UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al., Defendants Case No. PWG 13-3059

DEFENDANT WALKERS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO WALKERS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMES NOW Defendant Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this reply to the Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant Walkers Motion to Exceed Limit and to Strike and states the following: 1. On February 3, 2014, Mr. Walker filed three documents: a reply to the Plaintiffs

opposition to Mr. Walkers motion to dismiss (Reply, ECF No. 55); a motion to strike all of the Plaintiffs oppositions to the motions to dismiss (Mot. to Strike Opps., ECF No. 54); and a motion for leave to exceed the page limit set for replies (Walker MFL, ECF No. 53). 2. On February 10, 2014, this court issued an order granting leave to exceed the page limit

set for replies, holding that in light of the complex issues in this case and the relatively minor degree by which the filing in question exceeds the page limit, that the request to exceed the page limit is reasonable[.] Order of Feb. 10, 2014, ECF No. 60. However, recognizing that the Plaintiff had not had a chance to file any opposition, this Court also stated this Order is subject to reconsideration in the

event that Plaintiff should file an opposition within fourteen days of this Order. Id. 3. On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed such an opposition (Pls Opp. to MFL, ECF

No. 61) that also doubled as an opposition to Mr. Walkers Mot. to Strike Opps. I. THE PLAINTIFF OFFERS NO LEGAL REASON TO OVERTURN THIS COURTS ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS 4. The Plaintiff offers absolutely no rebuttal to the actual reasoning of this courts order

granting leave to exceed the page limitations on replies. In fact, it is hard to imagine any reasonable person disputing the key facts this court relied on, namely: 1) that this is a complex case, and 2) that the proposed filing does not exceed the page limit by much. 5. Instead, the Plaintiff seems scandalized that Mr. Walker would even ask for such a

deviation while filing a motion that so deviates, writing: Defendant Walker admits that his [Reply] violates Local Rule 105.3, which limits a Reply [sic] to 25 pages. Yet he asks to violate that Rule in essence to respond to Plaintiffs Responses to other Defendants Motions to Dismiss. This court doesnt need to be told that the rule specifically allows for such a deviation by court order. 6. The Plaintiff also complains that the Reply responds not only to his opposition to Hoge

and Walkers motion to dismiss (Opp. to H&W, ECF No. 29), but also to his oppositions to DB Capital Strategies and the Franklin Centers respective motions to dismiss (Opp. to DBCS, ECF No. 30 and Opp. to TFC, ECF No. 31 respectively). However, he does not dispute that all three

documents make claims that involve Mr. Walker. As stated in the Walker MFL 8: the Plaintiff has made it clear that these oppositions are not to be considered in isolation. Instead he incorporates arguments from one opposition to another. See, e.g. Opp. to TFC 9, Opp. to DBCS 28 and Opp. to H&W 23-24. Even if he did not do so, many of the arguments and improper factual allegations he makes for the first time in his Opp. to TFC and Opp. to DBCS, are likely to have an impact on the consideration of Mr. Walkers Motion to Dismiss. Therefore effectively Mr. Walker must respond to all three 2

Oppositions. For example, in Amend. Compl. 76 (ECF No. 2) the Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Walker was a participant in DBCS alleged extortion attempt. Thus, when the Plaintiff continues to accuse DBCS of attempted extortion in the Opp. to DBCS, he is also accusing Mr. Walker, justifying a response. It was the Plaintiff who wove his arguments and allegations against Mr. Walker throughout all three oppositions. He cannot in good faith complain that Mr. Walker is responding to those arguments and allegations, wherever they may be found. 7. Furthermore, Mr. Walker has an interest in seeing all federal claims dismissed as to all

Defendants. As he stated in his Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Walkers Motion to Dismiss (Walker Memorandum, ECF No. 11) p. 32 n. 11: Defendant Walker has standing to challenge this and every cause of action based on federal law, even where his own conduct is not at issue, because this court can only have jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). Therefore Defendant Walker has a valid interest in seeing all federal claims dismissed as to all Defendants, so that all state claims against Mr. Walker might be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is impossible because Mr. Hoge and the Plaintiff are both domiciled in Maryland. 8. The Plaintiff also falsely claims that the Mot. to Strike Opps. just continues on where

his Reply left off. It does no such thing. It is designed to address the fact that the Plaintiff improperly made dozens of new allegations in his oppositions and an additional document, that he failed to properly affirm a declaration, and his continued defiance of this courts order to obey Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The Mot. to Strike Opps. also demonstrated the Plaintiffs bad faith in this lawsuit in order to counter any suggestion that the Plaintiff should be allowed to effectively amend his complaint with the new allegations in his oppositions. While a few minor points in the Reply rely on arguments made in the 3

Mot. to Strike Opps.such as pointing out when the Plaintiff misrepresents the contents of his own exhibitsthe Mot. to Strike Opps. is its own document designed to accomplish its own purposes. II. MR. WALKER IS NOT ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT ANYONE BUT HIMSELF 9. Mr. Walker is an attorney admitted and in good standing in Virginia and the District of

Columbia. He is not a Maryland lawyer. He has never pretended to be a Maryland lawyer, and he has never pretended to represent anyone but himself in a Maryland court as he has a right to do.1 10. The Plaintiffs overwrought accusation that Mr. Walker is attempting to represent other

parties in this case stems from the fact that 1) the Reply addresses allegations that affect Mr. Walkers interests in the Plaintiffs Opps. to DBCS and TFC, and 2) the Reply recommended relief would also benefit other Defendants.

