Ecf 147

additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, and award costs, including attorney's fees and such
WHEREFORE, the Blaze Defendants ask this Court to enter an order dismissing the
AandB.
memorandum of law and the Declaration of Eleanor M. Lackman, attached thereto with Exhibits
fees and costs. In support, the Blaze Defendants rely on and incorporate the accompanying
Court to dismiss with prejudice the Second Amended Complaint and award them their attorney's
LLP, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.'P, 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), file this motion asking the
"Blaze Defendants"), by their undersigned attorneys Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard
Defendants The Blaze, Inc., Mercury Radio Arts, and Glenn Beck (collectively, the
DEFENDANTS THE BLAZE, INC., MERCURY RADIO ARTS,
AND GLENN BECK'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
Defendants.
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al.,
v.
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Case No. 13-cv-3059 (GJH)
Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page l of 2
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page 2 of 2
DEFENDANTS THE BLAZE, INC., MERCURY RADIO ARTS, AND GLENN BECK'S
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants.
v.
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-l Filed 07/ll/l4 Page l of 28
F. Kimberlin's Claim for Punitive Damages Is Inappropriate Because
"Punitive Damages" Is a Remedy, Not a Cause of Action .l8
E. Kimberlin Fails to State a Claim for Conspiracy to Commit State
Law Torts Against the Blaze Defendants Because His Underlying
Tort Claims Fail and Because He Does Not Plead The Existence
Of An Unlawful Agreement 17
D. Kimberlin Fails to State a Claimfor Interference with Prospective
Economic Advantage against the Blaze Defendants Because He
Identifies No Potential Future Business Relationship with Which
the Blaze Defendants Interfered 15
C. Kimberlin's Assertion That Mr. Beck Has Engaged in a Conspiracy
to Violate Kimberlin's Civil Rights, Under a Statute Designed to
Curtail Acts of Terror Against African-Americans in the South, Is
Frivolous 13
B. The Publication of Facts About Kimberlin's Past Criminal Activity
and Alleged Current Criminal Activity Is Not "Outrageous"
Conduct Sufficient to State a Claimfor Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress 12
A. Kimberlin's Claim for False Light Invasion of Privacy Is Time-
Barred, Lacking In Legal Merit, Conflated with Defamation, and
Fails to Put Forth Facts to Establish Any Nexus Between The
Publications and The Claimed Injury 8
II. KIMBERLIN'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE BLAZE DEFENDANTS
ARE DEFAMATION CLAIMS IN DISGUISE; NONE IS LEGALLY
OR FACTUALLY COGNIZABLE 8
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON KIMBERLIN'S MOTION TO
DISMISS 6
ARGUMENT 6
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-l Filed 07/ll/l4 Page 2 of 28
11
CONCLUSION 21
III. KIMBERLIN'S COMPLAINT SEEKS TO INHIBIT FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS AND THUS VIOLATES MARYLAND'S ANTI-SLAPP
STATUTE 19
G. This Court Should Impose Sanctions Against Kimberlin for
Prosecuting Frivolous Claims Against The Blaze Defendants 18
111
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic,
506 U.S. 263 (1993) 14
Bell Bel Co. v. HRGM Corp.,
CIV. JFM-03-1387, 2004 WL 3222885 (D. Md. Aug. 6,2004) 16
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007) 3, 6, 7
Batson v. Shiflett,
602 A.2d 1191 (Md. 1992) 12
Bast v. Glasberg,
129F.3d 1258 (4th Cir. 1997) 19
Baron Fin. Corp. v. Natazon,
471 F. Supp. 2d 535 (D. Md. 2006) 16
Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr.,
665 A.2d 297 (Md. Ct. App. 1995) 10, 11, 12
B.N v. K.K.,
312 Md. 135, 538 A.2d 1175 (1988) 12
Autry v. Woods,
86 F.3d 1148 (4th Cir. 1996) .: 19
Associated Uti!. Contractors of Md., Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore,
CIV. AMD98-4060, 2000 WL 432757 (D. Md. Apr. 18,2000) 15
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) 3, 6, 7
Allen v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
547 A.2d 1105 (Ct. Spec. App. Md. 1988) 8, 9
Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp.,
508 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2007) 7
Alleco, Inc. v. Harry & Jeanette WeinbergFound., Inc.,
340 Md. 176, 665 A.2d 1038 (1995) 17, 18
Cases
Page(s)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
IV
Inlet Assocs. v. Harrison Inn Inlet, Inc.,
596 A.2d 1049 (Md.1991) 20
Informatics Applications Group, Inc. v. Shkolnikov,
1:11CV726 JCC/JFA, 2011 WL 4804870 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11,2011) 7
Infection Control Consultation Servs., Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.,
461 F. App'x 343 (4th Cir. 2012) 16
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell,
485 U.S. 46 (1988) 8, 12
Hoffman v. Stamper,
385 Md. 1, 867 A.2d 276 (2005) 17
Harrison v. KVAT Foods Mgmt., Inc.,
766 F.2d 155 (4th Cir. 1985) 14
Harris v. Us.,
417 F. App'x 285 (4th Cir. 2011) 6, 12
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch.,
503 U.S. 60 (1992) 18
Furman v. Sheppard,
744 A.2d 583 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) 10
Figueiredo- Torres v. Nickel,
321 Md. 642, 584 A.2d 69 (1991) 12
Doodson Ins. Brokerage ofTX, LLC v. Indem. Ins. Corp., RRG,
CIV. WDQ-12-1606, 2013 WL 709644 (D. Md. Feb. 25,2013) .16
Day v. DB Capital Group LLC,
Civil Action No. DKC 10-1658,2011 WL 887554 (D. Md. Mar. 11,2011) 17
Davis v. Passman,
442 U.S. 228 (1979) 18
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 'n,
434 U.S. 412 (1978) 15
Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co.,
518 F.2d 638 (2d Cir. 1975) 12
Byrd v. Hopson,
108Fed. App'x 749 (4th Cir. 2004) 19
v
Tani v. Wash. Post,
CIV. PJM 08-1130,2009 WL 8652384 (D. Md. June 18,2009) 9
Smith v. Esquire, Inc.,
494 F. Supp. 967 (D. Md. 1980) 8, 9
Sirpal v. Fengrong Wang,
CIV. WDQ-12-0365, 2012 WL 2880565 (D. Md. July 12,2012) .13
Simmons v. Poe,
47 F.3d 1370 (4th Cir. 1995) 17
Serian v. Penguin Group (USA), Inc.,
No.1 :08CV74, 2009 WL 2225412 (N.D. W.Va. July 23, 2009) .4
Robinson v. Marion,
879 F.2d 863 (4th Cir. 1989) 19
R Cleaning Impact, Inc. v. Red Robin Int'l, Inc.,
CIY. CCB-12-2368, 2013 WL 1726270 (D. Md. Apr. 19,2013) 18
Patton v. County of Kings,
857 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1988) 15
Piscatelli v. VanSmith,
35 A.3d 1140 (Md. 2012) 8
McClure v. Lovelace,
78 A.3d 934 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013) 9
Logan v. District of Columbia,
447 F. Supp. 1328 (D.D.C. 1978) 11
Kwang Dong Pharm. Co. v. Han,
205 F. Supp. 2d 489 (D. Md. 2002) 15
Kimberlin v. White,
7 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1993) 1
Long v. Welch & Rushe, Inc.,
13-cv-3712 (DKC), 2014 WL 2963975 (D. Md. June 30,2014) 9
Jones v. Clawson,
CA 5:11-1533-RBH-KDW, 2012 WL 3096048 (D.S.C. July 17, 2012) 7
Johnson v. City of Baltimore Dev. Corp.,
CIV.A. GLR-II-2174, 2013 WL 3934022 (D. Md. July 29,2013) 20
VI
Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander and Related Problems
12.3.4 (4th ed. 2010) 9
Restatement (Second) of Torts 46 (1965) 12
U.S. Const. amend. 1 19, 20
Other Authorities
Md. Code Ann., Cts. &Jud. Proc. 5-105 9
Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-807(b) 20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) 7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 6
42 U.S.C. 1985(3) passim
42 U.S.C. 1988(b) 15
Statutes & Rules
Young v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,
303 Md. 182,492 A.2d 1270 (1985) 12
Wynbergv. Nat 'I Enquirer, Inc.,
564 F. Supp. 924 (C.D. Cal. 1982) 11
Williams v. Walsh,
558 F.2d 667 (2d Cir. 1977) ; 18
Weaver v. Torres,
No. Civ. A. WMN-00-1126, 2000 WL 1721344 (D. Md. Nov. 17,2000) 14
Vollmar v. o.c. Seacrets, Inc.,
831 F. Supp. 2d 862 (D. Md. 2011) 17
Veney v. Wyche,
293 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 2002) 6
United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Scott,
463 U.S. 825 (1983) 14
1 Swatting, according to Kimberlin's allegations in the Complaint, "is the calling of the police
using a falsified phone number and telling the police that a major crime occurred at the address
associated with that [phone number] in order to cause a large police response." Cplt. ~ 2.
bloggers. According to the Complaint, direct threats and court proceedings involving Kimberlin
claiming that Kimberlin engaged or was otherwise involved in "swatting"! conservative
Nagy and other bloggers allegedly conspired in late 2010 and throughout 2011 to publish articles
gravamen of Kimberlin's Complaint seems to be that he is upset that defendants Walker, Frey,
Quayle, does not deny that any of these or other prior historical facts are true. Rather, the
person who made such claims as that he personally sold marijuana to Vice President Dan
in Speedway, Indiana (see, e.g., Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1993)), as well as the
defamed him. Kimberlin, who is well-known as the convicted perpetrator of the 1978bombings
other individual defendant bloggers starting in the Autumn of2010, which Kimberlin claims
Over nearly 90 pages of text, Kimberlin describes a series of published articles by various
describes in his Complaint.
activists and organizations that have fallen victim to the incredible scheme that Kimberlin
and which does not appear to be a party to this action) are purportedly among that group of
and his organization, Justice Through Music (sometimes referred to as Kimberlin's "employer,"
"exercising their constitutional rights to free expression and freedom of assembly." Kimberlin
Their mission, according to Kimberlin, is to target activists and "progressive organizations" for
shadowy group affiliated with the U.S. government and a prominent Washington, D.C. law firm.
underhanded tricks, violent threats, subterfuge, and targeted attacks set in motion by leaders of a
Kimberlin ("Kimberlin") tells a story straight out of a thriller novel- one full of tales of
In his Second Amended Complaint (the "Complaint" or "Cplt."), plaintiff Brett
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2
and some of the individual defendants eventually accompanied the blog posts, and matters
appear to have escalated from there.
Defendants The Blaze, Inc. ("The Blaze"), Mercury Radio Arts ("MRA") and Glenn
Beck ("Beck") (collectively, the "Blaze Defendants") make no substantive appearance in
Kimberlin's story until paragraph 87 of the Complaint - as part of a some press about Kimberlin
that one or more of the Blaze Defendants gave on May 25,2012. Then, almost as quickly as
they arose in the story, the Blaze Defendants all but disappear after paragraph 92 (apart from a
brief mention in paragraph 152) from the 157-paragraph Factual Background preceding
Kimberlin's hodgepodge of claims against them. Unfortunately for Kimberlin's claims, his
cursory attempts to lodge the Blaze Defendants into the broader story fails to make them "guilty
by association": when the few facts in the Complaint as to the Blaze Defendants are isolated,
nothing is left but what appears to be a pure defamation claim.
However, it is telling that on this present iteration of his lawsuit, Kimberlin asserts no
defamation claim at all against the Blaze Defendants. Nor could he: apart from the fact that no
such claim can lie against true reporting or defamatory statements made without demonstrated
malice, the statute of limitations expired five months before Kimberlin filed his original
complaint. Instead, in a clear and bad-faith effort to plead around the statute of limitations
problem, Kimberlin throws a variety of claims at the wall: false light invasion of privacy,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with prospective business advantage, and
conspiracy to commit state law torts against MRA, The Blaze and Mr. Beck. As a tell-tale sign
3
2 Kimberlin also hints that MRA and Mr. Beck 'joined the RICO Enterprise," Cplt. ~ 87, but the
Complaint contains no other allegations against them regarding any RICO claim, and therefore
the Blaze Defendants assume that Kimberlin did not intend to include them in Kimberlin's First
Cause of Action under RICO. Ifhe did intend to so include them, then the claim fails under
Twombly and Iqbal for the reasons discussed infra.
the South.
of widespread violence and acts of terror directed at African-Americans and their supporters in
animus takes the Ku Klux Klan Act out of the scope it was intended to address: the curtailment
his entire suit, the claim that Mr. Beck violated Kimberlin's civil rights based on race-based
Defendants purportedly conspired to commit. And, perhaps most reflective of the meritlessess of
Defendants' involvement in any alleged conspiracy or the specific unnamed t011sthe Blaze
have incurred; meanwhile, the Complaint is devoid of any facts surrounding the Blaze
required, explain how the Blaze Defendants in particular caused whatever loss Kimberlin may
unspecified prospective economic advantage are far too vague to state a claim and do not, as
claims are as shadowy as the characters Kimberlin describes: Kimberlin's references to some
come anywhere close to stating a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Other
months earlier. Under black-letter law, the reports were not "outrageous" and thus cannot have
is that they reported the same type of material that others previously had publicly reported
virtue of more-recent reports: indeed, Kimberlin's entire complaint against the Blaze Defendants
did not place Kimberlin in a different light than the one he was already in historically or by
light" claim is simply a defamation claim in disguise, and even so, the Blaze Defendants' reports
succeed now, regardless of how Kimberlin labels his claims. For example, Kimberlin's "false
None of these claims was successful in earlier iterations of his complaints, and none can
alone.i
of indiscretion, Kimberlin even adds in a claim under the Ku Klux Klan Act against Mr. Beck
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-l Filed 07/ll/l4 Page l0 of 28
4
3A true and correct copy of the Second Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit A to the
Declaration of Eleanor M. Lackman.
reference rather than repeating them here.
Erickson, et a1.(see Dkt. No. 136-1 at 3-5), and the Blaze Defendants incorporate those facts by
background are set forth amply in the motion to dismiss filed on July 8, 2014 by defendant
involving plaintiff and his prior federal felony convictions). Further details about Kimberlin's
2225412, at *5 (N.D. W.Va. July 23,2009) (takingjudicial notice of two additional lawsuits
take judicial notice. See Serian v. Penguin Group (USA), Inc., No.1 :08CV74, 2009 WL
bombings in Speedway, Indiana, drug offenses, and perjury - incidents of which the Court can
prior dealings with legal authorities, including criminal convictions connected to the 1978
Kimberlin is no stranger to litigation, see, e.g., Cplt. 'if'if 39, 54, 55, and has had several
to the Blaze Defendants are as follows:
Kimberlin's Second Amended Complaint filed June 24,2014,3 the facts of this case as it pertains
Accepting as true for purposes of this motion all factual allegations contained in
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
accordingl y.
repeated efforts to ensnare the Blaze Defendants, and the Court should award fees and costs
someone who the law should find as libel-proof. This Court should promptly end Kimberlin's
attempt to censor and financially punish the media for reporting about a situation involving
Court's and the Blaze Defendants' time and resources in dealing with what is essentially an
Kimberlin did not like. His Complaint is untimely, substantively deficient, and wastes the
the Blaze Defendants appears to be nothing more than a belated attack on a set of reports that
As detailed below, no matter how he dresses up his claims, Kimberlin's lawsuit against
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-l Filed 07/ll/l4 Page ll of 28
5
The Blaze is a leading media company that provides news, information, and opinion
content to millions of consumers through television, radio, and Internet programming. Mercury
Radio Arts is a multimedia production company that manages and produces content, products,
and events in the publishing, radio, television, digital, and live events space. Glenn Beck is a
well-known radio and television personality whose programming is produced and distributed
through Mercury Radio Arts and The Blaze. See Cplt. ~~20, 26, 27.
The Complaint names the Blaze Defendants as having engaged in only the following acts,
which occurred on a single day in May 2012: (1) allowing defendants Walker and Frey to appear
via audio on Mr. Beck's radio/television program, where those defendants stated that Kimberlin
or others affiliated with him were involved in "swatting" Frey and caused Walker to be fired; (2)
writing about Walker's and Frey's appearances on the show; (3) publishing articles about
Kimberlin's past and the recent reports about attacks on bloggers encouraged by or in
participation with Kimberlin or his organization; and (4) publishing a "defamatory graphic" that
shows Kimberlin in the center of a variety of criminal activity. See Cplt. ~~ 87-92, 152. In
summing up the acts that the Blaze Defendants allegedly committed, Kimberlin characterizes the
Blaze Defendants as having published "defamatory statements," and he criticizes the Blaze
Defendants for purportedly not following unidentified "journalistic standards that require that the
subject of a story be given the opportunity to respond to an allegation of wrongdoing." Id ~ 91.
Notably, however, the Complaint contains no claim for defamation and fails to specifically
identify which statements are false, although it does include an admission that Kimberlin
committed crimes in the past. See id~ 279.
Based on these limited and undetailed allegations, Kimberlin's Complaint aspires to be
an end-run around the defamation laws, asserting five causes of action against the Blaze
Defendants - including violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act, false light invasion of privacy, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress - over the course of hundreds of paragraphs.
However, even after having had the chance to be educated on the deficiencies in his prior
complaints and tacking an additional 80 paragraphs onto his First Amended Complaint, all of
Kimberlin's claims in his Second Amended Complaint still fail as to the Blaze Defendants.
ARGUMENT
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON KIMBERLIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS
The Supreme Court's modified standard of pleading under Twombly and Iqbal comes
squarely into play in cases such as this, where a plaintiff seeks to persuade a court that an
implausible story contains factually plausible and non-speculative claims for relief that the court
can grant. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6), a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). This "plausibility"
standard demands the pleading of sufficient "factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," not just "an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). Thus while the Court must "accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in
the complaint," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 572 (citations omitted), and draw "all reasonable factual
inferences in the plaintiffs favor," Harris v. Us., 417 F. App'x 285, 287 (4th Cir. 2011), the
factual allegations contained in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. If, as here, a plaintiff raises allegations that
contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit, the court may disregard such
allegations. Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002). "[L]abels and conclusions,"
"formulaic recitation [s] of the elements of a cause of action," and "naked assertions devoid of
6
7
further factual enhancement" are also to be disregarded in assessing whether the plaintiff has
pled facts. Twombly, 550 U.S. at ~55; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citations omitted).
Moreover, it has always been the case that a pleading must contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The
required "short and plain statement" must provide "fair notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545; see also Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp.,
508 F.3d 181, 188 (4th Cir. 2007). Notably, in every claim that Kimberlin asserts against the
Blaze Defendants, he simply lumps them together with other "named Defendants" and fails to
explain who did what and when sufficient to give notice as to the grounds for each asserted claim
against the particular Blaze Defendants named in the various counts. Therefore, while all of the
claims are legally meritless as to any of the Blaze Defendants, as will be detailed infra,
Kimberlin's failure to set forth facts showing how each ofMRA, The Blaze and Mr. Beck
committed each tort alleged is a defect in the Complaint that merits dismissal as against those
who did not - plausibly or implausibly - engage in any of the alleged acts. See, e.g., Jones v.
Clawson, CA 5:11-1533-RBH-KDW, 2012 WL 3096048 (D.S.C. July 17, 2012), report and
recommendation adopted, 5: ll-CV-01533-RBH, 2012 WL 3079160 (D.S.C. July 30,2012)
(recommending dismissal because the complaint "does not comport with the requirements of
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that [it] fails to mention Defendant Merrill in
'the body of that document, much less assert any specific claim against this Defendant'");
Informatics Applications Group, Inc. v. Shkolnikov, 1:11CV726 JCC/JFA, 2011 WL 4804870, at
*6 n.6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11,2011) (plaintiff "TIAG likewise neglects to allege facts demonstrating
that [defendant] KEYnetik is implicated in its Section 256 claim").
8
limitations for defamation appliesto false light claims. Accordingly, this Court should apply the
consistently with this Court's decision in Esquire, and hold that the one-year statute of
(Md. 2012), the Blaze Defendants believe that the Court of Appeals of Maryland would rule
legal standards as an allegation of defamation," Piscatelli v. VanSmith, 35 A.3d 1140, 1146-47
of Appeals of Maryland's recent ruling that "[a]n allegation of false light must meet the same
claim. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53, 56 (1988). In light of the Court
label; indeed, it is well settled that a defamation claim by any other name is still a defamation
case, Kimberlin's so-called "false light" claim is really just a defamation claim with a different
statute oflimitations for invasion of privacy claims applies), it is abundantly clear that, in this
Bethlehem Steel Corp., 547 A.2d 1105 (Ct. Spec. App. Md. 1988) (holding that the three-year
one Maryland state court has held that a different limitations period applies, see Allen v.
parallel defamation claims. Smith v. Esquire, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 967, 970 (D. Md. 1980). While
the one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims applies to claims such as false light that
First, the claim should be considered time-barred. This Court has previously held that
least two independent reasons.
Defendants committed the tort of false light invasion of privacy. This claim fails easily, for at
said in sum or substance previously (see Cplt. ,-r,-r 87-91), Kimberlin asserts that the Blaze
Cplt. ~ 247), which in the Blaze Defendants' situation consisted of statements that others had
On the basis that the Blaze Defendants published allegedly defamatory statements (see
A. Kimberlin's Claim for False Light Invasion of Privacy Is Time-Barred, Lacking
In Legal Merit, Conflated with Defamation, and Fails to Put Forth Facts to
Establish Any Nexus Between The Publications and The Claimed Injury.
II. KIMBERLIN'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE BLAZE DEFENDANTS ARE
DEFAMATION CLAIMS IN DISGUISE; NONE IS LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY
COGNIZABLE
9
4 But see Long v. Welch & Rushe, -Inc., 13-cv-3712 (DKC), 2014 WL 2963975, *9 (D. Md. June
30, 2014) ("[T]he three year statute of limitation applies to the false light claim .... ").
5 CompareAllen, 547 A.2d at 649 ("Even though we recognize the district court judge's view [in
Smith] as to how the [defamation] statute of limitations will be avoided, that "loophole" must be
plugged by the Legislature."), with Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander and
Related Problems 12.3.4, at 26 (4th ed. 2010) (explaining that if the courts were to allow
plaintiffs to evade defamation principles simply by calling a claim "false-light" instead of
no attributable "false light" injury within Kimberlin's dressed-up defamation claim against the
Second, even assuming arguendo that the claim is timely,
5
it fails on the merits. There is
should not survive as a defamation claim shrouded in the cloak of false light.
ran. Just like his now-withdrawn defamation claim, Kimberlin's invasion of privacy claim
complaint until October 15, 2013 - nearly five months after the one-year statute of limitations
his claim in time, and the allegations show that he waited too long. Under the facts alleged in the
Complaint, the statements were published on May 25, 2012. Kimberlin did not file his original
of the complaint) (collecting cases). Therefore, the only question here is whether Kimberlin filed
to invoke discovery rule as to articles published on the Internet over two years prior to the filing
CIV. PJM 08-1130,2009 WL 8652384, at *2 (D. Md. June 18,2009) (plaintiff was not permitted
and were accessible on the Internet, the "discovery rule" does not apply. See Tani v. Wash. Post,
Because all of the complained-of statements were published in widely available media sources
the statement." McClure v. Lovelace, 78 A.3d 934, 949 (Md. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted).
under the discovery rule, 'when the [plaintiff] in fact knew or reasonably should have known' of
.... " Cplt. ~ 247 (emphasis added). Such claims accrue on "either the day of publication, or,
engaged in outrageous and extreme conduct by falsely publishing the defamatory statements
Kimberlin himself states as the basis of his false light claim that "[t]he Defendants
And Jud. Proc. 5-105.4
shorter limitations period in Maryland for libel and slander claims. See Md. Code Ann., Cts.
10
"libel" or "slander," they would, in effect, be permitting litigants to use ajudge-made cause of
action, invasion of privacy, to overrule tort doctrine explicitly established by the legislature in its
defamation statutes).
See, e.g., Cplt. ~ 87. lfthe Blaze Defendants, several months later, wrote the same statements
swatting for almost two years, essentially re-publishing already public facts from prior reports.
alleges that the Blaze Defendants' reports built upon a series of publications on the topic of
pUblic. See, e.g., Cplt. ~ 2 (swatting results in "a large police response"). Moreover, Kimberlin
of swatting - an occurrence which, according to Kimberlin's Complaint, is quite obviously
stated in the Blaze Defendants' reports related to Kimberlin's purported involvement in incidents
private facts must be a public disclosure, and not a private onc'") (emphasis added). The facts
(the tort of false light invasion of privacy "requires publicity, meaning that 'the disclosure of the
invasion of privacy. See Furman v. Sheppard, 744 A.2d 583,587 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000)
could hardly be said to have published "private facts" necessary to state a claim for false light
Also, by Kimberlin's own admission, the substance of the Blaze Defendants' reports
claim.
reputation is more important, revealing his true motivation in asserting a supposed false light
who has been in the public eye for nearly 40 years, his Complaint makes clear that harm to his
Prosser & Keeton 117, at 864). Kimberlin is not concerned with unwanted publicity; as a man
Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg 'I Med. Ctr., 665 A.2d 297,315 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995) (quoting
a good reputation while false light protects interest in being let alone from adverse publicity."
defamation claims and false light claims is that a "defamation action protects a party's interest in
Plaintiff's reputation, business interests, and mental well-being"). A key distinction between
supposed harm to his reputation. See Cplt. ,-r 254 (defendants "caused substantial injury to
Blaze Defendants. Most telling is the fact that Kimberlin's allegations of damage hinge on
11
6 Put another way, Kimberlin is essentially libel-proof. See Logan v. District a/Columbia, 447
F. Supp. 1328, 1336 (D.D.C. 1978) (finding plaintiff was "libel-proof' where plaintiff had an
extensive criminal record). While the Fourth Circuit has not yet opined on the "libel-proof'
plaintiff doctrine, Kimberlin represents a textbook example of how that doctrine is defined and
applied by other courts. See, e.g., Wynbergv. Nat 'I Enquirer, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 924,927 (C.D.
