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 convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin has been harassing me for
over three 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. Indeed, he sued me for saying this and lost
on the issue of truth. And more recently
when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted terrorist had threatened
her harm, we tried to help her leave him, and for that, he sued 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,
Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson,
Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers
Club, and others 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.
If you happen to be diabetic, you might need popcorn as you read this to keep up your blood sugar levels... |
Regular
readers know that I often hold things back from you. Aside from the times when I have been
unconstitutionally gagged, the reason why I have done so was typically for strategic
reasons of various kinds. On a rare occasion I have to hold something back to respect the privacy of others, especially innocent third parties. And then those
strategic reasons evaporate and I can tell you what I have been holding back,
which is what is happening today. In
this case, I haven’t been telling you about something for around six months: a
lawsuit I filed.
There is a
somewhat complicated history of the lawsuit, but let’s get the actual complaint
out front. Without further ado, here is
the Second Amended Complaint:
(Note that the
only difference is that I redacted some personal information quoting from
another court document, and somehow the signature block is screwed up in the
Scribd upload. But otherwise it is the
same.)
If you haven’t
bothered to read it, here’s the skinny.
It is against Brett Kimberlin and his wife Tetyana. The purpose of this suit is to do two things:
1) shut down by injunction Brett Kimberlin’s lawfare machine against me
(including when he uses his wife to carry it out), and 2) obtain compensation
for his systematic abuse of the civil and criminal process. Regular readers will know that one of the
defendants, Tetyana Kimberlin, was once my client. I will point out that all I am asking for in
relation to Tetyana is an injunction stopping her from filing false
criminal charges against me in the future—which she should never have done
in the first place. I am not asking for
money from her. As I state in paragraph
77:
Considering
that Mrs. Kimberlin had previously reported that Mr. Kimberlin had physically
threatened her, that Mr. Kimberlin was keeping the children from seeing Mrs.
Kimberlin, and that she had seen the state of Maryland utterly fail to hold her
husband accountable for his criminal conduct or help her to obtain custody of
her children, it appears to be likely that she did this [filed false charges
against me] under duress, or in exchange for access to her children. This is why Mr. Walker has given Mrs.
Kimberlin enough of the benefit of the doubt to avoid seeking monetary damages
against Mrs. Kimberlin, but is still seeking injunctive relief to prevent her
from doing it again.
In other
words, I don’t want money, I just want her to stop. I still believe she is a victim of Brett as
much as anyone and I feel zero anger toward her over the latest charges. I’m just doing what I have to do to protect
myself. Brett is the bad guy, here,
which is why I’m going to hit him in the wallet.
But it’s funny
sometimes how events dovetail into each other.
Increasingly, I had been thinking that I needed a good, reasonably short
summary of the Kimberlin Saga over the last few years because there had been
too many twists and turns to count. I
have a summary page on this site that I hadn’t updated in a while, but even
that was somewhat convoluted. Well, if
you read the complaint, you get to read about the majority of the events in
this story. It’s still around forty
pages, but there you go. So rereading it
before I posted it I thought, “problem solved!”
There’s your summary, dear reader.
But that
raises a lot of reasonable questions, dear reader. You might wonder, first, how is it that you
are only hearing about it now? Or if
this was the Second Amended Complaint, what did the other two versions look
like?
Well, I will
share the First Amended Complaint, that is essentially similar to the original,
tomorrow. But let me tell you the
essential backstory there.
The case
started as Walker v. Maryland, et al.,
where I sued the state as a whole, for its part in continually violating my
constitutional rights, and a few specific units so the court could enjoin
them. Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin were
mentioned, but they were not parties to the case. One thing to note, is that although my Federal Constitutional rights were
violated, I only cited the Maryland Constitution. This was a strategic decision, the idea being
that rather than saying “you are not living up to these Federal standards for
how you do things,” I would instead say, “you are not living up to your own
standards.” I’m not an outsider saying
my values are better, I am saying “you are better than this.” I felt that psychological shift might be
useful.
And the
difference was almost entirely psychological.
