Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)

8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)

1/94

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN,

Plaintiff,

NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, etaI.,Defendants

No. PWG 13 3059

PL INTIFF S RESPONSE TO DEFEND NT DB C PITOL STR TEGIES MOTION

TO DISMISS

Now comes Plaintiff and responds in opposition to Defendant DB Capitol

Strategies' Motion to Dismiss. The Court must deny a Motion to Dismiss under Rule

12 b) 6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless it appears beyond doubt

that Plaintiff can prove no se t of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief. Conley v Gibson} 35 5 U.S. 41 , (1957). The question is whether in th e

light most favorable to t he Plaintiff, an d with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the

Complaint states an y valid claim for relief. 5A Wright Miller, Federal Practice an d

Procedure: Civil 2d 1357, at 336. The Court, when deciding a motion to dismiss,

must consider well-pled allegations in a complaint as t ru e a nd m us t construe those

allegations in favor ofthe plaintiff. Scheuerv. Rhodes} 41 6 U.S. 232, 23 6

(1974); jenkins v McKeithen 39 5 U.S. 411, 421-22 (1969). The Court must further

disregard the contrary allegations ofthe opposing party. S Abell Co v Chell 4

F.2d 712, 715 4th Cir.1969); Lujan v National Wildlife Federation 497 U.S. 87 1

(1990) ( a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless i t appears to a

certainty that plaintiff is entit led to no relief under an y state o f facts which could be

proved in support o f th e claim. emphasis added).


2/94

What Is DB Capitol Strategies an d What Did Do to Plaintiff

1. Defendant DB Capitol Strategies DBCS ) is a Virginia based law firm headed

by attorney Dan Backer. Mr. Backer is best known for his representation of

many Tea Party groups and PACs. He has a reputation for pushing the

boundaries of the law, an d has sued the FEC, IRS an d Plaintiff, losing most of

his cases. He is the treasurer ofseveral Tea Party PACs such as

StopHillaryPAC. JoinTheTeaParty.us an d TheTeaParty.net Exhibit A. Several

of these PACs/entities have come under scrutiny for misappropriation of

funds. Id.

2. In 2012, Mr. Backer, on behalf of Defendant Aaron Walker, sued Plaintiff in

three cases. The first, in Prince William County Virginia Circuit Court, Walker

imberlin CL 12-631, consisted of counts requesting damages of 60

million dollars. The lawsuit w as s o patently frivolous an d malicious that

Judge Potter dismissed it in a scathing decision from the bench, saying: The

Court finds that the complaint is no t well grounded in fact, it s no t warranted

by existing law, an d i t s imposed for an improper purpose as part ofan

ongoing political dispute between the parties. Exhibit Bat 24.

3. The second wa s filed in this Court, Walker v imberlin et aI, 12-CV-01852

JFM, a nd i t s ue d Plaintifffor a series of torts, an d it was dismissed, apparently

for improper service. The third, an amended complaint, sued Plaintiff and

two non-profit organizations with which he is involved. It alleged in essence

that the Montgomery County Courts were so inept an d corrupt for protecting

Plaintifffrom Defendant Walker that the federal courts had to step in a stop

2


3/94

Plaintifffrom filing anything in th t Court without being first approved by a

federal administrative law judge. Judge Motz summarily rejected this suit in

a one page dismissal along with n implied warning of sanctions ifsuch a

case were brought again. Exhibit

4 All of these cases were brought against Plaintiff in bad faith nd for improper

purposes. They were without merit both legally and factually bu t were

brought to intimidate n d w rn Plaintiff against seeking redress in the court

system. In the st te case Mr Backer engaged in grossly inappropriate and

unethical conduct by repeatedly filing for sanctions against Plaintiff for

simply responding to motions. With pleaded after pleading Mr Backer filed

for costs against Plaintifftotaling in the tens ofthous nds of dollars nd even

asked for contempt. He improperly requested discovery bout swattings nd

other crimes as if Plaintiff had been involved in such criminal activity. Judge

otter denied every request for sanctions and every request for discovery.

Exhibit B t 29.

5 In the federal case Mr Backer included the two non profits as defendants in

the Complaint without alleging ny wrongdoing other th n th t they were

associated with Plaintiff. When counsel for the non profits asked Mr Backer

in good faith to dismiss th e non profits Mr Backer dem nded th t Plaintiff

be fired th t th e non profits turn over all records to him nd th t the non-

profits pay a financial settlement. Exhibit D

6 When counsel for the non profits rejected th t extortionate demand and filed

a Motion to Dismiss Mr Backer responded by sending a defamatory

3


4/94


5/94

a lawsuit against a conservative blogger, and the only legal proceedings

Plaintiffhad brought against anyone in 2012 or 2013 were Peace Orders and

criminal charges against Defendant Aaron Walker for assaulting, harassing

and stalking Plaintiff, against John Norton for coming to Plaintiffs home,

stalking Plaintiff and taking photos of him and his daughter, and against

Martin Mayer for repeatedly calling Plaintiff, Plaintiffs elderly mother, his

pre teen daughter, and his neighbors with threats an d harassment.

10. Second, Mr Backer and DBCS began a fundraising campaign through a

501(c)(3) created by Mr Backer called the Institute for Individualism to pay

Mr Backer and DBCS to prosecute the three cases against Plaintiff even

though they repeatedly said they were acting pro bono. They stated on the

DBCS-created website, Bloggers Defense Team, that as of July 9,2012, they

raised in excess of 11,000 from Americans who bought into the false

narratives alleged in th e lawsuits. Exhibit H And th e 2012 year-end IRS 99

form for the Institute for Individualism shows more than 55,000 raised. Mr

Backer and DBCS decided to raise the funds after media reports were

published exposing Defendant li Akbar as a convicted felon on probation

from th e State of Texas who falsely told people that Defendant National

B10ggers Club was a 5 1 c)(3) non-profit that could accept tax-deductible

donations. Exhibit Once Defendant Akbar's scam was exposed, DBCS

stepped in and provided a clean 5 1 c)(3) for continued fundraising based

on the false narratives created by the Defendants about Plaintiffand

swattings an d suing conservative bloggers. DBCS and Mr Backer had had a

5


6/94

multi-year relationship with Defendant Akbar and had previously paid him

for things such as we b development, consulting and marketing. Exhibit In

short, D BCS and Dan Backer continued Defendant Akbar s fraud by using a

disposable non-profit to raise t ens of thousands ofdollars to target Plaintiff

based on false narratives about Plaintiff. (That non-profit appears to have

been shuttered at the end of 2012 and its website has been removed). Mr

Backer falsely portrayed himself and DBCS as acting pro bono, when in fact

he used the money raised to pay himself and others.

11. After Judge Potter an d Judge Motz dismissed the cases brought by Mr Backer

and DBCS on November 26 and December 4 2 12 Plaintiff repeatedly asked

Mr Backer to remove the website and its false narratives. Exhibit Mr

Backer, however, no t only refused to do so, bu t told Plaintiff no t to contact

him again. Id And in a demonstration of gross malice, Mr Backer never

updated the website to reflect th e fact that both cases were dismissed. In

fact, a current reading of th e website on January 15, 2014 leaves the reader

believing that the Virginia case is still pending and the federal case may be

appealed. Mr Backer and DBCS are fraudulently exploiting that false belief

by continuing to raise funds to defend cases that were dismissed more than a

year ago.

12. On September 9 2013, Plaintiff sued Defendant Walker in Montgomery

County Circuit Court for, nt r alia abuse of process and malicious

prosecution for filing numerous civil and criminal actions against him,

including the cases before Judge Potter and Judge Motz imberlin Walker

6


7/94

380966-V. On January 13, 2014, Judge Burrell held a hearing on Defendant

Walker s Motion to Dismiss that case and denied it finding that Plaintiff filed

a well pleaded case that should proceed to trial. Exhibit This ruling

supports Plaintiffs RICO charge, which alleges that DBCS used malicious legal

filings for the improper purpose of extortion. (The Judge also issued the

same ruling against Defendants Hoge, McCain, and KimberlinUnmasked).

Plaintiff Properly lleged iolations of RICO

13. The Racketeer Influenced an d Corrupt Organizations Act RICO ) was

enacted in 9 7 with the goal of eliminating the infiltration of organized

crime into legitimate organizations. See Benard Holt 727 F. Supp. 211, 213

(D.Md.1989); see also International Data Bank Ltd Zepkin 812 F.2d 149,

lS S (4th Cir.1987)(stating that Congress intended that RICO serve as a

weapon against ongoing unlawful activities whose scope an d persistence

pose a special threat to social well-being. ). In the instant case, the

Defendants engaged in ongoing unlawful activities against Plaintiff that

posed a threat to the social well-being.

14. D BCS argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege a proper violation of RI CO

because it merely represented DefendantWalker in two civil suits, created a

website about the cases, an d raised money to support its pr o bono

representation of Walker, This is without meri t and at tempts to sanitize the

many predicate acts committed not only by those in the Enterprise, but by

Dan Backer and DBCS themselves.


8/94

15. Respondent superior is applicable to hold a corporation liable for RICO

violations of its employees. Mylan Labs Akzo 770 E. Supp. 1053 1070 D.

Md. 1991) ( Thus, a corporation or partnership can be held liable under RICO

for the acts of its agents and or representatives committed within the scope

oftheir authority. ). In the instant case, D BCS is controlled and represented

by Dan Backer an d therefore DBCS is responsible for his acts.

16. Moreover, this Court has held that law firms can be held liable under RICO

where, as here, the professional services provided strike at the very core of

the enterpr ise and therefore the lawyer or accountant providing the services

is managing or operating the firm. Thomas Ross Hanlies 9 F. Supp. 2d

547 554 D. Md. 1998).

17. Dan Backer and DBCS joined the Enterprise an d committed predicate acts in

order to cause maximum harm to Plaintiff, his livelihood, his property, an d

his employer. In fact, their main goal of the Enterprise was to drive Plaintiff

ou t of business an d intimidate him from exercising his First Amendment

right to redress. In Northeast Women s Health Center McMonaele 86 8 F.2d

1342 rd Cir. 1989), the Court addressed a similar fact situation where

activists used threats, intimidation, violence an d extortion in an attempt to

drive a health clinic ou t of business.

