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.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

My Motion to Strike Convicted Perjurer and Document Forger Brett Kimberlin’s Oppositions to the Motion to Dismiss

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.

So last week, I pointed out that Michelle Malkin and Non-party Twitchy filed a motion to dismiss that included the explosive allegation that Brett Kimberlin forged a summons of Twitchy in a corrupt attempt to fool Twitchy into believing that it was a party, when it wasn’t.  And I pointed out that Brett’s only response to those allegations so far was to move to amend the pleadings to add Twitchy as a party.  And as I wrote back then:

This is in essence a motion for leave to amend, and Twitchy will have the right to oppose it.  And there are legal standards which govern whether one should be granted.  What are those standards, you might ask?  Well, hold on and you will see over the next few days.

Well, that day has arrived, for today I am going to present to you my motion to strike all three oppositions that Brett filed to the motions to dismiss (“MTD”) filed by John Hoge, DB Capital Strategies (“DBCS”), The Franklin Center (“TFC”), and I.  Previously you can see John’s MTD here and his reply to Brett’s opposition here; DBCS’ here; TFC’s motion here, and Brett’s opposition and their reply, here; and my memorandum supporting my MTD here.

And so without further ado, here’s the first of three filings I made that day, my motion to strike those oppositions:

There are three major issues presented there.  The first is that he purported to sign a declaration that didn’t have the proper affirmation.  Unfortunately, there isn’t much we can do if he chooses to go down to the courthouse and just add the correct words and sign it again, but there you go.  Second, by adding all these additional allegations he has made what amounts to an improper amendment to his complaint.  So it should be struck for that reason.  I also address any suggestion that he should be allowed to have a de facto amendment, by pointing out that one of the reasons why courts deny a person an opportunity to amend is when they demonstrate bad faith.  So I spent a great deal of time discussing evidence of Kimberlin’s bad faith.  This was actually hard to write because evidence of his bad faith was rolling in as I wrote it at times; it was a moving target, if you will.  Finally he failed to give the proper signature block, which isn’t the most powerful argument, but it’s a nice way to say, “your honor, he isn’t doing this even when you remind him.  He isn’t taking you even slightly seriously.”

Judges don’t like it when you don’t take them seriously.

The motion is identical except this copy is unsigned and my personal information has been redacted.  And of course I am not bothering to include the exhibits.  Most of the exhibits are print outs from websites, or in one case a download of a video from a website, or transcripts I have shared with you before.  They are:

Exhibit E: portions of the February 8, 2012 peace order hearing.

Exhibit F: the email quoted here.

Exhibit G & H: caption pages for this suit.  You will just have to trust it is what I tell you it is, as John has and as Malkin and Twitchy has.

Exhibit I: a website showing the cost of certified mail in 2013.

Exhibit K, L: this page and this page, respecgitively.

Now that only leaves Exhibit A, B, and C.  What are they?  Well, they are the very same three Oppositions, only I went through them and crossed out all new allegations using strikethrough.  I explained the reason for this in this passage in my opposition:

In order to aid this court’s analysis, Exhibits A, B, and C to this Motion to Strike are copies of the Plaintiff’s Oppositions to H&W, DBCS and TFC respectively, but in those copies all new facts have been struck out.  The court can use these exhibits either to see how difficult it would be to simply disregard every single new allegation or to aid it in disregarding such allegations if it should choose to do so.

I am going to give you those oppositions in just a moment, but, no, I am not going to then re-post them here with the new allegations crossed out.  Instead I will give you a sample page of what this looked like...

...and ask you to imagine for yourself how the rest might have looked (or if you are really dying to know, go on PACER and download it).  That is not to say every page looked like the proverbial partially declassified government document.  There are several pages where he discusses (and lies about, very often), the law and in that case he often actually deals with facts he previously alleged.  But still try to imagine the judge looking over page after page where almost everything on the page is crossed out as a new allegation.  Heh.

(And please note that I also eliminated all of Brett’s exhibits, since they had never been included before.)

Of course, no presentation would be complete without giving Brett a chance to speak for himself.  So…  here’s his opposition to my Motion to Dismiss...

...and his opposition to DBCS’ MTD...

And he replies to similar allegations by Mr. Hoge in the document posted here.

Of course we are not done with all the blizzard of documents yet, not by a long shot.  No, we are still waiting on 1) my actual reply and 2) DBCS’ reply.  DBCS has asked for an extension and has been granted one, so they haven’t filed theirs at all, yet.  And my reply will be coming tomorrow.

Also sharp-eyed readers will notice that I said three things were filed the Monday before last.  So what was the third thing?  It was simply a motion to exceed the page limit in filing my reply.  Yes, filed at the same time as my reply.  I expect that to be granted as a matter of course and in any case, I made sure the first twenty five pages were the most important, though there is good stuff after that.  I probably won’t bother to share that with you because there isn’t really much there.

And as usual, dear reader, you should be very reluctant to credit anything Brett is alleging.  He is a convicted perjurer and a downright compulsive liar.  He is the kind of guy that if he says the sky is blue, you need to go to a window and check.  Indeed, as you can see in my motion to strike he lied and then amazingly presented proof of his lies for you to see.  Seriously, how did he think he could get away with lying about the contents of his own exhibits?


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. When will the judge approve these motions? It seems obvious that the whole case should be thrown out with prejudice. When will there be a trial if the motions and the case are not dismissed?

  2. There is literally no way to know when the judge will rule. The judge will decide on his schedule. And bluntly, the longer the judge looks at this, the better, imho, although this kind of crystal ball gazing is not an exact science. my suspicion is that the judge wants to either 1) wait until DBCS' motion is in, or 2) all the motions are in. i get that from the judge's own comment about not wanting to look at the MTDs seriatim, i.e. one at a time. But its just an educated guess. only time will tell.