and issues of course. i just wish it was presented differently and that the arguments were less judgmental. anyway, glad i could help. in the end, no matter what the view point is, it does not matter that he is funding anyone willing to come forward with evidence, it is the evidence that is important.

off i go, :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
29. This enmity
...between the anti-voter suppression groups disturbs me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. thanks
that clarifies things for me :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
42. In the Fire Swamp we are. Of Rodents of Unusual Size beware.


(mixing movie metaphors...)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
47. the Quayle/Kimeberlin connection, in case this hasn't been linked yet:
http://www.crrh.org/hempnews/hn_17.html#quayle%20prison...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit by an inmate who accused prison officials of improperly muzzling his 1988 election-eve bid to publicize allegations he sold marijuana to Dan Quayle.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington said Brett Kimberlin's claims that his rights were violated are based on insufficient evidence to warrant a trial against former Bureau of Prisons' Director J. Michael Quinlan and former Justice Department spokesman Loye Miller.
The court split, 2-1, Friday with a dissenter saying the ruling is unjust.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, writing for the panel, said, "Kimberlin relies only on inference and weak circumstantial evidence." She was joined by Judge Stephen Williams. Both were appointed to the court by former President Reagan.
In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Harry Edwards said the ruling is "unfathomable in this country under our constitutional system."
"I simply cannot imagine that the judiciary of the United States will shut the doors of the courthouse and refuse to allow Kimberlin's suit to proceed for the specious reason that his complaint is based on circumstantial evidence," said Edwards, an appointee of former President Carter.
Justice Department Inspector General Richard Hankinson concluded last month that officials unfairly disciplined Kimberlin. But Hankinson said there was no "conspiracy to silence" the inmate when Quayle was running for vice president on the Republican ticket with George Bush.
Quinlan canceled a Nov. 4, 1988, prison press conference at which Kimberlin planned to make public his allegations about Quayle. Quinlan also ordered Kimberlin placed in a special detention cell that night at the Federal Correctional Institution in El Reno, Okla.
On Nov. 7, the day before the election, Kimberlin was again placed in special detention because he tried to set up a telephone conference call with reporters in Washington.
He again was disciplined on Dec. 22 after attempting to contact reporters.
Kimberlin claimed he sold marijuana to Quayle years ago when the former vice president was a law student. Quayle has denied the allegation. The Drug Enforcement Administration concluded Kimberlin's claim was false.
Kimberlin is serving 51 years for convictions including drug conspiracy and eight Indiana bombings and has been in jail since 1980.
Quinlan said he did not have any contact with Bush-Quayle campaign officials around the time of the election and said he acted to protect Kimberlin's safety.
Miller said he discussed the situation with a campaign aide but denied there was any attempt by the campaign to influence events.
In her opinion Friday, Henderson said there is no direct evidence Quinlan acted "for any reason other than Kimberlin's safety."
But Edwards said in his dissent that Quinlan's explanation "is entirely suspect." The judge said it is highly unusual for top government officials in Washington to get involved in disciplining federal prisoners.
U.S. District Court Judge Harold Greene ruled in 1991 that Quinlan and Miller were not immune from all of the claims in Kimberlin's suit. The two officials appealed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. see the Levin letter above on this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
52. I'll take the word of Larisa ... lala_rawraw on this issue.
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 09:11 PM by autorank
She summed it up pretty quickly ... and clearly. This is not relevant information.

It is nearly impossible to win a wrongful conviction suit or whatever type of suit there was for the
initial legal action by the government. Getting a settlement that amounts to anything is even harder.
Given what lala said, the use of that settlement for highly productive ends is something that should
be looked upon as a positive action.

We have people in prisons all over the world who are tortured every day. If one of them is released,
found to have been 100% innocent and given a settlement, are we then to call them terrorists and smear
any organization they choose to support?

More of the same old same old nastiness. Enough already.

