Law, life and the local spectator sport called politics.
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, August 3, 2015
Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s Unsealed Motion for a Restraining Order
Enjoy every kernel...
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 for calling
him a pedophile. He lost on the issue of
truth. He is also suing Hoge, Akbar, Dan
Backer, 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 conspiracy
to defame him because we reported 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
last Thursday, dear reader, today I am giving you the mysterious document
mentioned in this docket entry:
Date: 07/21/2015 Docket
Description: MOTION, PROTECTIVE ORDER
Type: Motion Filed By:
Defendant Status: Open
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)
That was filed
in Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., the
case I filed against Brett and
Tetyana Kimberlin designed to 1) enjoin both of them from abusing the civil and
criminal justice system and 2) get damages from Brett for basically the last
three and a half years of hell. You can
read the complaint filed here,
and it might help to read it. So without
further ado, I will present the his dumb motion and then fisk its factual
I say that
this is Brett’s motion, because bluntly, I would fall over in shock if Tetyana
wrote even a single word. At best, she
might have actually signed it, but given his record of forgery, I have little
reason to believe that happened, either.
I won’t say
the first page is error free, but the errors are minor enough I am going to
ignore them. So let’s start on page 2,
first paragraph, where he writes that I am a…
...disgraced and unemployed lawyer...
self-employed is not unemployed. And I
have never been disgraced as the term is commonly meant. I have not been disciplined in any way
whatsoever by a bar association, and I have never been in any scandal.
In the same
sentence, Brett states that I have been
...stalking and harassing Defendants for years.
Under Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. §3-802(a),
stalking must include “approaching or pursuing another.” I have only ever been
in Mr. Kimberlin’s presence in a courtroom setting. As for Mrs. Kimberlin, the only time I have
been around her outside a courtroom setting is when she retained me for
counsel, and obviously an attorney-client relationship is not stalking. Far from being stalked by me, Mrs. Kimberlin
once actively sought my aid.
have never done anything that can be called harassment, either. But of course this piece right here is
“harassment” in Brett’s dictionary, which means “writing thing about a person
they don’t like,” which you might recall is protected by the First Amendment. (I know, technicalities!)
Moving on, in the
next line, Brett states that
His harassment has also been directed at Defendants’ 16
year-old teenage daughter.
I will refer
to her as K. Kimberlin, meaning the eldest daughter of Tetyana Kimberlin, so
that there is no ambiguity. And of
course I have done none of the things that constitute harassment, and indeed, I
have not even written very much about her.
I am fundamentally not interested in K. and I wouldn’t pay an attention
to her at all, except Brett keeps dragging her into the center of this
controversy, such as writing a whole motion all about how he has to seal this
whole case because he is in the unique position of having children.
As for his
claims that he is working with various officials to resurrect them, I wouldn’t
be surprised if they said they would listen to his evidence to humor him, but I
doubt it will go anywhere. This was just
an attempt to scare me, and I am not scared.
I will not be prosecuted because 1) there is no evidence I committed the
offense and 2) they might be scared I can get the law declared
In the next
paragraph, Brett claims that
On July 14, 2015, he posted a comment on a website in
relation to the Defendants which said, “revenge is a dish best served cold.”
was in relation to Bill Schmalfeldt, so unless he is admitting that
Schmalfeldt’s conduct is related to his, that is false from the perspective of
his official story. The full comment,
actually was “I am told that revenge is a dish best served cold. I am also told that it is very cold in
Alaska.” The original post where this
comment was made is here. It was not about this suit, but instead in
reference to the case of Schmalfeldt v.
Grady, et al. I knew that later on
that day David Edgren, Esq. was going to file a motion against Mr. Schmalfeldt. You can read the motion, here. What gives it away is the reference to
Alaska. Mr. Edgren lives in Alaska. This is an example of why I believe Mr.
Kimberlin wrote the majority of this: because he is in the habit of stating
things with certainty, when the most charitable interpretation is that he
doesn’t actually know. This is
especially in relation to intent: he always knows the intent behind a person’s
actions, and it is always the worst possible interpretation, to hear him tell
And the less
charitable interpretation is that he knew it wasn’t about this case, but he was
lying. You can make your own mind up on
In the next
paragraph (same page), he writes
Plaintiff attributes pages 25-27 of the complaint to
Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin but that information was fabricated and written by
In fact, that
information was Tetyana’s story, as she told to William Hoge III, her attorney
Zoa Barnes, my wife and myself. She has
told too many people this story to disown it, at least not while retaining any
credibility. He also ignores that
Tetyana filed charges to the same effect as that part of the complaint, “under
penalty of perjury.”
