ECF 231 - Redacted

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 231 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 50
FJ! .rn
U.S. CI:oPIC r COli T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION
DISTR'CT OF
20!4 DEC -8
;.i L dlD
P11 3: 03
CLE~t\I,S OfFiCE
AT GREEr;8c:LT
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
BY
v.
() l
DEPUTY
No. GJH 13 3059
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al

Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANTS AARON
WALKER, WILLIAM HOGE, BREITBART HOLDINGS, DAN BACKER, DB CAPITOL
STRATEGIES, PATRICK FREY, MANDY NAGY, MICHELLE MALKIN, TWITCHY,
GLENN BECK, MERCURY RADIO ARTS, ACE OF SPADES, ERICK ERICKSON,
REDSTATE, AND THE BLAZE
1.
Now comes
filed by Defendants
Plaintiff
Aaron Walker,
Backer, DB Capitol Strategies,

Malkin, Twitchy,
and responds
William
Robert
in default.
Plaintiff
American
Spectator,
The Franklin
claim which would entitle
because
Erick Erickson,
and National
this case with regard
Center,
and The
Bloggers
Lynn Thomas,
to five Defendants:
Simon & Schuster
and James
them from the case.
The Court must deny the Motions

Rules of Civil Procedure
Dan
the time set for by the Rules, and are
has resolved
to dismiss
to Dismiss
Frey, Mandy Nagy, Michelle
Radio Arts, RedState,
within
therefore
O'Keefe, and moved
Patrick
McCain, Ali Akbar, Lee Stranahan
Club have failed to file responses
to the Motions
Hoge, Breitbart.comjHoldings,
Ace of Spades,
Glenn Beck, Mercury
Blaze. Defendants
in opposition
to Dismiss
Plaintiff
him to relief."
question
is whether
resolved
in his behalf, the Complaint
under
Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal
can prove a "set of facts in support
of his
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, (1957). "The
in the light most favorable

states
to the Plaintiff, and with every doubt
any valid claim for relief." 5A Wright
&
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure:
Civil 2d
S 1357,
at 336. The Court, when
deciding a motion to dismiss, must consider well-pled allegations

true and must construe those allegations
in a complaint as
in favor of the plaintiff. Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The Court must further disregard
the contrary
allegations of the opposing party. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871
(1990) ("a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears to a
certainty that plaintiffis
entitled to no relief under any state offacts which could be
proved in support of the claim.") (emphasis added). The office of a motion to dismiss is
merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the
evidence in support.
2. None of the Defendants has presented
a single meritorious
legal argument
or
shred of evidence to counter the factual allegations and facts set forth in the SAC,and
none has demonstrated
that Plaintiff, as the Defendants stated and imputed, was
involved with swattings
in any way, shape or form. Because there is no truth to their
defamatory
they instead ask the Court to dismiss this case for many
statements,
technical reasons, such as: 1) the three year statute of limitations

the false light claim, 2) defamation
should not apply to
and false light cannot apply to Plaintiff because he
is a public figure and 3) defamation
proof, 4) the Defendants did not engage in a RICO
enterprise,
allows fair comment, 6) Defendant Frey did not
5) the First Amendment
act under color of law, and 7) the SAC violates Maryland Anti-SLAPP statute.
these and other arguments
3. The Defendants'
Each of
are without merit and belied by the facts and law.
overarching
response throughout
were merely engaging in First Amendment
their briefs is that they
activity by writing, opining, commenting
and speaking about Plaintiff and his past. If that were all that they did, they might
have a colorable First Amendment
argument.
However, that is not what they did.
Instead, as alleged in the SAC, they infused tortious and criminal conduct in with their
speech, which included stalking, harassment,
intimidation,
defamation,
business relations.
fraud, extortion, obstruction
false light, battery, money laundering
They created a fraudulent
further their criminal and tortious conduct.

barrage of defamatory
and interference
with
501c3 and websites and campaigns to

They engaged in a relentless,
multi-year
posts and tweets directed at Plaintiff, his family, his daughters,
his employer, judges, States Attorneys and reporters

their false narratives.
of justice,
and others who did not accept
They filed malicious and vexatious lawsuits against Plaintiff
that they then used to generate defamatory
statements
against Plaintiff as if they were
true simply because they came from a legal filing. They defrauded
over $100,000
from innocent victims that they then used to finance their criminal activities.
They
lied to FBI agents, the media and Members of Congress in order to use them to target
Plaintiff. They incited scores of threats against Plaintiff and his employer. Defendant
Walker assaulted
intimidate
Plaintiff in the Montgomery Circuit Courthouse
in order to
and retaliate against him for exercising his rights. This partial list of
conduct outside of their First Amendment
activity continued over a period of years
and continues to this day.

4. The Supreme Court has made clear that where illegal or tortious conduct is
intertwined
with other First Amendment
activity, the First Amendment
protection
is
lost. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010); Giboney v. Empire Storage &
Ice Co.,
336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949).
Although the union was engaged in peaceful picketing that "publicize[ d]

truthful facts about a labor dispute"-speech
which, standing on its own, would
have been fully protected under the First Amendment-the
Court held that the
union's speech could not be "treated in isolation." Id. at 498. The union's speech
lost whatever First Amendment protection it might otherwise have enjoyed, the
Court concluded, because it was "used as an integral part of conduct in violation of
a valid criminal statute," and its "sole immediate object" was to facilitate the
union's commission of that offense. ld. That the union's unlawful course of conduct
"was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language" mattered
not for First Amendment purposes.ld. at 502. [Giboney, quoted from United States
v. Osinger, June 4,2014, 9th Cir. Concurring opinion by Judge Paul Watford]
In the instant case, the Defendants want this Court to consider their "speech" in
isolation from their tortious and criminal conduct.l/
Fortunately,
the Supreme Court
and all the lower courts, including the Forth Circuit, reject this approach.
instructive
In a very
case, Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 128 F. 3d 233 (4th Cir. 1997), the
court found civil liability against a media organization
that published a book on how
to commit a crime:
At the same time, it would not relieve from liability those who would, for profit
or other motive, intentionally assist and encourage crime and then shamelessly
seek refuge in the sanctuary of the First Amendment. Like our sister circuits, at the
very least where a speaker - individual or media - acts with the purpose of
assisting in the commission of crime, we do not believe that the First Amendment
insulates that spcaker from responsibility for his actions simply because he may
have disseminated his message to a wide audience. [at 248]
l/During the December 1, 2014 oral argument before the Supreme Court in Elonis
v. United States, an Internet defamation case, the defendant, like the defcndants hcre,
argued that he did not violate the statute because he was simply expressing his views
under the First Amendment and that he had included a disclaimer in many of the
statements. This argument did not go over well with Justice Samuel Alito who
commented, "This sounds like a road map for threatening a spouse and getting away
with it. So you put it in a rhyme ...and you say I'm an aspiring rap artist and so then you
are free from prosecution."
Factual Statement
5. Plaintiff hereby adopts the factual statement
and allegations
made in his SAC,
which of course, must be consider as true for the purposes of this motion.
6. For the past ten years, Plaintiff has been the Director of a Maryland based nonprofit called Justice Through Music that works with musicians and artists to inspire
young people to get involved with civic participation
extremists
and voting. In 2010, far right
from the Tea Party took umbrage at Plaintiffs work and began
investigating
him personally, eventually learning that he had been convicted of a
series of crimes during his youth. In October 2010, Andrew Breitbart, the (now
deceased)
founder of the influential far right Defendant Breitbart.com
order on Twitter to a number of his soldiers, including Defendants

Mandy Nagy and Lee Stranahan
Patrick Frey,
to target Plaintiff.
7. A few days later, Defendants Nagy on Breitbart.com

Patterico blog wrote simultaneous
scoundrel.
blog gave an
and Frey on his own
articles defaming Plaintiff as a terrorist
and a
At the time, Defendant Walker was writing for Defendant Frey on his
Patterico blog using a pseudonym,
Aaron Worthing.
Walker was also publishing a
Muslim hate blog called "Everyone Draw Mohammed," which included more than 800
vile and pornographic
depictions
of the Prophet Mohammed.
8. Another obsessive person from South Easton, Massachusetts
named Seth Allen
was also defaming Plaintiff online and so Plaintiff sued him in Montgomery
Circuit Court in 2010, eventually winning a defamation
judgment
County
in November 2011. In
August of 2011, Mr. Allen wrote an email to Andrew Breitbart, Aaron Walker, Mandy
Nagy and Patrick Frey telling them that he was going to come to Maryland and
"MURDER" Plaintiff. Defendant Nagy called the police, and the police called Plaintiff
while he was on a family vacation to warn him about the planned assassination.
Plaintiff returned
to Maryland, he filed charges against Mr. Allen along with a Peace
Order, and Mr. Allen was arrested

9. After the civil defamation
and ordered to stay away from Plaintiff.

judgment was issued against Mr. Allen in November
2011, Defendant Walker, still using his pseudonym,

represent
him in post judgment proceedings
then prepared
When
told Mr. Allen that he would
using his alter ego, Aaron Worthing.
and filed pleadings in the state case demanding
Plaintiff could not locate any attorney
He
a new trial. After
named Aaron Worthing, he learned that Mr.
Worthing was actually Defendant Aaron Walker, and he advised the Montgomery
County Circuit Court of that fact at a hearing on January 9, 2012. Defendant Walker
came uninvited to that hearing, repeatedly
interrupted
it from the gallery, and then
followed Plaintiff out into the court waiting area, committed a brutal battery against
him, and took his iPad from him. Court personnel
called courthouse
deputies converged on the scene. They determined
security and
that Defendant Walker had
attacked Plaintiff and took Plaintiffs iPad. They retrieved the iPad and advised
Plaintiff to file charges and seek medical help. Plaintiff proceeded
emergency clinic, where the doctor immediately
ordered
to a nearby
Plaintiff to go to the
Emergency Room at Suburban Hospital because of symptoms
of a possible
concussion.
Plaintiff did so and was treated by doctors at the hospital, given
medications,
and ordered to stay horne from work for the remainder
of the week.
Plaintiff was diagnosed with a contusion of the eye, headache and back pain.
10, Once Defendant Walker was identified in state court, he chose to tell his
employer that he was in fact the publisher of the Muslim hate blog and that this could
cause harm to his employer and its employees if they did not take security
precautions,
The employer, Professional
Healthcare Resources, immediately
Defendant Walker's office and found it filled with documents

the Prophet Mohammed,
searched
and depictions insulting
As a result, the employer hired outside counsel who
promptly fired Defendant Walker and stated the reasons for doing so in a long email,
none of which had anything to do with Plaintiff. Exhibit 1.
11. Defendant Walker then, in consultation
created the false narrative
with Defendants
that Plaintiff caused his termination,
Frey and others,

Defendant Walker
then contacted other Defendants, including Defendant Ali Akbar who had just
launched a new entity called The National Bloggers Club ("NBC) to pool the power of
extremist
bloggers to target Plaintiff with this false narrative.
Defendant Akbar began
falsely telling everyone publicly that NBC was a 501c3 non-profit that could accept
tax-deductible
donations,
tens of thousands
Exhibit 2. Over the next two years, NBC fraudulently
of dollars from unsuspecting
raised
victims who believed that NBC was a
501c3 non-profit and that Plaintiff was a swatter who caused Defendant Walker's
termination.
In fact, NBC did not have 501c3 status during 2012 or 2013.
12.ln March of 2012, Defendants Akbar, Walker and others conspired

fraudulent
NBC to direct a campaign of destruction
false narratives,
to use the
against Plaintiff. They created
such as that Plaintiff got Defendant Walker fired and committed
swattings against conservative
bloggers, to rile up the extremist far right base. They
launched a campaign conceived by Defendant Lee Stranahan
called "Everyone Blog
About Brett Kimberlin" that generated

falsely accusing Plaintiff of terrorism,
tens of thousands
of tweets and blog posts
swattings, attacks on conservatives,
perjury and
many other heinous crimes. All the while, Defendants raised large amounts of money
from American citizens who believed their falsehoods.
13. These false narratives
rose to such a crescendo
that NBC and other Defendants
were able to con 87 Congress Members and a number of Senators to write to the
Attorney General demanding
a criminal investigation
The Attorney General was even questioned

being done to prosecute
the swatter.
of the swattings
(Le., Plaintiff).
at a hearing before Congress on what was
As a result, the FBI questioned
both Plaintiff and
his wife.
14. Defendant Malkin, as a board member of NBC, was instrumental
the false narratives
put out by NBC. She owned a Twitter amplification
in multiplying
service called
Twitchy, (also a Defendant), that she used to promote the false narratives
to over a
half million of her online followers.

15. Defendant Frey, an Assistant Los Angeles District Attorney, used his official
position to give credibility to the false narratives.
He initiated criminal investigations
against Plaintiff by his own office and attempted
to convince the FBI to arrest Plaintiff
for the swattings.
emails to Defendant Walker and
Exhibit 3. He wrote numerous
others stating that he was going to have Plaintiff arrested

he even proposed an FBI "sting" operation
personalities
In fact,
to arrest Plaintiff.
16.ln order to propel these false narratives

the Defendants in2012
and sent to prison.
to an even greater audience, several of
enlisted the help of three well-known
far right media
- media mogul Glenn Beck, blogger and CNN commentator
Eric
Erickson, and top conservative

conspiracy
by spreading
and a bill of attainder
blogger Ace of Spades. These three joined the
the false narratives
on their blogs, calling for Plaintiffs arrest
against him, and spreading the swatting narrative to a national
audience of millions. Glenn Beck even had Defendants

television/radio
programs
Frey and Walker on his
under the control of Defendant Mercury Radio Arts,
alleging that Plaintiff was involved in the swattings.
Defendant The Blaze, owned by
Defendant Beck. published several articles defaming Plaintiff as a swatter.

attacked Plaintiffs employer with these false narratives.
He also
Exhibit 4.
17. These same Defendants then enlisted the credibility of the Franklin Center,
which portrays itself as a good government
conservative
advocacy organization
with a
slant. The Center obliged by putting out a press release stating that it
was going to conduct a "webinar" to discuss Plaintiffs swattings and his one hundred
lawsuits against conservative
Stranahan,
bloggers.
It then held that webinar and had Defendants
Walker and Frey speak to listeners and repeat these false allegations.
(NOTE: Franklin Center has resolved this case with Plaintiff).

18. Not content to stop there, these Defendants then sought help from attorney
Dan Baker and his law firm DB Capitol Strategies ("DBCS") to sue Plaintiff on behalf of
Defendant Walker. Mr. Backer represented
Defendant Walker in three suits, two in
federal court and one in Virginia Circuit Court, alleging a host of false, meritless and
malicious allegations/crimes.
Defendants Walker, Backer and DBCS tried to use the
suits to harass and intimidate
Plaintiff, retaliate against him for exercising his right to
redress, and harm him, his employer and his livelihood.
The federal and state courts,
two in scathing orders, dismissed all three suits. See e.g., Exhibit 15.
19. In June 2012, conservatives
and the media began demanding
that Defendants
Akbar and NBC present proof that NBC was a legitimate 501c3. When none was
forthcoming, legitimate media outlets learned that Defendant Akbar himself was a
convicted felon who was on probation
from the State of Texas for theft and fraud at
the time he launched NBC. This caused some victims of his fraud to demand their
money back. Soon thereafter,
Defendants
activities around the false narratives

posted false information
swattings
Backer and DBCS took over the fundraising
about Plaintiff. Defendants
on their associated
and other defamatory
based on those false narratives
information,
Backer and DBCS
websites falsely accusing Plaintiff of

and they raised huge sums of money
and malicious lawsuits.
Exhibit 5.
20. As a result of the conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered emotional
and economic harm. His emotional harm has been exacerbated
his family from the bullying, harassment
by the harm done to
and threats caused by Defendants.
Some of
the Defendants and stalkers incited by the Defendants have come to Plaintiffs
called his neighbors, harassed
Plaintiffs daughter and wife, sent many death threats
to Plaintiff, and caused his employer to lose institutional

21. All told, Defendants generated
funding.
literally tens of thousands
blog posts and articles based on their false narratives
of defamatory
directed at Plaintiff.
false narratives.
defamatory,
tweets,
about Plaintiff over a period of
years. Not a day goes by without one or more of the obsessive Defendants
tweeting negative, derogatory,
home,
condescending
posting or
and bullying content
Together they have raised more than $100,000 based on these
They lied about Plaintiff to Members of Congress, the FBI, the media,
and millions of readers, and defrauded
money from countless victims of their crimes
and conduct. These used the false narratives
to raise their Google and search engine
rankings and to drive traffic to their websites.

22. Incredibly, even after being sued and told that Plaintiff had nothing to do with
Defendant Walker's termination
and nothing to do with any swattings, the Defendants
remaining in this case are trying to con(vince) this Court that the First Amendment
protects their right to make their defamatory
of money from fellow conservatives.
First Amendment
statements
and defraud
They are insulting the Court by arguing that the
gives them the right to say whatever
they want about Plaintiff
because he was convicted of a crime 35 years ago. They are continuing

Court to perpetrate
Management
their fraud and defamatory
statements,
in this very
(and violate the
Order) by engaging in ad hominem attacks such as falsely calling
Plaintiff a terrorist,
judgment
large amounts
habitual criminal, vexatious litigant, and a person who won't pay a
(that does not exist). Many of the Defendants, including Walker, Hoge,
McCain, NBC, and Akbar, are continuing to raise money from gullible victims to
supposedly
protect them from Plaintiff, who they still to this day falsely call a swatter
who caused Defendant Walker's termination.

23. Defendants attempt to mislead the Court by singling out Plaintiff as someone
involved with "Iawfare" who is picking on conservative
purposes.
bloggers for partisan
The Defendants fail to tell the Court that many of the Defendants
have
other suits pending against them for similar conduct in federal and state courts
throughout
the country.
For example, Shirley Sherrod is suing Defendant Breitbart
Holdings and its employees

be fired from the Department
for creating a false narrative about her that caused her to

of Agriculture.
Defendant Beck and his media entities
are being sued in several cases, one by a Muslim man named Abdulrahman
who Beck called a "terrorist"
bombers.
Alharbi
and falsely accused of funding the Boston Marathon
A federal judge on December 1, 2014. denied Defendant Beck's Motion to
Dismiss, which raised grounds similar to those he raised in the instant case, Exhibit 6.
Defendant Frey is being sued by a black female Harvard student named Nadia Naffe
after he published private information
because she reported
about her online and then defamed her
a sexual assault by (ex)-Defendant
James O'Keefe. And O'Keefe.
has been sued many times in federal and state court. Clearly, it is not lawfare to use
the courts, legal remedies and the First Amendment
bullies responsible
for committing
intentional
right to hold serial defamers and
torts and even crimes on a wholesale
basis.
24. However, legitimate reporters
Defendants
do follow ethical rules that none of the
in this case followed, for example. seeking comment from their subject.
publishing factual information
and not engaging in personal attacks. Exhibit 7..2/
'lj The Defendants in this case did not merely write about Plaintiff, as would a legitimate
reporter for the New York Times. Instead, they engaged in defamation plus conduct, actively
using their false narratives to harm Plaintiff. Legitimate reporters do not commit battery
against their subjects, or make up falsehoods about subjects that they tell to the FBI and
Congress, or file malicious suits against them, or create fraudulent 501c3s and campaigns to
incite a lynch mob, or conspire with others to falsely accuse them of crimes, or file motions to
dismiss attempting to mislead the court by sanitizing their conduct and demonizing their
opponent. The Defendants remaining in this case and their attorneys, rather than admitting
that Plaintiff had nothing to do with any swattings, are misleading the Court with their
Motions to Dismiss. It is truly shameful and far beneath what is expected of well-respected
attorneys such as Ron Coleman, Michael Smith, Mark Bailen, and Eleanor Lackman. They
know that their clients engaged in wholesale defamation plus abhorrent conduct meant to
destroy Plaintiff, which are indefensible, yet they threw all their ethical obligations to the
wind and personally attacked Plaintiff with even more defamation along with frivolous
arguments.
Maryland's
Three-Year
Statute
of Limitations
Applies To The False Light Claim
25. Numerous Defendants have argued that Plaintiffs
false light claims are barred
by the statute of limitations, which they assert is one year, the same as defamation.
Defendants cite Smith v. Esquire, 494 F. Supp. 967 (D. Md. 1980), in support of their
argument.
This is without merit.
26. In 1988, Maryland's highest Court rejected the reasoning of Smith in Allen v.
Bethlehem Steel Corp., 314 Md. 458 (1988):
We disagree with Smith. What the district court judge said in Smith may be
true, but the Maryland statute of limitations is vividly clear. An action for libel
and slander shall be filed within one year of the date it accrues. Courts Art. S 5105. Other tort actions shall be filed within three years of the date they accrue.
Courts Art. S 5-101. Nowhere in S 5-101 does it provide an exception for "false
light" cases. Even though we recognize the district court judge's view as to how
the statute of limitations will be avoided, that "loophole" must be plugged by
the Legislature.
In determining
interpretations
statutes of limitations,
this Court is required to follow
of law by Maryland's appellate courts, especially where that Court
rejects a federal district court decision as it did above. Clearly, Maryland general
three-year
statute of limitations applies to the tort of False Light Invasion of Privacy
Claims.
Plaintiff
Properly
Pled A RICO Enterprise
By The Named Defendants
27. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

in 1970 with the goal of eliminating
organizations.
the infiltration
Act ("RICO") was enacted
of organized crime into legitimate
See Benard v. Hoff, 727 F. Supp. 211, 213 (D.Md.1989); see
also International
Data Bank, Ltd. v. Zepkin, 812 F.2d 149, 155 (4th Cir.1987)(stating
that Congress intended
"that RICO serve as a weapon against ongoing unlawful
activities whose scope and persistence
pose a special threat to social well-being.").
In
the instant case, the named Defendants engaged in ongoing unlawful activities against
Plaintiff that posed a threat to the social well-being.
28. The Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege a proper violation of
RICO. This is without merit and attempts
committed
by those in the Enterprise,
to sanitize the many predicate acts
such as fraud, obstruction
of justice, battery
and extortion.
Plaintiff
Properly
Alleged the Existence
of a RICO Enterprise
29. Plaintiff has alleged in the Complaint that the National Bloggers Club is a
fraudulent
SOl(c)(3)
fraudulent
Enterprise
because for more than two years it falsely portrayed
itself as a
non-profit when it was not. It raised huge sums of money based on that
representation
and it used false accusations
to fleece people out of money to run its fraudulent,
of criminal activity by Plaintiff
criminal activities.
It engaged in
wire and mail fraud, as well as money laundering.

30. Most of the Defendants are members of, paid by, conspirators
otherwise
with, or
involved with the National Bloggers Club in some fashion. Defendant and
felon Ali Akbar is the boss, Patrick Frey is the consigliore, Dan Backer and DB Capitol
Strategies is the legal muscle, Michelle Malkin is the activist board member, and
various other Defendants are the lynch mob, taking orders from Defendants Akbar
and Frey to harass Plaintiff through various means such as physical assault, stalking,
malicious legal filings, and false allegations online.
31. Most of the Defendants have been or are involved with a common scheme to
harm Plaintiff with false narratives
of crimes in order to raise funds, increase their
ranking on Internet search engines, and incite their readers to act in some harmful
way against Plaintiff and his employer.
32. The Defendants have conspired with one another in their common purpose
through a course of conduct, which has lasted for more than two years, involving
scores of criminal predicate acts and intent to violate the laws of the United States and
the rights of Plaintiff.
The SAC sets forth in great detail that the Defendants have both
a formal and informal framework, with daily and sometimes
hourly contact through
various networks, mainly through the Internet, for carrying out their objectives.
Defendants
The
function as a continuing unit to achieve the common purpose of harming
Plaintiff in any way possible. This clearly satisfies the RICO Enterprise
requirement.
Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009).

33.18 USc. 91961(1)
defines "racketeering
activity" to include "any act or threat
involving ... extortion ... [or] any act which is indictable under any of the following
provisions
of Title 18, United States Code: ... section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),
section 1343 (relating to wire fraud) ...." The SAC clearly alleges more than two acts in
furtherance
of the conspiracy
that may be in violation of the mail and wire
fraud statutes. Additionally, the SAC alleges acts of extortion and money laundering
which are "acts" included in the definition of "racketeering
other predicate acts including obstruction
activity." The SAC alleges
acts. These acts were done in order to
injure Plaintiff, his property, his livelihood and his employer.

34.ln order for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a RICO claim, he must allege an
"injury in his business or property"
by reason of a violation of RICO. 18 USc.
1964( c). In Wang Laboratories v. Burt, 612 F.Supp. 441 (1984), this Court found that
"Wang's allegations of injury to its business reputation
and customer goodwill in
addition to its loss of revenues satisfied the injury requirement

1964(c)." See Kimmel v. Peterson, 565 F.Supp. 476,495
allegations of monetary
losses as a result of defendant's
"injury" under 18 U.S.C.SI964(c)).

(S.D.N.Y. 1981) (the corporation
sustained
of 18 USc. S
(E.D.PA 1983) (Plaintiffs

fraud sufficiently allege
Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. O'Hearn, 523 F.Supp. 244, 248
was injured for purposes of RICO if, as alleged, it
monetary damages).
35. Defendants joined the Enterprise
and committed
predicate acts in order to
cause maximum harm to Plaintiff, his livelihood, his property, and his employer.
fact, one their main goals of the Defendant's
of business and intimidate
RICO Enterprise
In
was to drive Plaintiff out
him from exercising his First Amendment
right to redress.
In Northeast Women's Health Center v. McMonagle, 868 F.2d 1342 (3rd Cir. 1989), the
Court addressed
a similar fact situation where activists used threats, intimidation,
violence and extortion in an attempt to drive a health clinic out of business.

The "right" on which the Center's case was predicated was the right to
continue to operate its business. The Center's extortion claim was that
Defendants used force, threats of force, fear and violence in their efforts to
force the Center out of business. The court told the jury that, "[s]pecifically,
defendants are charged with attempting and conspiring to extort from the
Center its property interest in continuing to provide abortion services(;] from
its employees, their property interest in continuing their employment with the
Center(;] and from patients, their property interest in entering into a
contractual relationship with the Center."
Rights involving the conduct of business are property rights. As we
pointed out in United States v. Local 560, 780 F.2d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 1985), ...
other circuits which have considered this question are unanimous in extending
the Hobbs Act to protect intangible, as well as tangible, property. (Citations
omitted). It is, of course, no defense to extortion that Defendants did not
succeed in their ultimate goal. although, as McMonagle's own letter admitted,
Defendants' activities did contribute to the Center's loss of its lease at the
Roosevelt Boulevard location .... Attempted extortion and conspiracy to
commit extortion are crimes under the Hobbs Act, see 18 USc. S 1951(a), and
"any act which is indictable under [the Hobbs Act]" is a predicate offense under
RICO. 18 U.S.c. 9 1961(1)(B).
36. Plaintiff had a "property
interest" in continuing his employment
as the director
of a non-profit that he has worked at for ten years. He had a "property interest" in
being able to raise funds for that business to pay his salary and the other salaries and
expenses of the business.
Yet, Defendants conspired with each other, and attempted
and engaged in conduct intended to deprive Plaintiff of those property
interests.
Many
of the Defendants such as Beck, Frey, Hoge, Walker, Ace of Spades, and McCain have
stated many times that they want to destroy the non-profits
hurting their business reputation,
by stopping their funding,
customer good will, getting Plaintiff fired, and they
urged others to demand the same.