On edit: I'm not a member of Velvet Revolution or any other voting rights related political
organization besides the Democratic Party, where I serve on my county central committee. Not
that it's any body's business: I say this to show that I have no institutional interest in this beef.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. auto, don't bother...
they have convicted him based on the few pieces of info they read... he served his time, even though he bombed no one. yes, he was dealing pot, and that is a crime.

in any case, i hope that the money will bring someone forward. in the end, that is what counts. but if people feel it too distasteful to be in any way associated with a former convict, even by taking his money in exchange for truth, then i don't know what to say. sadly, no one in America gets a second chance... not from the right nor the left. me, of all people - who writes about the Pakistani terror network, would hardly defend someone who bombed anyone or took a life. i would defend them on basic human rights, but not stand behind them saying "this is a good egg." shit happens in this world and many innocent people are convicted for crimes they did not commit. they kept him in prison after he was freed for political reasons. they put him in prison for a bombing he did not commit. and even now, despite all his efforts, he is still being put on trial by people blogging in a forum, who believe that a few links and a few articles tell the story of anyone's life. i don't get why it is so emotional for them. for me, it is easy, i know him to be a good person. for them, he is random... so why all the fuss? in any case, let's put this thread to rest. it accomplishes nothing, but it does a good job of showing how much judgment people are ready to deliver unto others.

so, on to more productive things. brett will be okay. he read the thread. he told me to let it go, so i am letting it go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. I may not know too much about the story, but...
I trust your judgement. I support you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #53
59. Do you have evidence that shows Kimberlin's bombing conviction overturned?
Larisa,

Will you please furnish a link to a credible source where I can see evidence that Brett Kimberlin's conviction for detonating a series of explosive devices in 1978 was wrongful and that he was exonerated of the charge? Since you seem to be convinced that this is so, I'm hoping you are aware of such a resource.

My effort to find this information has been unsuccessful, but that might be because my humble skills are lacking.

Lasher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Thanks auto.
Looking at the evidence of the overturned conviction alone, I completely agree that there is no problem here.

If we get an actual conviction on an election fraudster out of this, who gives a rat's ass what smears the criminal's supporters will engage in.


The smears are always to be expected, regardless.

lala_rawraw did a good job of bringing the facts as they stand to light, even while in the midst of personal crisis, and for that I'm very appreciative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. What "evidence"?
"Looking at the evidence of the overturned conviction"

What evidence of any overturned conviction? Please show it. I'm sure we'd all be interested to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
55. Add me to the list of those who vouch...
lala_rawraw wrote:
<<Brad Friedman also vouches for him, take it or leave it. David Swanson vouches for him, take it or leave it. and the late Andy Stephenson, also ironically attacked as a fraudster, also was Brett's friend. everyone he is close to, as well as members of Congress he works closely with, were all informed by him of the situation and everyone is quite comfortable with the facts of the story, which are supported by court documents and various agreements and attorneys (those who worked to get him cleared).>>


Ya'll can add demodonkey -- me -- to the list of people who know him and will vouch, vouch, VOUCH for Brett.

And BTW, Andy Stephenson was the one who told ME the story, and as lala-rawraw points out he was a good friend of Brett.

Suggest everyone look elsewhere for dirt to dig... there are plenty of shady characters in this world and indeed in the election business who need to be gone after, but not Brett Kimberlin.

MB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
58. Thanks again for posting this info
I appreciate your efforts and, had I done the research even without your initial post, would have drawn the same conclusions. Thank you again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
60. Holy crap
thank you so much for the info, this is very disturbing news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
61. Parole Violations
Kimberlin's release date... February 1994. http://www.crrh.org/hempnews/hn_10.html


JUNE 2001"Convicted bomber and frequent litigant Brett Kimberlin ... who's in federal prison in Petersburg, Va., on parole violations", http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/01/june1.html


Kimberlin was released from prison, was returned to prison, and was released again, the last time in June 2001. He has filed a number of lawsuits, among them a civil case against the Department of Justice stemming from the 1988 restrictions, which he argued violated his First Amendment rights. A final appeal of that case was rejected by the Supreme Court in March 2001. More recently, Kimberlin was involved in another First Amendment lawsuit against the Department of Justice, this time because of a prison ban of electric guitars. That suit was rejected this month. http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A3...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. He's certainly the litigatious fellow, isn't he
It makes you wonder why, if Mark Singer's book was a "smear job," Kimberlin didn't sue him. Maybe because, as Singer states, Kimberlin received royalties in return for his cooperation.