The right on which the Center's case was predicated was th e right tocontinue to operate its business. The Center's extortion claim was thatDefendants used force, threat.') of force, fear an d violence in their efforts toforce the Center ou t of business. The court told the jury that, [s]pecifically,defendants ar e charged with attempting and conspiring to extort from theCenter its property interest in continuing to provide abortion services[;]from its employees, their property interest in continuing their employment

8


9/94

with the Center[;] and from patients, their property interest in entering into acontractual relationship with the Center.

Rights involving the conduct of business ar e property rights. As wepointed ou t in United States Local 560. 780 F.2d 267. 281 (3d Cir.1985)....other circuits which have considered this question ar e unanimous inextending the Hobbs Act to protect intangible, as well as tangible,property. Citations omitted . It is, of course, no defense to extortion thatDefendants did no t succeed in their ultimate goal, although, as McMonagle sown letter admitted, Defendants activities did contribute t o t he Center s lossof its lease at th e Roosevelt Boulevard location.... Attempted extortion andconspiracy to commit extortion ar e crimes under the Hobbs Act see 8 U S c 1951(a), an d any ac t which is indictable under [the Hobbs Act] is apredicate offense under RICO 8 U S c 1961(1)(B).

18. Plaintiff had a property interest in continuing his employment as the

director of a non-profit that he had worked at for the previous eight years.

He had a property interest in being able to raise funds for that business to

pa y his salary and the other salaries and expenses ofthe business. Yet Dan

Backer an d DBCS conspired, attempted and engaged in conduct intended to

extort from Plaintiffs employer it s property interest in having Plaintiff

continue as its director, an d Plaintiffs property interest to continue in that

employment.

19. Dan Backer an d DBCS did this by filing three patently frivolous an d malicious

lawsuits in two different jurisdictions to intimidate Plaintiff from seeking

redress and retaliate against him for exercising that r ight In fact, the second

federal lawsuit specifically asked th e Court to prohibit Plaintifffrom filing

an y pleadings without first seeking approval from a federal administrative

law judge. And that federal lawsuit included as defendants two non-profits

(with which Plaintiff is involved) solely for the purpose of causing economic


10/94

harm to them, and to use the suit to extort them into firing Plaintiffin

exchange for dismissing them from the lawsuit. Exhibit D

20. And when counsel for the non-profits rejected that attempted extortion by

Dan Backer and DBCS they retaliated by sending a highly defamatory

document hold letter to the non-profits' largest institutional funder falsely

stating that Plaintiff and the non-profits were engaged in criminal conduct.

Exhibit E Although that funder had provided grants of more than 300,000

during its multi-year relationship with Plaintiff and the non-profits} the

defamatory document hold letter caused that institutional funder to cease its

relationship with Plaintiff and the non-profits thereby depriving i t o f

hundreds ofthousands in future funding. See affidavit of Plaintiff, Exhibit F

21. Once Dan Backer and DBCS sent that document hold letter, th e institutional

funder began receiving intimidating communications from activists

complaining about its funding of th e non-profits. This caused one ofthe

senior staff at the institutional funder to contact Plaintiffto learn more about

the activities of the Defendants because in 2010, a man wearing body armor

and carrying multiple weapons was arrested on his way to its headquarters

to kill everyone there after being incited by Defendant Glenn Beck Exhibit

M As a result of these intimidating communications, the institutional funder

had to increase security at its offices in New York, Washington, DC and San

Francisco.

22. This conduct by Defendant DB Capitol Strategies also violates 18 USC

1513 e) because it was meant to retaliate against Plaintifffor providing

1


11/94

information to state and federal law enforcement about the conduct of the

Defendants. Section 5 3 e) provides as follows:

e Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmfulto an y person} in luding interferen e with the l wful employment or livelihoodo ny person} for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthfulinformation relating t o t he commission or possible commission of anyFederal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned no t more than10 years, or both. (emphasis added).

23. In addition, as se t forth in Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Hoge and

Walker, th e Enterprise engaged in fraud and money laundering because it

solicited and received t ens of thousands of dollars from unsuspecting citizens

based on th e fraudulent representation that Defendant National Bloggers

Club is a 501c3 non-profit. D S knew of this fraud and therefore took over

the fundraising activities after Defendant Akbar was exposed as a felon and

Defendant National Bloggers Club was exposed for never even filing for

501c3 status. When D S took over the fundraising, it continued the false

narrative that Plaintiffwas a swatter engaged in lawfare against

conservative bloggers. And then, after the three lawsuits were summarily

dismissed by Judge Potter and Judge Motz, D S and Dan Backer continued

with their false narratives and their misleading fundraising by not only

failing to update their website to reflect both of the dismissals, but by

actually refusing to correct them and telling Plaintiff not to contact them

when Plaintiff requested the corrections. Exhibit

24. The D S website to this day falsely imputes that Plaintiffis a swatter

engaged in lawfare. The website falsely states that D S and Dan Backer s

handling of the lawsuits was done pro bono but in fact they raised in excess

11


12/94

often thousand dollars based on their false narratives and defamatory

statements about Plaintiff. They used this income from a pattern of

racketeering to continue their racketeering activities.

25. Incredibly, DBCS Motion to Dismiss asks this Court to grant the very relief

denied by Judge Motz when he dismissed its malicious lawsuit: {{ Order for

injunctive relief to enjoin Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin from initiating any further

frivolous an d meretricious litigation without the prior approval by a court

appointed master or the posting ofa bond in accordance with such order to

be paid as fees for th e dismissal of such claims. This request is the same

type of intimidating and obstructing conduct that DBCS has been engaged in

for the pas t almost two years to prohibit Plaintiff from seeking redress for

abhorrent and racketeering conduct by the Defendants.

26. The Enterprise an d acts ofDBCS an d Dan Backer a nd t he other Defendants

have the same or similar purposes, victims, or methods of commission, or

are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics an d a re n ot

isolated events. Anderson FoundationforAdvancement Education n

Employment of American Indians 55 F.3d 500, 505-06 4 th Cir 1998).

27. A RICO Enterprise can be an association of individuals an d corporations.

Superior Bank FSB v Tandem Nat MortB Inc 97 F. Supp2d 298, 324 D. Md.

2000). DBCS and its director Dan Backer were integral parts ofthe

Enterprise. They engaged in predicate acts of extortion, fraud an d

obstruction, stepped in to take over functions of other Defendants once they

were exposed as fraudulent, an d used their legal muscle in an attempt to


13/94

intimidate Plaintiff, drive him out of business and injure his business and

property. Moreover, the broad damages to Plaintiff support liability for civil

RICO Potomac Electric Powerv Electric Motor n Supply 262 F3d 260 4 th

Cir 2001) even nominal amount of damages sufficient to support liability in

civil RICO case).

28. Plaintiff adopts the other RICO arguments raised in his Response to

Defendant Hoge and Walker s Motions to Dismiss.

29. Clearly, Plaintiff has alleged a very strong civil RICO case against D CS

Plaintiffs laim Under 42 U 1983 Only pplies To Defendant Frey

30. Several of th e Defendants have erroneously asserted that Plaintiff brought a

Count against t he m u nd er USC 1983. However, on the very face of the

Complaint, it states that this Count only applies to Defendant Frey. Compo at

40-41.

Plaintiff Properly lleged laim of onspiracy under 42 U 1985 3

31. Plaintiff hereby adopts by reference his argument on this issue as presented

in his Response to Defendants Hoge and Walker s Motions to Dismiss.

Kimberlin HogejWalker Resp at 16-26.

32. Plaintiff ha s alleged a conspiracy among the Defendants to deprive him of

due process, redress, speech an d equal protection of th e law under color of

law. The color of law conspiracy is proper because th e Defendants conspired

with Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey to intimidate, harass,

smear and imprison Plaintiff based on false accusations of crimes. Itis

proper because the Defendants conspired to threaten, harass and sue

13


14/94

Plaintiff to stop him from seeking redress for tortious conduct on the part of

Defendant Walker and other Defendants.

33. Defendant DBCS and its agent Dan Backer maliciously sued Plaintifftwo

times in this Court under the same cause number 12-CV-01852 JFM to keep

him from exercising his right to redress. After the first one was dismissed

they filed a second one and used that suit to attempt to deprive him of

property as outlined above and to extort his employer. This and another

suit filed on behalf of Defendant Aaron Walker in Prince William County

Virginia were meant to harm and create a basis to imprison Plaintiff as

outlined in detail in the HogejWalker Response. See Emails S X in the

HogejWalker Response show that Mr. Frey assisted Defendant Walker in the

preparation of the malicious Virginia suit.

34. Incredibly in the Virginia suit DBCS and Dan Backer actually served

interrogatories admissions an d document requests on Plaintiff demanding

discovery on swattings and demanding that he admit to o ther crimes. And

then they asked the judge to sanction Plaintiffwith fines and imprisonment

until he complied with those discovery requests. Of course Judge Potter

denied that motion at the same time he dismissed the suit in his order from

th e bench. Exhibit B.

35. Clearly Plaintiff has shown that Defendant Frey acted under color oflaw and

that Defendants D BCS and its agent Dan Backer were part of the conspiracy

to harm retaliate intimidate and imprison Plaintiff in violation of his First


15/94

an d Fifth Amendment rights to redress speech, equal protection and due

process.

Plaintiff Properly lleged efamation

36. A defamatory statement is on e which tends to expose a person to public

scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in th e

community from having a good opinion of or from associating or dealing

with, that person. To recover for defamation under Maryland law, a plaintiff

must establish that: (1) the defendant made a defamatory statement

regarding the plaintiff to a third person; (2) th e statement was false; (3) th e

defendant was legally at fault in making th e statement; an d (4) th e plaintiff

suffered harm thereby. Holt amus 28 F. Supp. 2d 812, 8 5 D. Md.

1999).

