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.

Friday, February 28, 2014

An Embarrassment of Riches in Convicted Perjurer and Document Forger Brett Kimberlin’s Silly RICO Suit

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 two years, 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.

Okay, first a confession.  When I was writing yesterday’s Brett Kimberlin post, I was suffering under a migraine or similarly awful headache and I managed to forget that this was for Thursday not Friday.  So when I said that this was it until Monday, well...  that is because I thought the next day was Saturday.  Oy.

And normally, dear reader, I would still give you one of the lesser documents on a Friday and only one or two at that at that.  Well, dear reader, that is what I would normally do but we are going to give you four different documents, and they are going to be fun reading.

You see, dear reader, I am feeling better and perhaps it was because I had gorged myself on popcorn on Thursday.  Yes, and I strongly suggest you get out the popcorn, too, or some kind of snack food because this is going to be fun.  First, in the mail I got a pair of deliciously butthurt filings from Brett Kimberlin...

And then later the same day I got one of the responses.

But, first, a little background (although it won’t take long to get to any of these documents).  As you might recall, last week Paul Levy filed this document on behalf of Ace of Spades seeking to stop discovery aimed at identifying Ace of Spades.  If you haven’t read it already go read it now.  It’s very good.  I’ll wait.

One piece that is missing from that document is the slightly mistitled “Affidavit of Paul Levy,” which you can read here:

(Technically it is a Declaration, not an Affidavit, but that is a difference of no relevance, here.)

There are two things of note here that draws a little additional blood.  First, notice that Brett has claimed it was fraud for me to claim that he had anything to do with my getting fired, which is undermined by the fact that he sent an email to Ace threatening Ace with the same fate if he is outted.  It kind of undermines his whole theory.  But the bully forgets not to be a bully.

And of course other factual claims about my termination are utterly false.  He was not there, he did not see what happened, and indeed much of what he described was wholly made up.  For instance, I didn’t have a single image from my Everyone Draw Mohammed website in my office, because the entire project was entirely digital.  That is, a person would send me a picture by email and then I would post it on the site straight from there.  So why would I even bother to print it out?

And if you were there, dear reader, on the day I was fired there would be no question in your mind that I was fired because of Brett.

The other thing that draws a little extra blood is that Levy disclosed that he previously represented Brett on a freedom of speech issue.  The subtext is “your honor, I don’t represent anything but the First Amendment.  And this time that means I have to oppose Mr. Kimberlin.”

Also, please note that I did cut one of the exhibits out of the “affidavit.”  All that was, was part of the transcript of the Kimberlin v. Allen hearing.  You can read the whole thing, here.  Levy focused primarily on Brett denying that he was a suspect in the Scyphers murder.

So Levy dealt a pretty serious body blow to Brett with his motion and that brings me to the amusement of yesterday.

Now, to review, Judge Grimm put out an order forbidding any kind of filing except Brett’s soon to be forthcoming amended complaint, any answer to said complaint, any motions to dismiss or responses to them.  All other filings had to be made by seeking leave of court and in a special format.  But rules are for other people in Brett’s world, so he filed a something other than the above, and without seeking leave of court: he filed a motion to disqualify Levy.  Which we all knew was coming.  I mean it’s not like he hasn’t done this kind of crap before.

So he filed a motion to disqualify Levy as counsel based on him previously representing him.  This is even though in that last link, I explained to Brett what the rules were for conflicts of interest.  And we know he read that because the next day he wrote a pissy email to my attorney saying “I asked you not to send the email I sent you about your potential conflict to him because he would post it on the Internet, and he did.” and then he linked to the very same post.

But that didn’t stop him from filing this dumb thing, in a vain attempt to get Mr. Levy disqualified.  You can read it for yourself, here:

Of course, what this is really about is revealed toward the end of his “Declaration of Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin Re Attorney Parul [sic]* Levy”:

8.         Mr. Levy's conduct has embarrassed me, been detrimental to me, and has the very real possibility of disadvantaging me in the instant case.