37. Defendants Walker, Backer and DBCS participated
obstructing
in this RICO Enterprise
by
justice by filing pleadings in three patently frivolous and malicious
lawsuits in two different jurisdictions
to intimidate
Plaintiff from seeking redress and
retaliate against him for exercising that right. In fact, the second federal lawsuit
specifically asked the Court to prohibit Plaintiff from filing any pleadings without first
seeking approval from a federal administrative
included as defendants
two non-profits
law judge. And that federal lawsuit
(with which Plaintiff is involved) solely for the
purpose of causing economic harm to them, and to use the suit to extort them into
firing Plaintiff in exchange for dismissing them from the lawsuit. These malicious
lawsuits were not filed to redress any wrong but rather to harass, intimidate
and
extort.
38. And when counsel for the non-profits
rejected that attempted
Defendants Walker, Backer and DBCS, they retaliated
extortion by
by sending a highly defamatory
document hold letter to the non-profits'largest

Plaintiff and the non-profits
institutional
funder falsely stating that
were engaged in criminal conduct. Exhibit 8. Although
that funder had provided grants of more than $300,000 during its multi-year
relationship
with Plaintiff and the non-profits,
caused that institutional
the defamatory
funder to cease its relationship
profits thereby depriving them of substantial
document hold letter
with Plaintiff and the non-
future funding. See affidavit of Plaintiff.
Exhibit 7.
39. The conduct of Defendants also violates 18 USC 1513(e) because it was meant
to retaliate against Plaintiff for providing information
enforcement
to state and federal law
about the illegal conduct of the Defendants.
Walker and Frey complained
Indeed, both Defendants
bitterly that Plaintiff was "fucking" with them, Exhibit 3,
when all Plaintiff did was provide information
to law enforcement
officials and the
Courts about their illegal and unethical conduct. Section 1513(e) provides as follows:
(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful
to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of
any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information
relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(emphasis added).
40. Defendants are correct that "RICO is concerned
about eradicating
organized,
long-term, habitual criminal activity ....." And that is precisely why Plaintiff filed this
RICO Complaint-The
criminal enterprise
money laundering
operation
National Bloggers Club is an organized, long-term, habitual

that has been engaged in massive mail fraud, wire fraud and
for more than two years. It is not an "ordinary commercial"
but rather an enterprise
created and/or joined by the various Defendants
order to defraud, extort and harm people, including Plaintiff. This case does not
in
involve "ordinary business contract or fraud disputes" but rather massive, extended,
widespread
and intentional
ongoing fraud directed by a felon convicted of fraud, and
joined by the other Defendants, and given credibility and gravitas by Defendant
Malkin who joined its Board and signed off on the fraud. The pattern of racketeering
was and is dangerous
because the Enterprise
then tells unsuspecting
created and creates false narratives
and
victims to donate to a fake SOl(c)(3) in order to protect them
from the supposed harm portrayed
in the false narratives.
41. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has alleged nothing but "routine" activities by
the Defendants that do not rise to the level of RICO. To the contrary, one would be
hard pressed to find another instance in recent history where an online mob engaged
in a multi-year defamation
campaign which falsely accused a person of a horrible
crime combined with continued criminal activity and massive fraud of thousands
victims. That is what happened
of
in this case.
42. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged harm to his business or
property.
harmed.
However, Plaintiff has alleged that his business and property interests
Indeed, he has alleged that Defendants attempted
employment,
were
to get him fired from his
and tried to destroy his employer and its funding. It is well established
RICO claim is properly pleaded where the Defendants conspired
to deprive a person
of his livelihood and his liberty, as Plaintiff has alleged in the instant case. The Ninth
Circuit, in an en bane decision, analyzed the RICO statute and found that where a
Plaintiff alleges "any property interest valid under state law:' he meets the business
and property requirement
ofRICO. Diaz v. Gates, 420 F3d 897 (en banc) (9th Cir.
2005). The SAC includes two state law claims alleging harm to Plaintiffs business
relations.
The tort of interference
with contract is well established
under Maryland
law and it includes "maliciously or wrongfully infring[ing] upon an economic

relationship."
Macklin v. Logan, 639 A. 2d 112 (1994). See also K&K Management
Ine. v
Lee, 557 A.2d 965 (Me!. 1989) (there are two general types of actions for interference
with business relationships
including "inducing the breach of an existing contract and,
more broadly, maliciously or wrongfully interfering
with economic relationships
in
the absence of a breach of contract.").

43. But a business does not have to be a formal business.
Plaintiffs business is not
simply as an employee of Justice Through Music, but he is also in the music business
as a composer,
producer, and activist.
Plaintiff has composed songs and produced
videos to promote several award winning documentaries,
including "The Devil Came
on Horseback," "Countdown to Zero:' and "Gasland." The conduct of the Defendants

has harmed this "business" too by attacking his reputation
so that he cannot work in
this arena any longer. Exhibit 7.

44. Defendants
Hoge and Walker assert that the obstruction
of justice claims
cannot be predicate acts because there was no "official proceeding"

Plaintiff. However, there were official proceedings
First, the swattings
the jurisdiction
swattings and in fact came unannounced

the swattings.
as well as federal involvement.
occurred across state lines. which therefore
of federal law enforcement.
pending involving
brought them under
Second, the FBI was investigating
to Plaintiffs home to interview
the
him about
Third. 87 Congress Members and at least one US Senator wrote letters
to the Attorney General requesting
a federal criminal investigation.
And fourth.
Congress Members raised the issue of swatting on the floor of the House on at least
one occasion and questioned

Therefore, the Defendants'
Attorney General Holder at a congressional

actions are also prohibited
hearing.
by 18 USC 1512(b), which
includes engaging "in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding,
which includes "a proceeding
harassing
before Congress." They also violated section 1512(d) by
Plaintiff for years so he would not seek redress in federal courts or talk to
federal law enforcement

45. The Defendants
officials.
falsely told the FBI, Senators and Congress Members that
Plaintiff was involved with the swattings and then intimidated

conduct that resulted in him being repeatedly
talk to law enforcement
stalked, threatened
threatened
Plaintiffby
engaging in
not to appear in court or
officials. See e.g., Exhibits 9 and 11. They sued, harassed,
him with prison and job loss, and caused death threats against
him for seeking redress.
Defendant Walker assaulted
him in the Montgomery
County
Circuit Courthouse so severely that he had to go to the Emergency Room at Suburban

Hospital, where he was treated and given medication
for contusion to the eye, pain
and dizziness. And when Plaintiff contacted the police about the assault, Defendant
Walker created the false narratives
against Plaintiff in retaliation
of this constitutes
obstruction
and launched the National Bloggers Campaign
for seeking redress and the administration

of justice and retaliation
of justice. All
under the "Omnibus Clause" of
18 USC 1503, which states:

Whoever ... corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence,
obstruct, or impede, the due administration ofjustice, shall be fined not more
than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." (emphasis
added).
46. The Defendants also engaged in a conspiracy

intimidate
Plaintiff and therefore
47. Respondent
to threaten, assault and
their conduct is prohibited
by 18 USC 1512(k).
superior is applicable to hold a corporation
liable for RICO
violations of its employees. My/an Labs v. Akzo, 770 E. Supp. 1053, 1070 (D. Md. 1991)
("Thus, a corporation
agents and/or
or partnership
representatives
can be held liable under RICO for tbe acts of its
committed
witbin the scope of their authority.").
the instant case, Defendant DBCS is controlled and represented

and therefore
DBCS is responsible
In
by Defendant Backer
for his acts.
48. Moreover, this Court has held that law firms can be held liable under RICO
where, as here, "the professional
enterprise
or operating
and therefore
services provided strike at the very core of the
the lawyer or accountant
the firm." Thomas v. Ross & I/ardies, 9 F. Supp. 2d 547, 554 (D. Md. 1998).
49. In addition, the Enterprise
engaged in fraud and money laundering
solicited and received tens of thousands

on the fraudulent
non-profit.
providing the services is managing
representation
of dollars from unsuspecting
citizens based
that Defendant National Bloggers Club was a 501c3
Defendants knew of this fraud and in fact Defendants
took over the fundraising
because it
Backer and DBCS
activities after Defendant Akbar was exposed as a felon and
Defendant National B10ggers Club was exposed for never even filing for 501c3 status
or any 990 IRS returns or other required business filings. When DBCS took over the
fundraising,
it continued the false narrative that Plaintiff was a swatter engaged in
"Iawfare" against conservative

summarily
bloggers. And then, after the three lawsuits were
dismissed by Judge Potter and Judge Motz, Defendants Walker, DBCS and
Backer continued with their false narratives
and their misleading fundraising
by not
only failing to update their website to reflect both of the dismissals, but by actually
refusing to correct them and telling Plaintiff not to contact them when Plaintiff
requested
the corrections.
They used this income from a pattern of racketeering
continue their racketeering
to
activities.
50. Incredibly, several of the Defendants
now ask this Court to grant the very relief
denied by Judge Motz when he dismissed Defendant Walkers malicious lawsuit: "An
Order for injunctive relief to enjoin Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin from initiating any
further frivolous and meretricious
appointed
litigation without the prior approval by a court
master or the posting of a bond in accordance
fees for the dismissal of such claims."

authority
with such order to be paid as
Not only did Judge Motz rule that he had no
to grant such relief, but such relief is barred here by res judicata with regard
to Defendant Walker. This request is so patently without merit that it does not even
warrant
a response, and clearly it is included in the Defendants'
continue their intimidation
and obstruction
of justice.
51. Clearly, from the above, the Enterprise
and acts of the named Defendants
the same or similar purposes, victims, or methods of commission,

interrelated
by distinguishing
Foundation for Advancement,
motions in order to
characteristics
"have
or are otherwise
and are not isolated events." Anderson.
Education and Employment of American Indians, 155
F.3d 500, 505-06 (4th Cir 1998).

52. A RICO Enterprise
can be an association
of individuals and corporations.
Superior Bank, FSB v. Tandem Nat. Mortg. Inc, 197 F. Supp2d 298,324
The named Defendants, including Defendants
integral parts of the Enterprise.
(D. Md. 2000).
DBCS and its director Dan Backer were
They engaged in predicate acts of extortion, fraud
and obstruction,
stepped in to take over functions of other Defendants once they were
exposed as fraudulent,
and used their legal muscle in an attempt to intimidate
Plaintiff, drive him out of business and injure his business and property.
Moreover,
the broad damages to Plaintiff support liability for civil RICO. Potomac Electric Power
v. Electric Motor and Supply, 262 F3d 260 (4th Cir. 2001) (even nominal amount of
damages sufficient to support liability in civil RICO case).
53. Defendant Michelle Malkin is a firebrand conservative
commentator,
blogger,
and journalist who regularly appears on FOX News and other Tea Party affiliated
websites.
Her popularity among the far right has garnered
her more than 660,000
Twitter followers and led to her launching Twitchy two years ago. Defendant Twitchy
is a Twitter platform that allows users to spread their tweets to a much greater
audience. Twitchy is so effective for spreading the conservative
just sold to Salem Communications,
message that it was
the largest Evangelical media conglomerate
in the
country.
54. Defendant Malkin is a key figure in the RICO charge alleged by Plaintiff in this
case due to her close involvement
with Defendant National Bloggers Club and its
President, Ali Akbar. Defendant Malkin is not merely close friends with Defendant
Akbar, but admits that she is in fact on the board of his fraudulent
Club. Exhibit 10. She used her reputation
credibility to that fraudulent
enterprise.
National Bloggers
and contacts to provide gravitas and
'if
",if Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant Malkin is connected to
the operation of the RICOEnterprise. This argument is without merit. The SACalleges a
relationship and a conspiracy between Defendant Malkin and Defendant National Bloggers
Club. That relationship is not merely informal or friendly, but rather as stated above, she is
formally on the Board of The National Bloggers Club. In fact, on February 25, 2013,
(footnote continued on next page)
55. Specifically,
national
Defendant
media and more than a half million followers
Plaintiff was a swatter

stating
Malkin and her Twitchy
who targeted
falsely that Defendant
Walker
conservative
platform
propelled
the defamatory
bloggers.
was fired for blogging
to the
narrative
'1/ She published

about
Plaintiff.
that
articles
This led to
(footnote continued from previous page)

Defendant Akbar sent a notice to his Google Group stating both that The National Bloggers
Club is a 501(c)(3) and that Michelle Malkin is on its Board of Directors. ("Board members
include myself. Dennis Pedrie, Andrew Langer, Bruce Carroll, Michelle Malkin, Glenn
Reynolds, John Hawkins, and Matt Margolis. We are a Texas filed non-profit and have ourc3
status pending.") The National Bloggers Club has spent years engaged in mail fraud, wire
fraud and money laundering by defrauding thousands of victims with is false narratives and
false and public portrayals that it is a 501(c)(3) non profit. This conduct of the Enterprise
affected interstate commerce because the fraud took place nationwide, with victims in almost
every state, and wire and mail sent across state lines.
Clearly, the SAC alleges that Defendant Malkin knew of the fraud, false narratives, and
money laundering and agreed with other Defendants, including Defendant Akbar to
participate in the affairs of the conspiracy. In this case, there were not merely two predicate
acts but rather thousands since each money transaction with or by The National Bloggers
Club constituted a separate act of mail fraud, wire fraud or money laundering.
Defendant Malkin was an integral part of the fraud because she gave a relatively unknown
convicted felon and fraudster, Ali Akbar, media exposure, credibility and gravitas as President
of The National Bloggers Club to commit his wholesale fraud without question upon
thousands of victims of that fraud. In other words, without the backing of Defendant Malkin,
Defendant Akbar would not have been known to Defendant Malkin's 660,000 Twitter
followers or her millions of readers. Moreover, once Defendant Akbar was exposed as a
convicted felon and fraudster on probation in the State of Texas, Defendant Malkin hid that
fact from her readers and helped him cover it up. To this day, she has continued to back him
and has never once said a word publicly about his status a felon and fraudster. This kind of
behavior demonstrates guilty knowledge and involvement.
The criminal activity that has occurred in this case, with fraud on a wholesale level,
money laundering, extortion, assault, obstruction of justice, is truly mind boggling, especially
because it involves so many people and organizations that portray themselves as law abiding.
Why would these supposed upstanding people and organizations partner with convicted
felon and fraudster Ali Akbar and falsely tell their conservative friends to donate to a fake and
fraudulent non-profit in order to attack and harm Plaintiff? Why did Defendant Malkin cover
up for Defendant Akbar when he was exposed as a convicted felon and fraudster? Clearly, the
answers to these questions are, because the Defendants were part of the fraud, they were
getting enriched in some fashion, and they were afraid to admit that they were part of the
fraud. This massive criminal Enterprise constitutes a "threat to social well-being."
1/ln a Politico article dated February 8, 2014, entitled "Michelle Malkin Girds for 2014 GOP
Civil War," the reporter states: "Twitter is Malkin's weapon of choice. Battles with her almost
always devolve into wars ...Taunting quips from foes bring out the full force of her Twitter
arsenal, with snappy replies, catchy hash tags and the mobilization of a legion of energized
(footnote continued on next page)
calls by Senators and Congress Members to have the Attorney General investigate
Plaintiff for swatting.
It led to death threats and other threats to Plaintiff and his
family. It led to loss of funding opportunities
to his employer.
Making Money And Destroying

56. Defendant Malkin befriended
Plaintiff
Defendant, convicted felon and fraudster
Akbar, and joined his criminal National B10ggers Club Enterprise

to destroy the reputation
Ali
as a board member
and property of Plaintiff. She used Defendant Twitchy to
magnify the harm of the publications
and blog posts she wrote and linked to.
Defendant Malkin knew that Defendant National Bloggers Club was not a 501(c)(3)
non-profit when she asked her "legion" of followers to donate money to it in order to
"protect conservative
bloggers" from Plaintiffs criminal swatting.
perfectly content to defraud those conservatives
Yet she was
nonetheless.
57. Defendant Akbar as President of Defendant National Bloggers Club has not
only defrauded
narratives
many people out of tens of thousands
of dollars based on the false
about Plaintiff, but he has also never filed any 2012 or 2013 990 tax
returns or normal business filings or provided any financial accounting to the public.
Incredibly, Defendant Malikin and every single one of the Defendants who have filed
responses
to the Complaint have ignored the elephant in the room - that the
fraudulent
National Bloggers Club is a key part of the RICO Enterprise
by committing

followers." Defendant Malkin states in the article: "I see the practically unlimited power that
social media has to help push the issues and cause and people I care about. I know what I am
good at." The article goes on to state: "She has turned her online savvy into the thing most
traditional news organizations have been struggling with: making money."
mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering
on a massive scale. The Defendants
have acted as though this essential fact does not exist because it undermines
arguments
all their
against the RICO case.
The Defendants have not produced any evidence that The National B10ggers Club
was a SOl(c)(3) in 2012 or 2013, because they cannot. They have not produced any
evidence that the Defendants did not defraud people when they asked them to make
tax-deductible
donations
to the National B10ggers Club. They have not produced any
evidence that they did not share in proceeds and glory of the massive fraud
perpetrated
attempted
by Ali Akbar and The National Bloggers Club. They have not even
to justify their behavior.
Instead, all of the Defendants argue technicalities
in the hope that the Court will dismiss this case without ever asking why supposedly
legitimate people, companies and organizations
felon named Ali Akbar who was on probation
joined and conspired with a convicted

for fraud and theft to harm Plaintiff.
These Defendants became part and parceJ of and gave credibility to a fraudulent
Enterprise
called The National Bloggers Club and did so in order to harm Plaintiff and
his property.
In conclusion, Plaintiff has met the pleading requirements
for his RICO claim. 'if
'if In the United States, there are more than seven million people in prison, on
probation or on parole, and there are tens of millions more who, like Plaintiff, have served
their sentences and are no longer under supervision. In the United States, there is a
presumption that once a person serves his sentence and moves on to a legitimate lifestyle that
the person should be able to so unmolested by other members of society.
There are many examples of how profoundly sinister and harmful the Defendants' conduct
has been. But here is one that will drive this home: For many years, since the 2004 Orange
Revolution in Ukraine (Plaintiffs wife is Ukrainian), Justice Through Music has given voice to
activists and musicians worldwide who have opposed oppressive governments. During the
Green Revolution in Iran, Justice Through Music was the leading organization in the United
States supporting the Iranian Youth Movement. This important work was noticed by the State
Department, which for years thereafter brought scores of young activists from around the
(footnote continues on next page)
Defendants
58. Defendants
defamatory
Malkin and Twitchy
Malkin and Twitchy state that they have only made a few
references
about Plaintiff and swattings as if that justifies the tort.
Multiply those two by 660,000 Twitter followers and millions of readers, and that
shows the devastating
toll of these defamatory
mentions.
Tweets can be as damaging
than blog posts or articles as rock star Courtney Love found out when she was sued
for defamation
over a single tweet, which resulted in a $430,000 settlement
judgment.
Defendant Frey Acted Under Color Of State Law, And Other Named
Defendants Conspired With Him In Violation of 42 USC 1983 and 1985
To state a claim under 42 U.s.c.
conspired
S 1985,
a plaintiff must show that the Defendants
with a state actor who acted under color of law under 42 USC 1983 by

world to the United States as part of its International Visitor Leadership Program to learn how
to use social media and the arts to effectuate change in their respective countries. And every
year, those activists from Iran, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia,
Tunisia, Bahrain, jordan and elsewhere came to the offices of Justice Through Music to meet
with Plaintiff and other staffers to learn, experience and ask questions. Some of those activists
went back to their countries and kept in touch and provided videos of their ongoing struggles
so justice Through Music could post them for the world to see. Some of those videos could
not be posted from their home countries because of reprisals from their governments.
When the Defendants decided to destroy Plaintiff and Justice Through Music, they
contacted the State Department and posted articles complaining that the Department was
sending activists to justice Through Music for training and educational purposes. They told
the Department that Plaintiff was a criminal, a swatter and a terrorist. See e.g., the May 25,
2012 article by DefendantThe Blaze entitled, "Why is the State Department Partnering with
Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin."Exhibit 4. And as a result, the State Department no
longer brings these activists to justice Through Music, and the activists no longer know that
they have an advocate for their cause of freedom and democracy, and they do not know that
they can rely on justice Through Music to post their videos when their own governments
target them. In the case of Plaintiff, he does not wear a Scarlett Letter on his forehead. He has
served his sentence, was released from parole, and got a job as director of a non-profit
dedicated to using music and artists to inspire young people to engage in civic participation.
He is a father, husband, and productive member of society and the community. His reputation
as the Director of Justice Through Music is impeccable. The Defendants have no right under
law or otherwise to pillory, harass, stalk, defame or otherwise to pillory, harass, stalk, defame,
assault or otherwise ostracize Plaintiff for any reason, including that he was convicted of
dubious crimes 35 plus years ago.
violating a victim's Constitutional

traditional
a
S 1983
right. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). "The
definition of acting under color of state law requires that the defendant
action have exercised power 'possessed
possible only because the wrongdoer
in
by virtue of state law and made
is clothed with the authority
of state law.''' ld. at
49, quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941). Generally, "a public
employee acts under color of state law while acting in his official capacity or while
exercising his responsibilities
pursuant
to state law." Atkins, 487 U.S. at 50. See also
Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130, 135 (1964) ("lfan individual is possessed
of state
authority
and purports
to act under that authority, his action is state action. It is
irrelevant
that he might have taken the same action had he acted in a purely private
capacity or that the particular
action which he took was not authorized
by state law").
Defendant Frey acted under color of state law when he relied on the authority
State role as a prosecutor
to threaten
to and actively criminally investigate
of his
Plaintiff. A
nexus exists between the wrongful act (the issuance of the threats and the attempts
investigate
to
and imprison Plaintiff for swattings and other supposed crimes) and
Defendant Frey's abuse of his authority
as a prosecutor
for Los Angeles County.
59. Defendant Frey is a Los Angeles District Attorney who has used his position
under color of law to harass, retaliate against, intimidate, threaten
and attempt to
imprison Plaintiff, and incite others to do the same. He is the person all the
Defendants rely on to give their false narratives
of the Alabama Sheriff or Prosecutor
legal credibility.
He is the equivalent
by day and the Klan leader by night directing his
hooded followers to destroy his perceived enemies, including Plaintiff. He regularly
contacts the other Defendants through email, phone, direct messages and other
means of communication
to facilitate his tortious destruction
60. When Plaintiff complained

Defendant Frey retaliated
campaigns.
to Defendant Frey's supervisors
about his conduct,
against Plaintiff by concocting the false swatting narrative.
He wrote an email to Defendant Walker telling him that he had contacted and met
with the FBI in Texas and elsewhere,
Exhibit 3. He contacted
and provided (false) information
about Plaintiff.
Barrett Brown, the head of the hacking group Anonymous and
tried to interest him in targeting Plaintiff. There was an implicit quid pro quo in that
request because Brown was facing legal problems of his own. Frey counseled
Defendant Walker on how to file and prepare legal filings against Plaintiff to make him
appear odious: "No, You have to start with ten seconds of labeling him a convicted
bomber and convicted perjurer, and say this is established
by published
court decisions.
by major media stories and
Then say he obtained the injunction by repeatedly
perjuring himself and that you can prove it.... Ethos first. Then logos. Then pathos."
Frey threatened
to criminally investigate
about (ex)-Defendant
Nadia Naffe after she gave Plaintiff evidence
O'Keefe targeting Plaintiff.
61. In an email from Defendant Frey to Defendant Walker on December 22,2011,

Frey complimented
Walker on a pleading and then said, "This kicks ass. They are
going to go apeshit.
When you blog it, I'II send it to Glenn Reynolds and tell him that I
think this is the guy who swatted me

well-known
conservative
Exhibit 3. (emphasis added). Mr. Reynolds is a
author, professor, blogger and board member of Defendant
NBC. This email clearly shows that Frey was conspiring with Defendant Walker to
create a situation
Frey could use to falsely accuse Plaintiff of swatting.
62. In another email exchange with Defendant Walker, Walker tells Frey, "Now he
[Kimberlin] is going to learn not to fuck with me either." To which Frey replied:
"Yeah, but he is 'fucking' with me. Just not in court. He sends bullshit interrogatories
that he has to know will never get answered.
But mostly he is trying to make me
miserable, publishing my address, hiring people to swat me, Google bombing me,
defaming me, mocking me and so on ..... I just want you to understand
is behind all the things that have happened
psychopath."
that Kimberlin
to me, and that he is truly dangerous
and a
Exhibit 3. (emphasis added). Of course, Plaintiff never hired anyone to
swat Defendant Frey, wasn't behind anything, and never even published online a
single word or tweet about Frey.
63. In other emails to Walker and some of the other Defendants such as Nagy, Frey
states that his office at the LA County District Attorney is "investigating"
had asked Defendant Walker to keep quiet while the investigation
Plaintiff and
proceeded.
Exhibit
3.
64. In another email dated December 19, 2011, he states: "Don't volunteer
you got this stuff. Just because of the investigation.
where
But for that, I would be shouting
all this from the hilltops, but I still think we can put these guys in prison, so I have to
stay quiet." (emphasis added). Id. Exhibit 3.
65.In an email dated January 25, 2012, Defendant Frey told Defendant Walker
while waiting for a jury in a case he was trying. 'Tm having fun. This is what I do:
prove things. I have a jury out so I have a little time tonight [to review the pleading
Walker prepared
regarding
Plaintiff). " Exhibit 3.
66.ln several em ails on December 21,2011, Defendant Frey discussed his planned
meeting with the FBI the following day and setting up a sting operation
enforcement
with law
to arrest Plaintiff. "I don't suggest lying unless it's done under
supervision
of law enforcement
a monitored
sting." Exhibit 3.
as part of a sting .... But it only makes sense as part of
67. On January 5, 2012, Defendant Frey asked Defendant Walker to send him a
letter about Plaintiff to share with his supervisors
and other law enforcement
at the LA County Prosecutors
Office
officials. Exhibit 3.
68.ln a 2012 letter to Defendant Walker's attorney, Defendant Frey repeatedly

relied on his official position as an Assistant District Attorney to argue that Plaintiff
committed
crimes including swattings and should be in prison. At the end of the letter,
he asks the lawyer to call him at work at the Los Angeles District Attorney Office. He
says that he has investigated
Plaintiff and concluded that Plaintiff committed
crimes.
Exhibit 11.
"I ... am currently a Deputy District Attorney with the Los Angeles County District
Attorney's Office, where I have worked since 1997. I am currently a member of the
Hardcore Gang Unit of the District Attorney's Office, prosecuting gang murder cases in
Long Beach. I am writing this letter, not as a member of the District Attorney's Office,
but as a private citizen who has witnessed months of harassment, dishonest, and
indeed criminal conduct by the violent criminal Brett Kimberlin .....
I suspect that ... Kimberlin {and others} are responsible for a hoax call to police
made on July 2011, falsely claiming that there had been a shooting at my home .....
This, crime, by the way, is called 'swatting' ....
The pattern of harassment I have suffered at the hands of Kimberlin ...is further
circumstantial evidence that they were involved in the 'swatting' incident ....
In short, I believe that Brett Kimberlin ... engaged in actions that could have gotten
me killed ....
It was around this time that Aaron {Walker} contacted me asking for me to provide
him with evidence of Kimberlin's perjury ..... I agreed, and forwarded the evidence to
Aaron, including audio clips ... and transcripts I personally prepared from those audio
clips ....
Kimberlin blatantly lied under oath ....
Kimberlin lied about this under oath ....