37. Defendant DBSC repeatedly an d maliciously defamed Plaintiff by publishing

on its website that Plaintiff was involved with swattings, that he filed more

than frivolous lawsuits, that he engaged in lawfare, that Plaintiff cost

Walker his job, that Kimberlin scoffs at millions of dollars in court

judgments against him, that Kimberlin s list of victims is still growing, that

Kimberlin seems to spend his time an d resources harassing his critics with

frivolous lawsuits, that Plaintiffs conduct resulted in on e victim having lost

his job, that Plaintiffs harassment caused Walker s employer [to]

terminate[] him, that Plaintiff began harassing McCain causing him an d his

family to flee his home, an d that Plaintiffs charitable work is a disguise to

th e public from bringing to light his real passion, destroying lives. Exhibit

5


16/94

38. Defendant DBSC maliciously defamed Plaintiff by sending a document hold

letter to an institutional funder, which stated that Plaintiff wa s engaged in

tortious and potentially unlawful conduct of Mr Kimberlin and the

Organizations, and potentially tortuous and perhaps even illegal activity by

the Organizations. Exhibit E

39. s Plaintiff states in his attached affidavit, (1) he has never been involved

with any swattings, (2) he has not filed more than frivolous lawsuits, (3)

he has not engaged in lawfare, (4) he did no t cost Defendant Walker his job

or even have any contact with his employer prior to his termination, (5) he

has no judgments against him le t alone millions of dollars in court judgments,

(6) he did not have an y lawsuits pending at that time, (7) he did not have a

growing list of swatting victims, (8) he did no t cause Defendant Walker s

employer to terminate him, (9) he never began harassing Defendant McCain

causing him to flee his home, (10) he does not have a passion for destroying

lives, an d (11) he was no t engaged in tortious or unlawful/illegal conduct.

Exhibit F

40. These false and defamatory statements caused Plaintiff harm to his

reputation an d his employer s reputation. They caused opprobrium toward

him and threats against him an d his family.

41. Defamation law developed no t only as a means of allowing an individual to

vindicate his good name, bu t also for the purpose of obtaining redress for

harm caused by such statements. Id The ability to obtain redress for harm

caused by defamatory statements has also been extended to al low a person

6


17/94

to vindicate the good name of his business. Tronfe d Nationwide Mutua Ins

o 272 VA 709, 713 (2006) (providing that defamatory words which

prejudice a person in his trade or business are actionable pe r se).

42. As Plaintiff set forth in his Response to Defendant Hoge an d Walker s

Motions to Dismiss, at Defendant Walker, wh o was represented by DBCS

an d Dan Backer, repeatedly tried to get a judge, any judge, to rule that

Plaintiff wa s a public figure, bu t all those attempts have been denied.

Therefore, DBCS is estopped from re-litigating that argument here.

43. Nevertheless, it is clear that DBCS acted with malice in falsely accusing

Plaintiff of crimes and other nefarious conduct. Neither DBCS no r Dan

Backer conducted an y reasonable investigation prior to making their false

statements about Plaintiff. Even a cursory review of PACER would show that

Plaintiffdid not file lawsuits and had no million-dollar judgments against

him. Moreover, DBSC knew exactly wh y Defendant Walker was fired because

it provided th e letter to Plaintiff a s p ar t of the Virginia suit which showed

that Walker wa s fired for being totally incompetent, blogging about killing

Muslims on company time, and publishing a Muslim hate blog called

Everybody Draw Mohammed wit h 8 insulting depictions of the Prophet

Mohammed. Exhibit Clearly, DBSC acted with reckless disregard for the

truth an d with actual knowledge of th e falsity ofthe statements.

Plaintiff Ha s Properly Alleged False Light Invasion of Privacy

44. A plaintiff may prove a claim of false light invasion of privacy by showing: (1)

that the defendant gave publicity to a matter that places the plaintiff before

7


18/94

th e public in a false light; 2) that a reasonable person would find that the

false light in which th e other person was placed highly offensive to a

reasonable person; an d 3) that the defendant had knowledge of or acted

with reckless disregard as to the falsity ofthe publicized matter and the false

light in which th e defendant placed th e plaintiff. agwell Pennisula

Regional Medical Center 665 A.2d 297 1995).

45. Plaintiff clearly alleged that D CS published matters to th e public at large

that placed him false light, that a reasonable person would find the

statements accusing Plaintiff of crimes and other nefarious conduct highly

offensive, an d that D SC an d its agent Dan Backer knew ofthe falsity an d

acted with reckless disregard of th e truth.

46.As noted above, D CS an d Dan Backer falsely stated and imputed that

Plaintiff was involved with crimes of swatting, that he owed millions in

judgments, that he caused Defendant Walker s termination, that he was

engaged in illegal conduct, an d that he filed more th an frivolous lawsuits.

Any reasonable person wh o read this about Plaintiffwould find the false

statements highly offensive. Moreover, all of these false statements were easy

to disprove with a small amount of fact checking by D CS a law firm that has

access to NexisfLexis, Google an d Defendant Walker s work records.

PlaintiffHas Properly lleged Intentional Infliction of Emotional istress

47. I The Restatement Second) of Torts, 46 at 71, provides: r l One who by

extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe

emotional dis tress to another is subject to liability for such emotional

8


19/94

distress, a nd if bodily harm to th e other results from it, for such bodily harm.

In comment (i) to the Restatement it is expressly stated that this rule also

covers a situation where the actor knows that distress is certain, or

substantially certain, t o resul t from his conduct. In order to satisfy the element

of extreme and outrageous conduct, the conduct must be s o extreme in degree,

as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious,

and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. atson h ~ f l e t t325 Md. 684, 733

(Md. 1992).

48. Illustrative of th e cases which hold that a cause of action will lie for

intentional infliction of emotional distress, unaccompanied by physical

injury, is Womack Eldridge 215 Va 33 8 (1974). There, the defendant was

engaged i n the bus iness of investigating cases for attorneys. She deceitfully

obtained the plaintiffs photograph for th e purpose of permitting a criminal

defense lawyer to show it to th e victims in several child molesting cases in an

effort to have them identify th e plaintiffas th e perpetrator of the offenses,

even though he wa s in no way involved in th e crimes. While th e victims did

no t identify th e plaintiff, he was never theless quest ioned by the police, called

repeatedly as a witness and required to explain th e circumstances under

which th e defendant ha d obtained his photograph. s a result, plaintiff

suffered shock, mental depression, nervousness and great anxiety as t o w ha t

people would think of him an d he feared that he would be accused of

molesting the boys. The court, in concluding that a cause of action had been

made out, said: Most of th e courts which have been presented with the

9


20/94

question in recent years have held th t there may be a recovery against one

who y his extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly

causes nother severe emotional distress

49. In the inst nt case Plaintiff has alleged th t D SC n d its agent Dan Backer

engaged in outrageous and extreme conduct y falsely publishing the

defamatory st tements accusing him of crimes and nefarious conduct filing

three frivolous and malicious lawsuits against him sending a defamatory

letter to an institutional funder falsely accusing him of crimes attempting to

extort his employer into firing him rallying extremists with false narratives

to attack him filing for sanctions in the mount of tens ofthousands of

dollars n d imprisonment nd asking a federal court to deny him access to

th e courts. This horrent conduct has kept Plaintiff under siege for years

and caused extremists to come to his home take pictures of him and his

daughter and make threatening calls to him his family n d his neighbors.

Exhibit F No person in a civilized society should be made to endure such

conduct.

50. Moreover Defendant conspired with the other Defendants to imprison

Plaintiff se d on their false narratives th t Plaintiffwas involved with

swattings. This constitutes extremely outrageous conduct th t intentionally

inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiff. There r e no t many things in this

country worse than being falsely accused of crimes and then having those

false accusations incite a lynch mob to attack relentlessly and daily with tens


21/94

of thousands oftweets and posts and articles, and stalkers over a period of

years. This is atrocious and has absolutely no place in a civilized society.

onclusion

Defendant DBCS has n ot m et its urden under Rule 12 b 6 of showing

th t Plaintiff can prove no se t of facts to support his claims. In fact, based on

the allegations in the Complaint, as supported by the exhibits to the Plaintiffs

various Responses and his affidavit, this Court must accept th e allegations as

true. DBCS Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

Respectfully s u ~ i t t e d

Brett Kimberlin Bethesda, MD 20817

ertificate ervice

I certify th t I mailed a copy of this response to attorneys forDB

CapitolStrategies nd The Franklin Center, and to Defendants Hoge and Walker. I

emaiIed this to Defendant Stranahan and the attorney for Defendants Frey

and Nagy all this 17 t day ofJanuary, 2014.

Brett Kimberlin

2


22/94

Revealed: JoinTheTeaParty.us took 469 000 indonations spent one of it on candidates Recommend IJ 7: people recommend this Be the first of your friends

y Stephen C Webs te rFriday. October 29. 2010 12:11 EDT

2

Topics: Organizat ion. R e p o r t . Site

Report: Arizona-based -ebsite too near ly 5 0 0 0 0 0 in donat ions b u t didn t t u n l

ou t suppor t fo r tea p ar ty o r candidates

A \ :ebsite run out of Arizona os e siblyto support the so-called ea partymovement is under scm . ly after alocal news orga iza . 0 dug 0 theirfinance.s and ov ership o y to t i d

\:hat some may eharac erize as a [: ;remarkable scam.

According to Federal Elee Commissio FEe disdosure formsJoinTheTeaParty.us oo k in

approxima ely 5469 000 do ations s year a d spent roughly alf its budge 0 marketing

E ve


23/94

ORECLOSURE SALES FELL 12 FR OM THE FIRST QUART ER AND 22 FROM A YEAR AG

Evidence mounts TheTeaParty net a F KEApnl 5 IPas ed by Ladylmpac OhiO INe' sTags Catalist Chns Laffertj CPA,C, JointheTeaParty US Reverse LeadClub Rock the fate tea r t ~ Tea ~ Racing TeaParti-.net Todd Cefaratti

TWEET THIS ,10 F R C E 9 K DEL.ICIOUS I rtt OIGGTHIS TECHNQRATI M GI1RIL. THIS I

ll l

..:118

It to MellssaTweets for alertmg us to us

Every once in a While someone comes along /Vho preys on the beliefs. tenets andsuccesses of other people and entities and takes greed into their own hands toadvance their own personal agenda and coffers

Such could be t le case With The Tea Party.net

At first glance their website looks great. We have the video. we have the voter registration drive which evenlinks a a map of the US where one can learn how to register to vote. The website is immaculate and has noerrors that I could find.

