Anda di halaman 1dari 28

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 18


U,S, DiSTI~It:l CO~Ri

C1..i::i'.. ~'SOFfiCE




GJH 13-3059





Now comes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin and responds in opposition

to Defendant Lee


Motion to Dismiss filed on January 5, 2015. Rather than file his own


Defendant Stranahan's

"Defendant Stranahan



motion states the following:

all those motions [filed by other defendants]

herein by reference and adopts the reasoning contain therein in support of this
motion." The Motion is without merit and should be denied.
1. Defendant Stranahan, as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, is one
of the key instigators

of the conspiracy to target Plaintiff with false narratives,

by the National Bloggers Club, and racketeering

with Breitbartcom


activity. He was in direct contact

because he worked for the publication and took his orders from

its owner, the late Andrew Breitbart, to go to "war" against Plaintiff. See Exhibit A
where Defendant Akbar tweeted: "#BrettKimberiin

picked a fight with Andrew

Breitbart and we're going to finish it He'll go to jail this time." Defendant Stranahan
wrote scores of articles and tweets that stated or imputed that Plaintiff was involved
with swatting and other criminal activity. Exhibit B. He participated

in the webinar

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 18

hosted by the Franklin Center, [which has settled this case with Plaintiff], which was
held live on the Internet and made into a YouTube video, [which Franklin Center has
since removed], which stated and imputed that Plaintiff was swatting conservative
bloggers. ("Aaron Walker was swatted last night and is a very high profile victim of
Brett Kimberlin.") He conceived and launched the "Everybody Blog About Brett
Kimberlin Day," which caused a widespread defamatory attack on Plaintiff with
thousands of blogs posts and tweets falsely accusing Plaintiff of crimes and causing
Defendant Walker's termination. He created a YouTube video that portrayed
Plaintiff in a false light. He targeted others who defended Plaintiff and he flew to
Maryland to press charges against a reporter who discovered Defendant
Stranahan's long history of creating and selling pornography. The Howard County
Prosecutors rejected those charges. He participated in the "Everybody BlogAbout
Howard County Prosecutors" campaign of intimidation after those prosecutors
refused to arrest Plaintiff for charges made up by Defendants. He solicited and
participated in calls to raise funds for the fraudulent National Bloggers Club, and
received funds from DefendantAkbar to continue the attacks on Plaintiff. He
attacked Montgomery County District Court Judge Vaughey for siding with Plaintiff
in a Peace Order against Defendant Aaron Walker [which caused courthouse
security to provide extra security to the judge after his home address was posted on
the Internet]. He wrote articles and published tweets imputing that Plaintiff was
involved with the swatting of Defendants Aaron Walker and Patrick Frey. And he
has even recently attacked the other defendants who have settled this case. E.g.,

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 18

betrays- rea ders-an d-first-

arne nd men toby re movi n goa11- brett -ki m berlin-materia


2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure


12(b)(6) only provides for "the dismissal ofa

complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

This rule's

purpose '''is to test the sufficiency of a complaint and not to resolve contests

the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability

of defenses.'''


(quoting Presley Y. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006)). To that
end, the Court must bear in mind the requirements

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 when

a motion to dismiss pursuant

to Rule 12(b )(6). Specifically, a complaint

must contain "a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and must state "a plausible claim for
relief." /3ell Atlantic Corn.


Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbat556

U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

is liable for the misconduct

alleged." Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 663.

3. Clearly, applying these standards,

allows this Court to draw reasonable
other defendants


Plaintiff has pleaded factual content that

inferences that Defendant Stranahan

engaged in the misconduct

4. Since Defendant Stranahan


inference that the

and the

alleged in the Complaint.

has adopted the arguments

of the remaining

address some of those briefly here.