I am confident that Kimberlin lied about this as well, again under oath ....
After I sent these examples of Kimberlin's perjury to Aaron, he incorporated the
information in alengthy court filing which he also published on his web site. His post
received a link from one of the most heavily trafficked bloggers in the Internet, and
thousands of people read Aaron's post which set fort the evidence of Kimberlin's
perjury ....
I am happy to discuss this letter further with you, your investigator, or any
prosecutor who is considering whether to pursue these charges against Aaron ....
If anyone deserves prosecution, it is Brett Kimberliin, for perjury, for a false police
report against Aaron - and, (if we can prove it) his entire crew for swatting and
related cyberstalking crimes.
I can be reached at 310-266-7549, which is my cell phone, or 562-491-5967, which
is my direct line at work.
Yours truly,
Patrick Frey
69. The above emails and documents

directly communicated
clearly demonstrate
and conspired with several Defendants in this case, falsely
accused Plaintiff of swattings, and tried to have him arrested

enforcement
officers based on his accusations
criminal investigations
and communicated
that Defendant Frey
with his supervisors
by the FBI or other law
and a sting operation.
He discussed
at the LA County District Attorney's
Office
with Defendant Walker while waiting for a jury. He falsely stated
that Plaintiff hired people to swat him. He stated that he investigated

by Plaintiff and presented
that information
alleged crimes
to the FBI, and even flew to Texas to meet
with an FBI agent. These actions are not those of a private citizen but rather a person
acting under color of law.
70. Indeed, Defendant Walker testified at a trial under oath on August 12, 2014,
that Defendant Frey in his official capacity as "an assistant district attorney" bought
into Defendant Walker's false narratives:
Q [By Plaintiff Kimberlin] Whatever, nobody, my point is has anybody in an
official position anywhere bought into your whole narrative,
you know. that I got you fired. That I'm a pedophile. That
I'm a murderer. That I'm a perjurer or any of the other things
that you've tried to get me arrested for and charged with? Has
anybody ever bought into that?
A [By Defendant Aaron Walker] Anyone believed that that's what occurred?
Q Has anybody ever bought into that? Have you ever -MR. OSTRONIC: Objection. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. KIMBERLIN:
Q Have you ever gotten a federal judge, a state judge,
a state's attorney in Howard County, in Carroll County, in
Montgomery County anywhere to say yes. Brett Kimberlin is what
you profess I am?
A Yes, Patrick Frye for example -- ...
A No, he is an assistant district attorney. [Exhibit 12]
71. Not only did Defendant Frey act as a prosecutor
defendants
and others, but he also repeatedly
in his private emails with co-
imputed on his blog that Plaintiff
swatted him. And this false accusation signaled his co-defendants
to write articles
and blog posts stating that Plaintiff swatted "Deputy District Attorney" Patrick Frey.
72. On May 23, 2012. Plaintiff received a threat on his non-profit website contact
page saying: "LEAVE HIM ALONE. DON'T GO THERE." Plaintiff interpreted
threat to leave Mr. Frey alone and not to contact his supervisors.
checked the website contact logs for the sender's
information,
email came from the "Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department,"

146.233.0.202
this as a
When Plaintiff
he discovered
that the
at IP Address
in Whittier, California. Exhibit 13. Only a person acting under color of
law could convince an employee of the LA County Sheriffs Office to write a threat like
that. The person who wrote it would have to feel that he would be "protected"
by
Defendant and Deputy District Attorney Frey against any blowback.

73. In Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637,648 n.23 (1974), the Supreme Court
cited Chief Justice Tauro of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts:
"Unlike a newspaper, the prosecutor

his office. The prosecutor's' personal
government tend(ed) to give to what
tend(ing) to impart an implicit stamp
419 F.2d 582,583-584 (5th Cir.).
ostensibly speaks with the authority of

status and his role as a spokesman for the
he ... (said) the ring of authenticity ...
of believability.''' Hall v. United States,
Defendant Frey's threats were not made by a private individual in his personal
capacity who happened
to also work as a prosecutor
during normal business hours.
Rather, "Patterico," the blogger and Internet persona, had a long, active online history
and presence as the alter ego of Deputy District Attorney John Patrick Frey who used
that presence to violate Plaintiffs rights.
74. Defendant Frey exploited the authority given him by virtue of his state office
when he threatened
to investigate
and imprison Plaintiff for possible criminal
violations. "[A]ction under color of law is always identified by reference

relationship
between defendant's
alleged misconduct
to the
and his state-created
duties and
powers, rather than the status of the parties." Anthony v. Sacramento Sheriffs Dept,
845 F. Supp. 1036, 1401 ED Calif. 1994.See McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th
Cir. 2000) (a public officer is acting under color of state law if he or she "is acting,
purporting,
or pretending
to act in the performance
Dang Vang v. Vang Xiong X. Toyed, 944 F.2d 476,480

relate to state authority,
quoting Murphy v. Chicago Transit Authority, 638
F. Supp. 464, 468 (N.D. lli. 1986)). By threatening
authority
authorized
(9th Cir.1991) ("For conduct to
it must bear some similarity to the nature of the powers and
duties assigned to the defendants,"
criminal investigation
of his or her official duties");
to conduct and conducting
into Plaintiff, Defendant Frey spoke and acted with the
of his office on a subject that uniquely related to his exclusive, stateduties: criminal investigation
and prosecution
of criminal complaints.
His
threats of criminal investigation,
prosecution
and imprisonment
were made in
context of extensive efforts to intimidate and silence Plaintiff from exercising his First
Amendment
rights to free speech and access to the court.
75. Defendant Frey clearly intended to prosecute

though he was not successful.
the wrongful act was completed
and imprison Plaintiff even
Therefore, the "color of law" analysis applies because

when "Patterico" began his investigations
and issued
his threats to imprison Plaintiff for swattings, perjury and and other crimes. For
purpose of the 9 1983 "color of law" analysis, Plaintiff need only show that the
wrongful act alleged is related to the performance
of the state actor's duties. Anderson
v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2006) ("the challenged conduct must be
related in some meaningful way either to the officer's governmental
performance
of his duties"); Anthony, supra, 845 F. Supp. at 1401 ("[wJhether
employee acts under color of law turns on the relationship

performance
status or to the
of the defendant's
a state
of the wrongful act to the
state duties"). The acts to investigate
and imprison
Plaintiff for false criminal violations were intended to retaliate against and silence
Plaintiff. That misconduct,
which led to Plaintiffs constitutional
directly related to Defendant Frey's state-conferred

Attorney to investigate
abused the authority
and prosecute
authority
deprivation,
was
as a Deputy District
violations of law. Because Defendant Frey
of his public position when he tried to imprison Plaintiff for a
false crime, he acted under "color of law" for purposes of 42 U.s.c. 91983.
76. It is settled law that the First Amendment
subjecting an individual to retaliatory
prohibits government
officials from
actions, including criminal prosecutions,
for
speaking out or exercising the right to redress. Cf., Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250,
256 (2006). To show a First Amendment
violation, Plaintiff must plead facts that
demonstrate
or chilled" his speech or right to redress,
that Frey's actions "deterred
and that such deterrence
"was a substantial
or motivating
factor" in Defendant Frey's
conduct. Lacey v. Maricopa COllnty, 693 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff need
not show that his speech or redress was "'actually inhibited or suppressed.'''
Id., citing
Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9thCir.1999).
The
relevant inquiry is "whether an official's acts would chill or silence a person of

ordinary firmness from future First Amendment
activities." Lacey, 693F.3d at 916-17.
Plaintiff must allege facts ultimately enabling him to "'prove the elements of
retaliatory
animus as the cause of injury,' with causation being 'understood
for causation.'
to be but-
Id. at 917, citing Hartman, 547 U.S. at 260.
77. In the instant case, Defendant Frey, because he is prosecutor,

of the conspiracy
to violate Plaintiffs constitutional
to him for leadership
became a leader
rights. The co-defendants
looked
and followed his direction and advice, both private and public,
to falsely accuse Plaintiff of swattings

violation of constitutional
in order to imprison Plaintiff. What greater
rights could occur to a living person than being imprisoned
based on a false criminal charge? Defendant Frey called and met with the FBI and
urged them to arrest Plaintiff for the swattings, and Frey had his sllpervisors at the LA
COllnty District Attorney's Office criminal/y investigate Plaintiff in the hope that they
would find something
on which to imprison him.
78. Clearly Defendants

Defendants
Hoge, Walker, Ace of Spades, Backer and the other
named in the 1985 claim conspired with Frey to violate Plaintiffs civil
rights by publicly and privately pushing the false narrative
concocted by Frey that
Plaintiff was involved with swattings.
Frey along with other Defendants are members
and associates of the National Bloggers Club, which made the false swatting meme its
first and only campaign.
On March 7, 2013, Defendant Akbar, as President of NBC,
tweeted the following: "#Brett Kimberlin picked a fight with Andrew Breibart that
we're going to finish. He'll go to jail this time #BlogBash." (emphasis added). Exhibit
14. This demonstrates
that The National Bloggers Club was being used to deprive
Plaintiff of his liberty based on false criminal charges. Defendants

and Akbar have made Plaintiffs imprisonment
years with thousands
Frey, Hoge, Walker
their life's work over the past three
of tweets and blog posts smearing Plaintiff, their letters to
Congress Members stating that Plaintiff was the swatter and should be imprisoned,
and their false criminal charges against Plaintiff. This call for imprisonment
was
started by Defendant Frey who stated in his December 11, 2011 email that he would
phone a well-known
reporter
and say that Plaintiff was the person who swatted him.
Exhibit 3. fJ./ He also stated that he would meet with the FBI and set up a sting
operation.
Private citizens cannot set up sting operations
to have someone arrested.
79. Plaintiff alleges in his SAC that Defendant Frey, acting under color of law,
conspired
with many of the other Defendants, including Defendant Malkin, to deprive
Plaintiff of his liberty, his right to redress and speech, and his right to due process.
They did this through various means, including threats, intimidation,
narratives,
and false statements
to law enforcement
extortion, false
and Members of Congress.
fJj Defendant Frey told Defendant Walker in an email dated December 22,2011,
that he would call journalist "Glenn Reynolds" to tell him that Plaintiffwas "the guy
who swatted me." And Glenn Reynolds is on the Board of National Bloggers Club, and
is also the person who posted a photo of himself with a shotgun addressed to "Dear
Brett Kimberlin." This demonstrates conspiracy, intimidation, threats, obstruction of
justice, and vigilante action.
80. Like the Mississippi sheriff in 1960 who wore a gun by day and a white robe by
night, Defendant Frey used his position as an LA County Deputy District Attorney to
violate Plaintiffs civil rights and conspired with other Defendants to attack Plaintiff,
to wear him down, to discredit him, to ostracize him, to retaliate against him, and to
create a favorable environment
so he could be arrested
and not allowed to file for
redress or to speak out against these unlawful actions. This meets the standards
under 42 USC 1985.
The Defamation
and False Light Claims
81. Defendants state that Plaintiff has not alleged defamation

without merit. Defendants repeatedly
or false light. This is
stated and imputed that Plaintiff was involved
with swatting conservative
bloggers, which is a horrible crime. False statements
criminal activity constitute
per se defamation
in Maryland. Shapiro v. Massengill, 105
Md. App. 743 (Md 1995) ("In the case of words or conduct actionable
injurious character
is a self-evident
of
per se their
fact of common knowledge of which the court
takes judicial and need not be pleaded or proved.") Harm does not have to be proved
in cases of per se defamation.
82. In Hearst Carp. v. Hughes, 297 Md. 112, 118,466
stated: "[I]t is defamatory
A.2d 486 (1983), the court
'to utter any slander or false tale of another ... which may
impair or hurt his trade or Iivelyhood.' 3 W. Blackstone,Commentaries

England 123 (special ed. 1983). Thus, a statement
employee's]
an the Laws of
'that adversely affects [an
fitness for the proper conduct of his business ... [is] actionable per se at
common law."
83. In the instant case, Defendants repeatedly
published defamatory
statements
that Plaintiff was involved with swattings and this impaired his trade and his
livelihood. Not a single one of the Defendants has ever disavowed these statements
even after the Complaint was filed in this case. Not a single Defendant has ever
provided any proof that Defendant was involved with the swattings.
Instead, they
falsely say that all the persons swatted were critics of Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff did
not even know Eric Erickson were when he was swatted and he certainly had no idea
of his phone numbers or addresses.
Exhibit 7. And to follow the Defendants'
accusing Plaintiff, these same Defendants criticized President

Congressman
Anthony Weiner and virtually every mainstream
people were not accused of swatting.

Defendants
of believability
Obama, Hillary Clinton,

Democrat, yet those
No, only Plaintiff was accused because the
knew they could use the false equivalency
create a semblance
logic for
to gullible readers.
of a 35-year old conviction to

They knew they could
victimize Plaintiff by doing the same thing they are doing with their Motions to
Dismiss, make prejudicial statements
statements
about Plaintiffs past and then justify their false
as warranted.
84. The Defendants invaded Plaintiffs privacy by knowingly, recklessly and

publicly placing him in a false light that was highly offensive to a reasonable
person.
Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg 'IMed. Ctr., 665 A.2d 297, 318 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995).
85. The Defendants, through their various frivolous lawsuits, Peace Orders and
criminal charges against Plaintiff, have been trying to get a judge, any judge, to rule
that Plaintiff is a public figure. On each and every occasion, this argument
In fact, when Defendant Walker prepared
has failed.
a motion for such a finding in another
defamation
case brought by Plaintiff, Kimberlin v. Allen, Montgomery County Circuit
Court #339254, which resulted in a favorable judgment for Plaintiff, Judge Quirk
denied the motion on February 9, 2012.
Docket Date:
02/09/2012
Docket
DescnptlOn:
ORDER, FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF
Docket Type:
Ruling Flied By: Court Status: Denied
Ruling Judge:
QUIRK, JOSEPH M
Reference
Docket(s):
Docket Text:
Docket Number: 140
Motion: 119
ORDER OF COURT (QUIRK, J.) THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECLARE BRETT
KIMBERLIN AS A PUBLIC FIGURE RATHER THAT PRIVATE CITIZEN (D.E. #119) IS
DENIED, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
86. Defendant Walker made the same argument
in a civil case in Prince William
County Virginia but the judge implicitly rejected it when he excoriated
Walker for
filing a frivolous and malicious suit against Plaintiff. Exhibit 15. The judge dismissed
that case on December 4, 2012. Now Defendants
has been repeatedly
are making the same argument
that
rejected by other courts.
87. According to Defendants, the felon class, consisting of tens of millions of

Americans who have served their sentences,
defamation
has no right under the law to sue for
or false light. According to Defendants, the rest of society has the right
under the First Amendment
to defame, smear, trash, harass, stalk, bully and torment
those felons with impunity simply because they are felons.

88. According to the Defendants, if a felon fights back in a court of law, he is a
vexatious litigant in violation of Anti-SLAPP statutes.
Fortunately,
our system of laws
protects everyone equally and Maryland tort laws do not discriminate

make exceptions
against or
for certain classes of people. As former Justice Potter Stewart once
wrote, the essence of a defamation
claim "reflects no more than our basic concept of
the essential dignity and worth of every human being - a concept at the root of any
decent system of ordered liberty." Rosenblatt v. Boer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966)(concurring

opinion).
89. Plaintiff is not trying to silence anyone as the Defendants assert.
Instead, he is
suing the Defendants for engaging in a massive fraud, using false narratives
to enrich themselves
about him
and harm Plaintiff. Plaintiff is suing to seek redress for the
Defendants'
multi-year defamation
campaign.
Amendment
does not protect defamation,
It is well established
that the First
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323
(1974), and all the chest pounding by counsel will not change that.
90. Defendants were not engaged in "commentary"
were members and associates
and conspirators
or fair comment.
of the fraudulent
Instead, they
National Bloggers
Club and used their posts and tweets to close to a million followers to harm Plaintiff
and incite a vigilante mob against him. There is no pubic interest in a citizen falsely
accusing another citizen of a horrible crime and then enriching himself or herself
based on those defamatory
of thousands
statements.
Fair comment does not mean publishing tens
of tweets, posts, campaigns. radio shows, lies to the FBI and Congress, all
with an intent to falsely imprison Plaintiff for a false crime.

This Court Has Personal
91. Personal jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
is appropriate
Over Defendant
Malkin
in this case under Maryland's long-arm
statute. Careftrst of Maryland v. Careftrst Pregnancy Ctrs, 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003).
Specifically, out-of-state
Defendant Malkin has acted in a manner that injured Plaintiff
by directing her tortious conduct toward Plaintiff and Maryland with the knowledge
and intent to cause Plaintiff maximum harm.
92. In Calder v. jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), the Supreme Court found personal
jurisdiction
over Florida reporters
who had written defamatory
articles about a
California actress, because "California [was] the focal point both of the story and of the
harm suffered."
Id. At 789-90. The writers' "actions were expressly aimed at
California ... and they knew that the brunt of injury would be felt by [the actress] in
the State in which she lies and works
93.ln ALS Scan v. Digital Service Consultants, 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002), the court
held that, as a general matter, "[a] State may, consistent
with due process, exercise
judicial power over a person outside of the State when that person (1) directs
electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested
business or other interactions
intent of engaging in
within the State, and (3) that activity creates, in a
person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State's
courts." Id. at 714.
94.
Moreover, Plaintiff has charged the defendants
conspiracy, alleging that the Defendant co-conspirators

liability based on acts taken in furtherance
conspiracy.
with civil and RICO

are subject to civil tort
of the conspiracy
by members
In Mackey v. Compass Marketing, Inc., 391 Md. 117,892
the Maryland Court of Appeals held that co-conspirators
of the
A.2d 479 (2006),
are "agents" under
Maryland's long arm statute:

"As noted above, we have long recognized that the intent of the General
Assembly in enacting 9 6-103(b) was to permit all exercises of personal
jurisdiction that are consistent with due process.
Therefore, given our
conclusion above that the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction is consistent with
due process, and the support in Maryland law for the proposition that coconspirators act as agents of one another when they act in furtherance of a
conspiracy, we conclude that the General Assembly intended a broad
construction of the term "agent" and did not intend to require a showing that
one exercises control over the other. We hold that when the requirements of
the conspiracy theory are met, one co-conspirator may be the "agent" of another
co-conspirator within the meaning of!l 6-103(b )."
Put differently,
furtherance
conspirators
Plaintiffs
of a conspiracy
claim permits certain actions done in
by one co-conspirator
for jurisdictional
purposes.
Maryland, and is a co-conspirator

other Defendants
conspiracy
to be attributed
to other co-
Defendant Hoge lives in Westminster,
within the meaning of the long arm statute.
have all committed
The
tortious acts in Maryland and conspired with
Malkin. Under Mackey, this alone is enough to establish personal jurisdiction.

Defendant
Malkin Focused
On Plaintiff And Maryland
Applying Careflrst, ALS, Mackey and Calder, it is clear that Defendant Malkin did
not merely post information
another audience.
on a passive website located in another state directed at
Instead, she actively, knowingly and intentionally
focused and
directed her blogs and Twitter accounts on Plaintiff, Plaintiffs business, Plaintiffs
associates, and Plaintiffs activities, all of which are located in Maryland. Defendant
Malkin targeted
Plaintiff, and her audience included Marylanders
where she could cause the greatest harm to Plaintiff.
because that is
Defendant Malkin used the
other Defendants as her agents by having them gather information
to defame Plaintiff,
create material that she posted on her blogs, physically harass and stalk Plaintiff, and
cross post the same tweets and the same information.
2/
2/This issue has been addressed recently n this Court in the case of Hare v. Richie,
(Aug. 29, 2012) Civil Action No. ELH.11-3488.ln Hare, the Court held that it had
personal jurisdiction since the defendant not only published the defamatory
information online but also allowed people to comment and urged them on. Similarly,
Defendant Malkin not only published her defamatory posts and tweets, but she asked
people to get involved, to post comments and tweets, demanded that Plaintiff be
investigated, and incited her followers to engage in vigilante action against Plaintiff.
Clearly, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Malkin.
Defendant Ace of Spades' Meritless Arguments

95. Ace of Spades is a blogger and a blog and "has won 'Webbies' for 'Best
Blog' (ZOOS and Z007), Blog of the Year at the Z013 CPAC, and,
Conservative
according to Wikipedia, has also won accolades as the 'Most Obscene Conservative
Ace of Spades' Blog.''' When he speaks, people listen and follow. His argument
the First Amendment
about
is specious and wholly without merit. The First Amendment
does not protect defamation
or cyberbullying.
Ace of Spades chose to create his
"obscene" blog and defame people. Defamation is an actionable tort under Maryland
law. Anonymous bloggers do not get a grant of civil immunity simply by virtue of
their anonymity.
As noted, Plaintiff is not a public figure or even a limited public
figure but even if he were, the malice of Ace of Spades and the others Defendants
clear with their calls for imprisonment
and loss of his job for a false crime.
96. Contrary to counsel's argument, Ace of Spades engaged in wholesale

defamation
is
and per se
against Plaintiff, not once, but multiple times. See SAC at 30-3Z. For
example, he falsely stated, imputed and published in five articles that Plaintiff
committed
the crime of"swattings,"
that he was involved with terrorism"
and
"murder," that he was trying to "kill" people, that he is a "thug" and "nefarious,"
that he is running "scams," that he is engaged in "lawless vigilantism," that he is
involved with "ongoing crimes," that he is engaged in "alarming harassments,"
that he
is a "menace," that he is a "one-man crime wave," that he is "escalating" his criminal

activities, that he is engaged in a "crime in progress," that he is "abusing and
corrupting"
the justice system, that his life is one of "escalat[ing]
is "a dangerous
risk taking," that he
man," that he is engaged in "digital" and "real life terrorism,"
that he
is a "malicious threat to society:' and that he is engaged in "lawfare."

of Spades make these defamatory
statements
and publications,
Not only did Ace
he demanded
action
by others, including Congress, to stop Plaintiff through various actions including

imprisonment
and passing a bill of attainder.
against Plaintiff based on defamatory

will happen.
His publications
hysteria-either
Ace of Spades was using his defamatory
were a call to arms
stop Plaintiff or terrible things

statements
to destroy Plaintiff
by any means. fJ./

Defendants
Defendants
Backer And DBCS' Frivolous
Backer and DBCS make several frivolous arguments
an extended response.
Arguments
that do not deserve
They assert that this suit is barred by res judicata and
collateral estoppel because of prior rulings by Judge Motz and by the Circuit Court of
Montgomery
County. The short answer to this is that neither Defendant Backer nor
DBCS were parties to those suits, and the issues in the various suits are completely
different.
Therefore, collateral estoppel and res judicata are inapplicable
Defendants
Plaintiff
to
Backer and DBCS.

Has Properly
97. Defendants
Alleged Intentional
Infliction
of Emotional
Distress
Hoge, Walker and others callously argue that Plaintiff has not made
any allegation to demonstrate
infliction of emotional distress.
fJ./ Ace of Spades argues that Plaintiff did not differentiate between Ace of Spades the blog
from Ace of Spades the blogger and therefore Plaintiffs case against Ace of Spades the blogger
must be dismissed. However, it is clear from the pleadings that the blog and the blogger are
one and the same. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, the plaintiff need not
necessarily plead a particular fact if that fact is a reasonable inference from facts properly
alleged. Whee/din v. Wheeler, 373 U.s.647, 648 (963).
98. The Restatement

extreme and outrageous
(Second) of Torts, 46 at 71, provides: {"(I) One who by

conduct intentionally
or recklessly causes severe emotional
distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily
harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm." In comment (i) to the
Restatement
it is expressly stated that this rule also covers a situation where the
actor knows that distress is certain, or substantially
certain, to result from his
conduct. In order to satisfy the element of extreme and outrageous
conduct, the
conduct "must be 'so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of

decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable
in a civilized
society.''' Batson v. Shij7ett, 325 Md. 684, 733 (Md. 1992).9/

99.
In the instant case, Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants engaged in
outrageous
and extreme conduct by falsely publishing defamatory
accusing him of crimes and nefarious conduct, demanding

arrested
and imprisoned
statements
that he be investigated,
for swattings, publishing tens of thousands
of tweets and
9/ Illustrative of the cases which hold that a cause of action will lie for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, unaccompanied by physical injury, is Womack v.
Eldridge, 215 Va. 338 (1974). There, the defendant was engaged in the business of
investigating cases for attorneys. She deceitfully obtained the plaintiffs photograph
for the purpose of permitting a criminal defense lawyer to show it to the victims in
several child molesting cases in an effort to have them identitY the plaintiff as the
perpetrator of the offenses, even though he was in no way involved in the crimes.
While the victims did not identitY the plaintiff, he was nevertheless questioned by the
police, called repeatedly as a witness and required to explain the circumstances under
which the defendant had obtained his photograph. As a result, plaintiff suffered shock,
mental depression, nervousness and great anxiety as to what people would think of
him and he feared that he would be accused of molesting the boys. The court, in
concluding that a cause of action had been made out, said: "Most of the courts which
have been presented with the question in recent years have held that there may be a
recovery against one who by his extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or
recklessly causes another severe emotional distress ...."
blog posts smearing Plaintiff and accusing him of crimes, filing three frivolous and
malicious lawsuits against him, sending a defamatory
falsely accusing him of crimes, attempting
rallying extremists
with false narratives
amount of tens of thousands
letter to an institutional
to extort his employer into firing him,

to attack him, filing for sanctions in the
of dollars and imprisonment,
to deny him access to the courts. This abhorrent

siege for years, and incited extremists
his daughter, and make threatening
funder
and asking a federal court
conduct has kept Plaintiff under
to come to his home, take pictures of him and

calls to him, his family and his neighbors.
No
person in a civilized society should be made to endure such conduct.

100.
Moreover, Defendants conspired with the other Defendants to imprison
Plaintiff based on their false narratives
that Plaintiff was involved with swattings.
This constitutes
conduct that intentionally
extremely outrageous
inflicted emotional
distress on Plaintiff. There are not many things in this country worse than being
falsely accused of crimes and then having those false accusations
attack relentlessly
and daily with tens of thousands
incite a lynch mob to
of tweets and posts and articles,
and stalkers over a period of years. This is atrocious and has absolutely no place in a
civilized society.
101.
Not a day goes by where Plaintiffis not attacked, online or in person, by
one or more of the Defendants. Defendant Walker came to a courl hearing in

Monlgomery County Circuit Court and. after the proceeding to which he was not a party.
1,)lIowcd PlaintilTout oflhe courtroom and assaulted him so severely hc ended up in the
Emergcncy Room at Suburban Hospital. This resulted in days off of work and a fear that
Defendants will again assault Plaintiff or his family. Defendants Walker, 1I0ge, McCain
and Akbar have stalked Plaintiffin public places. Defendants Walker, Hoge and DB
Capitol Strategies have filed numerous
false criminal and civil actions against Plaintiff
over a two-year period, all which have been dismissed or denied.