Cal. 1982) (finding plaintiff's past conduct and criminal convictions rendered him "libel proof').
cannot - Kimberlin nonetheless is "unlikely by virtue of his life as a habitual criminal to be able
Blaze Defendants' specific publications specifically caused some measurable injury - which he
plaintiff that places him "before the public in a false light"). If he could somehow prove that the
elements of claim, including requirement that defendant give publicity to matter concerning
of public opinion for various other acts of wrongdoing. See Bagwell, 665 A.2d at 318 (listing
Speedway Bombings (and civilly responsible for the death of one), and responsible in the court
held criminally responsible in a court of law for the serious injury of two victims of the
Indeed, allegations that Kimberlin engaged in "swatting" pale in comparison to his being
at all- to his reputation as a result of the purported conduct of the Blaze Defendants.
6
become an issue of public debate. Kimberlin has suffered only insubstantial harm - if any harm
advocacy, and his litigiousness, and he therefore must have anticipated that his past would
in the public eye through not only his malfeasance, but through his employment, his public
could not possibly have expected any degree of "reputational" privacy. Indeed, he has remained
reputation is so badly tarnished by his widely known and extensive prior criminal activity that he
above, Kimberlin has been a notorious public figure for well over three decades, and his
somehow negatively affected the public's perception of Kimberlin's character. As mentioned
light, it is implausible to believe that whatever statements the Blaze Defendants published
claim. Finally, despite Kimberlin's empty rhetoric about how he was cast in some sort of false
publicity" to the matter: others did, and Kimberlin's own Complaint thus effectively defeats his
that others had previously published widely, then the Blaze Defendants could not have "given
12
harass her and force her to abandon her claim or to commit suicide).
insurer's "sole purpose" in insisting that claimant submit to psychiatric examination was to
HartfordAccident & Indem. Co., 303 Md. 182,492 A.2d 1270 (1985) (worker's compensation
(physician did not tell nurse with whom he had sexual intercourse that he had herpes); Youngv.
the couple as their marriage counselor); B.N. v. K.K., 312 Md. 135,538 A.2d 1175 (1988)
(psychologist had sexual relations with the plaintiff s wife during the time when he was treating
his Complaint. See, e.g., Figueiredo-Torres v. Nickel, 321 Md. 642, 584 A.2d 69 (1991)
for lIED are properly limited to situations far more outrageous than the ones Kimberlin alleges in
A.3d at 614 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts 46 cmt. d (1965. Accordingly, claims
and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Harris, 380
him: the conduct must be "so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,
will lie only when the conduct is extreme and outrageous. And for conduct to meet the test of
"outrageousness," it must not be conduct that a plaintiff might personally think is outrageous to
viable, and is 'to be used sparingly .... '" Bagwell, 665 A.2d at 319. Indeed, a claim for lIED
Maryland courts warn that the "tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is rarely
this is exactly what Kimberlin is t9'ing to do here.
1191, 1217 (Md. 1992) (denying lIED claim arising from allegedly defamatory statement). Yet
emotional distress ("IIED"). See Falwell, 485 U.S. at 56; see also Batson v. Shiflett, 602 A.2d
requirements limiting the tort of defamation by pleading a claim for intentional infliction of
The Supreme Court has held that plaintiffs may not circumvent First Amendment-based
B. The Publication of Facts About Kimberlin's Past Criminal Activity and Alleged
Current Criminal Activity Is Not "Outrageous" Conduct Sufficient to State a
Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Doubleday & Co., 518 F.2d 638,639 (2d Cir. 1975).
to recover anything other than nominal damages as to warrant dismissal of the case." Cardillo v.
13
give merit to Kimberlin's groundless legal claims.
more than scraping at the bottom of the barrel to find something - anything - that will appear to
constitutes a violation of Kimberlin's constitutional or civil rights. The KKK claim is nothing
permitting certain persons to appear on Mr. Beck's show and discussing Kimberlin in articles
which ways Mr. Beck purportedly "conspired" with anyone, nor has Kimberlin explained how
Cplt. ~ 215. Kimberlin does not give any detail whatsoever to show how, when, where and in
constitutional and civil rights, in contravention of the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3).
defendants "conspired, agreed, planned and coordinated with Defendant Frey" to violate certain
Without any facts alleged, Kimberlin asserts that Mr. Beck and other individual
C. Kimberlin's Assertion That Mr. Beck Has Engaged in a Conspiracy to Violate
Kimberlin's Civil Rights, Under a Statute Designed to Curtail Acts of Terror
Against African-Americans in the South, Is Frivolous.
maintain an lIED claim, and it thus merits dismissal with prejudice.
omitted) (motion to dismiss granted). Accordingly, under no set of facts could Kimberlin
harass' the plaintiff by accusing him of crimes is not extreme and outrageous." ld. at *4 (citation
held, '''strategically designed [speech],'" even speech that may be '''intended and calculated to
constitute outrageous and extreme conduct necessary to state an lIED claim. As this Court has
target and harass Kimberlin (which they absolutely did not), even that would be insufficient to
Blaze Defendants deliberately joined Kimberlin's portrayed vast conspiracy in an attempt to
standard for extreme and outrageous conduct. "') (internal citations omitted). And even if the
2880565, at *4 (D. Md. July 12,2012) ("Defamatory conduct 'in no way satisfies [the] exacting
give rise to an lIED claim. See Sirpal v. Fengrong Wang, CIV. WDQ-12-0365, 2012 WL
(which they did not as a matter of fact or under the Complaint), such acts could never possibly
Therefore, even if the Blaze Defendants made or published intentionally false statements
14
For Kimberlin to show that he has a claim against Mr. Beck, Kimberlin would have to
demonstrate racial or other class-based, discriminatory animus. Bray v. Alexandria Women's
Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263,268 (1993). Kimberlin fails to identify any such race or class, nor
does he identify any discriminatory animus. Nor does it seempossible that he could ever do so:
Kimberlin is a white male who does not allege that he is being tormented because of his race or
his support of a particular class, even though the very purpose behind the passage of the KKK
Act was to protect African-Americans and their supporters in the South from violence and other
threats. See Weaver v. Torres, No. Civ. A. WMN-00-1126, 2000 WL 1721344, at * 1 (D. Md.
Nov. 17,2000) ("The passage of the [Ku Klux Klan] Act, in 1871, was 'in response to
widespread violence and acts of terror directed at blacks and their supporters' in the post civil
war South."); United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 836 (1983) (Supreme Court held
that the original object of 1985(3) was the protection of African Americans and their
supporters in the South). No class other than African-Americans "has achieved similar status"
under 1985(3) to assert a private claim of conspiracy under the statute. Harrison v. KVAT
Foods Mgmt., Inc., 766 F.2d 155,161 (4th Cir. 1985).
Kimberlin's attempt to stretch the KKK Act beyond its intended boundaries is meritless.
The Fourth Circuit already has held that there is "little support for the contention that 1985(3)
includes in its scope of protection the victims of purely political conspiracies." Id. Nothing in
Kimberlin's lengthy Complaint provides any basis to find any other material racial or other class
against which Kimberlin is suffering discrimination, nor does pointing out Kimberlin's criminal
history or discussing allegations of "swatting" fall within the type of generalized oppressive
action that could permit Kimberlin to seek redress from the Court.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-l Filed 07/ll/l4 Page 2l of 28
15
Kimberlin's lawful business, (3) with unlawful purpose and malice, and (4) that actual damage
Blaze Defendants committed (1) intentional and wilful acts, (2) calculated to cause damage to
Supp. 2d 489,492 (D. Md. 2002). In order to state such a claim Kimberlin must showthat the
tortious interference with prospective business relations. Kwang Dong Pharm.Co. v. Han, 205 F.
In Maryland, the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage is identical to
allegedly harmed.
Kimberlin fails to establish a non-speculative future business relationship that such actions
Defendants purportedly had any causal nexus to any future business injury. And indeed,
relief). Yet, as with his other claims, he fails to state how the pled actions by each of the Blaze
injury in some unspecified amount of potentially up to $2 million. Cplt. at p. 82 (prayer for
media reporting on one day in May, 2012 - were designed to directly cause Kimberlin business
According to Kimberlin's Complaint, the actions of the Blaze Defendants - namely,
D. Kimberlin Fails to State a Claim for Interference with Prospective Economic
Advantage against the Blaze Defendants Because He Identifies No Potential
Future Business Relationship with Which the Blaze Defendants Interfered.
justified awarding of attorney fees to county).
county, following dismissal of accusation for removal from office, was groundless and thus
also Patton v. County of Kings, 857 F.2d 1370(9th Cir. 1988) (sheriffs 1983 action against
(granting "full compensatory award for its legal work on the case" to the prevailing party); see
CIV. AMD98-4060, 2000 WL 432757 (D. Md. Apr. 18,2000). This is such a claim. See id.
(1978); Associated Util. Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore,
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 'n, 434 U.S. 412, 422
merit an award of costs and attorneys' fees to the prevailing party. See 42 U.S.C. 1988(b);
Groundless, unreasonable,' or frivolous claims arising under the federal civil rights laws
16
and loss has resulted from those acts. Infection Control Consultation Servs., Inc. v. Smithkline
Beecham Corp., 461 F. App'x 343,345 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted); Doodson Ins.
Brokerage of TX, LLC v. Indem. Ins. Corp., RRG, CIV. WDQ-12-1606, 2013 WL 709644 (D.
Md. Feb. 25,2013) (citations omitted). More specifically, he must demonstrate that the Blaze
Defendants engaged in "conduct that is independently wrongful or unlawful," Bell BCI Co. v.
HRGM Corp., CIV. JFM-03-1387, 2004 WL 3222885, at *6 (D. Md. Aug. 6,2004), and,
crucially, he "must identify a possible future relationship which is likely to occur, absent
[defendant's] interference, with specificity." Baron Fin. Corp. v. Natazon, 471 F. Supp. 2d 535,
546 (D. Md. 2006) (without identifying a possible future relationship that is likely to occur, "it is
unclear how any of the following elements could be established: causation ... damage ... or
indeed defendants' wrongful intent to interfere with the relationship. ").
Kimberlin fails to allege that the Blaze Defendants acted intentionally, willfully, with
malice, or with unlawful purpose, ,specifically to cause damage to any of Kimberlin's prospective
business relationships. But even had Kimberlin adequately plead these essential elements, he
fails to state a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage because he
does not identify any prospective business relationship that is reasonably likely to arise. The
only business relationship that Kimberlin so much as hints at involves the U.S. State Department.
See Cplt. ~ 152. At most, Kimberlin alleges that, as a result of an article published by the Blaze
Defendants about the fact that Kimberlin, the convicted Speedway Bomber, is working with the
State Department, "the State Department no longer brings ... activists to [Kimberlin's non-profit
organization] Justice Through Music," ("JTM") and "the activists can no longer know that [JTM]
is an advocate for their cause." Id. However, Kimberlin fails to allege with any level of certainty
that, in the absence of the Blaze Defendants' alleged interference, such a relationship was
17
the torts asserted against the Blaze Defendants, nor does he identify any other legally cognizable
Moreover, for the reasons explained herein, Kimberlin has not stated a claim as to any of
facts").
claimwhere it was "comprised almost entirely of conclusory allegations unsupported by concrete
(4th Cir. 1995) (holding claim failed to allege specific facts necessary to uphold a conspiracy
at *6 (D. Md. Mar. 11,2011) (emphases added); see also Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1379, 1376
2011) (citing Day v. DB Capital Group LLC, Civil Action No. DKC 10-1658,2011 WL 887554,
no civil conspiracy claim." Vollmar v. o.c. Seacrets, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 2d 862,870 (D. Md.
occurred and how each of the defendants specifically were the parties to the agreement, there is
(1995). "Without factual allegations that provide an indication of when and how the agreement
Harry & Jeanette WeinbergFound., Inc., 340 Md. 176, 189-191, 665 A.2d 1038, 1044-45
torts. See Hoffman v. Stamper, 385 Md. 1,24-25,867 A.2d 276,290 (2005); Alleco, Inc. v.
in any actual injury - all essential elements to state a claim for conspiracy to commit state law
that they took in furtherance of any agreement; and he does not explain how those acts resulted
Defendants were part of an agreement to commit some unidentified torts; he identifies no acts
devoid of any factual basis. Kimberlin identifies no facts to support the allegation that the Blaze
Kimberlin's claim for conspiracy to commit state law torts, like the other claims, is
E. Kimberlin Fails to State a Claim for Conspiracy to Commit State Law Torts
Against the Blaze Defendants Because His Underlying Tort Claims Fail and
Because He Does Not Plead The Existence Of An Unlawful Agreement.
have published or broadcast a report about him.
Kimberlin's lines of income are secured for years to come merely because that organization may
shed a light on his past, but a media organization is under no obligation to ensure that
reasonably certain to continue into the future. Kimberlin may be upset that certain people have
18
his case. See Dkt. No. 83-1. Nonetheless, despite having extensive experience in court and
Defendants. The Blaze Defendants have previously advised him of the numerous deficiencies in
Kimberlin has had multiple chances to attempt to state a claim against the Blaze
G. This Court Should Impose Sanctions Against Kimberlin for Prosecuting
Frivolous Claims Against The Blaze Defendants.
not stated any claim sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Kimberlin mischaracterizes punitive damages, a remedy, as a cause of action and, as such, has
It is obvious from Kimberlin's one-paragraph request for punitive damages that
Passman, 442 U.S. 228,239 (1979).
dismissal where the plaintiff incorrectly confounds the remedy with the cause of action. Davis v.
'cause of action' ... and what relief, if any, a litigant may be entitled to receive" necessitates
relief sought."). The rigid analytical distinction between "the question whether a litigant has a
(2d Cir. 1977) ("[M]ost definitely, the cause of action is something distinct from the remedy or
v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60,69 (1992); Williams v. Walsh, 558 F.2d 667, 670-71
However, it is well settled that damages are a form of relief, not a cause of action. See Franklin
Kimberlin appears to try to state a claim for punitive damages. See Cplt. ~ 284.
F. Kimberlin's Claim for Punitive Damages Is Inappropriate Because "Punitive
Damages" Is a Remedy, Not a Cause of Action.
alleged.") (quotingAlleco, Inc., 340 Md. at 189 (1995.
civil conspiracy claim cannot stand if the object of the conspiracy has not been plausibly
sustaining award of damages in absence of other tortious injury to plaintiff' and, therefore, "a
at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 19,2013) ("conspiracy is not a separate tort capable of independently
claim. R Cleaning Impact, Inc. v. Red Robin Int'l, Inc., CIV. CCB-12-2368, 2013 WL 1726270,
tortious injury that may have occurred. Such failures are independently fatal to Kimberlin's
19
the authority of a government body or any issue of public concern; (2) materially related to the
10, Article 13, or Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights regarding any matter within
in any other way exercise rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Article
government body or the public at large to report on, comment on, rule on, challenge, oppose, or
brought in bad faith against a party who has communicated with a federal, State, or local
Maryland law expressly prohibits SLAPP suits. A lawsuit is a SLAPP suit ifit is: (1)
suffered; in other words, it is a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
importance and concern, rather than to address cognizable injury that Kimberlin genuinely
Complaint is thus clearly designed to chill free speech and debate about an issue of public
claims that defendants Frey and Walker made during the broadcast. Cplt. ~~87-92, 152. The
swatting, and that The Blaze published material discussing Kimberlin's background and the
radio/television broadcast for others to talk about Kimberlin and his alleged involvement with
is the reporting done on May 25,2012; specifically, that Mr. Beck provided a platform on his
As explained above, the target of all of Kimberlin's claims against the Blaze Defendants
III. KIMBERLIN'S COMPLAINT SEEKS TO INHIBIT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
AND THUS VIOLATES MARYLAND'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE
Cir. 1989) (same).
Autry v. Woods, 86 F.3d 1148 (4th Cir. 1996) (same); Robinson v. Marion, 879 F.2d 863 (4th
Glasberg, 129F.3d 1258 (4th Cir. 1997) (granting motion for sanctions against pro se litigant);
v. Hopson, 108 Fed. App'x 749 (4th Cir. 2004) (affirming fees award against plaintiff); Bast v.
against media entities that may provide a platform for discussing him or his activities. See Byrd
Accordingly, sanctions are appropriate to deter Kimberlin from bringing future meritless claims
time and resources on a claim that boils down to nothing but a stale claim for defamation.
having been educated on the law, Kimberlin has continued to waste the Court's and the parties'
20
defendant's communication; and (3) intended to inhibit or inhibits the exercise of rights under
the First Amendment of the u.s. Constitution or Article 10, Article 13, or Article 40 of the
Maryland Declaration of Rights. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-807(b).
Based on the fact that he dropped his defamation claims against the Blaze Defendants in
his latest Complaint, Kimberlin clearly knows that he is out of time to seek action under
defamation law. Yet he has concocted a wide-ranging and frivolous complaint that captures the
Blaze Defendants in claims that any reasonable person should know could never survive under
the facts alleged. The claims are missing elements, they are contradicted by Kimberlin's own
facts, or they seek relief under statutes that could never apply to him - regardless of the facts. In
this context, it is plain that Kimberlin's motivation is to seek redress against a party where none
is available as a matter of law, and where all the defendants were alleged to have done was report
on a matter of public interest. This is not a proper reason for suit and warrants a finding of bad
faith accordingly. Johnson v. City a/Baltimore Dev. Corp., CIV.A. GLR-11-2174, 2013 WL
3934022 (D. Md. July 29, 2013) C'ln Maryland, bad faith has been judicially defined as
'vexatiously, for the purpose of harassment or unreasonable delay, or for other improper
reasons."') (quoting Inlet Assocs. v. Harrison Inn Inlet, Inc., 596 A.2d 1049, 1056 (Md.1991)).
That the reporting may have opened old wounds or shed light on new alleged acts may not be
something that Kimberlin likes, but such reporting is vital to freedom of the press. And that
freedom of the press is exactly the type of protection that Maryland's Anti-SLAPP statute
provides. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-807(b)(3).
21
Attorneys for defendants The Blaze, Inc.,
Mercury Radio Arts, and Glenn Beck
Mark 1. Bailen
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 861-1500
Fax: (202) 861-1763
MBailen@bakerlaw,com
By: lsI Eleanor M. Lackman
Eleanor M. Lackman (pro hac vice)
41 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, New York 10010
Tel: (212) 974-7474
Fax: (212) 974-8474
ELackman@cdas.com
COWAN DeBAETS ABRAHAMS
& SHEPPARD, LLP
Respectfully submitted, Dated: New York, New York
July 11, 2014
basis.
Defendants because his claims are untimely, inadequately pled, and/or lacking in any substantive
dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice and an award of fees and costs, with regard to the Blaze
For the reasons discussed above, Kimberlin's Second Amended Complaint should be
CONCLUSION
Dated: New York, New York
July 11,2014
knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
Kimberlin's Second Amended Complaint for Damages.
2. Attached hereto as "Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of plaintiff Brett
would competently testify thereto.
firsthand knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. If called as a witness, I could and
Blaze Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint. I have personal,
"Blaze Defendants") in the above-captioned matter, and make this declaration in support of the
attorneys for defendants The Blaze, Inc., Mercury Radio Arts, and Glenn Beck (collectively, the
1. I am a partner at the law firm of Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP,
I, ELEANOR M. LACKMAN, declare as follows:
DECLARATION OF ELEANOR M. LACKMAN
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB~ et al.,
v.
Plaintiff,
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Defendants.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-2 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page l of l
EXHIBIT A
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-3 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page l of 83
1
j n a multitude of tortious acts, including a criminal racketeering enterprise that
Complaint to recover damages inflicted by Defendants, defined below, for engaging
1. Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin ("KimberlinU) hereby brings this Second Amended
SECONDAMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
VIOLATION' OF CIVIL RlGHTSI RICO AND STATE LAW TORTS
NATlO NAt BLOGGllR.S CLUU,
ALl Al(BAR,
PATRICK FR.EY,
ERICK ERICKSON,
MIGHELLEMALl(IN,
GLENN:BECK,
.AARON WALKERi
WILLIAlvtHOGE;.
LEE STRANAHAN,
ROBERT STACY 'MCCA.IN';
JAMEs'U~KEEFE,
MANDY NAGY,
BREITBART.COM,
DB CAPITOL, STRATEGIES,
DAN Bi\CKER,
'THE:HRANRL1N' .CENTER,
SlMON&SCH USrHR,INC'1
LYNN Ttl OMAS aka K1MBERLINUNMASKED)
MERCURY RADlO ARTS,
THE 'BLAZE,
AGEOF SPADES,
REDSTATE,
TWITCHY.
THEAMERICAN 'SPECTATOR,
Defendants.
Nb. PWG13 3059 v.
'l3RETT:KIMllERLIN,
Plaintiff,
,UNIXEn, $.T.t\T~S".tJl~T.al,Gf ,.~O:tJRT
FOR 'JJH~J)lSTJ{~.~r"Qg:N1.~.R:ytANP'
'~R~~N~ELT<PlYI'SJQN
Case 8: 13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 82
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-3 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page 2 of 83
2
distress.
year. These tortswere intentional and"caused Plaintiff'physfealharm and emotional
were meant to and did intimidate Plalntifffrom seeking redress for more-than one
journalists, judges and Maryland State's Attorneys. These.threatsof'harm and death
intimidate others who rejected their false narratives about Plaintiff Including
The Defendants used online and offline gang-activity to threaten, harass and
threaten him against exercising his right to redress through access to the courts.
Defendants conspired.to and/or did assault Plaintiff and then used gangactivityto
Increasingtrafflo on. their websites based onthose false narratives. Some of the
enriched themselves byfra udulently raisinghundredsof'thousands of dollars and
convictions more than three decades oldIn order to demonlzehim, and then (5)
jnvoJvell1~ntin saJd swattit1g$J(3J repeatedlypubllshed.defamatery .statements th~t
-Plaintiffcoll1mittedswattings, (4) constantly bullied Plaintiff'with crhnihal
media .outlets,p()liticiahs and law enforcement officialsaccusing -PlaiJ1~iffQf-
- " .
order to bolster the false swattingnarrattve; (3) provided false-information to
crlmlnal sWattillgofindivid\lals, {2} created other.false naIT<itiv$ about plalntiffifi
bimofhts civil rights.- SpedficaJly,the ,De{f!ugp1)t$(l)cteated false and g~famptQr'y
natratives-sta'tingthatPlaintiffe,l'lgaged in,"ordered, dfrected andjQr-fadlItatedthe
engageeI.in Widespread man,fr~1JdjwlreJraud,jnoneyl{lYnQeril1&'jnBll11datibn;
~S$(!tl}t," "t1XtQttiQll!."attempte(l""ex:t:Qm911,"tlb$t:tUctJ()n.of}uStice;.allg'~ng~cti'vity -for
the"purpose ofbatming' PlaIlitiffs business and::propetty Interests anti tlepdviug '
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06124114 Page 2 of 82
3
'4.' Swatting is'the calling,ofthe police~s~m.~a, ful_sifiedpnol1e'nulfiD~t'ai'ldt~lnpg_-
the'police, th(!ta~ll1ajQrcrime occUrred, atfhe address. clSSo~i~~-c1;Wlth_thatciddres$:irt
.orderto causealargepollee response,
-' 3. Defendants repea~edlYlllade:tbefalseJ slandet()uscandclefamC)tory
staternents;aobUtPlairttiffsiJ}vQlYE:mentiJ)",swatting-mOritfi-after'llloutti;-fortnore
tijan' .. ayear, eausingthe,publiCaup:q,.9ftllOPsands ofarticlesJ,blog posts,,'Twitter
tweetsandradio and televisiol1.broadcastsattributingthe:swattingsto Plaintiff.
4. .None of the Defendants-evercontacted Plaintiffforeomment or response-to
thesefalse.slanderous.and lihelousstatementspriorto oraftertheir publicati.on.
5. Plaintlff'asserts claims againstDefenqants.arisingfrom',Violations:of(1),the
RCi){etecrhlg Influenced.and.Corrupt Organizcltipns.Act(R[CO)~,.'18USC:1962 (c); (2)
conspiracy under Rl CO,IB' USC1962(d); caJ the Civil Rights Act, 42 USG19H3~(4)
conspiracy under the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 USC1985~ (S}assalllt, (6} defamation; (7) ..
fraud, {a}false lightlnvasion of privacy, (9}interference with business
relationships, (10) interference with prospective advantage,.(11J conspiracy, (12)
battery, and (13) 1ntenti onal infliction of emotional distress.
JURISDICTION AND,VENUE
6. This Court hasjurlsdictlon over this action pursuantto 28 USC1331 [federal
question], 28 USC1332 (diversity of'cltizenship), and 18 USC1964 (cJ (RICOJ.