5. False Light-Several


have argued that the Maryland Court of

Special Appeals' decision in Allen v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 547 A.2d 1105,1108


Ct. Spec. App. 1988), that false light claims are governed by Maryland's three year

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 4 of 18

statute of limitations,

is not binding on this Court, and that a more recent case,

Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 35 A,3d 1140, 1147 (Md. 2012), undermines

without merit. Allen specifically addressed

Allen. This is

the issue of the statute of limitations


false light and held that it is three years. Piscatelli did not even mention the statute
of limitations or Allen in the entire opinion and only made a passing reference that
false light had to meet the same legal standards

of defamation, which it went on to

mean the elements of the offense. Clearly, Plaintiffs false light claims were filed
timely within the three-year


6. False Light Properly



have argued that Plaintiff

did not plead false light and that calling him a swatter, a person who caused
Defendant Walker's termination.

a terrorist,

and a menace who was going to

"escalate" to violence if not taken off the streets, did not portray him in a false light
This is without merit.
7. The Defendants, including Defendant Stranahan,




into Plaintiffs

private matters, and that they recklessly published


that placed Plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a



Not only did they publish false statements

a false light, they did so to invade his privacy. The Defendants'

that portrayed

him in


in Plaintiffs photo being placed on several of the Defendants' websites and Twitter
feeds depicting him as a Nazi, a pedophile, a supporter
None of these statements

of terrorism,

and a swatter.

or graphics were true yet they were made intentionally

order to place Plaintiff in a false light and invade his privacy.

8. In Maryland, the tort of false light invasion of privacy is defined as:


Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 5 of 18

"One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the
other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for
invasion of his privacy if
(a) the false light in which the other person was placed would be highly
offensive to a reasonable

person, and

(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity
of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be
Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg 'I Med. Ctr., 665 A.2d 297, 318 (Md. Ct
Spec. App. 1995) (quoting Restatement

(Second) of Torts

S 652E


9. There are four different kinds of invasions of privacy:

"s 652A.

Meaning of Invasion of Privacy

The Right of Privacy is Invaded When There Is

(a) Unreasonable

intrusion upon the seclusion of another,

(b) Appropriation

of the other's name or likeness,

(c) Unreasonable

publicity given to the other's private life,'"

(d) Publicity which unreasonably

public, . n
The authorities

places the other in a false light before the

make it clear that an invasion of the right of privacy by anyone of the

above four courses of conduct may give rise to a cause of action and, on occasion,
there may be an overlapping

or concurrent

invasion by any or all of the above

means working toward the injury of the plaintiff. Restatement

Second, 652A,

Comment d. [252 Md. at 537-538]. Cited in Kilpa v. Board a/Education,

460 A.2d

601,54 Md. App. 644 (1983).

10. In the instant case, the Defendants unreasonably
privacy, they appropriated

intruded on Plaintiffs

his likeness, they unreasonably

gave publicity to

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 6 of 18

Plaintiffs private life, they made false statements

and false graphics about him, and

these actions placed Plaintiff in a false light.

11. Defamation Per Se-Several defendants

have argued that their published

stating that Plaintiff committed the crime of swatting and other crimes

are protected


per se defamation.
"the injurious

However, Maryland law says that such statements

In the case of words or conduct actionable


of the words is a self-evident

as defamation per se,

fact of common knowledge

of which the court takes judicial notice and need not be pleaded
Haskins v. Bayliss, 440 F.Supp.2d 455,461

are defamatory



or proved."

(D. Md. 2006). Under Maryland law,

per se when the statements

possess innately injurious

Bouie v. Rugged Wearhouse, Inc., 2007 WL 430752 (D. Md. 2007);

Hearst Corp. v. Hughes, 297 Md. 112, 125, 121 A.2d 466, 492 (1983). Accusing an
individual of committing

a crime is an example

of a statement

per se. See, e.g., Carter v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment

Md. App. 210, 238, 835 A.2d 262,278


that is defamatory
Services, Inc., 153

that a person is a thief is

per se): American Stores v. Byrd, 181 A2d 333 (Md. 1962) (if statement

made in ordinary lay language that would impute a crime or guilt, sufficient to prove
libel); Brown v. Farkas, 511 NE 2d 1143 (Ill. 1986) (call to DSS that employee
bragged about sex with daughter

is per se defamation);

Conner v. Scruggs, 821 So 2d

542 (LA App. 2002); Smith v. Danielczyk, 928 A2d 795(Md. 2007)(per se defamation
to impute commission

of a crime for which a person might be indicted and

Pollitt v. Brush Moore Newspapers, 136 A2d 573 (MD 1957) (same);

Farnum v. Colbert, 293 A2d 279 (DC 1972) (same).