In the same
Plaintiff falsely calls Defendant Brett Kimberlin a
line, I blacked out something. I have
decided not to share his denial of something else that I know to be true, but
private. Bluntly, it’s the same thing I have
been debating whether to reveal and I have decided not to at this time. Why not?
Honestly, my answer is something I shouldn’t say. Which I am sure is frustrating to you, the
reader, but at all times the mantra has to be “case first, blog second.” Someday the story is likely to come out—I was
very close to revealing it today—but I am not going to talk about it yet.
He falsely states that Brett Kimberlin forged documents to
bring a minor to the United States for sex, and falsely states that Tetyana
Kimberlin is a victim of human trafficking...
is what Tetyana said at one time. And I
still believe it to be the truth. And
when he sued me for repeating the story, I won on the issue of truth.
…and is acting under duress and threats from Defendant Brett
false. I have not stated as a certainty,
only that I believe it might the case under information and belief, given that
she has stated in the past that this convicted serial bomber has threatened her
(according to her), which is why I am only seeking an injunction against her,
instead of monetary damages.
paragraph, now on page 3, he says that the Complalint is
...meant to cause maximum harm to Defendants and their
incorrect, and this is one of many statements where one has to wonder why he
pretends to know for a fact otherwise.
The purpose of these statements is state a claim for which relief can be
granted in sufficient detail to survive a motion to dismiss, something Brett
admittedly doesn’t have a lot of experience with.
Defendants have repeatedly told Plaintiff to leave them alone
both orally and in writing.... However,
he will not do so.
Since, I am
manually typing this, I am not going to type every repetitive bit. In any case, to a degree that is true,
although they overestimate how much they’ve said, “leave me alone.” But the lie is claiming I have not done
so. Aside from writing about them to a
general audience (which the Constitution allows me to do), I have left them
alone. And what I am doing is not seen
in the law as harassment or anything else the constitutes not “leaving them
In the next
paragraph he gets very upset about my alleged “moralizing.” I wasn't moralizing there, but I will, here. First he was annoyed that I
explained to the court why I am not suing Tetyana for money. This is another example of why I think Brett
wrote it, because why would Tetyana object to this? I am not suing her for money... oh no!
He also gets
upset that I mentioned how he had his daughter show her breasts in a music
video, writing that
He says that
Defendants’ minor daughter showed her ‘”cleavage” in a YouTube music video and
accuses Defendant of “sexualizing his underage daughter” while falsely stating
that Defendant Brett Kimberlin is “an adjudicated pedophile.”
it is interesting that he doesn’t state that the claim that K.K. showed her
cleavage in a music video and that he is sexualizing his underage daughter is
false. The only thing he says in that
sentence is false is that he is an adjudicated pedophile. On the other hand, he can’t really deny that
the part he is not denying. I mean this
is a screencap from that video, with her face obscured:
Embiggen as necessary
clearly shows her cleavage, and that is a fifteen year old girl. A normal father would want his daughter
wearing something more conservative in that context. There, I am (gasp!) moralizing.
he falsely claims that I stated that he was “sexualizing his underage daughter”
when in fact the full quote in the Second Amended Complaint was actually this:
the video was published when K.K. was only fifteen years old, one commenter
quite reasonably was repulsed by what they called a “titty shot” and others voiced
the concern that an adjudicated pedophile was sexualizing his underage
So, in that
passage, I was not accusing him of sexualizing his underage daughter, but
rather pointing out that others had felt that way. Further, the passage was not about “moraliz[ing]
with righteous indignation” as stated earlier in the same paragraph. Rather, it was about rebutting the false
suggestion in Tetyana Kimberlin’s criminal charges that various people were
salaciously discussing K. Kimberlin’s breasts, implying they were attracted to
her. What the Kimberlins tried to
portray as prurient interest in an underage girl was in fact criticism of the Kimberlin
for allowing this little girl to blatantly appeal to the prurient interest.