The Plaintiff speciouslyalbeit creativelyclaims that Mr. Walker has no right to represent himself in this case based on a tortured reading of D. Md. local rule 101.1(a) which states that: Except as otherwise provided... only members of the Bar of this Court may appear as counsel in civil cases. Individuals who are parties in civil cases may only represent themselves... All parties other than individuals must be represented by counsel. (emphasis added). The Plaintiff believes that somehow because Mr. Walker is an attorney in other jurisdictions he has ceased to be an individual, who is specifically authorized to represent him or herself by this rule and by 28 U.S.C. 1654. However, the term individual is ordinarily understood in the law as referring to a natural person, as opposed to an artificial person such as a corporation. See, e.g. In re Oliver L. North, 12 F.3d 252 (D.C. Cir., 1994) (holding that the term individual is ordinarily understood as referring to natural persons). Contrary to what a million lawyer jokes might make one think, Mr. Walker and the distinguished judges of this court did not cease to be natural persons when they were admitted to the bar. The real purpose of the word individual in that rule is to limit the right of self-representation to natural personsas opposed to legal entitiesand, thus, make it clear that such entities are required to obtain counsel. Mr. Walker has as much right to represent himself as the Plaintiff, and the fact that Mr. Walker knows how to do so professionally is an asset and not a detriment. 4

11.

In regard to the first argument, as stated in paragraph 6 above, the Plaintiff chose to

weave allegations that affect Mr. Walker into all three oppositions. Further, as stated in paragraph 7 above, Mr. Walker has an interest in seeing all federal claims against all Defendants be dismissed, even if his personal behavior is not implicated. For that reason, Mr. Walker is not purporting to represent other Defendants interests in answering those oppositions so much as advocating for his own interests. 12. In regard to the second argument, the Plaintiff specifically complains in paragraph 10 that

Mr. Walker repeatedly asks the Court to dismiss the complaint for all parties. Reply at 1 and 31. In both cases, the complained-about passages are not citing the interests of the other parties, but this courts own interest in judicial economy. Not only is this permissible, but the Plaintiff has made arguments based on the same interest in paragraph 4 of his Motion For Extension of Time in Which to Respond to Pending Motions by Defendants (ECF No. 18). Thus, the Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Walker is

attempting to represent other parties is frivolous and, indeed, hypocritical. III. THE PLAINTIFF IMPROPERLY PLEADS NEW ALLEGATIONS AND THEREFORE THOSE NEW ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE DISREGARDED 13. In claiming that the Mot. to Strike Opps. and Reply are filed for an improper purpose

the Plaintiff again alleges a fresh array of false and conclusory allegations. The Plaintiff seems to think that in consideration of a motion to strike or a motion for leave to exceed page limitations, like in a motion to dismiss, all well-pled allegations made by the Plaintiff must be assumed to be true. This is not the case. 14. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c) this court can only rely on evidence that is on the record, or

on affidavits, oral testimony or depositions in deciding either motion. The bare, conclusory allegations of a proven liar are not sufficient. The Pls Opp. to MFL is not even a verified pleading, and, even if it 5

were, the Plaintiffs history of bald-faced lying undermines any credibility he might have. 15. This is, arguably, grounds to strike the Pls Opp. to MFL, but since the new allegations

are largely confined to one section (Defendant Walkers Pleadings Are Done [sic] For an Improper Purpose), this court can simply disregard paragraphs 12-15 of the Pls Opp. to MFL (and any other new allegations), except to the extent that they demonstrate the Plaintiffs bad faith. IV. THE PLAINTIFF OFFERS ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL REASON TO DENY THE MOTION TO STRIKE 16. contested. 17. The Plaintiff does not deny that the Declaration filed as Exhibit F to the Opp. to DBCS is Once again, it is worth taking a moment to review the points that Plaintiff has not even

improper because the affirmation does not include the phrase under penalty of perjury and should therefore be stricken. This is not merely a technical deficiency. Rather, as explained in In re McGuire, these words ensure that the declarant makes the statement with full cognizance of the consequences of lying: if an unsworn declaration is used, it must be under penalty of perjury, so the seriousness of the statements will be made evident to the witness. 450 BR 68, 71 (BC DC NJ 2011). 18. The Plaintiff doesnt deny that he had improperly attempted to amend his complaint

through his oppositions, and his Notification of Related Court Ruling (Notification, ECF No. 32) and, therefore, they should be stricken. The Plaintiff merely claims that Mr. Walker cannot raise that concern in relation to the Opps. to DBCS or TFC. Thus, he offers absolutely no defense to his improper conduct in the Opp. to H&W and the Notification, and no substantive defense related to his improper conduct in relation the Opps. to DBCS or TFC. That failure counsels in favor of striking all four documents. 6

19.