But when reports started pouring in about people who had signed up for email alerts being spammed with ato bUy gold silverware and knick knacks and other items did things become suspicious.

CBS 5 in Phoenix broke the story last November and apparently because the rest of the country has beenoccupied with other matters like Egypt. Libya budge defici s. and energy woes it escaped our notice But notany longer.

If one scrolls down to the bottom of their home page this is the owner of the website

Paid for by Stop This Insanity Inc. a 501 c4 No authorized by any candidate or candidate'scommittee W A W TheTeaParty net

Glengary Inc. registered the website and the admin is one Todd Cefaratti in Gilbert. AZ. Hit to @erickbrockw

Check out Stop This Insanity donor list Notice anything unusual? Not the typical S 10 15 525 donationsInstead we have 5500 5600 1 000 even several 55 000 donors

Morgan Loew has this Video report on TeaParty.net on Phoenix CBS5 sorry no imbed code. Loew tells usno one at a pre-election rally in Phoenix had ever heard of JointheTeaParty.L1s And FYI JointheTeaParty.USlinks to The Tea Party.net.


24/94

PO T O Sign in Register J:< outELECTIONS CONGRESS BLOGS OPINION POLICY VIDEO PH

Stop illaryl P revs up

w t Share o t- 16 -J 49

8, Jt.,r:1ES ARKII J 17/22 11? 7 32 ,AJ 1EDT Updated: 7 22113 12:16 pril EDT

A conserva ive e art oppose a possible Hillary Clinton s 2016 presiden ial campaign isstepping up its game his week

The organization which fas crea ed for he express purpose preventing Clin on rom beingelec ed he VVhie House announced its leadership Monday The eam includesConservative Colorado S ate Sen Ted Harvey as honorary chairman Garrett r larquis who hexperience with if f presiden ial campaigns and worked in the Sena e or Sen John McCainthe na ional spokesman. Alex Shively a ormer adviser in he House and Sen a e is he poli icdirectof Jacob Leis a aide ormer Rep, r larilyn r lusgrave is he operational direc Of andDan Backer a VVashington a orney and lobbyist is the treasurer and general counsel

according the PAC s website,


25/94


26/94

2

P R O C E E D I N G S

2 Th e Cour t R e p o r t e r wa s p r e v i o u s l y sworn by

3 t h e C l e r k o f t h e C o u r t . )

THE COURT Aaron J . Walker, P l a i n t i f f v e r s u

5 B r e t t K imbe r l i n and Ron B r y n a e r t and N eal Rauhause r,

6 Defendan t s , i n 1 2 - 631 .

7 Whose i s p r e s e n t on b e h a l f o f t h e P l a i n t i f f

8 Mr . Walker?

9 MR BACKER: Da n Backe r, Your Honor, on b e h a l

10 o f Mr . Walker who i s p r e s e n t as w e l l .

11

12 h e r e ?

13

THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . And i s Mr . Kim b e r l i n

MR KIMBERLIN: Yes, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: An d Mr. Kimber l i n i s p r e s e n t Mr

15 B r y n e a r t i s no t and Mr. Rauhause r a r e n o t p r e s e n t .

16 A l l r i g h t t h i s comes on - - as you know we v e

17 c o n s o l i d a t e d a t l e a s t t h r e e mot ions t h a t a r e on t h e docke

18 t o h e a r d t oday and p u t them a l l on one d a t e f o r a d a t e

19 c e r t a i n f rom t h e mot ions day and I a p p r e c i a t e your

20 p a t i e n c e because I know we had t o con t inue t o t o d a y s

21 d a t e .

22 So we w i l l proceed . I t h i n k t h e t h r e s h o l d

23 mot ion i s c l e a r l y t h e mot ion t o d i s m i s s . You need t o

3 R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS

4116 LEONARD DRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030

703 591-3136

R E p o R T


27/94

3

p r o c e e d on t h a t one f i r s t and t hen we w i l l t a k e up t h e

o t h e r mot ions .

3 Th e t h r e e mot ions b e i n g t h e P l a i n t i f f s mot io

4 o r t h e D e f e n d a n t s mot ion t o d i s m i s s which we w i l l t a k e

5 up f i r s t and i n a d di t i o n t o t h a t we have P l a i n t i f f s

6 mot ion f o r s a n c t i o n s and P l a i n t i f f s mot ions f o r

7 p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r and s t a y .

8 A l l r i g h t so we w i l l s t a r t wi th Mr .

9 Kimber l i n ; you want t o h e a r d s i r ?

10

11

12

MR KIMBERLIN: Yes Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Backer?

MR BACKER Yes we f i l e d a d e f a u l t mot ion

13 a g a i n s t t h e D ef e n d an t s B r y n a e r t and Rauhause r as w e l l and

14 t r i e d t o c o n s o l i d a t e t o t o d a y s d a t e . I j u s t wanted t h a t

15 t o be b r o u g h t t o your a t t e n t i o n .

16 THE COURT: I saw one a t t h e l a s t minu t e b u t

17 t hough t was s e t f o r was s t u c k i n my Term Da y

18 docke t b u t may w e l l be on t h i s docke t t o d a y.

19

20

When d i d you f i l e t h a t do yo u know?

MR BACKER: We f i l e d a coup l e o f weeks b e f o r

- - l a s t F r i d a y would have been t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e d a t e

22 and t h e n we asked t h a t be c o n s o l i d a t e d w ith to day as

23 w e l l . So I m g ue s s in g se ve n te e n e i g h t e e n days ag o .

3 R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS

4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030

703 591-3136

R E p o R T


28/94

TH COURT: A l l r i g h t Well as l ong a s

4

2 you ve f i l e d i t wi th t h e C l e r k we can go ahead and p r o ~

3 wi th i t

5

MR BACKER: Thank you.

TH COURT: A l l r i g h t l e t s t a k e t h e mot io ns

6 f i r s t t h e mo t io n t o d i s m i s s Mr. Kimber l i n do you

7 want t o hea rd?

8 MR KIMBERLIN: Yes I do .

9 F i r s t o f a l l a coup l e o f days ago I f i l e d a

10 mot ion t o t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f a d e c i s i o n from t h e

11 F e d e r a l Cour t i n G r e e n b e l t Maryland . I j u s t want t o mak p

12 s u r e t h a t you sa w t h a t b e f o r e we g e t s t a r t e d

13

14

TH COURT: I d i d

MR KIMBERLIN: Okay. So I would a sk t h a t thE

15 Cour t t a k e t h a t i n t o c on s i d er at i o n i n t h i s c a s e Th e

16 i s s u e s a r e f a i r l y s i m i l a r

17 There i s one coun t i n t h a t c o m p l a i n t t h a t i s

18 a lmos t i d e n t i c a l t o a coun t i n t h i s c a s e I t s t h e

19 t o r t u o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e wi th c o n t r a c t

20 Mr. Walker a l l e g ed i n t h a t case t h a t he wa s

2 f i r e d f rom h i s jo b bec au se o f my c o n t a c t i n g h i s jo b o r

22 som e t h ing t o t h a t e f f e c t which I n e v e r d i d

23 The J udge t h e F e d e r a l Judge i n t h a t case



703 591-3136

R E p o R T


29/94

r e j e c t e d a l l o f Mr. Wa l k e r s c l a ims and d i s m i s s e d t h e

f e d e r a l compla in t a g a i n s t bo th and t h e o r g an i z a t i o n s i n

3 which I m in vo lv ed .

4 So I b e l i e v e t h a t t h a t d e c i s i o n c o l l a t e r a l l y

5 s t o p s Mr. Walker i n t h i s c a s e from a rgu ing t h e same

6 p o i n t s .

7 As t o y mot ion t o d i s m i s s numerous c l a ims a

8 t o t h e compla in t i n t h i s c a s e t h e r e a r e dozens o f coun t s

9 e l e v e n c r i m i n a l coun t s t h a t h e s a l l e g i n g unde r d i f f e r e n t

10 j u r i s d i c t i o n s some f rom Vi r g i n i a some from Maryland

some f rom New York some from D C some from F e d e r a l .

12 And a l l t h e s e e x c e p t f o r one have no pr iva tE

13 r i g h t o f c i v i l a c t i o n . Th e on ly one t h a t does have a

14 p ri v a t e r i g h t o f c i v i l a c t i o n i s t h e b us i n es s r e p u t a t i o n

15 499 i s s u e f rom t h e s t a t e o f Vi r g i n i a .

16 In t h a t c a s e r e q u i r e s a c o n v i c t i o n 499

17 p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f c i v i l a c t i o n u n d e r 18 .2 -500 . So I

18 d o n t t h i n k t h a t coun t s f o u r f i v e s i x seven t w e n t y -

19 t h r e e t w e n t y - s e v e n t w e n t y - e i g h t t w e n t y - n i n e t h i r t y

20 and t h i r t y - o n e and t h i r t y - t w o a r e a l l o w a b l e i n t h i s case

21 because t h e y a r e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s and some o f them a r e

22 f o r e i g n j u r i s d i c t i o n s .

23 As to any - - aga in g o i n g t o t h e f o r e ig n

3 R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS

4116LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA 22030

703 591-3136

R E p o R T


30/94

6

j u r i s d i c t i o n s c o u n t f o u r i s f rom a f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l

2 s t a t u t e . Count f i v e i s f rom a Maryland c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e .

3 Count s i x i s f rom a f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e . Count s v

4 i s f rom a Maryland c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e . Count n i n e a

5 M a r y l a n d c i v i l s t a t u t e . Count e l e v e n a Maryland c i v i l

6 s t a t u t e . C o u n t t h i r t e e n a Maryland c i v i l s t a t u t e . Count

7 f i f t e e n a M a r y l a n d c i v i l s t a t u t e . S i x t e e n D.C. c i v i l

8 s t a t u t e . E i g h t e e n Maryland c i v i l s t a t u t e . N i n e t e e n D.C.

