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, January 6, 2012

Brett Kimberlin, Convicted Terrorist and Perjurer, Accuses Me of Unethical Conduct

Update: Thanks to DonkeyTale for the link, as well as numerous twitterers.

Update (II): And thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for the linky goodness as well.

So this is the latest installment in the Kimberlin saga.  As regular readers know, a few weeks back Ron Brynaert and then Brett Kimberlin engaged in a campaign to determine my true identity.  In Kimberlin’s case, this convicted terrorist (bomber, specifically) (Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527 (6th  Cir. 1993)) and perjurer (Kimberlin v. White, 798 F.Supp. 472 (W.D. Tenn. 1992)) subpoenaed Google and Comcast in order to obtain my identity and address.  The latter subpoena was issued without providing notice to me as required by Maryland civil procedure.  I filed a response in that case last Thursday, which you can read here (and there are links there to catch up on this whole saga).  My filing has been described by DonkeyTale as “one of the most epic pantsings I have ever seen performed anywhere” so it might be worth a read.

And regular readers would also know that because of the rules of court which frankly does not yet take account for this situation, I had to find a Maryland attorney to represent me and Ken at Popehat helped me to obtain one.

So last Friday, Brett Kimberlin sent my lawyer an email.  And I am going to quote it to you in full,* and fisk the entire thing.  Now, naturally I do not plan to reveal to the world if he has also entered into any settlement negotiations with me, because those are special.  We want to encourage that kind of discussion without fear that the other side could use it against them.  Indeed the rules of evidence limits my ability to use such discussions in court.  And while nothing legally prevents me from publicizing any attempts to settle, it seems like good policy.

But this email isn’t about attempting to settle things, as you will soon see.  In my opinion, this email was an attempt to deprive me of my counsel, and as such this latest act of thuggery (in my opinion) by this crew is fair game.

So pull up a bowl of popcorn and let the fisking begin, and please note that all spelling errors were in the original, with the caveat you will see at the end in the footnote:

[Update: I have changed the formatting so his words are in red and italicized, so it is easier to separate what he says from other sources I quote.  Let me know if that helps make this more readable.]

From: [Brett Kimberlin]
Date: Friday, December 30, 2011 12:09 PM
To: [My Maryland lawyer]; [her associate]
Attach: Socrates Final Peaace Order.pdf
Subject: FW: Kimberlin v. Allen

Dear [My Maryland Lawyer]:

Nice chatting with you. Please do not send this email to Mr. Worthing because he will post it on the Internet as he did with my legal communications to him.

Um, yeah, Brett, you just asked her to commit an unethical act.  In Maryland’s Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct (hereafter “MRPC”), Rule 1.4 states in relevant part that “[a] lawyer shall… keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter… [and] promptly comply with reasonable requests for information[.]”  The official commentary further states that “[a] lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience or the interests or convenience of another person.”  There are a few instances when something can be ethically withheld, such as when there is a court order requiring it, or if the lawyer believes the client is going to physically hurt himself or others in response, but those exceptions don’t apply here.

So she couldn’t comply with your wishes.  And of course there was never any question in her mind about passing it on to me and indeed, I don’t know a single minimally ethical lawyer who would ever even consider honoring such a request.

I also want to mention another possible conflict of interest other than your representation of ACORN.

That is right.  She or her firm represented Acorn.  Yes, that Acorn.  And although Andrew Breitbart is peripherally involved in this case (because he was cc’ed on a few of the relevant emails), and I have occasionally blogged at his Big Government and Big Journalism sites, and even though I don’t think my lawyer likes Mr. Breitbart very much, she agreed to represent me.  Which says to you, dear reader, that the issues in this case transcend ordinary politics and reach into deeper principles.  And it serves as a reminder that most good Americans have a common belief in certain baseline principles, rights and freedoms, freedom of speech being one of the big ones.  Most of the people on the other side aren’t evil.  At worst, they’re mistaken.