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 7 of 18

Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed, West 1970, page 376 states the following with
regard to defamation per se:
In respect of words, those which by themselves, and as such, without
reference to extrinsic proof, injure the reputation of the person to
whom they are applied.
Defamation per se means "defamation in itself." Again, according to Black's
at p 1245.:

such words as are deemed slanderous without proof of special

damages. Generally an utterance is deemed 'slanderous per se' when
publication (a) charges the commission of a crime, (b) imputes some
offensive or loathsome disease which would tend to deprive a person
of society, (c) charges a woman who is not chaste, or (d) tends to
injure a party in his trade, business, office or occupation ....
Clearly, since defendants, including Defendant Stranahan have all accused
Plaintiff of engaging in serious crimes that he did not commit, including swatting,
Plaintiff has properly pleaded per se defamation. There is no protection from such
reprehensible speech for any of the defendants.
12. Defendant's Dan Backer and DB Capitol Strategies-Defendant


for some reason has adopted Defendant Dan Backer and DBCapitol Strategies'
Motion to Dismiss that raises the issue of lawyer immunity for the proposition that
since lawyer Backer and his firm represented Aaron Walker in two malicious suits
against Plaintiff, they cannot be sued. This is without merit and perverse.
The conduct of Defendants Backer and DBCSwent far beyond that which falls
under the protections provided for attorneys. For example, the defendants filed two
malicious suits against Plaintiff in bad faith and used those suits for wrongful
purposes. In the Virginia suit, with virtually every filing, they asked for sanctions in

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 8 of 18

the tens of thousands of dollars, along with requests for contempt and

judge Potter found that the suit was not only without merit but filed

in bad faith for an improper purpose. In the federal suit, the defendants attempted
to use it to get Plaintiff fired from his job of ten years, to get copies of all the financial
books of the employer, and to extort the employer. Moreover, in that case, the
defendants, prior to any rulings in the case, sent a letter to the employer's largest
institutional funder falsely accusing Plaintiff and the employer of criminal activity
for the sole purpose of causing that funder to deny future funding from the
employer, which it did. judge Potter rejected all of the defendants' requests for
sanctions, and judge Motz found that he did not have jurisdiction to do what the
defendants requested (and continue to request), that is, taking over the Maryland
court system that is so corrupt because it would not buy into the false narratives of
the Defendants and denying Plaintiff the right to file any lawsuits to protect himself
from tortious conduct
Not only did Defendants Backer and DBCSfile malicious legal actions, they also
created websites and Twitter accounts that falsely accused Plaintiff of swatting and
other crimes. Reputable lawyers do not do such things. They then held fundraisers
on those sites and raised tens of thousands of dollars that they stuffed in their
pockets although they portrayed themselves as representing Defendant Walker pro
bono. Exhibit C. Through their Conservative Action Fund, they paid Defendant
Akbar using one of his fraudulent money laundering entities, Vice and Victory.
Exhibit D. When DefendantAkbar was exposed in the press as a felon and fraudster
on probation for credit card theft and other crimes, Defendants Backer and DBCS

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 9 of 18

took over much of the fraudulent

money raising/laundering


Defendants Akbar and the National BJoggers Club, thereby attempting

to sanitize

those illegal activities.