Ah, you know, John Hoge has suggested Preparation H for this condition, but myself, I would have to go with this product on the right...

(That’s a real product folks, which you can buy, here.  No idea if it is good, but several mothers I know swear by it.)

Normally, I would wait for Levy to have a response, so you could see the rebuttal at the same time as the accusation by Brett, but really this needs no rebuttal, it is so feeble.  And I will add that it makes Brett look simply awful in front of the judge.  Really, all things being equal, he should hope and pray that the judge strikes the motion without even looking at it, because the more the judge reads in it, the more he will realize he is dealing with a true nutball and seek to flush this case at their earliest opportunity.

And while I will mostly let its ineptitude speak for itself, a few notes.  First, the rules on “publicity in general” deal largely with firm advertisements and hasn’t been adopted in Maryland, anyway.  Seriously, have you turned on a TV recently?  Have you seen attorneys avoiding being “self-lauditory” very much?  Also the part on “Recommendation of Professional Employment” is about referral fees, which is not on the table.  And as far as being compensated by someone other than his client...  Brett idiotically quoted the part of the rule that allows a person to do so with the consent of the client.  So more than likely Public Citizen pays Levy’s salary, Ace is paying him nothing, and Ace knows about this arrangement and happily consents to it.  Big whoop.

And as far as using confidential information, yes, if Brett told Levy something in confidence, he can’t disclose it to Ace or anyone else.  But noticeably missing is any confidential information actually disclosed, just Brett’s conclusory allegation on the subject.  And as for the section on extra-judicial publicity, I already crushed the issue above.  The rule he cites hasn’t actually been adopted in Maryland and the Maryland rule is actually far more respectful of Levy’s freedom of expression.  The fact is Levy said these things with no expectation that the judge would even know he said it.  And the only reason why the judge is finding out now is because Brett is telling him.  Which qualifies as a smart move.

And as for the rules on conflicts of interest, yeah, the problem is the duty is only owed to current clients.  Brett is not, and presumably neither is Breitbart Unmasked (who was identified by Bill Schmalfeldt as Brett, anyway), or it has to be a substantially related matter, and it isn't..  So basically he has nothing.

Anyway, Brett was so certain he had a winner with his motion to disqualify, that he even decided that this was a reason to give him another extension of time, with this additional motion, which he did not seek leave to file before filing in violation of the judge’s letter order, again (that would be strike two):

So I was enjoying that as I made my way to the Montgomery County Circuit Courthouse to get certified copies of a specific document, but then just as I was sitting down to eat, we get to see Levy’s reply to that motion for extension.  It’s short, sweet and brutal:

Didn’t I tell you that you would need popcorn this morning?  Or at least some kind of snack food of the variety you eat during a movie?

Now, first, what John observed about all the funny business going on in terms of when this was filed matches my experience.  Brett apparently backdated it to February 21, to give the honorable Judge Grimm the impression that he had not knowingly violated the court’s order.  (Of course Brett also claimed to sign his Declaration on February 24, so apparently time travel is a thing.)  But PACER knows when it was filed, and it was several days after the order was handed down and after Brett was surely informed of it.  And the consequences of violating it when the ink was barely dry could be Grimm indeed.

Second, the fact is Levy is correct that he is not the only person who filed that motion, and Brett is not even arguing that the ACLU lawyer should be disqualified, so there is no way that it would cause anything to be struck, even pretending that the motion was not laughably frivolous.

No, what this is really about, is this: Brett is getting crushed under the workload again.  As you might remember he filed in the state case a motion to cause all my, Stacy McCain’s and John Hoge’s posts about him to be taken down.  We each filed a different opposition and then he has to reply to each.  Meanwhile he has until March 7 to amend his complaint and boy it better be a good one, and he has all those special rules about redlining the document to comply with.  And finally, he has that whole show cause thing and bluntly, if I was him, I would be seeking an attorney right now to represent him on that issue, which will take up even more time.  Plus there is the press of duties that just comes with being a single father.