7>Tbis Court has supplemental jurisdiction :overthe state causes of action
based on state law pursuantto 28 USC1367(a), as the state law claims arise out of
the same nucleus of operative facts which support the federal claims.
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06/24/14 Page 3 of 82
4
12. DefendantjarrresO'Keeferesidesat 1214 W.Boston Post Road #1451
Mamaroneck, NewYork 10543 who portrayshimself asar'eitlzenjournaltst' and
bookauthor, He recently published a book entitled, "Breakthrough. Our Guerilla
War to Expose Fraud andSave Democracy," published by DefendantsSlmon.S
Shuster, and-released through its Threshold Divlsion a Simon &. Shusterhas its
corporate headquarters at1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NewYork
10020.
commerce.
It Venuets properJn;fhetlistl-ict ()fM~uyJand-undeti8 lJSC196S andgS:USG::.
1391~intb~tPl(jilltiJfr~$i~e~-in;MarY]andl -m51nY-9ftll~:~qti_9n~'QfPefel1dantS took-
plate in-MatyIand, the:in,jqry occurred in Marylal1.d, and a-~ubStantial-portion oftHe
'Communicatioils; transactions, ev:en~ or omlssions occurred illM~CYland.
J?i\Rtl_ES:
:9,:PlainliffKimberliilis the Dirt{)r oflpstice Through-Music, a Mary1a1)clb(t$eg
501(cJ(3J non-profitthatuses music.to Inspireand educateyoung people to get
involvedwith civlcparttcipatlou, .Plaintiff.hasheld-thatposition:JQttllyearsand
residesand'Wor~ InMontgomery County Maryland. Plaintiffis also a.mustcian,
manager, musicproducer/and composer engaged in the .businessofmusic,
tn, At all relevant ttrne~ithe RICODefendants.are a"person" within the.
.meanlngof'thatterrn as defined byRICO,18 USC1961(3).
11. Atall'relevant times, Defendants were engaged inInterstate
Commerce orin theproductionof goods orservices for-sale or use-in interstate
5
corporate address is 445C E. Cheyenne Mountain Blvd. #l04~ Colorado Springs,
Colorado 809Q6.
Michelle 'Malkin. is ablogger' and FOXNews COmmentator whose
6
22. Defendant ,EriCk.Erlckson 'is'ablogger .and television (:()mm~l)~tQr
Who resides ~t 736WaverlYP~Maco~~.. G~J?rgi~,.3121Q.
:23. Defenthmt-Ace QfSpades is a blogregistered by Michelle Kerr andJ$
located atS131 Homestead R,pad, W3ESanta.Clara, CaUforI)ia 9S{}St Ctnditis-written
-byan anQnymous blegger,
24. Defendant P~trjckFreyi$a blogger whoresidesat3547 Seaglen
Drive, Rancho PalosVerdes, California9027S~ He is-employed asanAssistant
State~sAtto_rne.YJorLosAngeles,
25. DC?felldantTwitchyis -a blogging platform owned or operated by
Defendant.MichelleMalkinthroqgh-TwitchyL'LCto promote stories created by her
and other.members.of'Twitcby, It-was recently purchased-by-Salem
Cemmunlcationslocated 4BHOSantcl Rosa R()a.d Camarillo, CA93012.
26. DefendantThe Glelln>BeckProgram/M~n:uryRadioArts, isa.media
company created-to promote DefendantGlenn Beckand is located 1270 AVenue of
the Ameri cas, 9th Floor NewYork, NeW York 10020.
27. DefendantThe BlazeInc, Is.a media company owned by Defendant
GlennBeckandcreatedto promote Defendant Glenn Beckand hlswenldvtew, and is
locatedat 1133 Avenue of'the Americas.Bdth Floor, NewYork, -NewYork 10036.
28. Defendant RedStateis a media company directed by Defendant Erick
Ericksonand was recentlypurchased by SalemCommunicatlonswhlch Is located at
4880 Santa Rosa Road Camarillo, CA93012.
7
STATEMENT'OF,FACTS
33. In 2009jthree military intelligence contractors, H13 Gary, Berko
Technologies and Palantir created a secret group ,called "TeamThernis"to destroy
progressive organfzatlons.and.their.staffon behalfof'corporate clientsand federal
a.gencies/induding the United .States Chamber 'of Commerce and FBI.. These acttvists
and organizations-were targeted forexercislngthelr constiturionalrights to free
expression and freedom of assembly. Some ofthe groups and people targeted were
"Wikileaks,'Anonymous, ThinkProgtess,. Glenn Greenwald.Chamber Watch, Change
to Win, AFLwClO} Moveon.org, Brett Kimberlin.Brad Friedman, Justice Through
Music, Stop The Chamber and Velvet Revolution. Palantir employee Matthew
29. n~fendantDB Gi:lpltorStratgi~$is'a lawfitrn locatedgt717.f{lng:
Street; SlJi~~-_3PQ-AJtlxandrlil,Virgiriia,02.aa14,:-fl!n:{ i$:headd ,oy-AttorneY:<lntl
l)~fetldantDan Backer,
30. -Tne,Fr~ri1<linGentetfQfGoVenifuellt and Publl(; 'Integrity isanoh-
profit: (jt~anitati'on-,}bcated (ltl~Z9' King.Street',Srd Floor, AlexalldrJa,Vtrginia
4Za~4fwltha mlssion offerreting. out govemrnenrcorruptton,
31. TheAmerlcan .Spectator 'is a publfcation ofthe 1\trie:ricanSpectator
Foundatlonlocated at t()11 N. KeritStreet,Sl,lite. 901iArUngt()n,'VA 22209.
~2. Defendant Lynn Thomas akaKlrnberllnllnmasked is a blogger- Whose
missionis to smear people, Including Plaintiff. The Kimberllnlfnmasked account
was ,cre_9ted' byUefendantThomasu$ingthe email causalnexus.george@grnaii;corn.
8
others. Theyproposedtosecretlyinstallillegal malware oncomputers, tocreate a
suchas Facebook.and prepared dossiers on Plaintiffand his Facebockfriends and
vice versa. TeamThemls illegally scraped social media sites associated with Plaintiff
of data about Plaintiff: which was shared with lawyers at Hunton &WilJiams and
bf!tw~e-Dthe Chamber-and Team Themis .Te~11lThelll_isgatbere4 massive amounts
Commerce, and its Washington, DCtaw firm Hunton &Williams was the conduit
organizations and activists. This operation' was orderedbytheChamber of
showed.a multi ..million dollaroperation to destroy Plaintiff, his employer-and other
exposed the existence of Team Themis, Several of the documents and emails
Anonymous responded bypubllshlng.rnore than 50,000 of HBGaryemalls.that
that he.had penetrated Anonymous andwas golngto take downtheir leaders;
34. Wben Aaron Barrin Febtuary2010 bra~ed to the Financial. Times
~st~,ri~flllinCl F~bruarYa,2009'em~Hto HB.. Garymployee Aaron Barrdescrlbes
thf}-metlj9gQ]q~Qftcam:themlsthi$-w().y;;
-F~otl1. ".:TueFf;b-.08-09;06:4_~.;20tl.. From. .. Matth~lN-Steckman
-<ms_tec;krotln(Q>p~laQ.tjr;C;()m> TQ:' HBGARY ..AaromB_atr
~aaron@hpg~ry.cQrn> I)ate:.Fril 3Uet 201005~15!S9 ;;;08(}(l$ubj(~ct;.RE:
'fIrst cut Feed tbei-'fu~l'l>etweenthe feuditiggr()ups._nisinf()rmaqon~.(:teate
messil.ges:arQUijQ-9cijpJjS:tq $abQtage. cr .. dlscredit.-;the.()HPp~il1g
prg~nizatiQn.;gUf)mjt.f~kedocuments and-then can out the error, Crelte
coneem . ~verthes~curit)rof-tbejnfrastructure. Cteate,eXp0sQre .stori~$I Jf
the process is-believedtonotbesecurethey ate done. Cyber attacks
"gainstthe infrastructure to' get data-on document submitters. This 'Would
Idllthe. project-Since the servers are now In.Sweden and France puttinga
.team. tQgetherto.get .. access . -js . more straightforward, ... . M.~dia cattli?aignto
P1Jsh.the radical.and' reckless nature ofwikileaks aetivj,ti~s. S\istahn~d
pressure, -Doe~~fiPthingfQtthefanaticsibut creates concern and.doubt
arnongstmcderates. .Seareh for-leaks. Use. socialmedia to-profiJean~.
identify risky behavior ()femp]Qyees. 111tis tliis.level ofsupportwe:n(!eqto
attack These-are established. professionals thathavea liberal.bent; hut
ultimately;,mOst of them if'pushedwlll. choose professional.preservation
overeause"
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06/24114 Page 8 of 82
9
campaign started by TeamThemls to destroy Plaintiff and hlsllvellhood. On
owner of Defendant Breitbart.com, a media company, decided to take up a parallel
37. On or aboutSeptember 2010, Andrew Breitbart, the now deceased
Amono the-coreselPideiltifIedpurpQses ofJTRlGare tw()taCtici:{l) to-inject
allsorts.effalse material.ontothe internet inorder to destroy the reputation
of its 'targets; and{2Jto usesocial-sciences and other techniques-to
manipulate online-discourse and activismtoB~nerate outcomes it considers
de~irCible.. To see howextremistthese:proorqms are, just consider thetacties
th(?y boast b!usina to achieve those ends: 'Jalseflug operatiollsfl[postino-
materialto the internet qnd/a/sely attributing it tosomeo ne. else), fake victim
btoqposts {pretending to be a.victim of the individual whose reputation they
want to destroyJ,.andpostin!} "neO(1tive'jn/ormqtie)J1#on variousforums.
{httpU/cannmifire;hJogspotcom/2014102/fnirirl-h1bwirig.html}
threats .. to. ~mtional s~curity.
destroy p~oplet$_rputations---goil1g:far beyond justtargetingterroristgtoups and
Research .Intelligence Group-would seek to infiltrate .dlfferentgroups online ami
(lctiVistsWotldWide. Thisfldirty'tr]cks'l group known asJTRIG -..the IointThreat
Team 'I'hemls camp(lignw~re npt:relegated to the three-rogue intelligence
contractors. Instead, th~y~re p~rtQf:anN$Aprogram-to disrupt and.destroy
Februacy2014 (1udreported.oil.by Glenn Greenwald, the tactics outlined bythe
36. .A:ccotd:ingto-NSAdo~JJlJlents released by Edward Snowden 1n
-as. AfterT~&m'I'herojs, illegalpatnpaign was exposed, (:()ngressi<mal
ipv:e$t1&ations wreJatmchedalld tll~ media xtensiveJy covered,the.story.
PJaihclffs-ePJpl()~r~Mt~ Bat.ri$;d9SSier:q~()teq.from :~n'Oct6be.t.11, 20JlOiatiele/l~y'
J)~tefidantManqyNagy'pnbJished\byDefendalltBteitbartcotn defaming:Plaintiif.-
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-3 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page l0 of 83
10
;QctQP~r'7,2_QliQ"h_c sentout a twe~.t.sayjl1~:that he was-goihgto mak~-_Pla.itltjffs
?sS_oci~t~~Jlrp<i Friqtn~Ns.-!1ifealot more ~ffi~ltl~ -On October -11,.20:l.(),:-be ~~nt
anQthertiVeettJlinglji~Jeg1on offQlioWets tbatPlplntiffandtWQ-?-:s$ociijtes' "need
~xpostITe.)1Thlsw~~Cg_ ~()d~ phra~e-fQtbisJQllow_ersto_ eng~ge itl thetype;6t
d~trtidQti--.ar.eitbatt use'ctagaiJ1~~ACQ_RN'andShirleyShetrod~fal$en~rrativesl
:~()jteg:videQs,tm]jp-eganl1actjvity._{ACQRN staffers and-Shirley Sherrodsued
Brietb'al"t~n41JefelldantOIKeefe()vetthattortious-q:mdtlttin-separate suits. 'One.of
the-ACORN-suit:s.--wa,$:recentlY. settled inthe ernployee's--favora:nd,the:shihorodl.sriifis
Gurrentty.peridhlg;in.VV<l$hihgf:,Qu.DC fedetafcollrt}. He contactedDefendants
Patrick F.rey,.teiiSttallahap andJMandy~Nagy and others-and .consplred.withthem
to .target. Ple:iititifffor a campaign ofpersonal a.ndprofessional destruction; Mr.
Breitbart was closely associated withDefendant Frey and-chosehim'because {)fhi;;
positionasa.L()sA.ng~lesA.ssistant DtstrictAttorneyandasthe owner of the
conservative blog, Pattericc'sPontiflcatlons,
38. OnOctober 11,l010, Defendant Nagy, under the direction.ofand in
conspiracy with' Mr. Breitbart, wrote anarticle smearing Plaintiff that .appea red on
Breitbart.com. http://www.breitbaftcomlBig-
]outnalism/2010 /10 /11/Progressives-Embrace-COllvicted,. Terrorist Onthe same
day, Defendant Freyfollowedthatarticle with a slmllar smeararticleon his
Pattertec's Pontiflcatlon's-blcg HTIP!l'lPATIEruCO.toM/2010 /10111/BRAD-FRlEDMANS'"
PARTNER-AND-B UDDY-A~CONVJCTED"'BOMBER"PERJURER-AND-DRUG-SMUGGLER-SU5PECTED-
MURDERER-AND-ELECT} ON-1NTEGR1TY-HERO/
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-3 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page ll of 83
11
39. :OtrOct9her13,. 2Q1Q,PJailltiffsuedq,bIogger nam~qS~thAUen . for
a~fam(ltiolriJt-th~Gircuit'o1ilWf()rM~mtgQlJJe:ry;G()ujjw.Maey}and .. On Nov~mb~r'
l~J 2011,th{rGtr6uitG()Xlrt~utered'Jdgmeht;lJl plaintiffs favqVi and fssued an
b)juilctioll againsrMl\J\llep.lntbatcase,.Mt. AUenfiIedRlllQtipnJQI'the,C(}tittto
find th;,itP]aintifrwas,a ~{pyplicfiwirtQutJudge (itiirkfo1.ind. (jth~rwl$e':;tntI denied
hjs'motioll~
40. I1r2011,Defendant.W~lker was co"hostingIlefertdarttFrey~s Patterice
blog.using the name).Aaron Wortblrig,asllpposed .attQrney from Manassas, Virgil1ia.
DefenaantFrey supervised 1)efentiantWillkerJn' that qapacity~
41; On .QtaboutAugm)t.17~2011,.SethAllen sent an emailtcAndrew
Breltbart, and Defendants WaIl<er~,Ft'ey'andNawteHingtfiem.that.l1e :w3$ planning'
to come-to Maryland.and i'murder"Rlai:ntiff. Defendant Frey,.anAssjSUUltDlstric~
Attorney, did not'con~c;tPlaintifforjaw enforcement.offlcials toreport .. the.murder
threat DefendantNagydld contact-the authorities and Mr.Allenwas arrested-in
Montgomery County Maryland,
42. In December 2011, Defendant Walker, usinghispseudonym Aaron
Worthing, contacted SethAllen and offered pro bono tofifepost-judgment motions'
In Marylandto overturn the judgment entered againstMr, Allen. DefendantWalker,
still using the pseudonym, then prepared and filed, numerous pleadingsfor Mr. Allen
attacking Plaintiffand'the judge who issued the judgment, He did this even though
the time for appealand for reconsideration had expired.
43. Throughoutthe monthof December 2011, Defendants Walker, Frey
and Nagy communicated with each other on howthey could destroy Plalntlffby
12
getthlghim arresteCJ on ,f()lse ghatge$~ ,Defepga,PtFreyu$ed'lli$ position as.. ilepHt.Y
l)istrictA4orn~YfQr.L(j~Allgele$,~Qgive ,ctepibilittQ tfteJijl$~ . Jlart~tivesand
accusatlons. heand oth~rs lJ1~g~.~g<linsfPlahititt.Defendant Frey lJ$t'!d ilisp'psltion
tolattncbinvestigafiOhs,ofJ'lciinpffl)Y.his'supetVisors atthe Los:Ange)esColltleyr
i)istrictAttorney's Office.and With 'the'. E,.aJ~'Ill' fa.ctjDefendant lirey met<:Wjtll ~Qtb of
'thoselaw-enforcement ageritiesafid fa1se]ytoldtbenfthatPlaititiffWasinvolyeti
Withswatting.
44. OnJ.alluary6,2012,.DefeildarttFrey'counseled J)~f~tldantWalk~ro.n
how toflleand prepare;legalfiUngs.agaiiistPblifitiffto .. make him.appear' odious:
'(No;YQuhave.tostart Withten seconds'oflabelinghim a convicted bomberand
convicted perjurer, and say.tbls.isestabli$'h~<ibymaJ()rmediastorisalld'by
published court. decisions. Th~n $(\yne.6bfainedthe injunctlon.byrepeatedly
'perjuring hlrnselfand-thatycu'canprove it '0' Ethosflrst, Then-loges, Thenpathos,"
45. In an emallfrom Defendant Freyto Defendant Walker on December
22,2011, Defendant Frey complimented Walker on a pleading and then said, "This
kicks ass; 'Theyaregoingto.goapeshlt. Whenyou blogit,.l'll'sendit to Glenn
Reynolds and tell him that fthink 'thisis theouy who swattedme ...."{emphasis
added], Mr. Reynoldsis a well-known conservative' author.professor andblogger,
Defendant Frey was conspiring with Defendant Walker to create asituation that
Defendant Frey could.useto falsely accuse PlaIntiff of swatting.
46; In another email exchange with Defendant Walker, Walkertells Frey,
"Now he [Kimberlin] is going to learn notto fuck with me either," To which Frey
replied: "Yeah, but he is 'fucking with me. jusc.notincourt, He sends bullshit
13
JIl~elT()g~t()rl$that.he . has . tokn()WwiU;nevel:' get answered; ,BU.t,lJlQ~tJy<l1(f.jSt.eylng
;t<fll'l(iKe m.~llli$e,tcible)p.\ibiishiijg m:Y.A.da.r~$I.lijrll1Q.:peQPleto... swCl:t,m~iGqq~l~
bombing' me, tf~faming me', mockingme.and so-on. "..~IJA$tw~ntYQUt().u.i1der$mn9
that .Kiinbetlin,lsbehlhdal1 the:thifigslha:t'have happe.ned.tpm~).afi:d that; he. is tnily:
dangerous and:.ap$yc~opath/'. C~mphasisadded). Plaintiffne\T~fldredany()neto
swat DefendafitFrey, and never even published online.. a sing1e.wqrd'qttWeetLaboUt
Defendant Frey.
47.1)1other emaflstoDefendantwalkerand 'some of the .ot1ier.m~fel)daTlts;
.Defendant .Freystates-that his office at llie. LkCol.mty Dls.triPt.AttcirheYis:
('Investigating'}Plaintiff'and had asked DefendantWalkerto keep. qtdtWhilethe
Investlgationproceeded.
48. IIIanother email.datedDecemberLs; 2011, he states: "Don'tvolunteer
where you got this stuff. Just because ofthe investigation. But-for that.Jwould be
shoutingallthisfromtlie.hilltcps, but.lstill think we can puttheseyuysfll prison.so)
have to stay quiet." [emphasisadded),
49. Inan emaildated January25, 2012, DefendantFrey told Defendant
WalkerwhHe waitingfora'[uryina case he was trying; "I'm.having.fun. This is what
Ido. prove things. I have a jury out.so I have alittle time tonight [to.review the
pleading Walker prepared regarding Plaintiff], "
SIt Inseveralemails onDecember 21, 2011, Defendant.Frey discussed his
planned meeting with the FBI the following day and setting up a sting operation
with law enforcement to arrest Plaintiff. "I don'tsuggest lying unless it's done under
14
SUp(:rv~~ipJl. ofJ'l\y enforcement a~'p(lrt ora ,$t;jn~i ,But it'Qply)n5tk~s:$~l1~Fl~:p_art
OfcUl1(mitored sqn~t'
51.(jnlahu~rySJ-'2Qt2jIlefendant Ftyasked DefendaJitWalker'to seiid-Jlim;Cl-,
ltterabout:Plaintiffto-$haxe-with.hiss-upetvisors-atthe.tAGountYPr.Qs~cUt()rS
Qffice_~I1d(jthr-IaWehforcernent_()fti.'cials~
52~- 01l.otahdutDece:ll'}ber$1/_~Oll,--P]aiiltiff(1istoveretltb~t'ilA~rQn
Worthlng" was nota teal attorney buttbatAaronWotl;hing was actually I.)~f~:nqant
Aaron _Wqlker, anattorney lit.-etlsedinVirginia.
-5-3~ Platntiff.also di$cdvetedthatAaronWortllillgwa$ the publisher Ofa
blogdedicated to.attacking.smearing, rnockinganti insulting the Muslim faith and
~lle_PrpphetMohal11med .Thatblegwas cClllecl. (~EvetyoneDraw Monalllrnep/"and it
solicited vile, pornographic .andinsultillg depictions of'the Prophet frompeople-all
overtheworld, In December 2011,.DefendantWalkerbad published more than 800
insulting depictions of the Prophet
54. Onorabout january 5,2012, Plaintiff,bymotion, advisedthe
Montgomery County Maryland Circu it Court Judge in the Seth Allen case.thatthe
attorneyasslsdngMr, Allen-wasnot Aaron Worthing but rather was.Aaron Walker.
55. OnJanuary9,2012, at a hearing ona Motion for Contempt.against Mr,
Allen, Defendant Walker appeared uninvited and interrupted. the proceedings from
theviewing.area He demandedthatthejudge-sealthe proceedings becausePlaintlff
had identified him.as Aaron Walker, and everyone wouldknow that he was the
publisher of the Muslim.hate blog,
15
Astor the.reasonsfor your termination, while PHRI would have beenjustified.
in terminatingyou[orYburorossly irresponsible actions relatedto your
bloBgjng~.especially on.company time [ma ny ofyour postsbea r time stamps
c:lllrinQIlQrmal workinghours}-the.fl.ctyqlreason!oryolJrternlinqtio.n.i$the
-incrediblyfrresponsibl(j WoythatyouperJorrned1eoalservicesforPHRf(or
failed tojover the pastfouryears. both as an outside attorney and, sinoejuly
of2011) as an employee of PHRI. As J mentioned toyou on Friday; the-state of
you office is aJmost beyond description. Most of the legal documents inyour
office are pi/edhaphazardly in no lessthan five legal sixepaper boxes;
withoutreqardto anykindof orqanization.flling, chronology, etc. Thefew
ftlestnatwere actually stored inyourfile cabinet are not filed alphabetically
or subject matter: Even those appearto be incomplete and provide no basis
hate .bIogat work and forbeing incompetent;
terminated for-writing the hate blogpladnghis co-workers at risk, for writingthe
counsel for the company notified Defendant Walker in writing that he was
Walkertold it in writing.that he was the publisher of the Muslim hate blog, Outside
employment elsah attorneyforProfesslonal HealthCare Resou rces afterDefendant
57. OnJanuary 12,"2Q13~Defendant .WaJker was terminated from his
wasmeanttointlmtdatehlm,
Ff!mliation for Plaintiff exerclsinghis rightto redress andaccess to the courts, andit
laid offfrorn work for several days. thereafter; The assault and-battery was .in
iJ1jbtic$, inclucHngcontttsiOllfothe eye,.possible-cQtlcuSSlOll, and back pain. He was'
'Mctryland. There, be was evalilated,.treated-3ndgivenmedicines-for his physical
S~_CtltitYrespolldeg, retrieved tfie-iPad and urged. Plaintiff to seek medical
56~ Afterthe heanngWas. ()ntlticled~.Pe_fendantWa.Jk~tJ()llQwdiPiaintiff;
Ol.lt-Qftht!.cQ\lrtrQQnli}jMolltgom~r-y C()l:tPty'Macy]anct assaulb~ttan(l b~tt<:~re_-a''hjffi-
btphysically-str1kinghbn 'In thefate,ancl-wr~$tl~d'bi1;-iPadftorO ... him. C(~mrth()U_$
16
Walke r-s~rea 1..reasons-for-bei ng-term inated
.... Youchose topokeatagroupthat is knownfor violentreprisals,
apparenilyin the name of assertinqfirstamendment riyhts [even.thouqhthe
us. Govemmentisnotinvolved in suppressing.cartoons.ojMohammed). And
you.were.fearful enough of your adversaries to alert thepolice intwo
counties. So itwouldbe unreasonableforyou to condemn commonsense
effortsto protectthosewho have nothinqto dowith your acttvities as
"beyond aJI rationality. In hindsight; doyou still consideryou "Everyone
,l)rgw.MQhgmrned'l blQg to btl rational? Jj$O, Iwould.not: consideryou tcrb('?:(l,
eredtble appraisero/ratio1ia/ity.
http:,l,Iwww,scdbd;com!docI176869717ILetters-cODcerning-Aaron-
Inlight ofall..theab()ve~ and in the context-cfyour actions outside the scope of
youremployment.lfyou must eonsideryourself to be a victim, it is only of
yourownirresponsibte actions. FaRI does nothave a responslbilttyto
'provideyou.with a'1's(Jjt landtnq" from those actions in theform of unearned
compensation. ....