Now at the end of this email Brett copies and pastes a lot of specific rules from the MRPC, but curiously he doesn’t quote from the one on conflicts.  Let me do that for him, quoting from MRPC Rule 1.7 in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

Likewise Rule 1.9 discusses duties to former clients, stating in relevant part:

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client
(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and
(2) from whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;

unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

And there are various escape hatches, but you don’t need to worry about them because this situation doesn’t even fall within the rule.  Acorn is no more.  It is dissolved as a company and has no corporate existence.  Now some people have argued that other corporations and/or organizations are really Acorn in all but name, but as far as the law is concerned, Acorn doesn’t exist.  So literally everything Brett says in the next paragraph is irrelevant to the issue.

As noted, my organizations and my business partner Brad Friedman have been very involved with the ACORN issue, putting up rewards when their offices were attacked, urging accountability for James O’Keefe et al for their illegal wiretapping of ACORN employees, having Bertha on Brad Friedman’s radio program, writing dozens of articles about the destruction of ACORN, and working with members of Congress and the California Attorney General’s office to get to the truth about the attacks on ACORN. Mr. Worthing has been part of that attack machine, blogging for right wing ACORN hater Patrick Frey. In fact, it was Brad Friedman’s expose of that cabal with regard to ACORN which caused this attack machine to first target him, and then me.

All of which amounts to that he stuck up for Acorn in various ways as did his business associate, Brad Freidman, which doesn’t create a conflict of interest as that term is understood in the MRPC, requiring her to withdraw.  It doesn’t even come close.  But one gets the feeling that this isn’t really about that, so much as trying to convince her that I am a horrible person and that I don’t deserve even a chance to defend myself in court before my name and home address is given to a convicted terrorist who has proven that his word cannot be trusted by being convicted of perjury.  I can’t prove that is his intent, so this is an opinion based on simply the words I just quoted to you, but that is my opinion.

In addition to this, Velvet Revolution, an organization which I am involved, has a campaign called, which exposes excesses of the Chamber of Commerce. We have worked with Chamber Watch, a client of your partner [G.H.], and I have talked with [G.H.] about the Chamber and its IRS issues. We in fact are presently working with the FBI in an investigation of the Chamber and prepared a White Paper for the Bureau which includes as an exhibit the filing that [G.H.] and [C.M.] prepared.

That’s right, he talked to one of their lawyers in some case unrelated to this one, therefore he thinks that this means she can’t represent me.  Which is not what the rules say.

One of our Board Members also has a connection to [G.H.], I believe through Friends of the Earth.

Yes, and did you know that Gwyneth Paltrow has a connection to Kevin Bacon?  You see, she appeared in Shakespeare in Love with Joseph Fiennes.  Mr. Fiennes in turn appeared in Enemy at the Gates starring Ed Harris.  Mr. Harris appeared in A History of Violence with Viggo Mortensen.  Viggo Mortensen appeared with Ian McKellen in the Lord of the Rings.  Ian McKellen appeared with Hugh Jackman in Xmen I and II.  And Jackman appeared in Xmen: First Class (a brief, very funny cameo) which stars…  Kevin Bacon.

But that doesn’t mean that a lawyer who is friends with Kevin Bacon is forbidden from representing Ms. Paltrow, Mr. Fiennes, Mr. Harris, Mr. Mortensen, Mr. McKellen or Mr. Jackman, even in a suit against Mr. Bacon himself.

I will be happy to provide her name to you as well as the White Paper if you need them to make your conflict of interest determination. The Chamber of Commerce hired military intelligence contractors to attack our group, Chamber Watch, and me personally as part of a six million dollar campaign of destruction.  See

Although Team Themis was exposed, the Chamber continues to fund operations against us and me, and Mr. Worthing is part of the cabal that the Chamber uses for its nefarious purposes...

Which is supported by absolutely no evidence.  I mean, even assuming that the Chamber is out to get him (and I have no idea on that point, but given his track record I doubt it), he cannot show that I have even spoken to anyone at the Chamber of Commerce, or received a payment from them, let alone conspired with them in any way, because I have not.  So what he just did there was he defamed me.  And indeed I would say that it meets the legal definition of malice, given that he is showing a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of his claims.

...along with others such as those cc’d on the death threat email from Mr. Allen to Mr. Worthing.

We have been over this before, but it was not a threat.  A threat has to be communicated to the target.  He was communicating with us.  You can read the email here (see Exhibit E), and you will see that in fact it was nothing more than a stressed out and angry man ruminating on the idea of murdering his tormenter.  Mandy Nagy, one of the recipients did get nervous enough that she reported it to the police, but has since determined that he was just blowing off some steam.

