Update (II): And thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for the linky goodness as well.
So this is the latest installment in the Kimberlin saga. As regular readers know, a few weeks back Ron Brynaert and then Brett Kimberlin engaged in a campaign to determine my true identity. In Kimberlin’s case, this convicted terrorist (bomber, specifically) (Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1993)) and perjurer (Kimberlin v. White, 798 F.Supp. 472 (W.D. Tenn. 1992)) subpoenaed Google and Comcast in order to obtain my identity and address. The latter subpoena was issued without providing notice to me as required by Maryland civil procedure. I filed a response in that case last Thursday, which you can read here (and there are links there to catch up on this whole saga). My filing has been described by DonkeyTale as “one of the most epic pantsings I have ever seen performed anywhere” so it might be worth a read.
[Update: I have changed the formatting so his words are in red and italicized, so it is easier to separate what he says from other sources I quote. Let me know if that helps make this more readable.]
He is referring to Independent Newspapers v. Brodie, 966 A.2d 432, 457 (Md. 2009) which only applies when determining the name of a party to litigation, as I mention in my filing. I am not a party but a witness, which means that a different, more stringent set of rules should apply. But that’s in my filing.