1
V I R G I N I A
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
- - - - - - - - - - - x :AARON J. WALKER, : :
Plaintiff, : : -vs- : Case No. CL12-631-00 :BRETT KIMBERLIN, : :
Defendant. : :- - - - - - - - - - - x
Circuit Courtroom 4Prince William County Courthouse
Manassas, Virginia
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The above-entitled matter came on to be heard
before the HONORABLE RICHARD B. POTTER, Judge, in and for
the Circuit Court of Prince William County, in the
Courthouse, Manassas, Virginia, beginning at 11:15 o'clock
a.m.
APPEARANCES:
On Behalf of the Plaintiff:
DAN BACKER, ESQUIRE
On Behalf of the Defendant:
(Pro Se)
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 (The Court Reporter was previously sworn by
3 the Clerk of the Court.)
4 THE COURT: Aaron J. Walker, Plaintiff, versus
5 Brett Kimberlin and Ron Brynaert and Neal Rauhauser,
6 Defendants, in 12-631.
7 Whose is present on behalf of the Plaintiff,
8 Mr. Walker?
9 MR. BACKER: Dan Backer, Your Honor, on behalf
10 of Mr. Walker who is present as well.
11 THE COURT: All right. And is Mr. Kimberlin
12 here?
13 MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: And Mr. Kimberlin is present, Mr.
15 Bryneart is not and Mr. Rauhauser are not present.
16 All right, this comes on -- as you know we’ve
17 consolidated at least three motions that are on the docket
18 to heard today and put them all on one date for a date
19 certain from the motions day and I appreciate your
20 patience because I know we had to continue it to today’s
21 date.
22 So we will proceed. I think the threshold
23 motion is clearly the motion to dismiss. You need to
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
3
1 proceed on that one first and then we will take up the
2 other motions.
3 The three motions being the Plaintiff’s motion
4 or the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which we will take
5 up first, and in addition to that we have Plaintiff’s
6 motion for sanctions and Plaintiff’s motions for
7 protective order and stay.
8 All right, so we will start with Mr.
9 Kimberlin; you want to heard, sir?
10 MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Mr. Backer?
12 MR. BACKER: Yes, we filed a default motion
13 against the Defendants Brynaert and Rauhauser as well and
14 tried to consolidate to today’s date. I just wanted that
15 to be brought to your attention.
16 THE COURT: I saw one at the last minute but I
17 thought it was set for -- it was stuck in my Term Day
18 docket but it may well be on this docket today.
19 When did you file that, do you know?
20 MR. BACKER: We filed a couple of weeks before
21 -- last Friday would have been the earliest possible date
22 and then we asked that it be consolidated with today as
23 well. So I’m guessing seventeen, eighteen days ago.
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
4
1 THE COURT: All right. Well, as long as
2 you’ve filed it with the Clerk we can go ahead and proceed
3 with it.
4 MR. BACKER: Thank you.
5 THE COURT: All right, let’s take the motions
6 -- first the motion to dismiss. Mr. Kimberlin, do you
7 want to heard?
8 MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I do.
9 First of all, a couple of days ago I filed a
10 motion to take judicial notice of a decision from the
11 Federal Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. I just want to make
12 sure that you saw that before we get started.
13 THE COURT: I did.
14 MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. So I would ask that the
15 Court take that into consideration in this case. The
16 issues are fairly similar.
17 There is one count in that complaint that is
18 almost identical to a count in this case. It’s the
19 tortuous interference with contract.
20 Mr. Walker alleged in that case that he was
21 fired from his job because of my contacting his job or
22 something to that effect, which I never did.
23 The Judge, the Federal Judge, in that case
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
5
1 rejected all of Mr. Walker’s claims and dismissed the
2 federal complaint against both me and the organizations in
3 which I’m involved.
4 So I believe that that decision collaterally
5 stops Mr. Walker in this case from arguing the same
6 points.
7 As to my motion to dismiss, numerous claims as
8 to the complaint in this case, there are dozens of counts,
9 eleven criminal counts that he’s alleging under different
10 jurisdictions, some from Virginia, some from Maryland,
11 some from New York, some from D.C., some from Federal.