9 c i v i l s t a t u t e . Twenty one a D.C. c i v i l s t a t u t e . Twenty

10 tw o New York c i v i l s t a t u t e . Tw e n t y t h r e e a g a i n i s t h e

11 b u s i n e s s c o n s p i r a c y s t a t u t e u n d e r Vi r g i n i a c r i m i n a l l a w.

12 Tw e n t y f i v e i s u n d e r M a r y l a n d l aw aga in c i v i l . Twenty

13 s i x New York la w c i v i l . Twenty seven f e d e r a l s t a l k i n g

14 u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w. Tw e n t y e i g h t f e d e r a l s t a l k i n g u n d e r

15 f e d e r a l l a w. Tw e n t y n i n e f e d e r a l s t a l k i n g u n d e r c r i m i n a l

16 law o f New York . An d c o u n t t h i r t y and t h i r t y o n e u n d e r

17 New York c r i m i n a l l a w. And c o u n t t h i r t y t w o unde r

18 Vi r g i n i a c r i m i n a l l aw.

19 Again I b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s case i s a c i v i l

20 c a s e an d i t s a Vi r g i n i a c a s e . t s n o t a Maryland c a s e

2 i t s n o t a New York c a s e i t s n o t a D.C. c a s e i t s n o t

22 f e d e r a l c a s e .

23 An d f o r t h e P l a i n t i f f t o a l l e g e t h a t t h i s

R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIE VERBATIMREPORTERS


703 591-3136

R E p o R T


31/94

7

C ou r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a p p l y t h o s e s t a t u t e s i s

e r r o n e o u s .

3 S eco nd ly a s f a r as j u r i s d i c t i o n g o e s I neve

4 s e t f o o t i n t h i s c o u n t y d u r i n g t h e t ime t h a t t h e s e

5 a l l e g a t i o n s o c c u r r e d t h e r e f o r e I a s k t h e C o u r t t o f i n d

6 t h a t d o e s n o t have a j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s c a s e .

7 Th e o n l y t h i n g t h a t t h e P l a in t i f f i s a l l e g i n g

8 i s t h a t h e r e a d an e - m ai l o r a p o s t from t h e i n t e r n e t on

9 h i s computer h e r e i n Vi r g i n i a an d I t h i n k t h a t t h a t

10 d o e s n t g i v e t h i s C o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e c a s e .

11 So a s f a r a s f o r e i g n j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h e r e i s

12 t w e n t y o n e coun t s t h a t r e l y on f o r e i g n s t a t u t e s . Four

13 f i v e s i x s e v e n n i n e e l e v e n t h i r t e e n f i f t e e n

14 s i x t e e n e i g h t e e n n i n e t e e n t w e n t y t w e n t y o n e t w e n t y

15 two t w e n t y - t h r e e t w e n t y - f i v e t w e n t y - s i x t w e n t y s e v e n

16 t w e n t y - e i g h t t w e n t y - n i n e t h i r t y t h i r t y - o n e t h i r t y - t w o

17 and I b e l i e v e t h a t a l l o f t h e s e a r e i m p r o p e r i n t h i s Cour

18 and s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d .

19 As f a r as c o u n t s two f o u r and f i v e t h e y

20 a l l e g e e x t o r t i o n and d e f a m a t i o n and t h e e x t o r t i o n and

21 de fama t ion o c c u r r e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o m p l a i n t as p a r t o f

22 a s e t t l e m e n t m a t t e r i n a M a r y l a n d c i v i l caBe i n which I

23 was i n v o l v e d .



703 591-3136

R E p o R T


32/94

8

And t h e Four th C i r c u i t has been ve ry c l e a r

2 t h a t t s h e l d t h a t a s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c p o l i c y

3 s e t t l e m en t n e g o t i a t i o n s a re n e c e s s a r i l y i n a d m i s s i b l e and

4 o t h e r c a s e s t o e n c ou rage f r a n k d i s c u s s i o n s and t h a t comes

5 f rom t h e F i b e r g l a s s I n s u l a t o r s I n c. v e r s u s Dupuy 85 6 F.

6 2nd 65 2 an d 654 .

7 In t h i s c a s e c o u n t s two f o u r and f i v e a l l e g

8 t h a t I defamed Mr . Walker by send ing h i s a t t o r n e y Beth

9 K i n g s l e y and e m a i l as p a r t o f s e t t l e m e n t . And t s

10 i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t Mr. Walker a c t u a l l y s e n t an e m a i l b a ck

11 wi th a c o u n t e r s e t t l e m e n t a f t e r I s e n t t h a t e - m a i l .

12 So fo r him t o a l l e g e now t h a t t s e x t o r t i o n

13 and de fama t ion i s j u s t n o t a p p r o p r i a t e and c e r t a i n l y i s

14 n o t a c t i o n a b l e i n t h i s c a s e .

15 As f a r as t h e e n t i r e c a s e b a s i c a l l y t b o i l s

16 down t o t h e f a c t t h a t Mr. Walker d o e s n t l i k e what I s a i d

17 o r what Neal s a i d o r what Ro n s a i d . Ron i s a r e p o r t e r ~

18 f o r t o b e sued f o r t a l k i n g t o a r e p o r t e r o r a l l e g e d l y

19 t a l k i n g t o a r e p o r t e r i s a ve ry s l i p p e r y s l o p e as f a r as

2 t h e F i r s t Amendment i s conce rned .

2 I have a r i g h t t o t a l k a b o u t Mr. Walker. I

22 knew h i s i d e n t i t y . I knew t h a t Mr . Walker used a f ake

23 name Aaron Worth ing i n a c i v i l case i n Maryland . And I

R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS

4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX, VIRGINIA22030

703 591-3136

R E p o R T


33/94

9

asked him t o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f and he r e f u s e d so I a sked

him t h e Cour t t o i s s u e an o r d e r and t o g e t h i s i d e n t i t y .

3 I d i s c o v e r e d h i s i d e n t i t y from a t h i r d p a r t y

4 and I in formed t h e Cour t i n t h a t case i n a mot ion t h a t Mr.

5 Walker wa s a c t u a l l y - - I mean Mr. Worth ing wa s a c t u a l l y

6 Mr. Walker.

7 T h a t s b a s i c a l l y t h e e x t e n t o f t I have

8 n e v e r done a n y t h i n g e l s e e x c e p t t o w r i t e to h i s a t t o r n e y

9 and so once t h a t happened once I i d e n t i f i e d Mr . Walker

10 Mr. Walker t hen went t o h i s employer and t o l d h i s m p o y ~

11 t h a t h e s been i d e n t i f i e d and he i n fo rmed h i s employer

12 t h a t he had been t h e p u b l i s h e r o f a b l o g c a l l e d Everyone

13 Draw Mohammed which w i t h o u t b e l a b o r i n g t h e p o i n t t wa s

4 an a nt i M u sli m b lo g o r an a n t i - p r o p h e t Mohammed b l o g .

15 And o f cour se he has a f i r s t amendment r i g h t

16 t o p u b l i s h t h a t b l o g b u t he in formed h i s employer t h a t

17 h e s be en i d e n t i f i e d . His employer was obv ious ly

18 concerned t h a t t h i s co uld cause p rob l ems f o r t h e f i rm and

19 f o r h i s co worke r s so t hey t e r m i n a t e d him.

20 But t h e y d i d n t j u s t t e r m i n a t e him a t whim.

They went i n t o h i s o f f i c e and - -

22 MR BACKER Excuse me Your Honor. May I

23 o b j e c t a t a l l d u r i n g h i s s t a t e m e n t ?

R N K R N SCERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS

4116 LEONARD DRIVEFAIRFAX, VIRGINIA22030

703 591-3136

R p o R T


34/94

o b j e c t i o n ?

3

10

THE COURT W h a t s t h e grounds o f t h e

MR BACKER: Mr. Kimber l in i s a tt e m p ti n g to

4 t e s t i f y and i n s e r t f a c t s i n t o t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n when t h i s

5 i s abou t a q u e s t i o n a b l e b l o g whe the r o r n o t t h e

6 a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e compla in t j u s t i f y a o r can be

7 s us ta in ed i n t h e f ace o f a mot ion t o d i s m i s s which

8 presumes t h e f a c t s a r e as a l l e g e d .

9 Mr. Kimber l in i s a tt e m p ti n g t o t e s t i f y he re

10 and i n s e r t f a c t s i n t o ev idence i n s t e a d o f a rgu ing t h e l aw.

THE COURT: You need t o s t i c k t o mot ion t o

12 d i s m i s s Mr . Kimber l i n .

13 MR KIMBERLIN: Your Honor th e p o i n t i s therE

14 was no de fama t ion . I n e v e r c o n t a c t e d h i s a t t o r n e y I

15 mean h i s emp l o ye r. So I c o u l d n t defame him t o h i s

16 emp loye r.

17 An d I have a F i r s t Amendment r i g h t b o t h u nde r

18 a c c e s s t o t h e Co ur t i n t h a t c i v i l case i n Maryland t o

19 in form t h e Judge a b o u t t h e i d e n t i t y o f Mr . Walker. Mr .

20 W alker had f i l e d p a p e r s i n t h a t c o u r t u s i n g a fake name

Aaron Wo r t h ing .

22 I had a r i g h t t o i d e n t i f y him i n t h a t c o u r t

23 unde r t h e F i r s t Amendment and I a l s o had a r i g h t t o speak

3 R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIEDVERBATIMREPORTERS


703 591-3136

R E p o R T


35/94

11

u t abou t h i s i d e n t i t y u n d e r t h e F i r s t Amendment. He h as

no r i g h t t o gag me from t a l k i n g abou t him I know who h?

3 i s . And t h a t s what he h as asked t h i s C o u r t t o do i n t h i s

4 p a r t i c u l a r law s u i t .