The relevant provisions of the Maryland
Declaration of Rights, dealing with the right to freedom of expression, due
process, and protection against unreasonable seizure had long been interpreted
by Maryland Courts as being identical in effect with the Federal
Constitution. Sometimes a state
constitution will have stuff that isn’t in the Federal Constitution. Sometimes a state constitution will have a
similar provision, interpreted differently because of subtle differences in the
wording. But that is not the case with
those core rights—in those core rights, there is no practical difference
between the Maryland Constitution and the Federal one.
The essential
theory of the case was frankly innovative, asking for several evolutions in the
law that I believe to be logical, but were ultimately not accepted. Yes, this part of the case when it was called
Walker v. Maryland, et al., ended up
being dismissed. The majority of my
legal theory is that Maryland had allowed itself to be the “cat’s paw” to Brett
Kimberlin’s malevolent intent.
Which for non-lawyers, needs a
lot of explanation. Indeed, not every lawyer knows about this, as it is
something that has primarily been used in employment law.
First, it helps to unearth the
literary reference. In a landmark
case dealing with Cat’s Paw legal
theory, the Supreme Court explains in a footnote the term’s origin:
The term "cat's
paw" derives from a fable conceived by Aesop, put into verse by La
Fontaine in 1679, and injected into United States employment discrimination law
by Posner in 1990. See Shager v. Upjohn
Co., 913 F.2d 398, 405 (CA7). In the fable, a monkey induces a cat by
flattery to extract roasting chestnuts from the fire. After the cat has done
so, burning its paws in the process, the monkey makes off with the chestnuts
and leaves the cat with nothing.
So the cat’s paw is essentially a
thing belonging to one person, but being manipulated by another. Like here’s how it works in law. Imagine if John Doe was fired by a
supervisor. Imagine further, that the
supervisor had no animosity against his Mr. Doe based on his race. But further, imagine that the supervisor—the
guy who actually made the decision to fire Doe—relied completely on Jane Smith’s
advice in making that decision, and Smith had a seething hatred of Doe based on
his race. Well, in that case, Doe could
sue the company for racial discrimination on the theory that while the titular
supervisor was not racist, he exercised no independent judgment and therefore
became the “cat’s paw” or a “rubber stamp” to Smith’s racism. And this has been applied to the First
Amendment context: just substitute racial discrimination with viewpoint
discrimination in my example above, in the place of racial discrimination, and
it is essentially the same theory.
Applied here, I said that the
state of Maryland had exercised no independent judgment in choosing to
prosecute me over and over. Instead they relied utterly on people they should not have relied on to decide when and if
to charge me with a crime. Accordingly,
while I don’t believe the Commissioner’s office, for instance, intended to
retaliate against my speech, they became the cat’s paw to Kimberlin’s intent to
punish me for free speech and representation of clients.
Cat’s paw theory as a method of
causation is not new, but this proposed application was innovative in two
ways. First, while cat’s paw theory had
been applied to first amendment retaliation cases, it had still only been
employed in employment discrimination—that is, you are being discriminated in
your state-based employment because of your speech. So it had never been applied to retaliatory
charges and arrest before. Second, it
had never been applied when the person with the improper intent was not part of
the organization being sued.
So the state
naturally moved to dismiss, and it was dismissed as far as the state is
concerned. The metaphor I use is this:
imagine you asked a court to desegregate the schools in 1904. You’d lose, but you wouldn’t be wrong: you’d be too far ahead of the
curve. I mean racial segregation of any
state function was made illegal the day the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified
in 1868. Indeed, many states immediately
voluntarily desegregated, recognizing it was the law. But the Supreme Court was not ready to
declare that what was obviously the law was in fact the law until 1954 for
reasons that I’d have to explain in a whole other post. So again, the person arguing in 1904 that
racial segregation was unconstitutional isn’t incorrect: they’d just be asking
the courts to go where they were not yet willing to go. Similarly I wouldn’t be surprised if fifty
years from now, the legal theory I was advocating is fully accepted as
law. I think it is actually its natural
evolution.