The Plaintiff doesnt dispute the legal argument that a plaintiff should not be granted an

amendment when the party seeking amendment has engaged in bad faith, as indeed he cannot. 20. Further, the Plaintiff doesnt dispute that he has actually shown bad faith. At best, he

claims in paragraph 14 of Pls Opp. to MFL that Defendant Walker has used his latest pleadings to make more defamatory allegations against Plaintiff in order to whip up his readers to engage in vigilante action against Plaintiff. Besides the obvious fact that nothing Mr. Walker has submitted to this court approaches the legal standard for incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (the government cannot forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action), the Plaintiff makes no attempt to specify what precisely is allegedly untrue in Mr. Walkers filings. 21. A brief review of the examples of the Plaintiffs bad faith, as cited in the Mot. to Strike

Opps., shows that most of these instances are irrefutable. The Mot. to Strike Opps. stated that the Plaintiff: 1) attempted to convince the non-party Twitchy that it was a party, including the forgery of a summons; 2) presented another apparently forged document purporting to represent refused service on Defendant McCain; 3) has repeatedly failed to serve parties as required, or failed to serve them properly and on a timely basis; 4) misstated the contents of his own exhibits three times; 5) misstated his criminal record; 6) misstated the contents of Mr. Walkers and Mr. Hoges respective motions to dismiss; 7) falsely claimed he never had a million dollar judgment against him; 8) falsely claimed he never sued a conservative blogger, and then in the same sentence admitted to suing a conservative blogger; 9) falsely claimed that Mr. Walker lost two attempts to have him declared a public figure; 10) falsely claimed a quote from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals came from the Maryland Court of Appeals; 11) 7

falsely claimed that a dissent in the Supreme Court was the opinion of the Court; 12) falsely claimed that Mr. Frey accused Mr. Kimberlin of SWATting; 13) misrepresented the contents of Mr. Freys alleged conversation with Mr. Brown; 14) misstated the contents of Mrs. Malkins and Mr. McCains websites; and 15) even lied about his own complaint. 22. The Plaintiff makes no effort to explain which, if any, of those points are false. Indeed,

he doesnt even offer an innocent explanation for this constant stream of easily proven falsehoods. He simply claims that the filings contained unspecified defamation. 23. Indeed, not only has the Plaintiff failed to offer any more than a mere hand-waving

rebuttal on these points, but the Plaintiff has amazingly engaged in further bad faith in the instant filing as will be shown in paragraphs 25-52. 24. Finally, the Plaintiff does not deny that he ignored this courts warning in its Letter Order

of January 7, 2014 (ECF No. 26) that Plaintiff is cautioned to comply with the requirements of Rule 11(a) and to include his address, email address, and telephone number on all future filings demonstrating again how little regard the Plaintiff has for this court or its rules. This provides an additional reason to strike the oppositions and the Notification in toto. V. THE PLAINTIFF HAS DEMONSTRATED BAD FAITH HIS LATEST FILING BY TELLING ADDITIONAL LIES AND BY ATTEMPTING TO APPEAL TO DISABILITY BIGOTRY 25. Faced with allegations that he has acted in bad faith, the Plaintiff has remarkably

provided this court with fresh examples of his bad faith in Pls Opp. to MFL, demonstrated in two ways. First, as in Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff has misled this courtindeed he has often told lies very similar to those pointed out in the Mot. to Strike Opps. Second, the Plaintiff has engaged in a new form of bad faith, by attempting to sway this court with vile bigotry against the disabled. These further 8

examples of bad faith bolster every argument in every filing (past or present) in which the Plaintiffs bad faith can be a factor. These new examples of bad faith strengthen the argument in the Reply that dismissal should be granted with prejudice, the argument in the Mot. to Strike Opps. that the Plaintiffs oppositions and Notification should not be treated as proper amendments to the complaint, and the argument against allowing the Plaintiff to add Twitchy as a party in Mr. Walkers Opposition to the Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Complaint Caption and Motion to Strike Same filed this same day. A. The Plaintiff has Demonstrated Bad Faith by Repeated Falsehoods. 26. (1) 27. The Plaintiff has demonstrated bad faith by making the following false claims: The Plaintiff Misstates His Criminal Record (Again). The Mot. to Strike Opps. excoriated the Plaintiff for falsely claiming he had committed

only one crime, pointing out that, conservatively speaking, the Plaintiff had actually been convicted of over 32 crimes. See Mot. to Strike Opps. p. 5. One might think that the Plaintiff, having lost face for such a brazen and foolhardy lie, would apologize to the court for attempting to mislead it. 28. Rather than apologizing and repenting of his deceit, the Plaintiff has done it again. In