5 H e s asked t h i s Cour t t o i s s u e an i n j u n c t i o n

6 p r o h i b i t i n g me f rom e v e r t e l l i n g anyone i n coun t t h i r t y -

7 two - - from e v e r t e l l i n g anyone t h a t he i s A aro n Walk er

8 Aaron Wor t h ing t h e p u b l i s h e r o f t h e h a t e Mohammed b log

9 b e c a u s e he d o e s n t want peop le t o know.

10

11 o b j e c t - -

12

13

MR BACKER: Again Your Honor I m go ing t o

MR KIMBERLIN: I have a r i g h t t o speak - -

THE COURT: These a r e t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e s e t

14 f o r t h i n t h e p l e a d in g s Counse l so I w i l l o v e r r u l e th e

15 o b j e c t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t .

16

17

18 and f i n i s h .

19

MR KIMBERLIN: And I have - -

THE COURT: Go ahead Mr . Kimber l i n go ahead

MR KIMBERLIN: a r i g h t . I have a r i g h t t o

20 speak a b o u t t h a t . I have a r i g h t t o speak abou t t h a t . H

21 h ad no r i g h t t o gag me a t t h a t t ime and he has now sued m

22 s a y i n g t h a t I t r i e d t o g e t him k i l l e d b a s i c a l l y o r harm

23 him o r g e t him f i r e d . And I neve r t a l k e d t o h i s employer



703 591-3136

R E p o R T


36/94

12

a t a l l .

H e s t h e one t h a t c o n t a c t e d h i s emp loye r.

3 f i l e d t h is l a w su i t i n t h i s c a s e us ing h i s own name

4 a d m i t t i n g t h a t he wa s Aaron Worth in g and Aaron Walker ~

5 he sued m f o r g o i ng i n t o a c o u r t and e x e r c i s i n g my F i r s t

6 Amendment r i g h t t o a c c e s s t o t h e Cour t and i n fo rming t h e

7 Judge abou t t h e i d e n t i t y o f a l awye r who had f i l e d pape r s

8 u s i n g a fake name.

9 And I had a r i g h t t o do t h a t unde r t h e F i r s t

10 Amendment. t s n o t a c t i o n a b l e . can sue m b u t i t s

11 p r o t e c t e d F i r s t Amendment a c t i v i t y and t h i s i s f r e e

12 speech .

13 An d a g a i n go ing back t o t h e f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n

14 h e s f i l e d t h a t c a s e b a s i c a l l y a c c u s i n g m o f abus ing

15 p r o c e s s and g e t t i n g him f i r e d and i n t e r f e r i n g wi th h i s

16 F i r s t Amendment r i g h t s . Well t h e Judge i n t h a t c a s e

17 d e c i d e d a g a i n s t him and d e c i d e d a g a i n s t him w i t h o u t even

18 h e a r i n g j u s t l ook ing a t t h e p l e a d i n g s . Dec id ing a g a i n s t

19 him t h e day a f t e r t h e mot ion t o d i s m i s s was f i l e d .

20 And I t h i n k t h a t shows t h e k ind o f t h i n g t h a t

21 w e re d ea l i n g wi th h e r e . We ve g o t a case t h a t s been

22 f i l e d a g a i n s t m f o r a lmos t a y e a r and t housands o f twee t s

23 abou t m and t housands o f b log p o s t s abou t m and t hen Mr .

3 R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS

6lONARD DRIVEFAIRFAX VIRGINIA22 3

703) 591-3136

R E p o R T


37/94

13

Walker r a i s i n g t o n s o f money t o l i t i g a t e t h i s c a s e b e c a u s 2

2 i t s so b i g an d i t s F i r s t Amendment a n d a l l t h is s t u f f .

3 B u t i t r e a l l y b o i l s down t o t h e f a c t t h a t he

4 was i d e n t i f i e d a s t h e p U b li s h er o f a Muslim h a t e b l o g an d

5 h e d i d n t l i k e t h a t . He w a n t e d t o do t h a t w i t h a n o n y m i t y

6 f o r e v e r a n d i n s u l t Muslims an d g e t Amer icans k i l l e d

7 o v e r s e a s an d you know I h a d a r i g h t t o e x p o s e t h a t . I ~

8 a r i g h t t o d i s c u s s t h a t .

9 And h e s t u r n e d t h i s i n t o a p o l i t i c a l b a t t l e .

10 I t s p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s a t i t s w o r s t . An d you know I

11 b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s c a s e f a i l s t o r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f a

12 d e c e n t l e g i t i m a t e t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r an d I a s k

13 t h a t t h e C o u r t d i s m i s s i t

14 T COURT: Thank you s i r . C o u n s e l w a n t t o

15 h e a r d i n r e s p o n s e t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s .

16 MR BACKER: Yes s i r Your Honor

17 F i r s t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e M a r y l a n d d e c i s i o n

18 t h e M a r y l a n d l i t i g a t i o n was a f e d e r a l c a s e i n v o l v i n g

19 d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s an d d i f f e r e n t c l a i m s s p e c i f i c a l l y

20 f o c u s e d on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Mr

21 K i m b e r l i n s u s e o f s t a t e mechan i sms t o f u r t h e r h i s

22 c o n d u c t .

23 T h e s e a r e c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t c l a i m s an d we


4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22 3

703 591-3136

R E p o R T


38/94

14

d o n t b e l i e v e t h a t any o f t h e s e c l a ims - - t h e c l a ims h e r e

2 a r e b ar r e d by a r u l i n g t h e r e .

3 Moreover a f a c i a l r e a d i n g o f t h e o r d e r by t h

4 Judge s imply s t a t e s t h a t t h e c a s e wa s d i s m i s s e d s e v e r a l

5 weeks a f t e r Mr Kimber l in f i l e d h i s mot ion t o d i s m i s s and

6 a f t e r I r e sponded I t happened t o c o i n c i d e w i t h a n o t h e r

7 a s e p a r a t e mot ion

8 B ut based s o l e l y on t h e g rounds t h a t t h e

9 remedy sough t s p e c i f i c a l l y wa s imprope r ly p l e d .

10 S p e c i f i c a l l y we shou ld have asked f o r compensa tory

11 damages and d i d n t . And t h a t i s on t h e f a c e o f t h e o r d e r .

12 I t does n o t i n any way a d d r e s s any o f t h e

13 s u b s t a n t i v e p o i n t s f rom t h a t c l a i m An d as I m s u r e Your

14 Honor knows and I j u s t r e p e a t f o r t h e r e c o r d Rule 1 .6

15 r e g a r d i n g re s j u d i c a t a r e s j u d i c a t a c l a imed p r e c l u s i o n

16 s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t a c l a im must r i s e f rom i d e n t i f i e d

17 conduc t a t r a n s a c t i o n a l o c c u r r e n c e . t must be dec ided

18 on t h e m e r i t s . In t h i s c a s e t wa s n o t .

19 Moreover t b a r s a second o r subsequen t

20 s i m i l a r a c t i o n i n a V i rg in ia c ou r t . B ut t h i s c a s e

21 p re clu de d t h e Maryland l i t i g a t i o n which wa s commenced i n

22 r e s p o n s e t o a c t i v i t i e s i n Maryland u n r e l a t e d t o t h e c l a ims

23 h e r e .



703 591-3136

R E p o R T


39/94

15

There i s on ly one p o s s i b l y c o r r e s p o n d i n g c l a i r

t h a t between t h e s e two m a t t e r s and t h a t i s ou r c o u n t

3 f i f t e e n o f t h e Vi r g i n i a c l a i m i n t e r f e r e n c e wi th b u s i n e s s

4 r e l a t i o n s u nde r Maryland law and t o r t u o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e o f

5 c o n t r a c t i n t h e f e d er a l c a s e . So t h e r e i s t h e on ly c r o s s

6 ove r t h e r e .

7 So b e l i e v e t h a t f a l l w e l l w i t h i n th e

8 s cope o f th e - - o r r a t h e r o u t s i d e o f th e s cope o f Rule 1 .p

9 r e s j u d i c a t a c l a im f or p re c l u s i on because t h e t e s t i s n

10 met .

11 Moving o most o f t h e coun t s t h a t Mr.

12 Kimber l i n a rgues t h a t most o f t h e coun t s i n o ur c om pla in t

13 a r e based on s t a t u t e s o u t s id e V i r gi n ia and t h e r e f o r e c n ~

14 p o s s i b l y b e a c t i o n a b l e .

15 I would s t a r t by s a y i n g t h a t i n t h e Choice o f

16 Law a n a l y s i s V i r gi n ia c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y adhe red t p

17 t h e l e x l o c i d e l i c t i s t a n d a r d which say s w ith th e l a s t c ~

18 comple t i ng t h e t o r t o c c u r r e d gove rns where t h e t o r t may b ~

19 t r i e d .

20 T h a t s f rom Genera l I n s u r a n c e o f Amer ica Inc

21 v . O ve rb y S ea wa ll Company i n t h e E as t e rn D i s t r i c t o f

22 Vi r g i n i a .

23 Because t h e l a s t a c t o f each o f t h e t o r t s t h a

R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS


703 591-3136

R E p o R T


40/94

16

w e r e a l l e g i n g o cc ur re d h ere i n V ir gi n ia e i t h e r

p e r s o n a l l y o r t h rough communica t ions t o i n d i v i d u a l s h e r e

3 i n V i r g in ia o r wi th r e s p e c t t o i n t e r n e t m a t t e r s t h rough

4 s e r v e r s and com pu t e r s l o c a t e d i n V i rg in ia b e l ie v e t h e

5 l e x l o c i d e l i c t i s t a n d a r d c l e a r l y h o l d s and a l l o w s us t o

6 b r i n g th e s e f o r e ig n m a t t e r s unde r V i rg in ia ju r i s p ru d en c e.

7 Next Mr. Kimber l i n d i s c u s s e s t h a t t h e cr imina-

8 s t a t u t e s a r e i n a p t and t h a t we b u t Vi r g i n i a S e c t i o n

9 18 .2 -500 o f t h e V ir g i n i a Cr imina l Code s p e c i f i c a l l y g r a n t ~

10 a p r i v a t e cause o f a c t i o n c i v i l c o u r t t o any pe r son

11 i n ju re d i n h i s p r o f e s s i o n by a b u s i n e s s c o n s p i r a c y .