Walker and some of the other Defendants
Defendants
Hoge,
publish daily taunts against Plaintiff and
mock this suit with daily posts on their blogs, and continually assert that they are
going to get Plaintiff imprisoned.
who donate to that non-profit.
They have attacked Plaintiffs employer and those

The Defendants
have tried to get Plaintiff fired. They
have attacked Plaintiffs wife and teenage daughter and even reporters
who have
written favorably about Plaintiff. They have even attacked prosecutors
who have
refused their frivolous charges, Defendant Walker has even imputed in a recent blog
post that Plaintiffs daughter is fair game for destruction
because of "corruption
of
blood."
102.
All of this has been intended to inflict maximum emotional distress on
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has had to install robust security devices and video cameras at his
home and office, and take precautions
for his family that no young child should have
to be subjected to, all because the Defendants

narratives
to terrorize
have created a lynch mob based on false
Plaintiff and his family on a continuous
Clearly, Defendants inflicted intentionally
multi-year basis.
emotional distress on Plaintiff.
Conclusion
Wherefore, for all these reasons, all the Motiol~ismiss
should ~rfe~ied.
!Resqt~~IIP'Su~itte~
Breh~&J
Certificate of Se
Ice
J certify that J emailed copies of this motion and exhibits to attorneys for the named
defendants and Defendants Akbar, National Bloggers Club, and Stranahan, and mailed
copies to Michael Smith, and Defendants Hoge, Walker and McCain this
December, 2014.
Bret
erlin
8100 Beech Tree Rd
Bethesda, MD20817
j lIsticejtm p@comcast.net
(301) 320 5921
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 231-1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 1

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION
FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HARYLAllD
201~DEC-8
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
CLER' 'S OFFICE
AT GREEHBELT
v.
No. GJH 13 3059
BY
t3 U
NATIONAL BLOGGERSCLUB, et al
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LIST FOR HIS GLOBAL RESPONSE

TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
1. Aaron Walker Termination
2. False Statement
Letter
Re NBC 501c3 Status
3. Emails To And From Patrick Frey, Aaron Walker And Others

4. The Blaze Article Attacking Justice Through Music
5. Dan Backer False Blog Post Re Swatting
6. Federal Court Decision Denying Glenn Beck's Motion To Dismiss
7. Brett Kimberlin Declaration Under Oath
8. Dan Backer Letter To Foundation
Making False Accusations of Crimes
9. Email Threat Not To Go To Court

10. Published Statement That Michelle Malkin On NBC Board
11. Patrick Frey Letter To Attorney Bours
12. Partial Transcript
PH 3: 08
Of Aaron Walker Re Patrick Frey Official
13. Threat From LA County Sheriffs Department
Re Patrick Frey
14. Ali Akbar Tweet Re Sending Brett Kimberlin To Jail

15. Judge Potter's Decision Dismissing Aaron Walker's Malicious Lawsuit
DEPUTY
.;'.-"
Gmall. Your couner can come by this afternoon ..

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH
Document 231-2 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 7
1012112
GMaii
. ...
.----------_._---
-------------------~._._.
Your courier can come by this afternoon ...
------_._-----------_._---
__ ._----------_.-
----
----------
JimHodges~
To: Aaron WaIKe~g;:nai[Com>
- -_._-Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM
Aaron,
Thank you for agreeing to have the laptop and other company property picked up by a courier today.
I will have
someone from laser Courier out there later this afternoon. As for your property, we will take all of the property
identified in your email out of your office and delivered to your address by courier no later than Wednesday. To that
end, we have confirmed that you
health care industry publications,
We note, however, that the fact
PHRI's office, to draft a complaint
were not reimbursed for any expenses related to legal publications, other than the
so all of those books will be included in the package that we deliver to your home.
that you might need any of your personal reference materials, which you kept in
in private litigation is not the responsibility of PHRI. Also, unless you have a
deadline for filing your complaint this week, which is almost certainly not true, then you will be able to make use of
those materials in plenty of time to draft your complaint.
It is unfortunate that y"u still do not grasp the gravity of what you have done, and the risk that you have created for
your co-workers at PHRI. If the situation is serious enough for you to alert no less than two local police departments,
then it is serious enough for PHRI to protect its employees and prohibit you from returning to its offices. If you have
any ability to empathize with the concerns of PHRI's personnel, you would not even attempt to return, even after
hours. Apparently, you chose to start a blog for the express purpose of showing disrespect to the adherents of a
major religion, which could be calculated to incite violent reprisals on the part of the most extreme elements of that
religion. You also wrote disparagingly, even if accurately, about at least one person that you have described as a
"terrorist."
Perhaps that is the reason that you did so under a pseudonym - and understandably so given the threats
leveled against others who published material that is considered offensive to such people. Now that your identity
has been revealed, however, anyone with whom you associate can be considered a potential target. Thus, PHRI has
a duty to act in ways that keep you from further exposing its employees to such risks. Finally, you write that
whatever fear you have created is "beyond all rationality."
If that is true, then why did you call the police, and why
do you possess firearms? You cleverly denied possessing "handguns" in your email. but you did not deny possessing
firearms of any kind. Whatever second amendment rights you exercise, it can be assumed that setf-protection
the current circumstances is one of the primary reasons that you do so.
under
As for the reasons for your termination, while PHRI would have been justified in terminating you for your grossly
irresponsible actions related to your blogging, especially on company time (many of your posts bear time stamps
during normal working hours) the actual reason for your termination is the incredibly irresponsible way that you
performed legal services for PHRI (or failed to) over the past four years, both as an outside attorney and, since July of
2011, as an employee of PHRI. As I mention~d to you on Friday, the state of your office is almost beyond
description. Most of the legal documents in your office are piled haphazardly in no less than five legal size paper
boxes, without regard to any kind of organization, filing, chronology, etc. The few files that were actually stored in
your file cabinet are not filed alphabeticalfy or by subject matter. Even those appear to be incomplete and provide
no basis for determining what actions were taken or remain to be taken to conclude the matter. It is also obvious
that most of the work that you did in that office, as revealed by the stacks of documents on top of your desk, relate
to personal business, including your various blog activities. In fact, it is difficult to determine what you were working
on for PHRI over the last few weeks, if anything. (Your characterization of your office as "messylt is belied by the
photographs that we took to document the actual condition of that room.) The few
PHRI business do not indicate the current status of the matters to which they relate
of retracing steps and contacting numerous third parties to determine where things
will cost PHRI significant sums, including the cost for outside counsel to communicate
continue the representation
hflpS
IImall.
gooqle_com/ma;lJ?ui=2&,k::~272c2J95&1I
of PHRI, as necessary. Given those circumstances,

iew=PI&Q::~l.Imeertln
documents that did relate to

and PHRI is now in the position
stand. Obviously, those efforts
with third party counsel and
it seems clear that you failed to
alter%3AZ011 "l.ZF 1%2F 1 bet
liZ
Gmall - Your couner

can ceme bV tr':ISarlemOOf'l
Document
231-2 ...Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 7
10/2112
perform your duties as counsel to PHRI, in favor of pursuing your personal interests, while being paid by PHRI. Thus,
PHRI is entirely justified to terminate
your employment for cause related to your failure to perform in accordance
with its expectations and with your obligations as a member of the Virginia State Bar. Obviously, even if PHRI had a
severance policy, which it does not, you would not be entitled to receive any such compensation under the
circumstances. Rather, PHRI would be justified if it sought reimbursement from your for amounts paid for services
that you did not perform or during periods during which you did not perform services.
In light of all the above, and in the context of your activities outside the scope of your employment, if you must
consider yourself to be a victim, it is only of your own irresponsible actions. PHRI does not have a responsibility to
provide you with a Usoft landing" from those actions in the form of unearned compensation. It is interested,
however, in entering into an agreement with you that will provide certain benefits to both parties. Accordingly,
PHRI proposes to agree that your termination
was by mutual consent rather than as a termination
for cause, that
the parties will waive any claims that they have against the other, and that the parties will agree to confidentiality
terms that will include a provision that they will not refer to each other in any form (including in anything that you
author such as blogs, books, etc.). PHRI also proposes to pay you and your wife through the end of last week and to
provide a certain amo!.:nt of severance to Mary in recognition of her many years of service to PHRJ. She is not
considered to be responsible for the current circumstances and PHRI regrets that she has been caught up in these
issues. If you are willing to agree to the terms set forth in general above, I will draft an agreement for your review.
We would like to get it done by Wednesday, along with the return of your properly. If you are not willing to enter
into such an agreement, please let me know immediately.
Jim Hodges
Hodges & Associates, P.c.
11325 Random Hi/is Road, Suite 400
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(703) 779-5700
(703) 779.0200
p.s. To respond to your personal question to me, no, I was not afraid of you when I met you in the lobby of my
building (although I did not know that you possess firearms at that time). Butl met you in the lobby to avoid the
appearance of you having any association with the company that provides me with office space. You chose to poke
at a group that is known for violent reprisals, apparently in the name of asserting first amendment rights (even
though the U.S. Government is not involved in suppressing cartoons about Mohammed). And you were fearful
enough of your adversaries to alert the police in two counties. So it would be unreasonable for you to condemn
common sense efforts to protect those who have nothing to do with your activities as "beyond all rationality."
In
hindsight, do you still consider your "Everyone draw Mohammed"
to be a credible appraiser of rationality.
From: Aarc>n_W~I~r
blog to be rational?
If so, I would not consider you
gmail.com>
Date: Man, 16 Jan 2012 13:41:17 -0500

To: James Hodges
Subject:
(Quoted
Your courier
can come by this afternoon
...
Ie>:! nldden]
hllos /lmar1.g00qle.cemlmall!?ut=2&lk=9c272c2395&v l~pl&a=klmber1ln
at ter%3A'01' %2F 1%:<'F 1 bel
2/2
Gma,l Urgent
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document
231-2 Filed 12/08/14 Page 3 of 7
1012112
....
------
---~~
-------~---~--. -----------------
Urgent
Jim Hodges
[
To: Aaron Walker
Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 508 PM
&
Aaron,
Apparently
your chickens are beginning
to come home to roost.
We have been informed
that PHRI will be a target
of protests and formal diplomatic actions if the groups behind those actions are not informed immediately that you
are no longer employed by PHRI. Under the circumstances, we believe that you have a duty to prevent any
involvement
of PHRI in the situation
continuously
post prominent
that you have created.
notices in every publication
newspapers, etc., that your employment

you will be liable for any damage
incurred
Please copy me on all announcements
To that end, we demand
to which you contribute,
with PHRI was terminated

by PHRI and/or
ad
effective January 13, 2012, If you fail to do so,
its personnel
that you publish in accordance
that you immediately
including blogs, online magazine,
arising out of your activities
and publications.
with this demand.
Thank you,
Jim Hodges
Hodges & Associates, P.c.
11325 Random Hills Road, Suite 400
(703)779-5700
(703) 779.0200
111
Gmall Urgent
231-2 Filed 12/08/14 Page 4 of 7
, 0/2112
Urgent
-_._------
---------------------_._--
AaronJW1972
To: Jim Hodges
---- --------_._--_._- -Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Jim
Jim
Who exactly has contacted
you and what did they say?
Aaron
Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted
l~xt hidden]
1/1
to'2/12
-_._--_.----------Urgent
." .
- ------------------_._-----------------
---_._-------_._--------_._--
-- ---------------_._-
Jim Hodges
To: AaronJW 19
----
--_.
Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:02 PM
Aaron,
We are not inclined to prol.ide more grist for your mill. Please comply
with our demand immediately. We are in the process of notifying the
appropriate authorities on our own, But you ha>.e a duty to publish the
infonmation concerning your employment immediately, completely, and
effecti>.ely.
Jim Hodges
Hodges & Associates, P.C.
(703) 779-5700
(703) 779-0200
(Quoted
lext hlddenj
htl ps Jim arl.google_com/malll'1ui"2 &,k"9c272c2395
&v iew=pt&q "J hodges %40hodg~-law com&qs "true ..
'"
Gmad Urgent
231-2 Filed 12/08/14 Page 6 of 7
1012/12
__ .._-_._----------
---- ._---------- -_._-_ ..

Urgent
Aaron Walker
To: Jim HOdges
"-'-
_.-
-- --------- -
Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Jim,
This is the last time I am going to let you interrupt my e\ning with my wife.
If you want me to share your concern or your sense of urgency or if you want me to con\lince anyone else to
share it, you ha\ to proloideme with infonnation. If you would like me to promise, as a condition of sharing that
infonnation, that I will not publicize what you lell me, I am amenable to that. I will want to share the infonnation
with law enforcement if that becomes necessary, but I will not publicize it. But you are asking me to do a fa\Or
for a company that has treated me and my wife \ry shabbily based on blind faith and I am not prepared to do
that.
1
Also please infonn Eileen that she is not to contact my mother-in-law any more. If she has concems for our
safety, she can communicate them to us-through you, I suppose.
Aaron
IQuoted
text hidden!
hiltS Ii milll, gOO'ille.comfmaIU?ui"2
8,rk"9c272c 2395&\1 iew:pl&q:oJ hodgt!!lo%40hodg~.law. com 8.l1s"'true ..
111
Gmail. Urgent
231-2 Filed 12/08/14 Page 7 of 7
10/2112
--
----------- --_ ....._.~'--. _.--~----------_._----------------_

Urgent
--------- ------------- ._----JimHodges~
__
..
~---_. . __ ._-------
_ ..
Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:42 AM
To.AaronWal~~om>
Aaron,
I apologize for interrupting
be so disruptive.
your evening with your wife. I was not aware that sending email to your account could
As to the issues at hand, you have not addressed our demand that you publish an announcement
concerning the
termination of your employment. Vve can only take from your refusal to respond that you will refuse to do so. As you
are well aware, that refusal to confirm your dissociation with your former colleagues will tend to put them in harm's
way. If the publication of your name, address and place of employment in court filings constitutes an overt threat on
your life, as you have asserted in writing, your refusal to announce that your employment at PHRi has ended is no
less threatening
to the people who still work at your former place of employment.
So we ask you one more time to
locate your conscience, put the well-being of others ahead of your curious concept of your self-interest and let your
enemies, real and/or imagined, know that you do not work at PHRI any longer. Your former colleagues and those
that care about them may have good reason in the future to thank you for it.
Jim Hodges
Hodges & Associates,
P.c.

(703) 779-5700
(703) 779-0200
From: Aaron Walker
gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:20:12 -0500

To: James Hodges
Subject:
Re: Urgent
IQuoled text hldd~nJ
",

Dear Friend,
Many of us have had intricate ideas about launching an organization for bloggers, by blogger~
- but never had the time, willpower, or funds to pull it off. Some of us wanted an academy.
while others wanted more of an association. For a time, there was an association for the left
and right "media bloggers."
Let 2012 be there year that we did it! I'd like to announce the formation of the National
Bloggers Club, a 501 (c)(3) non-profit. We have no big industry backers, no big connected
family finance here, and we haven't hijacked a direct mail list to raise money from.
_..J
~e-=.ill"
sLed a : scheme. We con't nee<1anybody to dictate how this ...

il! ,)<:::-: au
10 us. We will build this together.
I have solicited initial funds from my company, because my
partners loa feel very passionate about blogging, and from friends and organizations inside 01
the movement. These very same friends are the people who step up every year to throw our
annual Blog Bash. It is why 810g 8ash is now incorporated under the National 810ggers Club
so that we may continue this strong tradition of giving to bloggers - people who truly care
about our country, and more often than not don't get paid anything to do so.
A few goals that I personally have in store for this organization include:
1. Start a dialog with not just the National 810ggers Club, but with other organizations in
the movement, to determine how exactly citizen journalists can monetize their blogs or
receive grants to continue their work.
2. Establish a media credentialing or photo identification process (that starts tonight).
3. 8uild an influential membership with which we can start to weigh in to issues that altec
all blaggers - not just political issues, but process and protocol - which conferences w
get into. what access can be granted, what space we have.
Now, I want you to know, we're not a political organization - not at all! Stewards that will be
placed on our board and in leadership positions will never have to pick favorites because
they're pushing one issue or another, or because they're friends with this director or that
director, or besnuse !heY\;8 attended an event with this organization or that think tank. The
entire focus of this organization is to be for bloggers, by bloggers, and to empower us to do
what we do - investigate, report, hold accountable, promote activism, and spread opinion.
You see, my start in national politics came from blogging. I had a loud mouth and a big
opinion, and readers and fellow bloggers welcomed me. Let's build something together!
Sincerely,
Ali A. Akbar
President, National Bloggers Club
A.w.
- ...._---_.-
~mail.com>
To: Pa~
..-_._-------------------------_._--------Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:59 AM
gmail.com>
Besides there is a reason why Brett newr sued u. He knew you'd kick his ass. Now he is going to leam nolto
fuck with me either.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 24,2011, at 1:53 AM, Patrick Frey ~gmail.com>
wrote:
(Quoted text ~idden)
-----_._---------------------_._---_
Patrick Fre
To: "A.W."
gmall.com>
gmail.com>
~_ ~~-----------
... ..
Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 2:02 AM
Yeah, bu1 he is "fucking" with me. Just nol in court. He sends

bulls hit interrogatories that he has to know will ne\er gel answered.
But mostly he is trying to make me miserable, publishing my address,
hiring people to swat me, Google bombing me, defaming me, mocking me,
and so on.
Just understand that you will likely be in for this kind of treatment.
p
Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted text hidden)
Patrick Frey~mail.com>
To: "A.W." ~majl.com>
Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 2:09 AM
The fact thal scm eone will fuck with you that way is not a reason nol
to do the right thing - and I think you're doing the right thing.
I just want you to understand that Kimberlin is behind all the things
that ha\e hap~ened to me, and that he Is truly dangerous and a
psychopath.
P
Sent from my ,Phone
On Dec 24,2011. at 1:00 AM. "AW." ~gmajl.com>
wrote
FBI meeting
:
Wi
---------,-,-------------------------------_._-_.-
Patrick Frey
mail.com>
Libe
Chick
gmail.com>,
@gmal.Com>,
0 glas Stewart
yahoo.com>
Dustin F
Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:25 PM

gmaH.com>, Aaron Worthing
gmail.com>, Mike Stack
Met with the Dallas FBI today in person, as well as a cyber crimes
Asststant U.S. Attomey. One of the agents reads my blog and Ace's and
has heard of Mandy. He was already familiar with Kimberlin and
generally remembered Ace's and my coo,erage of Weiner and the threat
from Alicia Pain. You couldn't ask for a more appropriate person to
talk to.
They totally understand the swatting phenomenon and approached this

like political retaliation, which is what it is. They can't take o-.er
the case but can gi-.e a<Mce to the L.A. ollice. They explained that
the phone records actually might take 6 months due to the nature of
the specific information sought. Howe-.er, he will talk to the LA.
Office to make sure they are obtaining the correct information in the
most efficient manner
I asked what I can personally do to ensure that lhese peeple go to
prison. The answer is: if you ha-.e a brog, set your settings to gather
the maximum amount of information possible. Keep meticulous records
and notes - our screenshots are good.
Ultimately, the goal is to catch the hackers slipping - be able to
trace a criminal act back to a specific computer so they can execute a
search warrant. He is more concerned about targeting the computer than
the person. Things like -.ojce comparisons and inteNews they would
S2\oefor after someone is charged; they would not really consider it
probable cause to ha-.e a positi-.e \(lice match, because of how
inconclusiloe it is.
They thought my call sounded like Ron. They thought the Blog Talk
Radio call sounded like the New Jersey call. They said Ron being on
the line with me was a typical MO - they like to be on the phone when
it happens. They think if we can get a search warrant, we will ftnd a
recording of the call on their computers. They like to record the
calls and replay them. Ha.
ng me on the phone was hog hea\en for Ron,
they suspect.
Basically we ha..e to keep monitoring their IPs and tie a computer not
hidden behind the Tor Project or something similar to a crime. I ha-.e
a feeling these people would haloe pursued Ron fof his threats to me
and my wife, but the agent kept stressing that it's not his case and
he can't set LA's priorities.
He also stressed what we pretty much already knew: the continued

1011/12
Gmall - F61 meelng
harassment is a good indication of who did the swatting because this

is what all swatters do. They Google Bomb you, try to get you fired,
defame you, call pesticide companies to -.isit your house, call Child
Protecti\e Ser.ices on you, taunt you, etc. And the closer you get to
the truth and the more danger they sense they're in, the more the
harassment escalates.
This last part was oddly reassurlng because people keep implicitly
blaming me for getting "myself caught up in this. These people
stressed that these tactics are common. I felt a little Uke a rape
o,Actimmight feel upon being told: it's not your fault. (Just an
analogy and not to compare the crimes. I want to stress.) You're
allowed to go that part of town or wear those clothes - or (i n my
case) express political opinions on the Internet.
It's not our fault. Mike.
So I don't know how much closer we are to catching them, but I feel
happier. I mean Neal basically announced today that he and Kimberlin
are responsible for the harassment We just ha\e to keep watching,
keep taking notes and screens hots, keep sharing informatIon, and try
to catch them committing a crime with an unprotected computer.
Er ... easy enough, right?
Let's keep our chins up. Soon high tech in\estigators from my office
will be on it, and they might be more motl..ated. Don't gi..e up. We'll
get them.
We'll get them.
p
Sent from my iPhone
rutol .." rlvJ
To: Aaron Worthing

<
Cc: Uberty Chick
IhU, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:22 AM
This is way belter. You still haw a lot of blanks to fill in and such
but the o-..erallargument packs a punch the first one didn't. If the
judge reads this, you'll win Seth's case for him as well as your own.
Marl< Singer not Sanger.
Mandy should look in the
either side of the one she
article in question named
the pages is around page
like thaI. It's the final part
now.
book for another page (within 10 pages on

sent you) which specifically says Ihe
him as a suspect. I am pretty sure ion of
93 and the other is around page 98. Something
of the syllogism and it's missing right
Yau didn1 say Just Call Me Lefty has called himself a Kimberlin
supporter. I sent you thai quote and link last night
This kicks ass. They are going to go apeshiL When you blog ii,
1~1/12
Gmlll
-late,.
ru
draft ...
send it to Glenn Reynolds and teU him I think this is the guy who
swatted me, and in any e-..entit's just an extraordinary takedown of
someone trying to out a blogger for nefarious reasons. Your post will
be a hit, I predict.
I would like to read the final draft before submission because
Whate-..ermy olher faults, I am a pretty strong proofreader. So I think
it would be good to be able to go line by line with a final draft.

Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 8:30 PM
Patterl~gmail.com>
To~gmail.com
Haw supporting points ready for anything he questions or wants to hear more about.
P
(Quoted text hiddenl
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Patterl~gmail.com>
To:-.wmaif.com
The steps are:
1) Get out your point
2) Make sure he gets the point
3) Make sure you support anything he indicates you ha\ef11pro\en
P
(Quoted toxt hidden!
~gmall,com
~~gmail.com>
~gmail.com>
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 8:45 PM
Then it seems like I need to start by asking for the relief. Then go thru his crim record...
Sent ftom my iPhone
(Quoted text hidden)
rttp9: /Ima1.g0C9". eomlm i1'7ui-2&.ik=4cc57a02Oc&~ ~t&q.q,;imbertan
aftet%3A201 0'%2F 1%2F 1 bet ...
Gmilll- Scnbc 2.0
at"12
Patterlco ~gmall.com>
To ~@gmail.com
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM
No. You ha..e to start with ten seconds of labeling him a con'oicted bomber and con'oicted perjurer, and say this is
established by major media stories and by published court decisions. Then say he obtained the injunction by
repeatedly perjuring himself and that you can prow It. It should take only ten seconds or fewer to say that, but
you ha-.e to lead with that.
Ethos first. Then logos. Then pathos.
P
Patrick Frey <

To: Aaron WorU.ng
Co: Uberty Chick
mail.com>
gmail.com>
gmail.ccm>
Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:07 AM
You sure you don' want to follow up with Neal just to see what hap~s?
I don1 suggest lying unless It's done under the supel'.lsion of law enfOfcement as part of a sting. But is there any
harm in following up just to see where it goes?
p
Sent from my iPhone
[Quo led teld n1dden)
Aaron Worthing
~gmaiI.Com>
Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:13 AM
~tlps.:/lmaA.9OCY')e..com/maill?ui'"2&ik.Ol b07 44120&" lcY.-pt&q=klmber1in
~ tll!lr%3A2011 "42F 1%2F 1 bel ...
101,.
Gm~_Kmbowiin pepy
1Qf2J12
To: Patrick Frey ~gmail.ccm>

Okay, talk to them. makes me wish a family mend in the FBI was still ali-.e.
You would\e I,ked him. He was a lawyer, who occasionally canied an M.16.
Aaroh
(Quoted text hidden)
Aaron Worthing
To: Uberty Chick
Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:17 AM
try taking the pic, but if that doesn' work. i will trust you to accurately transcribe the relelBnt part.
Alii want is the part where Breit Kimbertain talks about knowing he was a suspect.
was a suspect, but proof that he knew he was a suspect.
So its not just proof that he
Aaron
[Quoted teld hidden)
-----------------------_._----------~-------------
Patrick Frey ~m>

To: Aaron Wort~mail.ccm>
Wed, Dec 21,201 t at 1:26 AM
I just think it would be kick ass if you ga..e a ccmpletely made up identity to Rauhauser, and then Kimbertin tried
to ser.e that person, and their name was spread all 0_ Just Call Me Lefty etc.
But it only makes sense as part cf a monitored LE sting.
Patterlco
Sun, Jan 8,2012 at 8:16 PM
Good luck. let us know what happens. Hey Mandy, can we get the attorney sel'oice on board to pull the audio
ASAP?
Legal Notice From Brett Kimberlin

Thu, Dec 15,2011 at 1:27 AM
Kimberlin committed pe~ury three times. I hCl\e the clips. J tried to get major media to look at It but then my office
asked me to back off while they inwstigate and I said OK
p
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 14, 2011, at 10:17 PM, Aaron Worthing~gmail.com>
[Quoted te~t hidden)
wrote:
Patrick Frey ~gmail.com>

To:"A.W."~mail.com>
As to Neal. gi-.e
it
until tomorrow aftemoon. I meet with the FBI at 10:45 am tomorrow.
P
Sent from my iPhone
[Quotod text hlddenj
Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:56 AM
Case
Document
231-4 Filed 12/08/14
I Plea~e add
thi;8:13-cv-03059-GJH
q~~i~:
~'My~~pl~~~-h;;
~;';;~hi~t~'~~~k;~
I private
Page
a 10 of 18
citizen, and I am utterly undeterred by Mr. Kimberlin's thuggish tactics. I

: ha..e continued to
'lite about him during this pallem of harassment, and I will
continue to speak out truthfully about him whenel.ef there ;s a story to be told.
People who know me are aware that I don't allow myself to be intimidated."
'
I
,
I
: I don't want there to be any mistake about whether I am intimidated. I worry that
. the line about how things ha~ escalated may lea..e the wrong impression - but
I it won't if you include the abo~ quote .
,
Make sure you mention the lawsuit threats and Friedman's Twitter message to
1I?uI'2&il<aelb0744f 2e.&v_pt&q~klmbett",
afler%3A2011%2Fl %2Fl bet ".
Gmail FINd. kimt>e11lnpost
St~
Cooley ~ can't find it, but it happened and I blogged about it).
,, Thanks,
,
,p
<
j
I
IOn Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Patlenco ~gmail.com>

wrote:
That looks good. It's a shame I apparently wonrtie"abi;;; to link it before I go
.
radio silent. Just in case, e-mail me as soon as it goes up and if I'm still within
3G territory I will post.
2011 at 12:10 PM, Uberty Chick

gmail.com> wrote:
ey running really behind, so I took all the basic elements that relate
to your work situation, etc. and lined that all up In here, Just as basic
framework. There are portions before and after it that I will write (see notes I
put in as placeholders), but they won't make mention of your situation. If
. you want -take a look and see if I'm on the right track, see if you're
. comfortable with how closely rm limiting the section regarding your work
situation, etc ...
attached in a word doc
1/3
"Jr,-,-'. 'V,,,,-U';"]"j~J _~_

~::f'I"
"
~\t-
.:!
"If
')j: ;---,:-.,....
1,
Motion To Compel Re Kimberlin v Allen

Patte rico
To: "A.W."
Cc: Liberty C
Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:30 AM
I can't g~ you e-.erything that connects Ron to Brett because there is an ongoing in\eStigation and because it
would be 'F.:ry time consuming, bul hopefully Mandy can explain a little more about Raw Story, Ron's guest
blogging for Brad Friedman, and so forth. There is quite a bit of material but Ron's sJa'olshde\Otion to Brett is
e'vident in some of what I sent you. He ewn pushes the "Brett was exonerated" slory. I hal.e a screenshot
somewhere.
Also. don't \Olunteer where you got this stuff. Jusl because of the in\eStigation. But for that. I would be shouting
all this from the hilltops, but I stilllhink we can put these guys in prison, so I ha-.e to slay quiet.
p
[Quoted text hiddlln]
A.W,
To: Paltenco
gmail.com>
gmail.com>
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9: 54 PM
if its not too much trouble, sure, but i don't want to weigh you down with it, is all i am saying.
Aaron
[Quoted leX! hidden)
----------Patte ri co
To: "A.W."
._-------------_._~----~,_
_-----._-~---~-----------_.-----....
gmail.com>
gmail.com>
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:55 PM
I'm ha\ing fun. This is what I do: PI'O\le things. I ha-.e a jury out, so I hme a little time tonight.
P
[Quoted lexl hidden)
--_._-------_. ---------......-......---------_._------------._-gmail.com>
gmail.com>
Wed, Jan 25,2012 at 9:57 PM
did he say anything of note below it?