We are presently in consultation with counsel about filing a lawsuit against the Chamber et al for the Team Themis campaign of destruction and there is a very real possibility that Mr. Worthing will be named a defendant in that action, which will most likely be filed in federal court.

It’s always important to notice what he is not saying.  You can walk into virtually any law office and “consult” with counsel on any topic.  They will listen to you, although they might charge you for even that time.  But it is highly doubtful that they will take Kimberlin’s case.  Any attorney knows that if they file this case in federal court, they will have to sign the complaint and by signing it they will have pledged to comply with Rule 11.  It says in relevant part:

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Further, this rule provides for sanctions for its violation visited on either the client or the attorney—that is, a judge can order an attorney to pay her share from her own funds and not to pass it on to the client.  So you can bet that this counsel they spoke with is going to demand strong evidence on each element of the offense.  Lawyers tell their clients all the time , “I can’t file that.  I will be sanctioned.”  And if Brett’s motion to compel is any indication, he has absolutely no evidence that I have conspired with anyone.  What he has is evidence that I have communicated with Patrick, Mandy and Breitbart, as have thousands and thousands of other people.  Communication is not a crime or a tort (civil wrong) and none of my communications with them have ever indicated any such conspiracy or cabal existed.  And he can show that I have advised Mr. Allen, a person whom I have entered into a limited attorney-client relationship with.  Which is kind of what lawyers do, you know?

Indeed, in my filing last Thursday I have already presented evidence that Mr. Kimberlin committed serial violations of the Maryland version of Rule 11 (called Maryland Rule §1-311) already.  I doubt he will find a single lawyer in the country willing to take on this case and sully their reputation.

Finally, I want to memorialize my concern about Mr. Worthing’s violations of the Rules of Professional Responsibility…

Notice he doesn’t say that these are possible violations of the rules, but that they are actual and definite violations of the rules.  So he has stated for a fact that I have behaved unethically, and every time I prove him wrong, that means he has committed an additional act of defamation against me.

...and the possibility that this may impact you if a Court or Bar finds that you somehow contributed to this unprofessional conduct.

And that’s a consistent theme with him: punishing or threatening to punishing attorneys for representing others.  He’s doing it to me for representing Mr. Allen, and he is doing it to my attorney.  I mean, that is my opinion based on the facts I have presented at this blog, but it fits the facts, doesn’t it?

Mr. Worthing entered into an attorney client relationship with Seth Allen using a false name...

As usual, he is asserting knowledge of matters he couldn’t possibly know about.  For all he knows, the moment I emailed Seth in private I told him my real name.

...and is trying this case on the blogs...

Which is a reference to posts like this.  And to bolster this claim he later quotes from part of MRPC Rule 3.6.  His version’s formatting is too messed up to quote here, but what is important is he only quotes Rule 3.6 (b) and then some official commentary.  Which means that he has cut out the actual operative language of the rule in subsection (a).  So let’s see what that says:

(a)  A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

Now first, there is a question of whether or not I am a lawyer in this at all.  I don’t mean to cast any doubt that I am a lawyer outside of Maryland, but I am not a Maryland lawyer and I am not appearing in Maryland in this case as a lawyer, but as a third party potential witness.  And that is actually an important distinction in the rules.  For instance, in the preamble the Rules state that

there are Rules that apply to lawyers who are not active in the practice of law or to practicing lawyers even when they are acting in a nonprofessional capacity.

By expressio unius, this means that are also rules do not apply to lawyers when they are not acting in a professional capacity.  Is it the opinion of the Maryland Bar association that unlike the parties to this case, I, as an involuntary participant as a potential witness, am uniquely prohibited from speaking out about this case?  And indeed by making it clear that the language of the MRPC doesn’t always apply to lawyers when they are acting in a non-professional capacity without specifying when it does and when it doesn’t, the bar association seems to have rendered this an impermissibly vague and overbroad limitation on freedom of speech.  First Amendment lawyers know that this is a serious problem.  I would suggest that they consider clarifying what rules apply when as soon as possible.

In any case, the language in section (c) strongly indicates that the rule is not designed to apply to attorneys representing themselves:

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity...

