8/2/2019 Email From Brett Kimberlin to Beth Kingsley 12.30.11 (OCR)

1/6

Gmail - FW: Kimberlin v. Allen

FW: Kimberlin v. AllenBeth Kingsley

8/2/2019 Email From Brett Kimberlin to Beth Kingsley 12.30.11 (OCR)

2/6

Gmail - FW: Kimberlin v. Allengroup, Chamber Watch, and me personally as part of a six million dollar campaign of destruction.See http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8354Although Team Themis was exposed, the Chamber continues to fund operations against us and me,and Mr. Worthing is part of the cabal that the Chamber uses for its nefarious purposes along withothers such as those cc'd on the death threat email from Mr. Allen to Mr. Worthing. We arepresently in consultation with counsel about fil ing a lawsuit against the Chamber et al for the TeamThemis campaign of destruction, and there is a very real possibility that Mr. Worthing will be nameda defendant in that action, which will most likely be f iled in federal court.Finally, I want to memorialize my concern about Mr. Worthing's violations of the Rules ofProfessional Responsibility and the possibility that this may impact you if a Court or Bar finds thatyou somehow contributed to this unprofessional conduct. Mr. Worthing entered into an attorneyclient relationship with Seth Allen using a false name, and is trying this case on the blogs, attackingme personally and as a party, and now threatening to present criminal charges to obtain anadvantage in a civil matter, being a lawyer and a witness, using his blog to embarrass me, andmaking false statements about me. See relevant rules below.I believe that any Court or Bar faced with a complaint detailing the actions of Mr. Worthing tryingthis case in the press with vile attacks on me, wil l f ind that his conduct violates the Rules. Isubpoenaed Mr. Worthing in a civil matter and was attacked mercilessly on his blog, and in histweets. He has called me a murder suspect, a terrorist, a perjurer, and urged others to attack me.He has called me out personally on his blog, urged readers to get the popcorn because he wasgoing to destroy me and it will be fun to watch. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2011/12/tune-intonight-at-ten-oclock-eastern.html This is not conduct that is allowed by an attorney. A bloggerwho did this could face a defamation suit, but Mr. Worthing is representing himself as an attorneywho he says had an attorney client relationship with a party to this lawsuit. Therefore, he is boundby the Rules of Professional Conduct.

I wil l be seeking sanctions against him for violating the Rules now that he has given the Courtjurisdiction over him by filing his motion. My dilemma now is whether you too have violated theRules by acting in a supervisory capacity to him. As you know, Rules 5.1 and 5.2 specifically requireboth supervisory and subordinate attorneys comply with the Rules. I urge you to discuss thesematters with others in your f irm and get back to me no later than Tuesday, January 3rd as to theconflict of interests and the Rules violations so I can decide how to proceed with my sanctionsmotion.Beth, as noted in our call, I am a reasonable person and I did not ask for this fight and I don't evenblog. I want to be left alone. That's what Judge Jordan told Seth Allen to do, but he refused tocomply with that order or the permanent injunction. Mr. Worthing has egged him on and advisedhim to violate the order. Now Mr. Worthing is arguing frivolously that the injunction is taintedbecause I am a felon. He is urging criminal prosecution of me for what he frivolously argues isperjury. He chose this fight and he wil l have to answer to the Court and the Bar for his conduct.Maybe he has a First Amendment right to blog anonymously, but he does not have a FirstAmendment right to violate the Rules. And I don't believe that any Court or Ba r will allow Mr.Worthing to remain anonymous after violating the Rules so blatantly.I am a victim of stalking. I have a final Peace Order issued by a judge against Mr. Allen for stalkingand death threats. I have a permanent injunction against Mr. Allen prohibiting him from defaming

htlps://mail.google.com/maill?ui=2&ik=4cc57a020c&view=pt&q=bkingsley%40harmoncurran.com&qs=tr...

8/2/2019 Email From Brett Kimberlin to Beth Kingsley 12.30.11 (OCR)

3/6

Gmail - FW: Kimberlin v. Allenopen refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

(d) in pretrial procedure make frivolous discovery requests or fail to makereasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests by anopposing party; (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe isrelevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personalknowledge of facts in issue except when testi fying as a witness, or state apersonal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a Witness, theculpability of a civil l it igant or the gUilt or innocence of an accused; or

( f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevantinformation to another party unless:

oo (1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; andoo (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not beadversely affected by refraining from giving such information.

(g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges toobtain an improper advantage in a civil matter.

Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not:(1) seek to influence a judge, prospective, qualified, or sworn juror, or other off icial bymeans prohibited by law;(2) before the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate outsidethe course of official proceedings with anyone known to the lawyer to be on the jurylist fo r trial 0 f the case;(3) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate outsidethe course of official proceedings with any member of the jury;(4) dur ing the trial of a case with which the lawyer is not connected, communicateoutside the course of official proceedings with any member of the jury about the case;(5) after discharge of ajury from further consideration of a case with which the lawyeris connected, ask questions of or make comments to ajury member that are calculatedto harass or embarrass the jury member or to influence the jury member's actions infuture jury service;(6) conduct a vexatious or harassing investigation of any prospective, qualified, orsworn juror;(7) communicate ex parte about an adversary proceeding with the judge or otherofficial before whom the proceeding is pending, except as permitted by law;(8) discuss with ajudge potential employment of the judge if the lawyer or a firm with which thelawyer is associated has a matter that is pending before the judge; or(9) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal .(b) A lawyer who has knowledge of any violation of paragraph (a) of this Rule, any

ttps:/Imail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=4cc57a020c&view=pt&q=bkingsley%40harmoncurran.com&qs=tr...

8/2/2019 Email From Brett Kimberlin to Beth Kingsley 12.30.11 (OCR)

4/6

/5/12 Gmail - FW: Kimberlin v. Allenimproper conduct by a prospective, qualified, or sworn j uror o r any improper conductby another towards prospective, qualified, or sworn juror, shall repo rt it p romptly tothe court or other appropriate authority.

RPC 3.6. Trial Publicity (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or

litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyerknows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materiallyprejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

o

o (1 ) the claim, offense, or defense involved and, except when prohibited bylaw, the identity of the persons involved;o

o (2) the information contained in a public record;o

o (3) that an investigation of the matter is in progress;o

o (4 ) the scheduling 0 r result of any step in Iitigatio n;o

o (5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and informationnecessary thereto;o

o (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved,when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood ofsubstantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; ando

o (7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1 ) through (6): (i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of theaccused; (ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary

to aid in apprehension of that person; (iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and (iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and

the length of the investigatio n. (e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that areasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from thesubstantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyeror the lawyer1s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall belimited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adversepublicity.

https:llmail.google.com/maill?ui=2&ik=4cc57a020c&view=pt&q=bkingsley%40harmoncurran.com&qs=tr...

8/2/2019 Email From Brett Kimberlin to Beth Kingsley 12.30.11 (OCR)

5/6

Gmail - FW Kimberlin v. AllenNote: Adopted July 12 , 1984, to be effective September 10, 1984; paragraph (b)( l ) amended October 1, 1992, tobe effective immedia te ly ; paragraph (a) amended, paragraph (b) de le ted and restated in Official Comment,paragraph (e ) amended and redesignated as paragraph (b), and new paragraph (e) adop ted November 17 , 2003 tobe effective January 1 , 2004.

Official Comment by Supreme CourtA statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have such an effect whenit refers to a civil matter triable to a jUry, a criminal matter, or any other proceedingthat could result in incarceration, and the statement relates to: (1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in acriminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness other than the victimof a crime, or the expected testimony of a party or Witness; (2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, thepossibility of a plea of gUilty to the offense or the existence or contents of anyconfession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or thatperson's refusal or failure to make a statement; (3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal orfailure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or natureof physical evidence expected to be presented; (4) any opinion as to the gUilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in acriminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; (5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to beinadmissible as evidence in a trial and would, i f disclosed, create a substantial r iskof prejudicing an impartial trial; or (6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there isincluded therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusationand that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

RPC 3.7. Lawyer as Witness (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to bea necessary witness unless:

oo (1 ) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;oo (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal servicesrendered in the case; 0 roo (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on theclient.

(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in thelawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by

mail.google. comlmaiV?ui=2&ik=4ccS7a020C&view=pt&q=bkingsley"k40harmoncurran. com&qs=tr...

8/2/2019 Email From Brett Kimberlin to Beth Kingsley 12.30.11 (OCR)

6/6

Gmail - FW Kimberlin v. AllenRPC 1.7 or RPC 1.9.

RPC 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others (a) In representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

o

o (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; oroo (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure isnecessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client.

(b) The duties stated in this Rule apply even if compliance requires disclosure ofinformation otherwise protected by RPC 1.6.

RPC 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no

substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, oruse methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person. (b) A lawyer who receives a document and has reasonable cause to believe thatthe document was inadvertently sent shall not read the document or, if he or shehas begun to do so, shall stop reading the document, promptly notify the sender,and return the document to the sender.

------ End of Forwarded Message------ End of Forwarded Message

Socrates Final Peaace Order.pdf49K

m/maill?ui=2&ik=4cc57aD2Dc&view=pt&q=bkingsley%4Dharmoncurran.com&qs=tr...