12 And all these, except for one, have no private
13 right of civil action. The only one that does have a
14 private right of civil action is the business reputation,
15 499 issue, from the state of Virginia.
16 In that case it requires a conviction, 499,
17 prior to the filing of civil action under 18.2-500. So I
18 don’t think that counts four, five, six, seven, twenty-
19 three, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty,
20 and thirty-one and thirty-two are allowable in this case
21 because they are criminal statutes and some of them are
22 foreign jurisdictions.
23 As to any -- again going to the foreign
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
6
1 jurisdictions, count four is from a federal criminal
2 statute. Count five is from a Maryland criminal statute.
3 Count six is from a federal criminal statute. Count seven
4 is from a Maryland criminal statute. Count nine a
5 Maryland civil statute. Count eleven a Maryland civil
6 statute. Count thirteen a Maryland civil statute. Count
7 fifteen a Maryland civil statute. Sixteen, D.C. civil
8 statute. Eighteen Maryland civil statute. Nineteen D.C.
9 civil statute. Twenty-one a D.C. civil statute. Twenty-
10 two New York civil statute. Twenty-three again is the
11 business conspiracy statute under Virginia criminal law.
12 Twenty-five is under Maryland law, again civil. Twenty-
13 six New York law civil. Twenty-seven federal stalking
14 under federal law. Twenty-eight federal stalking under
15 federal law. Twenty-nine federal stalking under criminal
16 law of New York. And count thirty and thirty-one under
17 New York criminal law. And count thirty-two under
18 Virginia criminal law.
19 Again, I believe that this case is a civil
20 case and it’s a Virginia case. It’s not a Maryland case,
21 it’s not a New York case, it’s not a D.C. case, it’s not a
22 federal case.
23 And for the Plaintiff to allege that this
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
7
1 Court has jurisdiction to apply those statutes is
2 erroneous.
3 Secondly, as far as jurisdiction goes, I never
4 set foot in this county during the time that these
5 allegations occurred, therefore I ask the Court to find
6 that it does not have a jurisdiction over this case.
7 The only thing that the Plaintiff is alleging
8 is that he read an e-mail or a post from the internet on
9 his computer here in Virginia and I think that that
10 doesn’t give this Court jurisdiction to hear the case.
11 So as far as foreign jurisdictions, there is
12 twenty-one counts that rely on foreign statutes. Four,
13 five, six, seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, fifteen,
14 sixteen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-
15 two, twenty-three, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven,
16 twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two,
17 and I believe that all of these are improper in this Court
18 and should be dismissed.
19 As far as counts two, four, and five they
20 allege extortion and defamation and the extortion and
21 defamation occurred according to the complaint as part of
22 a settlement matter in a Maryland civil case in which I
23 was involved.
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
8
1 And the Fourth Circuit has been very clear
2 that it’s held that as a matter of public policy
3 settlement negotiations are necessarily inadmissible and
4 other cases to encourage frank discussions and that comes
5 from the Fiberglass Insulators, Inc. versus Dupuy 856 F.
6 2nd 652 and 654.
7 In this case counts two, four, and five allege
8 that I defamed Mr. Walker by sending his attorney, Beth
9 Kingsley, and e-mail as part of settlement. And it’s
10 interesting that Mr. Walker actually sent an e-mail back
11 with a counter settlement after I sent that e-mail.
12 So for him to allege now that it’s extortion
13 and defamation is just not appropriate and certainly is
14 not actionable in this case.
15 As far as the entire case, basically it boils
16 down to the fact that Mr. Walker doesn’t like what I said
17 or what Neal said or what Ron said. Ron is a reporter and
18 for me to be sued for talking to a reporter or allegedly
19 talking to a reporter is a very slippery slope as far as
20 the First Amendment is concerned.
21 I have a right to talk about Mr. Walker. I
22 knew his identity. I knew that Mr. Walker used a fake
23 name, Aaron Worthing, in a civil case in Maryland. And I
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
9
1 asked him to identify himself and he refused, so I asked
2 him the Court to issue an order and to get his identity.
3 I discovered his identity from a third party
4 and I informed the Court in that case in a motion that Mr.