Incredibly, not even Defendant Stranahan
of Defendants

could stomach the fraudulent


Backer and DBCS. He published a series of articles in 2014 detailing

how they engaged in massive fraud of Tea Party organizations,

and exploiters for raising hundreds

of thousands

calling them rip-offs

for causes and then pocketing all

t~a =partY-=I1Cw-=ma
th e mon ey. E.g" http://J lte.stranahan. C9JIl LexplQ!ting=-the-=
QU ie:gQh me rtf;
fro m -dan- bac ke r-co nn ected -groli P-=--USJts-1

Defendant Stranahan

These exposes' led to

being fired by Defendant Breitbartcom/Holdings


they did not want Defendant Backer exposed as a fraudster.

http~ 1Ld ai I)'C<lllecCQ mL2Ql1/Q 3/.0'))] (te-stril na ha n:fi re.q~by-=br.ejtba U=-llews:a fte r-=
l2ejng- re bjr.e.d-=\X
ha t:gi ves


13. Res Judicata-Several


res judicata.



make various frivolous arguments

Backer and DBCS state that res judicata applies

because they were parties to the federal lawsuit and Defendants

because there was a ruling in a state case. These arguments
First, Defendants

Hoge and Walker

are without merit

Backer and DBCS were not parties to the federal lawsuit.

Instead, they were the attorney and the law firm. Moreover, the claims were
different than those in the instant case. Res judicata has no application

to that case.

Second, the state case had different claims, over a different time period, with
a different set of defendants,

and the instant claims could not have been raised in

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 10 of 18

that litigation.

Moreover, there is no final judgment

in that state case. Plaintiff has

filed a motion for new trial because the trial judge failed to follow unanimous
law regarding the matter before the court and, on January 13,2015,


the Chief Judge

of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued a stay to allow the trial judge to
correct his error.

Exhibit E.

14. The Elephant In The Room-Where

Club in any of the responses

is Ali Akbar and the National Bloggers

filed by the Defendants?

do not want this Court to even consider them and their relationship

the defendants

and the tortious conduct



Defendant Akbar is a felon and fraudster

who conspired with and acted in a supervisory


They do not exist because the

role in the RICO Enterprise,

predicate act after predicate act. Defendant National B10ggers Club is a

entity that ripped off vast amounts of money from innocent citizens

based on its false narratives

about Plaintiff and its false statements

about it's (non-

existent) sOlc3 status, and benefitted

the other Defendants with largess, increased

Search Engine Ratings, and notoriety.

The National Bloggers Club is the RICO


which the other defendants

the criminal enterprise.

joined. Defendant Akbar is the kingpin of

However, Defendants Akbar and National Bloggers Club did

not even file a response but instead tweeted during a conversation

with other


about Plaintiffs Global Response on December 14.2014: "@adam


Your honor, your honor, plaintiff alleges that I give a fuck. I give none.

@wjjhoge, @rsmccain, @aaronworthing,


Exhibit F.

Defendants, including Defendant Stranahan, want this Court to consider their

motions to dismiss in a vacuum, with no consideration

of Defendants Akbar and

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 11 of 18

National Bloggers Club yet they were all intimately involved with them during the
time period alleged in the Complaint
Internet was blaring false narratives

When the money was rolling in and the

about Plaintiff that led to Congressional

inquiries and FBI investigations,

the defendants

slapping the backs of defendants

Akbar and NBC. But when he was exposed as a

felon and fraudster


were all joined at the hip and

and Plaintiff filed suit to hold the defendants



act as though they do not exist, and tell the Court that the Complaint

detours "into the land of make-believe,"

6. The only thing that is make-believe
history and erase defendants

See Resp of Defendants


is the Defendants' attempts

to re-write


Akbar and National Bloggers Club from the pleadings

(and memories).
15. Plaintiff

Does Not Have To Prove His Case At This Stage Of The Case-

Several of the Defendants argue their motions to dismiss as if they were motions for
summary judgment or motions for directed verdicts.

They act as if Plaintiff has to

prove his case at this stage, prior to discovery, and urge this Court to ignore the
exhibits attached to his Global Response.