}:ordtermihiijB WharactipTlswere taken.orrematn tobe tq/iel1tiJ QitC[ude
'the-matter; .It i$.also'~bvioflsthatmost of the w9~k.thqt.You(Jid,}n.thatojftce;.
(l$:rev~qle~tJb.Yt~estQi:~()ftiotmll1~~tsin.th~. top: ofyourd~k, rl(lt~;to
.. oersona} .... buslness, . inclutiin9J'0.u~.va.riQl)s. bloB (lctivities~'.. -in. fqcti.iti$.d,iJ/icUlt.
to.determjngwha.tYQu . lVere~otkinfJ;QnJor.PHRI.Qverthe.Jastl~}4I Wegk$, if
.~.nythinB (Yo.lJ.r.. charncteri:zation.ofyour .. ofjice.lls umes~"' isbelied.by .. .the.
photooraphs.thq.twe.to()ktQ.document.the agtllaltontluction' 9fthat room),
.The!ew documents-that did relate-to .. PHRlbll~[ne$sdo.npti~c/jcate the' .
current Statuso!tI1JJ'!J1atpers towhid they rela~edan4PH1)1:iS'liQW in tJie
~.o$itibn6JretracinD.'$eps,al1d'(;ont!l~tinBnUn'lerous,third.partiesto ..
t!ete:rminewherethifJBsstaTld. 'Obviously,those effoJ1swill t;ostPHRJ
$ignific(Jnt sams~JncluainBtbe cost for-outside counselto .communicate With
thirdpaHjy'counseJand continue representatj(jn()fPHRliasnece~(lty; Given
those eircumstances, it seems dear thatyoufailed toperformyourduties CIS
counsel .. -to.. PHRl,... Jnla.y~rofpursuinBYourpersdn.al'.interests,. while J1PinU:.p"i[t}
by PllRI. Thus,PffRlis entitefyfustified to terminateyour employment/or
cause relatt;d'fQyolJr!ailureto.petform 1T1qc~()tdal1ce with-the eXpectati(>ns
andWithyoupobJigutiQns as0trlembero[the Virginia State. Bar: Dbviouslyi
e.venifPHR1 hadaseverul1cepo!icy, which 'it doesnot.you would not be
f#1.titiedtoreceive qnysuth compensation under-the circumstances. Rather,
.' PRRl.Would bejustified.ifit.soul!htre~mbl)rsementfromYQuforamountspald
!orservlce$ that you did not perform during periods during which you did, not
performservices.
17
sa. InjanUary2012, J)ef~1}dantsWaJker,FreyjandN~gy/iItcon~ert,
ecncocted . <1 fu]$~Jlathitive.that Plaintiff(lJ caused ;Ile,fet\dantW~lker~sjoh
te_tminati6l)i f21w~s .n()t :asScltIlte<i,and..(3)falslfled-hfs ho~pitaJ t(3c()rd$.
5-9. In-February 2012-,AhdtewBreibart-told tJ~fel1tlant.Strananari'and -
btber- J)efendantsthatthey shpuldt;rrigt'PbdhtiffDffidaht-Stranahcrostpte(fthat
be t()o)tthi$~s al1't~rderrromAndrewBreitbart to .put.alla"ailab]etes()tl~cs-int()~_
-declaration.of War againstPlaintiff DefendantStranahan .wrote: tiThis would have
been.a.big deal; putting-realjourrialistic.tesources and a huge platform intPthe
Kiinbedin'Story~ lfswhatAJ1drewwahted."
ht.tps;/ltwitter,q6mIStranahanlst,atuses 43819555318897.04960
'60. lnthe spring of.201Z,Defendants Walker, Frey, Nagy,Akbar and
Stranahan, in concernplanned-waysto push their false narrative into the media in
orderto (1) demonize Plaintiff (2J createa witchhunt, (3J.cause maximum harm-to
Plaintift}(4) portray Defendant Walker as avictim, and(5) raise significant funds
from people who believed the false narrative. Defendant Walker made manytrips
to Maryland in furtherance efthat.consplracy,
61. In[anuary 2012, Defendant.Akbar ill consplracywlth Defendants
Walker, Frey, Nagy,Stranahan, and others launched a new entity caned the National
Bloggers Club to. bring together far right bloggers to' collectivelycoordinate their
messaging about specific issues, and target specific individuals. Defendant Akbar
registered The National BloggersClubas a Texas non-profit corporation. When
these Defendants agreed to and did publish thefalse narratives of the National
Bloggers Club regarding Plaintiff.andthe Club'sfraudulent SOl(cJ(3) status, they
18
loJp~dthe RICO'Enterprise. DefendantAkbar laterstated thathe C5~li' prd~rblaggers-
in the Nation"l Blpggers_Clu bto'targ~t_peQP1Qr-not.-targelpeople. 'I>eftm~limtAkbai-~;
has-stated that he [s in trsllpervisory: position over toe other bloggersin,the Cltlb.
l)e,fefidafit.l\'kbar has been to Maryland severalthnesin ,furtherance ofthe
c9nSpir.a~y.
62~ The Nati6nal alogger~Clu1:fi$:a criminal el1terpris~.engag~d.inillegftl
aCtivityf()r more thantwoyears, It has-defrauded eitlzens-outofhundreds of
.thcusands of.dollars bycreatingfalse narratives; mostly using Plailltiff~ name, and
byfalselYstating thatit is a 501(cJ(31lion~profit.. In fact ..It has neverflledany
requited buslnessfllingssince ltsinitia] registration.
63. 'I'hefraud.commlttedby The National BloggersClub isextraptdinaty
in.lts scope because itlastedovera.period of.years.scammed hundreds of-donors,
connedmajor names tnthe conservativecommunity, andwas conceived by.a
convicted felon from-the State of Texas who was on probation-for-fraud. ClearJy,this
fraud was. extended, widespreadand particularly dangerous.
64. DefendantMichelle Malkinjoined The National Bloggers Club on its
board of directors and' used her position and'reputation to give the' Club credibility.
She joined the RICOEnterprise andconspiracywherrshe agreed to and did.publish
the-false narratives of The National Bloggers Club regarding Plaintiff:
65. Defendants Akbar, Walker, Frey;Stranahan, Nagy and others decided
that Plaintiffwould be the first smear target of The National Bloggers Club. They
decided to have an "Everyone BlogAboutBrettKimberlin Day=onMay 25,2012
where-scores efbloggerswould write smear stories aboutPlaintlff post them
Case B:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06/24/14 Page 18 of 82
19
.online,arrd tweet abourthem.on Twi~~r. ',-Severalof'those' bloggers ~r~.fr9m
lv1aiylang; ClnctR.IJ.tA. blQgpQsts:ab6utPlailltiffw~.rViewed -; Qnthelnt~metitl
Maryland. lnfact,::Pl~intiffi~the.only persolitarg~tf3d byTh~'NatibtraIBloggefs
~lub.f()rasrriearc9.mpaignbCl$ed.onfalse narrative$I.~mihel$the()filyperSon'the
c;:1i1l) .used'to raise funds for-Its 'fraudulent non- profit, The NCl~QnalBloggers CJqb
.~pgag~d jn cybet bul1yingofPJaintiff'oRctgtartdscale.
66. InMay and JUl1c 2012,the .Natlonal.Bloggers Clubbloggers generated
hundreds of'posts and tens of thou Sarids of tweets "smearing Plaintiff. Dllringtb(it
.titne andcol1tihtting untiltbe ptesent,. DefendfmtAkb(lf. solicited donationson his
and other.websltesfor the' Defendant NationalBloggers Club, andfalselytold donors
tl1~t.~heird()natiolls Were tax deductible and.that.Natiorial staggers Club was a,
le.gjtirnate $Ol{c)(3}organizatiim. bttps:/lwww.lsnewsgtollP.com/wp-
C()lltebtfupIQadsI2013101.tNBC~Feb ..9~2012~Letter.pdfDefendantNational
BloggersClub and the' other Defendants raised' more than' a hundred thousand
dollars based on thosefraudulent.representations, Even after people asked for proof
that.Defendant National BloggersClub was granted 50 l{c)(3) status, and Defendant
Akbar failed to provide that proof, Defendants continued to solicit donations for
Defendant National Bloggers Club. As of March 7, 2014, The National Bloggers Club
continuesto raise money on a donate page stating falsely: "National Bloggers Club,
Inc. is a SOI(c)(3} -- status pending"
htt.ps; / /secure.piryx.cQm Idonatelc97AfwV cIRemembS!ring~Breitbart/
20
JtJ$ $tillfais_jng-'funds totarg~tPl~}tltiff(jni,ts:~.H~mb~rSyesBlp~ers p~gtr
thr()-lJgh~RallYIQrg::ltlhd~isirig~-p~g~!Th~t mQfi~Yis b~jngrais~cl'()llUnem .interstate-
t()mn1er(J~y(l.n9pb,l.c(,t-iht().iffedetalIYiTJsured bank,
'67~ D(!fenda:neN~tiQna.IB]oggers' Club notcnly neverllledfor 501:.(0)($)
:$tat4~'Withthe.1RStlt.u~ver.JlIed anyIRS 990'yearlY-refurni and:l1ever',even flIed any-
(jfth~ m'andatQrybusiness'fi]il1gs:prtaxretutnswiththe"-Stat~ QfTe}{~$; .On;OC;tQbet
la, 2016, the COlnpt~bller:()fStateofTexa,s forfeited- the rlght.of The National
n~QggersCltlbtQ tratlsactbustness because Qfthese falluresto.flle. And on F',ebruary
21; Z014/)tllc Stat~QfTexas-.tevoked the.charter QfThe National BJoggers Clubto act
asa C()rporation.
68.TheDefend~nt.swho, are members of The Natlonal Bloggers Club
createdtt.asashellcompany.to defraud more than one hundred thousanddollars
from gt11Iiple' citizens byll1aking1.lpfalse narratives aboutPlcliritif[ They never
intended to-and never did run that organization in any legitimate manner, In.fact,
The Club. has not provided any formal or Informalaccountability or transparency as
required for SUi(c) (3).11.00-profits.
69. There are-several active investigations into the fraudulentacti vities of
The National Bloggers CIub. under Defendant AUAkbar, and. a formal request has
been filed'with the IRSfor a criminal' investigation of the Club and. DefendantAkbar
for fraud.
70. After Texas forfeited The National Bloggers Club on February 21,
2014, Plaintiff Brett Kimberlinregistered and incorporated The National Bloggers
Club in the.State 'of Texas, and on March 7;,20141 notified Defendant Ali Akbarthat
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-3 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page 2l of 83
21
4e has no 1egal,' right to use that Ilalllc:orentitytoraise fuilds oT:foraIlY:Qtl;i$[
purHo~~.
71. The Defendants National B19ggers (1JlJband AUAkbar solicitedand
received donations from citizens of Mafylalld'~mgthrQHgbtiut the-UnftedStates
J?ased ontheirfraudulentrepresentatrcns.
72. Defendant Dan BackerjQihcd.tne R1CD_Enterprisewh~JlAliAkkbar
was exposed inarticles .asa convicted 'felonandfraudsterfrem the State .ofTexas
and The N~ti()nalBloggersClubwas exposed-as a fr~l.ldulent 50.1(c){3)fioll-profit
Dan Backer bas a.reputatiPll as aJawyer Who cre(:ltes}?6UpcalAction Committees or
other entities, raisesIotsmoneyin donatlons, and then usesthe money as he seesflt
WjthotttWithoutdispersingtbe fundsin.an ethical manner .. For example, he and
Todd Ceffarati scammed hundreds ofthousands from' Teet Party activists byfalsely
.portraylng TeaParty~fietas an organizqt{qutllatWQllldhelp promote Tea Party
candidates; http:! jconservative-out}ook$;comj20tl/04/05/eviden ce-mounts ..
arizcna-tea-party-is-a-fakeylnfact, however, noneof.thefundsraised went for-the
purposes represented by Defendant Backer. Defendant Backer has raised: millions
of-dollars through dozens of entities that do not fund the activities advertised.
Accordingto FEe expenditure filings, Defendants 'Backer andDll Capitol Strategies
hadbeen connected to Defendant Akbarfor several-years, and had been paying
DefendantAkbar's viceo&. Victory Agency .for various.things,
73. As a result of these smear blogs and articles, Plaintfffwhile in
Maryland.received many threats of injury and death by peoplewho read and
believed the falsenarratives, These were received byemail; phone and blogposts,
22
WaJker and Hoge constantly write blog posts, some with photos oftheir shots at the
and Plaintiff fears that Defendant Walker will assault him again. Both Defendants
everytime Plaintiff appears in Court, Defendants Walker and Hoge have stalked him,
for himself and his family because ofthe bullying and threats against him. Virtually
deljlJ~rat~) .repeated.and.hestile behaviortoharm 'Plaintifi . Helives in constc:lJl~f(:!ar
and his family byusing information and communication technologiesto support
years. They have been engaged in constant cyber bullying and cyber stalkingofhim
76. Plaintiff has been under siege by the Defendants for mote than 'two
If Brett does not startto act like a grown up and quit calling the police on
people like a little punk There-will be hell to pay.
Army Of Davids sent a message .... Don't show upin court Tuesday or you
aredead. 'I'hisisyouronly warning.
there. For example,
harmed or killed If'he appeared in court in Marylandorcooperated with.the.pollee
75. Severalofthethreats .that.Plalntiffrecelved statedthat.hewould be
I'll be bringing.the straw for yoU. 1t's.nownotsaanatter afit
Brett Kimberlin, heck broken by 1:l01bs Female Marine.
BrettKirriberlin is done the hunter isthe hunted
We know who you are. We're comingfbryou. Youwill.pay,
-_e_ I-dQrt'.tgetintimidated &.get'onmyhad-'side.&y6u'11,&e~
-tbefullwratb._Notjust .. frombut, (sic) J. have.myown~.Theex.trellle-
wipgpfthe TP has arrived. This message is forMt. K- ItWQuJdnotsllJt
fhe-best.interestsofall people Involved inyourmovl1lntto shutthe
F'$t-*Kup&that includes you ....
:cif Illm.C}ndhischild; This caused Plaintiffand his family-extreme emotional 'Qistre$s!
'74~Examples ofthese-threats' are:
S~vf;~l_r~_~dgr~:rcalJedandforcontactedonlfne P]Clinnff, his fami1y);J~I$'l;l_~Jghb'Pts
a.ndhis ~hi,lqren-threJltehihg, -intilllidgQilga,l:ltl srneatihg .l?laiIitiff~:.SevcrCllgther
readerscCime.to-:Plalntiffisfiomeio-'Maryland.(llldtoQlqlhotogta.Phs-Qfthen()m~-f!l1q
23
79~ As partofDef'endalltWalker's fraudulentplan to-portray himself as a
victim ofPlaintiff Defendant Wa1ker filed numerous false criminal charges) Peace
Orders and civil suits against Plaintiffin 2012 and 2013 in Maryland. Each of these
fillngsmadefalse claims and allegations against Plaintiff; and thejudges and/or the
www.Bbmberfiuesllloggers.com
Kimberlin wantsmorethan theSl fvltLUON ..heisseekingin htsIrivolous
lawsuit +.hewants silence. Kimberlin's 2.year CKIInrhlign of harassment has
ledtohioggerslosing jobs, threats ofviolence.jiolic HS\VATTings" and one
journalist even had to move homes with his liJmily.FranklV,thisallcosts
monev and Kimberlinknows it.Your hcl is necessary,
~110()tj~range, stating hoWtijeyare armed and dangerous .andwill-not hesitate to
1.l~e~~h~irweGtPQn$ t&aiJist:PJaihtire Plailltj(fh~sWitlle$s_edDefendants.Walker,
Akbar, McCain"Frf!y-an<{ HQg~attack anyone_onllnewho questions their conduct,
~.lldatleastone-re:pO,rter has tecelved manydeath threats after writing about-the
Defendants.
77. DefendantsA}{bclr,H()ge,WaJker, Thomasaka Kimberlin Unmasked
and McC_~)in have-continued to defame andpubliclyattack.Plaintlff.afte rtheflling of
this .--Comp]alutwjtb thousands oftweets.and'blog posts falsely callingPlaintiff a
sWatter-and-statingtbat:he caused DefclldantW<)lker's termination. In-virtually
every.post.andtweet, theseDefendants USe Plaintiffs name alongwith a criminal
accnsation to have 'that-title listed on Internet.search engines-in order to cause-the
maximumdamage.to Plaintiff.his reputation, llisJarrdly:, his businesses and his
HVf;Iihood.
78. Defendant Akbarwrote onthe front page of The NationalBloggers
Club website.whlch was still there on March 7, 2014; the following false narrative:
24
Ste's Aff9tneYin M6ntg()merY,CQgntyMarylal1d,. Ptlnce WiIu~nlC:9UtityVirglniai
i!nd th~ Unit.~q:State!):Dl~tiictG()u.rt jri .(ir~enbelt,Mflcyland rejeCteq ectch. 'pe$pite
these'reJectiopsj Defendants cQtttlrtuea to tept!at.theirfalse rtarratives.as.(;1()llcQqted
bYPefehdants Walker)' Frey, Nagy/Stranahan and others. 'Mr~Walkeran.dotli~r
Defendantshave cOllth:u,led tQtepeat these false narratives. even:to this. day.
BO~ Several of the Defendants-conspired 10intimidate Sfdte'.tittQrneys in
l\1ontgQrtlety and. Haward, Count:y:.Maryland.andIudge Rlchardjordanand.judge
Cornelius Vaugheytn Montgomery County aftertheyrejectedDefendarits' falSe
.jiatratives. Specifically, DefelldalltWalkerdefen.c.ledSethAUe,n}s:onUrie attacks of
Judge) ordari, andthen DefendaneWalker, using the pseudonym Aaron'Wort}jing
t1Jedpleadingsfor; Mr~AII(;!ndefendblgtb.oseattacks. He did this after SethAllen
sent him. an email sayingthathemightcolllC to MarylanQto murder Plaintiff.
'Defendants Walken Hogs, FreyandStranahan condemned JudgeVaugl1ey online
whichresultedin the judge .being targeted by havinghis-horne phone number and
address posted online, causing the head of courthouse security to provide special
securltyforhtm. Defendants Walker and Hoge called on their followers to contact
Montgomery CountyStates AttorrieylohnMcrlartby.and demand.thathearrest.and
prosecute Plaintiff based ontheir false narratives .. InMarch 2013, Defendants Hoge,
Walker, McCain and Stranahan launched "EveryoneBlogAbout Howard County
TMaryland)State's Attorney Day," which resultedin threats by phone and email to
the State's Attorney over a period of several weeks.
http:.!Itheothermccaiu,cQm/2013/04/08/e-mail-from-a-former-maryland-
resi<ient~tQ-howatd-county~md-states-attorney,l
25
htm.~U.alJergi(!2by)1.bl{)&SgQt.{)mlf013.1031eyeCYOhe~#lPli~9hout.-h~Wardl.CQunty~.;
m9btfil1
httpM.lh'ogeVviiS}ttomI2013/03/25/everyblle ..bIog-ali6ut-the ..howatd~CQt.thtY-
.states-attomey-day/
81. /.1.t~omtfpoin:thetWeentlecemb.~r201land,MaYZ012i Defel)Qant$
Walk~m.. Frey.and others coneluded-thattheyhad'to create amore sirtisterfctlse
narrative. against Pl(iintiffthptwouId; result hi criminal and CQngre.ssionaI
Investlgations. Therefore, they decided to verypubliclyfalselyaccuse Pl&indff of
1t~VV'attjngconservative bloggersfn order to silence them."
H2. Defendant:Freywas allegedly swatted on')'une 30,2011 at hishomein
.Califovni'i' .. Aftbe time} he .told.the polite thath~thought.itwasbecause he-was
Wtitin,gaboutCongressman Anthony Weiner. However; starting' ill December 2011;
D~fendalltFrey, in concert.with .others.fneleding.Defendants Walker, 'Nagyand
Stranahan, began publicly implyingand statingthatPlaintiff had him swatted. Some
of these statements.were in writing and others were oral. For-example,
http:/AaUergiC2bull;blogspot.com/2012/ 05Ihrealdngtanothero;ctitic-of ..
couvicred,btrol. Infact-in an email to DefendantWalkeron DecemberLl, 2011,
Defendant Frey-said that he wouldcall blogger Glenn Reynolds and tell him that
Plaintiff'swatted. him.
S3. Defendants quickly realizedthattheir allegations' of swatting against
Frey one year earlier were not getting.enough traction Sothey concocted a plan to
get the swatting smear into the mainstreammedia, and they did that by recruiting
Defendant Erick Erickson, who. blogged at the highly trafficked Redstate and was a
26
p~jci~(mjtliell_tat()r-ptGNN. 9n or.about M~y15,_,~Q_1:-~~._l)9fel1clallt ~:ricl<$():oj()inedth~
RIC::()llnteryti$~-by-c()ntac;till~;bJ$il(jp~lpQli.~~C1P4t()1,(1~bell1'-tl1at'heiw~s_'goi~g-to
_Write about'Plaintiff on Defendant RedSti1~eandmlghtlle swatted. Atl4:~- as
predicted, Oil May27, 2012, RriCl<sonwas:sWatted-cind the police'he had earlier-told
to (!xpe_ct the swatting tame to his-home:in Ge_orgi(i;-fJefendantNagy wrote about
the sW~ttifiglnctdentfor 'Breitbart:.cQrrt and-~pp$ted-tb~;video fro:trtthe CNN
bt()adca~t~which were viewed.ln M~ryJan{i~-This contained the defamatory
ImplfeationthatPlaintiffwas involved witb the .swattings,
nttP:ll~breitbart.comIBig'--G6venillWritI2Q12'(061081Erickson-GNN"SWATting
84. Defendant.Erickson and Il1ahy6ther Defendants and members of the
National BloggersGlubwroteextenslvely ah.outPet'endant Erickson's swatting-and
falsely blamed Plaintifffor dolng.it, both qit~y;arrg-hYimpJicati()n.. For example;
http: Uwww.examiner~com/articJe/hloggers ..observe ..daY..Qf..silence.;;tQ~urg.e..
cQngressiQnal~actiQn-over ... swatting
Defendant .RedState publishedtwo articles Imputing.that Plaintiffwas involved with
"political terrorism" through swatting.
http;1.Iwww.regstate)cQm /erickl~Q12105 129lone"metric"oD'"impact ... swattingJ
htt.p:llwww.redstate.com/erick12012105/2S/dailY-koss-tleal ..rauhauser-bomber-
brett ..kimberlin-and-po litical-te rrorisml
8S. DefendantErickson appeared' on CNNTelevfslon .on.Iune B,2012-and
imputed that Plaintiff was responsible for the swatting through "his fan club."
Defendant Erickson even pushed back againstthe reporter's protests thatthere was
no evidence of Plaintiffs involvement, sayingthat "the same fact pattern" applied,
27
Wb~re tbe, blQggts wr(jt~cab()ut Plaintlff and withinweeks tb.Yffre,:$watted~It.
'i<l~Q 9Hbi~fiPpeq~nce wa$ postedwldely.on' the. Intemetand on 'l~\lT\\ge.
ht~P}I.I-W'WW.yOtlttihe~c6m/Watch?v?T150f46AWIM
86. Onlurie2S, 2012,.DefendcmtWalkerwasaUegedlysWaftedat.his
hQtrfEf ill Virginia ...Heand other Defendantsstated pUbUc]yln pdnt.a,nd on.radlo that
pl~dIltiffWas'l"eSPbnsiblefQ:r the-swatting, Defendant WalkerClPp'eat~d.()n Huff Post'
Live/hnpqtjn~,that Plalntiffswetted him.
btm;l/liy~,bYffingtQnpQst.cQm.tr/segmeDt,lswatting ..
lapdlS166o'75fe34A4~2d7q000390 ..And he posted.on.his Twittenaccount.