5 Walker was actually -- I mean, Mr. Worthing was actually
6 Mr. Walker.
7 That’s basically the extent of it. I have
8 never done anything else except to write to his attorney
9 and so once that happened, once I identified Mr. Walker,
10 Mr. Walker then went to his employer and told his employer
11 that he’s been identified and he informed his employer
12 that he had been the publisher of a blog called Everyone
13 Draw Mohammed which without belaboring the point, it was
14 an anti-Muslim blog or an anti-prophet Mohammed blog.
15 And of course he has a first amendment right
16 to publish that blog, but he informed his employer that
17 he’s been identified. His employer was obviously
18 concerned that this could cause problems for the firm and
19 for his co-workers, so they terminated him.
20 But they didn’t just terminate him at whim.
21 They went into his office and --
22 MR. BACKER: Excuse me, Your Honor. May I
23 object at all during his statement?
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
10
1 THE COURT: What’s the grounds of the
2 objection?
3 MR. BACKER: Mr. Kimberlin is attempting to
4 testify and insert facts into this conversation when this
5 is about a questionable blog, whether or not the
6 allegations in the complaint justify a -- or can be
7 sustained in the face of a motion to dismiss which
8 presumes the facts are as alleged.
9 Mr. Kimberlin is attempting to testify here
10 and insert facts into evidence instead of arguing the law.
11 THE COURT: You need to stick to motion to
12 dismiss Mr. Kimberlin.
13 MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, the point is there
14 was no defamation. I never contacted his attorney -- I
15 mean, his employer. So I couldn’t defame him to his
16 employer.
17 And I have a First Amendment right both under
18 access to the Court in that civil case in Maryland to
19 inform the Judge about the identity of Mr. Walker. Mr.
20 Walker had filed papers in that court using a fake name,
21 Aaron Worthing.
22 I had a right to identify him in that court
23 under the First Amendment and I also had a right to speak
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
11
1 out about his identity under the First Amendment. He has
2 no right to gag me from talking about him if I know who he
3 is. And that’s what he has asked this Court to do in this
4 particular law suit.
5 He’s asked this Court to issue an injunction
6 prohibiting me from ever telling anyone in count thirty-
7 two -- from ever telling anyone that he is Aaron Walker --
8 Aaron Worthing, the publisher of the hate Mohammed blog
9 because he doesn’t want people to know.
10 MR. BACKER: Again, Your Honor, I’m going to
11 object --
12 MR. KIMBERLIN: I have a right to speak --
13 THE COURT: These are the facts that are set
14 forth in the pleadings, Counsel, so I will overrule the
15 objection at this point.
16 MR. KIMBERLIN: And I have --
17 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Kimberlin, go ahead
18 and finish.
19 MR. KIMBERLIN: a right. I have a right to
20 speak about that. I have a right to speak about that. He
21 had no right to gag me at that time and he has now sued me
22 saying that I tried to get him killed basically or harm
23 him or get him fired. And I never talked to his employer
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
12
1 at all.
2 He’s the one that contacted his employer. He
3 filed this lawsuit in this case using his own name,
4 admitting that he was Aaron Worthing and Aaron Walker, but
5 he sued me for going into a court and exercising my First
6 Amendment right to access to the Court and informing the
7 Judge about the identity of a lawyer who had filed papers
8 using a fake name.
9 And I had a right to do that under the First
10 Amendment. It’s not actionable. He can sue me but it’s
11 protected First Amendment activity and this is free
12 speech.
13 And again going back to the federal decision,
14 he’s filed that case basically accusing me of abusing
15 process and getting him fired and interfering with his
16 First Amendment rights. Well, the Judge in that case
17 decided against him and decided against him without even a
18 hearing, just looking at the pleadings. Deciding against
19 him the day after the motion to dismiss was filed.
20 And I think that shows the kind of thing that
21 we’re dealing with here. We’ve got a case that’s been
22 filed against me for almost a year and thousands of tweets
23 about me and thousands of blog posts about me and then Mr.
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
13
1 Walker raising tons of money to litigate this case because
2 it’s so big and it’s First Amendment and all this stuff.
3 But it really boils down to the fact that he
4 was identified as the publisher of a Muslim hate blog and
5 he didn’t like that. He wanted to do that with anonymity
6 forever and insult Muslims and get Americans killed
7 overseas and you know I had a right to expose that. I had
8 a right to discuss that.