And of course
you know by now that he is an adjudicated pedophile.
Plaintiff is obsessed with Defendants’
on what he just said? He thinks he has
convinced anyone this is the case? This
is how it always is with Brett Kimberlin: I am crazy, John Hoge is crazy, his
own wife is crazy... everyone is
crazy except the guy who terrorized a town with bombs for nearly a week.
He is using this
complaint to torment her so he can get attention, so he can come to court and
see her as he has done so in the past.
As for the
specific allegation that I am hoping this lawsuit will give me a chance to see
K.K. I don’t see how it her testimony is likely to be relevant. The claims for malicious prosecution relate
primarily to whether I did anything to merit the charges and whether the
Defendants actually believed I had done so; the same can be said for the claim
for false imprisonment. The claim
related to abuse of process relates to Brett’s behavior in court. And the injunction is solely sought against
Mr. and Mrs. Kimberlin and not their daughter.
It is hard to understand, therefore, why there is any need for K.
Kimberln to be involved at all. I
suppose, given Brett’s litigation history he might try to bring K. Kimberlin in
to provide some barely-relevant testimony, but that will be their decision. In fact, I will happily agree to a motion in
limine excluding her from being called as a witness for either side.
I will skip
over his legal arguments—they will be addressed after I serve the complaint on
Brett and Tetyana, and after they file their likely motion to dismiss. There is no reason to address it before
then. I will note that he is lying about
both previous cases, in verifiable ways.
So next on
page five, the first paragraph after the header, he writes:
that she has suffered severe emotional distress because he has heard her
testify, and seen her weep and get angry in court while pointing at him and
telling him to leave her alone.
first, that actual moment—she points angrily at me and says something like
“leave me alone!”—has never happened to my recollection.
don’t know she actually has suffered any emotional distress at all. The girl has not always told the truth on the
stand (although it is possible that she is being lied to).
assuming she really is upset, she’s not upset at what I have done. I don’t believe K Kimberlin is being
traumatized by anything but a series of lies Brett has told her. I have done nothing to harm this young woman
and indeed have taken steps to prevent her from suffering collateral damage
from her father’s illegal and immoral conduct.
For instance, I have published many public documents on my blog to
expose Brett’s criminal and immoral conduct, but I have always redacted her
name from it (as well as some private information relating to Brett
himself). And when I
explain that I do this because I do not believe in she should suffer because of
what he did, Brett lies and says that I said the opposite.
some more legal arguments, on page nine, Brett writes that
He lists her address on the very caption of the complaint...
By which he
means Brett’s home address, as I am required to. As Brett did on the first page of his
complaint against me in the current case of Kimbelin
v. National Bloggers Club, et al.
...and he lists her age.
didn’t. But you know who did? Brett, in this motion.
In fact, the minor child has stated that she worries about
being kidnapped by Plaintiff and his associates because he has discussed
‘vigilante’ action to ‘protect’ her.
Oh yes, I have
“discussed” vigilante action... in order to reject it. So I have discussed vigilante action in the
same sense that Ghandi discussed
violence, Al Gore discussed destroying
the environment and Ruth Bader Ginsberg discussed
banning all abortion. What utter
post he is apparently selectively quoting from is here
and you can read it for yourself, dear reader.
It includes the following two passages discussing a false peace order Brett
filed against John Hoge:
then [Kimberlin] ends with the allegation that John will try to kidnap his daughter. Do I have to tell you that while nothing
would make us happier than those children getting away from Brett, the only way
we envision it is either by their mother, or by child protective services? Do we have to say that such vigilantism is
not on the table?
Lest there by
any ambiguity on this point, I also wrote:
have never spoke of anyone saving his daughters, except either their mother or
child protective services. We are not,
and never will be, vigilantes. We obey
the law, for the simple reason that it is the law.
So in other
words the discussion of vigilante action to protect her was in the context of
ruling it out. I cannot say whether my
declaration that I would never try to kidnap her somehow made her afraid that I
would kidnap her, but I can say that if K.K. is truly afraid I might kidnap
her, it is an unreasonable fear.
He has stated that if she “only knew the truth,” she would
turn against Defendants.