Aaron
(Quoted
teJClhi dden)
Patterico
To: "A.W:
., mail.com>
"
gmail.com>
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Yau are getting eV9rything of note that mentions you. Giw me 30 minutes. It will come rolling in gradually.
P
{Quoted text hidden]
aut"""'
wea, LJec :.11, LU11 at 1l:4!l AM
1'0'7
To: Aaron Worthing

mail.com>
Cc: Liberty Chick Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH
mail.com>
Think she was going to send it. I h~ a ton of proof of that. Mostly comments on Qritiq. Neal says he has met
Breit, wor1<swith Vel~t Re\Olution, always ~as advance notice of what happened in the litigation, etc. He e~n
told Comcast Brett was his client, though he didn' name Brett - just called him the head if an NGO who had
recently recei~d a credible threat on his life.
If the goddamned FBI had their shit together we could use this offer from Neal and do a sling. H~
a fake identity/name and see if it gets back to Brett.
you gi~ him
Damn.
p
Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted lext hidden)
htlps:l1moll.google.comImBill7uia2&lk"el
1012112
b074<112e&v iew=pt&q=ltlmbett>n
BlI8%3A;>{J11%2F1
%2F I bel ...
911'
Gmail - Kimberlin ~
Patrick Frey
To: Aaron Worthing
Cc: Liberty Chick
Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:54 AM
Maybe don' mention Neal in the brief? I talk to the FBI Thursday. Maybe they'd be willing to do a sting ...
P
Sent from my iPhone
lU'111.t.
Grrnoll-H~.'. """I Beth.aid to 1mI...
Aaron
{Quoted text hidden)
Patrick Frey ~gmail.com>

To: "A.W." ~-gmall.com>
1l1u, Jan 5, 2012 at 4: 12 PM
Would you be willing to send me a short just-the-facts-ma'am email summarizing your Interactions with Ron and
Brett including their threats to sue/file bar complaints/etc. with your real name, suitable for prcMding to my
super\1sors and possibly law enforcement?
3-5 pagagraphs at most. I don1 need anything too extensi\e.
I would ideally like to send yours with Beth's and Ken's all at once. Your experiences help put theirs into context.
Is that possible?
P
Sent from my iPhone
[Quoted lexl hidden]
A.W. ~ail.com>
-,-
-----------------_._-_._.~._._--~-Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4: 17 PM
To: Patrick Frey ~mall.com>

with the promise that they would keep my confidentiality, yes.
Aaron
IQuoled lext hlddon)
---_._-----------._------._-Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4: 19 PM

Of course.
p
Sent from my iPhone

[Quo led text hidden)
Liberty Chick
To: Aaron Worthing
mail.com>
mail.com>
Wed, Dec 21,2011 at 12:57 AM
cool - rll help ... lt will need another post around it to gi\.e the big picture. 111
talk to Lany (Andrew's lawyer) about
posting the real story to rebut the conspiracy theory once & for all. We're sa\oingthe detailed Kimberlin pe~ury &
troll saga for a non-Breitbart mainstream outlet to ensure credibility.
.,-.
.G ~;';I
112
Gmall- Fw:
::;~I"
Fw:
._-------------_._-----------_
A.W. ~mail.com>
To: Mike Stack __
r" ') i I..

~.("\J.'.I:'
I
_~
..::: .,
_"
_-----_._-----..-...... .._..------
.......
Fri, Jan 27. 2012 at 9:24 AM
yahoo. com>
I'm going to seek his arrest today. Working on my afflda\it right now. Fortunately most it is already written in
court papers. J just ha-.e to change words like defendant and plaintiff 10 Kimberlin arnJ I. heh.
Aaron
On Fri, Jan 27,2012 at 9:19 AM, Mike Stack ,-yahoo.com>
anytime ..keep me posted
wrote:
Dustin F~gmall.com>
To: Aaron Worthing ~mail.cam>
On Tue, Dec 20,2011 at 10:13 PM, Aaron Worthing _gmail.com>

1 streisand effect
Wed, Dec 21,2011 at 12:00 AM
wrote:
Um yes. What a colossal failure the lawsuits ha-.e been in this regard. I think the awareness of Kimberlin, at
least online where he resides as an acti\oist, is quite high. Certainly jf you gOO9lehim up, you learn he's a bad
bad dude.
I didn1 know he had already been con\icted a long time ago for pe~ury, though.
It sucks if you're dragged into court. I mean, e-.en if you win, you don1 really win back your effort. And if they out
you, you will probably be swatted, which is horrible.
Frankly, you sound like a smart attorney who can na\oigatewhat to layman are procedural nightmares, like
appearing anonymously. I think Seth did a terrible job in court (he just doesn1 comport himself properly) and
Brett should ha\e known better than to pick on someone your size.
But as Pattenco noted to be recently, there's no way Brett will try to take a I~er
tom apart. It sounds like you haIA:spotted a huge tactical error.
May it bring an end to this mess.
to court. He knows he'd get
Patrick Frey
To: Aaron Wort ing
Cc: Liberty Chick
mail.com>
gmail.com>
@gmail.com>, "A.W'''~9mall.com>
Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:53 AM
I kind of skimmed the beginning parts. Looks like not much has changed
and the parts that ha\'e seem persuasi\'e.
This is your brief, and although they will no doubt file a complaint
with my office saying I wrote It for you (because they are liars and
need no proof to le'JeIan accusation), this is all you - and it looks
really good I am happy to hme done some proofreading and such but
the legal analysis is a11 Aaron and' think it's a winner.
httP!:Jlmall,QOOQIe,c:omlmail/7ui=2l!.iIr ..'b07.412e&Vlew-pI&q.kimberlln
after%3.A.2011~2F 1%2F1 bet ..
3-'
------------------------------------------_:i!I'.Q~!H
1~1I12
Gm8~. n~st
v~lon.
..
I think you are going to make Kimberlin & Co. \'ery angry and I really
hope you know what you are getting into and are steeled for it.
Why Is Thl' State Ixpt. PJflnering With 'Spt't.oJway Bmnbcr' Srell Kimt'ot.'rlin? I TheBl.li.e.com

GOVERNMENT
Why Is The State Dept. Partnering With

'Speedway Bomber' Brett Kimberlin?
Tiffany Gabbay
May. 25, 2012 4:55pm
'm
BUREAU OF EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
us OCP"'I"t~T CI st~TE
'"
,';
~,'
~'.,.
-..- ~T'-'" -~ .. H':;-.,
. __....:_.......
' __
.
~...-:~.
_
_
__.
'.'
-:
P.'II.'.'"
p,,;.,
c.......... ........~;
..(
,.'Jo'_','
,.t
\'~'
"'1
It-I'
r(,'n''' ..'~
, .,, . :A::
"''''9r'1m (1V'~PI~ II'!. u S Do>~~ t

f)( 5ta'@'. p""!~''''' p-o'~~,)l
",.(J""r'!~
ou()y~n. Ld.r:I1'~ or J 940. trI#!r~L;t~
r
",.,,..._~
..:",~.t"",.
.1 ~o-,c,r "I e.ct'4r'!Ql!' ::roo~$T\ tM-'f
onutl,,-S: l,.r~.1".O"'iI
U 5 ,."1IX",,,r " .tir,n"
'.N'k~to!k.lkf
0"-""" -: ,,"''''''
f ,,"
(,.,....
-e.'t G;y~
~t .
.,f't'l ttop
' ;).
.,1 .....,.
.,"' .-.
,;:
!""C\J~
Cdrl!!"l.!1y
~ts to
It-I!' U S.
o:'l"'lO"';JnQ ~
1\<) ,
""l't
, . ~ ~
"
~.~t;:v
.I'.1Itkr".n,p
Irlr:rn~tle('1-l'"
.1.-.,,<:.111" C':~"(ll .:'

y,
''''J ':>"l,..~~,
lPll
International Visitor Leadership Program
5(1\
II.
('-'\''' to
....._
' '"
'.
J""1 .~..
" ..........
.. L'
J ...,
I~~.
" ..
"
...
" !""'rr"tt:~" .......
" ....,.p-,~t';
~.- .n:, ..'1
..
~".t<.I
. , .
"P' '., ..
~
~f'""J
!Ih..-t.(l!"'m
lr.Jo:kn,
1t't'5e
t..., C1;rr~t
f1.. !l"ltT',r:.t)l'l.al
{Vr,(101o'iolll'oII
""....
.3""'4
~'~Is
V\~ltr,"'
tplrit
t..,.; .: fVl~
D' Voh.
111...,..., 1__
e .,..
SOt
. 1.
"rc..
-..,In,,!
i "
" .
'l~'!!..
;f'l pell( "jo.!J:, ut th~ Urr!!'d
;1' ,-'V!
~(~
lIing _lnl...-nI'tiOMaJ Vi.iton?

(rtrm.nlOt'* ".1;;t~.1n! OoI~rt Ofi:1t1er~r91c~krs "Q:rvrMmffi!. ~,t'Ci.
I'~"
,.t
!.,,,,,,,,,,,',.,,,
!r"
T1~.
Ml,.CJIfl{i/"\,
Ul" .U,
'tid OIl'1""r ley l'\IIkn. O' r S.O(lO
lll,.~."
Kof(ll'~'~
II) Ii'!!'
I}",f
.
' 5I:. r~
f,."..,
/Ill (1'0"", t~'!'""yt,J ~I"S!t'..'l!',ts ~O::~1\;(\ II'l 19"0, U'lQu~f'J!, 01 d'~lI".~\ot~ed .l'lJl~lodI.Jdls ha-, I!'
::4r"..-c~ed ,n t!'!! ll'ltemoltKlI"If V~or l,.es1en;.'p ~~.trn.
IrC\.o.:Jl":I )JJ
o..,...r.1 '''.11formfl Cho.-h d SUre .,d ~r~
oJI (j,c,.
...,.....".,lI'I"1t. 1".(l"''';.Ir~ ::f
If'llllrn.l(I(W''.,
~~M
I,",)'''''' I ..~ ..
~.
.:Jrf"., ' t .,,,J

1.o/:.;;4'1lttf,
'. ~11.<',teel'l->T'.
l,.,,'td ih,. !o",.~
(~,.f'(
IlOlmllll""""'
.,.od m..".,.
OCl"~
m,","'?JI"",,,a
1.>"""'"
ftoYn tf', Dt-l)i1C
al'd'to"! ..il'l!'....-a~
.,..
. ,., .
Following The Blaze's extensive coverage of the Indiana Speedway Bomber (Brett Kimberlin) turned Soros-funded
"social justice" activist who routinely terrorizes bloggers, is a provocative post at United Liberty asking why The
State Department has been teaming up with the domestic terrorist. Consider the following passage from
Kimberlin's "Justice Through Music" website:
MAY 24, 2012 - JTMP has been a participant in the State Department's International
Visitor Leadership
Program for 3 years now, where citizens from around the world involved in the arts get to come to America
and visit to leam about the role of arts in the US. This year we had visitors that came from Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia. Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia to see how Justice Through Music Project uses art to raise
awareness on issues, and to bring about social change. This year's contingent had musicians, playwrights,
data. te.'(l'html :char!iCt:::utf-8,%3Cimg%20width"h3D%:221
"t2:2"O:20heigh!%3D"b22I "h22%20src"fdIYl2:2htfp"b3A
c-.I.I_.
I,
%:2F'b::!I'ocp.crwdcntrl.net%::!Fmap"C2fc%3D372..
115
\\in)' IS I he State Dept. Parillcring With 'Speedway Bomber' Brett Kimberlin? IThd)!aze,com
and people involved in art production. We gave them a presentation and showed them many of our musical
art videos that deal with politics and issues, while we spoke about how we operate and produce our art
videos. We then showed them how we use this art on our website and YouTube channel to raise awareness
on an issue to help bring about positive social change.
(Related:
Li,ten to Kimberlin Victim.
Tell Beck How They Were Shaken Down, 'SWATted')
You're probably not alone if you're wondering what exactly those music videos
were about. Additionally, given Kimberlin's history, it begs the question: Why is
the State Department teaming up with a convicted domestic terrorist?
Below is information on the International Visitor Leadership Program that
explains its purpose:
The International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) is the U.S. Department of

State's premier professional exchange program. Launched in 1940, the IVLP
is a professional exchange program that seeks to build mutual understanding
between the U,S, and other nations through carefully designed short-term visits to the U.S. for current and
emerging foreign leaders, Tnese visits renect me International Visitors' professional Interests and support me
foreign policy goals of the United States.
Who are considered "international visitors?":

International Visitors are current or emerging leaders in
government,
politics, the media, education,
the arts.
business and other key fields. Over 5,000 International

Visitors come to the United States from all over the world
each year. Since its inception in 1940, thousands of
distinguished individuals have participated in the Intemational Visitor Leadership Program, including 330
current and former Chiefs of State and Heads of Government, thousands of cabinet-level ministers, and
wLI:tcXL
hlml :char~t=utf-8.c;.3Cimg%20wiJth%JDro:!21 %21%20hl'i~ht"(,3Dc;221'%22%2(h;rc%3D%22hllp't3A %::!F%:!Hx:pcrwdcntrl.net%2Fmap%2Fc%3D3n...
::!J'j
\Vhy Is The Slate [A'pt Partnering With 'Sp...-ctJway Bombc.'f' Brett Kiml:'erlin'! r ThcBlazc.cc,.lm
many other
distinguished
leaders from the
public and231-5
private sectors.
Case
8:13-cv-03059-GJH
Document
Filed 12/08/14
Page 3 of 5
lJIihat's more, the State Department website goes on to explain that these intemational visitors travel to the U.S. to
engage in "carefully designed programs that reflect their professional
interests and U.S. foreign policy
goals."
Does the State Department mean to say that a convicted domestic terrorist's program (thought to be a front group
by some) accurately "reflects" U.S. foreign policy goals? The Blaze reached out to the department for comment but
has yet to receive a reply.
For the record, below is one of the few recent photographs
of Kimberlin
available on the JTM website. Ironically, is
the one holding up the peace sign.
More From The Web
Can You Pass a U.S.
Sponsored Links by Taboola
Keeping
data. texl! htm! ;charse[=ulf -8,"b3Cimg%20witJth%3Dc;'221
Financial
and
%22%20heighl%3D%221
10 Things You Should
%2::!%20src%3D%2'2http%3A
%2F%2rbcp.crwdcntrl
,nct%2Fmap%2Fc"h3D372...
3/5
Why Is The State Dept. Panncring
Citizenship
With 'Spc.'l'lIway Bombt:r" Brett Kimberlin? I ThcBIaLc com
Test? 80%
Creative in Perfect ...
Always Buy Used
Case
8:13-cv-03059-GJH
Document 231-5
Filed 12/08/14 Page 4 of 5
u.s. Trust
Quizzyn
20 McDonald's Items So
Bad You Probably
Barely Remember
RanlFood
YahooDIY
15 Awesome Things
Didn't Know Your
iPhone Can Do
RantGizmo
We Recommend
You
8 Famous Lesbians Who

Were Married To Men
MadameNaire
More From TheBlaze
Selfies Are More Adventurous

Jamaica (YahooI VisilJamaica)
in
This Is Why Ed Henry Says He

Walked Out During a White House
Press Briefing
10 Cool Ways to Use Empty Wine

Bottles (YahooDIY)
Boy Who Claims He Nearly Died

and Went to Heaven Reveals How
an Image ..
Can You Pass A Driving Test?

Take The Quiz And Find Out
(Quizzyn)
Jay Carney Makes Big Admission

AboutObama
Can You Guess What Is In A Slim

Jim? (IMRED)
Want to See a Customized

Caliber 'Dinosaur Hunting'
Action?
For The Men: Signs A Woman Is

Flirting With You (MadameNoire)
.700
Rifle in
Limbaugh Reveals Mind-Numbing

Story from Obamacare: Meet the
30-Year-Old ...
PromoledLinksbyTaboola
Related: George Soros
COMMENTS (65)
Posting his address is
Votes
Newest
foolish, because there
Oldest
Get New Comments
terriergalare
other Brett
May.28,2012a16:00pm -
Next
Kimberlins in the US and you can't be sure the address is accurate.
Log in to Reply
911 Patriotln
Mark's Gospel reading today there was this: You know the
May.28,2012a13:06pm -
commandments: You shall not kill:

you shall not commit adultery;
data: !c:uhtml ;charsct=utf -8. %3Cimg%20w;dth%3D%22
t 'b22%20hei ght%3D"b211 %12%20src%3D"022htlp%3A
%2F%2Fbcp.crwdcntrl.net%2Fmap%2Fc%3D371...
4/5
12,7,1014
Why Is The Slate Dt.'pt. PaItncring With 'SIX'CJway Bomber' Orelt Kimberlin? IThcBlazc.com
you shall not steal;
you shall not bear false witness;

you shall not defraud;
honor your father and your mother."

Looks like the left is out to fiip all these commandments around. This is the devil at work. Reject it completely. We
are the counter-revolution in Christ.
Log in to Reply
911 PatriotA 5'5" terrorist.
May. 28. 2012 at 3:01pm
May. 26, 2012 at 8:24pm
Log in to Reply
Hobo BoondocksCan
you imagine what the Democratic Party Pubic Information
Department (ABC, CBS, NBC and their cronies, lackeys etc.) would do with this story if it was a republican in the
White House? They would be breaking into regularly scheduled programming every hour with updates.
Log in to Reply
ArshlochCan
you sat clinton?
May. 26, 2012 at 3:07pm
Log in to Reply
dtboxwhat an absolute piece of human garbage. the world is a smellier place because of May.
26, 2012 at 1:21 pm
the birth of this turd.

Log in to Reply
starthrowefWhen
the globalists are done with Kimberlin, they'll eat him too. The useful
May. 26,2012
at 9:22am
May. 26, 2012 at 8:33am
May. 26, 2012 at 8:32am
May. 26, 2012 at 6:43am
May. 26, 2012 at 6:28am
idiots are always the first to go.

Log in 10Reply
AintLlBSjuzGreatbrelt
c kimberlin
Log in to Reply
AintLlBSjuzGreata1
00 beach tree rd bethesda ,md these are the tactics he uses
Log in to Reply
nocommieWake
up people.They are sneaking people in for future altacts
Log in to Reply
mpiercePlease
post his home address.
<>u ....v .
THl! UST
'5UPt'tl:l" PQ:lNT9
H!R1!P THIlf!! O- '!M WI'flol
SIGNA, T\JRH FaOM MA1.J(Jl4
M::lRR:ISSel', MCCAIJoC, NAGY,
Je-"" GO\..OSn~ 8,",

WHrT'Tl.1.,.NIP HfUH JJ.lD
GUIoN Rt~0"3
'MU. Be
L.P FOR
AIJCT'W:)N
~G,
"Last Supper (America) Red
"r
\'S
Blue"
TIle online auction \vill begin Tuesday September

dangers of lawfare and cyberhara<;sment.
.tth and conclude Monday September
10th. and ..
iD be coupled with interviews, articles, and other efforts to raise awareness
E~clll1" x 19" print ha'i been signed by the follo\\ing giants of the Blogosphere: Michelle Malkin, Glenn and Helen Reynolds UD5..t:{tPunditand Dr Helen] ..JJlU 'VhinkJAfte-rburn.w.
\\"tsdomJ.&<U!glJ:i>.~J>tB.irJ. ~l1-S
bloggers for this donation.
.~t~<tin.lThe
Other :'J~.inl.and Mandx.liam:lL>~hkk),
about free speech and the

J~olds.1ci.n
(Protem
The Blogger'sDefenseTeam and AaronWalker wishes to thank :'Iuir and each of the,e
Funds raised by this auction go directly to the legal battle against the online. offline, and legal harassment ofbloggers through intimidation. threats, lawfare, and SWATting. The current focus l' on cases
brought in ~lal1'land Federal Court and Virginia State court on behalf of Aaron Walker against nrett Kimberlin, Neil Rauhauser, and Ron Bl1'naert.
Right Solutions (the Institute for Indhidualism) is a nonprofit SOlc3 organization th..lt promotes free speech and robust political discourse. Right Solutions has launched the Blouers Defense Team to
defend and support the legal rights and freedoms ofbloggers, particularly to the free and open exchange of ideal; on the internet. DB Capitol Strategies PLLC works \\;th Right Solutions to pro\'ide pro
bono representation
to the5e dieuts. Right Solutions covers the costs incurred by Dn Capitol Strategies PLI.C in pro\iding pro bono legal reprE"sentation to the Bloggers Defen."e Team, including court
f~es, e..\-pel"l-~.sof ~ation.
contract attorney fees. and other administrath'e & compliance c~ts, but dof"..5not receive any compensation for its sen;ces to these clients.
\.ktims are also calling upon members of Congress and the Department of Justice to fonn an FBI task force to coordinate law enforcement
La\\fare and continued and potentially illegal harassment acthities aimed at silencing spet~ch and political opinion.
resources to investigate not only the SWATtings, but the
TIle internet should be the ultimate "marketplace of ideas" where an are free to share opinion... \\ithollt threat oflegal harac;,.sntent, cyher- bull)ing. or real world threat'i. For more information, or to
donate to the Blogzer's Defense Team, go to http://BloggersDefenseTeam.com
Case 1:14-cv-11550-PBS
Document 30 Filed 12/02/14
Page 1 of 20

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
ABDULRAHMAN
ALHARBI,
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
CIVIL NO. 14-11550-PBS
GLENN BECK; THEBLAZE, INC.

MERCURY RADIO ARTS INC,; AND
PREMIERE RADIO NETWORKS, INC.
)
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
------------)
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
December
2, 2014
SARIS, Chief Judge.

Abdulrahman
Arabia,
Alharbi,
was a spectator
a 20 year old student
at the Boston Marathon
was injured
in the bombing,
authorities
investigating
television
commentator
distributors
and was questioned
in funding
is a limited purpose
and did not sufficiently

required
by federal
because
II, 2014, the defendants'
motion
under
to state a claim, arguing
or involuntary
to dismiss
public
figure
in his complaint
After a hearing
after the
moved to dismiss
plead actual malice
by the First Amendment.
they identified
the bombing
him. The defendants
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6) for failure

that Alharbi
IS, 2013,
Glenn Beck, and the owners and
of his show, for defamation
exonerated
on April
the event. He is suing radio and
him as an active participant

authorities
from Saudi
as
held on August
is DENIED.
Case 1:14-cv-1l550-PBS
Document 30 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 20
I. FACTS
The following
and are assumed
facts are drawn from the complaint
to be true for the purposes
(Dkt. 1)
of the motion
to
dismiss. Many of the facts are in dispute.

Plaintiff
Massachusetts.
Alharbi
is a student who resides
He is a Saudi Arabian
citizen.
appears on a daily radio and television

nationwide
and also published
available
internationally.
TheBlaze
and parent
and syndicated
Premiere
Marathon,
on the internet,
Mercury
is broadcast
making
it
States
Radio Arts, and distributed
radio stations by defendant
was a spectator
at the April
15, 2013 Boston
and was injured by the explosions
the finish line. Federal
authorities
his permission,
his apartment.
searched
that occurred
questioned
Alharbi
a man of Middle
Soon afterward,
had no involvement
identifying
descent
the authorities
in executing
him as a person
From April
thereafter,
Eastern
near
and, with
Many news outlets
on the search and noted that the authorities
questioned
bombings.
show which
Beck
Radio Networks.
Alharbi
reported
Defendant
Beck's show is owned by defendants
company
to United
in Revere,
had
in connection
concluded
the attacks,
with the
that Alharbi
and news reports
of interest ceased.
15, 2013 through May 8, 2013 and repeatedly
Beck made numerous
false statements
his radio show, even after he was cleared.
about Alharbi
He identified
on
Alharbi
Document 30
Filed 12/02/14
Page 3 of 20
as an active participant
and described
in carrying
of criminal
conduct
mass injury, and questioned

when they failed to pursue
As a result of Beck's
been severely
damaged.
been the subject

child killer,
defendants,
bombings
him as the "money man" who funded the attacks.
accused Alharbi
Alharbi
out the marathon
resulting
the motives
Beck
in loss of life and
of federal authorities
or detain him.
statements,
Alharbi's
He has received
of online postings
reputation
several messages
has
and has
calling him "a murderer,
and terrorist."
has filed one count of defamation
and one count of defamation
against
with malice
all
against
Beck
indi vidually.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
To survive
contain
a 12(b) (6) motion
sufficient
plausible
facts which
Bell Atlantic
(2007). The court
Corp. v. Twombly,
"must take the allegations
Watterson
inferences
v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993)
pleadings
fail to set forth "factual allegations,
recovery
as
in favor of the
for failure
sustain
is
550 U.S. 544, 570
in the complaint
Dismissal
or inferential,
must
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
true and must make all reasonable

plaintiffs."
a complaint
"state a claim to relief which
on its face." Ashcroft
(2009), quoting
to dismiss,
to state a claim is appropriate
respecting
each material
under some actionable
element
where the
either direct
necessary
legal theory."
to
Gooley
v.
Document 30
Filed 12/02/14
Page 4 of 20

Mobil Oil Corp.,
851 F. 2d 512, 515
recitals of the elements

conclusory
statements,
Typically
consider
of a cause of action,
do not suffice."
on a motion
information
See Watterson,
(1st Cir. 1988).
supported
the deciding
the four corners
to this rule "for documents
of which are not disputed

records;
for documents
documents
sufficiently
by the parties;
central
referred
court cannot
of the complaint.
987 F.2d at 3. The First Circuit
"narrow exceptions"
by mere
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
to dismiss,
outside
"Threadbare
recognizes
the authenticity
for official
to plaintiff's
claim;
public
or for
to in the complaint."
Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Elements
of Defamation
To establish
plaintiff
a defamation
must allege
a statement,
plaintiff's
reputation
either caused
Ravnikar
economic
types of statements
that constitute
loss
the
. or is actionable
702 F.3d 76, 81
marks omitted),
without
libel.
2) that
and 4) that the statement
438 Mass. 627, 629-30
are actionable
made
3) that the defendant
loss." Shay v. Walters,
(internal quotation
v. Bogojavlenksy,
loss: statements
such that it could damage
the statement;
proof of economic
(1st Cir. 2012)
to a third party;
in the community;
the plaintiff
law, a
"1) that the defendant
the plaintiff,
was defamatory
was at fault in making
without
four elements:
concerning
the statement
claim under Massachusetts
citing
(2003).
"Four
proof of economic
.; statements
that
Page 5 of 20
charge the plaintiff

plaintiff
with a crime; statements
has certain diseases;
the plaintiff's
profession
630 (citations omitted).
and statements
or business."
Because of the First Amendment's
"protection
of public
media defendant
of proving
concern,"
regarding
a private
of true speech on
figure plaintiff
speech on such matters
bears the burden
843, 847
Newspapers.
statements
concerning
private
statements
concerning
public officials
Ravnikar,
438 Mass. at 630
standard
takes into account
under the First Amendment,

of defamation
published
v.
(1995).
"The level of fault required varies between
statement
suing a
475 U.S. 767, 777 (1986); see also Dulgarian
Stone, 420 Mass.
application
must be
Id. at 630 n.3.
that the speech is false. Philadelphia
Inc. v. Hepps,
438 Mass. at
In most cases,' the statement

a defense.
the
that may prejudice
Ravnikar,
false, and truth will constitute
matters
that allege
persons)
and actual malice

and public
(citations omitted).
Supreme
which
negligence
(for
(for
figures)
"
The fault
Court doctrine
developed
"sets clear limits on the
law with respect
to any factual
in the news media about a public
official
or
, Massachusetts law is unusual in that, by statute, it

permits some true statements to form the basis of libel actions
if the plaintiff proves "actual malice," which in this context is
defined as "malevolent intent or ill will." Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
231 ~ 92; Noonan v. Staples. Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 28 (1st Cir.
2009) (interpreting the meaning of "actual malice" in
Massachusetts statute). "The scope of the statute, however, is
limited by the provisions of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution." Ravnikar, 438 Mass. at 629 n.3.
5
Case l:14-cv-1l550-PBS

public
figure, even when that statement
defamatory."
Murphy v. Boston Herald.
(2007). If a plaintiff
"must prove,
published
is a public
the false and defamatory
disregard
of whether
public
figures:
376 U.S. 254, 279-80
1) all-purpose
purpose
prominence
public
forefront
of particular
influence
the resolution
involuntary
public
"exceedingly
material
public
types of
who "assume[]
of society,"
such as
where,
"someone
to the
in order to
and 3),
figures, who may "hypothetically"
418 U.S. 323, 345
arise
in
. become[sl
action of his own." Gertz v.
(1974).
contend
or an involuntary
does not allege

and accordingly
of public
(1964).
of the issues involved";
Welch,
question
New York
power and influence";
controversies
figure through no purposeful
actual malice,
'actual malice,'
figures, who "thrust themselves
public
his complaint
with
figures,
in the affairs
public
Here, the defendants
he
that the defendant
three different
of "persuasive
rare" instances
limited purpose
figure,
that it was false or with reckless
those who occupy positions