Similarly I
had argued that while near-absolute judicial immunity protected Judge Vaughey
from liability based on his violation of my constitutional rights, the state as
a whole should not be similarly immune.
In short, someone should have to pay to compensate me for the three
weeks in which my constitutional right of free speech was pretty flagrantly
violated. That is innovative, too, but I
think it is right and I will go as far to say that if I appealed that issue, I
stood a very strong chance of winning.
The other legal theories were more of a toss up and that is what a
motion to dismiss is for, ideally: to test the legal theory of the case.
So, on June
12, we had the Motion to Dismiss hearing before Judge Mason. John Hoge was there and he may or may not
share his views of Hogewash. But what Mason said in court was that based on the facts I have alleged (which you, dear
reader, know to be true) the solution wasn’t to sue the state, but to sue Brett
Kimberlin. He didn’t say I automatically
had a case—he was fastidious in reserving judgment, and rightly so—he just
believed that based on the facts I alleged, that seems to be the most logical
approach.
So when he
announced the case would be dismissed against Maryland, I asked to amend the
complaint a second time, to remove Maryland and its agents completely, and to
add Brett in and the court said I could.
So that brings me to the Complaint I shared today.
Of course
sharp eyed readers might have noticed something else. One filing I didn’t mention in relation to Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al.
(II) was this item in the docket:
Docket
Date: 05/14/2015 Docket
Number: 10
Docket
Description: MOTION, SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT
Docket
Type: Motion Filed By:
Defendant Status: Granted
Reference
Docket(s): Ruling: 13
Docket
Text: DEFENDANT, AARON J.
WALKER'S MOTION FOR SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT OF A SINGLE JUDGE FOR THE DURATION OF
THIS CASE, FILED.
You see,
ordinarily the Montgomery County Circuit Court has a rotating docket. That is judge A might hear a motion to
dismiss, judge B might deal with discovery, judge C might deal with a motion
for summary judgment and so on. Like in
the case of Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.
last year (the one where Brett claimed we defamed him by calling him a
pedophile and we won on the issue of truth), we literally had a different judge
every time we came in—I don’t think we saw the same judge twice. And that meant you had to constantly explain
the back story and, worse yet, Brett would often lie about what the last judge
ruled, forcing you to argue about that
all the time.
But the courts
can make an exception to the “rotating docket” rule and I filed a motion
explaining why. It is one of those
things where it is longer than it is interesting, so I won’t bore you by
sharing it, but the reasons I laid out were 1) the case involved numerous
defendants 2) including many people likely to proceed pro se, 3) the case is
complex, and 4) the procedural history is complex and likely to be relevant to
the case. “Because he often lies about
to the next judge about what the previous judge said” is a valid reason, but it
would have been too complex a point to make in in what I wanted to be a short
motion, so I left it out.
So on June 16,
I learned that my request to assign a single judge to Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. was granted and the
judge chosen was... Judge Mason. Indeed,
since then Administrative Judge John Debelius sua sponte (on his own) also
assigned Mason permanently to Walker v.
Maryland, et al., now
re-christened as Walker v. Kimberlin, et
al. My guess is that they want to
avoid any possibility of inconsistent rulings from one case to the other, and
so having one judge for both cases will guard against that. And if Mason’s initial selection wasn’t
random, it was based on his previous experience in the matter.
And even
though he ruled against me, and I respectfully disagree with him in that, I
think Mason is a good judge. Watching
other matters in front of him, he seems thoughtful and like he has thoroughly
read the file and remembers most of it.
And he asks good and subtle questions on the law. And we all know the law (especially the rules
of evidence) and the facts are a harsh mistress to Brett, so while Judge Mason
didn’t give me everything I wanted I think nonetheless he is a very good choice
for both cases. All I need is a fair and
thoughtful judge and I believe justice will prevail.
And since I am
updating you on goings on, that brings us to last Friday’s hearing. All it was, was a scheduling hearing, and. I filed a motion to continue because I felt
it was premature to talk about discovery when we were at the motion to dismiss
stage. That was denied, but that didn’t
bother me, because it meant that Judge Mason must have seen a reason to have
the hearing after all.