Pls Opp. to MFL 13 the Plaintiff incredibly claims that he has only had a single conviction, writing: Defendant Walker acts as though Plaintiff must wear a Scarlett [sic] Letter on his forehead for life and must be attacked mercilessly until he is imprisoned, ostracized or killed. That Scarlett [sic] Letter is dated 1979 and before in the form of a conviction and prison sentence. Putting aside the Plaintiffs Passion play and his false allegations about Mr. Walkers state of mind, this court knows by now that the Plaintiff has been convicted a minimum of 32 times.2 Once again, one Previously, this same Plaintiff was specifically told by a federal court that he had more than one conviction even before he committed the crimes in the 1979 spree that included the Speedway Bombings. In Kimberlin v. White, 798 F.Supp. 472 (W.D. Tenn., 1992), he challenged the parole 9
2

wonders precisely who the Plaintiff expected to fool.3 (2) 29. The Plaintiff Misstates His Criminal Record (a Third Time). However, this was not the only deception in that passage; he also claimed that he served a

single sentence (That Scarlett [sic] Letter is dated 1979 and before in the form of a... prison sentence). Even if one pretends that his thirty sentences (for his thirty convictions in the crime spree of 1979 that included the Speedway Bombings) being served concurrently count as a single sentence, the Plaintiff previously served time for his perjury conviction. 30. Indeed, the Plaintiff has admitted it under oath. On April 11, 2012, a hearing was held in

Montgomery County Circuit Court on the first unsuccessful peace order the Plaintiff filed against Mr. Walker.4 On cross examination, Mr. Walkers attorney asked the Plaintiff about his criminal record, resulting in this exchange:

Q A Q A

But you were convicted? [Kimberlin] Of what? Perjury in connection with that and you served time in jail on that, didnt you? Yeah.

commissions finding in relation to when he would be eligible for parole for his convictions related to that spree. In that case he argued that the juvenile decision on the drug charge and the later perjury conviction are related and therefore should only be counted as one conviction. Id. at 482. However, the court rejected this claim, stating that these two prior convictions were counted separately for purposes of determining when he might be paroled for his crime spree in 1979. 3 The fact that the Plaintiff feels a compulsive need to dishonestly minimize his criminal history amounts to a silent confession that his proven criminal conduct rendered him odious, infamous and/or frightening, Amend. Compl. 181, long before the Defendants wrote a single word about him, bolstering arguments that the Plaintiff is defamation proof, Walker Memorandum pp. 42-45 4 Kimberlin v. Walker (I) (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2012) case number 8444D. 10

Q A

As an adult. Eighteen days.

Exhibit A, p. 74, lines 10-16. Therefore, the Plaintiffs claim to have only served one sentence is false. (3) 31. The Plaintiff Falsely Claims Mr. Walker Has Never Won A Motion Against the Plaintiff. In paragraph 15 of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff states that

Every legal pleading that Defendant Walker has filed against Plaintiff over the past 26 months has been denied, dismissed, nolle prossed, or ignored by a dozen judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials. Putting aside the utter irrelevancy of that statement, it is also false to suggest that every pleading has been denied, dismissed, or ignored when, in fact, many of Mr. Walkers motions have been granted. 32. For instance, in Kimberlin v. Allen,5 Mr. Walker was required to intervene to protect his

own interests. At the time, Mr. Walker was an anonymous writer on the Internet, and Mr. Kimberlin filed abusive subpoenas seeking to obtain Mr. Walkers identity. Through an attorney, Mr. Walker filed (as John Doe) a Motion to File Anonymously or Under Seal. If one examines the publicly available computer records6 for that file, one sees this entry on the docket where that motion was granted:

5 6

(Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2011) case number 339254V. All of these records are publicly available on the internet at http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry /inquiry-index.jsp and this court is invited to check for itself. However, the simpler method to find this site is to Google the phrase Maryland judiciary case search. It will be one of the first results. 11

33.

Meanwhile, as noted in Walkers Mot. to Require Verification (ECF No. 9) 18-19, the

Plaintiff learned of Mr. Walkers identity by other means and attempted to place a great deal of personal information about Mr. Walker in his motion to withdraw his subpoenas. Mr. Walker appeared in court on the next business day and orally moved that the Plaintiffs document be placed under seal. The motion was immediately granted as indicated by this docket entry:

34.

After that document was sealed, the Plaintiff filed a motion to unseal the same document.