"Asfor TSGand stack, they Were .at.l eastthe tools ofKimbetlifi and. Rauhauser, Who
hada hand inSWA'I'tingbill1f too."
llttpSi,llt,witter;cQID1AartmWorthinglstatus/342499727444688896
87. On or.about tyfay:25,2012,DefendantGJ(!nn Beckjolned the RICO
Bnterprise and.provided a, platformon hisGlennBeckjMercury Radio Arts
Programs radio/television broadcast-for Defendants WaJker and Frey to. accuse
'Plaintiff of swatting. Specifically, DefendantBeckallowed Defendants Walker and
Frey to-appear via audio on his radlo/televisionprogram and impute, imply and
state that Plaintiff targeted Defendant Frey with swattingand caused Defendant
Walker.tobefired. Defendant.Frey stated on the program that he isaDeputy
., r>lstriCt Attorney/''These programs wereviewed 'ih"'Marylarid'arid'acrosstbe globe;
Defendant Frey specifically stated that the swatting "happened to another guy
writing about the same-story," and Defendant Frey statedthatPlaintiff'rcould have
.gotten me-killed," http; IIWWw.youtube.com/wawh?v=o8FOgXI8bUE
28
Internet
blpggers-about-hrett-kimberlin-terrQrisml This was viewed globally on the
bloggers out of business." http; Ilwww.glennbeck.com/Z012/QSI25/g1enn-talks-to-
haveeverdone," Hefalsely.statedthat 'Plaintiff was. oeing,paid .to"Plltcohsetvative
that.The Blaze article about Plaintiff is II one of the most important eXposes that they
which they.imply and.Impute that Plaintiff swatted them. DefendantBeckstates
has.two videos of Defendant Beck interviewing Defendants Frey and.walkertn
imputesthat Plaintiffswatted Defendant Freyand .Defend ant Walker. Thatarticle
Talks To' Bloggers About Brett Kimberlin Terrorism," which falsely and maliciously
banner of Defendant Mercury RadioArts, published anotherarticle titled "Glenn
.90. Laterthat day, .Glennlseck.com, GlennBeckT'/, TheBJazeTVunderthe
d()ifiestic~t~rroriSt~brett~kirnberlin"Whose ..job-is-terroriztng-bloggers ... into-silence/
httpV/WwW.thebIaze.calll/storfes/2012/0S/25I'readymeet,;.soros-funded~
(lver-10-Oftivolous lawsuits arid, isviclously attacking bloggers,
Bloggers fntoSilen:cet' whiqn- falseiyand mallciouslystates thatPJain~(f has filed
tlMeetSoros.;.F1l11ded DomesttcTerrorist.Brett Kimberlin, Whpse 'Job']!; Tertorizing
89. OnM?lY 25i.20tz,.O-efebdantThe Blaze published-an article titled
- -
T:ertOfisfBrett' KiltlberUll/' ilnds~icititle and .article imPlJte<:l,t_hat:P1;,iiptiff$w~tted-
-Sa. On May;2_$,2012, Defendant The Blaze. publlshed 'an-;arti,cl~,elltl#e4j
l~D()Y.Q.ll,KnQwWh~t/SWiltting~-]$? Vietim$TellBeckfI6w TheyWeteT~tgeted,:~y
29
In the second article, bttp:/lace.Dlu,nu!archiyes 1329494.pbp he targeted
Plaintiffs employer, saying that the non profit gets donations to su bsidize
In.the flrsti.article, http://mihx;cc!?post::329S69 berepubllshed a-post
from Patte rico which accuses Plaintiffofswatting and then he says:
"It'saslongas an Aceof Spades movie review, but itis a shocking
exposition of just how nefarious Kimberlin and his henchmen are alleged to
be."
httpi Ilace.IDu, nujarcbive#329849,pbp He published.four other.defamatory
{{jm,berIinand his stalker crew ...." Thtswas viewed in-Maryland.
"They.are literally gotngto netsomeone killed. That istheirendgamehere," uBrett
Ace of Spades imputed that Plaintiff was. involved withthe "crimerof'swatnng:
false narrative that Plaintiff was' responsible for sWattings. ] nthe article, Defendant
and. pu bllshed "National-Day of Blogger Silence" on htsblog to-focus attention 011the
92. On ]une4,. 2012, Defendant Ace ofSpadesjoinedtheRIGO Enterprise
followjournalistic standards that require that the subjectofa story he given the
Dafendallt Beck acted witha reckless disregard. for the-truth becausehe did not
ph:lc.e(tPlaintiffbefore the public Jn.. false light.in a highly.offensive.manner-and
l'Jaintitffor comment before making the maltclousstatements. These statements
have :knoW-n-they Were'.false, al1d'hetlid-IlQtc(lngqqtanY.due.diligence:qrask
s_tatemerits'oyDefendantBeqkandthe' companies .he conttols.W'eredQrie
_ll1aHC1()usly 't() catls~m()ximull1hatnl to .PJaintiff,' Defendant Beck.knew ofshould
9:r~ At about.thesame.time.Defendanj Back also pupJ~sl1ed_a 4~f~m~~Qry
'W"aPhic Whlchbf!'llClDtl' wrotewhich has Plajnqff'~l-mthe-Jcenterof~ host,()f6rilliinal
actiViWAn c!udingsWatting,. tax evasion andstalking.' Tliis_andthe' other defamatory
30
In the .thIrdarticle, httP: !_laceariu.nularchivesI3299ZZ.php. he engages in
widespread defamation.
,. #TwopeQple.have~alreadybeensilenced.Oneman has been arrested _-
.arrested, forbloggingabour'the crtmtnal history of Brett Kimberlin, andfor
describing his ongoing ordeal at Kirnberlin's.hands. Unless Congress acts --
and-acts swiftly _..there will he still further innocent citizens subjected to
BrettKjmhet]in~s]awlessvjgi]anUsm/'
Hethen republishes-an articleaccusingPlaintiff of runninga new criminal
"scam."
Then . helmputesthatPlaintiffwas involved with swattings, andin
terrorism, "While1.1 and Kimberlin's other targets, are heartened by
Congress' letter to EricHolder.to.lcokinte the. SWATtingmatter, whata
reading of Cltizen Kdemonstrates is that CongressItselfneeds to act in
orderto finally putahend to Brett Kimberlin's ongoingdigital (and real-
life) terrorism.'
"Prison did not stop his crimes. Prison only taught himnew skills."
11Andthe avalanche offrivolous.vexatious, and outright malicious lawsuits
beginsanew, as well as more alarming harassments. n
til am writing to you, Members of Congress, to alert you of the fullmenace
that Brett Kimberlin stillposes.to society. Heshould never have been let
but ofprison: having lived nearly the entirety of his lifesincehigh schoolas
one-man crime wave, it can.hardly have been believed that he had truly
reformed by 2000."
"It is a hurdento Ilve with acriminal. conviction for a terrifying domestic-
terrorism bornbingspree, as Brett Kimberlin wen knows. However, Brett
Kirn~erlinh~s.decidedthatburdenshall.no. longer fall.up~n . his shoulders"
'out upentheshouldersofanyone whomentions 'his extensive, remorseless;
relentless criminal history. Brett Kimberlin has personally decided that it is
society at large, rather than himself.who shall bear the burden of his
crimes."
'IWiH Congress consider enacting positive legislation to limit Brett
Kimberlin's relentless determination to sue over any negative mention of
his past?"
Plaintfffs "harassmentand .abuse...,'; And then he falsely accuses Plalntiff.of
harassment, pntl then b(fcalls hirtta(lthtig/' Atid'them "Youcan be.athugjf
:youlike. Butyoucan.do. it ()flyoyi'OWnll(J'ddafflned dime. One .Iast thing we'
can go: We can urge/requ~st/deTl1Qnd our representatives readBrett
}(i1f1bel'1iniscrimina1... hiswrylnto .. .the.UnitedStatf!sCongresslonal
Record. Why? .Notfbr punltlvereasons. Rather, to answer the questionI
posed 'inthe bead line; Didthe USCongress strip American gitizcns Qftheir
tightto state deroonstrablytrueJactswithoutunendingharassments? Did
Welosethatright simply 'betause BFettKhnhetlin has decided.as a
Congress of One,that We.should no.longer have-it?'
31
Walker, and even told other bloggers to callthe police if they plannedtowriteabout
Pontlfications implyingthat Plaintiff was responsib lefor the swatting of Defendant
94. OnJune 25,2012, Defendant Freywrote an article on Patterico's
Government/2012/06/25/Blogger-Aaron-Walker-Swatted
Walker. This-was available to cltizens ofMaryland~http;/lWWWibreitbart,com/Big-
Breitbart.com, implying that Plaintiff was responsib le for the swatting of Aaron
93. OnJune 25,2012, Defendant Stranahan wrote .an.article on
And in the fourth article, http://ace,mu,nylarchjyesI33Q35S,php r . he-falsely
states that Plaintiff has been engaged in "his endless campaign of
harassment, .intlmtdatlon, and lawfare." Hethen .quotes verbatium from
Defendant Dan Backer-and DBCapitol Strategies' defamatory post accusing
Plaintiff of swatting.
.. uAt.$ome, point} the ongoing case of Brett KimllrJjbV. Th~WbrIgAttatge
lllustfinalI_Ylft~al{ye-fidt - _ - - -
'. ffACrime_]sJn.progtess. -lMs ongoiilg~.Will CQngr~~$,'pl~~~e-~pttQ-$t_QP:it'Nr
-. fllfyou.. are .. readi.ng- thi$l please .. contrJctCongressto f!skth~JP . tQl)ptX)nly
takean.. interest .. i]l. ,this ' .. rnatter,.but.1QSeriously. consider .. ella <:tilJ.g. positive:'"
statutory Jawto llmft.Brett Kimb erlin's ongoing abuse 6fthe]egijlsmtem
and corruption of'justlce." " '. . _._ _._ _ .'.' -_.... . _- .
"Congressalso.doesn'tappreciate the.~tgency ofthe sittia~on .lf'there's' ..._
one t}l~me of Brett Kimberlin 's life; jt'se:scalatingrisk~takillg whetialready
:]11a risky situation."
"The-Speedway Bombings, Qfwhich_hewastonVictedj_wete-cohducted even
as.he was under investigation for the murder-by-hire.cfan.Innocent
.grandmother, The, theerywasthat-BrettKlmberlln.aet the-pombs to Cause
chaos and prevent a proper investigation of the execution-style murder of
Julia Scyphers,"
"Escalation......Bscakition. And this leads-to the lastpQinnlmtJdon'tknQ\vif
Congress is aware of:. Brett Kimberlin is a dangerous man .Thatis not.my
opinlon;.thatisthe finding ofthe UnitedStatesfsderal courts, Thisis-not
sorneblogwar bullshit, This is nota case ofhe called me adirtyname on the
Internetand I'om angry; This is digitalterrorism, sttaiglltup. \'Vith
consequences.thar.gc far beyond whatsomeone said about you onTWitter.
Some people are heartened that this malicious onj5oingtothreat to 'society
Js.finally getting.some media coverage, .and SomeUnited States.government
officials are.nowpayingclose attention. I'm not.Because Iknow what
happened last time Brett Kimberlin began getting some serious.scrutiny:
Bombs.began.going off. Escalation"
32
Spectator about Plaintiff demonstrates malice anin ten t to harm him and his
with different urIs. The sheer number of articles published by the American
complatnedto the editor and-the articles were-then republished 'lnFebruary 2'014
articles by Defendant McCain and then removed them. Defendant McCain
97. Defendant The American.Spectator published numerous defamatory
are viewable in.Maryland. http: l/twjtchy.comt2012106125/aaroD ..walker~swat-
tweets.that.togetherImpute that Plalntiff'committed the swatting, Twitchy posts
published an article titled,ltAaron Walker Swatted," whichcompiled .dozens.of
-96~ OnIune 25, 2012, DefendantTwltchyjolned.the RIGOEnterprise and
-Maryland,j.. itnpJyirtg_thatPlaintiffWctssomehowJnvolved-With ,swatgl1ghim:'
Last.weekwe spentalbt()ftime-Wrlting.about13rettKilllberlin'~lldthe
lncldent tnvolvlngblogger.Patterico Where someone spoofed his phone
number.and told 91i .he.hadshot his wife.
T{.might, roy familYWflssitting.ar().undthe kitchen-table . eating.dinnerwhen
s,hetJffs.cleputles ptdleallpi'n the.driv~way.
.Someone caUeq911. fr()filmy addt.essC]ai.mingthere-had beenan
~w~idental-sh()ptil1g. - -
ltw(!sn'tne4f]Ythe. traullla.that]?attetjco $Uffe:red~ but.l guess.the EriCkson'
household Ison.somebedy's .radar.
Luckily it-was-two she_rif{s depqti~s'who:l<new me .. anti,l:}1acl. alt(idyi . last
week,advisedthe .. Sheriffs,~epartment tobe.orrfhe.look.outfer- so~. ~thing
like this. bttp:ljwwwifedstate,_cowlerickj2QlZ/Q5IZZ;lswatting;,.tJ]e-
-ericksonsl
Plaintiff-hecause they could be swatted. '.AllofDefendant Freys blogposts are
Nlew~ple ~Jl,Marylafid.;.b1:14?:l-tpcittwco.~t6ln/2-01to612Staat()1i-Walket..swfitledl
,95. ()nM?y27J 2-012, :DerendantEdtkEtlcksOj1 jQlnedthe mco
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06/24/14 Page32 of 82
33
reporters to "peel... that big onion" around Plaintiff's connections tothe swattings.
partner of Defendant Ali Akbar, reported about the letters and urged mainstream
Defendant Robert Stacy Mct.aln, a member ofthe National Bloggers Club and
-!lefendantsJmputed .thatPlaintlffwas.involved. inthe .swattings, For example,
"conservative bloggers." These lettersin conjunction with the false statements by
tbeDeparnnent ofjusticeto.investigate and prosecute the person who swatted
As:a result Senator SaxbyChambliss and 87'House Members.signed lettersurging
and urging them to demand a criminal investigation .bythe Department of] ustice.
the House and Senate,' telling them that Plaintiffwas responsl ble for the swatting
98. Defendants Ericksen.Walker, Frey and others contacted.Members of
Mchelle Malkin hascalled Brett Kimberlin an "online terrorist tiDgleader.'i
'w]JHeblogger Iimmie Bise Jr. prefers-the phrase"lytngfelon," but
_. Ktmberlin's politlcal.allies call him a--lIprogressiveactivist, il During-the .past
week, Kimberlin's bizarre methods ofU~ctivismll have.made htmthefocus
.ofIntense scrutiriyfrom conservative bloggers, arousingthe Interest of
:iJ1ajornews organizations, so.that.the convicted felon once notorlousas the-
"SpeedwayBomber" is likelytc -becomeeven morenotorious m.the near
future.
Since 2010, Kimberlin has been suing, smearing, harassing, and otherwise
attempting to Inttmi date bloggers whowrtteabouthiscrtminal history ..It
seemedhewasintent en.silencingthe truth.and=- although 1had never
even heard, of'him until May17 .... - witllhtfourdays ofrnybeginningto
.reportabout him onmypers.onalblpg,Kitriherlin-began targetmg.rne ~ith
histhugtactics. On Monday, May 21jJ left my Mary}artd home-and departed
to another state where, for-the past week, I've continued aseries of reports'
I've called "TheKimberlin Files.'" These. online dispatches have.been flied
froman undisclosedIccatlon, rnywherea bouts concealed in order-to
protect myselfandothersfromthe menace of a dangerous man-who by all
nightsshould still, be behind bars ..
http://spectato'r.org/ articles/57 67S/tettor-any-other-naine
!.e.telld~ntMcGain-lmputes that Plalntiffwas involved. with swattings and writes."
bU$in~,ssprospects. For example.Jn one, titled "Terror By.AnyOther Name,"
34
b:1Itbeothetlllccain.c6ml?(1~2/0oI111tl9ri9a ..rQp-$ijhqy ..gdallls.;1eads~8S~
pquse~rpubli~a!l~~ib-SWiIttlfi_~ ..]ett~t.t
99. Two FBlagentS<cametoPlaintiffs home in Mar,ylandon otabout.july
1.,:Z91:2/~ndinterviewed P1~llitiff;lh01.itthe'swattitl,gs; .Orr.o.l\{aboutAugust 2()~~()19,
another ,FBIag~utinterviewecl PIClhltiffswif~ aft~r pefend9ntWalker cQl1faPted ,th~
.agentand told-himto.surprisesher.at a lo~ationjll Maryland known-to Pefepdal1t
Walker.
100. In 2012 and 2013, Defendanrwalker repeatedly contacted.stateand
federal-law enforcement officials andtals:eJy told themthat Plaintiff c()nlmittedtlie
swattingsand .demanded, thatthey arresthIm. ln2011 and2012, DefendantFrey
repeatedly contacted state andfederal.officials and teldthem thatPlal ntiff WaS
involvedwith.theswattings, These Defendants made these falsestatements without
anycvldencethat Plalntlff'was involved with theswattlngs and-they did so tn order
to have.Platntiff'arrested.or harassed bylaw enforcement agents.
101. Defendant Walker through Defendants Dan Backer and DlsCapltol
Strategies attempted to use discoveryinhis frivolous.Virginia civil lawsuit to
demand documents from Plaintlff.to bolster his false. swatting .allegations. Thejudge
in the case denied those discovery requests. Prince William VitginictCircuit Court
Judge Potterfound that that case was without merit, both tegallyand factually..and
wasbroughtfor all tmproper'purpose. 'PlciintiffWas requtreditotravelfrom
Maryland toVirginia to defend against that malicious suit
102. Defendant Walker through Defendants Dan Backer and DBCapitol
Strategies filed a federal lawsu it in the District of Maryland asking the federal cou rt
35
This letter is to Informyou of'the current above-styled lawsuit pending
againstMr, Brett Kimberlin, justice Through MUSic Project, .andVelvet
Revolution usrthe OrganizaqQns"),.in which 1represent Plaintiff Aaron
Walker, Your.organization has come.up durfngthedevelopmentof.thts
Iitigation.as.a donor toone or bothof.these.organfzattons, and-as such
potentially enabling the tortious and potentially unlawful conduct of Mr.
Kimberlin andtheOrganlzations. For your benefit, I have enclosed the
Complalnt.and aRule llmgtiOll J.1t. Kiml>~tlinfiled against.me.iu;q
-desperate' ariemptto ihtimiaate'me from pursu'ing tliis'Case .andlitlgatillg
itthrough trial. I have also included myresponse and I give you my
assurance that Iwill be preceding (sic) in strict accordance with th e
Federal Rules of'Civll Procedure and, in shortorder, with discovery which
will seek information on every asp ect of the Organizations' including
donor andfundraistngapparatuses. Because of your .organlzatton' s
involvernentwithMr, Kimberlin and the Organizations, and because of
their potentially tortuous.and perhaps even illegal activity, 1amsending
grana scope. Theletterstates in part:
funder.that.Plaintlff andthe non-profits were engaged.in criminal .activityon a
boh:l-l~ttr tothe non..profltsIargest.tnstltutlonalfurrder, and.falsely told that
flledaMotionto Dismiss, Mr. Backer responded bysending a.defamatorydocument
.employer did.anything except employ Plaintiff
104. WhenPlaintiff refused Defendant Backer's extertionate demand and
incfuded PlCiintifF$employer in the suitin badfaith.and lidnot even allege 'that.the
Dan Backer-wrote an email to that effect:anditwas receiveqittMaryland. He
disclosure of protected information from.his employer. Attorney and Defendant.
tegtlite -t}te;tel'illluatioD ot-PlaintUfs employment.at' the non-profit] and the
l03~ Defendants W~lkerapd-D BCapltolStrategies attempteQ to use
befendantWalkrcg frivclous federal Iawsult-toextort a.settlement.thatwould
f~l~e,pqrr(jdvctbatP]Glinti.ff~ng<l~~d'lfi_ctinlin:ilal1dJlD~thlca].condu~-~-J'e[Chtlaut
Walker.9~metQMaryI~lnd .frpmVirgfniatoprosecute-thatmallclous.sult;
36
example, OIl May 30, 20.12, she wrote a blog post titled. "Breakthrough; Fox News
Defendant Twitchy, to repeatedly state that Plaintiff committed the swattings. For
108. Defendant Michelle Malkin used her b1ag and Twitter compiler,
password protection.
~~ ... ImCCl,pjtQl .. website, Finally, i1) Febrn~ry 2{}14, those posts were placed under
Plaintiffs repeated requests toremove thefalse and defamatory information from
Defendant Dan-Backer, who Isthe director of DBCapitol Strategies, refused
107. DefendantWalker's attorney-in the state andfederal lawsuits,
dismissed.its frivolous suitagafnstPlaintiffon November 26, 2012.
based onthisfalse narrative and continued to raisefunds. even though judge Matt
106. Defendant DBCapitolStrategies raised tens Of thousands of dollars
viewable viapasswordIn Maryland but were viewable for morethanoneyear;
In (1a}iforniat bttp;/Ib]Qggersqefenseteam.com/?nartative These are now-only
far-more-sinister forms of harassment - inCludillgthe 'SWATthlg of an Assistant l)A
-Plaintiffwas .mvolvedwlth'the swattings, tlKimbet'lil1 'associates! are suspected-in
http;/lbJoggersdefenseteam!cqm/?aboutDef~ndalltsDanHacker andDB .Capitol
Strategieswrote on-ltshlogthatPlafntiffs i1VictimsJiwereUswatted,lJ.implYihgtnat
$uing Plaintifffn federal court-to defend bloggers rro:rn:ifswatting'i Imputing that
Plaintlff.was responsible for fhoseswattlngs.
TWo q9y:satterDefttd~ntI3~ck~r sentth~;<iefainat()I)'Je.~r,Jl.ldg~-M()tZ dlsmi#sed
the <:a$~:(igalnstPlairitiffahd the-n()n-pr{)fitS.
Case 8:13~cv~03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06/24/14 Page 36 of 82
37
letters. For example,
job description has beenpublished in-articles, in tweets, inemails.andin
give credibility to their statements smearing P1aintiffas a swatter. This
used J)efelldanfFret's job description - UAssistantDistfict Attorney"> to
111. Defendants Frey, Walker, Stranahan, Nagy, McCain and others have
rauhauser-ron ..bcynaert-and ..their-campaiiID-of~PQlitical-terrorisml
htip; lIpatterico.comI2012 /0S125IcQnyjcWd-bomber-breWkimbepJjn~neal...
imputed that Plaintiff was responsible for the swatting.
prominently displayed said inthe article stating that he could have been killed, and
25,2012, Defendant Freyheadlined anartic1eaboutswattingWith.Plaintiffs name
stated, directiy.and bylrnpltcation, that Plaintiff swatted .hirn.For example, on May
California 'bydayend by nighthe blogs asPatterico, Defendant Freyhasrepeatedly
. .
110~ DefendantFrey is all Assistant DistrictAttorney in. Los Angeles,
With ~horse's head in his bed."
W~lker.The flrstccmmenterto .theartiele said: "Brett.Kimbet!in'.ne'edstQwake'l.lp
.imputed'that'Plafntlffwas responsible for the swatting.ef Defendants' Freyand
1"09; On i\ptilal ~O:l3JI>efent1~ntMichel1e Malldn J)ubJished an artlcle.on,
ner'b19g'titled, uMor(fCe_Ie:brit.ies .. Swatteq,. Meanwhjl~:,Anti-Bt(!ttIllinb~rlil1 Uloggers .
StiU lJl1derFireW bttp;l/tniCbeJIelDgIJdntC9m12n131041tJ8lmore~cetebtities--SWqt~
ted-meanwhile-antl-brett-kimberlin-bloggers-stiII~undet-firelDefentiGll1tMalkit1
patterlco~sWaftirig-bIQggers~continue"pressjng~the-story{
38
lpicket-fla"cQngresswoman-leads-effort-demanging-sw/
http://www.washingtontimes.comlblog/watercoolerl2012/jun/10
July of 201111
assistant districtattorneyJWehttnroughthetemtying experience in
((Another bloggerwho was SWAT-tedt Patrick Frey, aLosAngeles
His-SWAtting
Goygrnment/Z012111J(}8/LA-Wee kly- Jntervlews..pattericQ~AbQut-
SWATted last summer" http://www ..breitbart.com.lBig-
Frey, the well-known conservative-blogger Patte rico, being
uLA Weeklyrecount5the story of Deputy DistrlctAttorney Patrick
bloggers;,.say-theyre!"geitig-harassed ..for"l'pstillgsI
lJ=Uwww.fQxnews:qoInlpo1itics{2,Q12l0SiStlconservative-
Office....
11
a-deputy dlstrietattorney.at LosAlJge]~sCounty District Attorney's
:swatting-pattetico ..geatUy..gilmeltUlll
_;bttprl,lwww.laweekty.coD11Z01Z-11-0B/newslpattick-frey--
llhUsual nightjoh,ii
,. UefDgant.Fteywroteul am thatLiA.-Cq;tnty Pyqs~~<:JltQr/'
.-btw;llpa.ttetjt(j.CQm~l2(Jj,~lQ$.t'll3itOiiYi~etl~hQll1})er~brett ..-
_kjTlJberUn-neal~rauhauser ..ron.;bJ:Yftaeft.iahd ..thei_r:.call1paigJJ"df-
P01itH;sll-terrorim/-
39
"In October ofzrfl0, 1was contacted byJ. Patti'cWFre)"; a. ~a~
{fP~tF~ricQNof P~t:trit()/$pontifica.ti9P,$. P~~tk~j$;'~' ~:~pUtYj).ist1i~
Attorney inLos Angeles inthe- hard core gangynit}'C
httpi.lfanefgic2buil.b](jg.sPQtcomI20121()~lhow ..brett4dmberUhf
tl'ied..to-ftallle"me .17,htrfiJ
112. I5ef(m<lantFtey rellesonhls job asAssistant DistrlctAttbrneyto'
malntain.a.leadershlp ana supervisory position in the ,cons,ervative.blOgging
,hierarchy cmdintbe.instantracketeering:enterprise. HISorders are follQwedi his
directives are heeded, his Jegal,.analysis is unquestloned.and his.statements are
believed.
113; Defendant Freyroutlnely refers tohimself'on his.blogas "Pattericota
"prosecutor-in 'LosAngeles County..." htql:llpatterico.com/abQutpa1rterico.
Readers, commentersand reporters all .believe thatFrey's-well-known ()i)linetilter
ego"Patterico" is a-digital extension of John Patrick.Frey, the Los Angeles County
Deputy District Attorney. 111fact, Defendant Freyidentifles himself-as "Patterico"
and describes "Patterico" asa prosecutor in LosAngeles Countywho prosecutes
.criminals.Jn his-blogposts, Defendant Frey has-made clear-that=Pattertco's
Pontiflcatlons=Is the product.of'a Deputy District Attorney. Frey hasindicatedthat
"Patterico's Pontifications" is linked to his position as a prosecutor. InaSeptember
..:9~2'009 'blog post entitled "PattericoBanned at-the L.. k Times???tFreywI'ote .li [a]re
theybanning all Deputy District Attorneys? Or just the ones that make them look
likefools on a daily basis?" ld. Freis post-shows that he perceives any purported
ban on "Patterico" to be-related to Frey's position as DeputyDlstrlct.Attorney, ld.