No, that is
not what I said, and you can read that whole discussion, here. I posited that she was being lied to as an
explanation for why I was trying to limit collateral damage to her.
He has tried to follow her on twitter in order to make secret
contact with her.
While I once
pressed the follow button, it was an accident.
As I stated in uncontradicted testimony, I use an Apple iPhone app to
interact with Twitter. One day someone
told me to look at something in her feed, and after I did, I picked up the
phone the wrong way and accidentally hit the follow button. Within seconds I clicked it again to
unfollow. As for the claim that it was
designed to secretly communicate with her, pressing follow only tells Twitter
that you wish to have an account sent into your twitter feed. For instance, I follow Cnn’s twitter account
to get news, and I follow the Washington Post’s Dr. Gridlock twitter feed to
keep up with area traffic. I do not
secretly communicate with them. Judge
Williams observed that it was not proof of an intent to communicate.
again, Brett knows why a persons does what he does, and it is always for the
worst reasons possible. Because he is
psychic, I guess. (Yes, I am being
first full paragraph:
Plaintiff wants to cause harm to the minor child, both
emotionally and physically.
I have said
the opposite, and indeed how will any of this cause her physical harm?
Plaintiff, as he admits, has engaged in a multi-year campaign
of cyber bullying against Defendants and their minor child.
Oy, there is
so much bullsh*t in that sentence, it is hard to know where to begin. First, as I have admitted? What exactly is he smoking? No, I have never admitted to doing anything
exactly is cyber bullying? He keeps throwing
that word around like anyone is supposed to know what it means. As best I can tell, he thinks it is writing
negative things about him to a general audience, which is my constitutional
right. Did Woodward and Bernstein bully
He abuses the court system by filing false and scurrilous
pleadings in court and then publishing them on the Internet for the world to
see as if they are gospel. He will do
the same here if records are not sealed.
publishing false statements in legal documents to that your buddies can publish
them as gospel is Brett’s tactic. But
yes, I do tend to do what I do openly.
to the conclusion, still on page nine:
Plaintiff is a 44 year old man...
actually, which means that Brett has been a convicted felon for pretty much my
entire life. But math, like the rules of
evidence, is a harsh mistress for Brett.
...who spends every waking hour of his life obsessing over
Defendants and their 16 year-old daughter.
One would be
tempted to ask how he claims to know what is on my mind. In any case, it is not all that is on my
mind, or even all that I write about.
Read my twitter feed, for instance, on virtually any day. It is probably reasonably close to a “stream
of consciousness.” Unless there is major
news on the Kimberlin front, I am discussing politics, comic book nerdiness,
history nerdy stuff, smacking down racists of all colors, and so on. And that ignores the work I am doing for
paying clients, attending to my lovely wife and so on, which doesn’t make it
onto twitter. Hey, dear reader, I love
communicating with the nice people on the Internet, but that isn’t all there is
in my life.
Page ten, same
Judge after judge in this courthouse have told Plaintiff to
leave Defendants alone.
judge in the Montgomery County Circuit Court has told me to leave him alone,
because none of them found I wasn’t doing so in the first place. In the same paragraph, he claims that “one
judge” (Judge Creighton, most likely), berated me in court, in a case I was not
a party or a participant in. Although
Creighton’s performance went far astray of how a judge should conduct a
hearing, she did not say that about me.
So that is it
for the injunction. Next we have the K.
Kimberlin’s dumb little affidavit. Now, first just about all of this would be
stricken for various evidentiary shortcomings.
I won’t detail all of them, but the most obvious is you don’t get to
testify to things you don’t witness. You
know, with your eyes.
allegations I have already refuted, paragraph four of her affidavit:
[John Hoge and I] are the ringleaders of an online gang of
bullies who have attacked me mercilessly and this has caused me serious
First, we are
the ringleaders of nothing. For three
years, the Kimberlins have accused me of controlling everyone on the planet with
absolutely no evidence of it.
Second, I have
never attacked the girl, even under the “Brett Kimberlin” definition of
“attack” which includes mere criticism.
At worst I have suggested she was being manipulated by her father, as I
have here. None of that is an attack on
her. As for others, of course I can
never claim to know everything anyone else does, but I have not witnessed any
attacks on her, and I would reprimand anyone who did do so.