Incredibly, the Plaintiff placed much of the very same information that had been sealed in that motion to unseal, forcing Mr. Walker to file a motion to place the Plaintiffs motion to unseal itself under seal. That motion was immediately granted sub silentio as indicated by these docket entries:

As this court can see, docket number 127, the Plaintiffs motion to unseal, was placed under seal. This 12

occurred after Mr. Walkers emergency motion at docket number 128. 35. Meanwhile, what is not obvious in that image taken from the docket is that the Plaintiff

had originally put some of that sealed information in the very title of his motion to unseal so that it would appear in this docket to anyone who accessed it via the Internet. Thus, as part of the emergency motion to seal the Plaintiffs motion to unseal, Mr. Walker asked that the docket entry be changed to remove that information. That request was also immediately granted sub silentio. 36. Then, in true absurdity, the Plaintiff filed a response to Mr. Walkers John Doe

emergency motion to place the Plaintiffs motion to unseal under seal, that also included information that had been sealed. This led to Mr. Walker having to file a motion to put that filing under seal, a motion that was granted immediately, resulting in the following docket entry:

While this whole sequence was absurd, it was the direct result of the Plaintiffs complete lack of respect for the Circuit Courts ruling on January 9, 2012. That court had stated that the information would be put under seal. The Plaintiff then filed for a motion to unseal that included the same information in the title of the motion, requiring the court to seal his motion to unseal and to change the title of the motion 13

in the docket entry. Even then, the Plaintiff still didnt take the hint, filing a third document containing the same information. This is a further example of the Plaintiffs history of bad faith. 37. Mr. Walker asks this courts indulgence with one more example. After the Plaintiffs

first peace order against Walker was dismissed on appeal, the Plaintiff filed a second peace order in Montgomery County District Court7 on the theory that writing negative things about the Plaintiff was automatically equivalent to incitement against hima theory he has repeatedly floated in the instant case. Shockingly, Judge Vaughey accepted the Plaintiffs theory in this exchange:

[The Court] So you get some -- and I'm going to use the word freak somewhere out in Oklahoma got nothing better to do with his time, so he does the nastiest things in the world he can to this poor gentleman [Kimberlin]. What right has that guy got to do it? [Mr. Walker] He has no right to do that, but Your Honor Because you incited him. But Your Honor, I did not incite him within the Brandenburg standard. Well, forget Brandenburg. Let's go by Vaughey right now, and common sense out in the world.

A Q A. Q

Exhibit B, p. 55, lines 6-16. Thus, in ignoring the Supreme Courts precedent in Brandenburg v. Ohio by name, Judge Vaughey forbade Mr. Walker from writing about the same Plaintiff, however peacefully, to a general audience, for six months. 38. It should not surprise this court that this flagrantly unconstitutional ruling did not stand.

Mr. Walker filed for a motion to partially stay the peace order pending appeal,8 seeking a restoration of
7 8

Kimberlin v. Walker (II) (Md. Mont. Co. Dist. Ct. 2012) case number 0601SP019792012. The appeal to the Montgomery County Circuit Court can be cited as Kimberlin v. Walker (II) (Md. 14

his freedom of expression. That motion was granted in this docket entry:

This is another example of Mr. Walker filing a motion with a court which was not denied, dismissed or ignored by the judge,9 but Mr. Walker also highlights this example for another reason: as this court can see, the motion giving Mr. Walker back his precious freedom of expression was granted on June 25, 2012. That was the same day that he was SWATted. (4) 39. The Plaintiff Misstates the Contents of His Own Exhibit (Again). In paragraph 14 of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff states (falsely) that Mr. Walker filed

Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2012) case number 8526D. 9 The Plaintiff also believes it was criminal that Defendants Walker, Hoge, Frey and Stranahan condemned Judge Vaughey online[.] Amend. Compl. 56. First, upon information and belief, these persons condemned Vaugheys flagrantly unconstitutional ruling and not the judge personally. Second, by pointedly citing Brandenburg in granting his partial stay of the peace order, it is reasonable to interpret Judge Rupps order as condemning Vaugheys ruling as well. As respected attorney and colorful legal commenter Ken White wrote upon reading Rupps order and its reference to Brandenburg, [t]hat, boys and girls, is what lawyers refer to as a benchslap. Ken White, Oh, Oh, Right. THAT Brandenburg, POPEHAT, June 25, 2012 (available at http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/25/oh-oh-rightthat-brandenburg/) visited February 12, 2014. This entire episode, ranging from when Plaintiff fastened upon Mr. Walker an unconstitutional prior restraint, as well the Plaintiffs attempt in this court to criminalize criticism of that ruling, demonstrates how little respect the Plaintiff has for the First Amendment. 15

these pleadings so he could publish yet more articles on his blog accusing Plaintiff of more imagined crimes. See Exhibit A, entitled, Convicted Document-Forger Brett Kimberlins Fraud On The Court, dated February 6, 2014. However, contrary to his statement, the exhibit he cites does not say what he claims it says. As the exhibit itself says, This will be the first in a series where I present to you various filings that have occurred in this case, in this case by Michelle Malkin and the non-party Twitchy. The exhibitwhich is not a true and correct copy of what Mr. Walker wrote, anywaydoes not include a copy of any document Mr. Walker filed with this court and neither did the piece that exhibit was inaccurately extracted from. Instead, it presented a copy of the motion to dismiss filed by Mrs. Malkin and the non-party Twitchy. (5) 40. The Plaintiff Misstates the Contents of His Own Exhibit (Yet Again). In the very next line of paragraph 14 of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff writes Defendant