This is contrary to established


When reviewing a motion to dismiss, "(tJhe court may consider documents

attached to the complaint, as well as documents

attached to the motion to dismiss, if

they are integral to the complaint and their authenticity

is not disputed." Sposato v.

First Mariner Bank, No. CCB-12-1569, 2013 WL 1308582, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 28,
2013); see also CACI Int'l v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.. 566 F.3d 150, 154 (4th Cir.
2009). Therefore, this Court can consider the exhibits attached to the Global

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 12 of 18

Response and this response to show that the Complaint meets the plausibility

of Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a).

As this Court ruled in Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, PWG 13-365 (D. Md. Dec. 16,
2014), "to require Malibu to prove that the subscriber

more likely than not is the

is, to meet its ultimate burden of proof-at

the pleading stage would

turn the civil litigation process on its head; 'there is no requirement

that Malibu

present at this stage actual evidence to support the merits of its infringement

(citations omitted).

Plaintiff has properly pleaded his case and set forth the elements of the torts
alleged in the Complaint

This case does not involve a single instance of misconduct

that can be pleaded with particularity.


conspiracy, money laundering

multi-year time period. The defendants


Instead, it involves massive fraud,

and extortion on an ongoing basis over a

were responsible

for literally thousands

posts, articles, tweets, YouTube videos and other publications


Plaintiff. If Plaintiff pleaded all of those in his Complaint, it would be thousands

pages long. Therefore,



Plaintiff has pleaded what he needed to in the Complaint,

with many specific instances of tortious misconduct, and discovery will show the
"who, what, when, where and how" of the specific misconduct.
The Court can also consider the fact that the defendants
the Complaint about defendants
the defendants

ignore all allegations in

Akbar and National Bloggers Club. It appears that

have made a strategic decision to completely erase those defendants

from any discussion, and hope for default against those two defendants

so they will

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 13 of 18

not be subjected

to any discovery that will implicate the other defendants


This Court must reject this bad faith gaming of the civil process.

16. Section 1983-Several


argue that Defendant Frey did not act

under color of law because he stated that he was acting in his personal capacity on
his blog and elsewhere.

This is wholly without merit

Defendant Frey is attempting


to use a standard


disclaimer on his blog and

to grant him immunity from suit under section 1983. However, his

actions of launching criminal investigations,

meeting with the FBI, attempting


to imprison Plaintiff,

to set up sting operations,


relying on

his official position of Assistant States Attorney, and telling his co-defendants
knows things that he can't discuss because of criminal investigations,

1/ Moreover,

that he

belie his

as Plaintiff explained fully in his Global Response ..For example, in a

many federal and state prosecutors have been fired for blogging on
their own time because of the clear nexus between their job and their blogging, and
the affect it can have on their prosecutorial duties. These cases demonstrate that a
prosecutor always represents his office. See. e.g., United States v. Bowen, 969 F. Supp
2d 518 (ED La 2012) (federal prosecutors blogging anonymously fired). In Andrew v.
Shirvel/, Michigan Assistant Attorney General was fired for blogging about a gay
activist The activist sued in federal court and won a $4.5 million defamation
judgment against the former AAG. Case No. 2:11-CV-11921 D. E.D Michigan, 2012).
http..:I.Lww~V'!..h u ffi ngt;QnP.Q~t<:'0rotl, 0)2 L 08 /Jll.a n.dJ:.lLW
or n 1795737.htIl11, Another deputy attorney general from Indiana was fired for
blogging that force should be used against demonstrators
in Wisconsin.
htlp.J /www.cnn.coIl]L2011/USLOUZ3LiJl..9!i!na.all]illQ,illeet{
The Attorney
General's Office issued the following statement: "Civility and courtesy toward all
members of the public are very important to the Indiana Attorney General's Office,"
the agency said in a prepared statement "We respect individuals' First Amendment
right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public
servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 14 of 18