40
prosecutor. Wb~m"Patterlco" issued his threat to Investigare and Imprison.Plaintiff
uses a department issued handgun, "Patterico" openly displays his credentials as a
ofthe state government Like the off-duty police officer who flashes his badge and
'honce'thatnis expressionscarrted theweightand gravitasof'a prosecutortal office
his governmentposltion, "Patterico" placed readers' and Internet observers on
prestige of the Office of the District.Attorney, Bycloaklnghimself'withthe power of
John Patrick.Frey, Thus, when "Pattericorspeakshe speaks with the authority and
"Patterico'vintothevirtual, online personification of the Deputy DistrictAttorney
to his opinions, andwhen he threatens criminal prosecution} Frey has transformed
prosecutor, when he uses hispublic position to exert influence and lend credibili ty
But-when "Patterico" continuously and extensively identifies hfmself'as a
"Pattericor.speaks.casual, offhand/and is almost always followedbya "disclaimer,"
~ubtland Frey has. Intentionally crafted "Patterico" to. givethe impression that
prosecutor'ls aboutpresentlng.the truth" [ld.]:.anddlscusstng.tnside information
from.the DNs .Office. "Patterlco's' invocation.of his' authority asaprosecutor is
.ignorallt .. (Jftbe n<lture.oftheproce~sy(>uarediscussing' .assertingtflatlt[b]eiJig:a
blogpost by stating "[i]nyour World, every prosecution is ofattitil'lQcentp.ersoll .
your world has nothing.to dowith the world I know.and you-ate .cJearlyl0.0%
n~p,ut;YDA's are ~uspiciollS by. natUr~;" disp. aragil1g.,acommenter' s.critiCJ~eorihis
, "..
prosecutor to Iend'substance and weightto' hlsopintons, iIlc1llclil)gcl~imjngtlItlt~!Wfj
41
lawcould convince an employee of the LACounty-Sheriffs Offlce.towrlte.athreat
Address 146.233.0.202 in Whittier;, California. Onlya person acting under color-of
thatthe email came from the "LosAngeles CountySheriff's Department," at IP
Platntlff'eheekedthe contact logs on forthat time- and'thatwebsite; he discovered
this asa threatto leave Mr. Freyaloneand notto.contact his supervisors. When
contact.page saying: ~ILEAVE. HIMALONE. .DONTGO THERE." Plaintiffinterpreted
116. OnMay 23,.20t2, Plaintlffreceiveda.threatonhts non-profltwebsite
District Attorney's Office;
permlssionto actthatwayas long ashe does not do ltwhile.physleally atthe
but his. supervisors have told Plaintiff thatthey have given Defendant Frey
Attorney's Office and- Internal AffaitsCib6utthetQrtious conductofDeferrdantFrey
1lSi Plaintiff'has repeatedly informed-the Los Angeles County District
C()ngr~ssabout.the swattlngs,
position to maximize the pubUcityab.Q\ltth~swa1:tings, andto misleadthe FBI and
that P.lail1tiffcoml1litt~d the sWC;ittjngs.He and 'other O-efertdal1ts'alsoused that
prosecutor.and he-capitalizeddntba_ t p6sitiOJltb-make sure-that noone questioned
. . - .
-implications by Defendant Frey wereso credible because of his position as.a
rep()tters,beJleved--thatiPlaintiffw~~-invQlv~c1-wlth. fue_swattings-because -of
f()rSw~ttings,-:t:h~--_st(lt~meutWas'u.tteredWith--Ulf()rCEt()fau:thQtitycQnferted on
teypYvl_tttie_ ()fhi$;PQsitjpn-_as,~_l?t3()sedtt()t-o:ti,-a;m~tt:r-:hl-WJij~QFt~.ywa$_
42
with.his legal problems in exchange for Mr. Brown helping Defendant Frey.
because of his position, he may be ab1eto provide a quid pro quoto help Mr. Brown
Deputy District Attorney to make that contact and implied to Mr. Brown that
groupAnonymousBarrett Brown' andsought hishelp and the help ofthehacker
group Arionymousto intimidate' Plaintiff: Defendant Frey used his position as
12 O. Defendant Frey secretly contacted the spokesperson for the hacttvist
regular citizen .These statements have.been viewed 10Maryland,
Attorney, they carry much greater weight .than: would such' cans coming from. a
for various reasons. Because these statements COInefrom an Assistant District
119. Defendant Freyhas.stated rhatPlalntlffshould be arrested and jailed
tpbolster his stature, credibility and standing.
District Attorney' byday and bynight and uses it on his-blogin talkingto media, .and
ass:ettingthathe is acting alone and offduty, y,efhe wears the title -ofAssistant
thewhile, Defendant Frey and his employer-maintain officialplausible deniability by
anc1then byriighthe. calls on.' hls-readefstoharass his-targets, including Plaintiff. 'AU
tbn)ugh others. Defendant Ereymasq~.erades.asa law abiding state offlelalbyd~y,
posittori.to Inttmidate; barass.stalk.threaten and-harm .Plaintiff,directly and
PlaintiffofsWcitting; <inq. defame.Plairitlff
which' has givenhim full autbority~I1d, pemnj$siQl1 tostneat Plaintift falselyaccuse
byl)erelJ.da~t~ficl J>~p,uty.l}jstrictAttd:rnyFteYagain$tallY.bloWbac. , '.k..,:
./ - -_ . - -_ - _-_ --_ "-- -__ - .: -:_-. - -_ ... -- - --_ ---
43
Convicted domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin and his associates have
repeatedly terrorized bloggers and others who highlight his story with over
stated:
Enterprise and published a press release that-was viewed in Maryland-which
t25~ On June z6,.Zo12, Defendant The Franklin Center joined The RICO
Internet.search engines such.as Google,
inorder to-raise funds for themselves while. driving their blogs to higher raJ1kings of
124.. Defendants' 'business modelis to-create false narratives .about Plaintiff
employer.
arrested and jailed, and destroyhis ability to raise fundsfor his non-profit
123. Defendants'haverepeatedlystatedtbattheirgoal is to have Plaintiff
.analysls,
:A.~sj$tantDistrictAttQrfiey to'target Plaintiff with smears, false-narratives andlegal
uses thelegaI training, legal contacts; .andIegalresources.he.hasdeveleped as.an
142. ASnoted in-the emallsfrom DefendantPreyabove, Defendant Frey
mbti6n;htm1
http;'Uanetgjc2bul1,JjlQgsPQt,C()m/2Ql1112-lhTeSJlol1d ..to"bn~tt~kimberlins-
A.ttqrll~YFreytoverify Defendant Walkerisfalse statements-aboutPlaintiff
District AUorney"-'as areference, and.urged pe{)pJ~.,to:c:()ntactAssJstal1t District
bttp:t/pastebin,COID.IwndG5cBDMr. Br(}wn,r~fuse4,that.tf,!q~ue-$tand'poste(this -
cb~tl()gs \Vi~Q])efinld~titFtey~
121. Defendant Walker"has Written>manyletters,to:_people;~l'lg officials
using Defendant.Frey's jobppsitioli.bj order to. enhance the cfedibiUt,y 0.1l1s, false
statementsagalnst.Plaintiff Defel1dfltltW~lkerh~~ used 'DefenQant Frey -tIAssis~nt
44
fact.thatThe Center was a Premier Sponsor and Host Organizer of the 2014 National
Bloggers Club and further evidence that it joined The RICOEnterprise is found in the
128. The Franklin Center's strong relationship with the fraudulent National
kimberlin-accountable I
.~UlPJQ.Y~:r~ . bttp:llfranldin_centerbq;Qrg/5S46/hQlding ... ]}(}1itical.;.terrorist-,brett-
The article urges readers to target the State Departmentforworking with Plaintiffs
10.0frivolous lawsuits, and attacked "anyblogger who dared-mention hisname ....n
which falsely stated that Plaintiffis a child molester, assassin, who has filed over
Center Website titled, "HoldingPolitlcal Terrorist Brett Kimberlin.Aceeuntable"
127. OnMay 25,2012, Tabitha Halewrote an article onThe Franklin
btij>;lIwww youtube.comlwatch?v=N9QlvWqN7ES
globe-and tt.tsstill available on.You'l'ube as of Match 8,2014.
YoU_TubeWhereis received' widespread viewership from-across the
vlctim.cf.Brett'Klmberlin." That webinar was posted byTheFranklinCenter' 011
employment -/'Aaron Wortbjngwas swatted last nightand Is a very high-profile
involvedwitbsWi:lttingand had gotten Defendant Walker terminated frompis
Wtlll(~r,Nagy and Stranahan which stated and/or imputed that-Plalntiffwas
-126" The Franklin Center helda webinar, which included.Defendants
,.lQO_-friY()loJlSIawsuits.~-and 4."'SW~Ttil1g . ~tta~ks ... SWAWti.))g--.W:a.danget"9US
~~tittb.atlnyolves.>c~llillga.p()lice . dep(lltnlen,t.tQ .-re.PQrtaral$~crh'lle~,to_get
a_$WAT.teCl-m.-dtspatch.ed-.t~ th.e._ vjctil1l~:$.h.oll$~_~ Th~.-. a~ck$ . })~we.i_~cJ~d_d
ljlqgge,rsPatteriec; ErickErickson,.and asx~c~ntly Cl~ Iast night, Aaron
Worthing. '.' ' _.. _ - _ _.. ' - ' - -
htW; ltfrankJincenterhq.orgI5B~3lfra'~.. klinMcIDi.ter:j()i~s-lee-stranaban.....
VOl)e.~a.t-a.arol1"walker-mandy-na.gy ..and-otl:te.rs-t~~?iscuss}l?rqtection~Qf ..
the~ftee-pteSsI .(This blogpost.was vQ]urita_rilyremoved bytlle,ErankUn
Cent~r-onor about February 1, ZOl4)
45
above.
tour followingthe release of the hook and repeated his defamatory statements
That book was sold andavailable in Maryland. Defendant O'Keefe went on a book
"Kimberlln deserves his own book. He's-the scary dude who pioneeredthe
art of 'SWatting' - that is convtnclngthepollce ofa domestic' incldent.severe
enough-to trigger aSWAT response atthe home of'apolitlcal opponent Of
late, he has focused his <iemonic ener~ ca.citizenjournahsts," .. page ~90i
defamatorystatements:
Threshold Division. In that book, DefendantO'Keefe published the following
"Breakthrough.twhich was published byDefendant Simon &ShusterthtoughitS
131., Defendant'[amesO'Keefe published.a book inlune 2013, caned
Kimberlin with Swatting."
130. More-than15,000 results come up on GoogJe wh~npairjng$'Br~tt
this post.was viewedIn Maryland.
eveht-930"p"m-eb.ronight/ Atthe time, DefendantMccain resided-in Maryland and
]ltt.p;lttbet)thetmccajmcoml2012/06/26ltc()t~brettkitnberlill ..swattirig~impottant.
:;ttBrettKimberliu#$WATting ImpottabtBynt9: 30 pJJl.ET'TQujghtr
qpove FriluI<linC~nter press .release on his blog.underthe headline, H#TCOT
~ttackonPJajntiff;ahd hisJamUY.
c.ousideted'forawardsat BlogBash is a Deferrdantinthls suit.and the award is [or an
alQgg~rsClub algg.Sash held 011' March'6, 2014. This despitethe fa(;t:tll~tth~,Geri.t~t
'h;;)~kn.oWn.',.Qfl'he Cll.lb'$frqu(lulelitac.tiVities"formotethap,r;1 .. y~ar~
:ntt.P;tf!trYiw.blogbaSh.orglsPQDSorsl, ,lncredfbly"at'leastone.ofthebloggers being
46
has been removedfrom.the Internet www.KimberlinUnmaslredicom She mocked
using masked Virtual Private Networks controlled by cyber criminals, but even it
accounts for the same reason. She moved her KimberHnUnmasked blog offshore
Plaintiff of swatting and other crimes. Google suspended her blogspot accountfor
defaming, attacking, bullyingand harassing Plaintiff, including many thataccuse d
posts and thousandsof'tweetsfrornlanuary 2013 through December 2014
134; Defendant Thomas.aka Kimberlinllnmasked posted hundreds .ofblog
tiThis bIogisforthe purpose offurther exposing and.highlightihgt}le'slqR
p~th()]9giesand.actions ofBret:t,Kil11bedin and his.associates, This blogis.
an.attemptto document their actionsorrbehalf ofthemany'people.they've
targeted and conttnue to' target online and in person. The most trrifyil1.g
methodologythey've usedagatnsttheir ideo!ogical'foesisSWi\'fting,.Which
is why-manypeople ate keeping their heads down, hopingthatnot
mentioningtb~mwi1l111ake them stop;"
httpi:llkin1berlinunmaked,blogsPQt.comlpJaboutbtmJ
stated:the,followingontqe About page of his blogwhlchwasviewable in Marylqtl-d:
133. OnOct6.Q~t 1, 2013, Defendant Thomas (ikaJ{imberlUnt1_J1maslt~d
ThqtblQg post was' Viewable in' Maryland,
-re$p6risihl~for ~watt;.1l8.C{)nservativebloggers:
'irCon.~erVativebIQggersand._.(!.ctiVistS.ral1ied.behbld . the vi<:tim~ -pfleft-Wing-
_co~victed-domestic terrorist Brett Kimbedi.ll .. flnd.. hi~.:cab~J. -Ay~~r.. lqt~rJ.. thg
:$urVivoFS ()ftbose.-.SWA']tbl~ attack$-.are-:still .. fightingfor.-.tlwir . -$~c9rjty--' i1nd.
~ee~ .s.~ef!ch~ri~hts.JJ .. httPi/'lmic;hel1emalkin.com'Z201~104t.Oa/more~
cele}jrltieS ..sWat;,.teg;;.meaDwhlle~anti4>rett"'kimber]in..blQggeFS~still+llnder~
1lru'
t3Z; On Apti18~201'3, Defendant MicheJ]eMal.kln/,wh6Was on the- bgq.r<1Qf,
Th,e -Nati()ual.J31qggets;ClUll~.-wrote,an atticleJQrherb19gJroplying--tl1atP-lmntiffW~s
47
http;lIbogewash!cQinI2Q14106/Q8/JjatiQnal ..daY"Qf-blogger~silenQel
Hogepublished that letter along with a blog post
swattings, that he should be investigated bythe FBI and sentto prison. Defendant
Jetter to a Congressman in Maryland and imputed that Plaintiffwas involved with
occupy-inflltrator-frame-up/
http://theothermc<:ain,corn/2014/0a/O.2!kevln-zeese.-neal ..rauhauser-and-the-
knows discussed the first swatting victim at some pofntin their Jives.
and.imputtngthat Plaintiffwasinvolved with swatting becausepeople Plaintiff
repeatedlydefamed and attacked Plaintlff'on his blog, calling himvile, shameless,
~37. Since the originalfilillg ofthls Complaint, .DefendClntMcCain.bas
.Of.'c0urset<sin(!e .. th.~ . QOJj$. led. by.tlle.cotl'UP.tand. rij~iSt . Eric Holder, .. and-the
victinis:ofthe.Brett Kil)1b~rU~.SWA;'fjl)gare Conservati'Vesandthe .
J?:erpetratorsare .. Libera)~.p o)~tic~l-activis t$;
httj.l: UtbeQtherfilcciidn.c6mi2012106,IQ61$tm.;saxl2Y~chambliss ..requests ..
goj4nyesggate ..swattingI
- . - - - - .. ~. .
on his hlogthatimputedand stated that plaintiff cOllllil.itiedswattings .
lI]bis,]ate~t . attack .. follo\V~.sitnU~r.t()c~cs . ijse't~.~.iJ)stPattick.Frey . alld Erick
Erick$Qn.a~e~:they becall1eintereste(liu' the.'ollgOing. Kimberlin 'saga."
http!.(/WWW~yjralread.cQmI2012106lZfVaaron ..walker ..swatted!
~t~s.uJtand .:PJahjtiWs~atteniJ1ts'to id~n~ryh(}r thougb ~Qu~\)rders in a,s,tateof
M~li=mq lg:w$tiit:
13S~...()n:J~rte 26i 2(J1Z~DefendantRObertSt?,cy Mcqa}D, r~~icii;ngJn
'Maryland; wrote ~t1(lrti4e 011Vit~lReadth~t :impliedthiltPlaintiffswatted Aarbh
48
:1.39., Sitt'ce'the filillgofthe,ptiginal complaintin this.case, OetehdarifHogc_
~_C\~-J>l.l1>]_i$lle9-.hunpr~aSQfblQ-gp()$tS ~l;l(ltWt!etsdefa-ming;P1ahjtiffana-~lcctisirig
iliim-ofctime aftercrlrrre, -lnfactith~ majority 9fhis- HQgeW(.lsh.l;()tn -Qlagis cldicCl_t~d:
ctQ:attacking,-.cyherstalking andharasslng Plaintiff, his-falllny~nd ~Ily()newhQ
$uBPQrt$ P-laintiff including reporters.judges.and prosecutors;
140. OnJtrne 7, .2012, DefendantAkbar gave. an.interviewte The Ex<!Jl1iner
jn wl1.it:b heimputedthat Plalntiffwas re:sponsibleforsWattings and harassing
-_~QPse_rvf.ltivel)logg~r$~.. http://www.examiJ)eIjcQm.larticlelac1r..to..defend..
GOnseryative,.bloggers-targeted"over ..brett~Jdmberlin"CQverage
141. OnOCtober '14, 2013, Defendant-Akbarlauncheda.new fundraislng
campaignbased on.the false narratives that Plalntlffswatted and.caused Defendant
Wcl}k~rto lose hisjob; www~bombersuesbl()ggern;Cdm. When- aperson clicks the
-l)_QNi\TE'button, it-redirects to the.same Natlona] Bloggers Clubdonate site that
Defendant Akbarprevleuslyused-te raise money based on his false clalmthat
Plaintiffis a swatter. "Kimberlin's 2 year campaign of harassment, has led to
bloggers losing jobs, threats of'violence, and police 'SWATTings' ....n At.the bottom of
the-site's home page, its tates, "NationalBloggers Club,Inc; copyright 2013.IiOllthe
same.day.DefendantAli senttweets.to many of the Defendantsinthis suitto garner
their help in raising more money based onfalse narratives about Plaintiff.
142. .Members ofDefendal'lt National13logge:tS Club read ariicleswrittenhy
Defendants Frey, Walker, Ace0 fSpades, Stranahan, Erickson, and McCain,and then
published their own articles linkingto those articles specifically statingthat Plaintiff
swatted conservative bloggers, For example,
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06/24/14 Page48 of 82
49
jaiJ this time #B1ogBash.1I This demonstrates that The National Bloggers Club and its
Kimberlin picked a fight with Andrew Breibart that we're going to finish. He'll go to
146. On March 7, 2013, Defendant Akbar tweeted the following: 't#Brett
Defendant National BloggersClubare tax deductible constitutes fraud.
that DefendantNatlcnal BloggersClub.is a"SOl(c)(S},non-profit and all' donatlonsto
145. Defendant Akbar's solicitation of funds based on the false assertion
constitutes wire, mail, and bankfraud in interstate commerce.
144. Defendants' solicitation offunds based on the false swatting narrative
insuredbythe Federal Deposit.Insurance Corporation.
were transferred and received through interstate commerce' and placed ill ban ks
commerce through the use of'theInternet, the telephone and mail Those funds
their false narrative about the swattings .. They solicited those funds in interstate
"Strategies~,andAkbarraised and' continue toraise moneyorrtheirwebsltes based on'
t43. Defendants McCaillJ WalkerI Frey.Stranahan, Hoge, DBCapitol
. http:'IIWWft4bob~6Wens,com/a0121Q9lilnQthf!t"CQIls~fYative"-
'blbgget~s~tted.~bY~le~st-tiQmestiC~teftQtistsZ' .... '.. ' .. ' ..". .... .
:. bttpt/!WWyt()u:tt1be.comlWatc~?Y:i15Qf46A'N.l M'/'(;.N.N:ni$C\lSSes.
Br~tt Kimberlin.. S",atting:Cases.~ith . Eric1~~Etik$Qnlj
. http!l/newsbu.stet$~()rg lblogsltom.bIUPlerI20141()S 128fntett-
kimberlin-qDd~'swattin:g~wlle~e-establisbment"media ..O.. .
http! l/Jle.osecularist.comlt;lg(brett"kimb.erlin.;swattingf
... bttp;lIJgalinsurrectioD.cQID 120121051a-bretb.kjmberliD"situatiQn~
cotild~happen..to..yout'
.bttp; Ilameric(\Dpowerblog.blQ~pOt.cotnI201Z1051btett ..kifuherUn"
and.sW!Jtting..vyhere~is!html
http://.graIlitegrok.cQmlblogI2012/05Ithe-kimberl1b-files-coutihue''
SWcltting -thc"ericksons
. bttp;! /WwW.uslliessagebQard.cQm!politicsI225B3S"b;ett-kimbepUn".
stri kes-agajn.~an6ther-swattjng-attack~a. gai u.st- con stvati.yes. btml
.. btt.p!l/patdoUard~cQml2012IQ5Jswatting-patterico-alleges-
c:ampajgmQf"'tetrQr ..attempted ..fuurdEm bY"I1ea]~rauhauser'"r()p..
bryuaert~and"'brett-kitnbetlh11
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 . Filed 06/24/14 Page 49 of 82
50
lS0. Defendant.Malkin has over 660,000 Twitter followers and she used
was a 501(c)(3) and that-their donations were tax deductible.
knew that The National Bloggers Club was committing fraud bytelling donors that it
otlier'personto commttatleasrtwopredlcate acts. Jn fact,the RlC(JDerefidatitS an
The Defendants knowingly and tntentlonally.agreed with each other or at Ieast one
because the frauds, extortion, obstruction of justice and battery crossedstate lines.
149. The. Defendants' conduct and .activlties-affectedinterstate commerce
censtltutesa "threatto.soctalwell-being,"
combined with massive fraud from thousands of victims. This criminal Enterprise
multi-year-defamation campatgnwhlchfalselyaccused a person .ofa horrible crime
pressed-to find anotherlnstcfnce'ih.te-cehthistorywllere anonhne mobengaged.in a
Wa~r~owidespread.that.could restiltin criminal prosecution. Onewould be hard
manyvlctlrns of thefraud who Were conned by the: Defendants, In.fact, the-fraud
particularly dangerous because- itoccurred over a period ofyears and involved so
14<8. Thecondqctoitbe' Defendants.was 'extended,wiclespre~(rClnd
musician.
.fiUngQ}grotttldless,dvU suitsandcriminal cllarg~$,cyher buJlYirig.-and,ClctillK
lJulC)wfullYj in.Q:rilttoifitetfere- With Plaintiff's.business relationships-and his
pr()sp~(!tiye qqvqn~g~bbth- as.an employee.of'justlce 'rhrQugbMusicand .as.a
-14r. The P~f~ndants engaged In.a concerted eampalgn peqplinE!-
.de{aIllation,falseligpt} fa.l~~inCllTativ~$i battery, intimidatiOnJ ..tQre~tS~fraud, the
J~~d~r'$Il'pwer~linteXlt OJ)d~priVing'PIcHntiJfofh.is liberty basEtd-onJalse:criitlin<:\l"
- '- - -_ - - - - - _--,
51
her Twittc_r ClCCbU nt and her Twitter'corr(piler~.DerenaafitTwitchyto amplify her
defanwtorystateme.nts-abo]lt-PliPntlff bing:iflvolve(iWithSWattihg~AccQrdhjgt6--.~
Februa tyH,.2014 article inPolitii;()aboutDefendan t Matkin, !!Twitter is -MallOn's.