And it goes on but the point is that the language of the rule is plainly written imagining that we are talking about a situation where an attorney is representing a separate person who is a client, and is not designed to disadvantage lawyers when they serve as their own clients.  There is, simply put, no good reason to restrict me and not Kimberlin or Allen, in our exercise of freedom of speech.

In any case, Kimberlin amazingly quotes the following from the rule, without understanding its import:

(b)  Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
(1)  the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
(2)  information contained in a public record;

I won’t go on because remarkably he doesn’t even realize he has quoted a provision specifically allowing me to say virtually everything I have said, especially the really bad things I have said about him, because it is information contained in a public record.  For instance, when I call him a terrorist (bomber, specifically) and a perjurer, I am doing so based on the language of court cases.  These court opinions are emphatically public records.  Otherwise I have quoted from my filing, which is also a public record.  Or I cite information contained in that filing, which is stating “information contained in a public record.”

And that interacts with another provision in subsection (a).  It is not that all trial publicity, by lawyers acting in a professional capacity, is verboten, but only if “the lawyer knows or reasonably should know” that such publicity “will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”  And the official commentary to these rules makes it clear that not all “adjudicative proceedings” are created alike:

[6] Another relevant factor in determining prejudice is the nature of the proceeding involved. Criminal jury trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Civil trials may be less sensitive. Non-jury hearings and arbitration proceedings may be even less affected. The Rule will still place limitations on prejudicial comments in these cases, but the likelihood of prejudice may be different depending on the type of proceeding.

This reflects the common sense notion that a judge is less likely to be swayed by such publicity than a jury.  And the determination of the matter at hand—whether I am outed or not—will be determined by a judge.  Bluntly, I do not believe that the judge is likely to even visit my site, and he certainly is not likely to consider any information I present here that is not reflected in a court document.  And certainly there is no substantial chance of prejudice when sharing information already presented to the judge in court documents.

That’s not to say it is impossible for my communications to prejudice the matter.  For instance, if I personally insulted the judge, then that would be a problem.  Indeed it might force the judge to recuse himself, which would obviously prejudice the administration of justice.  But simply putting out truthful information, mainly based on court documents?  No, there is no substantial likelihood of prejudice.

And let’s remember that the commentary also recognizes that “[t]he public... has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern.”  The right of a person to speak anonymously is a matter of general public concern as is whether the courts will uphold that right.

Of course Kimberlin quotes from the commentary, too, citing where it says, in relevant part:

There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness[.]

But as the introductory paragraph indicates they are primarily concerned with matters before a jury.  And of course the commentary, while useful in interpreting the operative language, does not trump the operative language.  The operative language specifically allows me to provide information to you that is provided in public records (I don’t believe most criminal records are considered public records).  And indeed there is nothing I say about the credibility, reputation and criminal record of Brett Kimberlin that I didn’t also say to the court in formal documents.  So how can repeating those statements have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” the issue?

Moving on:

…attacking me personally and as a party…

It’s funny how in their writing, criticism is “attacking” likening it to a physical attack.  Of course, I have never physically attacked him—I have never even met the man—and as for attacking his character…  it is directly relevant.  His penchant for violence means that there is a risk that he may get violent with me.  And his history of perjury goes to the credibility of any factual assertions or promises he makes, as does the allegations in my filing that he lied to the court in this very case.  In any case, there is no rule in the MRPC prohibiting me from providing truthful information that reveals the exact contents of his character.

...and now threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter...

Now, the hilarious part is when he quotes the MRPC he writes the following:

RPC 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
A lawyer shall not:...
(g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in a civil matter.

But there’s only one problem with that.  The rule doesn’t exist.  And I see references to the very same Cornell Law School website I have been using interspersed with his quotations of the rules, so clearly he knows of this site.  And indeed the rules have existed in this form since at least 2007 (and I have verified that this rule is still in that form).  So how did he not know that this rule doesn’t exist?

Secondly, I have not done this to gain an advantage over him in the civil matter, but because I believe that sufficient evidence exists justifying an investigation.  I suspect a grave injustice was done to Mr. Allen, and I would like to see justice done.

But I find it interesting that on one hand, in his motion to compel he chides me for not reporting when Mr. Allen ruminated about murdering him, even though Mandy Nagy told me that she was going to report him for saying that, and then told me afterward that she did.  He somehow thinks I have a duty to report every time I think a person might commit a crime, even if someone already did report it.  But now he is saying that I have a duty not to report my suspicion that crime has actually occurred.