2) limited
evidence,
Court has identified
roles of especial
or public
42, 48
it was false or not." Id., quoting
Times Co. v. Sullivan,

The Supreme
Inc., 449 Mass.
official
by clear and convincing
- that is, with knowledge
is shown to be false and
that Alharbi
public
sufficient
is either
figure. They assert

facts to demonstrate
that it should be dismissed.
figure status
"is of constitutional
that
The
dimension
Page 7 of 20

and, thus, federal
law controls."
Pendleton
v. City of Haverhill,
156 F.3d 57, 68 (1st Cir. 1998). Further, public

"a question
of law,
properly
the jury, regardless
figure status
is
resolved by the court, not by
of the contestability
of the predicate
facts." Id.
B.
Limited
Purpose
Public
A person becomes
"voluntarily
controversy
Figure
a limited purpose
injects himself
Lluberes
a public
v. Uncommon
13 (1st Cir. 2011), quoting Gertz,

Circuit
uses a two-pronged
plaintiff
Prods .. LLC, 663 F.3d 6,
418 U.S. at 351. The First
public
it must be shown that "persons actually

question
expected
persons
.
beyond
the immediate
quotation
is isolated,
plaintiff
the critical
has attempted
controversy."
alleging
question
figure category.
First,
some
person would have
participants
in the dispute
Id. at 13 (citation and
Second,
"[olnce a controversy
then becomes
to 'influence
a defamation
whether
the resolution'
the
of that
Id.
In Lluberes,
Dominican
marks omitted).
whether
were discussing
[and] a reasonable
to feel the impact of its resolution."

internal
public
figure for a limited
test to determine
fits the limited purpose
specific
figure when he
or is drawn into a particular
and thereby becomes
range of issues."
public
Republic
two brothers
who managed
sugar cane conglomerate
that a documentary
their family's
sued a filmmaker,
on the sugar industry
identified
them
Document 30 Filed 12/02/14 .Page 8 of 20
as responsible
laborers.
for poor conditions
Id. at 11. On a motion
district
existed
an ongoing
debate
for several years before

the plaintiffs
relations
and hosted
Republic
affirmed.
the film's release,
luncheon
and contacts
. controversy[;
it by orchestrating
their critics."
public
suggest
charge
in the
access to the press and exploited

support
and mute
in Pendleton
v. City of Haverhill,
and then acquitted
sued the arresting
had limited
officers
of a cocaine
for continuing
his guilt to the press after the case ended.
unsuccessfully
Id. at
their
outcome
also found that a plaintiff
figure status
61-62. Pendleton,
granted
from Dominican
"leveraged
a favorable
on PBS,
Id.
where a man who was arrested

possession
a public
to be interviewed
a PR blitz to garner public
The First Circuit

purpose
that
rehabilitating
to come ask questions.
to influence
they] enjoyed
retained
campaign
17. In short, the court held, the brothers

positions
and during
where journalists
were invited
public
in the sugar industry
had, among other things:
an industry
the
Id. at 27. There had
about practices
image, sent an employee
newspapers
judgment,
were limited purpose
firm to run an international
the industry's
by plantation
for summary
court held that the brothers
figures, and the First circuit
period
endured
who was African-American,
seeking
an interview
a permanent
teaching
with the press wherein
to
156 F. 3d at
had been
job in the city and
he vented
his

frustrations
arrested
about race and hiring.
rd. at 60-61. When he was
on the drug charge roughly
nine months
front page news in the local newspapers

reports
followed"
Pendleton
the resolution
granted
an interview
telling
the arresting
stating
that Pendleton
should be in rehabilitation,
if his alleged
conduct
at 62. On a motion
Pendleton
granted
teaching
position."
in Haverhill
the district
job. rd.
court found
controversy
schools,
and that when
"he invited public debate

representation
and on the
(or not) for a
rd. at 69-70.
that a public controversy
it is framed narrowly
for the Marathon
bombings,
an ongoing
discussion
terrorism.
The more significant
about public
"thrust himself
as a debate over who was

or more broadly
safety, national
question
into the vortex of
security,
and
[that] public
public
418 U.S. at 352. Given the facts alleged
as part of
is whether Alharbi
issue" such that he became a limited purpose

Gertz,
a teaching
that made him suitable
Here, there is no question
voluntarily
quoted
it was his own fault
- that a public
issue of minority
characteristics
responsible
judgment,
affirmed
hiring
specific
whether
were publicly
rd.
had been using drugs and
his first interview,
both on the general
existed,
officers
and suggesting
for summary
over minority
his side of the story.
kept him from securing
- and the First Circuit

existed
and "a flurry of media
of the case, at which point
at 61. Subsequently,
their belief
later, it made
figure.
in the complaint,
Document 30 . Filed 12/02/14
Page 10 of 20

it is clear that he did not. The complaint
merely
Alharbi
he was injured
attended
explosion,
and watched
he was questioned
the marathon,
by authorities,
searched,
and his name was cleared
complaint
does note that Alharbi
media reports
his decision
alleged
in the
his home was

the
was the subject of numerous

it does not indicate
sought out this press attention.

to attend the marathon
in the complaint
that
in short order. While
after he was questioned,
he voluntarily
states
that
Thus, apart
in the first place,
from
the facts
do not depict a figure thrusting
himself
into a controversy.
The defendants
himself
argue that Alharoi
into the Marathon
bombing
did voluntarily
controversy
interviews
with news outlets
the finish
line after the explosions.
arguments,
the defendants
of several
interviews
on the marathon
Plaintiff
arguing
are not referred
the Plaintiff
granted
bombings,
"appears
news outlets
Security
in the
Committee
The
of any of these
to his claim,
and
to in the complaint.
standard
limited,
notice
and other news articles.
that they are not central
near
of these
urge the court to take judicial
As for the "official public

to dismiss
suspiciously"
In support
does not agree to the consideration
documents,
by granting
and by "behaving
wake of the search of his home, a Homeland

Report
inject
of review,
or nearly
records"
exception
the First Circuit
so, to documents
10
to the motion
has held that it
or facts subject
to
Page 11 of 20

judicial notice under Federal
to facts "not subject
"generally
to reasonable
known within
jurisdiction;
from sources
or
Rule of Evidence
dispute"
the trial court's
. can be accurately
whose accuracy
Freeman v. Town of Hudson,
Security
Counterterrorism
Bombings",
entitled
Challenges
the explosion.
eye
territorial
and readily
determined
be questioned."
exhibits
Fed.
fail to meet that
rely on a report by the House Homeland

"The Road to Boston:
and Lessons
for their contention
into the public
they are
714 F.3d 29, 36 (1st Cir. 2013);
The defendants
Committee,
because
cannot reasonably
R. Evid. 201. Most of the defendants'

definition.
201," which refers
through
from the Marathon
that Alharbi
suspicious
injected
behavior
himself
at the time of
It states:
Shortly after the attack, the Boston Police

Department (BPD) detained a Saudi national
who was reportedly behaving suspiciously near
the site of the explosions. This individual
was questioned for nearly five hours and
voluntarily allowed BPD officers, as well as
FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives (ATF) agents to search his
apartment. Although his actions and the
resulting questioning led to speculation
regarding his involvement, the Saudi national
was later confirmed by BPD not to be a
suspect.
(Def. Ex. 2, at 0046-47).
record properly
contents,
findings
subject
While a legislative
report
is a public
to judicial notice of its "existence
this does not mean that the court must accept

in the report as indisputable
11
and
the
truth; the findings
are
Page 12 of 20

merely
evidence
such evidence
of the facts asserted
will vary according
impartiality
the fairness
of opportunity
it afforded
Nicolls,
plaintiff
its findings
invol vement.
accused
in the bombing,
to "speculation"
does
but carefully
behaving
about his
16, 2013 that states he was not taken into

The Court declines
to take judicial
in the documents
by defendants.
affirmatively
facts alleged,
involuntary
in Lluberes
and Pendleton
sought out press coverage
public perception
of their respective
the media attention
and, indeed, unwanted.
that he "voluntarily
controversy,
does not qualify

Circuit
v.
It also rel.ies on the press report from the Boston
While the plaintiffs
bombing
or organizations
" Stasiukevich
notice of the truth of any "facts" contained
indicate
[and] the fullness
by stating he was "reportedly
as a suspect.
submitted
its
individuals
was involved
of
and
(1st Cir. 1948). Here the report
and referring
dated April
custody
of its procedure,
168 F.2d 474, 479
suspiciously,"
Herald
conducted
their side of the story
not conclude
cabins
. The credibility
to the thoroughness
with which the committee
investigation,
to develop
in order to influence
controversies,
Alharbi
received
The complaint
injected"
each
himself
based on the
was
does not
into the marathon
and thus, at this stage of litigation,
for limited public
precedent.
12
figure status under
he
First
Page 13 of 20
The out-of-Circuit
unpersuasive.
The defendants
Co., 532 F.3d 312

defense
research
columnist
bioterrorism
attacks.
giving
for the post-9/ll
the public
security,
figure within
public
lectures
officials,
the subject.
Washington
generally
Times,
viewed
the district
papers,
in Quebec
as an expert
the court stated,
voluntarily
thrust himself
occurred,
which to intensify
a bioterrorist
attack.
concerning
the
that he was
community,
and he had briefed

and spoken
government
in public
forums on
he had been interviewed

Insight,
Sun, among others,
or
the
and was
in the field. Id. 320-21. Affirming

judgment
"[t]hrough
"used the attacks
13
Dr. Hatfill
and after the

as a platform
about national
Id. at 324. While
for the
these media,
into the debate,"
his message
The Fourth
in preparedness
Science magazine,
and The Baltimore
that
the court found that
involved
court's grant of summary
attacks
as broadly
figure, noting
Further,
defendants,
anthrax
public
attacks,"
Id. at 319-20.
commentary
attacks.
the U.S. bioterrorism
taught, written
a bio-
evidence
not just who committed
and becoming
for bioterrorist
presenting
anthrax
controversy
was a limited purpose
training
offered
a series of articles
and national
"a respected
v. New York Times
sued the New York Times after a
Id. at 323. In that context,
Hatfill
rely upon are
(4th Cir. 2008), in which the plaintiff,
published
defined
point to Hatfill
scientist,
he was responsible
Circuit
cases that the defendants
from
unpreparedness"
it is true that, like
for
Page 14 of 20
Alharbi,
Hatfill
was briefly
considered
attack and also had his home searched

similarities
complaint
between
suggests
bombing
Similarly,
he was ever considered
175
who discovered
Park bombing
Alharbi
in Alharbi's
a public
Constitution
the bomb and helped evacuate
later became a suspect,

for defamation.
his heroics
position
of influence
the park.
people
his media appearances."
in which he
such as the Boston
he "voluntarily
in the controversy"
coordinate
publicly
had
over public
enough
assumed
safety
to require
to field press inquiries
a
at
the
and
Id. Here, the complaint
never reached a comparable
with the media after the bombing:
level of
he was never
lauded as a hero, and while he gave interviews
14
Globe
the court found he was a
figure because
of a media handler
engagement
in the Olympic
Id. at 178. Jewell
to media outlets
assistance
that Alharbi
guard
and sued the Atlanta
Id. at 184. He "was prominent
indicates
v. Jewell,
in the news media as a hero, and had agreed
and CNN. Id. at 182. Accordingly,

public
public
the security
to a photo shoot and no less than ten interviews
limited purpose
of the
does not fit the limited purpose
in Atlanta-Journal
been hailed
described
intellectual
or any other permutation
(Ga. Ct. App. 2001). In Jewell,
Journal-Constitution
initially
the
controversy.
figure mold described

555 S.E.2d
in a terrorist
by the authorities,
the two end there. Nothing
on the subject of terrorism

Marathon
a suspect
to news
Page 15 of 20

outlets,
the parties
dispute
the circumstances
of those
interviews.2
None of the cases cited by the defendants
that, based on the facts alleged
be considered
a limited purpose
C. Involuntary
in the complaint,
public
has been uncertain
of the "involuntary
since the Supreme
and "exceedingly
Alharbi
should
figure.
plaintiff
public
figure"
category
Court first suggested
rare" occurrence
the forty years since, the Supreme

defamation
suggest
Public Figure
The viability
a hypothetical
plausibly
it as
in Gertz.' In
Court has never found any
to be an involuntary
public
figure,
and only
a few lower courts have done so.

In Dameron
v. Washington
Magazine,
Cir. 1985) the sole air traffic

Dulles Airport
Inc., 779 F.2d 736
controller
(D.C.
on duty at Washington
on the day the TWA plane crashed
into Mt. Weather
2 Based
on this limited record, the Court need not determine
whether plaintiff's interviews with the press inserted him into
the controversy so as to make him a limited purpose public figure
or, on the contrary, render his conduct protected because "an
individual should not risk being branded with an unfavorable
status determination merely because he defends himself publicly
against accusations, especially those of a heinous character."
Lluberes, 663 F.3d at 19; see also Time Inc. v. Firestone, 424
U.S. 448, 454 n.3 (1976) (holding that conducting press
conferences to respond to reporter questions about highly
publicized divorce did not convert plaintiff into public figure)
, See, e.g., W. Wat Hopkins, The Involuntary Public Figure:

Not So Dead After All, 21 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 1, 13-14
(2003) (noting that both courts and scholars have "questioned the
continued vitality of the involuntary public figure").
15
Page 16 of 20
in 1974 sued The Washingtonian

been assigned
D.C. Circuit
public
partial
over
crash in particular."
in Gertz that acknowledged
limited
"air safety
the hypothetical
that "[b]y sheer bad luck, Dameron
ensuing
became well-known
over the causes of the accident.
to the public
brief and oblique
involuntary
reference
in one very limited
connection
to him surfaced
later."
Id. at
to create
to be an
figure. See, e.g., Zuonik v. Associated
criminal
was an involuntary
public
(holding that food processing
foods using untreated
water became
16
attracted
figure);
company which
Press,
(holding that the
conduct
Co. v. Taff, 198 Wis. 2d 653, 682-84
processed
He thereby
figure status.
wife of a doctor whose alleged
Packing
years
sufficed
Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 70, 73 (D. Conn. 1988)
media attention
crash.
connection,
of other cases have found a plaintiff
public
to
that The Washingtonian's
role in the controversy
public
A handful
happened
through no desire of his own, in the
[the] same very limited
involuntary
involuntarily,
on duty at the time of the Mt. Weather
controversy
742. His central
figure
possibility
the court reasoned
embroiled,
and
Id. at 741. Based on the
could become a public
. He became
purpose
in general
that an individual
be the controller
he had
Id. at 738. The
was an involuntary
in the controversy
the Mt. Weather
for suggesting
for the accident.
held that Dameron
figure
language
blame
magazine
intense
Bay View
(Wis. Ct. App.
1995)
inadvertently
involuntary
limited
Document 30
Filed 12/02/14
Page 17 of 20
purpose
public
contamination);
figures
in controversy
Jewell,
555 S.E.2d at 186
guard was at least an involuntary

the misfortune
involuntary
public
has delineated
plaintiff
It concluded
it was "hesitant
status upon
'sheer bad luck,'
involuntary
public
figures
a useful
he "had
Thus, the
(4th Cir. 1999)
involved
who was employed
Committee
at the time of the Watergate
published
a theory suggesting
to offer prostitution
services
512. The court rejected

public
common."
figure
Wells v. Liddy,
(citations omitted).
at the Democratic
break-in.
in Wells's
desk
to out-of-town
the defendant's
figure,
public
rare,' and,
that the break-in
someone was seeking photographs
figure.
tells us that
'must be exceedingly
bad luck is relatively
a secretary
public
to rest involuntary
[because] Gertz
one.
test to determine
is an involuntary
186 F.3d 505, 538-39
an involuntary
figure because
figure is a rare bird, but not an extinct
a defamation
unfortunately,
public
(holding that security
to have a tragedy occur on his watch").
The Fourth Circuit

whether
over local water supply
National
The defendant
occurred
because
"that were used
guests."
argument
Wells
Id. at
that Wells was
stating:
The Dameron definition of an involuntary public figure,

someone who by bad luck is an important figure in a
public controversy, runs the risk of returning us to
[a] conception of defamation law .
[under which]
all defamation plaintiffs were required to prove actual
malice when the allegedly defamatory statements
occurred during 'discussion and communication involving
matters of public or general concern, without regard to
whether the persons involved are famous or anonymous.'
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 44 (1971). The
17
Page 18 of 20
Supreme Court expressly repudiated the 'public

interest' test in Gertz, see 418 U.S. at 346,
and further disavowed it in Wolston, see 443 U.S. at
168 .
("To accept such reasoning would in effect
reestablish the doctrine advanced by the plurality
opinion in Rosenbloom, which concluded that the New
York Times standard should extend to defamatory
falsehoods relating to private persons if the
statements involved matters of public or general
concern. We repudiated this approach in Gertz and in
Firestone, however, and we reject it again today.")
Wells,
186 F.3d at 539. Setting
public
figures,
its own standard
the court held that an individual
"assumed the risk of publicity"

meaning
for involuntary
to be assigned
that he "has taken some action,
action was required,
in circumstances
person would understand
must have
that status,
or failed to act when
in which a reasonable
that publicity
would likely
inhere."
Id.
at 540.
As the Fourth Circuit
"involuntary
public
figure"
swept up into a public

returning
public
recognized,
that includes
tragedy
actual malice.
rejected
that logic. See Wolston
The Supreme
in a matter
of
of
without
Court has indeed squarely
v. Reader's
443 U.S. 157, 167 (1979) I"A private
involved
involved
Digest Ass'n,
individual
Inc.,
is not
transformed
into a public
figure just by becoming
in or associated
with a matter
that attracts
attention.").
Accordingly,
public
the Court will apply the Wells
18
of
person
equivalent
cannot make out a claim for defamation
alleging
automatically
any unfortunate
is the functional
to the rule that any person
interest
to accept a definition
test
Page 19 of 20

for involuntary
Choosing
spectators
public
to attend a sporting
in publicity.
publicity,"
Alharbi
involuntary
public
Because
the question
exonerated
he did not "assume the risk of
public
that status evaporated

The Supreme
"whether or when an individual
and Gertz
the better
duration.
underpinning
that even if a private
of an involuntary
As such, Alharbi
figure may
443 U.S. at
reading of the policies
of bad luck during a public
limited
Court has not decided
of time," Wolston,
leads to the conclusion
person meets the definition
were
once he was
who was once a public
lose that status by the passage
Wolston
of an
figure, under Gertz and Dameron,
by the authorities.
However,
never attracting
figure under this test. Even if Alharbi
is whether
166 n.?
would reasonably
does not meet the definition
an involuntary
of
person
Quite to the contrary,
into the throngs of others,
notice by the press.
matter
that a reasonable
at an event like the Boston Marathon
expect to disappear
briefly
event as one of thousands
is not the kind of conduct
would expect to result

spectator
figure status.
public
controversy,
figure as a
the status
is of
lost that status when his name
was cleared.
D. Fault
As a private
actual malice
Instead,
is not required
to allege
in order to make out a claim for defamation.
the level of fault required
merely negligence.
alleged
figure, Alharbi
See Ravnikar,
in Alharbi's
complaint
on the defendants'
part
is
438 Mass. at 630. The facts
easily permit an inference

19
that
Case 1:14-cv-11550-PBS Document 30 Filed 12/02/14 Page 20 of 20

the defendants
reports
were negligent
after the authorities
not determine
whether
as to the truthfulness
cleared
the allegations
of their
his name. The Court need

create a plausible
claim of
actual malice.
ORDER
The Court DENIES
the defendants'
motion
to dismiss
(Docket
No. 11).
lsi PATTI B. SARIS

PATTI B. SARIS
United States District
20
Judge
DECLARATION OF BRETT KIMBERLIN

I, Brett Kimberlin, declare, under penalty of perjury and 28 USC 1746, that the
following is true and correct.
1. I have never been involved with any swatting of anyone, whether directly,
indirectly or in any way.
2. I do not know anyone who has ever been involved with swatting anyone else.
3. I have never asked, suggested, directed, hired or ordered anyone to swat
anyone.
4. I did not even know of Erick Erickson at the time he was allegedly swatted, and I
did not know his address, phone number or anything about him.
5. I never contacted Aaron Walker's employer prior to the time he was terminated.
6. None of the Defendants in Kimberlin v. NBC ever contacted
comment or to ask questions
prior to publishing statements
that I was involved with swattings and/or the termination
me requesting
stating or imputing
of Aaron Walker.
7. In November 2012, I received a copy of a letter written by Defendant Dan

Backer to an institutional
foundation
that provided funding to non-profits
with
which I am involved. That letter falsely accused the non profit(s) and me of
criminal activity. After receiving that letter, the foundation
ceased funding the
non-profits.
8. Dan Backer attempted
to use a malicious federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Aaron
Walker to have me fired from my employment.
Within days after Dan Backer
made that demand, Judge Motz dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice because it
was without merit.
9. Prior to the conduct alleged in the SAC, I was regularly composing songs and
videos to support the promotion
of movies highlighting social causes.
Following the conduct alleged in the SAC, I have been unable to pursue these
business activities because of the harm caused by the defamatory
statements
accusing me of crimes I did not commit.

10. I felt intimidated
by Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey's statements
that he
was going to imprison me for swattings and other crimes that I did not commit.
These statements,
written in various places, chilled my right to redress and
speech, and caused me emotional distress.

11. Patrick Frey made the threats to imprison me after I had provided information
about him to his supervisors
regarding his abuse of office, malfeasance,
bullying
and harassment.
i.l
12. I certify that all the attached copies are true and a curate copies of the matters
'"p",,""d.
Dated this 8th day of December, 2014
, U

LA W OFFICES OF
DAN BACKER., ESQ

Threshold Foundation
Attn: Legal Department
P.O. Box 29903
San Francisco, CA 94129
November 26,2012
Re: Document Hold Request for Litigation in the Matter of Walker v. Kimberlin el al. 8: 12-cvDivision.
o I852-JFM United States District Court, District of Maryland, Greenbelt

Dear Sir and/or Madam:
This letter is to inform you of the currellt above-styled lawsuit pending against Mr. Brett
Kimberlin, Justice Through Music Project, and Velvet Revolution US ("the Organizations"), in
which I represent Plaintiff Aaron Walker. Your organization has come up during the
development of this litigation as a donor to one or both of these organizations, and as such
potentially enabling the tortious and otherwise potentially unlawful conduct of Mr. Kimberlin
and the Organizations. For your benefit, I have enclosed the Complaint and a Rule I I motion
Mr. Kimberlin has filed against me in a desperate attempt to intimidate me from pursuing this
case and litigating it through trial. I have also included my response and I give you my assurance
that I will be preceding in strict accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, in
short order, with discovery which will seek information on every aspect of the Organizations'
including donor and fundraising apparatuses. Because of your organization's involvement with
Mr. Kimberlin and the Organizations, and because of their potentially tortious and perhaps even
illegal activity, I am sending you this letter as a request to preserve potential evidence in this
matter. I am requesting you preserve all documents that relate in any way to these matters, or
communications from, to, or with these individuals or their agents
Please preserve all evidence, in any form, potentially relevant to this action, including all
relevant electronic data.
We request that your data be preserved and maintained, in its native format, in
accordance with the following: you should ensure steps are taken to preserve all information
potentially relevant to this matter, including electronic data; you should contact all former
employees and/or donors to ensure they understand the importance of preserving all potentially
relevant evidence; and you should immediately suspend any programs that automatically dispose
of or recycle digital or paper files, digital back-up tapes, optical diskettes, or other storage media,
and recover any electronically stored information that has already been disposed through these
means.
209 PENNSYL VANI/\ AVENUE SE SUITE 2109 WASHINGTON DC 20003

D \NlJ/\CKm.r"O@C,v\i\lL.COiv\
202-2/0-5431 (OFFICE) 202-478-0750 (FAX)

LA W OFFICES OF
DAN BACKER., ESQ

I.
DATA TO BE PRESERVED
You should preserve all potentially relevant data, including electronic data, containing
any information relating to the subject mailer of this litigation. Although the following
paragraphs list common forms of information please preserve all other categories of documents
and information potentially relevant to the subject mailer of this litigation.
a. Electronic Data to be Preserved
The following types of electronic data containing information relating to the subject
mailer of this litigation, and/or electronic data of your donors and other relevant third-parties,
should be preserved in its native format: All electronic mail and information about electronic
mail sent or received by any person; all databases, including field and structural information as
well as records, all logs of activity on any computer system used to process or store data; and all
other electronic data, including, but not limited to, all word processing files and file fragments,
tweets, direct messages, voice mails, or other means of communication, electronic data created
by applications which process financial, accounting and billing information, including donor
information, all electronic calendar and scheduling program files and file fragments, and
electronic spreadsheet files and file fragments.
b. On-line Data Storage
Unless an exact mirror image has been made and will be preserved and kept accessible
for purposes of this litigation, you should not delete any existing electronic data storage devices,
including, but not limited to online storage and/or direct access storage devices, including, but
not limited to, any file server or data array (e.g. RAID or rootkit) physically or remotely attached
to your computers through wired or wireless networking. You should preserve any electronic
data storage devices and/or media that may contain information relating to the subject mallcr of
potential litigation.
c. Off-line Data Storage, Backups, and Archives
You should not delete any data stored on any electronic media used for omine storage,
such as magnetic tapes and cartridges, CDs, DVDs, USB devices (e.g. "thumb drives"), hard
drives and the like, used with any computer, file server or data array (e.g. RAID), whether
physically or remotely allached to your computers through wired or wireless access that contain
any clcctronic information relating to the subject mailer of this litigation.
209 PFNNSYLVANIA AVENUE SE SUITE 2109 W ASHINCTON DC 20003

D \NB/\( KII\./ SO@CMt\lLCOM
.202-210-5431 (OFFICE) 202-478.0750 (FAX)

LA W OFFICES OF
DAN BACKER, ESQ

d. Fixed Drives on Stand-Alone Personal Computers and Network Workstations
Unless an exact mirror image has been made, including hidden and/or deleted files, and
will be preserved and kept accessible for purposes of this litigation, you should not alter, delete
or over-write any relevant electronic data that exists on fixed drives attached to stand-alone
microcomputers, network workstations and/or data arrays at the time of filing this action or
perfonn other procedures, such as data compression and disk defragmentation or optimization
routines that may impact such data.
e. Applications and Utilities
You should preserve copies of all applications and utilities that may be used to process
electronic data discussed in this letter.
f. Log of System Modifications
You should maintain an activity log of document modifications made to any electronic
data processing system that may affect any system's capability to process any electronic data
relating to the subject matter of the litigation.
g. Personal Computers and All Other Devices used by Employees, Independent
Contractors, and Others
Please immediately make an exact mirror image of all electronic data and write full
directory listings (including hidden and deleted files) for all directories and subdirectories with
regard to all fixed drives attached internally, externally, physically and/or remotely by wired or
wireless access to any personal computers used by any person in your control.
Please collect, maintain intact, and keep available during the pendency of this litigation
all removable electronic media, attached internally, externally, physically and/or remotely by
wired or wireless access to any personal computers used by any person in your control, such as
floppy diskettes, magnetic tapes and cartridges, CDs, DVDs, USB devices (e.g. "thumb drives")
and the like that existed before the delivery of this letter.
Please collect, maintain intact, and keep available during the pendency of this litigation
all other relevant devices used internally, externally, physically and/or remotely by wired or
wireless access to any system used by any person in your control. This includes all cellular
phones, personal data assistants (e.g. Blackberry), voicemail messages, text messages (SMS or
othcrwise), instant messages and/or any other device that stores electronic infonnation (e.g.
RAM on printing devices or FAX machines) and the like that existed before the delivery of this
letter.
209 PENNSYLVt\NlA AVENUE SE. SUITE 2109. WASHINGTON DC 20003
Ot' 'JH \CKER.FSQ@C\;\r\lI.COM
202-210-5431 (OFFICE) 202-478-0750 (FAX)

LA W OFFICES OF
DAN BACKER, ESQ

h. Evidence Created after Receipt of this Letter
Please preserve any electronic data or other fonns of evidence created after receipt of this
letter in a manner consistent with the directions in this letter.
i. Metadata
Please preserve all metadata. Please do not to alter, delete, and/or over-write any
metadata related to any of the electronic data described in the paragraphs above.
II.
CONCLUSION
Finally please identifY and preserve all potentially relevant documents and information
related in any way to the subject matter of this litigation. You should preserve all documents and
infonnation, regardless of the fonn, now in your possession and those created or received after
this notice that may be relevant to this matter. You should not discard any potentially relevant
documents, including, but not limited to, email.Worddocuments.Exceldocuments.slide
shows,
photographs, videos, surveillance logs, surveillance reports, and other data in any fonn relating
to any aspect of this matter.
Please feel free to contact me to discuss questions you may have regarding your legal
obligation and any other information contained in this letter
Backer, Esq.
VA Bar No. 78256
209 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 2109
Washington, DC 20003
202-210-5431 direct
202-478-0750 fax
Danbacker.esq@gmail.com
Altomey for plaintiff
209 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE S[ SUITE 2109. WASHI0JC rON DC 20003

D \ "[} \CKrR.I';O(rl'
,VI/\ll.CO,V\ 202-210-5,tJl (OFFICE) 202-478-0750 (FAX)

LAW OFFICESOF
DAN BACKER, ESQ

CC:
Jeffrey R. Cohen, Esq.

Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan
2200 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22201
209 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE SE SUITE 2109 WASHINGTON DC 20003

DANBt\CKEIUSO@Ci\;\t\lLCOM
.202-210-5431 (OFFICE) 202-478-0750 (FAX)

Army Of Davids sent a message using the contact form at
http://velvetrevolution.us/newvr/index.php?g=contact.
5/26/12
Don't show up in court Tuesday or you are dead. This is your only warning.
Ishmeal Cunshot sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/newVR/index.php?g=contact.
Brett Kimberlin
is done
5/25/12
the hunter is the hunted
Loui sent a message using the contact form at

http://www.jtmp.org/jtmp/index.php?g=contact.
5/27/12
If Brett does not start to act like a grown up and quit calling the police on
people like a little punk. There will be hell to pay.
James sent a message using the contact form at
5/25/12
I can lie like you. I don't get intimidated & get on my bad side & you'll get
the full wrath. Not just from but. I have my own. The extreme wing of the TP
has arrived. This message is for Mr. K. It would not suit the best interests
of all people involved in your movement to shut the F&*K up & that includes
you. I have lawyers, cash & a ready action response team & center. You don't
find me on the web. I don't speak with cameras in the room or audio for the
world to hear. Just as you operate in darkness as a leftist figure I do the
same on the right. We've reached a crucial point. Our members are itchy.
Actions are just wating for orders. This is the last time I will communicate
with this organization, You have been warned & I will have all the dirty
secrets make it on the national scene. Including a certain other
inappropriate relationship not mentioned in this article. When you spoke th
other night I was in the audience & that's when my "laser" focus came to you,
I'm in your ranks & not in your ranks. OWS has no idea who the very high
level mole is feeding my information. I've been able to tip off cops multiple
times when the anarchists were ready to go black blocing. My tentacles have
just reached a little further when soemone else in your organization has
agreed to stream info to me. Someone you know of course. I hope you like the
email address I created just for this post. Look behind you & that camera
that flashes may just be one of our operatives.
jamesctheman sent a message using the contact form at
5/25/12
If anyone of the minions who do your dirty work even so much as show up
around my house which is not likely or subject anyone I know to any sort of
intimidation we will activate, Come after one single person I know including
me & I will shut you down. THIS IS YOUR ONLY WARNING AND I'M DROP YOU DEAD
SERIOUS. Try me. Keep upi your attacks rapist, Keep your attacks terrorist. I
don't bow to pressure or tactics, I have friends on the swat team in my town.
Pretty sad you're compensating for a small penis size by attacking others,
James sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.jtmp.org/jtmp/index,php?g=contact.
5/25/12

Now we know who you are ...you've been exposed.
cal sent a message using the contact form at
5/25/12
Listen here youdicksuckin fag. Don't ever show up in Minnesota

mike sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.jtmp.org/jtmp/index.php?g=contact. 5/25/12
KIMBERLIN YOU A-HOLE COME GET ME I'LL BE YOUR DADDY
YOU FACKING LOSER
HOW WAS YOUR 18 YEARS IN JAIL NOW YOU ARE LIVING AT GRANDMOM5
I THINK I WILL STOP BY FOR A VISIT YOU DICK HEAD
Your Enemy sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/newVR/index.php?g=contact.
5/25/12
We know who you are. We're coming for you. You will pay.
Liz Rocha, spiderbyte88@live.com 6/9/12
I'll be bringing the straw for you, It's now not a matter of if.
Brett Kimberlin, neck broken by llOlbs Female Marine.
Warmly,
Liz Rocha
Brett kimberlin sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/newVR/index.php?g=contact. 6/10/12
Hey Brett, prepare yourself!
Looks like you'll be going back to prison soon.
111"lleUt:i,.lall\/1 ',"VIIII C::U

J C::/UOluO/won't-baCK-O'OWn-amlosHnrems-natiOnal-bloggers-club-announces-a

ABOUT
CONTACT
ARCHIVES
COLUMNS
_-..L.-
MICHELLE
---------
.~
----------
Won't back down: Amidst threats, National

Bloggers Club announces Aaron Walker
appeal; blogs to crank up pressure
on Congress
By Michelle Malkin June 6,
2012 02:20
A..\i
Tw()
When I asked Ali Akbar of the National moggers Club for help with a
website/infrastructure to support the blogger targets of convicted
bomber/online terrorist Brett Kimberlin two weeks ago, he didn't hesitate or
waver, lIe stepped up to the plate because he believes in free speech and new
media. I knew and respected him from his past work on grass-roots conservativ,
campaigns and online projects. I was honored to join the NBC board of director
when he asked me late last year, There is no vast, deeply-funded conspiracy
behind how it all came together - as some deranged progressive
operativ~
(who habitually indulge in such rancid psychological
projection) are
claiming. I simply asked for help ;~ith organizing/fundraising tasks that were m
beyond my paygrade. Ali volunteered to help and hasn't stopped. 111eblogosph(
owes him bottomless thanks. ~.,-I ~I
,~
Going dark to urge congressional action: \Nho will

protect the freedom to blog?
I
By Michelle ~Ialkin . fune H. 2012
OI: II
AM
;..Iys}l1dicated column today covers the crucial battle hetween truth-telling hloggers versus
com;cted bomher Brett Kimberlin and his band of malicious online thugs. In honor of the
National Day of B10ggcrSilence called by Ace "rSpadcs,
this blog is going dark. (UPDATE: See
Ace's manifesto today here. Read Mandy Nagy's here.) But rar rrom shutting
Ull,
["II he spending
the day calling. e-mailing, and tweeting members of Congress, GOP leaders, journalists. and
innueucers to ask them what thcy are doing to defend the First Amendment rights of hloggers.
This is a oay of action, not inaction. lleIO\\.. my columB. I'll list some contact info for elected
onieials who oeed to hear from you. Please join us and "elfor free speech. Thank you.
Who will protect the freedom to blog?

by ~lichelle ~Ialkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyrigh t
2012
free speech is under tire. Online thugs are targeting bloggers (mostly conservative, but not all)
\I/ho have dared to expuse a convicted bomber and perjuring \'exatiolls litigant now enjoying a
comfy life as a liberally-subsidized
social justice
operative.
Where do your elected
representatives stand on this threat to our founding principles?

On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Saxby Cbambliss
(R-GA) bravely stepped forward to press this
vital issue. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Sen. Chambliss decried the "harassing and
friAhtening actions" of Internet menaces who have recently gone after several conservative
new
media citizen journalists and activists. (VIDEO here.)

GOI' Rep. Ken Marchant
of Texas also added his voice, telling Holder in a statement that he
is "vcry afraid of the potential chilling effects that these reported actions may have in silencing
individuals who would otherwise be inclined to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech."
And the Anlcrican
Centcr
interest law firm, announced
for Law and .Justicc,
a leading conservative
it was providing legal representation
free speech public
to the National
Bloggcrs
Club - a new media association that has provided support and mised funds for targets of this
coordinated harassment. (Full disclosure: I volunteer on the National B1oggers' Club board of
directors.)
The ACJ.J described the importance of the case very simply: "Free speech
is under
atlaek."
Sen. Chambliss and Rep. Marchant called specific attention to one territ)'ing tactic against these
bloggers: SWAT-ting. These hoaxes occur "wben a perpetrator contacts local police to report a
violent incident at a target's home." Callers disguise their true identities and locations in order to
provoke a potentially deadly SWAT/police response descending upon the targets' homes.
As online conservatives
and now ABC News
have reported. recent S\\'AT-ting \'ictims include
1\'ew,Jersey-based Mike Slack, a blogger and Twitter user targeted last sUllllller afler helping to
expose disgraced fonner N. Y. Democratic Rep. Anthony \Veiner's shady social media activities;
California blogger Patrick Frey, a deputy district attorney at Los Angeles Counly District
Attorney's Office who recently posted a bone-chilling
account and auuio of his slimmer
2011
SWATting at his blog, Paltedco.com;

editor Erick Erickson,
and CNN Contributor and RedState.com managing
whose Georgia home was targeted by a faker claiming an "accidental
shooting" there late last month.

A common thread among these and other online targets: They have published web links,
commentary. or investigative pieces related to Brett KiInbcrIin, the infamous "Speedway
Bomber." In 1978, Kimberlin was sentenced to more than 50 years in federal prison for drug
dealing, impersonating a federal onicer, and a week-long bombing spree in Speedway, Indiana.
The violcnt crimes left one victim so severely injured he committed
suicide. r\ civil cotlrt awarded
the widow of the victim, Carl Long, $1.6 million. Kimberlin was released from jail in
2001,
but has
yet to pay up.

Im'estigativejoumalist/researcher
Intcrnet
media powerhouse
Mandy Nagy, who hlogs at the latc Andrew

8reilhart.com,
8reithart's
dared to cbronicle Kimberlin's lucrative
business and political ventures over the past two years. Kimberlin has a large hand in two wellfunded outfits, Velvet Revulutionand
received funding
acti\ist/singer
the Justice
Thruugh
Music Pruject,
from the likes of George Soros's Tides Fuundatiun
Barhra
Strcisand.
that have
and left-wing
The charitable groups have viciously attacked prominent
conservative individuals and groups, including Breitbart, investigative journalist James O'Keefe,
and the U.S. Cbamber of Commerce. Nagy has been hounded relentlessly online and falsely
accused uf \\ild criminal conspiracies by Kimberlin associates for blowing the whistle on his shady
online network.
Mr. Bours,
My name is Patrick Frey. [ am writing this Icttcr to inform you of dishonest and criminal
bchavior [ have obscrvcd on the part of convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin. I
am told that Kimbcrlin has made a wild-sounding claim that he was assaulted at a
courthouse in January by an online acquaintance of mine named Aaron Walker. I write to
explain why [ believe Kimberlin ha, a motive to fabricate this claim against Aaron:
namely, Aaron wa' exposing the fact that Kimberlin had committed blatant perjury in a
Maryland court in November 2011.1 know this because I brought this perjury to Aaron's
attention.
"irst, let me give you some background about myself. 1 am a resident of Rancho Palos
Verdes, California. I am a graduate of Cornell University and the University of Texas
Law School at Austin, where I graduated Order of the Coif. 1 clerked for U.S. District
Court Judge William D. Keller of the Central District of Califomia from 1995-[996. I
was an associate at Shearman & Sterling for three years, and am currently a Deputy
District Attorney with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, where [ have
worked since 1997. I am currently a member of the Hardcore Gang Unit of the District
Attomey's Office, prosccuting gang murder cases in Long Bcach. I am writing this letter,
not as a member of the District Attorney's Office, but as a private citizen who has
witnessed months of harassment, dishoncsty, and indeed criminal conduct by tile violent
criminal Brett Kimbcrlin.
[n addition to being a Deputy District Attorney, [ am also the proprietor of a blog at
patterieo.com, a blog site that [have mn since Febmary 2003. The site receives, on
average, several hundred thousand page views per month. I have publishcd opinion
pieces in the Los Angeles Times, and my blog has been cited by publications such as the
New York Times and Washington Post, as well as by media personalities such as Sean
Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh. [have broken stories that have appeared on
the front pages of national newspapers and have appeared on radio programs across the
country.
In October 2010, I wrote a post about Brett Kimberlin. Much of Kimberlin's background
of criminal violence and dishonesty is public record, but [ will summarize it here because
of its relevance to Kimberlin's Nowmber 20 II perjury, which rclates dirccIly to the
absurd assault charge against Aaron Walker.
[n December 1981, Kimberlin was sentenced to 50 ycars in federal prison for setting off
several bombs in Speedway, Indiana in 1978, one ofwhieh blew up a police car, and
another of which maimed a man who later committed suicide as a result of his injuries.
Kimberlin's convictions include multiple felony counts of "malicious damage by means
of explosives invnlving personal injury." His record also includes (among other things)
convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, impersonating a
federal officer, and perjury. This is all public information, which can be located in
puhlished court decisions availablc on the Internet.
According 10 "Citizen K," a book about Kimberlin wrilten by New Yorker staff writer
Mark Singer, police believed that Kimberlin set off the bombs in Speedway to distract
police attention from a murder investigation in which Kimbcrlin was a prime suspect. An
eyewitness had identified a picture of one of Kimberlin's drng-running confederates as
the shooter in the murder of Jnlia Scyphers, the mothcr of Kimberlin's girlfriend, and the
grandmothcr of a pre-teen girl with whom Kimberlin had gone on severalnnsnpervised
trips out of state. When Ms. Scyphers announced her objection to Kimberlin's
inappropriate relationship with the pre-teen girl, Kimberlin reportedly became
despondent and suicidal. Witnesses reported that Kimberlin had ranted that Ms. Scyphers
was harassing him. Shortly thereafter, a gunman shot Ms. Scyphers to death at her home.
Ms. Scyphers's husband picked ant a picturc of a crime partner of Kimberlin's as being
the shooter. The local ncwspaper reported that Kim berl in was a snspect, and accordi ng to
Singer's book, Kimberlin read that story and leamed thaI he was under suspicion for
arranging the killing. (The witness soon died from an illness and the murder case was
never prosecuted.)
Days after Kimberlin was publicly named as a murder suspect, bombs started going off in
Speedway, Indiana. Among other cvidencc, the prosecution showed that materials
associated with the bombs had been found in the trunk of Kimberlin's car, and witnesses
recalled selling him timers of the unique brand that had been used to set off the bombs.
Kimberlin was convicted in 1981 and sentenced to 50 years in federal prison. However,
because of the lenienl parole mles tben in nperation, he was paroled in 1994.
Reporter Joe Gelarden of the Indianapolis Star also rep0l1ed at the time that Kimberlin
had engaged in other violent and devious schemes while facing trial, including schemes
to frame others. Kimberlin had allegedly a,ked another inmate to arrange for the murder
of prosecutor Bemard Pylitt, and had marked 10 people for murder. He had allegedly
arranged for another inmate to set off a bomb with similar components while he was
behind bars, to make it look like the "real bomber" was still free. Kimberlin had left a bag
with blasting caps, timers, and explosives at the home of a cooperating witness in the
Scyphers murder probe, to frame that witness for the bombings, according to Gelarden's
story. And Kimberlin arranged a scheme for a woman to seduce the prosecutor on
videotape, to discredit him. According to Gelardcn's story, all of these schemes were
thwarted and became part of the prosecution file. (As you will see later, attempting to
discredit and terrorize his enemies, and trying to frame others to evade responsibility for
his own actions, arc tactics that are still a part of Brett Kimberlin's playbook even today.)
One of Kim herlin's bombs had blown off the right leg of Vietnam veteran Carl DeLong,
who also lost two fingers in the blast, which were later reattacbed. According to ooe court
decision, DeLong also "received additional injuries to his inner car, stomach, chest, neck
and arm due to bomb fragments, and endured a series of operations." His wife, Sandra
DeLong, "received permancnt nerve damage can sed by bomb fragments in her leg." Carl
DeLong ultimately committed suicide due to the pain from his injuries.
Mrs. DeLong sned Kimberlin for the wrongful death of her hnsband, and won a judgment
for over a million dollars. Thejudgment was upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court.
After Mark Singer wrote the book "Citizen K" about Kimberlin, describing Kimberlin as
a dishonest con artist and a violent criminal, the federal Parole Commission made it a
condition of Kimberlin's parole that he pay the wrongful death judgment to Mrs.
DeLong. Kimberlin refused to pay the judgment.
A hearing officer found that Kimberlin had used "deceitful maneuvers to hide his ability
to pay" the judgment, and that Kimberlin never showed "any concern or empathy for the
victim." The Parole Commission returned Kimberlin to prison, telling Kimberlin that he
had engaged in "an on-going series of false statements and actions intended to prevent the
just compensation of the surviving victim of the extremely violent crime you committed."
The decision was upheld bv the U.S, District Court, and affirmed hv the Fourth
Circuit Coun of Appeals.
After I "Tote about this sordid history in October 20 10, Kim berlin threatened to sue me. I
invited him to specify any alleged falsehoods in my post, and Kimberlin failed to specify
a single false statement. What he did instead was begin a campaign of harassment against
me that has lasted almost a year and a half to date. He called my workplace and spoke
with two secretaries I know, as well as two supervisors. He also contacted the Stalking
Threat Assessment Team in our office. Kimberlin called me a racist and a homophobe,
and claimed that I was "stalking" him and that he would need to get a restraining order
against me. (This was all completely false. I am sensitive to the history of racial
discrimination in this COWltry,I support gay marriage and gays serving openly in the
military, and I never "stalked" Kimberlin, but instead only wrote truthful posts on my
blog concerning his violent and dishonest past.) Kimberlin filed a ridiculous complaint
about me with the Califomia State Bar, claiming among other things that he is "disablcd"
because he is a felon, and that by writing about his felonious history I was
"discriminating" against the "disabled" in violation of California law. Kimberlin '5
"Occupy for Accountability" web site published my home address and pictures of my
home taken from Google Maps. On that same web site, I am listed as oue of three "Media
Mouthpieces" who are allegedly responsible for the "destruction of the American way of
life." Kimberlin has complained to my office about me on numerous occasions, and has
threatened to file defarnatinn and "RICO" lawsuits against me and others who had the
audacity to write the truth about his criminal history.
An admitted confederate of Kimberlin's working on behalf of Kimberlin, Neal
Rauhauser, has also engaged in the pattern ofhara'Sment. Rauhauser has published my
home address; publicized Kimberlin's absurd state bar complaint against me; created
multiple web sites designed solely to harass and terrorize me and my frieods; published a
naked picture of a man with his penis fully exposed and falsely claimed it was "Los
Angeles COWltyDeputy District Attorney John Patrick Frey"; asked people to find a
picture of my wife; made false accusations about me and tried to spread them onto
Internet search engines; encouraged people to report me to law enforcement for nonexistent crimes; contacted law enforcement himself to report me for non-existent crimes;
threatened to send packets of material containing false allegations to candidates for the
position of Los Angeles District Attorney; and threatened to send similar packets of false
information to defense attorneys on my cases. Rauhauser has stated that his goal is to get
me fired, prosecuted, sued, bankrupted, humiliated, and disbarred. Rauhauser has made
no secret of the fact that he seeks these negative outcomes for me as a result of my having
written about Brett Kimberlin.
Rauhauser and Kimberlin also have ties to the criminal hacking group Anonymous.
Rauhauser has spent months trying to incite Anonymous to commit computer intrusion
crimes against me and other critics of Kimberlin's, by falsely claiming that the critics of
Kimberlin are engaged in a conspiracy with companies and people known to be enemies
of Anonymous. Rauhauser has published photos of himself wearing the characteristic
Guy Fawkes mask favored by members of this criminal hackiog group, and Kimberlin
has made a music video praising Anonymous, also peopled by individnals in Guy Fawkes
masks.
I suspect that Rauhauser and Kimberlin, together with another Kimberlin defender named
Ron Brynaert, are responsible for a hOllxcall to police made in July 20 II, falsely
claiming that there had been a shooting at my home. Specifically, the caller claimed to be
me, and told police: "[ shot my wife." This hoax call caused members of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Depaltment to show up at my home at 12:35 a.m. on July 1,2011,
detaining me at gunpoint, handcufling me, and placing me in a patrol car - all bccause
the phony call had caused them to believe I might have engaged in a shooting. When
police showed at the dnor, they believed a murderous man anned with a gun was on the
other side of the door. [ could have been killed. The police also entered my home, and
woke up my wife and kids. Police quickly determined the call had been a hoax, and that
my family and I had been the victims of a deliberately false report. This crime, by the
way, is called "swatting," and is a crime commonly committed by criminal hackers such
a, the members of Anonymous. The I'I3I was charged with investigating the case, but
recently closed it without arresting any suspects, telling me that the hackers were skilled
and had covered their tracks well.
However, over the months, Rauhauser and his friends (using anonymous accounts that [
have been able to identify as his) have made numerons references to the swatting and
have mocked me for being a victim of the crime. Rauhauser referenced the swatting at a
time when it was not publicly known, as I had told only family, friends, and trusted
associates about the swatting, and it was not reported in any media or online. Raubauser
could only have gotten the information about the swatting from someone who knew
about it - such as Ron Brynaert, for example. I should note that Rauhauser and Brynaert
correspond frequently. Also, all audio expert I hired concluded that Brynaert - an ardent
supporter of Kimberlin's online - is probably the person who made the swatting calls.
The pattern of harassment I have suffered at the hands of Kimberlin, Rauhauser, and
Brynaert since July 2011 is further eirewnstantial evidence that they were involved in the
"swatting" incident. The FBI has told me that eyber harassment is part of the modus
operandi of swatters. Swatters often couple fake phone calls to police with actions such
as trying to get the victim fired (a, Kimberlin and 13rynaert have done to me), publishing
the \;etim's home address (as Kimberlin and Rauhauser have done to me), defaming the
victim \vith outrageous accusations for the purpuse of gctting the accusations on Googlc
(such as Kimberlin, I3rynaert, and Rauhauser have done to me and others), and so fonll.
In short, I believe I3relt Kimberlin and his associates engaged in actions that could have
gotten me killed, all in retaliation for my \'Titing about Kimberlin's violent past.
Let me now turn to Aaron Walker. Aaron was a guest writer on my site from October
2010 until December 2011, and because of his association with me, became a target of
Rauhauser, Brynaert, and Kimberlin. Aaron had written on my blog using the pseudonym
"Aaron Worthing." In December, Brynaert (who has been a writer for one of Kimberlin's
business partners, Ilrad Friedman, and who was for years tile editor of Raw Story, a site
that is associated with Kimberlin and Friedman) engaged in a desperate campaign to
learn Aaron's true name. Brynacrt said he wanted Aaron's name so that he could report
Aaron to his state har and complain to Aaron's workplace about unspecified and no doubt
fictional abuses. Brynaert contacted a lawyer named Ken Ashford who had clashed with
Aaron online. Brynaert told Ashford that ifhe did not disclose Aaron's real name,
Bryllaert would file a complaint against Ashford with his state bar, and email everyone at
Ashford's firm and claim that Ashford had harassed Brynaert. When Ashford refused,
Brynaert contacted Ashfurd's Human Resources Department to make a phony complaiu!
about Ashford. I am possession of a lengthy email from Ashford documenting all this.
(The tactic of contacting a workplace and making false claims of haras,ment is a
common tactic of Kimberlin's crew; not only did Kimberlin du this to me, but Bryllaert
did as well. Brynaert also wrote messages on the Internet on T\vitter defending
Kimberlin, and telling me he wanted to punch me in the nose repeatedly, because I had
supposedly ignored Brynaert's arguments that Kimberlin was umocent of the bombings.
During this period of time, Brynaert also wrote on Twitter that he wanted to take a "shit"
on my wife. After I threatened to report Brynaert to my local police for these threats,
I3rynaert contacted my workplace and claimed that I had harassed him. I repeat for
emphasis: after saying he wanted to punch me and take a "shit" on my wife, he claimed
that I was the one who had harassed him! As noted, a court-qualified sound expert bas
also sib'Tleda declaration stating that be believes it is likely that Brynaert made the hoax
call that sent police to my home in July 2011.)
Rrynaert struck out in his efforts to learn Aaron's real name. The vcry next day,
Kimberlin wrote Aaron and told him that he wanted to learn his real name so tbat he
could call him as a witness in a civil lawsuit Kimberlin bad filed against a Roston-area
man named Seth AJlen, a man who had criticized Kimberlin for a lengthy period of time.
The timing suggested to me that Brynaert had been working with Kimberlin, given that
Kimberlin's request followed hard on the heels of Brynaert's failure to obtain the exact
same infonnation.
Aaron obtained pro bono representation from a Maryland lawyer named Beth Kingsley
\vith respect to preserving his anonymity. Although Kimberlin's ostensible reason for
learning Aaron's name was so he could call him as a witness, it soon became clear that
Kimberlin sought Aaron's name solely for the purpose of harassment. Kimberlin began
treating the matter of Aaron's identity as ifit were a cause ofaetiun that Aaron could
"settle" if Aaron removed any posts he had ever written about Aaron. I don't know
whether this eonstitutes extortion - threatening to "out" Aaron's identity if Aaron did not
take down truthful posts about Kimberlin - but it certainly smackcd of tlluggish tactics.
Kimberlin also insinuated that hc would report Kingsley to her law firm and her state bar
for representing Aaron, claiming that hy representing Aaron, she was possibly engaged in
a conspiracy to dcfame and stalk him.
It was around this timc that Aaron contacted me asking for me to provide him with
evidence of Kimberlin's perjury. I had previously mentioned to Aaron that, in
Kimberlin's Maryland civil lawsuit against Seth Allen, Kimberlin had perjured himself at
least three times on November 14,2011. Aaron told me that he wanted to include the
evidence of Kimberlin's perjury in papers that he was filing with the court for the
purpose of preserving his anonymity. He explained that he could use this evidence to
challenge the injunction against Seth Allen that underlay Kimberlin's alleged need to call
Aaron as a witness. I agreed and forwarded the evidence to Aaron, including audio clips
from the Rockville, Maryland civil court, and transcripts that I personally prepared from
thosc audio clips.
In one clip, Kimberlin denied under oath that he ever returned to prison on a parole
violation, and specifically denied that his parole was violated for failure to pay Mrs.
Delong. I provided Aaron with that audio and transcript, as well as the published court
ruling thaI specifically says the opposite: that Kimberlin was indeed rcturned to prison for
violating his parole by failing to pay Mrs. Delong. Kimberlin blatantly lied about this
under oath.
In another audio clip I sent Aaron, Kimberlin demed under oath that he was ever a
suspect in the murder of Julia Scyphers. He also specifically denied any knowledge thaI
Mark Singer ever "Tote that he was a suspect in the murder of Julia Scyphcrs. I pointed
Aaron to passages in Mark Singer's book which described Kimberlin talking to Singer
about seeing a headline in the Indianapolis News in 1978: "BOMBING SUSPECT IS
lfNKED TO MURDER." Kimberlin told Singer he started reading the article and .
realized it was about him. Yet on November 14,2011, Kimberlin denied under oath that
he had ever been a suspect in that murder. Kimberlin lied about this under oath.
In another audio clip I sent Aaron, Kimberlin said under oath that he could not answer a
question about whether he was exonerated of the bombings, because his exoneration was
the subject of a confidentiality agreement with the Justice Department. Kimberlin did not
provide proof of this alleged agrccment, and I have spoken to a former federal prosecutor
in Los Angeles who has said that the notion of a secret exoneration by way of a civil suit
is absurd on severallevcls. I am confident that Kimbcrlin lied about this as well, again
under oath.
After I sent these examples of Kimberlin's perjury to Aaron, he incorporated the
information in a lengthy court filing which he also published on his web site. His post
received a link from one of the most heavily trafficked bloggcrs on the Internet, and
thousands of people read Aaron's post which set forth the evidence of Kimberlin's
perJury.
It is my belief that Kimberlin, baving had his perjury exposed in this very public manner,
undertook desperate measures to discredit Aaron Walker, the man who had revealed his
perjury. Kimberlin (who, as you will recall, is supportive of criminal hackers and friendly
with their supporters) somehow learned Aaron's identity, as wcll as his home address, his
workplace name and address, his date of birth, and several other personal facts about
Aaron. Kimberlin gratuitously put this infonnation in a court filing, and Ron Brynaert
dutifully pointed readers to the court information. Il is my belief that Kimberlin published
this information in the court paperwork, despite having no legitimate purpose to do so,
solely for the purpose of harassing Aaron, and allowing his confederate I3rynaert to
"report" on the personal information contained in those court papers.
Aaron, his identity now exposed, decided to go to court to try to convince the jodge to
seal Kimberlin's paperwork. Apparently, at the hearing, the judge agreed that Kimberlin
had no legitimate reason to include Aaron's personal information in the court paperwork,
and ordered it sealed.
This, by the way, was the hearing where Kimberlin supposedly needed to call Aaron as a
witness. That was why Kimberlin claimed he had needcd Aaron's real name. Yet
Kimberlin never called Aaron as a witness, even though Aaron was there. This showed
that Kimberlin's claim that he needed Aaron's identity was a sham.
As [ understand it, Aaron then told Kimberlin outside court that he knew Kimberlin never
really intended to call Aaron as a witness, but had instead sought Aaron's identity to
harass him. As I understand it, Kimberlin essentially admitted this bad motive with his
reply: "And I got it'" (referring to Aaron's identity). Then Kimberlin raised his iPad and
took Aaron's picture. My understanding is that Kimberlin has admitted doing this at a
peace order hearing. Kimberlin was no doubt doing this to harass Aaron.
[ was obviously not a ,vitness to what happened next. Apparently Aaron took Kimberlin's
iPad from him temporarily, in an effort to prevent Kimberlin from obtaining a picture of
Aaron that he could put on the Internet as part of an effort to harass Aaron. Although I
carmot know with certainty what happened at the courthouse that day, I do know that
Rauhauser, later that day, wrote Aaron an email which I have seen, claiming that Aaron
had attacked Kimberlin, and that Kimberlin had gone to the emergency room and had
been blinded in one eye, which I find extremely improbable. Rauhauser and an associate
of his have since claimed on Twitter that Aaron attacked Kimberlin inside the courtroom;
that Aaron had to be pulled offby nine deputies; and that Aaron was arrested that day. I
believe all these claims are utterly false. I am told that there is videotape evidence that
corroborates Aaron's version and discredits Kimberlin's version, which does not surprise
me in the slightest.
And I know that Kimberlin contacted police pretending to be concerned about Aaron's
safety, and urging them to visit him at his workplace. Aaron's workplace, concerned
about a convicted bomber knowing the location of (and possibly showing up at) Aaron's
workplace, fired Aaron and his wife after years of loyal service, due to the fears of the
workers there. Aaron's former employers say that a person or pcrsons claiming to be
protestors (likely contacted by Kimberlin andlor Rauhauser, if not Kimberlin andlor
Rauhauser themselves) threatened to protest Aaron's workplace uuless he was fired. I
know that Rauhauser created a web site direeted at me, Aaron, and other erities of
Kimberlin's, filled witl, YouTube videos of bloody images of murder and beheadings,
with a countdown clock to something he called "Kookpocalyse." Rauhauser published
transit maps including a route to Manassas, Virginia, where Aaron lives. After Aaron
interpreted all of this activity as harassment [Uldsought a peace order from a Maryland
court, Rauhauser called me at work a couple of weeks ago, and left a voice mail saying
he thOllght Aaron was likely to kill himself. Rauhauser also sent an cmail to me and
scveral otllcr pcople that same day, claiming among other things: "Given Walker's state
of mind I would say his wife might find him hanging in the garage tonight when she gets
hom e from work."
And I have been informed that a New Jersey man named Mike Stack who was also
"swatted" one week before me, recently sought a pcace order against Rauhauser in New
Jersey - and that there is an arrest warrant for Rauhauser due to his failure to appear at
that hearing despite having been given notice.
In short, the harassment from this group directed towards Aaron, myself, and several
other people has been ongoing for months, and has been perpetrated by a group of people
connected to Brett Kimberlin. Even commenters on my site who have criticized
Kimberlin have been targeted for harassment by this group. TI,e group has threatcncd
and/or tiled bar complaints against every single lawyer involved, including me, Aaron,
Ken Ashford, and Beth Kingsley. If your representation of Aaron becomes known to this
group, they will likely threaten and/or harass you too.
[ believe the assault charge against Aaron is simply a part of tllis larger pattern of
harassmcnt - and that Kimberlin is pursuing the assault charge to discredit Aaron's
evidence that Kimberlin had perjured himselfin November 2011 in Rockville, Maryland.
[ apologize for the length of this email, but when I consider what I could possibly remove
from the letter for brevity's sake, I worry that I will be removing something that you or
the prosecutors need to hear. This is a very serious matter - important enough for me to
have laken most of a weekend to compose this letter. I hope it will be read carefully, with
the same care with which I put it together.
[ am happy to discuss this matter further with you, your investigator, or any prosccutor
who is considering wbether to pursue these charges against Aaron.
Finally, let mejust say that, in my opinion, what Brett Kimberlin is doing to Aaron
Walker is a travesty. He ha~ already cost the man and his wife tlle;r jobs. Now he is
trying to cost him his freedom, based on lies. I have a hard time believing prosecutors
would actually pursue an assault case based on the uncorroborated word of a convicted
domestic terrorist and convicted perjurer who had a motive to frame the "defendant"
because the defendant was exposing the recent perjury of the "victim." Especially when
videotape evidence contradicts the convicted pcIjurer's tale.
If anyone deserves prosecution, it is not a man with no record who has been harassed by a
criminal. If anyone deserves prosecution, it is Brett Kimberlin, for peIjury, for a false
police report against Aaron - and (if we can prove it) his entire crew for swatting and
related cyberstalking crimes.
I can be reached at 310-266-7549, which is my cell phone, or 562-491-5967, which is my
direct line at work.
Yours truly,
Patrick Frey
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
------------------------------x
BRETT KIMBERLIN
:
I
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
Civil No. 380966
AARON WALKER,
Defendant.
------------------------------x
Jury Trial
Rockville, Maryland
August 12, 2014
l'l..