December 19, 2011 email to Defendants Walker and Nagy, attached as Exhibit G,
Defendant Frey states the following:
"I can't give you everything that connects Ron to Brett because there is an
ongoing investigation ....
Also, don't volunteer where you got this stuff. Just because of the investigation.
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"
If there is one thing only a person acting under color of law can do that those
acting in the private capacity can't do, it is criminally investigating

and imprisoning

Clearly, Defendant Frey was acting under color of law when he tried to

imprison Plaintiff for non-existent

17. Section 1985-Several


of the Defendants have made the frivolous argument

that Plaintiffs Section 1985 claim must be dismissed because he failed to allege any
kind of invidious discrimination.

This is without merit

Under the Civil Rights Act, Congress has provided, and the Supreme Court has

upheld, a private cause of action for witnesses

to intimidate

or threaten

from attending

against those who seek

"any party or witness in any court of the United States

such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely,

fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on
account of his having so attended

or testified."

42 U.S,c. 1985(2); Haddle v. Garrison,

525 US 121, 126 (1998) (an at will employee may file a claim under 42 USC 1985(2)
for damages against a third party who conspires with his employer to fire him to
deter him from testifying at an upcoming criminal trial); Kush v. Rutledge, 460 US


claims under section 1985(2) against state university

officials for conduct related to student's

lawsuit against the university).

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 15 of 18

In the instant case, Plaintiff has made very clear in his Complaint that the


from attending,

to intimidate and threaten


him, as both a party and witness,

in and testifying at court hearings.

has clearly pleaded that the Defendants conspired

witness on account of his having attended

Moreover, Plaintiff

to injure Plaintiff as a party and

court hearings and testifying.


example, he pleaded that (1) Defendant Walker came to a court hearing in


County Circuit Court, and after Plaintiff testified, followed him out of

the courtroom,


him in the vestibule, and then assaulted

stepped into the court waiting area. During the assault, he wrestled

him as he
Plaintiffs iPad

away from him, sucker punched him in the face, and all this sent Plaintiff to the
Emergency Room at Suburban

Hospital where Plaintiff was treated for contusion of

the eye, possible concussion and back pain; (2) the defendants
years long intimidation

then engaged in a

campaign against Plaintiff that included scores of threats ,

including death threats, including one from the LA Sheriffs Department,


Plaintiff not to go to court and to leave Defendant Frey alone (or else); (3) caused

of the defendants

to come to Plaintiffs home and take photos of him, his

home and child, and call Plaintiffs home with death threats and call Plaintiffs
neighbors and tell them false information
many malicious and retaliatory

about Plaintiff, and bully his child; (4) file

legal actions against Plaintiff that were all

dismissed; and (5) attempt to deter him from filing any federal court lawsuits, and
(6) attempt to use the federal court to deprive Plaintiff from access to the courts and
then use that malicious lawsuit to get Plaintiff fired and injure his property right of

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 16 of 18

This campaign of injury, threats, and intimidation

was meant to retaliate against

Plaintiff and to deter him from testifYing in the future in both federal and state
courts. The FBI and Congress were investigating

with the FBI investigation.

material assistance

the swattings

Plaintiff met with the FBI, gave them

and agreed to testify at any grand jury or criminal trial. Plaintiff

provided information

to the FBI, several Maryland State's Attorneys Offices, and

United States Attorney about the racketeering

acts of the Defendants and Defendant

Walker's attacks on Plaintiff and the Prophet Mohammed.

great lengths to undermine

and Plaintiff was

The defendants

went to

Plaintiffs credibility and deter him from testifying and

with those federal investigations.

They also went to great lengths, and

continue to go to great lengths in the instant case, to deter and intimidate


from filing any action in federal court by asking that he be declared a vexatious
litigant and have appointed
to protect Plaintiffs


a special master that would have to approve of any suit

from their tortious conduct. Defendants

want their

conduct to be immunized, while denying Plaintiffs rights.