So he is once again finding his pro se skills are not quite up to the task.  And the amazing thing is he is thinking of adding parties.  You know, because what he really needs is for more lawyers to be filing against him.  The mind boggles.  A wise attorney might be telling him right about now that the smartest thing for him would be to voluntarily dismiss the case and hope to get away without having to pay monetary sanctions after being caught red-handed forging documents.  But even if any attorney gave him such advice, would he be liable to listen?

So that is our installment for today, and an uncharacteristically meaty one at that.  Tune in again Monday for more fun.  Maybe I can even share with you what I have been teasing.  We’ll see.

And always remain happy warriors, folks.


* “Sic” is latin for “thus.”  For instance, here’s the Virginia flag:

Yep, that is a guy straight up murdering a king (indicated by the fallen crown) with the state motto “sic semper tyrannis” written underneath, which translates to “thus always to tyrants.”  I.e. we do this to all tyrants so if you plan to be one, watch the heck out (kind of puts that whole Second Amendment into perspective, doesn’t it?).  A more mundane use you often see in legal writing is when you quote someone making a typo and then you insert in brackets, “[sic]” to indicate that this was how the original was.  I.e., yes, I know this is bad spelling or grammer, but that is how the guy wrote it.


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 donation link 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. Replies
    1. His wife is divorcing him. He's got the kids right now. Things are messy, and I seem to recall that he had her arrested at the courthouse in front of their children after one of the hearings claiming that she was crazy and needed a psych hold. The judge released her immediately.

  2. Aaron, to the IANAL crowd, that e-mail to Ace sounds a LOT like a threat; pay me or else.

  3. Extortion, delusion and lies, oh my!
    Might I suggest Ruffles potato chips and bacon horseradish dip as a snack while following the misadventures of the midget wannabe mastermind?

  4. What I find most amusing about Kimberlin's Motion to Disqualify is that the statement that he alleges near the top of page 5 was made by Mr, Levy--which starts, "Released from prison in 2000,..."--and that seems to be the basis for much of Kimberlin's blathering on subsequent pages was actually made by Ace of Spades. In fact, Kimberlin's own attachments to his motion show that that statement was not in the post made by Mr. Levy. Heh.

  5. As ridiculous as this guy is, as a practicing attorney there is NO WAY I would put myself in Levy's shoes. If a new client asked me to take a position adverse to a former client, I would not be comfortable taking on the new client.

    Levy's actions are wholly consistent with ethical practice, but it is far too close for me.

    1. I saw it done all the time. You represent Walmart in case A, and then you represent Target in the next case.

      i think Levy's view is, "i represent the 1st A, not any particular person." Yes, within the bounds of the rules of professional conduct, but still... it was something like 25 years ago that he helped Brett out. There needs to be a statute of limitations on his ability to block other people from getting help.

    2. There is a great ambiguity in play here. If Levy last represented Kimberlin decades ago in a completely unrelated matter, there is no possible conflict. If, however, Levy represented Kimberlin or an affiliate fairly recently, then that would have to have been Breitbart Unmasked, and Levy is articulating the exact same position in both cases. In other words, Levy is not arguing anything averse to his representation of Breitbart Unmasked. It would be richly ironic if Levy protected Kimberlin's right to remain anonymous, and then Kimberlin objected to Levy protecting anonymity for others. Moreover, the only way that Kimberlin can assert that Levy is conflicted in that case is by admitting that he is Breitbart Unmasked.


    3. Like I said, I don't disagree that Levy is behaving ethically. There's no question there.

      Just personally, as an attorney, I would not represent someone adverse to a previous client. But my practice is very different from Levy's, and I don't really have that problem.

  6. Trying to get MORE lawyers to file things to which he has to respond?

    It's like he's trying to emulate the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, but without as good a plan.