Indeed, I believe that if I failed to inform the court of his possibly criminal conduct in the November 14, 2011 hearing, that it would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of MRPC Rule 3.3. requiring candor toward the tribunal.  I would be allowing him to potentially perpetrate a fraud upon the court.

Alas, his list of complaints goes on:

…being a lawyer and a witness,…

And he later quotes from MRPC Rule 3.7.  I will only quote the relevant part:

(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless... [listing various exceptions].

Which doesn’t apply to the situation at all, because I am not acting as an advocate in a trial.  And my pleading aptly demonstrates that I am not a necessary witness.

...using his blog to embarrass me, and making false statements about me.

Which is redundant on the first part, and as for the second, Brett, I will extend to you the exact same offer Patrick gave to you when you threatened him with a defamation suitPoint out to me a single false statement I have made and prove it is false.  And let me be clear on what counts as a false statement.  It means where I have stated a fact that is not true.  I am entitled to draw my own opinions based on the facts.

Likewise, let me make clear what counts as proof.  Your word doesn’t count.  You are a convicted perjurer.  A “double secret exoneration” that you can’t show me doesn’t count.  Nothing that relies on your personal veracity counts, because you have none.

But if you manage to show that I made a false statement about you and prove it to be false, I will of course voluntarily take it down and even publicly take it back before the court if I made the statement in a court document.  I will even apologize for the error.

But I have just shown where you have made multiple defamatory statements about me, and I am about to show even more, and I doubt you will ever take that back, let alone apologize.

See relevant rules below.

Actually, you cited no relevant rules.

I believe that any Court or Bar faced with a complaint detailing the actions of Mr. Worthing trying this case in the press with vile attacks on me, will find that his conduct violates the Rules. I subpoenaed Mr. Worthing in a civil matter and was attacked mercilessly on his blog, and in his tweets.

Here comes a major piece of chutzpah:

He has called me a murder suspect,…

Well, the Indianapolis Star thinks you were one:

When police began looking for a motive in the Scyphers slaying, they found there'd been a recent family clash. Julia Scyphers' daughter, Sandra Barton, had become involved with a man who seemed to Mrs. Scyphers to be inordinately close to one of Barton's young daughters. Mrs. Scyphers told friends she was so concerned that she'd arranged for both of her granddaughters to come live with her. Whether or not Mrs. Scyphers' fears were correct (no charges were ever filed to that effect), this incident led investigators to start looking at Brett C. Kimberlin.

And so did Mark Singer:

Early that afternoon, [Brett] Kimberlin went downtown to meet with Forrest Bowman.  Along the way, he said, he passed a newspaper vending machine and saw the Indianapolis News's proclamation BOMBING SUSPECT IS LINKED TO MURDER.

"I saw this headline about the bombing investigation and I bought a newspaper and started reading it," he told me [reporter Mark Singer].  "I think: Oh, this might be interesting.  And then I read the first couple of paragraphs--about a Broad Ripple business man--and I realize they're talking about me and I'm just floored.

Mark Singer, Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin (1996), page 98.

Did you sue them?  Did you win a judgment against them?  Or even an admission of wrongdoing?  (And double secret agreements that you can't show me don’t count.)

And even if it was untrue, here’s the problem you have.  I never called you a murder suspect, except when quoting from my filing.  And it is never defamation to accurately report the contents of a public document. Indeed, I didn’t even call you one now, I merely pointed out that others had and that I stated you had been called one in in my filing:

He goes on to complain I called him:

….a terrorist,…

Um, the Sixth Circuit called you a terrorist.  Or more precisely a serial bomber, which in my opinion makes you a terrorist:

Kimberlin was convicted as the so-called "Speedway Bomber," who terrorized the city of Speedway, Indiana, by detonating a series of explosives in early September 1978. In the worst incident, Kimberlin placed one of his bombs in a gym bag, and left it in a parking lot outside Speedway High School. Carl Delong was leaving the high school football game with his wife when he attempted to pick up the bag and it exploded. The blast tore off his lower right leg and two fingers, and embedded bomb fragments in his wife's leg. He was hospitalized for six weeks, during which he was forced to undergo nine operations to complete the amputation of his leg, reattach two fingers, repair damage to his inner ear, and remove bomb fragments from his stomach, chest, and arm. In February 1983, he committed suicide.