This is precisely what the unanimous Supreme Court held in Haddle gives rise to
suit under 42 USC 1985(2) ("Petitioner
alleges that respondents

Michael A. Haddle, an at-will employee,

conspired to have himfiredfrom

obeying a federal grand jury subpoena

hisjob in retaliation for

and to deter him from testifying at a federal

criminal trial. We hold that such interference

with at-will employment

may give rise

to a claim for damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat ~1980, 42 U. S. C.

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 17 of 18

Clearly, Plaintiff has more than met the pleading standards

under 42 USC

17. The Second Elephant

In The Room-At no time have any of the defendants

offered one shred of evidence that Plaintiff committed any acts of swatting or any
other criminal acts for which they tried to have him arrested.

None of the

has even offered one shred of evidence in their pleadings to show

exactly what evidence they relied on for these criminal accusations,

nor any

discussion about where they obtained evidence that Plaintiff committed


against the defendants.

The reason the defendants

evidence is that they never had any evidence whatsoever

any of the criminal acts. It is clear that defendants

any crimes

have not offered any

that Plaintiff committed

made up these charges out of

whole cloth and used these charges to convict and defame Plaintiff in the court of
public opinion for their own twisted purposes. The defendants

have never been able

to convince any official in any capacity to take any action against Plaintiff because
there was no evidence to support their false narratives.

Thus the defendants


raised a vigilante mob to convict Plaintiff in the only court they could, and that court
was the Internet blog court of public opinion, in a campaign conceived, managed,
owned and operated

by a kangaroo court comprised

Yes, enough is enough.

their reprehensible

of the defendants.

It is time for the defendants

tortious misconduct.

to be held to account for

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249 Filed 01/20/15 Page 18 of 18

For all the above reasons and the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs Global Response,
Defendant Stranahan's

Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

Brett Ki berh
8100 Beec
ee Rd
Bethesda, MD 20817
(301) 320 5921
Certificate of Service

I certify that I mailed a copy of this motion to Attorney Smith and Defendants
Walker and Hoge, and emailed it to the remaining Defendants this 20th day of
January, 2014.


- (6S1xT19)

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-1 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 1

Ali A. Akbar

'I Follow


#BrettKimberlin picked a fight \\ith Andrew Breitbart that we're going to

finish. He'll go to jail this time. #blogbash
6:45 PM - 07 Mar 13



If you'd like to contribute

to the National Bloggers Club, you can do so here .

http://web.mail.comcastnetiserviceJhomel ..l?auth~loe=eIl.-US&id=




Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-2 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 3

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-2 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 3



Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-2 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 3



- (1563><388)

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-3 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 1

Bloggt>rs Defense Teall1

Launches \\'ebsite.

Raises 66000 towards Defense of Aaron \Valker And Others Against L..'1.W

For Immediate Release

Right Solutions, an independent 501C3. announces today the launch of a new website for its project to defend free speech and the rights ofbloggers \;a tht
Led by attorneys Dan Backer and Steve Hoersting. The Bloggers Defense Team has already launched its initial legal sakos in defense of Aaron Walker, wI
harassment at the hands of Brett Kimberlin. comicted domestic bomber and felon. Walker has been the target of multiple lawsuits for his writing about K
jailed for daring to engage in free speech journalism. \\1ille this miscarriage of justice in :\Iaryland state court was promptly overturned. Aaron Walker's fi
journalists across America are still threatened.
Injust two weeks since its launch, BDT has already filed a Federal complaint against Kimberlin and his unsa,"ory lav,iare tactics, rai.~d o\-er S6,OOO.00 ir
website to reach out to the general public. The Team has also filed a federalla\\"Suit in :\Iaryland "ith local attorney BnlCe Godfrey. and is preparing for a,
behalf of other bloggers seeking help to defend their free speech.
The Bloggers Defense Team also continues to seek out and offer aid to others who may ha,.e been the ,-ictims of online harassment, la"fare. or other atte:
attack on every American's free speech.
For consideration of aid. media inten;ews,

or other information. please contact the Blogger's Defense Team: bloggersdefense at bloggersdefenseteam