Weapon ofcheice. Battles With her-almost al'!IVaY$d~vQlveinto wars ..!Taqptil) g.-quiP$
frQm.foesbringout the full.force bfher Twltter-arsenal, With sna ppyreplles.catchy
ba?h@gsancl the tnobilizatten.of'alegion of'energlzedfollowers,"
~ttP:lfwww.politico.com/stmyI2014/02/michelle ..mafkin..Z014 ..electiODs..
republicans-103284,btml
151. The Defendants.underthe Ieadership of The National Blogg~rs-C:ltib,
on whose Board Defendant-Malkin sits, have generated literally tens of thousands of
blogposts, tweets and Qt;het,articles,Jalsely accusing.Plalntlff of'swattlngs and other
crimes e .Theyhave usedthisfalse narrative-to 'pillory, harass, stalk, defame-and
ostracize Plaintlffm a111u1th-yearcyberstalking campaign ... Defendant.Malkln .. has
used her credibillty and gravitas as .a board member to sign offon the fraud by-The
Club}thereby defraudinga multitude ofunsuspecting victims. Defendant Malkinand
other Defendants knew ofthe fraud.false narratives-and money laundering and
agreed with. other Defendants, including DefendantAkbar to participate illthe
affairs.ofthe conspiracy. Inthis ease, there were not.merely two predicate acts but
ratherthousands since each moneytransaction with orby The National Bloggers
Clubconstituted a separate act ofrnallfraud.wfrefraud ormoneylaunderlng,
152. The Defendants false narratives have harmed PIaintiffs business
relationship as an educator who for three years prior to 2012 worked with the State
Department's[nternationalLeadershipProyram toteach activists from around the
52
world_Dow-t,O'1.l$~_.-$()t_i.aLrn.dja andthe arts to)effeCtu~t~.<:h~ngih::QteJr-r~:~peQtive'
_collnttie$~-_pJ~jlltiiff,'C}$p_itc_tQr-o_fJU$tice:Through;Mti$1(;ib9~t~d_-~~a\1.isf$~ftQmlfail~,
Tu.rkey~. K'azakhsran,)!:gyp~,emeu,_-Dibya, SaUdi Arahia, Tunisia, -I3al1r~ip;J9tga~1(ltrd-
el$where to Iearn aboursoelalmedia. -When-the I)efendantslearrtedahOYl thl!:>
work, SQntotthem'cQnta_ctedtne.State I'lepartrnentandwfQteciefamatQryarticles:
aboutthewcrk eomplalntng.about it and calling Plaintiffa-critnitla.iand terrorist
Whowas educating activists. For example, -DefendantThe Blaze,._C()lltrolledby
Defendants GlennBeck and MercuryRadio Arts, published- anartlcletitled; (IWhy.is
the State-Departfuent-Partnering-withSpeeqway Sotnber Brett Kimnerlill/'
bttp:j/www~tlieblaze.coll1/stories /2012j05jZ-5/why ..is-the-state-dept-parttiering-
with-speedway-bomber' ..brett-klmberliny DefendantsMalkln and 't'Witthythen
rnagpifiet:ltbatattack http://twitchy.com/2012j05/2S1state ..department-
partnering-with-pclltica! .. terrorist-and ..bomber-btett-khnberUn/And Defendant
Erickson.tweeted to Congressman DarrylIssa to investigate the State. Department
over it. Id. And as a result, the State Department-no longer brings.these activists to
[ustice Through Music,and the activists no longer knowthatthey have an advocate
for-their cause offreedom.and democracy, and they do not know that they can re Iy
on Plalntlff'and.lustice Through Music to post their videos when their own
governments targetthem.
153. Platntiffhad a property Interestin continulnghls work for Justice
Through Music, which incJudedyearly training offoreign activists. The Defendants
caused injuryto Plaintiffs business reputation and customer goodwill by engaging
in their predicate acts and racketeering activity.
53
vigilante action directed at Plalntiffin Maryland.
tweets, demand that Plaintiffbe investigated and Incitetheir readers to engage in
Frey, egg on their commenters and ask them to get involved, post comments and
TheseDefendants, including Malkin, Hoge, WalkerJAce, Thomas, McCain, Akbarand
.commenters and theyhave Twitter accounts that engage with their followers.
accused Plaintlff ofswattinghave comment sections where they engage withtheir
156; Most of the Defendants who have their own blogs andwho falsely
vigilante action to harm Plaintiff.
Defendants engaged in conspiracy, intimidation, threats} obstruction ofjustlce, and
ClUb,and is- also,th~person whoposted athreatenlngphoto-cf'himselfwtth it
shotgun-addressed to. "Dear' Brett Kimberlin,I' This demonstrates thatthe
"the guy who.swatted me." And GlennReynolds is on the Hoard of National Bloggers
Z~t Z(lll, that-he would calljournalist "Glenl1'Reynol(is",to 'ten himthat PJainpffwa.s
155. DefendantFreytold.Defendant Walkerin an.emaildated December
--otganizatiQnal-sttucglre, called The National.BleggersClub.
functioned;as~a,unJtahdthey gottogether-to formas-a whole; evenwith a name, and
byfin~ntciaIenrichment'crfncreased.Slto n Google and.othersltes. In short; they
proprty'of'Plaintift:- The-Defendants all bad --'relationship-s)' friehdships, business
defllin~$~and they aUshared inthe largess fromthe .fraud they perpetrated, either
Qerraudih,gVictirhs in order to enrich themselves. and -harm.the buslnessand
lSLf~ 1)_fe~tdatltNatlohal BloggersClubwasaforma! organizatiQothat
-iuQctipn~~r~S-~~l CQ);ltip~iligtlnit With -ashared purpps_e _~Iid-'iqntlfjable-sWCttire~
-Tb:e<pefe.hdants'Ov~r~19u9peri'pd oftime pursued.the cornmorrpurpose of
54
commerceinthat its activities and transactions relating to its fraudulent
163. Atall relevant times, The RICOEnterprise was engagedininterstate
agencies to smearand harm Plaintiff.
intimidation, harassment, battery, fraud, and misuse of government
among allthe named Defendants, withthecommonpurpose of creating
The, RICOEnterprisewas.an ongoingrelatlonship, business.and.criminal,
162. Atall relevant timesfrom November 2011 through FebruaryZ7.,2014,
The R1COEnterprise
meaningof 18 USC1961(4).
fact and therefore an enterprise ("The RICOEhterprise'1fWithin the
161, AUDefendants and unnamed petsons;cbnstitute'qI1ass()cl~tjon"in-
()flllUSC 1963(1).
160. Each of the named DefendantsIsa ilRIGOperson" withinthEfmearilng
1964(c).
159. Plaintifffsa person with ;standingtosu.ewithin the meaning oflS'11SC
.above namedDefendants,
158. Plailltiffsclaims underthe Rac}<eteerillg.Il1fluncedaI1d'cQrrupt
OrganizatkmsAct,.18 USC1961-68 eR1CO") are br()ughtag~in:stall the
l~7~ Plainttffre-allegesand tncorporates every paragraph-above,
,'FJR:ST'C4IM FQIJ...ItE~IE~'
:Morn1'E.ERJNFLOE~~ESANDCOItRyrJ Q.RGANIZA,Tl.{)NS .t\G'fONI>ER.
18 USC l9~Z(c;),allt[18:1J~~;t;~~~(cO
'(D.ef~llf]ants.,.4kbar,cW~er"a()gf!",l\tI~n';rd~n,'JJCl.cker",DB . Capitb).
Sttat~gies,.FreYJN~gy, FranldinCenter,AceofSpade$; Stranah~ni
Tb()mCl$, Ericks.onand:MtchY}
55
.. Obstruction of justice to further their unlawfulscheme in violation
of18 USC1503;
.and ctill1it1~Iativipg$ a$related'aboveaffE~tedilltetstatcQinmel"ce,ijntl
ft~qtientlYreq'Jirf3tl. tnl'Velj.eotrnriU.filCatiQns.a~d:fin.;llicl~lt.ransadions
acrossstate.lines,
164.. ',.AtaUtelevanttirnes;the, members pftli l\IC() Erltei'ptjseJ\lnctione(l
asa continlliflguhit.
165.. At anr~]evanttitnesj.t}leila1l1edDefend~ntsc:onducted or participate
in, andcensplred.toconductor participatein.the affairs ofThe RICO
Enterprise through a'pattern of.numerous acts ofraqketeetinRih
violation oftS: USC.1962(c) .and1962(c,i),related' Qythi)icomrnoD.. goal to
use-false .narrativesabout' Platnfiff to.fraudulently and crimillally raise,
depositand spend funds, Increase readership, and sen products and
services.
l(i6. SpecificaUy,lhe.na:med Defendants conducted or participated rnand
agreed to conspire.to conduetthe affairs of The RICO'Ertterprise hy
engaging Inthefollowlngpredicate acts of racketeer ingunder 18 USC
1.961(1):
Mallfra ud to further their unlawful schemein violation oflS USC
1341;
Wire fraud to further theirunlawful scheme in Violation'of 18 USG
1343;
56
169.
interests.
This amounts to conspiracyand attempt to harm Plaintiffs property
interests. They have stated many'tlrriesthattheywantto desttoythe non..
profits by stopping their funding andurgedothers to demand the same.
engaged in conductintendedto deprive Plaintiff.of thoseproperty
salarfes and expenses ofthe business. Yet Defendants.attemptedand
beingableto raise funds forthatbusiness to pay his salary and the other
Workedat.for the previous eight years. He hada "propertyinterest" in
continuinghis employmentas the director of'a non-profit that hehad
Defendants and the. RICQEnterprjse', Plainnff'had a "property lnterest'Tn
168. Plaintiff's business interests Were harmedbyfhe actionsof'the named
property and personal injUry~to Plctinti.ff~
Increased traffic tothelr publications, attheexpenseof'bustness,
flnanclalgalnofeach Defendant,,tnrougtlac.fu'al. funds, aqvertising and
'ihthe conduct of.affairs of The RIC{lEnterprise resulted lnthe-indlvldual
167. The harned Defendants' engagement in-the above listed predicate-acts
18USC1957.
M.oney la.\l1idtingtb'furtherth~ir t)nlawfill-scheme in vielatton of
lQ51j
,RetaH(;ltion ~ga.J_i:t.st.a w]rneS$and ViCtlrilJo further dl:.~lrl1:nla.wtUl
- - ~ -
57
Pr_ed~~;.1teA~_
'Man-Frilti~,- __ :1:~ US(J:::I~4:(_
-3:7()~ Them~med i)efettdcmts -through T-ll~-RICO--&ntt!rpris_ei so1ideea"
entiCed/.p~rsq9itedi and. induced citlzensto send _mpn~ythrQughthe;
tI-llitedCStates -po~_~r.-$ervice;t()th named.rJefendailtS'baS$t;i PXl-thgf~ts_
narratives.thatPlaintiffwas involceddn pi" resp()nsiblefor-swaltings~anil
caused.the termination of Defendant WaJker.
1:71.- -The-named Defendants through-The RICOBnterprlse, solicited,
'enticed, per$lladed,:ctlld: induced -citizens-to send _ll1Ql1~Y tbfQ\tgh the
United-States Postal-Service to Defendants' National Bloggers Club'c:tfid
Akbar basedon thefalse statements.thatDefendantNationalBloggers
Clubis.a SOl(c)(3}n()n~profitandthatdQnatipnst() ltwere tine
deductible. Intact, the National.Bloggers Club-was a critninal
organizatlon.that' never had 5 01(c)(3} status and never filed .any required
business documents afterit registered as a Texas corporation.
172. The named Defendants conspired through The-RICO Enterprise..tb
solicit, entice, persuade, andinduce citizens tosend money through-the
UnitedStates Postal Servicetothe named Defendants based-on the false
narrative that Plaintiff was Involved.inor responsible for swattings and
caused-the terminatiOn' ofI)efel'ldant Wa1ker.
173. The named Defendants conspired through The RICOEnterprise, to
solicit, entice, persuade, and induce citizens to send money through the
United States Postal Service to Defendants National Bloggers Club and
58
Akbqr based .()JttheJals'stfltetrl~ljt$ thEttDef~ndantNatibfiat13J9gg~r$"
C1pbi~~a(5<(jl(cl(31li()li ..prQfit:an{ltnatdoP(ltiQtls'tQitWefe-tax:
deductible. -
11t. The'llanw<iDef~ndantsthr()llgh The RlC(l Bnterprise willfully,
knowingly allciinteptiona{ly cpmnlitted:and .-coIlspired. to;:c,oJnmit
multiple. predicate acts.. ofmafl ftaudltlViolatlon: of 18USCI341j .as set
(Qtt:1l in Plalntlffs First.Claimfor Relief.
Wire Fraud, 18\15<:.1343
175~ The named Defendants throughThe RICOEht~rp:tise,:s()licitedJ
enticed, persuaded.and'induced citizensto transmit money through
teleeommunicatlons and wire and lnternet.servlcestothe-named
Defendants based -onthe false narrative that Plaintiffwas-involved in or
responsible forswattlngs,
176. The named Defendantsthrough The RICOEnterprtse.sollclted,
enticed, persuaded, and induced citizens to send-money through
telecommunications andwire andIntern et;services to Defendants
NatJQnalBJoggers ClubandAkbarbased on the false statements that
Defendant National Bloggers Club is.a 501(c)(3) non-proflt.andthat
donatlonstolt.were tax deductible.
177. Thenamed [lefendants-tollspireilthroughThe mco Enterprise, to
solicit, entice, persuade, and induce citizens to send money through
telecommunications andwireand Internet.services tothe named
59
Defendants-basedon the faJs~ narrativ~ that: l'Jaintiffwas inv6IV~di!l:o(
-r~$.p.pn_sihlforswattbjgs.
l1R. Th~ named Defendants consplteil-fltrollgp 'fheRICO- EhterprIse, t6
sollcit. entice, persuade, and.mduce citizens to send money through
telecemmumcatlons-and wirand Int~rlletsenVices:to.J)efendant$
NationalBloggers Club and-.Akbar-bas~d:()h thefalse-statements-that
Defendant National Bloggers Club is 4_S(11(clf3) non..profltand that
donationsto itwere taxdeducttble,
179-,. .'flle named Def~ndant.sthtough The RICO.Enterprise wiUfully,
knowingly.and intentionally committed arid conspiredto commit
.multiplepredicate acts of wir~.:fraud.inviolationofl8-USC 1343, as .set
forth in Plaintiff'sFirst Claimfor Reli~f.
Obstructionof}usth;ej la-vSC 1503
lHO. The named Defendants.through The RlCOEnterprise corruptlyand by
threats or force, and by communicatton, influenced, obstructed, Impeded,
and endeavored to influence; obstruct; Orimpede, 'thedue administration
of justice by falselyaecusing Plalntfffef'swatttng, and. provided false
evidence. to the FBI and state and.local.lawenforcement officials asserting
that Plaintiffwas involved in the swattings, This false, information caused
federal, state and lOcal lawenforcement officialsto Wastevaluable time
and resources chasingfalseinformation provided bythe Defendantsin
The RICO Enterprise.
60
justice in violation of18USC lS03(a).
r8S.- .Thesewlllful, knowing' and intentionalacts constitute obstruction of
brought-to .thembythe Defendants in The.R'COEnterprise.
Jordan and Cornelius Vaughey because they rejectedthe false narratives
and. HowardCounty MarylandState' s Attorneys-and toJudges Richard
obstruotion of Justice bycauslngthreats to he made to the Montgomery
184. The named Defendants through The RICOEnterprise furthered their
to seeklegalredress ina court of'law,
cooperating'wlth law enforcement officials and from exerclsinghls right
injury.anddeath.to be direotedat.Plalntiff'ln order-to intimidate him from
.183. The named Defendants through The RICOEnterprise furthered- their
obstructionofjustice bythreatening Plaintiff and causing threats-of
llarrative.thatPlaintiffcP1l1ll1itted'criminal acts .
and Howard County Marylalld$tate's Attorneybc:tsed bljtheirfalse
obstruction of justice by provldlrig.false lnformattonro theMontgomery
- -
,3.8+. T1Wnam_'eiJ' ])efendantsthrQllgh,Th~-alICPEntetp'tisefurth,J<ed,th~l~
bb$tructi()ltQfJti.$ticel)YiptoVi9ing-f<lJ$<:.-~Y!cl~n:~and-.infQrmatriQJhiBout
PlaihtifftoUnited- States S:en'atotS;Clna 9()ngressMewber$with-the:
kn()wleageth~t~_i(l-(alse,jnfQnnatiQtlwOllldbe -provjd~(lto the Attorny
61
:R~t3UatiQn ofa:WItriess ~11l.l'VJ:cthn;:La,IISC,,1512 arid '1~.~;~
-l~~. the named r,lerendants~-thrp:ugb-"be RIGO- Enterpnse havErengaged 111
ci'mijlti-year:campaigri of tetali atl on agclinst-PI(i\lltifflnQrderto
IntimitlCltehimfrom_~beingawltnesaand toretaliate.agatnstblmfor
-proViding inf(}rmatiQn to -lawenforcem.entoffiCialsr~ga,rding-f~qera.l
offenses committed _py (me or more ()fthe Defendants, This re~1iati()l1
came In the.form of.threats of death, battery-and' injury ca used byfaJse
narratlves created-aadpubltshedby Defendants portray'i"rtg Plaintiff-as
ca1Js~Ilg.DeftmciaptWalkersjObterll1ination andswattlngconservative
bloggers. Other formsof'retaliatlonwere tbe-batteryof'Plaintiffby
riefendant:Walker; thefiling offalse criminal charges, peace orders and
frivolous civilsuits against Plaintiff by Defendants Walker and Hoge;
attempting to extort.a settlernentfrom Plalntifffn exchangefor
dismissinga maliciousfederallawsuitby Defendants Walker, Backer-and
DBCapltolStrategies: publishing defamatory stories accusing Plaintiff of
swatting; repeatedly threatening Plalntlff'with imprisonment'based .on
false narratives: andthreatening Plalntiff s.family,
187. Defendants Walker; Backer and DBCapitol Strategies retaliated
againstPIalntiffbytaklng harmful actionagainst Plaintiff, including
attempttngto interfere WithPlailltiffislawful-emplbyroent arid-livelihood
because Plaintiff contacted law enforcement officials 'about (1) an
intestate murder threat against Plaintiff by Seth Allen that was
, communicated to Defendants Walker, Nagy, Frey and another person)
62
:$bwe:decea$ed~(2) tlle",lss~\tJtijfi(lhattery byf)efelldClntW?Jk~I." ~g~Jl)$,t
Plamtiffinthe. MQlltgoU1~ryCQUnt:-y CQurthQllSe, (3Jth false alle~ti9l)$'"
',of sWatting, .(4) and:tl'letiv:il tightS'violatiops :~gai'Il$tP laihtiff by
PefendantEtey.
18R. 'These WillfUl,ku()wiug and Jl\tenQotiaLacts constitute retaliation ora
Witness anda victimin viQlationoflHtJSC 1512(dJ and IS1S(bJand:fe)~
H39. The Defendants.also engaged. Ina. conspiracy to 'threaten, assault and
jntimid~te Plaintiffand.thetefore their cenductis prohibited .. by18 USC
lSl4(~)l
'EXtortjon"Conspira!!y'an<l Attempted EXI;ortjon; 18 OSC19S1
190. The.named Defendants through The RICOEnterprise engaged in
extortion by filing,a malicious federallawsulragainstPlaintlffand two
non-profits, one of which employs Plaintiff,to Hmithts-Pirst Amendment
right toredress-and thendemaridingthat. his employer fire himand turn
over protected business documentsin exchange for a settlement of the
.case against the non..profits.
191. Defendants WalkerI Backer and DB Capitol Strategies engaged in
conspiracytoextort and attempted extortionunder lS USC19S1(a) by
agreelng to use the federal.sulttoget-Plalntlffflred, andthensending a
lefterdemanding that flrihghl exchange fordismisslnga malicious
lawsuit
192. Thesewillful,knowlngand intentional acts constitute extortion in
., vlolation aflSUSC.1951.
63
MthleyJ,aJJnd~rin~ 1lltrSC'1957
.193~ th~ n~llledI)~fen(l~llts.furo\!gb Th.R.ICO. Ei1tetptis~. en~ge(1.in;
1'n6n~Y htundE!riIlLtbycte~dngall.;entity9alldtheNatio.n(11.131qggts $11lb
and theltfalselYImIttaying it asa hon"Pf9fit operatingunderthe,
.~uthorizatiQn(Jftbe Internal.Revefi\le Setvice, Section 50.t(c)(3);
Dcfeildant:Natjonal Bloggers Club did hotapplyf6rSecyion' $01(<=}(3)
status prlorto stating publiely that-the .NationalBloggersCiub Wasa
SOl(c)(3] n on-proflt.Defendantsthrough The.RICO Hrtterprisep()st~(:l
olllin~, through.a Jetteran~through word of'mouth, that.donanons made-
to.Defendant NationalB loggers Clubwere tax deductlbleunder.Section
SOt(c}(3).. Those donations, in excess of $lQ,OOO,.werefunneled by
various means.ininterstatecommerce roa bank account controlled ~Y'
DefendantAll Akbar,and laundered for his own purposes, withoutany
aocounting.andWitholltfi1inganySection 990 returns with' the Internal
Revenue Service. Defendant.Akbar refused.allrequests madetohimand
DefendantNational BloggersClubto provide a copy of any Section
501(c)(3}determinationissued by the IRSfor the National Bloggers Club.
Defendant Akbarrefused all re quests made to him and the National
Bloggers Club for an accounting of the .fundshe .received and disbursed
front hlsfalse narrativesabout.Plaintiff The National Bloggers Club
never filed any required business filings in the State of Texas afterits
initial registration, and it continued to raise funds even after its corporate
entity was shuttered and its name forfeited.
64
have committed hundreds of predicate acts of'fraud because each
predicate acts of racketeering activities in the past lOyears. In fact, they
198. Assetfcrth.above.the named 'Defendants have commlttedatleasttwo
commission of predicate acts as described Inthis Complaint, targeting
Plaintiff beginning in August2010 and contlnuing untilthe present.time.
197. The named, Defendants engaged In the racketeering activity and
.monetarytransactions in property derived from specified unlawful
activity Inviolation oflSUSC1957.
Pattern of Related Racketeering Acts
196; Tpe~ewillful, knowing.and intentional acts constitute engagingIn
financial .institations 'inthe United States.
deposits; withdrawals, transfers and exchanges to, from and-through
$1.0,000 in interstate commerce. Thesemonetary transactionslncluded
monetarytransactlons derived.throughfraud In a.valuegreater than
narrattvethat.Platntiffwas involved with.swatrings,
l?S~ Thenamed Defendants through The RICOEnterprise engageq-lllthese
b_asea-oflthose'.-fr~ud"ll]etltrepresentati()nsaJla-,()p Defendantsfalse
reason t9-:kh9W that DfqijUiltlt N~QQmll'-B1Qgg~l"S:CluQwas;nQt(J
.SOIN)(3} tiQn"Ptofitahdtha~ dOl1atiQllS m~de:t<)'the~Nati()llalBlogger-
G1UbWere'no_ttax d~-ducti}:He,andfhat.Defe1'ld~ntAkbar aj1(ftlieNation~l
194. The named neenctCJitt.s' throqgh Th;e RICO,. Enterpds~lID_ewothad
- - - . -- - - - - - ~ -
65
.ppjiation.:t:(fThe Nationa.1Blpggers Club J~consldered' a-separate: act :0'
-;fi@\l4~
199. The na,m~d R~fendants-impleme.nted therack'~te~tingacts descrfbed
lnthis:C()mpl~intp$a busjh~ssmode]_Ior The RIGOErite_rptlse~
2(lO~ Tne.fiamed Defen(lantsT;-rf\Gketeethlg'(lctS- haveorha~lsimi)ar
:pUrp_QS~Si tOprofitfromJhe fraudulent fiClrtative~about Plaintiff. to profit
frQmtllemoney_launderihgschem~s, andto increase-the value of their-
w~bsltesand.mediaoperationsthrough.the 'USt: of'those falsenarratives.
2'Ql.. .-As $e,~_forth;:ab9yejth~-l1am.edDefehdahti{racketee.rillgacts have or
:haasimilar participants; .some in supervisoryrolessuch.as Defendants
.l~reyandAkbarrand others lnsupport roles .suchas the other named
Defendants.
202. As setfcrthabove.thenamed Defendants, through The 'RICO
'Enterprise,' directed their activities .atPlaintiff, The, named Defendants
created The RICO'Enterprise asa business model to raise funds through
fraudulentmeans: create false-narratives aboutPlaintiffsuch as
swattings, demonize him with those false narratives, falselyportray
Plaintiff.as victimizing Defendants and violating their rights, breathlessly
sollcitdonattons it order to fight Plaintiff falsely promise' donors that
tfieirmoneywHl 'goto a SOl(c)(3)hon"profit, receive tens of'thousands Hi
donations, launder that money with no accountability, and spend or
pocket that money 'while increasing traffic, and value. to their websites
andmediasltes,
66
associated with this action.
determined at trial.fncludingtreble damages and other fees and costs
205~ Platntifffs entitledto ariawardofdamages.in an amount tobe
other pecunlaryand lossesto real or personal property.
interferencewith his business asa.musician, composerand manager, and
having interference with prospective- business advantage.having
relationships and his 'contract.to remainemployed by his employer,
opportunities, having attempted interferencewith his business
-defending against the false' narratives-losing employment and .fundlng
years defendln g.against the false narratives; having to spend money
falsenarratives: havingto spend untold hours.days.weeks, months and-
erimesandfatse narratives; 'having hts-employer.defamed.based on those
limited to: ,having his name falsely associated with 'swatting and other
suffered :injury to,'his-name, propertYand'businesses;-irtcludillg,but not
krIDwingand Intentional predicate acts, fls setforthabove.Plalntlffhas
204. Asa directand .proxlmate result ofthenamedDefendantstwlllful,
In
-Jury
tran$parency,an~fac(;Qqntability.
non-proflt, and the use"ofstonewaUing and 'lieswhen,asked.,for
practicewwith respect to t61lecungdotiations fora ilon-exiStefl~,,501(cJ(S~
67
civiland constitutional.rights,
without legal justification planned and acted to deprive P1aintiff of his
209. DefendantFrey.knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally and
with the knowledge and permission ofhissupervisors.in the LosAngeles
speeificallyas .anAssistant District Attorneyfor LosAngelea.Caltfomla,
Plalntlffinorder to harm him ~~were. done under color of state law,
create false narratives andmake false orlminalaccusations against
enforcementofflelalsabout Plaintiff,and directing other Defendants-to
charges.provldlngfalse information .to the .FBIand>LACounty Iaw
Plaintiffas a quid pr.Qquo, attempnngto have Plamtiff'arrested QnJa}se
Plaintiff,attemptlng'to get the group Anonymousto retaliate against
knowingthatsucbatl:pcks would resulttn threatsofinjury and death,
planning.onlil1e gang.attackson Plaintiff based-on. falsenarratives.
false narratives about Plaintiffcommitting crimes; including swattlngs,
208. .11.$ $etfottnabove, the actions or Defendant Frey,..~such as creating-
and ~a1l1agesagaillstDefenc;[ant Frey.