I'm still wondering what kind of secret settlements could include overturning Kimberlin's original conviction. Such judgements cannot be secret, they must be on record. Imagine a prospective employer discovering your conviction and being unable to defend yourself because the government swore you to secrecy. And even if they could be secret, apparently that secrecy has been violated.

But it looks like none of these questions will be answered, not by the people who know him so well, because Brett has told them to let it go. And when Brett tells you to let something go, I guess it's best to let it go. Having known psychopaths, and being familiar with the lying manipulation that is their trademark, I just hope nobody else is injured.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DTinAZ Donating Member (325 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. I think you're right
Such judgements cannot be secret, they must be on record


You'd think that any reversal of the original *criminal* conviction should indeed be public record, but IANAL. What we're being told sounds more like some sort of civil settlement, in which the records are sometimes sealed. If someone were exonerated of a criminal conviction, I'm pretty sure that some verification would be available.

DT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Fascinating
Edited on Fri Oct-13-06 02:39 PM by troubleinwinter
Brett Kimberlin apparently had some troubles before his conviction for drug dealing and the 1978 bombings:

"He was convicted of perjury in 1974 for lying about -- drugs." https://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1991/m...


He claims to have been in federal prison with no trial. This is from Brett Kimberlin's own band's website:

Epoxy is Brett Kimberlin on guitar and vocals... Without any trial, Brett was hauled off to federal prison after being targeted by right-wingers who wanted to punish him for being a musician, writing a book and speaking out about politics. http://www.epoxyband.com/bios /

Wow. They sent him to federal prison with no trial for "being a musician"? Right. And what book did he write?


Kimberlin seemed to have admitted once upon a time that he was tried:

And when Singer finally got around to doing the sort of reporting he should have done at the start, he found one Kimberlin story after another to have been exaggerated or twisted or made up completely. He also tracked down the polygraph expert who had been hired by Kimberlin's lawyer at his trial, and was told that -- despite Kimberlin's contention that he had passed with flying colors -- Kimberlin had "flunked the test every way in the world" on the things that most mattered. http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/2/books-con.asp

Mark Singer (staff writer for The New Yorker magazine since 1974) realized and admitted that he had been duped by a con-man.


And then there's the federal prosecutor:

(Bernard L.) Pylitt, a lifetime-registered Democrat...

One of the more notorious cases he prosecuted in federal court was the Speedway Bomber,
who terrorized the small town of Speedway for eight days. http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Pylitt_Bernard_242917617...


And then there's the federal judge:

Federal Judge William E. Steckler

During his nearly half century on the bench, Steckler tried cases involving the constitutionality of Unigov, legislative reapportionment, convicted Speedway bomber Brett Kimberlin... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:E24MR5-252 :


And then there is the victim who sued Kimberlin for civil damages:

.. Kimberlin, the popularly designated Speedway Bomber, had previously been convicted of injuring people and destroying property by means of an explosive. The injured parties in the explosion later sued Kimberlin, and the trial court granted partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. We held that because the criminal charges were defended vigorously at trial and on appeal, and Kimberlin was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, this clearly meets or exceeds the equivalence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the facts determinative of his civil liability. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=...

But he is most notorious for the Speedway bombings in the late 1970's. One bomb was planted at a high school during a football game; one victim, Carl Delong, lost a leg and suffered pain and depression that led to his suicide. Mr. Kimberlin was judged liable for Mr. Delong's death and ordered to pay $1.6 million to his widow. http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DTinAZ Donating Member (325 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. "vouchers" vs. factual details
Three or four DU denizens have "vouched" for Mr. Kimberlin, but the information you've provided is very disturbing. Seems like we might be dealing with different "truths" here.

DT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now.
This guy reminds me of Charles Manson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC