MARYLAND:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Aaron Walker,
[redacted]
Manassas, Virginia 20109
Plaintiff
v.

Case No.

State of Maryland,
Service on:
Office of Attorney General,
200 St. Paul Place,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County,
(Official Capacity Only)
191 East Jefferson St.
Rockville, Maryland 20850-2325
John McCarthy,
States Attorney for Montgomery County,
(Official Capacity Only)
50 Maryland Ave, 5th Floor,
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Defendants

FIRST AMENDMED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES, the Plaintiff, Aaron Walker, Esq., and files this First Amended Complaint
against the Defendant, the State of Maryland and individual entities of the state, specifically the
Montgomery County District Court and the Montgomery County District Commissioner, in their
official capacities.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

Although more detail will be provided shortly, a brief overview may be useful.

Brett Coleman Kimberlin is a felon with convictions related to a serial bombing campaign,
perjury, document forgery, and other crimes less relevant to these proceedings. For well over
five years, Mr. Kimberlin has been attempting to rehabilitate his reputation, not by doing good
works demonstrating that he has reformed but by brass-knuckle reputation management
involving attempts to intimidate those who speak and write about him into silence concerning his
criminal past and current activities.
2.

This lawsuit is concerned, however, with a specific aspect of Mr. Kimberlins

intimidating behaviorthe way he has enlisted the aid of instrumentalities and agents of the state
of Maryland to carry out his campaign to silence his critics, particularly Mr. Walker. Such
conduct has violated the rights of Mr. Walker and others under the Maryland Constitution. First,
on January 3, 2012, Mr. Kimberlin attempted to extort Mr. Walker into silence by threatening to
file false criminal charges. When Mr. Walker refused to give in to that extortion, Mr. Kimberlin
attempted to frame Mr. Walker for a crime and succeeded to a large degree. This was made
possible because a Montgomery County, Maryland, District Court Commissioner didnt believe
one must have evidence in order to determine that there is probable cause, and by a States
Attorneys office that didnt review the video evidence exonerating Mr. Walker for nearly three
months.

This harmed Mr. Walker as follows: by causing stress and anxiety; potentially

contributing to the loss of Mr. Walkers job; and causing legal fees to be incurred when
defending against this attempt to frame him.
3.

When Mr. Walker reported to the public about Mr. Kimberlins attempt to frame

him for a crime and about the indifference of state officials to Mr. Kimberlins criminal conduct,

Mr. Kimberlin used the instrumentalities of the State of Maryland to silence and harass Mr.
Walker again. Specifically, he convinced the Commissioner to file criminal charges against Mr.
Walker based on allegations that, even if true, did not amount to criminal conduct. Based on
these allegations of a non-crime, the Commissioner also put out a warrant for Mr. Walkers
arrest. Mr. Walker was arrested and incarcerated shortly afterward. No official from the State of
Maryland has even apologized for this.

Most egregious, Mr. Kimberlin convinced Judge

Cornelius Vaughey to prohibit Mr. Walker from writing as a journalist about Mr. Kimberlin for
six months, a ruling so flagrantly unconstitutional that Judge Vaughey disregarded controlling
Supreme Court precedent by name. When Judge Rupp stayed that ruling on appeal, he cited
same case Vaughey disregarded. However, Mr. Walker was silenced for nearly a month. Such
conduct violated Mr. Walkers rights under the Maryland Declaration of Rights, trespassing upon
Mr. Walker right to free expression (Art. 40), his right to be free from unreasonable seizures (Art.
26), and his right to due process (Art. 24). Mr. Walker seeks a vindication of these rights in this
lawsuit in order to compensate him for his losses and to deter similar misconduct in the future.
INTRODUCTION
4.

The Defendant District Courts of Maryland for Montgomery County is an of

Defendant the State of Maryland and is being sued in their official capacity only.
5.

Mr. Walker is, and at all relevant times was, a lawyer in good standing in Virginia

and the District of Columbia. Outside of traffic infractions, Mr. Walker has a clean criminal
record and, indeed, had never even been arrested until the events that are the subject of this suit.
6.

Mr. Kimberlin is not a party, but it is worth taking a moment to introduce him. He

is a convicted felon with a long criminal history. He is best known as The Speedway Bomber.
The Sixth Circuit described that crime spree as follows:

[Brett] Kimberlin was convicted as the so-called "Speedway Bomber," who

terrorized the city of Speedway, Indiana, by detonating a series of explosives in
early September 1978. In the worst incident, Kimberlin placed one of his bombs
in a gym bag, and left it in a parking lot outside Speedway High School. Carl
Delong was leaving the high school football game with his wife when he
attempted to pick up the bag and it exploded. The blast tore off his lower right leg
and two fingers, and embedded bomb fragments in his wife's leg. He was
hospitalized for six weeks, during which he was forced to undergo nine operations
to complete the amputation of his leg, reattach two fingers, repair damage to his
inner ear, and remove bomb fragments from his stomach, chest, and arm. In
February 1983, he committed suicide.
Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527, 528-29 (6th Cir. 1993):
7.

This is certainly not the only criminal or immoral thing Mr. Kimberlin had done.

Mr. Kimberlin also has a history of dishonesty. He has been convicted of perjury, (see, e.g.,
United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F. 2d 210, 234 (7th Cir. 1986)), and of crimes related to
document forgery, id. at 228-229. Later, he was found to be liable to the DeLong widow for over
$1 million, but proceeded to engage in deceitful maneuvers to hide his ability to pay this debt,
his conduct becoming so atrocious that his parole was revoked as a result. Kimberlin v. Dewalt,
12 F. Supp. 2d 487, 494 (D.Md. 1998).
8.

News reports also state that he was involved in the attempt to frame someone else

for his serial bombings. According to the report, attached as Exhibit A to the original complaint, 1
while in jail Mr. Kimberlin attempted to hire an inmate to plant a bomb made with components
identical to the bombs he terrorized the town with in order to falsely imply someone else
committed his crimes. Fortunately, that inmate snitched, thwarting this plan. Later, the same
article details how Mr. Kimberlin placed bomb-making materials in the yard of a person
cooperating with the police in various investigations of him to frame them for the Speedway
bombings.
1 R. Joseph Gelarden, Kimberlin Case a Maze of Murder, Deceit, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, October
18, 1981 at 1 (available at http://archive.indystar.com/assets/pdf/ BG164276919.PDF) visited on
January 7, 2015.
4

9.

Since leaving prison more than a decade ago, Mr. Kimberlin has set himself up as

a liberal political activist. He runs two non-profits: the Justice Through Music Project, and
Velvet Revolution. Both charities appear to do little to no actual charity work and appear to be
run as Mr. Kimberlins personal piggy bank. Indeed, Mr. Kimberlin claims to work full time for
both charities, at eighty hours a week, but claims to be only paid by onea pittance of $19,500
to support a family including two children.
HOW MR. WALKER CROSSED MR. KIMBERLINS PATH
10.

In 2009 or 2010, Seth Allen, a resident of Massachusetts became aware of Mr.

Kimberlin and his criminal background. Mr. Allen is a liberal, and he felt that a person with Mr.
Kimberlins criminal background should not be a face of his political affiliation. He also
believed that Mr. Kimberlins charities were cons taking useful cash and attention away from
more worthy organizations.

He began writing about Mr. Kimberlin online, calling him a

terrorist, a liar and a confidence man.

11.

On October 11, 2010, Mandy Nagy wrote an article for Breitbart.com entitled

Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist. This article can be accessed via the internet at:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2010/10/11/progressives-embrace-convictedterrorist/. The article details how Mr. Kimberlin had become a political activist and his criminal
past. Every word in that article was sourced from either court documents or the reporting of
others. She did not do original reporting; she simply aggregated the reporting of others.
12.

Shortly afterward, J. Patrick Frey, Esq., published an article for Patterico.com

entitled Brad Friedmans Partner and Buddy: A Convicted Bomber, Perjurer, and Drug
Smuggler, Suspected Murderer . . . and Election Integrity HERO!!! detailing how another
prominent liberal activist had associated himself with this convicted felon. This article can be

accessed via the internet at: http://patterico.com/2010/10/11/brad-friedmans-partner-and-buddya-convicted-bomber-perjurer-and-drug-smuggler-suspected-murderer-and-election-integrityhero/. Mr. Frey writes for and runs this site as a hobby, while his day job is as a Deputy
District Attorney in the Hardcore Gang Unit, in the Los Angeles County District Attorneys
Office. Soon thereafter, Mr. Kimberlin wrote to Mr. Frey and Ms. Nagy threatening them with
lawsuits. Mr. Frey responded by asking Mr. Kimberlin to specify what fact he was getting
wrong, and offeringif Mr. Kimberlin had proofto correct any errors. Mr. Kimberlin refused
to detail any specific errors, writing instead that I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and
another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and
money[.]

The

full

text

of

this

email

exchange

can

be

accessed

at:

http://patterico.com/2010/10/11/brett-kimberlin-threatens-to-sue-me/.
13.

At that time, Mr. Walker wrote journalistically on Patterico.com during his off

hours: his day job was as corporate counsel for a home healthcare agency. Mr. Walker wrote
anonymously (as Aaron Worthing) for two reasons. First, Mr. Walker has hidden disabilities,
and he wanted to protect himself from unlawful discrimination while speaking freely about his
experiences with those disabilities and the discrimination they inspired. Second, Mr. Walker had
participated online in protests against terroristic attempts to silence others and, out of deference
to his wifes fears, he wished to remain anonymous for that reason as well.
14.

Shortly after these lawsuit threats, Mr. Kimberlin did sue Mr. Allen. Kimberlin v.

Allen, No. 339254V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2011). Specifically, he claimed that by calling him
a terrorist, a liar, and a con-man, Mr. Allen had defamed himeven though he was collaterally
estopped from denying these claims by prior convictions and his parole revocation. He also
claimed that Mr. Allen called Mr. Kimberlin a pedophile. Although Mr. Allen claimed he never

called him that ironically, Mr. Kimberlin recently lost another case for defamation because Mr.
Walker and others called him a pedophile. Mr. Walker and his co-defendants won that case on
the issue of truth.
15.

While Mr. Kimberlin didnt immediately sue Mr. Frey or Ms. Nagy, he and his

allies began a campaign of intimidation against them both, attempting to get them fired from
their jobs, placing their personal information on the internet, and writing defamatory pieces
about them on the internet. Mr. Kimberlin and his allies learned that Ms. Nagy was a victim of
sexual assault and mocked her for her suffering. Mr. Kimberlin and his allies filed false bar
complaints against Mr. Frey, tried to contact attorneys who Mr. Frey had dealt with in court, took
a picture of a naked man in a Viking helmet and falsely claimed it was Mr. Freyall to punish
him for speaking truthfully about Mr. Kimberlin.
16.

Most seriously, Mr. Frey was SWATted. This is a relatively new term referring to

a prank in which a person calls the police and makes a false report of a dangerous situation. In
Mr. Freys case, someone called 911 using a hacker technique to make emergency services
believe the impersonator was calling from Mr. Freys home number. The caller told 911 that he
was Mr. Frey and that he had shot his wife. Then he hung up. The purpose of this call was to
invoke an extreme and dangerous police response, ideally with a SWAT team being called to the
home. This is where SWATting gets its name and its unusual capitalization.
17.

This caller was successful. Just after midnight, on July 1, 2011, the police came

knocking at Mr. Freys door. He opened it to see several guns pointed at his face. Mr. Frey had a
phone in his hand because Kimberlins ally, Ron Brynaert, had just called him. If Mr. Frey had
been unlucky, one of the police might have mistaken that phone for a gun and killed him. Mr.
Frey later obtained a copy of the fraudulent 911 call and commissioned voice print analysts to

determine the identity of the caller. The report found with over ninety percent certainty that Ron
Brynaert made the SWATting call.
18.

One can read a more detailed description of the harassment Mr. Frey faced at the

hands of Mr. Kimberlin and his allies and listen to the SWATting call at this internet address:
http://patterico.com/2012/05/25/convicted-bomber-brett-kimberlin-neal-rauhauser-ron-brynaertand-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism/.
19.

Turning back to the lawsuit against Seth Allen, since Mr. Allen was writing under

a pseudonym, Mr. Kimberlin went through the process of identifying him under Independent
Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415 (2009). On or about July 14, 2011, Mr. Kimberlin
obtained a default judgment against Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen has always maintained that the default
was obtained by fraud.

Mr. Kimberlin has a history of forgery, and he has subsequently

confessed to forging a summons in one case (Exhibit B to the original complaint), and forging a
return receipt green card used to serve process in another case, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. No.
380966V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2013) (Exhibit C to the original complaint), lending credibility
to Mr. Allens allegations.
20.

Because Ms. Nagy had prominently written about Mr. Kimberlin, Mr. Allen

reached out to her to seek help in dealing with the lawsuit. Ms. Nagy and Mr. Frey were friends
and, therefore, Ms. Nagy knew of Mr. Walker through Mr. Frey.
21.

On or about August 22, 2012, Ms. Nagy suggested that Mr. Allen contact Mr.

Walker. Although Mr. Walker could only provide limited help given that he is not a Maryland
lawyer, he did provide Mr. Allen brief, free legal advice.
22.

On or about November 14, 2011, a hearing was held in Kimberlin v. Allen. In that

hearing, Mr. Allen attempted to set aside the default, but lacking any legal training was unable to

do so. In the same hearing, the court determined what damages had been done to Mr. Kimberlin
based on the defaulted complaint. The court found no damages were proven, and granted only
nominal damages as well as an injunction forbidding Mr. Allen from defaming Mr. Kimberlin.
23.

Mr. Kimberlin then immediately claimed that Mr. Allen had violated that order

and obtained a January 9, 2012 hearing on whether Mr. Allen was in contempt.
24.

By then, Mr. Kimberlin had learned that Mr. Walker had helped Mr. Allen, but he

did not yet know Mr. Walkers real name. As one might imagine with a person willing to bomb
an entire town for nearly a week, Mr. Kimberlin does not think rationally, and therefore he
concluded that by giving Mr. Allen legal advice, Mr. Walker was somehow a co-conspirator with
Mr. Allen. With a veiled threat, Mr. Kimberlin wrote an email to Mr. Walker on December 17,
2011, demanding that Mr. Walker testify against Mr. Allen, his client.
25.

Mr. Walker refused to buckle to that threat.

Mr. Kimberlin then sought a

subpoena to obtain Mr. Walkers identifying information. Mr. Walker, through counsel Beth
Kingsley, filed a motion to quash that subpoena. He also went public concerning how Mr.
Kimberlin was trying to obtain that information, publishing the entirety of that motion to quash
online (with only minor redactions).
26.

That motion to quash included accusations that Mr. Kimberlin committed perjury

repeatedly on November 14, 2011, and recommending that the judge refer this case to
appropriate authorities. Most egregiously, Mr. Kimberlin claimed his parole had never been
revoked, even though one can read about it in the Federal Supplement. Mr. Walker published a
redacted copy of that motion on the internet and Mr. Kimberlin was aware of this fact.
27.

According to later testimony, Mr. Kimberlin learned of Mr. Walkers true identity

by other meansallegedly an anonymous tipon or about December 31, 2011.

28.

On January 3, 2012, Mr. Kimberlin sent an email to Ms. Kingsley. Although

styled as a settlement offer, in fact it was an attempt to extort Mr. Walker into silence. It was also
fraudulent because Mr. Kimberlin represented that he didnt know Mr. Walkers identity. He
demanded that Mr. Walker take down all posts discussing him and his criminal conduct and
threatened to file false criminal charges against Mr. Walker if he refused. When Mr. Walker
didnt give in to those overt threats, Mr. Kimberlin set out to do exactly what he threatened to do.
MR. KIMBERLIN TRIES TO FRAME MR. WALKER FOR A CRIME
29.

On or about January 6, 2012, Mr. Kimberlin filed a motion to withdraw his

subpoena on the basis of the fact he had received Mr. Walkers identity by other means.
Although the only thing Mr. Kimberlin needed to include is the fact he had obtained the
information by other sources, he included the following information: 1) Mr. Walkers real name,
2) his home address, 3) his birth date, 4) what high school he attended, 5) the fact Mr. Walker
dropped out of high school, 6) the fact Mr. Walker obtained a GED, 6) the fact Mr. Walker
obtained a degree at the University of North Texas, 7) the fact Mr. Walker graduated from Yale
Law School in 2002, 8) Mr. Walkers current job, 9) his current employer, 10) his current
employers address, and even 10) facts related to a case filed under seal.
30.

This was done with the specific intent of putting this personal information into the

public record and, from there onto the internet.

One of Mr. Kimberlins self-described

associates, Neal Rauhauser, has a long history of taking any information Mr. Kimberlin filed in
court and putting it on the web.

Therefore, Mr. Kimberlin regularly puts personal and

embarrassing facts, and allegations into legal documents, so that Mr. Rauhuaser could publish it
on the internet under the veil of simply sharing public documents. This practice is referred to as
doxxing.

10

31.

Mr. Kimberlin didnt serve this document on Mr. Walker until January 7, 2012, a

Saturday. He did not serve it on Ms. Kingsley but sent it by email to Mr. Walker, in order to
taunt Mr. Walker with the fact he had doxxed Mr. Walker.
32.

On Monday, January 9, a hearing was held on whether Mr. Allen was in contempt.

Mr. Walker appeared at that hearing and made an emergency oral motion to seal the motion to
withdraw filed by Mr. Kimberlin. Mr. Kimberlin was asked by Judge Rupp why he felt it was
necessary to put this amount of personal information into the motion, and Mr. Kimberlin stated
that he wanted to share it with the world. Finding no justification for the inclusion of all of this
personal information into the public record, Judge Rupp granted Mr. Walkers motion to seal.
33.

It is worth noting that Mr. Kimberlin claimed he needed Mr. Walker information

in order for Mr. Walker to testify at the haring against the man to whom he briefly gave legal
advice. However, the hearing proceeded, and Mr. Kimberlin never attempted to call Mr. Walker
as a witness. At the end of the hearing, the court found that no defamation had occurred and
dismissed the motion to hold Mr. Allen in contempt.
34.

After the hearing, Mr. Kimberlin tried to intimidate Mr. Walker again, saying, I

would suggest, Mr. Walker, that you leave me alone.

35.

Mr. Walker replied, I will continue to tell the truth about you. Mr. Walker

continued to interrogate Mr. Kimberlin about his misconduct as they moved out into the lobby
area outside the courtroom, asking him why he didnt call Mr. Walker to the stand if he needed
his testimony so badly. At that point, Mr. Kimberlin raised an iPad he had in his possession as
though to do something with it. Knowing Mr. Kimberlin was angry and knowing he had a
violent history, Mr. Walker made a split second decision to take the iPad from him for fear of
what the device might do. Mr. Walker did this peaceably, causing no damage to Mr. Kimberlins

11

person and, indeed, without touching his body once. He simply took the iPad and, being about
half a foot taller than Mr. Kimberlin, held the device away from him until courthouse personnel
could arrive to sort the matter out. When courthouse security arrived, Mr. Walker surrendered
the iPad without incident. He forthrightly explained what he had done and the motives for his
actions. A subsequent court found that Mr. Walker had acted in reasonable self-defense.
36.

However, Mr. Kimberlin saw an opportunity to frame Mr. Walker for a crime, to

punish him for expression in court documents and on the internet. In applications for criminal
charges, peace order hearings, and other forums, Mr. Kimberlin claimed essentially that Mr.
Walker beat him up outside of the courtroom. He later produced what he purported to be
medical records showing that Mr. Walker allegedly bruised him and even cracked a vertebra. He
produced undated photographs purporting to show a bruised eye.

However, eventually

surveillance video footage from outside the courtroom emerged and Mr. Walker is in possession
of a copy of it.

The footage demonstrated that Mr. Walker had told the truth, and Mr.

Kimberlins claims that he had been beaten up by Mr. Walker were false. Therefore, any
objective observer would recognize that those medical records and photographs were most likely
forgeries by a convicted (and admitted)2 document forger.
37.

