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, July 28, 2014

Judge Hazel Calls Bull on Convicted Perjurer Brett Kimberlin

And Other Developments in the Silly RICO Case

Always enjoy fresh popcorn
while watching vexatious
litigants get bench-slapped!
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.  And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave her, and for that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson,, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and  Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed against myself, Frey and Erickson.  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, again, we have some catching up to do.  Last week Lynn Thomas and Peter Malone made an appearance in the KimberlinUnmasked copyright case pointing out that Brett forged some more documents, which I blogged about, here.

Well, that got Brett into full stompy-foot mode.  Every now and then he files a motion that I read almost as like a “primal scream.”  I mean it is the kind of stuff that one might write in an email if annoyed and hit send imprudently,* but if you had to go to the trouble of printing it out and delivering it to the court or to a mailbox, you would probably think twice about it.

And we got three of them.  First, in the Copyright case, via Hogewash, we see a filing he made to sanction Thomas and Malone.

Yes, he has documentary proof he didn’t forge that document, like he forged other things.  And he can prove it with documentary evidence, photographs.  Because, you know, Photoshop isn’t a thing.  (Note: sarcasm.)

Then, second, again via Hogewash, he filed a request to file motion for a preliminary injunction in the RICO case.  As you might recall he has already filed one in the state case, so he is trying for two bites at the same apple.  Here is a slightly redacted version of it:

In the name of providing as much sunlight as possible, I have seen the original and it concerns the alleged impact that our supposed defamation has had on his family’s life.  As you will see I believe we should shield his family from as much of the effects of his reprehensible conduct as possible, so I am glad John didn’t include that.  If you really want to see what it says, get a PACER account and read it for yourself.

But there were further shenanigans going on.  You see, first, Brett tried to seal this letter, which is ordinary enough.  Occasionally sealing is justified.  I think legally it wasn’t justified here, at all, but as you will see, that was not a hill I was interested in dying on.  But there were two problems.  First he didn’t move to seal it, or even request to move to seal it like he was supposed to.  He just asked the clerk to seal it, which was against the rules.

But more fundamentally, he refused to serve it on the pro se parties.  And the justification was that he was afraid we would publish it on the web.  Yes, the guy who repeatedly tried to violate the seal on my personal information that he tried to doxx in Kimberlin v. Allen, and the guy who sent out information I provided to him under a seal that he personally sought in the Virginia case and blamed “spies” for doing so, was complaining that we might publish sealed documents.  The mind boggles.

He also filed a more ordinary request relating to service on Ace of Spades, which John Hoge hasn’t uploaded, and I don’t think it is worth the effort to upload.  But the response from Levy is worth reading, because it takes Brett to the woodshed over the shenanigans over service and sealing:

   ECF 166

Of particular interest, obviously, is what it reveals about Brett’s refusal to follow procedure.  As you will see in a moment, I cajoled a copy from a lawyer who thought this behavior was appalling, but several of the pro se defendants were not served at all.  And they couldn’t even see this letter on PACER, until today, when the judge unsealed the document.  Oh, and guess what I got in the mail today?  Belated service of the motion.  Mailed Friday.  Brett has literally no respect for the court.

The next day, Brett also filed this ridiculous thing:

   ECF 167

You will see how ridiculous it is when you read my response.  The judge considers it ridiculous, too, but I make I make it clearer than the judge did.

What happened next, appears to be a repeat of prior performance.  John filed a letter.  I filed three letters.  And the judge filed an opinion... evidently before he had a chance to read any of that.  Which is frustrating, but such is life sometimes.  Apparently one of the laws most strictly enforced in the District of Maryland is Murphy’s.  Heh.

Anyway, so I think I will show you the letters we filed, so you can see us setting up the issues.  First up, you have John pleading for notice:

   ECF 169

Next you have my three letters, first, dealing with Brett’s request for an immediate hearing on contempt:

Next up you get the issue of Brett filing under seal:

And finally my response to his sealed request to file a preliminary injunction:

It should be noted that I requested that the last one be tentatively sealed while the judge was deciding whether or not Brett’s request was sealed.  I didn’t think it was justified in either case, more so in my response than with Brett’s initial request, but I wanted to respect the fact it is not my decision, unlike a certain midget who continually violates court seals.

But the decision was made (though I can find no order on point), that neither would be sealed.  And as you can see, I didn’t actually include the information that I believe was the most likely to be what he wanted to keep private—the stuff about the alleged effect this has on his family.

Anyway, bearing in mind that I am pretty sure the judge read literally none of those three letters, we get today’s letter order.

   ECF 168

What can I say?  First, I think as a matter of law the judge should not even be considering the preliminary injunction.  Still, that all being said, the judge seemed to be extremely skeptical of the entire exercise and I have little doubt that we will convince Judge Hazel that this should not be the subject of a preliminary injunction at the very least.  And the judge scolding Brett about being specific seems to reflect frustration with the Complaint that might eventually emerge in a dismissal.

Second, it is interesting that the judge seems to be telling Brett, again, to drop some of the Defendants from the case.  We will see if he listens.

Third, it also seems that the judge is open to reconsidering the issue of serving process on Ace of Spades, which is a big deal to anyone who cares about the right to anonymous speech.  I can’t wait to see what Mr. Levy says about that.