After being convicted of the bombings and related offenses, Kimberlin was sentenced to a fifty-year term of imprisonment for manufacturing and possessing a destructive device, and malicious damage by explosives with personal injury in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and (f), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(f) and (i). He received a concurrent twelve-year sentence for impersonating a federal officer, illegal use of a Department of Defense insignia, and illegal use of the Presidential Seal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 912, 701, and 713, respectively, and a five-year term for receipt of explosives by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 842(i)(1). Finally, he was given a four-year sentence by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on an earlier, unrelated conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

He goes on to complain I called him:

 …a perjurer,…

Again, court documents say that you are:

[Kimberlin] argues that the Parole Commission erroneously computed his salient factor score in 1988 when it awarded only 1 point to petitioner's salient factor score because of 2 prior convictions. The convictions in question are a juvenile conviction for selling controlled substances and a subsequent conviction shortly after his 18th birthday for perjury before the grand jury relative to the involvement of others in the juvenile drug offense.

…and urged others to attack me.

Once again, we see the line blurred between verbal and physical attacks.  I have never urged physical violence against Kimberlin.  And I have never urged anyone to defame you.  And to the extent that telling truthful information about your deplorable past is an “attack” even if I urged other people to do that, so what?  I have a First Amendment right to do that.

He has called me out personally on his blog, urged readers to get the popcorn because he was going to destroy me and it will be fun to watch.

Well, as a point of fact, I didn’t mention any plan to destroy you.  But I confess in this I am having fun, because well, law is sort of my thing.  It’s why I am a lawyer.  And there is no rule of law or ethics that prohibits me from enjoying this.

This is not conduct that is allowed by an attorney. A blogger who did this could face a defamation suit,...

Anyone could face a defamation suit for anything.  But any suit you might file against me for defamation would not only be thrown out, but you would face sanctions for filing a frivolous suit.

...but Mr. Worthing is representing himself as an attorney...

Well, it’s good to see ya’ll have decided I am a lawyer, now.

...who he says had an attorney-client relationship with a party to this lawsuit. Therefore, he is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

I presume he means the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and as I pointed out, that is not necessarily correct.  Or more precisely, they don’t apply under these circumstances.

I will be seeking sanctions against him for violating the Rules now that he has given the Court jurisdiction over him by filing his motion.

You go ahead and do that.  I’m sure the judge needs a good laugh.

My dilemma now is whether you too have violated the Rules...

Aaaaand he’s back to threatening my lawyer again.  (Note: that is my opinion based on what he wrote.  Draw your own conclusions on this point.) acting in a supervisory capacity to him.

Except she wasn’t.  This would be the second time he has mistakenly thought someone else was supervising me, the first time being in his motion to compel when he thought Patrick Frey was my supervisor because I happened to put up a few guest posts at his blog.  But having made this laughable error, he goes on, further threatening her (in my opinion):

As you know, Rules 5.1 and 5.2 specifically require both supervisory and subordinate attorneys comply with the Rules. I urge you to discuss these matters with others in your firm and get back to me no later than Tuesday, January 3rd as to the conflict of interests and the Rules violations so I can decide how to proceed with my sanctions motion.  Beth, as noted in our call, I am a reasonable person...

Oh, get ready, dear reader, you are about to see some major chutzpah, here:

...and I did not ask for this fight...

That’s right folks, he’s not the aggressor, here!  It’s mean old Aaron Worthing!  Never mind that I never wrote a single post about him at Patterico’s Pontifications, and I barely wrote a word about him here or at any other blog until he started to try to obtain my identity.  No, no, in his mind I started this fight, I guess by helping out Mr. Allen or something.

...and I don’t even blog. I want to be left alone.

Then maybe you should stop trying to brutally suppress anyone who attempts to tell the truth about your life.  Because the more you try to suppress the truth, the more people want to know what you are trying to suppress.  We call this the Streisand Effect.