21
Whatever, nobody, my point is has anybody in an
22
official position anywhere bought into your whole narrative,
23
you know, that I got you fired.
24
I'm a murderer.
25
that you've tried to get me arrested for and charged with?
That I'm a pedophile.
Tha
That I'm a perJurer or any of the other things

Ha
cgg
anybody ever bought into that.

~
Anyone believed that that's what occurred.
Has anybody ever bought into that?

MR. OSTRONIC:
THE COURT:
Have you ever __
Objection, Your Honor.
Overruled.
BY MR. KIMBERLIN:
Have you ever gotten a federal judge, a state judge
a state's attorney in Howard County, in Carroll County, ~
Montgomery County anywhere to say yes, Brett Kimberlin is whau
10
you profess I am?

Yes, Patrick Frye for example That's not, he's not an official.
He's a blogger,
right wing teabag blogger out of California.

No. he is an assistant district attorney.
=gg
~ Digitally
signed by Caroline
272
G Gibson
DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE

DEPOSITION
foregoing
duplicated
Circuit
pages
represent
electronic
Court
SERVICES,
INC. hereby
an accurate
sound recording
for Montgomery
County
certifies
transcript
that the
of the
of the proceedings
in the matter
of:
Civil No. 380966
BRETT KIMBERLIN
v.
AARON WALKER
By:
Caroline G Gibson
Transcriber
1n the
From: tomf@aoLcom
Date: May 23,20127:05:24 PM EDT
To: justicejtmp@comcast.net.
Subject: [Coutact] Leave him alone
Tom sent a message using the contact form at http://www.jtmp.orgljtmp/index.php?g=contact.
---+-
Don't go there.
Report as inappropriate: http://www.jtmp.orgJjtmpfmde.x.php ?g=mollom/report/mollom
content/120 524824af8c7 a046
~itor Analysis & System Spec

!arch Referral:
www.google.com
- justice through music project <htto:llwww.google.com!search?sa=t&rct=i&g=justice%20through%20music%
)projectS,source-web&cd1 &ve d zOCFOOFjAA&url- http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jtmp.o[0%2F&ei

3F6iyiOLK3d DfDQ&usg:sA EO; CNEHSa SyGfU3fT 9 atnLzOesg mlllwg:>
-1
:>st Name:Browser:Firefox
AddresS:l46.23J.O.202
=maanjfy%2f%3Fip
yWu9T-
3.6
- [label IP Address]
number%3p2464743626>
< httpjllstatcoynter,com/o6887348/add-ip-address-Ia
Operating System:WinXP
bel/'IP address-146.233.0.
)catlon:whittier,
California, United StatesResoJutlon:1280xl024
!turning Visits:oJavascript:Enabled
:sit Length:8
mins 29 secslSP:Los
Angeles Sheriffs
Department
lavigation Path
ltenmeWebPage
www.QQQcle.com - justice through music project <http;/lroyw,goog!e,cQrn!search7sa=t&rct=i&g=jystic<:%20throygh%2Qmusjc%
)pcoject&5ource -weh8scd_l &yed -OCfOQfiAA&ud_http%

3A%2FVJoZ fwww.jtmp
JF6iyiOLK3d DfDQ&usg -AFOj CNEHSa SyGfU3agatn1.2Qesgmlllwg
> -1
org% 2 F&e yWy9I-
iy 2305:59:38 PMwww.jtmp.org/jtmplindex.pho <http://www.jtmp.orglitmp/index.php>

www.jtmp.org/jtmplindex.pho < http://www.jtmo.orgbtmplindex .php>
!y 2307:01:34
PM www,itmp.org!jtmp/index.php?Q=Dbout
<http://www.jtmp.org6tmp!index.php?g=about>
itmo,orglitmpbndex
ohp'g-aboyt
<httPillwww,Jtmp,o[glitmpbndex,php'g_aboyt>
Jy 2307:02:37
PM www.jtmp.orghtmplindex.php?g_bloq
<httPillwww,jtmp.ora/jtmpfindex,php'g_blog>
www.jtmp.orgtjtmp/index.php10,""blog
< http://www.jtm
p.oroljtmp/index.
Dh p1g _ blog >
'Y 2307:02:46 Pt-Iwww.itmp.org/jtmp!index.php?g=contact
<http://www.jtmp.org!jtmp!index.php?g=contact>
iy 2307:03:01 PMmollom.com/web-service-privacy-policy
<http://mollom.com/web-service-nri ..
aev-policy>
sy 2307:05:03 Pt-Iwytw,brodl;ymonning,org!
<ht:W.iLLwww.bnsdleymollnning.org/>
(Exit Link)
www
www.jtmp.orgfitmp{jndex.php'1g -contact <http://www.jtmp.orgljtmpljndex.php?g_contact>
ly 2307:08:00 Pt-Iwww.jtmp.orgljtmD/
<.b..t:m1.lLwww.jtmp.orgjjtmp/>
www.jtmD.orgfitmp/
<h!m..:LLwww.jtmp.org/jtmp/>
'y 2307:08:07 PMwww.jtmo.orgljtmplindex.phn?g=news
<http://www,itmp.orgljtmp!index.php?g=news>
(Exit Link)
202&retu cn url-% 2Fp6SB7348D/o
Ali A. Akbar
Follow
@ali
#8 ettKimberlin picked a fight with Andrew

8reitbart that wei re going to finish. He [f go to
jaH this time,. #blog ash
1
1:45 P\" - 7 Mar 201 3
4 RET1NEETS 1 'AVORITE

1
PAR
V I R GIN
T I A L
T RAN
S C RIP
I A
IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT
OF PRINCE
WILLIAM
COUNTY
AARON
J. WALKER,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
BRETT
Case
No. CL12-631-00
KIMBERLIN,
Defendant.
x
Circuit Courtroom
4
William County Courthouse
Manassas, Virginia
Prince
Tuesday,
The above-entitled
before
the HONORABLE
the Circuit
Court
Courthouse,
Manassas,
RICHARD
of Prince
matter
December
came
B. POTTER,
William
Virginia,
on to be heard
Judge,
County,
beginning
4, 2012
in and
for
in the
at 11:15
o'clock
a.m.
&
CERTIFIED
VERBATIM
4116 LEONARD
FAIRFAX,
S
REPORTERS
DRIVE
VIRGINIA
(703) 59t-3136
22000

..-----------------------."..-,2
APPEARANCES:
On Behalf
of the Plaintiff:
DAN BACKER,
On Behalf
ESQUIRE
of the Defendant:
(Pro Se)
&
CERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS

.'16LElNARO DRIVE
FAIRFAX, V1RGINlA22030
(703) 591-3136

3
1
EXT
PRO
*
(The Court
the Clerk
Reporter
THE COURT:
The Plaintiff
the Defendant
10
not before
We're
Their
complaint
the Defendant
Kimberlin.
14
twenty-three,
twenty-four,
15
twenty-seven,
and thirty-two.
involve
five, eight,
nine,
The Defendant
17
dismiss
18
lack of jurisdiction,
19
First
against
Defendants
thirty-two
two,
fourteen
a complaint
contains
13
the complaint
who are
fourteen,
twenty-five,
Kimberlin
for failure
improper
of
Counts
fifteen,
sixteen,
twenty-six,
has
filed
to state
venue,
counts
a motion
a claim,
to
the
and violation
of th~
Amendment.
20
Kimberlin's
21
That
22
denied.
is motions
23
&
motion
to dismiss
for any additional
In light
by
today personally.
which
sworn
back on the record.
and two other
12
16
G S
was previously
has brought
Kimberlin,
the Court
11
four,
C E E DIN
of the Court.)
R ACT
of the Court's
CERTIFIED
VERBATIM
4116 LEONARD
REPORTERS
DRIVE
FAIRFAX. VlRGINIA~
(703) 591.3136
will
sanctions
ruling
be granted
will
be
on the motion
to dismiss,
moot
and therefore
3
4
against
dismissed
dismissed.
pleadings
of the parties
the Plaintiff
10
damages,
11
that
12
the law.
including
for default
are also
seeks
but makes
exhibits
filed
15
involved
in extensive
16
political
in this case
17
These
civil
19
courts
20
most
21
Defendant
Kimberlin
22
dismissed
by order
23
District
of Maryland
allegations
recent
&
case
under
the various
pleadings
that
the parties
have
that have
claims
an
been
involved
including
appear
in state
to have
been
filed by the Plaintiff
criminal
of the U.S.
dismissed.
against
District
on November
CERTIFIED
4116LEONARD
FAIRFAX,
REPORTERS
DRIVE
VIRGINIA
(703) 591-3136
Court
28, 2012,
IJERBATlM
Z2030
and
and federal
and his two organizations
so
from
and litigations
all of which
damages
issues.
various
18
that
in punitive
is not recognizable
disputes
and religious
and the argumen~
for compensatory
clear
is
of the
to this Court
dollars
(inaudible)
14
and the case
exhibits
two million
It's also
denied
it is clear
no claim
the Plaintiff
are
judgment
of the totality
the attached
and counsel
by the Court
as well.
Upon consideration
motions
motion
the co-defendants
13
pending
Plaintiff's
the other
The
the
was
in the
just six days

5
1
ago,
in which
unwise
between
to intervene
This
clear
and vindictive
that
failing
by demurrer,
to state
demurrer
it
disputes
the same position.
is simply
a continuation
between
a claim
It's
of meritles~
the parties.
is clear
is an issue
and Defendant
12
the signature
13
before
14
the pleading
15
existing
16
purpose
17
needless
that
generally
Kimberlin
has not
true that Virginia
of an attorney
this Court
or a party
constitutes
addressed
filed
is well
grounded
such as to harass
increase
grounded
in fact,
20
it's imposed
21
political
in fact,
22
While
the Court,
&
finds
that
by him that
warranted
by
unnecessary
the complaint
it's not warranted
between
purpose
delay
is not weI
by existing
as part
law, and
of an ongoin~
the parties.
the statute
this Court
any pleading
for any improper
or to cause
for an improper
dispute
with
tha
in the cost of litigation.
The Court
19
law provides
a certification
law, and is not interposed
18
"I deem
political
the law in Virginia
It's also
I quote,
in this case.
11
takes
litigation
While
23
and
in the bitter
Court
this case
10
stated
the parties."
the Judge
will
provides
grant
the motion

4116tEONARD
ORNE
FAIRFAX,
VIRGINIA
(703)591.3136
for sanctions
22000
by
to dismiss
by

6
Defendant
Kimberlin.
2
3
based
elements
upon
The Court
further
a claim
the motion
for any
1)
Publication,
2)
Of an actual
3)
Intent.
In order
however
12
published
13
harms
that count
a false
Under
statement
to assert
the Plaintiff
15
including
16
statements
17
directed
must
a claim
first
factual
paragraph
show
statement
fifty-one
allegedly
law,
the
of defamation
that
the Defendant
that concerns
and
made
they
own allegations
indicate
by the Defendant
that
were
the
not
at the Plaintiff.
18
In addition,
19
his motion
20
opinion
21
actual
to dismiss
as the Defendant
and here
are constitutionally
today
has stated
expressions
protected
in
of
and they're
not
as defamation.
22
So as a matter
statements
Virginia
and,
But here by the Plaintiff's
two is
the Plaintiff.
14
23
further
are:
11
finds
of defamation.
on defamation
10
denies
sanctions.
The Court
&
set forth
of law the Court
in the complaint

4116LEONARO ORNE
FAIRFAX. VlRGINtA22030
(703) 591-3136
finds
that
th
do not contain

7
provable
nature
false
and depend
3
4
proper
the viewpoint
of intentional
to recover
emotional
elements
on a claim
distress
intolerable
of emotional
of intentional
for lack 0
on allegation
distress.
infliction
must
wrongdoers
satisfy
In order
of
four
conduct
was
and,
The Defendant's
conduct
was outrageous
an
and,
There
conduct
4)
16
the Defendant's
and reckless
3)
14
17
it is based
the Plaintiff
That
2)
12
15
of the speaker.
of proof:
intentional
13
eight,
infliction
1)
11
in
and venue.
As to count
but are relative
four and five are dismissed
jurisdiction
10
was a causal
connection
and the resulting
The
resulting
between
emotional
emotional
th
distress,
distress
was
severe.
18
Even
taken
in the light most
19
Plaintiff,
the Court
20
statements
of the Defendant
21
could
be the basis
22
cannot
8.
the alleged
Kimberlin
were
with
R
CERTIFIED
VERBATIM
REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD
ORI\I'E
FAIRFAX. VIRGINIA 22030

(703) 591-3136
is based
expectations
or
distress.
that count
business
to the
outrageous
emotional
fourteen,
the tort of interference
favorable
find that
of any severe
As to count
23
statements
upon
Counts
factual
on
and

8
1
the elements
of that
1)
probability
objective
or expectancy
benefit
to Plaintiff
of
as an
Defendant's
continued
knowledge
of that relationshi
and,
3)
Reasonable
intentional
in that
10
certainty
misconduct
relationship
that
absent
Plaintiff
the
would
have
and,
4)
The interference
was by improper
5)
Damages
from
methods
and,
12
13
resulted
that
improper
interference.
14
The complaint
15
elements.
16
any way
It fails
improper
17
Count
20
business
sufficient
and sixteen
all of the
facts
are dismissed
And
is based
the elements
An allegation
22
2)
An agreement
and,
23
3)
To willfully
and maliciously
&
for
of that are:
1)
on the Virginia
21
that were
and venue.
twenty-three
conspiracy.
to state
by the Defendant.
fifteen
lack of jurisdiction
19
fails
to state
methods
Counts
18
economic
Defendant's
or expectancy
relationship
test and,
2)
11
include:
A business
of future
5
6
tort
of two or more
CERTIFIED
'vERBA TIM REPORTERS
4116 LEONARD ORNE

(703) 591-3136
persons,
interfere

9
with
another
profession
3
without
Malice,
The given
facts
to support
state
those
particularity.
9
Virginia
11
tort
that
specific
Common
or
purpose
to state
of the tort
twenty-four
reckless
is based
Law of Conspiracy
an
and
and
sufficient
fails
to
and
on the tort
of
the elements
of the
include:
Two or more
13
2)
Accomplish
14
some
15
by unlawful
criminal
16
or unlawful
and criminal
reckless
persons
combined
by some concerted
purpose,
to,
action
or an unlawful
for
purpose
means.
If a Plaintiff
fails
to allege
the tort
with
and particularity.
18
Counts
19
seven
20
for the reasons
twenty-five,
are dismissed
21
Count
22
request
23
irreparable
fails
facts with
1)
is an intentional
complaint
12
17
business,
and,
the elements
Count
10
reputation,
justification.
by any means
4)
in his trade,
and
for lack of jurisdiction
and venue
thirty-two
is based
upon
an
Plaintiff's
but an injunction
requires
harm and two, a lack of adequate
twenty-
set forth herein.
for an injunction,
&
twenty-six,

4116lEONARO
DRIVE
FAIRFAX.
VIRGINIA
(703) 591-3136
22000
remedy
one
of

10
1
law.
In view
are sought,
the allegations
that
law or a claim
set forth
counts
two,
sixteen,
four,
six, and twenty-seven,
11
The motion
13
exceptions
14
ruling
with
nine,
twenty-four,
remedy
of
motion
to dismiss
fourteen,
fifteen,
twenty-five,
and thirty-two
is granted
twenty-
is granted.
and those
The Court
of the Plaintiff
shall
counts
note
and the Defendant
are al
the
to the
of the Court.
motions
16
and are also dismissed.
17
dismiss
18
defendants
19
Court.
the motion
20
upon
21
simply
reflects
22
Defendant's
23
dismissed.
&
At the same
for default
the ruling
to prepare
is granted

4116 lEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX.
VIRGINIA
(103) 591-3136
rendered
22IXlO
moot
the Court
against
as set forth
of the Court
to dismiss
time
judgment
ask counsel
motion
are therefore
the same grounds
I will
eight,
prejudice.
The other
i,
or any showing
an adequate
the Defendant's
five,
10
dismissed
harm
of merit.
twenty-three,
12
not have
damages
of irreparable
in the complaint
would
Therefore,
15
can be no showing
the Plaintiff
there
of the fact no compensatory
the co-
by the
an order
which
will
which
is that
and the case
the
is

11
1
Thank
you, gentlemen.
o F
END
EXT
RAe
* * * * *
(Whereupon,
a.m.,
the hearing
concluded.)
at approximately
in the above-entitled
11:57
matter
o'clock
was
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
&
CERTIFIED ~BATIM REPORTERS

4116 LEONARD DRIVE
FAIRFAX. V1RGINlA22roO
(703) 591-3136
12
*****
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, SUZANNE GONZALES, a Verbatim Reporter, do
hereby certify that I took the stenographic notes of the
foregoing proceedings which I thereafter reduced to
typewriting; that the foregoing is a true record of said
proceedings; that I am neither counsel for, related to,
nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which
these proceedings were held; and, further, that I am not
relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed
by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
interested in the outcome of the action.
SUZANNE GONZALES
Verbatim Reporter
&

4116 LEONARD DRIVE
(703) 591-3t36

ECF 231 - Redacted

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ECF 231 - Redacted

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 231 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

No. GJH 13 3059

NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al

Backer, DB Capitol Strategies,

claim which would entitle

this case with regard

Simon & Schuster

them from the case.

The Court must deny the Motions

the time set for by the Rules, and are

Frey, Mandy Nagy, Michelle

Radio Arts, RedState,

O'Keefe, and moved

McCain, Ali Akbar, Lee Stranahan

Club have failed to file responses

Glenn Beck, Mercury

in his behalf, the Complaint

can prove a "set of facts in support

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, (1957). "The

in the light most favorable

to the Plaintiff, and with every doubt

any valid claim for relief." 5A Wright

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 231 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 50

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure:

at 336. The Court, when

deciding a motion to dismiss, must consider well-pled allegations

in favor of the plaintiff. Scheuer v.

entitled to no relief under any state offacts which could be

that Plaintiff, as the Defendants stated and imputed, was

involved with swattings

in any way, shape or form. Because there is no truth to their

technical reasons, such as: 1) the three year statute of limitations

should not apply to

and false light cannot apply to Plaintiff because he

is a public figure and 3) defamation

proof, 4) the Defendants did not engage in a RICO

allows fair comment, 6) Defendant Frey did not

5) the First Amendment

are without merit and belied by the facts and law.

were merely engaging in First Amendment

their briefs is that they

activity by writing, opining, commenting

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 231 Filed 12/08/14 Page 3 of 50

However, that is not what they did.

fraud, extortion, obstruction

false light, battery, money laundering

They created a fraudulent

further their criminal and tortious conduct.

501c3 and websites and campaigns to

posts and tweets directed at Plaintiff, his family, his daughters,

his employer, judges, States Attorneys and reporters

and others who did not accept

They filed malicious and vexatious lawsuits against Plaintiff

that they then used to generate defamatory

against Plaintiff as if they were

Plaintiff in the Montgomery Circuit Courthouse

conduct outside of their First Amendment

activity continued over a period of years

and continues to this day.

with other First Amendment

activity, the First Amendment

336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949).