As soon as he left the Circuit Courthouse on January 9, 2012, Mr. Kimberlin went

right across the street to the Montgomery County District Court Commissioners Office and filed
for criminal charges and a peace order. He says he did this before going for medical treatment.
The only photographs of Mr. Kimberlins alleged injuries were taken by Mr. Kimberlin using his
own iPad and, therefore, depend entirely on this convicted perjurer for authentication, and were
not produced at the time he applied for charges. The only purported medical records were
gathered by this convicted document forger, and were not produced at the time he applied for
2 See Exhibit B to the original complaint.
12

charges. No effort was made to conduct an independent investigation before charges were filed.
No one asked Mr. Walkers side of the story. No one requested the video evidence before filing
charges. No one even spoke to the courthouse security who responded, even though they would
presumably have told any investigator that Mr. Kimberlins application for charges did not match
reality. For instance, Mr. Kimberlin claimed in the application for charges that when courthouse
security arrived Mr. Walker tried to come at me several times but was restrained. In fact, Mr.
Walker made no effort to charge at him, and the courthouse security never attempted to restrain
him (because they had no need), as demonstrated by video evidence. Undoubtedly, if asked,
security personnel would have spoken truthfully, and said the same thing.
38.

Indeed, the fact that Mr. Kimberlin was a convicted perjurer with a history of

forging documents gave the Commissioner no pause, either. This is despite the fact that as a
convicted perjurer Mr. Kimberlin was categorically prohibited from testifying in Maryland. MD.
CODE CTS & JUD. PROC. 9-104. Instead, without any evidence but this convicted perjurers
word, the Commissioner filed false charges against Mr. Walker.
39.

This was a violation of Mr. Walkers right to due process. Mr. Walker cannot be

lawfully charged with a crime unless the Commissioner follows the law. Maryland law clearly
requires probable cause before a person can be charged with a crime. See, e.g. CODE CTS & JUD.
PROC. 2-607(c)(1) ([a] commissioner shall... determine probable cause for the issuance of
charging documents). Subsequent conversations with the Commissioners office has revealed
that they believe that they are not required to consider the weight of the evidence, the
background of the accuser, and similar factors when determining if there is probable cause. They
have stated that they do not take in evidence. This is wrong as a matter of law. As stated in
Reisterstown Lumber Co. v. Royer, 91 Md.App. 746, 758 (Md. App., 1991) probable cause is

13

defined as [r]easonable cause; having more evidence for than against. (emphasis added). This
requires taking in evidence, and evaluating its sufficiency.
40.

Instead, the Commissioner in essence deputized Mr. Kimberlin, taking his word as

gospel, only asking that he allege the elements of the crime, not that he do so with credibility. In
this way, the Commissioner removed important checks and balances that might prevent abusive
criminal charges from being filed and made the State of Maryland the cats paw to Mr.
Kimberlins malevolent intentions, specifically his intent to suppress speech protected under Md.
Dec. of R. art. 40 and to retaliate against Mr. Walker for having engaged in protected expression,
as well as to punish Mr. Walker for providing legal advice to a client in violation of art. 24. If a
police officer filed false criminal charges against a citizen because that citizen engaged in
protected speech, black letter law says that this would be a violation of the citizens right to free
expression. See, e.g. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006). The State of Maryland, in the
office of the Commissioner has granted Mr. Kimberlin the same rights a police officer has to file
false chargescharges that literally flew in the face of all credible evidenceand therefore the
State of Maryland is responsible when that power is abused.
41.

This error was compounded, however, by subsequent events.

42.

When Mr. Walker learned that Mr. Kimberlin had filed charges against him, he

sought to speak with Montgomery County officials about it. He knew he was innocent and
believed, perhaps naively, that authorities would listen to him and drop the charges quickly.
Specifically, he knew from conducting investigations for his employer and others, that there
would probably be objective evidence and disinterested witnesses which would show that that
Mr. Walker was telling the truth and Mr. Kimberlin was lying, and that this would convince the
authorities the charges were without merit. On or about January 10, 2012, he spoke with a

14

gentleman in the Sheriffs office who told him falsely that there had been no surveillance footage
that the camera had been pointed a different way. Mr. Walker assumes that this was an
innocent mistake, but at the time it increased Mr. Walkers anxiety.
43.

Mr. Walker then spoke with the States Attorneys office as he understood that

they would be making the decision whether there would be a trial. He asked them to conduct an
investigation and not simply to take Mr. Kimberlins word for it.

He asked them to get

statements from the courthouse security officers involved before their memories went stale. He
asked to tell them his side of the story. They informed him that they would not speak to him
about the merits of the case without a lawyer. When Mr. Walker pointed out that he is a lawyer,
and that he was willing to sign any waiver, they still refused to speak with him on the merits.
They would not hear Mr. Walkers side unless he retained counsel. They would not even
preserve the evidence Mr. Walker wished to be preserved.
44.

In essence, Mr. Walker was required to hire counsel at considerable cost to defend

himself and to get his side heard by the States Attorneys office. Even then, they allowed these
charges to stand for nearly three months, and allowed Mr. Walker to incur legal expenses. This is
despite the fact that according to Assistant States Attorney Keith Jacobson, their office would
typically have the video exonerating Mr. Walker within forty-eight hours of the charges being
filed. In other words, even with evidence proving Mr. Walkers innocence in their hands, they
didnt bother to view it, or to discover that it proved Mr. Kimberlin lied and that Mr. Walker told
the truth.3 Because of this failure to conduct even the most minimal independent investigation,
they let the charges stand over Mr. Walker like Damocles sword for nearly three months. They
3 Attached as Exhibit D to the original complaint was a disk including a video presentation Mr.
Walker created using the courthouse security footage, comparing what Mr. Walker and Mr.
Kimberlin said about the incident with what the video showed. The same presentation can also
be viewed on the web at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOo0on1k5_g.
15

took the word of a convicted perjurer and document forger, and, therefore, became the cats
paw to Mr. Kimberlns malice. Again, if the States Attorney Office allowed false charges to be
maintained against a person because they did not like his political views, that would be a
violation of the freedom of speech under the Maryland Constitution. Yet, by blindly trusting Mr.
Kimberlinin the face of evidence exonerating Mr. Walkerthey allowed the same result: Mr.
Walker was charged with a crime he did not commit, because he 1) provided legal advice to one
of Mr. Kimberlins enemies and 2) because he engaged in lawful free expression.
45.

In the meantime, even without the video footage, in a peace order hearing on

February 8, 2012, the District Court for Montgomery County found that no assault or battery
occurred under MD. CODE CRIMINAL LAW 3-203 (or any other law). Mr. Walker forthrightly
admitted to taking Mr. Kimberlins iPad. He defended his conduct as self-defense. Meanwhile,
Mr. Kimberlin presented his false evidence. The fact that the court found no assault occurred
necessarily means that the court did not credit Mr. Kimberlins account, even with his false
medical records and false photographs. But the Court foundcontrary to lawthat Mr. Walker
had harassed Mr. Kimberlin by writing to a general audience about him. That holding that Mr.
Walker harassed Mr. Kimberlin was overturned on appeal by Judge Eric Johnson, and,
accordingly, the entire petition was dismissed.
MR. WALKER TRIES TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF
GREIVANCES AND IS COMMANDED BY A COURT TO BE SILENT
46.

The day before the appeal of the Peace Order came around, on April 11, 2012, Mr.

Walker received a copy of the video file exonerating him. After the petition was dismissed by
Judge Johnson, Mr. Walker decided to try to convince the States Attorney to pursue charges
against Mr. Kimberlin related to his attempt to frame Mr. Walker for a crime. Mr. Walker filed
an application for charges on or about April 17, 2012, and spoke with the States Attorneys
16

Office thereafter. The States Attorney filed a nolle prosequi, and Mr. Jacobson sent a letter to
Mr. Walker suggesting this was simply a spat that didnt deserve his offices attention. In doing
so, he ignored the overwhelming evidence of Mr. Kimberlins criminal conduct.
47.

At that point, Mr. Walker would have been happy to let the matter drop if officials

in Maryland chose to punish Mr. Kimberlin for the abuse of their instrumentalities. He was
shocked to find that they were not even offended by the way they had been manipulated by Mr.
Kimberlin to harm his enemies. Since Mr. Walker could not get justice and was concerned that
some other person might be an unsuspecting victim of Kimberlins criminal behavior, he
continued to seek justice by the only way he had left: by appealing to the public.
48.

On May 17, 2012, Mr. Walker decided to go public with how Mr. Kimberlin had

attempted to frame him for a crime. He wrote a long article about Mr. Kimberlins conduct and
Marylands indifference to this dangerous criminal in their presence who had used the
instrumentalities of the state in order harm Mr. Walker and others. The story garnished major
attention from mass media and personalities such as Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck.
49.

On May 19, 2012, close to midnight, Mr. Kimberlin filed for new a new peace

order claiming harassment. He claimed Mr. Walker had harassed him by writing to the public at
large about his misconduct and he was explicitly motivated by a desire to silence such speech.
Despite the fact that MD. CODE CRIMINAL LAW 3-803 makes it clear that the harassment statute
does not apply to a peaceable activity intended to express a political view or provide
information to others and despite the fact that Mr. Kimberlin did not even allege anything more
than that, an interim peace order was granted, and subsequently at an ex parte hearing a
temporary peace order was granted. That is, Mr. Kimberlin did not even allege a violation of the
harassment statute, and despite this fact, he was granted a temporary peace order.

17

50.

A final peace order hearing was held on Tuesday, May 29, 2012. Mr. Walker was

able to be heard at that hearing. Mr. Kimberlin claimed that merely by peacefully writing about
him that Mr. Walker was engaging in incitement and such incitement was therefore harassment.
He claimed to have received death threats because of Mr. Walkers reporting, although
subsequent evidence suggested that Mr. Kimberlin or one of his associates were fabricating these
threats.4 Even if the threats were genuine, a finding that peacefully writing about a person on the
internet amounts to incitement is directly contrary to controlling Supreme Court law, especially
the ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969), which states that:
the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to 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 uncontested evidence showed that Mr. Walker had not even advocated any force or
lawlessness directed at Mr. Kimberlin and that Mr. Walker took steps to protect Mr. Kimberlin
from lawless conduct. Indeed, Mr. Walkers expression met literally none of the elements of the
Brandenburg standard.
51.

The court did not find that Mr. Walkers conduct met the Brandenburg standard.

Instead, when Mr. Walker explained the Brandenburg rule, Judge Cornelius Vaughey said,
Forget Brandenburg. Let's go by Vaughey right now, and common sense out in the world.
52.

Judge Vaughey then went on to agree with Mr. Kimberlin that merely writing

negative things about him amounted to incitement and such incitement amounted to harassment.

4 Mr. Frey details the evidence of such fabrication at http://patterico.com/2012/06/26/strongcircumstantial-evidence-that-brett-kimberlin-is-astroturfing-the-alleged-threats-against-him-andhis-allies/. It is worth noting that while Mr. Kimberlin has never been shy about suing
anonymous people on the internet or to file charges against others, he has never made any effort
to seek to hold these people who allegedly threatened him civilly or criminal responsible. This
bolsters the suspicion that all of these alleged threats are fake, and Mr. Kimberlin knows it.
18

This is not only contrary to law, but if it stood, it would have set a dangerous precedent. By that
logic, President Nixon could have enjoined Woodward and Bernstein from reporting on
Watergate, if he received a single death threat based on their reportage. Such an approach would
be the death of free speech and freedom of the press. Either this never occurred to Judge
Vaughey, or it didnt bother him. A first year law student would not have made the same
mistake.
53.

Based on this erroneous interpretation of the law, Judge Vaughey granted Mr.

Kimberlins petition and forbade Mr. Walker from writing about Mr. Kimberlin in any forum for
six months.
54.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Walker, Mr. Kimberlin had also filed for criminal charges

just before that hearing. In his application for criminal charges, he claimed that he was receiving
death threats by third parties, but made no effort to explain how Mr. Walker was responsible for
them. In essence, he claimed someone else had committed a crime but Mr. Walker should be
held responsible. He did not allege that Mr. Walker conspired with them, aided them, or served
as an accessory to them, or any other recognized theory of third party liability. Instead, he
alleged that because Mr. Walker wrote negative stories about him that somehow Mr. Walker
caused these threats and, therefore, engaged in harassment in violation of the temporary peace
order. The Commissioner, acting contrary to law, decided to charge Mr. Walker as a result of the
alleged conduct of third parties for which Mr. Walker was not even alleged to be responsible.
The application for charges literally did not allege that Mr. Walker committed any crime, and
therefore there couldnt possibly be probable cause to charge Mr. Walker with a crime.
55.

As a result, at the end of the peace order hearing, Mr. Walker was shocked to find

out that he was being arrested. He submitted to this humiliation without incident. Fortunately,

19

he was released without bail that afternoon, but in the meantime and in subsequent days the story
erupted all over the news. It was covered as far as Canadathe news that an American court
had arrested a man for engaging in free expression and had forbidden from speaking freely in the
future.
56.

This decision was so wrong, that a stay was granted nearly a month later on June

25, 2012, by Judge Rupp before the full appeal could be heard. In his order granting a stay,
Judge Rupp cited Brandenburg by name and restored Mr. Walkers right to engage in protected,
non-harassing speech about Mr. Kimberlin. Still, the State of Maryland had committed a serious
trespass against Mr. Walkers freedom of speech.
57.

On the same day that the stay was granted, Mr. Walker was SWATted. That is,

someone called the Prince William County Police Department, falsely claimed to be Mr. Walker,
and falsely confessed to shooting his wife. Fortunately, Mr. Walker had warned the local police
that this might happen and, accordingly, Mr. Walker and his wife were in no danger when the
police showed up with M-4s at his door to make sure everyone was safe.

They were

inconvenienced, and Mrs. Walker was shaken up by the whole thing, but they were in no danger.
Mr. Walker firmly believes the SWATting was ordered by Mr. Kimberlin in retaliation for his
victory in court that day.
58.

