UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, !t al., D!f!n*ant Ca ! N". P#G $%&%'()

DEFENDANT #ALKER+S OPPOSITION TO THE PLAINTIFF+S MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW Defendant Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Opposition to the Plaintiffs Motion to ile Se!ond A"ended Co"plaint# $M %,# EC No. &''(,& and states the follo)in*+ &. On e,r-ar. /&, /'&0, this !o-rt *ranted Plaintiff per"ission to seek to a"end his -rther the

!o"plaint -p -ntil Mar!h 1, /'&02.3# %etter Order of e,r-ar. /&, /'&0 $EC No. 44(.

sa"e %etter Order ad"onished that the Plaintiffs "otion to a"end the !o"plaint )ill not ,e a!!epted ,. the Clerk if it fails to !o"pl. )ith %o!al 5-le &'6.7.# I. LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT COMPLIED #ITH LOCAL RULE $'%.,-C. /.
&

Despite this !o-rts 8er. spe!ifi! re"inder to the Plaintiff that he )as to !o"pl. )ith D.

9his opposition is ti"el. ,e!a-se the Plaintiff did not pla!e his M % in the "ail -ntil Mar!h &/, /'&0, fi8e da.s after he !lai"ed to ha8e done so in his !ertifi!ate of ser8i!e.

Md. lo!al r-le &'6.7, the Plaintiff did not !o"pl. )ith s-,se!tion $!( req-irin* that the part. filin* an a"ended pleadin* shall file and ser8e $&( a !lean !op. of the a"ended pleadin* and $/( a !op. of the a"ended pleadin* in )hi!h stri!ken "aterial has ,een lined thro-*h or en!losed in ,ra!kets and ne) "aterial has ,een -nderlined or set forth in ,old:fa!ed t.pe. Altho-*h the Plaintiffs M % appeared on the s-rfa!e to !o"pl. )ith this req-ire"ent, in!l-din* an atta!h"ent that in!l-ded so"e "arked !han*es, that "ark-p )as *rossl. inadeq-ate. !atalo*-e of these fail-res follo)s, lar*el. ,. order of appearan!e+ a. Altho-*h the ori*inal i"pet-s for seekin* lea8e to a"end )as to add 9)it!h. A partial

%%C as a part. and th-s to la)f-ll. add 9)it!h. to the !aption, the Plaintiff does not e8en ,other to pla!e 9)it!h.s na"e in ,old )hen he added it to the !aption. ,. ;n para*raph &/ the Plaintiff fails to note that he inserted the )ords a"ended,#

and online and offline<# or that he deleted the )ords 8iolated his !i8il ri*hts and )hi!h in!l-des,# and threat of.# !. ;n para*raph =7 he added the )ord, first# and the phrase a near,. "edi!al

!lini!, )hi!h ordered hi" to i""ediatel. *o to# )itho-t p-ttin* this !han*e in ,old. d. ;n para*raph => he deleted the )ord this# in relation to the s-pposed de!laration

of )ar a*ainst Plaintiff# )itho-t notin* he had deleted it. e. in ,old. f. ;n para*raph 7& he deleted the )ord e,r-ar.# and inserted the )ord Jan-ar.# ;n para*raph 7' he added the )ords the sprin* of# )itho-t pla!in* those )ords

)itho-t notin* this !han*e.

?nless stated other)ise, all para*raph n-",ers in this se!tion refer to the n-",erin* in the "arked -p !op. $EC No. &'':/(.
/

*.

;n para*raph 1> he adds the senten!e Mr. Walker and other Defendants ha8e

!ontin-ed to repeat these false narrati8es e8en to this da.2,3# ,-t stran*el. onl. adds ,oldfa!e to the se!ond half of the senten!e $these false narrati8es e8en to this da.#(. h. i. @. ;n para*raph >6 he added the phrase on his ,lo*# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. ;n para*raph &7& he inserted the )ord na"ed# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. ;n para*raph &76 the Plaintiff !han*ed one of the na"ed ti"e periods fro"

thro-*h the present da.# to e,r-ar. /1, /'&0# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. k. ;n para*raph &1& the Plaintiff added the entire senten!e 2i3n fa!t, the National

Alo**ers Cl-, )as a !ri"inal or*aniBation that ne8er had ='&$!($6( stat-s and ne8er filed an. req-ired ,-siness do!-"ents after it re*istered as a 9eCas !orporation# ,-t paradoCi!all. onl. p-t part of the senten!e in ,old. l. ;n para*raph &4' he added the phrase !orr-ptl. and ,. threats or for!e, and ,.