Typically
those hearings are just no big deal, but the drama came when Brett didn’t even
bother to show up, which annoyed the only judge in the case from now on, Judge
Mason. And it became clear pretty
quickly why Mason wanted to have the hearing.
He agreed that discovery should be suspended for the Defendants, but not
for Brett, because we haven’t even gotten past the motion to dismiss
stage. And then Judge Mason set a date
to hear all motions to dismiss: September 3, 2015—which seems to be what was
important to Mason. As he said several
times, he wants to move the case along. John
and I agree that by his demeanor and body language and other subtleties that
Mason is ready to dismiss the case. As I
said above, Mason is the kind of Judge who probably has read the whole file,
and so he has read my motion
to dismiss and I believe it pretty thoroughly demonstrates why the case is
frivolous.
Incidentally,
Brett called chambers and might have even spoken to the judge to explain why he
wasn’t there. He claimed it was because
I filed a motion to continue, and he assumed it would be granted. Which seems unlikely. He has been in and out of courtrooms longer
literally than I have been alive. He
knows that no continuance has been granted until the judge says so.
Finally, you
might ask, “why weren’t you talking about it until now?” Well, initially when it was Walker v. Maryland, et al., I didn’t
want Kimberlin’s interference in the matter, and as a rule I don’t usually talk
about cases on the internet. As when I
amended it into its current iteration, I wanted to keep quiet until service of
process was accomplished, which I expected to occur at the scheduling hearing
he didn’t bother to show for. So I
figured I would keep quiet a little longer because... I didn’t see any real reason to tell. But yesterday, this popped up on the docket
for Walker v. Kimberlin, et al.:
Docket
Date: 07/21/2015 Docket
Number: 25
Docket
Description: MOTION, PROTECTIVE ORDER
Docket
Type: Motion Filed By:
Defendant Status: Open
Docket
Text: DEFENDANTS, BRETT AND
TETYANA KIMBERLIN'S SEALED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND PROTECTION ORDER, AND ATTACHMENTS, FILED. (PLEADING REMOVED AND
PLACED UNDER SEAL)
I will remind
you, dear reader, please don’t educate the midget (and I will be very surprised
if Tetyana wrote a word of it). But,
anyway, I don’t know what he filed, and as long as it is under seal, it would
be inappropriate to reveal whatever he filed.
I will note that I am extremely
doubtful that anything in the motion is something that can be validly placed
under seal. So if appropriate I am
inclined to move to unseal, but I won’t be able to say more until I see it.
And of course
it is the catalyst for writing about the case in general. He knows, the cat’s out of the bag, even
without me having sent him service of process.
Anyway, so
that is the fun for today, and tomorrow I shall share the First Amended
Complaint. I don’t think there is much
more to say about that, because I said most of it, here, and it’s truly water
under the bridge. But you will at least
get to see what I wrote.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have
lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated
pedophile) 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.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
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.
I should've popped some popcorn first.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the amended complaint is probably the best summary of this whole mess I've seen.
Oh my God, I can't stop laughing.
ReplyDeleteNAILED, BABY!!!
I would reiterate something I have said elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteDon't educate the midget, can't educate the Blob.
The midget is capable of learning. Don't let the Blob's issues with "Hot Stove is Hot" reflect upon his puppet master.
Yeah, but it's so obvious is it really educating him to point out that this is open to an attack via Lorem Ipsum and habeus forsit.
DeleteBoom! Goes the... sorry. Too soon?
ReplyDeleteThat was brutal. All accurate, but brutal.
That is gonna leave some serious, serious scars.
Thanks for continuing to stick it to him, time for some good offense. The busier he is on defense the less harm he can do to others. Lawfare-wise.
ReplyDelete(Same "anonymous" from the "Boom" comment)
ReplyDeleteI wonder just how "judgment-proof" TDPK is? Financially, at least. It occurs to me that he has used funds from at least one of his "non-profits" to cover his lawfare, so that could leave those open for seizure...
Gosh, wouldn't it be fun if Our Host were to end up owning JTMP and VR?