Walker asks his readers to get out the popcorn and to send him money so he can rid the world of Plaintiff once and for all. Id. The Id. refers to the same Exhibit A, which does not contain the words get out the popcorn. It also contains no request that any person send Mr. Walker money. While there is a banner at the top of his blog that suggests that readers follow the links on the right side of the blog to help him, those links lead to a legal defense fund from which Mr. Walker is never personally enriched. Furthermore, he does not ask that the money be sent to help rid the world of the Plaintiff. Mr. Walker has never stated any intent to murder the Plaintiff (and if he had, surely the Plaintiff would have mentioned it before now). The Plaintiffs exhibitwhich again is not a true and correct copy of the originalbears almost no resemblance to what the Plaintiff says about it. (6) The Plaintiff Falsely Claims Mr. Walker Stated That He Supports the Harassment of the Plaintiff. During the Passion play in paragraph 13 of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff writes: 16

41.

[a]ccording to Defendant Walker, Plaintiff has no right to live his life without harassment and fear from reprisals. Any claim that Mr. Walker has stated that the Plaintiff should be harassed is false. He has never made such a statement, and it is not what he believes. Further, in every single post for over a year, in response to the Plaintiffs ludicrous claims that Mr. Walker was inciting violence against him, Mr. Walker has included a disclaimer to remove any doubt that he opposes vigilante violence or any other form of lawlessness directed at the Plaintiff. After telling persons not to contact the Plaintiff by any means, the disclaimer states: I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I dont want that to happen to him (emphasis added). In short, he has literally said the opposite of what the Plaintiff claims. 42. Further, any suggestion that Mr. Walker supports or condones vigilantism is false. He

has never made any such statement and, indeed, also states in his disclaimer that the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal processsuch as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counterproductive. (emphasis removed). So it is misleading to suggest he supports vigilante violence against the Plaintiff. 43. Previously the Mot. to Strike Opps. made the argument that the Plaintiffs continued

falsehoods, made even when he was certain to be caught, demonstrated his bad faith. Rather than rebut those allegations with any kind of specificity, or repent of his dishonesty, the Plaintiff has doubled down, with new allegations that can also be easily proven false. Those cited above are not the only falsehoods the Plaintiff has written in his Passion play in paragraphs 12-15 of Pls Opp. to MFL or in the filing as a whole, but they are the most easily proven false. This court should find that the Plaintiff has acted in bad faith, refuse all attempts to amend his complaint, and grant all dismissals with prejudice. 17

44. B.

Remarkably, the Plaintiff has chosen to compound his bad faith by stooping even lower.

The Plaintiff has Demonstrated Bad Faith By Attempting to Sway This Court with Bigotry Towards the Disabled. 45. An additional way that the Plaintiff has engaged in bad faith is by a transparent attempt to

appeal to this court with bigotry toward the disabled. In paragraph 12, of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff falsely claims that Mr. Walker admittedly suffers from multiple psychiatric handicaps and goes on falsely to suggest that those alleged handicaps give him an obsessive personality. 46. Mr. Walker does not have a psychiatric handicap or disability as that term is commonly

understood. For instance, at Douglas Colleges website, they describe psychiatric disabilities as involving disturbances in thinking, emotion, and behavior and list as examples depression, schizophrenia, social anxiety, specific phobias, eating disorders, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorders, and substance abuse.10 doesnt have any of these conditions or anything like them. 47. What he does have is what are commonly referred to as Learning Disabilities or Specifically, Mr. Walker has dyslexia, dysgraphia, and attention deficit Mr. Walker

Learning Differences.

disorder (ADD and sometimes designated ADHD). People with these disabilities have challenges to overcome just as paraplegics and the blind have challenges to overcome. Some of the challenges are presented directly by their disabilities and some of the challenges are presented by the prejudice inspired by those disabilities. However, persons with any of these disabilities are not any more likely to have an obsessive personality or indeed any other defect of personality than any normal person. 48.
10

As Mr. Walker wrote in a Declaration years ago when seeking an equal opportunity while

Mental Health/Psychiatric Disabilities (available at http://www.douglas.bc.ca/services/centre-fordisabilities/documentation/mental.html) visited February 12, 2014. 18

