Post on 04-Jun-2018
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).
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
4/94
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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.
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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.
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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,
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
25/94
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
3 R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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 .
3 R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX, VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIE VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX, VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
3 R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22 3
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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 .
R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIE VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22 3
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDORNEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX, VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
3 R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA 22000
703 591-3136
R E p o R
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
3 R E E N K E R N S ERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX, VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
3 R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22 3
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
3 R E E N K E R N SCERTIFIED VERBATIMREPORTERS
4116 LEONARDDRIVEFAIRFAX,VIRGINIA22030
703 591-3136
R E p o R T
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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.
8/13/2019 Kimberlin v. NBC Res DBCS M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
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