9 And he’s turned this into a political battle.
10 It’s partisan politics at its worst. And you know I
11 believe that this case fails to rise to the level of a
12 decent legitimate this Court should consider and I ask
13 that the Court dismiss it.
14 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Counsel want to
15 heard in response the motion to dismiss.
16 MR. BACKER: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
17 First with respect to the Maryland decision,
18 the Maryland litigation was a federal case involving
19 different parties and different claims specifically
20 focused on the constitutional law implications of Mr.
21 Kimberlin’s use of state mechanisms to further his
22 conduct.
23 These are completely different claims and we
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
14
1 don’t believe that any of these claims -- the claims here
2 are barred by a ruling there.
3 Moreover, a facial reading of the order by the
4 Judge simply states that the case was dismissed several
5 weeks after Mr. Kimberlin filed his motion to dismiss and
6 after I responded. It happened to coincide with another,
7 a separate motion.
8 But based solely on the grounds that the
9 remedy sought specifically was improperly pled.
10 Specifically, we should have asked for compensatory
11 damages and didn’t. And that is on the face of the order.
12 It does not in any way address any of the
13 substantive points from that claim. And as I’m sure Your
14 Honor knows and I just repeat for the record, Rule 1.6
15 regarding res judicata, res judicata claimed preclusion
16 specifically states that a claim must rise from identified
17 conduct, a transactional occurrence. It must be decided
18 on the merits. In this case it was not.
19 Moreover, it bars a second or subsequent
20 similar action in a Virginia court. But this case
21 precluded the Maryland litigation which was commenced in
22 response to activities in Maryland unrelated to the claims
23 here.
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
15
1 There is only one possibly corresponding claim
2 that between these two matters and that is our count
3 fifteen of the Virginia claim, interference with business
4 relations under Maryland law and tortuous interference of
5 contract in the federal case. So there is the only cross
6 over there.
7 So we believe that we fall well within the
8 scope of the -- or rather outside of the scope of Rule 1.6
9 res judicata, claim for preclusion, because the test isn’t
10 met.
11 Moving on, most of the counts that Mr.
12 Kimberlin argues that most of the counts in our complaint
13 are based on statutes outside Virginia and therefore can’t
14 possibly be actionable.
15 I would start by saying that in the Choice of
16 Law analysis, Virginia courts have consistently adhered to
17 the lex loci delicti standard which says with the last act
18 completing the tort occurred governs where the tort may be
19 tried.
20 That’s from General Insurance of America, Inc.
21 v. Overby-Seawall Company in the Eastern District of
22 Virginia.
23 Because the last act of each of the torts that
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
16
1 we’re alleging occurred here in Virginia, either
2 personally or through communications to individuals here
3 in Virginia or with respect to internet matters through
4 servers and computers located in Virginia, we believe the
5 lex loci delicti standard clearly holds and allows us to
6 bring these foreign matters under Virginia jurisprudence.
7 Next Mr. Kimberlin discusses that the criminal
8 statutes are inapt and that we -- but Virginia Section
9 18.2-500 of the Virginia Criminal Code specifically grants
10 a private cause of action civil court to any person
11 injured in his profession by a business conspiracy.
12 And so within the scope of North American
13 Mortgage Investors v. Pomponio -- I’m sorry, that’s an
14 unrelated -- that one I will bring up a little bit later.
15 But the Virginia Code does allow us to bring
16 tort actions for criminal violations including criminal
17 violations from outside the jurisdiction.
18 Next, Mr. Kimberlin argues that -- essentially
19 Mr. Kimberlin is raising a demurrer as we argued in our
20 response. And then he’s saying that this Court, lack of
21 venue and lack of personal jurisdiction and so forth. But
22 these arguments are irrelevant and superfluous because he
23 waived his right to bring most of these arguments when he
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
17
1 answered the complaint in the first place.
2 And frankly as to personal jurisdiction, you
3 know, Mr. Kimberlin has been coming to this Court and
4 arguing before this Court and filing motions before this
5 Court in this matter well before he filed what is an
6 improperly pled demurrer in this motion to dismiss.
7 So venue and personal jurisdiction as we
8 argued in our response are apt.