And then we get to the juicy part, when Judge Hazel gives Brett an intellectual body slam over his dumb motion for a hearing for supposed violation of the Case Management Order (CMO).  I don’t believe I have ever uploaded the CMO, I will do that later, but as you saw in my letter the theory that it applied to out-of-court statements was patently ridiculous.  And it is worth quoting from the CMO to show you why.

The Order is divided into two parts.  The first sets up a request procedure, where before you can file a motion you have to file a request to file the motion.  (Technically it is a motion for leave to file a motion, but I figure Judge Grimm decided that was too clunky, so he called them requests to file.)  The second part deals with what the motions look like when the court allows them.  So the first quote is in the first section dealing with requests to file motions, and it says this:

No Request may contain any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter, or any ad hominem attack on any party, any Judge or employee of this or any Court, or any other person.

The second occurrence came when the Order discusses motions and responses filed with the court’s permission:

No motion, opposition, or reply may contain any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter, or any ad hominem attack on any party, any Judge or employee of this or any Court, or any other person.

So Judge Hazel just decided to focus on the last occurrence, because either one makes the same point.  And Hazel wrote this:

Not only has Plaintiff misquoted the language from the CMO, but Plaintiff has taken this language out of context.2 When read in its entirety, the quoted language from the CMO reads: “No motion, opposition, or reply may contain any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter, or any ad hominem attack on any party, any Judge or employee of this or any Court, or any other person.” ECF No. 97 at 3 (emphasis added). Thus, the quoted language relied on by Plaintiff relates to content contained in court filings e.g., motions, oppositions, and replies. The material Plaintiff complains of, however, was not contained in a court filing; instead, it was material posted on the Internet.

And lest one think that the Judge believed it was an innocent mistake, one only needs to read the footnote 2 referenced in that text:

2 Given Plaintiff’s checkered past with representations to the Court, Plaintiff is cautioned that when he makes a representation to the Court, it ought to be accurate, in terms of both content and context. See e.g., ECF No. 102 at ¶ 3; ECF No. 122 at 3 (Judge Grimm’s April 28, 2014 Letter Order characterizing Plaintiff’s manipulation of summons as “clearly improper”).

Folks, judges are hesitant to call a party a liar.  Lawyers are, too, so I was taught to use phrases like “misstating the truth” although in Brett’s case I have occasionally felt there was value in saying it baldly.  Anyway, in all bluntness, this is as close as the court is likely to get to actually calling him a liar.

And you know, Brett has many quotes that don’t have much context in the current Complaint.  So the judge is seeing first-hand that you can’t trust Brett to properly represent the context of other people’s words.  That could be useful down the road.

So yes, Brett got the minor legal victory of being able to ask for something that the law ultimately doesn’t allow.  I have little doubt that he will be ultimately unsuccessful on that.  But the judge has now seen his dishonesty first hand.  He has seen Brett lie to the court when he was certain to be caught.  That is a major milestone in bringing Judge Hazel to the point where he is ready to dismiss this entire thing.  As I joke, Brett is the kind of guy that if he says the sky is blue on a sunny day, go to the window and get a second opinion.  This isn’t even “trust but verify.”  This is “assume it isn’t true until verified.”

And maybe Hazel is already almost ready to dismiss.  There is a curious thing Hazel says toward the bottom of the first page: “At this late stage, the Court does not think it is appropriate...” I don’t need to fill in the rest of the sentence, because that is not the important part in my analysis.  The important part is the phrase “at this late stage.”

Late stage?  Ordinarily this is just seen as the beginning.  First you have the Complaint, then any motions to dismiss, then the answers, counter-claims, perhaps motions to dismiss said counterclaims, discovery, motions for summary judgment and perhaps even a trial.  This isn’t ordinarily referred to as a “late stage.”  This is ordinarily referred to as the early stages of litigation... unless the Judge is letting slip that he is close to ending this circus.

It’s hard to say.  As with any tea leaf reading, a lot of guesswork is involved and the danger of a false signal is high.  But it is a hopeful sign.

In any case, the law is on our side and soon we will have a victory under our belt in the state case.  As you know we have a motion for summary judgment hearing coming in the state case on August 7, 2014 and the only reason I have to doubt victory is because these courts have done strange things.  But even if it goes to trial, Brett simply cannot win.  I said it before, and I will say it again: he will get nowhere near proving what he has to prove.  By mid-August we will have a ruling that it is not defamation to call Brett Kimberlin a pedophile...

...which is probably part of why he is freaking out.

And why you should stock up on popcorn.

Always be happy warriors, folks.


* “One” might do this, but frankly I almost never do it.  But that doesn’t mean I have never done it, if you know what I mean.  I just learned to stop.


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. I had quite a few laughs at Brett's expense today. Thanks.

  2. "And he can prove it with documentary evidence, photographs. Because, you know, Photoshop isn’t a thing. (Note: sarcasm.)"

    Photoshop isn't even necessary. The pictures could be absolutely genuine. But if USPS says they weren't sent Restricted Delivery, they weren't sent Restricted Delivery. So how could this be? Simple. Erasable ink.

    1. You wouldn't even need that.

      Fill out one card, take a picture. Fill out another, take it to the desk and use that instead.