12 And so w ith in th e s cope of Nor th American

13 Mortgage I n v e s t o r s Pomponio - - I m s o r r y t h a t s an

14 u n r e l a t e d - - t h a t one I w i l l b r i n g up a l t t l b i t l a t e r .

15 But t h e Vi r g i n i a Code does a l low us t o b r in g

16 t o r t a c t i o n s f o r c r i m i n a l v i o l a t i o n s i n c l ud in g c ri mi na l

17 v i o l a t i o n s from o u t s i d e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n .

18 Next Mr . Kimber l i n a rgues t h a t - - e s s e n t i a l

19 Mr. Kimber l i n i s r a i s i n g a dem urrer a s we a rgued i n ou r

20 r e s p o n s e . And t hen h e s s a y i n g t h a t t h i s Cour t l a c k o f

21 venue and l a c k o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n and so f o r t h . ~

22 t h e s e a rg u m en t s a r e i r r e l e v a n t and s u p e r f l u o u s because he

23 waived h i s r i g h t t o b r i n g most o f t h e s e arguments when he


4116 LEONARDORNEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030

703 591-3136

R E p o R T


41/94

17

answered t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e .

And f r a n k l y as t o p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n you

3 know Mr. K im be rlin h as been corning t o t h i s Cour t and

4 a rg u i n g b e f o r e t h i s Cour t and f i l i n g mot ions b e f o r e t h i s

5 Cour t i n t h i s m a t t e r w e l l b e f o r e he f i l e d what i s an

6 imprope r ly p l e d d emur re r i n t h i s mot ion t o d i s m i s s .

7 So venue and p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n as we

8 a rgued i n o u r r e s p o n s e a r e a p t .

9 Qui t e a l o t t o cove r h e r e . Next I d l i k e t o

10 m en t ion t h a t Mr . Kimber l i n t a l k e d abou t h i s o m m u n i t i o n

11 wi th Beth K i n g s l e y t h e f o rmer a t t o r n e y o f Mr. Walker i n

12 t h i s o t h e r Maryland m a t t e r a wh ile b ack i s i n a d m i s s i b l e .

13 However Mr. Kimber l i n has h i m s e l f t a k e n p r i v i l e g e t o u se

14 t h e e x a c t same d i s c o v e r y - - s e tt le m e n t n e g o ti a ti o n s

15 w i t h o t h e r c o u n s e l and i n j e c t e d them i n t o t h i s case by

16 conc lud ing t h o s e d i s c u s s i o n s i n h i s mot ions f i l e d h e r e .

17 S p e c i f i c a l l y o u r c o n v e r s a t i o n s wi th Mr .

18 J e f f r e y Cohen w h o s an a t t or n ey r ep re s en t i ng t h e tw o

19 o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t Mr. Kimber l i n i s an employee o f o u r

20 n e g o t i a t i o n s wi th him ended up i n t h i s f i l i n g . So i t s a

21 l i t t l h y po c r it i c a l t o a rgue t h a t on ly t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s olr

22 t h e s et t l e m en t n e g o t i a t i o n s t h a t b e n e f i t him may be

23 a d m i t t e d .

R N K R N SCERTIFIEDVERBATIMREPORTERS

4116l.EONARD DRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030

703 591-3136

R p o R T


42/94

18

Mr . Kimber l i n a l s o a rgues t h a t t h i s was a

p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c a l m a t t e r and you know Your Honor t o be

3 f r a n k t h e s e tw o gen t l emen have d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l

4 i d e o l o g i e s i s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e t o r t s h e r e . I m n o t awar

5 t h a t t h e words R e p u b l i c a n , Democrat , C o n s e r v a t i v e , o r

6 L i b e r a l r e a l l y a p p e a r anywhere i n o u r c o m p l a i n t . But i f

7 t h e y do , t h e y r e mere ly d e s c r i p t i v e .

8 Thi s i s no t a p o l i t i c a l m a t t e r . t s a

9 q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e t o r t c l a i m s and t h e t o r t - - t h e

10 t o r t u o u s conduc t o f Mr . Kimber l i n t owa rds Mr. Walker.

11 An d as we d e t a i l e d i n E x h i b i t A i n o u r

12 r e s p o n s e , we f e e l t h a t each and e v e r y o n e o f t h e s e c l a ims

13 i s j u s t i f i e d wi th r e s p e c t t o Mr. Kimber l in and c e r t a i n l y

14 w i t h r e s p ec t t o t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s who Mr. Kimber l i n

15 c o n t i n u e s t o a rgue on t h e i r b e h a l f t h a t coun t s a g a i n s t

16 them somehow shou ld b e d i s m i s s e d as w e l l .

17 Your Honor, we b e l i e v e t h i s c a s e i s a p t . We

18 b e l i e v e t h e a rg um e n t s t h a t t h e coun t s r a i s e a r e

19 m e r i t o r i o u s and t h a t t h i s mot ion shou ld be d e n i e d .

20 TH COURT: Mr. Kimber l i n , i n r e s p o n s e .

21 MR KIMBERLIN: Thank you .

22 F i r s t o f a l l I d i d n t waive a n y t h i n g

23 i n t e n t i o n a l l y . I d id men t ion i n t h e answer s t o t h e

3 R N K R N SCERTIFIEDVERBATIM REPORTERS

4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX, VlRGINIA22030

703 591-3136

R p o R T


43/94

19

compla in t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t t h a t would be one o f my

3

d e f e n s e s . So I d o n t t h i n k t h a t s b ee n w aiv ed .

As f a r as t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s I v e been

4 cha rged w i t h a c o n s p i r a c y coun t o r m u l t i p l e c o n s p i r a c y

5 coun t s and b a s i c a l l y I m accused o f somehow t a l k i n g t o a

6 r e p o r t e r and t h i s i s some c o n s p i r a c y.

7 I mean when a pe r son t a l k s t o a r e p o r t e r and

8 he g e t s sued f o r c o n s p i r a c y you know i t s p r e t t y s t r a n g p

9 i n t h e Uni t ed S t a t e s and o f cour se I m go ing t o a rgue t h a

10 t h e r e s no c o n s p i r a c y because t h e r e i s none .

11 And i f t h a t happens t o g e t t h e cha rges

12 d i s m i s s e d a g a i n s t Mr . Rauhouser and Mr . B r y n a e r t w e l l S J

13 be i t . B ut t o say t h a t t h e r e s a c o n s p i r a c y t h a t t hey

14 p r e s e n t e d n o t one s h r e d o f ev idence o f a c o n s p i r a c y.

15 I mean a l l I d i d wa s f i l e a mot ion i n c o u r t

16 and s e n t an e - m a i l t o h i s a t t o r n e y . T h a t s t h e b a s i s o f

17 t h i s e n t i r e c a s e .

18 He d o e s n t say I d id a n y t h i n g e l s e . ow I

19 have a r i g h t t o f i l e a mot ion i n c o u r t . I f t h e Judge

20 d o e s n t l i k e i t o r i f t h e y d o n t l i k e i t t h e y can

21 compla in t o t h e Judge .

22 You know t h e y d o n t come and sue m i n

23 a n o t h e r c o u r t and say t h a t I v e done a l l o f th e s e t h i n g s



703 591-3136

R E p o R T


44/94

which I d i d n t do .

2

I f i l e d a s i n g l e p l e a d i n g a one-page

2 p l e a d i n g and a l l t h i s h as come o u t because I i d e n t i f i e d

3 him as Aaron Walker and t h a t he f i l e d p l e a d i n g s u s i n g a

4 f ake name i n t h a t c o u r t .

5 I f somebody came i n t o t h i s c o u r t you know

6 and f i l e d a p l e a d i n g i n t h i s c o u r t u s i n g a fake name I

7 would want them i d e n t i f i e d t o o . I t h i n k you would t o o

8 Judge .

9 So you know t h a t s b a s i c a l l y what t h i s case

10 b o i l s down t o . I i d e n t i f i e d t h i s man a s Aaron Walker and

11 I v e s u f f e r e d a l l o f t h i s abuse e v e r s i n c e .

12 I v e n ev er b lo gg ed once abou t t h i s man. I v e

13 n e v e r s a i d one t h i n g o u t o f t h e c o u r t h o u s e abou t t h i s man

14 o r have a l e g a l s i t u a t i o n abou t t h i s man.

15 H e s tw ee te d abou t m t housands and t housands

16 and t housands o f t i m e s . I v e g o t t e n d e a t h t h r e a t s t o my

17 f ami ly and I v e h ad p e o p l e s t a l k i n g m a t my house wi th

18 c r a z i n e s s . And I v e had t o g e t peace o r d e r s a g a i n s t t h e

19 p e o p l e who a r e do ing t h i s b e c a u s e t h i s man has c r e a t e d

2 t h i s n a r r a t i v e t h i s f a l s e n a r ra t i v e t h a t B r e t t i m e r l i ~

2 g o t him f i r e d f rom h i s job and w know t h a t s n o t t r u e .

22 know t h a t s n o t t r u e because h i s employer

23 wro te him back i n J a n u a r y t e l l i n g him e x a c t l y why he wa s


4116 LEONARD DRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA 22000

703 591-3136

R E p o R


45/94

21

f i r e d f o r b ei ng i nc om p et en t, f o r b l o g g i n g on company t ime

and f o r pok ing a t a m a j o r r e l i g i o n t o hope t h a t x t r m s t ~

3 would come ou t and h u r t him o r h u r t t h e peop le a t t h e

4 f i r m .

5 And t h a t s i t T h a t s why he was f i r e d . B ut

6 h e s s u f f e r e d t h i s abuse on me because he wants t o b e t h e

7 v i c t i m and he wants t h i s Cour t t o buy i n t o t h a t and say,

8 yes c o u l d su e Mr . Kimber l i n . You can t a k e him t o c o u r t

9 and p u t him on t h e s t a n d and g e t a l l t h i s d i s c o v e r y i n .

10 P u t him u nde r o a t h and g e t him f i r e d f rom h i s j o b . T h a t s

11 what t h e y w an t .