With Mr. Walkers most essential freedom of speech restored, an appeal of the

remainder of Mr. Kimberlins peace order was heard by Judge Rupp on July 5, 2012. Judge
Rupp found that Mr. Kimberlin had presented no evidence that Mr. Walker had harassed Mr.
Kimberlin, finding that Mr. Walkers writings to the public at large could not be harassment
under Maryland law. These two rulings combinedstaying the peace order and finally vacating

20

itrepresents a determination that Judge Vaughey had violated Mr. Walkers right to free
expression in violation of Md. Dec. of R. art. 40.
59.

Mr. Kimberlins use of the instrumentalities of Maryland law to abuse his targets

has not been limited to strangers. For instance, around November of 2012, Brett Kimberlins
wife, Tetyana Kimberlin, separated from him. Around June of 2013, Mrs. Kimberlin and a
paramour named Jay Elliott chose to go on a vacation together. Mr. Kimberlins anger, when he
learned of this, was human, but his response was inappropriate. First, he fired Mrs. Kimberlin
from his non-profits. Then, since Mrs. Kimberlin and Mr. Elliot were in a company car, he
demanded that they return from vacation immediately to return the car. When they refused, he
filed a false report of auto theft. He went on to file an application for charges against Mr. Elliott
with that alleged theft and to seek a peace order against Mr. Elliott. Mr. Kimberlin tried to (and
eventually succeeded) to get Mr. Elliott fired from his job, and attempted to get Mrs. Kimberlin
fired from her job and evicted from her apartment. Mr. Elliott and Mrs. Kimberlin in turn sought
a peace order and protective order, respectively. Mr. Kimberlin retaliated against her by filing a
false petition to have her committed to a mental institution, resulting in her arrest at the
protection order hearing. In other words, she came to the state for protection and ended up in
handcuffs. Fortunately, and to the credit of Judge Mitchell presiding, she was released within
approximately fifteen minutes.
60.

Mrs. Kimberlin tried to get custody of her children from Mr. Kimberlin. She was

understandably very anxious for their safety and explained the reason for her fear in court
documents. After discussing some of his criminal background, she explained the crux of her
fears as follows (paragraph numbers omitted):
Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile. I met Brett Kimberlin when I was fourteen years
old in Ukraine. He transported me to Maryland when I was fifteen years old, for
21

the purpose of enticing me into sex and marriage. When in Maryland and while I
was fifteen years old, he had vaginal intercourse and sexual contact with me on
over fifty occasions. He was over forty years of age at the time and therefore
such conduct was in violation of MD. CRIMINAL LAW Code 3-307, constituting
sexual offense in the third degree, then codified as Maryland Code Art. 27,
464B.
At the same time that Kimberlin was having sex with me literally every day, my
cousin Tetyana Vereitenova was also staying in his house. She was twelve at this
time. I personally witnessed Brett Kimberlin attempt to seduce her, in violation of
MARYLAND CRIMINAL LAW CODE 3-310 and 3-312, constituting attempted rape
in the second degree and attempted sexual offense in the second degree,
respectively.
Moreover, he married me when I was sixteen years old. However, instead of
following the procedures set out in MD. FAMILY LAW Code 2-301, Brett
Kimberlin forged a birth certificate for me, falsely asserting I was at least 18 years
of age. He used that forged document to obtain our marriage license.
Further, Brett Kimberlin has long been suspected of other sexual misconduct with
underage girls. In his book, CITIZEN K: THE DEEPLY WEIRD AMERICAN JOURNEY
OF BRETT KIMBERLIN, veteran journalist Mark Singer wrote that Brett Kimberlin
became romantically involved with a pre-pubescent girl Singer referred to as
Jessica Barton (real name, Debbie):
For three consecutive summers, 1974 through 1976 [when the
child was aged ten through fourteen], they took vacations of a
week or longer in Disney World, Mexico, and Hawaii. Sandi [her
mother] couldnt get time off from work, so on these summer trips
it was just the two of themBrett and Jessica.
Eyebrows levitated. A drug-dealing colleague had memories of
conversations with Kimberlin that struck him as odd: Wed see a
girl who was pubescent or prepubescent, and Brett would get this
smile and say, Hey, what do you think? Isnt she great? It made
me very uncomfortable. Another recalled Kimberlin introducing
Jessica as my girlfriend, and if irony was intended, it was too
subtle to register. To a coworker at IU-PUI, Sandi confided that
Kimberlin was grooming Jessica to be his wife.
Page 78. This girl was ten years old when they met, fourteen years old when
Brett Kimberlin left her life. It was believed by the police that ultimately it was
his romantic love for this child that led him down the chain of decisions which
culminated in the Speedway Bombings.

22

Indeed, I personally witnessed evidence that he had a sexual relationship with

Debbie/Jessica Barton. He disclosed to me that she was his girlfriend and
showed me pictures of them together. In some of those pictures, Mr. Kimberlin
was naked. In others, Debbie Barton was naked. Combined with my own
experiences, and his attempts to seduce my then-twelve-year old cousin, I
consider the suspicion that he had sex with this underage girl to be highly
credible.
[Ed: Very personal information about the Kimberlins that was included in the
original version of this complaint, but has been omitted in the version I uploaded
to Scribd.]
Further, Brett Kimberlin has threatened me with physical harm if I should ever
seek custody of my children, saying that you will see what will happen to you if
I tried to lawfully obtain custody. Given his past as a violent bomber, I take those
threats very seriously.
61.

During this time, as Mrs. Kimberlin fought to get her daughters away from a

violent bomber with a past history of pedophilia, she reached out to Mr. Walker and his friend,
William John Joseph Hoge III, because both men were willing to stand up to Mr. Kimberlin. Mr.
Walker offered Mrs. Kimberlin free legal advice, and Mr. Hoge set up a legal fund to hire local
counsel for Mrs. Kimberlin, which Mr. Walker promoted. That promotion included articles on
the internet, and Mr. Kimberlin was aware of them.

For these peaceful, lawful acts, Mr.

Kimberlin filed another application for charges for harassment against Messrs Walker and Hoge,
on or about July 30, 2013. By this time, the States Attorney of Montgomery County had written
a letter to the Montgomery County Commissioner requesting that they stop accepting charges
from Mr. Kimberlin.

In spite of this warning and all of the other reasons to doubt Mr.

Kimberlins veracity, the Commissioner filed charges against Messrs. Walker and Hoge.
Fortunately, these charges were dropped quickly by the States Attorney and without further
expense to Mr. Walker.
62.

However, witnessing the continued abuse of the Maryland legal system by Mr.

Kimberlin, and facing threats of violence by Mr. Kimberlin while the state of Maryland took no
23

steps to protect her, Mrs. Kimberlin decided she could no longer fight her husband and gave up.
She fled the jurisdiction and, upon information and belief, is currently living in the Midwest. Mr.
Kimberlin continues to have sole custody of their children. He lives down the street from an
elementary school. Mr. Walker is convinced that Mr. Kimberlin remains a danger to Mr. Walker,
Mr. Walkers wife, his friends, and to the community at large.
COUNT I:
INJUNCTION IN VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION
63.