- (1236x551)


Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-4 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 1

Any Information copied from such Reports and Statements may not be sold or used by any person for the purpose of soliciting contrib
or for commercial purposes, other than using the name and address of any political committee to solicit contributions from such comn


Action Fund

Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)

Transaction 10: 58218.41

Date of Disbursement

Vice & Victory Agency LLC


Mailing Address

8116 Heritage


Place Drive

Fort Worth






Candidate Name
Office Sought:

Amount of Each Disbursement

Zip Code

Purpose of Disbursement
Web, technology, marketing consulting



Disbursement For:

.4 Primary


'----' Other (specify) i celhomel-l?auth=co&loc==en_ US&i d= 1253206& part=2



Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-5 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 2


In the



No. 1553

September Term, 2014

(Circuit Court Case No. 380966V)

On November 14,2014, the Circuit Court entered an Order dismissing the case. On
November 17,2014, within 10 days of the judgment, Appellant filed a Motion for New Trial.
On December I, 2014, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. The filing of the Motion for New
Trial within 10 days of the judgment stayed the time for noting an appeal until 30 days after
a decision on or withdrawal of the motion. To date, the Circuit Court has not entered a
decision on the motion and it has not been withdrawn.

Unless it is withdrawn, the

previously filed Notice of Appeal is treated as having been filed the same day, but after the
order disposing of the motion for new trial. Edsall v. Anne Arundel County, 332 Md. 502,
508 (1993).
Accordingly, upon consideration of Appellant's "Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance
Until Motion for New Trial is Ruled on in Circuit Court" and no opposition having been
filed, it is this

/3'ff... day of January, 2015, by the Court of Special Appeals,

ORDERED that Appellant's motion be and hereby is GRANTED; and it is further

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-5 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 2

ORDERED that the above-captioned appeal be and hereby is STAYED, pending

further order of this Court; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall notify this Court within 10 days of disposition of
Appellant's Motion for New Trial.



Peter B. Krauser, Chief Judge



Ali A. Akbar on Tv.ittcr: -@adamstcinbaugh

Your honor. your honor. plaintirr alleges that I give a ruck. I give nonc.@v.jjhogc

@rsmccain @aarom\'Orthing

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-6 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 1

@ ...

WJJ Hoge @wjjhoge . Dec 21

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day
@rsmccain @ali @Kimberlinunmask @BomberSues


~ Adam Steinbaugh


@adamsteinbaugh . Dec 21

@wjjhoge when's the hearing on the motions to dismiss?



_ Hoge @wjjhoge . Dec 21




~ Adam Steinbaugh


Have an account? Log in

@adamsteinbaugh . Dec 21

@wjjhoge please destroy him kthx




Ali A. Akbar



@adamsteinbaugh Your honor, your honor,

plaintiff alleges that I give a fuck. I give
none.@wjjhoge @rsmccain @aaronworthing

* ...




9:18 PM - 21 Dec 2014

~ Adam Steinbaugh

@adamsteinbaugh . Dec 21

@ali @wjjhoge @rsmccain @AaronWorthing @BomberSues on the

uncontroverted evidence, the matter is taken under submission.



Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 249-7 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 1

I.. ""C""'.'.,','1.'"
~".I.' ,I,

.. I."

Motion To Compel Re Kimberlin v Allen

To: "A.W."
Cc: Liberty C IC>>

Mon, Dec 19. 2011 at 10:30 AM>

I can't gi\e you e\erything that connects Ron to Brett because there is an ongoing in\estigation and because it
would be \ery time consuming, but 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 slavish de\Otion to Brett is
evident in some of what I sent you. He e\en pushes the "Brett was exonerated" story. I ha\e a screenshot
Also, don't \Olunteer where you got this stuff. Just because of the in\estigation. 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 ha\e to stay quiet.