Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiori

Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiori

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,740|Likes:
Published by AaronWorthing

More info:

Published by: AaronWorthing on Sep 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 BRETT KIMBERLIN,Petitionerv. Case No.AARON WALKER,RespondentR
The Respondent, Aaron J. Walker, Esq.,
 pro se
, now moves pursuant to MD
§12-305 that this court deny the Petition for Certiorari. In support of this opposition, the Respondent states the following:The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be denied because it fails to tell this court thetruth about the proceedings below. Given the
 pro se
Petitioner’s long criminal history
, includingperjury,
Kimberlin v. White
, 798 F. Supp. 472, 482 (W.D. Tenn. 1992), the Respondentrespectfully believes that the attempt to deceive is deliberate.
I.The Petitioner Falsely Claimed that the Circuit Court Refused to Allow Him to Call theRespondent as a Witness.
 The most fundamental dishonesty in the petition is found in the Petitioner
alleged thirdquestion presented, asking this court to consider
[w]hether the Circuit Court erred in dismissing
the Peace Order without allowing Petitioner to question Respondent[.]‖
 If this court finds it difficult to believe that any circuit court judge would deny thePetitioner the opportunity to call the Respondent as a witness that is because it is not true. Onewould search the transcript below (attached as Exhibit A) in vain for any moment in the hearing
where the Petitioner asked to call the Respondent as a witness. The Petitioner successfullymanaged to call a third party to the stand and the Petitioner called himself to testify, but he madeno attempt whatsoever to call the Respondent as a witness. Nor did Judge Eric Johnson make asingle statement indicating that he would not allow the Petitioner to do so if he desired. Simplyput, he was never
the opportunity to call the Respondent as a witness: the Petitioner justfailed to even try to call him before resting his case.At that point, Reginald Bours III, counsel for the Respondent, said to the court,
going to ask that you [Judge Johnson] make a finding now that the petitioner has not met, eveninitially, the burden
of proof required under the statute.‖
Transcript, Exhibit A at page 84, lines4-6. The court agreed and dismissed the petition without requiring the Respondent to even puton a defense.
The Petitioner’s case was that frivolous.
 More than likely, this w
as a tactical error precipitated by the Petitioner’s own mistaken
assumption that the Respondent was required to put on a defense. But even
 pro se
don’t get a ―do over‖ in
circuit court
 because they don’t know what they are doing.
II.The Petitioner Falsely Claimed that the Circuit Court Did Not Allow Him to PresentEvidence of Harassment.
The other ―questions presented‖ are equally deceptive, but less obviously so. In question
one, the Petitioner would have one believe that this court shoul
d consider ―[w]hether it was
erroneous for the Circuit Court to prohibit evidence of sustained harassment by Respondent
Any sympathy for the Petitioner’s error should be tempered with the recognition that the
Petitioner, Brett Coleman Kimberlin, is an experienced litigant. A search on Lexis or Westlaw
for cases where ―Brett Kimberlin‖ is the party reveals that Mr. Kimberlin has sued and been sued
hundreds of times, and deeper investigation demonstrates that the Petitioner has often proceededin those cases
 pro se
, often as a typical
―jailhouse lawyer.‖ See, e.g.,
 Brett C. Kimberlin v.United States Dept. of Justice
, 150 F.Supp. 2d 36 (D.C. 2001) (arguing that as a prisoner he hada First Amendment right to play an electric guitar, appearing
 pro se
before and
after an assault by Respondent[.]‖ In question two, the Petitioner writes that thiscourt should consider ―[w]hether it was
erroneous for the Circuit Court to prohibit evidence of 
Respondent’s repeated post assault retaliatory harassment to demonstrate future harassment.‖
 Putting aside the fact that the Respondent never did assault the Petitioner
and the court
didn’t find that
any assault occurred
the Petitioner falsely claimed that the Circuit Courtrefused to consider evidence of harassment. The Petitioner has claimed that various statementsabout the Petitioner to a general audience by the Respondent
the Petitioner was somehow athreat
the Petitioner. The Respondent runs an internationally-read news and opinion website,and has written numerous pieces
about what the Respondent sees as the Petitioner’s abuse of the
Maryland court system in an attempt to suppress freedom of expression at his website (available
The reality is that the Petitioner’s demonstrably false criminal charges against Respondent had
been dropped
 by the State’s Attorney of Montgomery County when video evidence of the
incident in which the Respondent allegedly assaulted the Petitioner came to light contradicting
the Petitioner’s story. In the end
, the Court found that the Petitioner had only made an initial
showing of assault in the most technical sense: the Respondent took the Petitioner’s iPad from
the Petitioner and then the Respondent peacefully held the device away from the Petitioner untilauthorities could arrive
. Judge Johnson stated the following:
What occurred? An item wassnatched from your hands. If this was an assault trial, perhaps the evidence would be sufficientbeyond a reasonable doubt, without addressing possible defenses, that an assault did occur.
Transcript, Exhibit A at page 91 lines 3-6.
This does not, contrary to the Petitioner’s claims,
constitute a finding that the Respondent assaulted him, precisely because the
circuit court didn’t
consider any defenses.And any consideration of such defenses
including self-defense
would require the court toexamine who the Petitioner is. The petitioner is a convicted violent bomber with a history of turning everyday objects into deadly weapons that have cost one man his life.
Kimberlin v.White
, 7 F. 3d 527, 528-29 (1993). The Petitioner is also suspected of having masterminded themurder-for-
hire of Julia Scyphers after she raised questions about the Petitioner’s relationsh
ipwith her pre-teen granddaughter. Exhibit B. And the Petitioner is suspected of having attemptedmore murders-for-hire including the prosecutor in his trials related to his bombings andattempting to frame others for his crimes. Exhibit C. The Respondent was aware of all of thiswhen the alleged assault occurred. By contrast, the Respondent is an attorney in good standingin Virginia and the District of Columbia with nothing on his record more serious than a trafficviolation. Thus, contrary to the
Petitioner’s suggestion, it is not the Petitioner who should be
afraid of the Respondent, but the Respondent who should be apprehensive of the Petitioner, as is
the Respondent’s wife.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->