The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-62.

64.

For nearly a month, Mr. Walker was prohibited by law from engaging in protected

expression.
65.

This was in violation of Md. Dec. of R. art. 40.

Indeed, Judge Vaughey

disregarded controlling Supreme Court precedent by name, and he was overturned by a judge
who cited the very decision Vaughey disregarded.
66.

As a direct result, Mr. Walker was silenced for nearly a month.

67.

This conduct was intentional.

68.

Such a trespass against Mr. Walkers constitutional rights is itself a harm. Further,

he was required to retain counsel to fight to restore his rights, costing over $6,400. For this
violation Mr. Walker seeks $300,000 per instance compensatory damages and $1,000,000 5
punitive damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
69.

Specifically, the Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting the District Court of

Maryland for Montgomery County from granting any further peace orders limiting expression
including expression as conducteither in relation to Mr. Walker specifically, or for all persons.
5 Punitive damages are available under Maryland law where there is fraud, or malice, or evil
intent, or oppression entering into and forming part of the wrongful act[.] Davis v. Gordon, 183
Md. 129, 36 A.2d 699, 701 (Md., 1944). Accordingly, punitive damages are available for this
and all counts in the complaint.
24

The District Court has proven over and over again, that they are not capable of recognizing the
difference between protected and unprotected expression. The District Court of Maryland for
Montgomery County is a small claims court. Freedom of Expression is not a small claim.
COUNT II:
FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED IN RETALIATION FOR LAWFUL
REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT AND FOR PROTECTED EXPRESSION
70.

The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-69.

71.

Mr. Kimberlin, motivated by anger at Mr. Walker for providing legal advice to

one of Mr. Kimberlins targets and for having exposed Mr. Kimberlin criminal and immoral
conduct to the world at large, sought to frame Mr. Walker for a crime on January 9, 2012.
72.

The Commissioner found that probable cause existed for assault without

considering the quality of the evidence at all, accepting the word of a convicted perjurer who is
forbidden from testifying in Maryland, and ignoring the greater weight of the evidence against
Mr. Kimberlins claims.
73.

This is in direct violation of the requirement that probable cause be supported by

evidence.
74.

This failure to perform their statutory and constitutional duty was intentional.

75.

Because of the Commissioners failure to provide an appropriate check and

balance against false criminal charges, the Commissioner became the cats paw to Mr.
Kimberlins malice. Therefore Mr. Walker was charged with a crime not because there was
actual probable cause to believe he had committed a crime, but because he had provided legal
representation, protected under Md. Dec. of R. art. 24 and had exercised his right to free speech,
protected under art. 40.

25

76.

As retaliation for constitutionally protected conduct, such prosecution constitutes

a violation of Mr. Walkers constitutional rights, both by punishing Mr. Walkers lawful conduct
and by deterring it in the future.
77.

As a result of such retaliatory prosecution, Mr. Walker lost approximately $4,000

fighting these charges. For the violation of Mr. Walkers constitutional rights, he seeks $300,000
per instance in compensatory damages including pain and suffering, and $1,000,000 punitive
damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
78.

Specifically, the Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting the District Court

Commissioner for Montgomery County from issuing charges or arrest warrants without probable
cause that is backed up by reliable evidence. In short, the Plaintiff wants them to be ordered to
do their statutory and constitutional duty.
COUNT III:
FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGES MAINTAINED IN RETALIATION FOR LAWFUL
REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT AND FOR PROTECTED EXPRESSION
79.

The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-78.

80.

Mr. Kimberlin, motivated by anger at Mr. Walker for providing legal advice to

one of Mr. Kimberlins targets and for having exposed Mr. Kimberlin criminal and immoral
conduct, sought to frame Mr. Walker for a crime on January 9, 2012.
81.

After the Commissioners determination that there was probable cause for assault

based on incompetent testimony, the States Attorneys Office of Montgomery County

maintained charges against Mr. Walker for nearly three months.
82.

This was done without the slightest review of the file. The States Attorneys

Office didnt watch the video evidence or recognize how it demonstrated that Mr. Walker was
innocent and that Mr. Kimberlin is a liar. The States Attorneys Office only spoke with one

26

Sheriffs deputy there at the scene, Deputy Johnson, and failed to recognize how his account
contradicted Mr. Kimberlins. The States Attorneys Office made no effort to gather the medical
records from any hospital or to determine for themselves if Mr. Kimberlin had even been injured.
The States Attorneys Office refused to listen to Mr. Walkers side of the story until he hired a
lawyer to represent him. The States Attorneys Office didnt even drop the charges after the
District Court found on February 8, 2012, that Mr. Walker had not assaulted Mr. Kimberlin.
83.

In short, the States Attorneys Office maintained charges against Mr. Walker for

nearly three months on the word of a convicted perjurer and document forger in the face of all
evidence to the contrary. The attitude of the State of Maryland as a whole has been to charge Mr.
Walker first and figure out if he had actually done anything later.
84.

This failure by these entities of the State of Maryland to do their constitutional

duty was intentional.

85.

Because of their failure to provide an appropriate check and balance against false

criminal charges, they became the cats paw to Mr. Kimberlins malice. Therefore, Mr. Walker
was charged with a crime not because there was actual probable cause to believe he had done so,
but because he had provided legal representation, protected under Md. Dec. of R. art. 24, and had
exercised his right to free speech, protected under art. 40.
86.

As retaliation for constitutionally protected conduct, such prosecution constitutes

a violation of Mr. Walkers constitutional rights, both by punishing Mr. Walkers lawful conduct
and by deterring it in the future.
87.

As a result of such retaliatory prosecution, Mr. Walker lost approximately $4,000

fighting these charges. For the violation of Mr. Walkers constitutional rights, he seeks $300,000

27

per instance in compensatory damages including pain and suffering, and $1,000,000 punitive
damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
88.

Specifically, the Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting the States Attorney

Montgomery County from maintaining charges without probable cause that is backed up by
reliable evidence. In short, the Plaintiff wants them to be ordered to do their constitutional duty.
COUNT IV
FALSE ARREST IN RETALIATION FOR PROTECTED EXPRESSION
89.

The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-88.

90.

On May 27, 2012, Mr. Kimberlin filed charges claiming that third parties had

threatened him with violence because Mr. Walker reported about his unlawful conduct towards
Mr. Walker. Upon information and belief, the claim that anyone had threatened him was
fabricated. Further, Mr. Kimberlin did not even allege that Mr. Walker was the legal cause of any
of those threats, nor did he advance any viable theory of third party liability. In short, he charged
Mr. Walker with a non-crime.
91.

Despite the fact that, even if his allegations were true, Mr. Kimberlin had not

alleged that Mr. Walker had committed a crime, the Commissioner found probable cause that Mr.
Walker had violated a temporary peace order by engaging in harassment and put out a warrant
for the arrest of Mr. Walker.
92.

The Commissioners failure to perform their statutory and constitutional duty was

intentional.
93.