9 Quite a lot to cover here. Next I’d like to
10 mention that Mr. Kimberlin talked about his communications
11 with Beth Kingsley, the former attorney of Mr. Walker in
12 this other Maryland matter awhile back, is inadmissible.
13 However, Mr. Kimberlin has himself taken privilege to use
14 the exact same discovery -- settlement negotiations --
15 with other counsel and injected them into this case by
16 concluding those discussions in his motions filed here.
17 Specifically, our conversations with Mr.
18 Jeffrey Cohen who’s an attorney representing the two
19 organizations that Mr. Kimberlin is an employee of, our
20 negotiations with him ended up in this filing. So it’s a
21 little hypocritical to argue that only the negotiations of
22 the settlement negotiations that benefit him may be
23 admitted.
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
18
1 Mr. Kimberlin also argues that this was a
2 partisan political matter and you know Your Honor to be
3 frank, these two gentlemen have different political
4 ideologies is irrelevant to the torts here. I’m not aware
5 that the words Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or
6 Liberal really appear anywhere in our complaint. But if
7 they do, they’re merely descriptive.
8 This is not a political matter. It’s a
9 question as to the tort claims and the tort -- the
10 tortuous conduct of Mr. Kimberlin towards Mr. Walker.
11 And as we detailed in Exhibit A in our
12 response, we feel that each and every one of these claims
13 is justified with respect to Mr. Kimberlin and certainly
14 with respect to the other defendants who Mr. Kimberlin
15 continues to argue on their behalf that counts against
16 them somehow should be dismissed as well.
17 Your Honor, we believe this case is apt. We
18 believe the arguments that the counts raise are
19 meritorious and that this motion should be denied.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Kimberlin, in response.
21 MR. KIMBERLIN: Thank you.
22 First of all, I didn’t waive anything
23 intentionally. I did mention in the answers to the
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
19
1 complaint of jurisdiction that that would be one of my
2 defenses. So I don’t think that’s been waived.
3 As far as the other defendants, I’ve been
4 charged with a conspiracy count or multiple conspiracy
5 counts and basically I’m accused of somehow talking to a
6 reporter and this is some conspiracy.
7 I mean when a person talks to a reporter and
8 he gets sued for conspiracy, you know, it’s pretty strange
9 in the United States and of course I’m going to argue that
10 there’s no conspiracy because there is none.
11 And if that happens to get the charges
12 dismissed against Mr. Rauhouser and Mr. Brynaert, well, so
13 be it. But to say that there’s a conspiracy that they
14 presented not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy.
15 I mean all I did was file a motion in court
16 and sent an e-mail to his attorney. That’s the basis of
17 this entire case.
18 He doesn’t say I did anything else. Now I
19 have a right to file a motion in court. If the Judge
20 doesn’t like it, or if they don’t like it, they can
21 complain to the Judge.
22 You know, they don’t come and sue me in
23 another court and say that I’ve done all of these things
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
20
1 which I didn’t do. I filed a single pleading, a one-page
2 pleading and all this has come out because I identified
3 him as Aaron Walker and that he filed pleadings using a
4 fake name in that court.
5 If somebody came into this court, you know,
6 and filed a pleading in this court using a fake name, I
7 would want them identified, too. I think you would too,
8 Judge.
9 So you know that’s basically what this case
10 boils down to. I identified this man as Aaron Walker and
11 I’ve suffered all of this abuse ever since.
12 I’ve never blogged once about this man. I’ve
13 never said one thing out of the courthouse about this man
14 or have a legal situation about this man.
15 He’s tweeted about me thousands and thousands
16 and thousands of times. I’ve gotten death threats to my
17 family and I’ve had people stalking me at my house with
18 craziness. And I’ve had to get peace orders against the
19 people who are doing this because this man has created
20 this narrative, this false narrative, that Brett Kimberlin
21 got him fired from his job and we know that’s not true.
22 We know that’s not true because his employer
23 wrote him back in January telling him exactly why he was
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
21
1 fired for being incompetent, for blogging on company time,
2 and for poking at a major religion to hope that extremists
3 would come out and hurt him or hurt the people at the
4 firm.