So, if you want all of this to go away, then stop trying to suppress the truth.  Stop trying to silence people who tell the truth.  And stop trying to bully lawyers for nothing more than giving people legal advice.  Ask for the judge to dismiss the injunction against Mr. Allen and go away and leave us alone.  I barely gave two craps about you before you tried to risk the lives of my wife and I, and if you leave me alone, I will quickly go back to not caring about you again.  I can’t tell you what Seth might do, but can’t you see that your conduct has elevated the man?

That’s what Judge Jordan told Seth Allen to do, but he refused to comply with that order...

Really, Brett?  That was an order and not just a recommendation?  Can you prove that?  Because I don’t trust you to even know the difference let alone to be honest about it.

...or the permanent injunction.

Which only forbade him from tortiously interfering with your business relations, and from defaming you.  I don’t know that he has done either and I certainly am not going to trust your word on the subject, especially when you say things like this:

Mr. Worthing has egged him on and advised him to violate the order.

Which is a flat out lie.  While I can’t share with you what advice I gave to Mr. Allen, I can say this with absolute certainty: he does not have a shred of evidence suggesting that I ever told Mr. Allen to defame Kimberlin or to violate the order.  Indeed as I showed in my filing, I once deleted one of Mr. Allen comments on the possibility that it might violate the injunction, and then asked him for a copy of the injunction for future reference.  That is the respect I showed for the order.

Now Mr. Worthing is arguing frivolously that the injunction is tainted because I am a felon.

Dear reader, why don’t you read my filing for yourself and decide if I have made that argument of not.

He is urging criminal prosecution of me for what he frivolously argues is perjury.

Actually, I only said in my filing that he lied to the court.  Perjury is a legal conclusion that others will have to draw, so I have not argued that he committed perjury, only his conduct should be referred to appropriate authorities to determine whether he committed perjury.  And I will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide how seriously to take my allegations.

He chose this fight and he will have to answer to the Court and the Bar for his conduct.  Maybe he has a First Amendment right to blog anonymously, but he does not have a First Amendment right to violate the Rules.

But the rules are limited and even trumped by the First Amendment when appropriate.

And I don’t believe that any Court or Bar will allow Mr. Worthing to remain anonymous after violating the Rules so blatantly.

Which demonstrates that he doesn’t know how a bar association investigates potential violations of the rules.  First, it decides whether there is enough of a case to even bother—a step I doubt Kimberlin will get past.  Then they will conduct a confidential investigation.  So it is only if they decide I have acted inappropriately that my name might come out, and a fat chance of that happening.

I am a victim of stalking. I have a final Peace Order issued by a judge against Mr. Allen for stalking and death threats. I have a permanent injunction against Mr. Allen prohibiting him from defaming me or interfering with my businesses.  Mr. Worthing’s conduct over the past week, even if it did not before, has crossed the Brodie line.

He is referring to Independent Newspapers v. Brodie, 966 A.2d 432, 457 (Md. 2009) which only applies when determining the name of a party to litigation, as I mention in my filing.  I am not a party but a witness, which means that a different, more stringent set of rules should apply.  But that’s in my filing.

He is publishing attacks on me personally in order to defame me and interfere with my business.

Actually, my intention is to defend myself and call attention to this abusive legal action.  But here’s the other thing.  Not all interference with business is illegal.  Instead the cause of action is actually known as tortious interference with business relations, meaning that the interference has to be wrongful in some way.  In the ordinary function of a free market economy, businesses interfere with each others relations all the time.  So for instance if I manage a Burger King and I go into a McDonalds and recruit every single employee over to my restaurant by urging them to lawfully terminate their employment relationship with McDonald’s and to come work for me, that is interfering with that restaurant’s business, but it is not illegal.  Likewise if telling the truth about you, Brett, is harming your business, tough.  The First Amendment allows me to tell the truth.  I suppose next he will think that Ford can sue Consumer reports if they give a poor review to their latest car.

Indeed just the other day I talked about a Virginia law that addresses conspiracies to interfere with business relationships and to harm one’s reputation.  You see, I know something about these laws, Brett, because I deal with them in my day job.  And I know what constitutes a violation and what does not.

But get ready for more chutzpah, folks:

You attempted to frame this as I am angry. No, I am a stalking victim and Mr. Worthing is continuing the stalking.

Yes, that is right, I forced him to drag me into this suit and to try to out me.  I am so tricksey that way.