However, Mr. Hoge and Walker have trolled my social media
accounts, which caused me severe emotional distress.
didn’t. Aside accidentally hitting the
follow button, I have done nothing that can be called “trolling” or even contact
with her social media account.
Mr. Hoge tried to friend me on Facebook, which I declined.
He says he
hasn’t and I believe him (and Brett has never produced any evidence to the
They have posted and urged others in their orbit to post nasty
comments on articles about me and the videos I have uploaded.
If she means we
have posted comments in the comment section of the articles in question and on any
YouTube video, we have not. If she means
that I have discussed those things, the only time I have discussed those
articles is to note 1) how her father keeps using them as a platform to defame
me, and 2) that her father is the one who led students at her school to
associate her with him. In regard to the
second point, I have never used K.’s real name on my website and thus you would
never know that the Speedway Bomber was K.’s father. But you would know it from news articles
about K. Kimberlin’s achievements where Brett then uses her success as an
opportunity to promote himself or defame others. I don’t think John has discussed them at
all. Similarly, we have never placed a
comment in the comment section below any YouTube posting of her videos at
all. And the only comment I made about
any of them was what I said here: that others were disturbed by the
sexualization of this underage girl.
8, she states that John’s twitter account was permanently suspended, while
neglecting to mention that they unsuspended him and apologized.
Mr. Walker has threatened to take depositions of my friends
and me to ask questions about sexual matters and this has caused great
was not a threat, so much as an explanation of why I didn’t think Brett would
dare to sue me for calling him a pedophile.
I stated that Mr. Kimberlin probably wouldn’t sue because he would be
afraid that I would depose his daughter and her friends, and he would be
terrified about what her friends might say.
Which, admittedly turned out to be wrong—he did sue me after all—but there
neglects to mention that Brett put her on the stand to ask her about sexual
matters. I have no idea if that caused
any embarrassment, but he actually did what she falsely accuses me of
threatening to do.
I have received Google Alerts of things these men have posted
online about my family and me.
And if she
doesn’t like it, she can turn them off.
Mr. Hoge posted my age and birthday in a post by a man “hungering”
over me at a middle school basketball game.
The post in
question is here,
and while it is not something I would have said, the author (“Paul Krendler”) was
not saying he was hungering over her. He
was saying that Brett’s would be driven mad with guilt and fear that some guy
might hunger over her the way he said he does for teenage girls. (I also disagree with Krendler’s assessment
of Brett’s conscience in the sense that he seems to think Brett has any.) As for John’s part, Gus Bailey said that he
believed she was only fourteen years old and John, being his nerdy self, felt
the need to correct the record. Judge
Williams believed him when he said his only purpose was to correct the record,
and that he did not intend to harass her.
Also, the only
reason why she knows any of that was written was because her father brought her
He and Mr. Walker have
said that since I have told them to stop harassing me, that I am no longer “off
We have said
nothing of the sort. Indeed, we have not
said she is not “off limits” for any reason.
Mr. Walker and Mr[.] Hoge have contacted my mother and told
her to save me.
No, we have
helped her mother in her quest to get custody from her father, because we are
worried about both daughters being in the presence of this adjudicated
pedophile. And her mother agreed.
Mr. Walker has called the FBI and other officials with false
information to have them raid our home in search of non-existent child
Um, no, that
other stuff I have already refuted, paragraph 15:
Sometimes [John and I] use proxies to attack me, or use code
words in their posts to have other bullies they control attack me.
Do I have to
tell you how dumb and paranoid it is to say we have code words? Well, the answer is very. And mind you, I don’t think a word of this is
actually K. Kimberlin’s. I think Brett
wrote it for her, just like I think he wrote the motion. I could be wrong, but I report, you decide,
And that is
about it. And the irony is that while
this motion has already been denied—and thus it has not done the work Brett was
hoping to do—I can use every word of it against them, including the provable
lies or the parts that are merely deceptive.
But that will have to wait for the future.
Finally, as a
preview of upcoming events, last Friday a whole lot of motions were filed in
the case of Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. And I believe John is going to dribble them
out most of the week. In fact, he
put one out last night... So, stay
tuned and keep lots of popcorn!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.