'2()6. Plaintiff~te aU~g~$:andillcorporates every paragraphabove.
SECONn;.CLAlMF()R.JlELI~F
.1.9~rn()N()f-TtJE-CIVIL-;RI~Hl'S ACTOp 1'Q66i42 USC1983'-
'(D~felnlantFrey)'
68
in his person or property on account of his having so-attended or testified. .
matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, and to injure Plaintiff
Intimidation, or threat, from attending court, or from testifyingto any
216. The named Defendants conspired todeter Plaintiff, by force,
his.Qve,rar~hingrigbtbe,safejnhis. everygayactiv:jties.
his First.Amendment right to speech, his.fundamental.rightto liberty, and
Fifth Arnendmen t.right to due process, his constitutional right to privacy,
including his First Amendmentrightto seek redress from the courts, his
purpose of depriving Plaintiff of.his.constitutlonal and civil rights,
andcoordinated with Defendant Frey,elctingunderco]or oflaw,forthe
215., Assetforthabove, the named. Defendants conspired.agreed, planned
declaratory relief and damages against-the namedDefendants,
214~ PlajntiffassertSthisc}aimpurs\lanttp4-2lJSC1985(2) -and(3)Jor
.21a. Plaiatlff-re-alleges.and ipcQrpotates every-paragraph above,
TllIIl.D- CLAIMFOR RELIEF
vtOLATlONSOF-_l1IE KU;KLUXI\tl\NACT OF 1871,.4ZUSC1985
(l)efendantsWal~er,.Hog~,_.~cCalu,_Akbar, . Enckson, i\faUdn,-Backerllhomas,
. Bec}{'.Aceof5pades, SmtnahaD,.Nagy, andDB. capitol Strategies)
deterrnlnedat trial.
and damages.Including eompensatoryand putliti"e~jnali amountto be'
.Zl()! Defendant.Ftey krloWihglyj:.wlllmnyjmaljcio\lsly~.intentional_lY'9ml
Without-legaJNsti~ca#ofi.-acte&tod~ptiye---Pl~)fitiff()hitfivili1gn~.
211. Ma'tesultQfthe unlawfutaets off)efenqantFr~y~Pla.intlff'sijffeteti
69
partners, clients and others.
family, children, friends, business associates and actual and prospective
accessible, andwere accessed. my manypeople, Including Plaintiffs
and other matters on the Internet, where they have been easily
the false.and defamatorystatements identified above. regarding swattings
knowingly.and/or recklessly publishedjrepublished ,md .disseminated
222~ Over the past year, the named Defendants have .Intentionally,
221. Plaintiff re-alleges.andIncorporates every paragraph above.
FOURTH CLAlMFORRELIEF
DEFAMATION
(Akbar} Walker, Hoge, Thomas;NationaIBJoggers Club),McCain) 4meriean
Spectator,O'Keefei Simon&Scbuster)
determlned.at.tnal.
and.damages, .lncluding .compensatoryand punitive, in an amountto be
220. Plaintiffseeks.all appropriate relict Includlng' qeGJaratoryi fees; costs,
toviolate hisrights, Plaintiff hassuffered damages;
219. As a result of the unlawful.acts of the named Defendants' conspiracy
and Withoutjllstitication .plat)ll~d:.andacted tbdeptive.PlaintIffof his
217~ The.namQ. OefepdaJitSc(m~pjr~gJo,qe)ltJve}?]~iritU:f()t.hiSright<t9
r~dr~ssJ>Y'QTllip~,gaii,gactiVitY! thta~j ll1mful.qa.ti.{)}i,.cyber builyiiig,
attacks against hisJamily) {al$e narratives" aUg b~tt~ry~
70
~23:... .' The named~DHentiantS' 4fira1Jlatqr.Y~~t~Illlltstegatdi~g plaihtifrs
ii1YQly~mcntjA~lN"~Wngs,,~t1d :o~e.t-ll1iltters:])~ve ~~U$_ed . al1dic(jtltjritie to
(!aus~-sub~l'lti~linjucy-td-Pls.intiffl-l1i$. liusf"n-ess ~nWi p~rsol1CllVf~ll~beitig.
2.-24. -'fnestateme_Jits:b~vec9lJ$ed .. _a.lld--cQnijnue- t() .-.catlse-._gp
fgtnba~~sment/.h(ltriiJiati()m (.)ppr(jbtium,-el1lQti()n~ldfstress.C\llQmental.
-$~ff~rlngto-PIalntift
225. The named Defendants'falseand defamatorystatementS and the
bnplicatiOllsdrawrffrQJ)'j--them c()hc-etriingPl<lintiffC1red~falnatory perse
because tny.aneg~.crimes .and make P1~lilitiffapp.ear odiousJ Infamous,
and/or frightening.
226. -p_~rendant5publishedthese false anddefatnatory.statementsterhfrd
parties-who re4s()llablyundrstQddthe.publisbeq statementstobe
.defamatory,
227. .The named Defendants.were aware of.the defamatory implication of
their statements about Plaintiff, and Intended.and endorsed the
defamatcryimpl ication.
228. The named Defendants publishedthesefalse and defamatory
statementsabout Plaintiffeventhough they knewthattheywere not
based on fact or truth.
Z29~ .The named Defendants published the defamatorystatementswithout
conducting any due diligence or contactingPJaintiffto determine if they
were in facttrue.
Case B:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 Filed 06124/14 Page 70 of 82
71
'4R{)" 'The named D.efen~<l1)~~\l.bJi$hed'thesefalse and.d~(~miJ1Qt.Y
.: ~W~enli)t$-al?ou.t Plaintiff With 1qlQWlcqgtfoftbeirfalslty:and/()r rek1es$ -,~
disregargfot thirtrutil."
23J~ ,J\ltI'l)cttive1y, the harnedDefentlan~ pllblis'hedth~se false arid
defamatQry$~tetnent$ abQufRlaintiff-negligentIy as the truthotfalsitY-of
-what theywere saying.
?32.. Each ofthe named Defendantswas.directly Involvedandresponsible
-forthe false anddefamatory statements thatwere~pliblished about
,.plaitl~ft-
233. "Thenamed Defendants published these false-and defamatory
statements With- both.commonlaw and'acW-aLmaHcej an<l,with the-Intent
ofharmirrgPlaintiff .
.23.4. Many of the named Defendants.pubtlshed these. false. anddefamatory
statements day after-day, week after-week, month after month andyear
after year with the attacks being coordinated, aggressive and sustained to
cause maximum harm to Plaintiff.
235. The namedDefendants' 'defarn~torystatementswere repeated and
republished byother media and bloggers, thereby compounding the 'harm
to Plaintiff.
'Z66. Only one ofthe Defendants, The Franklin Center, has retracted any of
their defamatory statements or removed them from theirwebsites, blogs
or media .outlets, despite Plaintiff's requests to do so. Defendant DB
72
241. Plaintiff re-alleges andincorporates every paragraph above.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
'FAI$~tIGHT INVASION OFPRIVACY
(Walker, Akbar, Hege, McCain, En-cksoD,Malkin, Twitchy, Redstate,
Beck; Thomas, O'l{eefe,Simoll&SCbuster, The Blaze, The American
Spectator, Ace of Spades, Mercury Radio Arts, Frey, Stranahan, Nagy,
I.Jrt!itbm.cOlllJ lJacker,,])B';lR~tolStr~t.~~~/ :l'be Franklbl. . ~ent~rj
NanonalBloggers 'Club)
andpunitive .damages.
conduct, Defendants should be ordered to pay substantial compensatory
interests. Asa result of the named Defendants' outrageous .and repeated
outrageous motive.Of calieusindtfference toPlaintiff's rights and
about.Plaintiff the named Defendants acted withan Improper and
24-0. Thus;in publisbing the numerous-false and.defarnatorystatements.
.and.mallctous.were-intendedto deliberately harmPlalntiff and Were
made with acallouslndilferenceto Plaintiff.
2-39. The named Defendants' actions ag~inst Plaintlffwere willful.wanton
PIaintiff to.sustain .damages,
from unsuspectillg rt!gdrs_whcfbeliev.edthelr statements,
23ft The named Defendants' false and defamatory statements have c~u$ea
statementstnerdertoincreaso traffitothe~rblogsand to raise money-
prote<tteq.
237. .The named Defendants also publi~fled'these defamatory. ah(lfalse
73
?*2. "hehamed I'Jef~llda})ts~statements, book;.'Weblljar and ~rticles. above
.CQnmille(tfalse:~tateirren~}~;r~pr~$~ntatiQfis/ot' imputati():Q~i;:t13QvtPlaih:tlfj'
that.place hfm bcfore'the,publicinaJaIs elight
243... Asstated ;ibov~,thenamed Defenqants'j1Qrttayecl PlaintHIas 'being
jpvoJved .Withsw~tting;:a seri()ti$.crifue,andcal.lS]llgJ)efelldant WaIkelts,
termination,
244. .The false 1ight.in whlch.the named Defendants placed Plaintiffwould
be consiqetedhighIy offensive to a reasonable person.
~45. Thenamed Defendantswere each.complicit in and.responsible for
casting Plaintiffin flfa lse light and violaf ng his privacy.
Z46. The.named Defendarrts.dlssemtnatedtheir articles on theIntemet;
television, radio and-inprintwhere theywere wldelyavailableto .. and
.accessi ble by members ofthe general 'publlc.aeross.the globe.
247. Tne'Defendantsengagedin outrageous andextremeconductby
falsely publishing the defamatory statements accusing him of crimes'and
nefarious conduct, demandingthat he be investigated, arrested and
lmprisonedforswattings, publishlng.tens of thousands of tweets and blog
postssmearing Plaintiffand accusing him of crimes, filingthree frivolous
and mallcious lawsuits against hlm.se nding a.defamatory letter to an
itlstitutionalfunder falselyaccusirig him ofcrimes.attempting to extort
his employer into firing him, rallying extremists with false narratives to
attack.him, filing for sanctions in the amount of tens of thousands of
dollars and imprisonment, and askinga federal court to deny him access
74
t(rth~c()\lriS. , 'this aDhQrr~nt~Qnducth~s'k~pt P.jtlil)tiffMllqersiege;fot
-YC:;~~i!lud:atlsed,'.extremi$t$t9t!.QmwJ)jsho~e):~kepictur~sQfbim
ah(f-hi~-'clgq~ptctia~a .make-thteatenIugc;,ill$ to.hito, -his.fatiUly-and;his.
-neighb<>.f$i Np,pet$Qnill 'a civilized soCiety shouldbemade to enduresuch
conduct-
2_4tl. MoreovclyDefencla.nts consptredwith the' other Defendantsto
imprison Plaintiff based on their false narrattvesthatPlalnnffwas
.lnvolvedwith swattings. 'I'hts.constttutes extremely cutrageousconduet
-thatlntentiollaJ1ytnflicted emotional distress . onI>laintiff! There are not
manythings In thisCQ1.lntry worse than being- falsely accused of'crlmes
and then having those false accusations incite a lynch mob to-attack
relentlessly and daily withtens of thousands oftweets-and .postsand
articles, and stalkers.overa period of years. This.is atrocious' and has
absolutely noplace ina civilized society,
24.9. Nota day goes by wherePlalntiff is notattacked, online or in person,
byone or more ofthe Defendants. Defendant.Walker tame to a court
hearing inMontgomery County Circuit Court and, .after-the.proceedingtc
which he was not a party, followed Plaintlffout of the courtroom and
battered him soseverely he ended upin the Emergency Room at
Suburban Hospital.Thisresultedin days ot'fofw6rk and a fear that
Defendants will again assault Plaintiff or his family. Defendants Walker,
Hoge, McCain and Ali havestalkedPlaintiffin public places. Defendants
Walkr, Huge and DBCapitol Strategies have flled numerous.false
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 135 FiJed06/24/14 Page 74 of 82
75
.cr{lllblal, anaC,ivilacti(m~. ~~ab\$t<Plaltitiff.bver a.Wlo~~e~rptiodj all,.
M'lti(!hhaV~been,QishiiS$gg;:Qranl~d!. lle(endant$ Hogei W;,tlJ{lr~ng
$9me 9fthe, <)thev D.efel1dants puhljsh daily taunts agailist Plail1tiff and
;mOCl<this sllibwitn.dai.Iyposts on their blogs.and c(>lltinuaUY'ass~rtthtlt-
they ate. g9Jng to g~t:Pl~intjfflmprjsohed~ They h~v.attacked Plaintifr-s
empJoyerand tli,os(}w}lQdonate-to that non-profit, The Defeudants have
triedtogetPlalntJfftlrec:L Theyhave attacked Plaintiffswife and teenage
.daughter and.even reporterswho-have written favorably '~b()utPIaitltit
Theyl1ave even attatkedprosecytof$ who .haverefused .their frivolous
charges; Defend~fi.tWa}kerhas even imputed in a recentblog postthat
Plaintiff'steen~ge daughter is.. fair game.fordestructlon because-of
"corruption ofblood,"
2S0. AUof'this has beentntendedtoInfftet.maxirnum emctlonaldlstresson
Plaintiff. Plalntiff'has had toinstall robust.securitydevices and video
cameras at his home and office, and take precautions for his family that
no young childshould have to be subjected to, all because the Defendants
have created a lynch mob-based on.false.narrativesto.terrorize Plaintiff
and his familyahacontinuous multi ..yearbasis, Thisdearly
demonstrates that the Defendauts.Intentlonally castPlaintlff'Infalse
'light
251. Thenamed Defendants knew that their actions andstatements had
the effect of casting Plaintiff in a false light hut nevertheless continued to
do so week after week} article after article and tweetaftertweet. They
76
258. Plaintiffre-allegesand incorporates every paragraph above.
SIXTll ctAlM:FORRELlmt
lNTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
(DBCapitol Strategies, Backer, Walker, National Bloggers Club)
compensatory and punitive damages.
Defendants' outrageousconductwarrants theImposltion of significant
motive or careless indifference to.Plaintiffs rights.andlnterests.
257. Thus.the named Defendants.actedwithan improper and outrageous
and malicious.and were intended to deliberately harm Plaintiff
256.. The named Defendants' aetionsagalnstPlalntiff'werewlllful, wanton
Plalntlff'to sustain substantial. damages.
255. .The named. Defendants' pl(!cingPlaintiffin.a falseIighthas caused
interests, and mental well-being,
above, caused substantial-injUry to Platntiffs .reputation, business
254... The.named Defendants' portrayal.of'Plaintiff'[n a.falseligbt, as-stated
Plaintifffn a false light
oftheir.statementsabolltPlaiJ)tiff,theeffe.ctofwhichwa$tpp()ttrtiY
253.. i\lternatively,the named Defendants.werenegligentinthe publication
were infacttrue.
CQIlQUcting.any- due diligence or contacting P]cdntiffto.<;letermil1lriftht;
}JadkllQwle.cige plot ;]ctect Withreckless disregard. as' to the falsity df'tlle
publici~ed'mptter'{!1l41he'faJ$~ligl1tjnwhj~h it placed plaintifi:
25.2. ". The ti:uned'DeferidantSipubJished. the defamatory stqteme.l~. wirhqut
77
259. .Q.e:feqg~pf.$: DBG"pitoIf Bacj{er;.Walker Clllg.N~tiol)ql~~og$.~r$ .GlAb
ma1iciously'~hd'wr()~gfulWjnterferjJ1g:withPl~jl1tiffse(:onomic~' or'
ptospecti"eJtelati.onshlps~SpectfitalIyi ,Plairttiffhas W6.tked asdirectQt of'
11lstice Thtough Muslcforten yeat,s .and.hasallagteementto cofion\i'e,
th:atWQ:rI.fbenatned Defendants iQlQW ofthe existence oftbat
""~l'l1pl()ymentreICltiQnshipandthey fntentionally attempted to interfere'
withit pymaklngfalsedaimsagail1stPlai ntiff'accusing him .ofcrlmes,
.sending adefamatorylettertoa major.funder, filingand/or promoting a
malicious lawsuit againSt PJaintiffand his-employer .inorder to lise that
l~wsUiUf) .force .: Plaintiffs employment termirration,
,.2.l)(), Defendantsfurther contactedamajor lnstitutionalfunder of Plaintiffs
non-profit employer andfalsejysaldthat Plaintiffwas involved.with
crlmes.whlch caused thatfunder to stop funding Plaintiffs employer.
The harned Defendantsand other unnamed Defendants have stated that
their goalwas to force organizations and others to stop' fund ing Plaintiffs
non-profitemployer, Theyhave bragged that theyhave succeeded in
stoppingthat funding.
2pl. Plalntiff'has been damaged' bythe named Defendantsmalicious
actions. A cause of action for tortious interference with all existing
COrifractlshased on Marylandlaw.
262. The named Defendants' actions against Plaintiffwere willful, wanton
and malicious} and were intended to deliberately harm Plaintiff.
78
and punitive damages.
outrageous conduct warrants the imposition of significant compensatory
or careless indifference to Plaintiffs rights and interests. Defendants'
269. Thu-s,'theDefendantsactedwithan improper and' outrageous motive
268. Plaintiff has suffered actual damage and loss.
actualdamages andlossto Plaintiff.
267. TheseactionsbyDefendants were donewithmallce in. order-to cause
business and they did.
in conduct.to disrupt.that business and deprive Plaintiff of future
266. Defendants knewthatPlaintlffwas engaged inbusiness .and engaged
Justice Trough Musicand as a rnusician,
damage to- Plaintiffin 'his lawfulbusinesses.bothas an employee of
intimidati()n, threats, fraud, "the filing Qfgroimdlesscivilsuits and
c_atnpaigIl.of-onJirte:defamation, false light, false narratives, battery,
265. Defendants, intentionally and w-illfully engaged in.aconcerted
264. Plaintiffre-alleges and-Incorporates every paragraph-above.
SJJVEN'tH CLAIM:FORRELIEF
INTERFER.ENCIH-WITH-PRQSPECI1VEECONoMICAnV.ANTAGH
(Al IlJe fen dan{:$)
26,3i. Thus~.thenan1.e~tDef~fidants,:actedWit,lian_i1l'lprop~r~n(toutrageou*
motiv~- .()rwu el~$s- .iridiffereJlc~tQ:}?);;tip.tiff$;)7igb~all~d:ittt:~rests. -'I'h.e-
named Defertdatits:foutNlgeOU$ COficlUctWaVl"ants:-tIle ~n'rpQsitiQnof
79
misrepresentations, false light, violation of'privacy, interference Withhis
276. Defendants' defamatory and false statements, intentional
275. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates every paragraph above.
EIGHTH CLAIM FORRELlEF
INTllN1IONAtJNJJLICTJONOE.EMQrrIONAL-Dl~RESS
(AlIDefendants)
andpunitive damages.
outrageous conduct warrants the imposition of significant compensatory
'motive..or careless indifference .to Plaintiffs. rights and Interests, His
274. Thus, Defendant Walker acted with an improper and outrageous
273. Plalrrtiffhassuffered actual damage .andloss;
court.
retaliate agatnst.himforexerctstngbis rightto redress andaccess to the
-272.- This battery of Plaintiffby Defendant Walkerwas intentional.and
malicious, and.done In.order to harm Plaintiff,intifuidat~ himand
ordered.to restfor sevetaldays.
eye.backpaln, Plaintlffwasevaluated there an-(lpte$qribed:.ll1~dihi.'nefind.
Hospita 1- for-evaluatton.andtreatmentfor concussion, COhtUsfQll ofth_e-
SEvnNl'ltCL4IiVI'FO It'tmf..ll1)i'
'BAtt};It-
-(I)d~p,Q.::j~~-.Wal_k~rl
--270. Plafntiffre; aJleges ahd;inc()rporates_._eveFy.])~rqgr(lpba.bove-.
271. miJ?iiiiary~Q}.201Z, pefendaritWalkel" ufilqwfu]li1.l~~clt(.)Tge ()g~lg$_t
;R1aintiffthat-fesulted ill-the-dffellsive;tQucningo}':Plaihtirft6s,ucha
'tle:gree -thpt-J?laint\ffwasreferred __ to--the .Em-ergenGy-Room at'Suburban
80
, e1l1P],Qyment" And'wide 'pubn~tiohQffai$esta'tement$:aho\it PJ(lintiffs'
jrWQJvell1elltjn'$WC)tti)1g~r\q'.9tb.erQrrJl1.es.C()llstittite~*xtrellie ~hd
:putta'geol1$con~qct.
277; Defendant5'tati.saland:jn concerttelCitiOJ1sbiptQ,t.lleaSS::tult:of
'PlaipQffbyDefend~ntWalker;'t:he,mallythreats of:C1~~t1tfnlcllnjuryto
P1~i.lltiff~lld'hisfamf1Y/.and.the.de111andsJOf'Pla)ntiffsarrest'and
Imprlsonmenton the basisoffalse statements about$wattings and other
crimes-demonstrates malice with anIntent.to cause maximum harm to
;PJaintift.
2781 Defendants' actions were 'doneIntentlonally and/orreeklessly in
CQnsci611s.disregardoftne:hign .probabillty'that PJaintiffs,'mentaI distress
wouldfellow,
'279~ There.wesa causal connection betweenthetortious acts of
Defendants and-the emotional-distress suffered byPlaintiff. Itis
intolerable In a civilized society to wrcngfullyaccuse someone of a
horrible crimeasdid most.of'theDefendants. ItIs intolerable to harass
Plaintiff'wlth.false allegations ofcrtminal-acttvlty for-years on end. Itis
intolerable to. cyher bully Plaintifffor crimes-that-occurred"more than 30
yearsago,
280~ ASa result 6f'Deferidants'adions,. P1aintiff has-strffered severe
emotional distress and mental anguish.
Case 8:13~cv~03059~GJHDocument 135 Filed 06124114Page 80 of 82
81
conductand todeterfuture occurrence;
Punitive damages as applicable to punish Defendants' reprehensible
exceeding $75}000,. that is -$2,000.000.
Compensatory damages and consequential damages in an amount
PRAYERFORRELIEF
compensatePlalntifffon injuries .resulting from Defendants' conduct,
punitive damages beyond and in excess of those damagesnecessaryto
harmfuleffects 011Plaintiff e . Accordingly, Plaintiffsrequests anaward of
of the profound wrongfulness <oftheir actions or omissions, and their
vengeance or deliberate Intent-to harm Plaintiff; or (2) reckless disregard
Defendantswere undertaken with either (1) mallciousness, spite, illwill,
gratrfi_(:Cition'from harm caused-to Plaintiff .Such.actlons or-omlsslens by
demQnstr(ltttmalice; egreglouscond uct, Insult, and-a-perverse
-.284. Theactionsor omisslens-ofDefendants setforth.Jn this Complaint.
damage.
NINTlfCL.AIM.F_O~ RELIEF
C()NSP)RAC'!P':COMM1:rSrAl"~-~LJ\~:rQlllS,
'(A.Il-_l)ct~n-qa.llt$:~f:eptsj'~on,&Sch~$tetl
--'.281. .Plalntiffre-alleges and;incQrpQrptes;evety-parawap'H-ahoVe~
282. The Uefendants:col1spired witb--ea_Q11,-Qth~t tp:c(>mmiftlie; state laW
82
March 71 2014
triable as of right bya jury.
Plaintiff Kimberlin hereby demands. a jury trial of allis sues in this action
Further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
Costs andfees incurred inthe prosecution of this action, and
narratives, fraud and tortious conduct;
Forfeiture of'allfunds raised bythe Defendants based on-their false
this action;
Defendants .from retaliating'ag(lins~ Plalntlffln any wayfor bringing
pr~litllblflryinjl.mctibn'and 9,permanent in]unetten that bars
mcltrdtng bQt'tiotHrnited to issuing a temporaryrestraining order,a
For-eqnltable reliefas.approprfate pursuant.to appllcablelaw,
book or-media over-whichtheyhave control;
aboutswattillg ClIld'o.ther uncharged-crimes byPlaintiffftoIn blcgs,
Ah order enjoining Defendants from engaging in fgt9r~tortious
inv61vementlri"'(lnY,sW<lttings;
.j, Treble qalllage~as.~:uthPdzdbyRltQ! :fa:usc1964(cJj
._ Dechn1ltoCY;'re]ief1l),the formQf~n' Orq~rfiJjdiQg th~t'Plaintitf;hadhh
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge Dated: , 2014
------------
SO ORDERED.
powers, in an amount to be determined by the Court.
incurred in defending this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) and under the Court's inherent
(2) The Blaze Defendants are hereby AWARDED COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the Blaze Defendants; and
(1) The Motion to Dismiss be, and hereby is, GRANTED, and this matter is
ORDERED THAT:
2014, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
and being otherwise fully informed in the grounds, it is on this day of _
and after reviewing the memorandum submitted in support and plaintiff s response in opposition
The Blaze, Inc., Mercury Radio Arts, and Glenn Beck (collectively, the "Blaze Defendants"),
Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by
. [PROPOSED] ORDER
v.
Plaintiff,
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Defendants.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l47-4 Filed 07/ll/l4 Page l of l

Ecf 147

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecf 147

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

You might also like