applying to law school:11 The best way I can explain [what learning disabilities are] is as follows. Our bodies are essentially machines; we are biological robots. Just like any man-made machine, sometimes these biological machines malfunction. However, a malfunction in one part does not mean the entire machine is useless and since human beings are infinitely more valuable than any mere machine, we would want to make the fullest use we can of those with these malfunctions. That is, just because a persons eyes dont work, doesnt mean we shouldnt attempt to offer him or her the opportunity to live a full life. Our minds are also machines, to a large extentvery much like a sophisticated computer, only I believe we have souls, too. In the mind, we have one part that serves as a reading machine, another for calculation, another for writing and so on. These mental machines can malfunction, just as our bodies do; and that is what we call learning disabilities. It is easy to imagine, in this age of computers, how a couple of crossed wires in the mind could create the letter switching that dyslexics are famous for. However, just a malfunction in one part of the body does not necessarily mean the whole body is affected, a malfunction in one part of the brain is not necessarily going to affect any other part, and thus learning disabled people have a great deal to offer, if only given the opportunity to do so. Except for the direct effect of those disabilities, people with learning disabilities are just like anyone else, able to function in society just as successfully as a person with a so-called physical disability. They are not barred from the legal profession, for instance. As future Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote [t]here is no insinuation, and I cannot find, that Dr. Bartlett [a dyslexic] is incapable of performing the functions of a practicing lawyer. Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 970 F. Supp. 1094, 1128 (SD N.Y. 1997). That case involved an aspiring attorney who appears to have a more severe case of dyslexia than Mr. Walker: she can barely read. However, this did not disqualify her from the legal profession, the Bartlett court reasoning that [i]f the bar examination were intended to test a person's visual ability to read or a person's ability to perform under time pressure, there would be no blind attorneys. Thankfully, this This was in AJW v. Law School Admission Council (1998) 98-cv-01329-R. Mr. Walker was only identified as AJW because he did not want to make his disabilities a matter of public record and they probably would not be today, but for the Plaintiffs relentless efforts to place it in the public record. 19
11

is very far from the reality of modern law practice. Id. at 1130. This squares with Mr. Walkers own experience when he sought admission to the legal profession. Not only did the bar associations know of his disabilities, but they felt that they were so irrelevant that they accommodated those disabilities on the bar exam without any difficulty and found that he possessed the character and fitness necessary to become an attorney. 49. Nor do such disabilities make a person strange or abnormal in most other professions.

Upon information and belief, famous dyslexics include Whoopi Goldberg, Mohammed Ali, Leonardo da Vinci and attorney David Boies.12 Louis Pasteur had dysgraphia, while Albert Einstein, Judge Jeffrey H. Gallet,13 and even President George Washington, had both dyslexia and dysgraphia. Given that Thomas Jefferson had dyslexia as well, it can be said that learning disabled persons account for half of the population of Mr. Rushmore. Business leaders such as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Frank W. Woolworth have been diagnosed with dyslexia, while JetBlue Airways founder David Neeleman, CEO of Cisco Systems John T. Chambers, Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad, Kinkos founder Paul Orfalea have dyslexia and ADD/ADHD.14 These corporations are not run by lunatics. Chances are this court has had

Mr. Boies is most famous for representing Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Mr. Boies and Mr. Walker were both interviewed as examples of successful dyslexics by Dr. Sally Shaywitz, M.D., for a book called Overcoming Dyslexia: A New and Complete Science-Based Program for Reading Problems at Any Level designed in significant part to try to change public perceptions of learning disabled persons (2005). Then a law student, Mr. Walker appears in that book under the fictitious name Hannah and other details are changed in an attempt to protect his anonymity, but nonetheless, this Professor of Neurology considered Mr. Walker to be a positive example of a person with dyslexia to hold up to the public. 13 Wolfgang Saxon, Obituary: J.H. Gallet, 58, Federal Judge Who Transcended Disabilities, Is Dead, NEW YORK TIMES, April 27, 2001. 14 The list of persons cited as having these disabilities is gathered from the following sources visited on February 13, 2014: Famous People with ADHD, ADULT ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER CENTER OF 20

12

attorneys with one of more of these disabilities appear before it, although it might not have been aware at the time. Indeed, there is hardly a person alive who has no one in their circle of friends, relatives and respected acquaintances that doesnt include at least one person who has some form of learning disability or ADD. They are not emotional lepers or pariahs. They are perfectly ordinary people who simply have challenges to overcome. 50. Indeed, at the risk of bragging, Mr. Walkers own life is a testament to his strength and

stability of character. When he entered high school, he was met with severe discrimination because of his disabilities: both passive discrimination in the form of teachers refusing his requests for reasonable accommodation and active discrimination by singling him out for different treatment from the other students. Looking ahead, Mr. Walker decided there would be no way that he could make it through college and he dropped out before his senior year. 51. This was undoubtedly a low point in his life. But he did not turn to drugs to escape his

problems or turn to criminality to earn the money he felt was due. Unlike the Plaintiff, who never faced any difficulty that he was not personally the author of, Mr. Walker did not engage in self-