No probable cause existed for this arrest because no crime was alleged, let alone

committed. Therefore, the arrest itself was in violation of Mr. Walkers Md. Dec. of R. art. 26
right to be free from unreasonable seizure and his due process rights under art. 24. Further,
because of the Commissioners failure to provide an appropriate check and balance against false
28

arrest, they became the cats paw to Mr. Kimberlins malice. Therefore Mr. Walker was
charged with a crime not because there was actual probable cause to believe he had committed a
crime, but because he had exercised his right to free expression, protected under art. 40. This
represents viewpoint discrimination, forbidden by art. 40.
94.

As retaliation for constitutionally protected conduct, such an arrest constitutes a

violation of Mr. Walkers constitutional rights, both by punishing Mr. Walkers lawful conduct
and by deterring it in the future.
95.

As a result of such retaliatory prosecution, Mr. Walker lost approximately $2,000

fighting these charges. For the violation of Mr. Walkers constitutional rights, he seeks $300,000
per instance in compensatory damages including pain and suffering, and $1,000,000 punitive
damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
96.

Specifically, the Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting the District Court

Commissioner for Montgomery County from issuing charges or arrest warrants without probable
cause that is backed up by reliable evidence. In short, the Plaintiff wants the Commissioner to do
their statutory and constitutional duty.
COUNT V:
FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED IN RETALIATION FOR LAWFUL
REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT AND FOR PROTECTED SPEECH
97.

The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-96.

98.

Mr. Kimberlin, motivated by anger at Mr. Walker for providing legal advice to

Mrs. Kimberlin and for having helped with a fundraiser for her to obtain representation by a
Maryland lawyer, filed false criminal charges on or about July 30, 2013.
99.

The Commissioner found that probable cause existed without considering the

quality of the evidence at all, accepting the word from a convicted perjurer who is forbidden

29

from testifying in Maryland.

This was done despite the fact that the Commissioner was

specifically warned by the States Attorney not to accept any further charges from Mr. Kimberlin.
100.

This is in direct violation of the requirement that probable cause be supported by

evidence.
101.

This failure to perform their statutory and constitutional duty was intentional.

102.

Because of the Commissioners failure to provide an appropriate check and

balance against false criminal charges, they became the cats paw to Mr. Kimberlins malice.
Therefore, Mr. Walker was charged with a crime not because there was actual probable cause to
believe he had done so, but because he had provided legal representation, protected under Md.
Dec. of R. art. 24 and had exercised his right to free speech, protected under art. 40.
103.

As retaliation for constitutionally protected conduct, such prosecution constitutes

a violation of Mr. Walkers constitutional rights, both by punishing Mr. Walkers lawful conduct
and by deterring it in the future. Indeed, this kind of conduct convinced Mrs. Kimberlin that she
could not successfully fight her husband, leading her to flee the jurisdiction and leave her two
daughters in his custody.
104.

For the violation of Mr. Walkers constitutional rights, he seeks $300,000 per

instance in compensatory damages including pain and suffering, and $1,000,000 punitive
damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
105.

Specifically, the Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting the District Court

Commissioner for Montgomery County from issuing charges or arrest warrants without probable
cause that is backed up by reliable evidence. In short, the Plaintiff wants them to do their
statutory and constitutional duty.

30

COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF MR. WALKERS RIGHT TO DIGNITY AS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME
106.

The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-105.

107.

Through three years, Mr. Walker has been the victim of extortion and of an

attempt to frame him for a crime, has been subjected to peace orders that literally had no
foundation in law, and has been arrested without even an allegation that Mr. Walker engaged in
criminal conduct.
108.

Throughout this process, he sought justice and failed to obtain it. When he was

falsely accused of a crime, Maryland officials wouldnt give him the time of day. When he
sought criminal charges against Mr. Kimberlin after he had been framed for a crime, his concerns
were treated as petty. He was not allowed a face-to-face meeting with any of the decision
makers in the States Attorneys Office. When he asked the States Attorney himself to hear him
out on the matter, his secretary strung him along instead of dealing honestly with him.
109.

Likewise, when Mr. Walker went public with how Mr. Kimberlin had attempted to

frame him for a crime, Judge Vaughey ran a farce of a hearing where he suggested that Mr.
Walker had no legal or moral right to complain about the failure to charge Mr. Kimberlin. Judge
Vaughey likewise refused to consider the full evidence, often refusing specific requests from Mr.
Walker to examine what Mr. Walker had written, instead of simply accepting Mr. Kimberlins
characterization of it. Judge Vaughey held that Mr. Walkers peaceful attempt to petition the
government for a redress of grievances was somehow suspect, and, ultimately, a form of criminal
harassment. Not even truth was considered as a defense.
110.

This is reminiscent of the injustice documented in the Zenger trial. In that case

Zengers peaceful criticism of the government was treated as seditious libel, and judges refused
to allow a defense of truth. As noted by Andrew Hamilton, Zengers attorney, in his closing
31

argument, the law on seditious libel allowed for the government to work what we would now call
Kafkaesque injustice: Men who injure and oppress the people under their administration
provoke them to cry out and complain; and then make that very complaint the foundation for
new oppressions and prosecutions. The Trial of John Peter Zenger, 17 Howell's St. Tr. 675,
721-722 (1735) (argument of counsel to the jury). Likewise, Mr. Kimberlin has been allowed to
oppress Mr. Walker with the help of the State of Maryland, and when Mr. Walker cried out and
complained, that complaint was the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions. This is
not the dignity owed to a victim of a crime.
111.

Such conduct was intentional and is in violation of Md. Dec. of R. art. 47(a)

which states that [a] victim of crime shall be treated by agents of the State with dignity, respect,
and sensitivity during all phases of the criminal justice process. Mr. Walker was instead treated
as though the abuse he had facedaided and abetted by instrumentalities of the state of
Marylandwere unimportant, as though losing over $10,000 and his precious freedom of speech
is no big deal. Indeed, he was treated as a criminal and arrested for peacefully seeking redress
for the crimes committed against him.
112.

Such conduct caused damage to Mr. Walkers sense of dignity and self-respect.

He was indeed humiliated by being arrested in open court.

113.

While monetary damages are not possible under art. 47(c), by expressio unius

declaratory and injunctive relief is available and appropriate.

114.

Therefore, Mr. Walker seeks a declaratory judgment that the States Attorney and

Judge Vaughey violated art. 47(a), and any other relief that might be appropriate.

32

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests an award of compensatory damages against Defendant the
State of Maryland for violations of his constitutional rights for not less than $300,000 per
instance, punitive damages of $1,000,000, injunctive relief designed to prevent future violations
of these constitutional provisions, a declaration that Mr. Walkers right to dignity as a victim of a
crime has been violated, and any and all relief this Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: Monday, March 16, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
Aaron Walker, Esq.
[redacted]
Manassas, Virginia 20109
[redacted]
AaronJW1972@gmail.com
(No fax)
Virginia State Bar #48882

33