Really Beth, what lawyer in their right mind would attack a stalking victim with the same conduct that two judges in two different courts have found constitutes stalking, harassment etc.

Really Brett, two courts found this?  Because I know of one court case, where you won by default.  In other words you won because the other side didn’t show up to fight.  That is far from any kind of definitive finding.  And if you are referring to the “peace order” I have not engaged in the conduct that Mr. Allen did to earn that; I did not ruminate about murdering you.  So if that is what you mean, you have succeeded in defaming me again.

I am attaching the final Peace Order for your information.

You have some thorny legal issues to sort out. I will look forward to hearing from you by Tuesday.

Yeah, I am sure you gave her a good laugh.


* There is one thing to note in my quotation of this email.  For some reason my copy substituted something like every 16th letter with an equal sign.  So for instance this:

Please do not send this email to Mr. Worthing because he will post it on the Internet as he did with my legal communications to him.

Actually looked like this:

Please do not send this email to Mr. Worthing becau=e he will post it on the Internet as he did with my legal communications t= him.

So technically I am guessing what letter went in the place of “=” in each case, but how can I say this?  Having lived my entire life with dyslexia, a disorder that causes my mind to sometimes spontaneously scramble words and letters, I am really good at guessing what a sentence should be saying.  But of course if Brett feels I guessed wrong on any of this, I will be happy to correct it.

He has my email address, after all.


Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.


  1. Kimberlin is a perma-putz. Thanks for the laugh!

  2. It is hilarious. Brett Kimberlin's letter is so transparently wrong on both the moral and the logical levels. He wants to win a case this way? Get the lawyer of his opponent scared of the kinds of endless complaints her client is dealing with?

    Yeah, with the tremendous character on display by E, I sincerely doubt she would be remotely susceptible to that even if the complaints here weren't so stupid.

    Oh, so sorry we are calling you a perjurer just because you were convicted of perjury, or noted your suspected involvement in an execution of an innocent old woman, or your conviction for bombing people.

    Aaron also brings up something that's bugged me a lot. Why are Ron Brynaert / Brett Kimberlin fixated on Aaron? Why did they choose that fight? I think they went on a witchhunt of everyone they could so far, and realized the name issue, and that's really all there was to it. Any little chance they get = this.

    Anyway, I'm laughing too, but I'm also really sorry to see this creep continue to impact so many lives, and it sucks if this attorney is now on his list too.

    I don't even know if he can be stopped. I don't think he'll comply with a judge smacking him down. Prison didn't stop him either. Judgments are ignored. The guy carries a sense of entitlement that Seth's injunction means Seth may never speak freely about Brett's true history, but there's no matching respect for Brett's own obligations.

    I'm waiting for the justice system to give me a sign that the rules don't just apply to the good guys.

  3. Hold the phone.

    Brett and his bad boy posse stalk somebody on the internet, attempt to stalk him in real life, use the legal process to further such stalking and then criticize that individual for defending himself?

    How does that make sense?

    I seem to remember a little while back Brett menacing and defaming somebody else in real life and in the process pointing out that he (Brett), the convicted felon, perjurer and drug smuggler, had personally filed over 300 lawsuits.

    Who knows if that figure is true, but he is at least a serial threatener of nuisance litigation. Courts might be interested in those facts.

  4. "I seem to remember a little while back Brett menacing and defaming somebody else in real life and in the process pointing out that he (Brett), the convicted felon, perjurer and drug smuggler, had personally filed over 300 lawsuits."

    Yeah, he was boasting how it doesn't cost him a thing, but to beat him, a professional would have to waste a ton of time and money... so why not just delete all that speech criticizing Brett and thereby his "business" and this whole thing can go away?

    And I don't think that was presented in evidence. I also don't know if being a serial litigant is something courts hold against someone, but it should be.

    Ken, I think Seth noted that when brett testified, he sounded like he really felt sincere. After all the things Brett has done to people, he still carries a ridiculous sense of entitlement. It's hard to believe he doesn't realize he's the bad guy here, but maybe he really thinks people shouldn't be allowed to hold his conduct against him.

    And like clockwork, Ron is parroting what Brett said. Ron is actually attacking the lawyer representing Aaron, asserting this (communicating with Aaron against Brett Kimberlin's orders) shows she is unethical. They are just barely even trying to pretend they aren't working together anymore.