The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice (Part 1 of a New Series)

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over a year, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

As regular readers know, Brett Kimberlin has filed a mendacious and paranoid RICO complaint against pretty much everyone on the right.  I mean, that is a comic exaggeration, but just look at this thing and the long list of defendants:

That includes National Blogger’s Club, Ali Akbar, Patrick Frey (a Deputy D.A.), Erick Erickson, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, me, John Hoge, Lee Stranahan, Robert Stacy McCain, James O’Keefe, Mandy Nagy,, the Franklin Center, the anonymous bloggers “Kimberlin Unmasked” and “Ace of Spades,” Mercury Radio Arts, The Blaze, RedState,, DB Capital Strategies (the law firm that represented me) and Simon and Schuster  There are rumors that he is also thinking about adding in the Illuminati, the La Li Lu Le Lo, the Jooooooos and/or Opus Dei:

Don’t laugh.  Those freaky albino* monks are scary!

Joking aside, Kimberlin has argued that we supposedly committed obstruction of justice by supposedly reporting false information to law enforcement.  This has resulted in one of the greatest injustices of the suit (besides all of the disturbing dangers to the Constitution presented by it).  Patrick Frey, Erick Erickson, and I have been victims of a crime.  We were SWATted.

(In case you don’t know, SWATting refers to calling the police and falsely reporting that a serious crime had just been committed.  Specifically our case, this person “spoofed” our phone numbers so that the police would think that they called from our phones and pretended to be us, and then said something like, “I shot my wife.”  Here’s where I wrote about my own SWATting.)

And here is one of the persons most reasonably suspected of involvement in that crime, Brett Kimberlin, suing us for saying the police should take a look at him, or something to that effect.  Indeed, what makes you liable under civil RICO is equally a crime under criminal RICO: it’s the same law, with the same language, after all.  So Brett Kimberlin thinks it’s a crime to tell the FBI that all of the victims up to and including me had angered Brett Kimberlin?  It is a crime that I pointed out that I was SWATted on the very afternoon I won a legal victory against him.  Or to point out that an IP address associated with Kimberlin’s self-described “friend” Bill Schmalfeldt threated John Hoge with SWATting?  Or that when Eric Rush angered Schmalfeldt, he actually was SWATted.

Seriously, think back to those great old Law and Order episodes.  Lenny Briscoe and his wingman for this season go to the people who knew the victim and say, “did he have any enemies?  Do you know anyone who would do this?”  Fortunately they were not asking my grieving wife this question, but what is the correct answer when they ask me, “do you know anyone who has a grudge against you, who might do this to you?”  And Brett Kimberlin thinks it is outrageous—indeed a crime—for me to give his name in answer to that question even though he (and Neal Rauhauser) are the only answers I would give.

That in and of itself is outrageous.

I will keep the issue moral rather than legal because I don’t want to show Brett all the ways his claims will fail as a matter of law until the right time presents itself (like in a motion to dismiss) and I continue to ask people not to comment on the law because you risk educating Mini-Me...

(He wants a miiiiillion dollars.)

...but it got me to thinking.  According to his ally Bill Schmalfeldt, who has enough of an inside line on Kimberlin’s lawsuit that he publishes parts of amended complaints before they are filed (and mistakes them for original complaints, because he is dumb, or dumbly lying), all of this information has been turned over to the FBI.  I don’t know if they handed them a copy of the complaint or what, but let’s suppose Brett did...

Then Brett himself has violated the same principle he claims to be suing us for violating.  Brett Kimberlin, who is accusing us of obstructing justice by supposedly lying to the FBI, actually, provably lied to the FBI—if he did what Schmalfeldt said he did.  It’s a big if, but if he did, if Brett gave the FBI this complaint as is or information making identical claims, then it invites me to show how many dishonest statements Brett has made in his suit.  And rather than do it all at once I figured I would make it a drip, drip, drip process until completed.

Again notice the assumptions I am making: if Brett gave the FBI the exact same document he filed in court with the same words, then he provably lied to the FBI.  And if he is right in his reading of the law, he committed a crime.

Allow me to prove it, one drip, drip, drip at a time.  So in no particular order, let’s start with a particularly clear example.  On page seven, paragraph thirty seven (paragraph 32 in the original complaint), Brett writes:

In December 2011, Defendant Walker, using his pseudonym Aaron Worthing, contacted Seth Allen and offered pro-bono to file post-judgment motions in Maryland to overturn the judgment entered against Mr. Allen.  Defendant Walker, still using the pseudonym, then prepared and filed numerous pleadings for Mr. Allen attacking Plaintiff and the judge who issued the judgment.

Actually there are a lot of lies packed into that paragraph.

First, I did contact Seth Allen when Brett Kimberlin attempted to subpoena me as a witness.  Bear in mind, I had previously served as Mr. Allen’s an attorney, providing free legal advice.  And now Brett Kimberlin wanted me to testify against Mr. Allen, my client.  Which seems ludicrous: what could I even testify to, that wasn’t privileged?  And indeed, Brett had a “solution:” I should ask Seth to waive privilege.  Either that or Brett would have to expose my identity as an anonymous writer and subpoena me.  It was morally blackmail, although I admit it doesn’t rise to the level of provable criminal extortion by itself.

Needless to say I wasn’t going to give in to that.  It would be unethical for me to ask or demand Seth waive privilege to avoid revelation of my real name.  So I told him more or less to pound sand and fought the subpoena.  I detail that story and share my motion to quash, here, here, here and here.