MARYLAND (available at http://www.addadult.com/index.php/add-education-center/famous-peoplewith-adhd); Brittany Shoot, Famous People With ADHD and Learning Disabilities, ADDITUDE (available at http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/8681.html); Dysgraphia and Organization, DYSGRAPHIA.ORG.UK (available at http://dysgraphia.org.uk/index.php/dysgraphia-and-memory); Famous People with the Gift of Dyslexia, DYSLEXIA THE GIFT (available at http://www.dyslexia.com/famous.htm) and Successful People with Dyslexia, THE MENTIS FOUNDATION, (available at http://www.mentisfoundation.org/node/8). Additional famous dyslexics include Harry Belafonte, Jay Leno, John Lennon, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nolan Ryan, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Henry Ford, Charles Schwab, Richard Branson, Ted Turner, Scott Adams, Agatha Christie, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and William Butler Yeats. Famous persons with ADD/ADHD include Howie Mandel, Salma Hayek, Justin Timberlake, Woody Harrelson, Terry Bradshaw, and James Carville. 21

destructive behavior. Instead, a few years later when Mr. Walker began seeing changes in attitudes about disabled persons, he tried to obtain an education again, and, for the first time in his life, was provided a fair chance.15 He got his high school equivalency diploma (commonly called a GED) on the first try and without taking any additional courses. Then, he enrolled at the University of North Texas. Four years later, Mr. Walker graduated summa cum laude. With a high LSAT score, he was admitted into Yale Law School where he excelled, winning the respect of luminaries such as Second Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi and former Senator Gary Hart. But he is most proud of the fact that he is probably the only person to ever hold both a GED and a juris doctorate from Yale Law School. The point of this story is not, however, to brag about all that Mr. Walker has overcome, but to make the simple point that, rather than having disturbances in thinking, emotion, and behavior as the Plaintiff attempted to suggest, Mr. Walker has shown a strength and stability of character that far outstrips the decidedly poor character of the Plaintiff. 52. The Plaintiffs attempt to depict Mr. Walker as having what is more commonly thought

of as a mental illness16 is simply a new version of the old stereotype that being crippled was an outward sign of inner deformity.17 The Plaintiffs false portrayal of Mr. Walker as having psychiatric

He dropped out of high school shortly before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. went into effect. 16 Falsely accusing a person of having a mental illness is a common tactic of the Plaintiff. Twice when his wife attempted to leave him, upon information and belief, the Plaintiff filed papers claiming she was mentally ill and seeking to have her involuntarily committed as an intimidation tactic. Both petitions were found to be without merit and she has indeed been given a clean bill of mental health. 17 Aaron J. Walker, No Distinction Would Be Tolerated: Thaddeus Stevens, Disability, and the Original Intent of the Equal Protection Clause, 19 YALE L. & POLY REV. 265, 276 (2000) (quoting Ralph Korngold, THADDEUS STEVENS: A BEING DARKLY WISE AND RUDELY GREAT 34 (1955)). See also Paula Berg, Ill/Legal: Interrogating the Meaning and Function of the Category of Disability in 22

15

handicaps is a futile attempt to inflame anti-disability bigotry in this court. Lawyers often say that if the law is against you, pound the facts; if the facts are against you, pound the law; and if both are against you, pound the table. Historically pounding the table has unfortunately included pounding bigotry of various forms: he must be guilty because he is black, she must be lying about being raped because she is a loose woman, or they were justified in killing him because he was gay. Mr. Kimberlins grubby and obvious attempt to pound the table with bigotry is another example of the Plaintiffs bad faith. One can never appeal to bigotry in good faithin a court of law or anywhere else. 53. Accordingly, this court should find that the Plaintiff has acted in bad faith, because of his

deceit and his transparent attempt to sway this court with disability-based bigotry. Accordingly, every attempt to amend his complaint should be denied, and every claim that is dismissed, should be dismissed with prejudice, because of that bad faith. CONCLUSION In relation to his opposition to granting leave to exceed the page limitation on replies, the Plaintiff has offered nothing to rebut the central logic of this courts ruling: that this case is complex, and the deviation is slight. In relation to his opposition to both motions, the Plaintiff frivolously claims that Mr. Walker is attempting to represent other parties when in fact he is advancing his own interests and this courts interest in the efficient administration of justice. In relation to his new allegations that Mr. Walker has an improper purpose in filing his motions, since these allegations are not supported by the record of this case or any testimony, declaration or affidavit, this court should simply disregard Antidiscrimination Law, 18 YALE L. & POLY REV. 1, 5-6 (1999) (discussing prejudicial attitudes toward disabled persons in history). Cf. Fred Pelka, THE ABC-CLIO COMPANION TO THE DISABILITY RIGHTS MOVEMENT 200 (1997) ([in movies] disabled characters [are often] portrayed as embittered by their disability, even setting out to wreak vengeance on the nondisabled world). 23

them. Likewise, the Plaintiff has only offered a general and vague denial to the numerous documented instances of the Plaintiffs bad faith, while offering this court further examples of his bad faith, even making a disgusting attempt to inflame bigotry against Mr. Walker based on the disabilities he has overcome.

Accordingly, this court should not reconsider its order granting the Walker MFL, this court should grant his Mot. to Strike Opps., and it should grant his Motion to Dismiss with prejudice because of the bad faith that the Plaintiff has demonstrated and that dismissal should be granted for all other Defendants in the name of judicial economy, and any other relief that this court deems just and equitable.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq. [personal information, verification page and exhibits omitted]

24