5 And that’s it. That’s why he was fired. But
6 he’s suffered this abuse on me because he wants to be the
7 victim and he wants this Court to buy into that and say,
8 yes could sue Mr. Kimberlin. You can take him to court
9 and put him on the stand and get all this discovery in.
10 Put him under oath and get him fired from his job. That’s
11 what they want.
12 And I’m asking you to look at this case for
13 what it is. It’s a hit job on me. It’s base on nothing
14 that’s actionable.
15 Thank you.
16 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. We’ll take about
17 a ten minute recess and then I’ll come back.
18 (Recess.)
19 THE COURT: We’re back on the record.
20 The Plaintiff has brought a complaint against
21 the Defendant Kimberlin, and two other Defendants who are
22 not before the Court today personally.
23 Their complaint contains thirty-two counts of
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
22
1 which fourteen involve the Defendant Kimberlin. Counts
2 two, four, five, eight, nine, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen,
3 twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six,
4 twenty-seven, and thirty-two.
5 The Defendant Kimberlin has filed a motion to
6 dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, the
7 lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and violation of the
8 First Amendment.
9 Kimberlin’s motion to dismiss will be granted.
10 That is motions for any additional sanctions will be
11 denied.
12 In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion
13 to dismiss, the other pending motions by the Court are
14 moot and therefore dismissed as well.
15 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment
16 against the co-defendants are also denied and the case is
17 dismissed.
18 Upon consideration of the totality of the
19 pleadings including the attached exhibits and the argument
20 of the parties and counsel it is clear to this Court that
21 the Plaintiff seeks two million dollars in punitive
22 damages, but makes no claim for compensatory damages so
23 that the Plaintiff (inaudible) is not recognizable under
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
23
1 the law.
2 It’s also clear from the various pleadings and
3 exhibits filed in this case that the parties have been
4 involved in extensive disputes that have involved
5 political and religious issues.
6 These various claims including criminal and
7 civil allegations and litigations in state and federal
8 courts all of which appear to have been dismissed. The
9 most recent case filed by the Plaintiff against the
10 Defendant Kimberlin and his two organizations was
11 dismissed by order of the U.S. District Court in the
12 District of Maryland on November 28, 2012, just six days
13 ago, in which the Judge stated and I quote, “I deem it
14 unwise to intervene in the bitter political disputes
15 between the parties.”
16 This Court takes the same position. It’s
17 clear that this case is simply a continuation of meritless
18 and vindictive litigation between the parties.
19 While the law in Virginia is clear that
20 failing to state a claim is an issue generally addressed
21 by demurrer, and Defendant Kimberlin has not filed a
22 demurrer in this case.
23 It’s also true that Virginia law provides that
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
24
1 the signature of an attorney or a party with any pleading
2 before this Court constitutes a certification by him that
3 the pleading is well grounded in fact, warranted by
4 existing law, and is not interposed for any improper
5 purpose such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or
6 needless increase in the cost of litigation.
7 The Court finds that the complaint is not well
8 grounded in fact, it’s not warranted by existing law, and
9 it’s imposed for an improper purpose as part of an ongoing
10 political dispute between the parties.
11 While the statute provides for sanctions by
12 the Court, this Court will grant the motion to dismiss by
13 Defendant Kimberlin.
14 The Court denies the motion for any further
15 sanctions.
16 The Court further finds that count two is
17 based upon a claim of defamation. Under Virginia law, the
18 elements on defamation are:
19 1) Publication,
20 2) Of an actual statement and,
21 3) Intent.
22 In order to assert a claim of defamation
23 however the Plaintiff must first show that the Defendant
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
25
1 published a false factual statement that concerns and
2 harms the Plaintiff.
3 But here by the Plaintiff’s own allegations
4 including paragraph fifty-one they indicate that the
5 statements allegedly made by the Defendant were not
6 directed at the Plaintiff.
7 In addition, as the Defendant has stated in
8 his motion to dismiss and here today expressions of
9 opinion are constitutionally protected and they’re not
10 actual as defamation.
11 So as a matter of law the Court finds that the
12 statements set forth in the complaint do not contain
13 provable false factual statements but are relative in
14 nature and depend upon the viewpoint of the speaker.
15 Counts four and five are dismissed for lack of
16 proper jurisdiction and venue.