Then as I told you on January 9, 2012, Brett gratuitously revealed my true identity in open court.  Indeed, he not only told the world that “Aaron Worthing” is Aaron Walker, but he disclosed my home address, my date of birth, what law school, university and high school I attended, facts from a lawsuit that had been under seal, my then-current position, employer and employer’s address.  All of this information was gratuitous and I believe his purpose was to put it into a public document so that others could publish it on the web under the privilege of publishing public documents.  I moved that the document be sealed and the court asked Brett why it was necessary to include this additional information.  Brett had no answer and the document was sealed.

Indeed, he has never made a proper use of that information in the Kimberlin v. Allen litigation, proving he never had a proper purpose in seeking it.

On the same day he also sent a letter to police saying that because of his own actions my life could be in danger.  He has since tried to claim that he did so out of the decency of his heart but if he truly cared about my safety, he would not have disclosed the information.  After all, the court found that it was needlessly done.  (By the way, you can see both his filing and his letter to law enforcement embedded here.)

Then after getting it sealed, he filed a motion to unseal, which gratuitously included the very information that had been sealed.  So I filed to have that sealed.  And this went back and forth with motions for hearings, responses, disclosing the information a third time.  And I filed responsive pleadings.  Honestly I lost track of how many times I was forced to respond to his filings with was filed with provable lies, but you can review all of them, embedded here.

So I didn’t just wake up one day and decide to intervene in Seth Allen’s litigation as Kimberlin implied, or do so after asking Mr. Allen’s permission.  No, Brett dragged me into it, filing an abusive subpoena so he could learn my real identity and reveal it to the world.  I said back then I believed his intent was to harass me once he knew of it, and you can review what I have written here and decide for yourself whether I was right.  And every filing I filed was in response to something he filed.

But the most important deception is this one: “Defendant Walker ... then prepared and filed numerous pleadings for Mr. Allen[.]”  Of course I cannot disclose any privileged communications, but I can tell you the scope of my representation was limited to ordinary advice.  I have never prepared or filed any pleading for Mr. Allen.  I filed what I have filed entirely for myself to protect my own interests and I had nothing to do with anything Seth filed.  I filed a motion to quash to protect my identity.  I orally made a motion against Mr. Kimberlin sealing the document that gratuitously included my personal information and filed motions trying to fight his attempt to unseal that.  In filing all them, did I hope that Mr. Allen would receive some kind of benefit in his own case?  Yes.  But at no time did I offer to file, help file, or draft any motions for Seth, nor did I actually do that for him.  Indeed, if you looked at Seth’s actual motions in the case, you would know a lawyer never laid hands on them although he did alright for a non-lawyer.

I will add that while my pleadings “attacked” Kimberlin in the sense that I truthfully exposed how he perjured himself in prior hearings and otherwise criticized him and his conduct in the case (every criticism of him is called an “attack” or similar language because he can’t stand for anyone to say anything bad about him, ever), I never attacked or even criticized Judge Jordan, period.  While I did suggest that the court overturn one of Judge Jordan’s rulings it was because Brett obtained that ruling by perjured and deceitful testimony.  So even then the only “attack” was directed at Kimberlin, not the judge who didn’t have the evidence in front of him to know Brett was lying.

So let’s review:

* It’s an outright lie that I filed anything for Seth Allen or helped him file anything himself.

* It’s an outright lie that I filed anything attacking (including criticizing) any of the judges in Kimberlin v. Allen.  In fact I have defended them.

* It is misleading for him to give the impression that I intervened in the case out of the blue and filed these motions on my own initiative when in fact each and every one of them were filed in response to some action Brett took directed at me.

* And finally, it is silly to suggest that any of this can be even slightly relevant to a RICO claim.

And that is the lie for today.  Okay, two lies, and a gross misrepresentation of the facts by a half-truth.  But let me ask an exit question: if Brett feels so good about his chances, why does he feel the need to lie right out of the gate?  Indeed, as we go on, we will show he lies literally in the first paragraph.  Why does he lie, and why does he tell an objective, verifiable lie, if he thinks truth is on his side?

I submit the answer is obvious: he knows the truth is not on his side, so he is hoping that his mendacious complaint will get him positive exposure.  And so far it is a failure.

Expect Part 2 to come tomorrow and for this to be updated with a link without noting the update was made.  And no, I don’t know how long the series will go.  He has told a lot of lies.


* Actually, I always thought it was a little rotten the way they played off people’s aversion to albinos, treating them as something alien, something less than human, in The Da Vinci Code.  I admit I haven’t even met an albino, I am sure albinos are no different from anyone else on the inside.  They are not spooky or abnormal emotionally: they are just people.  But can I plead that this was too easy a joke?


My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.



I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.


  1. Why are you helping him by tipping your hand?

  2. i am cataloguing his lies. if its a lie, it means 1) it is untrue and 2) he knows it is untrue. Indeed it also means 3) i can prove he knows.

    In that case, I am tipping off nothing. He already knows these facts. He knows he was lying. He probably even knows I know. He doesn't care.

    The reality is at this stage most of the facts are not going to matter. Motions to dismiss are decided based on his well-pled facts, pretending they are true even when they are not. There is some wiggle room on that point, but not very much. The problems at this point are legal, not factual.

    Finally, there really are no factual surprises in civil suits. I don't get to keep facts secret until trial. So there is no harm in this discussion and it performs an important function in terms of showing how much his complaint is literally built on lies. it demonstrates it is in bad faith and not to be believed, especially when the facts are objectively verifiable. It verifies the appropriate sense of skepticism any person feels when confronting a pro-se RICO claimant. I can say, "he is lying and I can prove it." If he is lying about what we can prove are lies, then it casts doubt on any facts that cannot be independently verified.