12 And I m a s k i n g you t o l ook a t t h i s case f o r

13 what i t i s . I t s a h i t j o b on me . I t s b a s e on n o t h i n g

14 t h a t s a c t i o n a b l e .

15 Thank you .

16 THE COURT: Thank you, s i r . W e l l t a k e abou t

17 a t e n minu te r e c e s s and t h e n I l l come b a c k .

18 Reces s . )

19 THE COURT: We re back on t h e r e c o r d .

20 The P l a i n t i f f h as b r o u g h t a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t

21 t h e De fenda n t Kimber l i n , and tw o o t h e r Defendan t s who a r e

22 n o t b e f o r e t h e C o u r t t oday p e r s o n a l l y .

23 T h e i r c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s t h i r t y t w o coun t s o f

R E E N K E R N SCER IF lED VERBA11M REPOR ERS

4116 LEONARD DRIVEFAIRFAX VIRGINIA22 3

703 591-3136

R E p o R T


46/94

which f o u r t e e n i n v o l v e t h e Defendan t Kimber l in . Counts

two f o u r , f i v e , e i g h t, n in e, f o ur t e en , f i f t e e n , s i x t e e n ,

3 t w e n t y - t h r e e , t w e n t y - f o u r , t w en ty - f iv e , t w en ty -s ix ,

4 t w e n t y s e v e n and t h i r t y - t w o .

5 The Defendan t Kimber l i n h as f i l e d a mot ion t o

6 d i s m i s s t h e compla in t f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c la im t h e

7 l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , imprope r venue and v i o l a t i o n o f th3

8 F i r s t Amendment.

9 K i m b e r l i n s mot ion t o d i s m i s s w i l l be g r a n t e d

10 Tha t i s mot ions f o r any a d d i t i o n a l s a n c t i o n s w i l l be

11 d e n i e d .

12 In l i g h t o f t h e C o u rt s r u li n g on t h e mot ion

13 t o d i s m i s s , t h e o t h e r pend ing mot ions by t h e Cour t a r e

14 moot and t h e r e f o r e d i s m i s s e d a s w e l l .

15 P l a i n t i f f s mot ion f o r d e f a u l t judgment

16 a g ai n st t h e c o d e f e n d a n t s a r e a l s o den ied and t h e c a s e i s

17 d i s m i s s e d .

18 Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e

19 p l e a d i n g s i n c l u d i n g th e a t t a c h e d e x h i b i t s and t h e r g u m n ~

20 o f t h e p a r t i e s and c o u n s e l i s c l e a r t o t h i s Cour t t h a t

21 t h e P l a i n t i f f s e e k s tw o m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n p un it i v e

22 damages b u t makes no c l a im f o r compensa to ry damages so

23 t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f i n a u d i b l e ) i s n o t r e c o g n i z a b l e unde r



703 591-3136

R E p o R


47/94

23

t h e l a w

t s a l s o c l e a r f rom t h e v ar i o us p l e a d i n g s ane

3 e x h i b i t s f i l e d i n t h i s c a s e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a v e been

4 i n v o l v e d i n e x t e n s iv e d i s p u t es t h a t h a v e i n v o l v e d

5 p o l i t i c a l an d r e l i g io u s i s s u e s .

6 T h e s e v a r i o u s c l a i m s i nc lu d i ng c ri m i na l an d

7 c i v i l a l l e g a t i o n s and l i t i g a t i o n s i n s t a t e an d f e d e r a l

8 c o u r t s a l l o f which a p p e a r t o h a v e been d i s m i s s e d . The

9 most r e c e n t c a s e f i l e d b y t h e P l a i n t i f f a g a i n s t t h e

10 D e f e n d a n t K i m b e r l i n and h i s two o r g a n i z a t i o n s was

11 d i s m i s s e d b y o r d e r o f t h e U D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e

12 D i s t r i c t o f M a r y l a n d on November 2 8 2 0 1 2 j u s t s i x d a y s

13 ago i n which t h e J u d g e s t a t e d and I q u o t e deem i t

14 u n w i s e t o i n te r v en e i n t h e b i t t e r p o l i t i c a l d i s p u t e s

15 b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s .

16 T h i s C o u r t t a k e s t h e same p o s i t i o n . t s

17 c l e a r t h a t t h i s c a s e i s s imp ly a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f m r t l s ~

18 a nd v i n d i c t i v e l i t i g a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s .

19 While t h e law i n V i r g i n i a i s c l e a r t h a t

20 f a i l i n g t o s t a t e a c l a i m i s an i ss u e g e n e r al l y a d d r e s s e d

21 b y d e m u r r e r an d D e f e n d a n t K im be rl in h as n o t f i l e d a

22 d e m u r r e r i n t h i s c a s e .

23 t s a l s o t r u e t h a t V i r g i n i a law p r o v i d e s t h a



703 591-3136

R E p o R T


48/94

4

t h e s i g n a t u r e o f an a t t o r n e y o r a p a r t y wi th any p l e a d i n g

b e f o r e t h i s Cou r t c o n s t i t u t e s a c e r t i f i c a t i o n by him t h a t

3 t h e p l e a d i n g i s w e l l g rounded i n f a c t war ran ted by

4 e x i s t i n g law and i s n o t i n t e r p o s e d f o r any imprope r

5 p u r p o s e such as t o h a r a s s o r t o cause unneces sa ry d e l a y 0

6 n e e d l e s s i n c r e a s e i n t h e c o s t o f l i t i g a t i o n

7 Th e C our t f i n d s t h a t t h e compla in t i s n o t weI

8 g r o u n d ed i n f a c t t s n o t w a r r a n t e d by e x i s t i n g law and

9 t s imposed f o r an imprope r purpose a s p a r t o f an ongo inJ

10 p o l i t i c a l d i s p u t e be tween t h e p a r t i e s

11 While t h e s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s f o r s an ct io ns by

12 t h e C o u r t t h i s Cour t w i l l g r a n t t h e mot ion t o d i s m i s s by

13 De f enda n t Kimber l i n .

14 The C our t d e n i e s t h e mot ion f o r any f u r t h e r

15 s a n c t i o n s

16 Th e Cour t f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t coun t tw o i s

17 b a s e d upon a c l a im o f de fama t ion . Under Vi r g i n i a l aw ~

18 e l emen t s on de fama t ion a r e :

19

20

21

1

2

3

P u b l i c a t i o n

Of an a c t u a l s t a t e m e n t and

I n t e n t

22 In o r d e r t o a s s e r t a c l a im o f de fama t ion

23 however t h e P l a i n t i f f must f i r s t show t h a t t h e Defend an t



703 591-3136

R E p o R T


49/94

25

p u b l i s h e d a f a l s e f a c t u a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t conce rns and

2 harms t h e P l a i n t i f f .

3 B ut h e r e by t h e P l a i n t i f f s own a l l e g a t i o n s

4 i n c l u d i n g p a r a g r a p h f i f t y - o n e t h e y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e

5 s t a t e m e n t s a l l e g e d l y made by t h e Defendan t were n o t

6 d i r e c t e d a t t h e P l a i n t i f f .

7 I n a d d i t i o n a s t h e Defendan t h a s s t a t e d i n

8 h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s and h e r e t oday e x p r e s s i o n s o f

9 o p i n i o n a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d and t h e y r e n o t

10 a c t u a l as d e f a m a t i o n .

11 So a s a m a t t e r o f law t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h

12 s t a t e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n t h e c o m p l a i n t do n o t c o n t a i n

13 p r o v a b l e f a l s e f a c t u a l s t a t e m en t s b u t a r e r e l a t i v e i n

14 n a t u r e an d depend upon t h e v i e w p o i n t o f t h e s p e a k e r .

15 Counts fou r an d f i v e a r e d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k

16 p r o p e r j u r i s d i c t i o n a nd venue .

17 As t o c o u n t e i g h t i s b a s e d on a l l e g a t i o n

18 o f i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f emot iona l d i s t r e s s . In o rde

19 t o r e c o v e r on a c la im o f i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f

20 e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s t h e P l a i n t i f f mus t s a t i s f y fou r

21 e l e m e n t s o f p r o o f :

22 1 Tha t t h e D e fe nd an t s c o n d u c t was

23 i n t e n t i o n a l and r e c k l e s s and

3 R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIEDVERBATIM REPORTERS

4116 lEON RD DRIVEFAIRFAX, VIRGINIA22030

703 5913136

R E p o R


50/94

2

26

Th e D e f e n d a n t s c o n d u c t was ou t r ageous anon to To

l he lopJ ers Defense Tcnm

onate Now

The Bloggers DefenseTeam is a legal project of RightSolutions, a SOlc3 charitydedicated to freespeech rights, andis managedby DB CapitalStrategies, a Washington D C law firm.It is directed by DanBacker and Steve Hoersting.

p1ryx'

you believethat youare thetarget of lawfare, harassment,cyberstalking or worse at thehands of Brett Kimberlin or thosethat work with him or for him, please feel free tocontact us t bloggersdefense t bloggersdefenseteam dot com. We will do our best to review thedetails of yourcase anddetermine ifThe Bloggers DefenseTeamcan assist you, or jfyou shouldbe referred to oth r parties.

Preserve FreeSpeechDon lltelo

The l O ~ r JDefense Team

o t= you r anattorney interestedin free speech issuesand would like to assist h Bloggers Defense Team's attorneys in their efforts to assist thevictims of Jawfare, SWATIng,

cyberstalkingand harassment.we want to hear from you. Please contact us t bloggersdefense t bloggersdefenseteam dot com.


75/94

1 16 2014

For Immediate Release

Bloggers Defense Team

8 8 2 12

Blogger journalist Aaron Walker is continuing his fight for bloggers freedom of speech withhis lawsuit against Brett Kimberlin and his allies, with significant new developments underway.Mr. Kimberlin has engaged in a series of harassing legal maneuvers - Lawfare - to silence hisnew media critics. These tactics have included filing numerous peace orders in an attempt tohave Courts. silence journalists, Bar complaints to cost his foes their professions, and harassingcommunications to employers ofbloggers and even to employers of their spouses. Kimberlin sassociates have also been suspect

Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)

Documents

Transcript of Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)