17 As to count eight, it is based on allegation
18 of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In order
19 to recover on a claim of intentional infliction of
20 emotional distress the Plaintiff must satisfy four
21 elements of proof:
22 1) That the Defendant’s conduct was
23 intentional and reckless and,
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
26
1 2) The Defendant’s conduct was outrageous and
2 intolerable and,
3 3) There was a causal connection between the
4 wrongdoers conduct and the resulting emotional distress,
5 4) The resulting emotional distress was
6 severe.
7 Even taken in the light most favorable to the
8 Plaintiff, the Court cannot find that the alleged
9 statements of the Defendant Kimberlin were outrageous or
10 could be the basis of any severe emotional distress.
11 As to count fourteen, that count is based on
12 the tort of interference with business expectations and
13 the elements of that tort include:
14 1) A business relationship or expectancy of a
15 probability of future economic benefit to Plaintiff as an
16 objective test and,
17 2) Defendant’s knowledge of that relationship
18 or expectancy and,
19 3) Reasonable certainty that absent the
20 Defendant’s intentional misconduct Plaintiff would have
21 continued in that relationship and,
22 4) The interference was by improper methods
23 and,
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
27
1 5) Damages resulted from that improper
2 interference.
3 The complaint fails to state all of the
4 elements. It fails to state sufficient facts that were in
5 any way improper methods by the Defendant.
6 Counts fifteen and sixteen are dismissed for
7 lack of jurisdiction and venue.
8 Count twenty-three is based on the Virginia
9 business conspiracy. And the elements of that are:
10 1) An allegation of two or more persons,
11 2) An agreement and,
12 3) To willfully and maliciously interfere
13 with another in his trade, reputation, business, or
14 profession by any means and,
15 4) Malice, that is an intentional purpose and
16 without justification.
17 The given complaint fails to state sufficient
18 facts to support the elements of the tort and fails to
19 state those specific facts with reckless and
20 particularity.
21 Count twenty-four is based on the tort of
22 Virginia Common Law of Conspiracy and the elements of the
23 tort include:
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
28
1 1) Two or more persons combined to,
2 2) Accomplish by some concerted action for
3 some criminal or unlawful purpose, or an unlawful purpose
4 by unlawful and criminal means.
5 If a Plaintiff fails to allege the tort with
6 reckless and particularity.
7 Counts twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-
8 seven are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and venue and
9 for the reasons set forth herein.
10 Count thirty-two is based upon Plaintiff’s
11 request for an injunction, but an injunction requires one,
12 irreparable harm and two, a lack of adequate remedy of
13 law.
14 In view of the fact no compensatory damages
15 are sought, there can be no showing of irreparable harm in
16 the allegations set forth in the complaint or any showing
17 that the Plaintiff would not have an adequate remedy of
18 law or a claim of merit.
19 Therefore, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss
20 counts two, four, five, eight, nine, fourteen, fifteen,
21 sixteen, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-
22 six, and twenty-seven, and thirty-two is granted.
23 The motion is granted and those counts are all
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
29
1 dismissed with prejudice. The Court shall note the
2 exceptions of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the
3 ruling of the Court.
4 The other motions are therefore rendered moot
5 and are also dismissed. At the same time the Court will
6 dismiss the motion for default judgment against the co-
7 defendants upon the same grounds as set forth by the
8 Court.
9 I will ask counsel to prepare an order which
10 simply reflects the ruling of the Court which is that the
11 Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the case is
12 dismissed.
13 Thank you, gentlemen.
14 * * * * *
15 (Whereupon, at approximately 11:57 o'clock
16 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was
17 concluded.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136
30
* * * * *
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, SUZANNE GONZALES, a Verbatim Reporter, do
hereby certify that I took the stenographic notes of the
foregoing proceedings which I thereafter reduced to
typewriting; that the foregoing is a true record of said
proceedings; that I am neither counsel for, related to,
nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which
these proceedings were held; and, further, that I am not a
relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed
by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
interested in the outcome of the action.
____________________________SUZANNE GONZALESVerbatim Reporter
R U D I G E R , G R E E N & K E R N S R E P O R T I N G S E R V I C ECERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030(703) 591-3136