!o""-ni!ation, infl-en!ed, o,str-!ted, i"peded, and endea8ored to infl-en!e, o,str-!t, or i"pede, the d-e ad"inistration of# ,-t did not note its insertion. ". ;n the header $@-st ,efore para*raph &47( 5etaliation of 2si!3 a Witness and

Di!ti"< &4 ?SC &=&/ 2si!3 and &=&6# he added a referen!e to &4 ?.S.C. E&=&/ )itho-t indi!atin* he had "ade that addition. ;n other )ords, )hile the phrase )as in ,old, the rest of the header )as, too, *i8in* the reader no indi!ation that he had added that lan*-a*e. ;t sho-ld ha8e ,een -nderlined to "ake it !lear. n. ;n para*raph &47 the Plaintiff adds the )ord ,atter.# t)o ti"es )itho-t p-ttin* -rther, he adds the phrase ,. Defendants Walker, Aa!ker and DA Capitol

that ter" in ,oldfa!e.

Strate*ies# )hile paradoCi!all. onl. p-ttin* Mr. Aa!kers na"e in ,old. 6

o. p.

9he entiret. of para*raph &4> is ne), ,-t the Plaintiff fails to indi!ate it is ne). ;n the header $,efore para*raph &>'( relatin* to ECtortion, the Plaintiff added

!lai"s of Conspira!. and Atte"pted ECtortion# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. 9hat is, on!e a*ain, )hile the )ords are in ,old, the entire header is in ,old and th-s it fails to indi!ate a !han*e had ,een "ade. q. r. ;n para*raph /6& he inserts the )ord !lients# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. ;n para*raph /06 the Plaintiff needlessl. inserts the )ords, "onth after "onth

and .ear after .ear# )itho-t pla!in* these )ords in ,old. s. t. ;n para*raph /=& he inserted ,ook, )e,inar# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. 9he entire Ninth Clai" for 5elief# for !i8il !onspira!. $para*raphs />':/>/(, is

ne), ,-t none of it is in ,old eC!ept the header. -. Se8eral ti"es the Plaintiff added ne) alle*ations that 8ario-s defendants @oined

the 5;CO enterprise# $or -sed s-,stantiall. si"ilar )ordin*( )itho-t notin* that he had added these )ords. 9his !an ,e seen in para*raphs 46, >6 and&/7. 8. )itho-t notin* it. 9he Plaintiff also "ade *ra""ati!al !orre!tions or "ade s"all st.listi! !han*es or instan!e, in para*raph 7= the Plaintiff !apitaliBed the 9he# in 9he National

Alo**ers Cl-,# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. ;n para*raph 46 he added the )ord Defendant# ,efore 5edstate ,-t didnt p-t it in ,old. ;n para*raph >0 the Plaintiff !han*ed the -n*ra""ati!al phrase in Areit,art.!o"# to on Areit,art.!o"# )itho-t indi!atin* he had !han*ed it. ;n para*raph &1' the Plaintiff !han*ed narrati8e# to narrati8es.# ;n para*raphs &1&, &16, &17 and &14, the Plaintiff !han*ed the i"proper des!ription of non:profits as ,ein* -nder ='&!6# to the less *ra""ati!all. i"proper ='&$!($6(.# ;n para*raph &>6 he added a !o""a after the )ord "o-th# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. ). Oddl., the Plaintiff "arked p-rported !han*es se8eral ti"es )here no !han*e )as 0

"ade.

or instan!e, in para*raph 64 the Plaintiff !lai"s that the )ords On,# O!to,er &&,# Defendant

Na*.# and )rote an )rote an arti!le s"earin* Plaintiff that appeared on Areit,art.!o"# )ere ne) )hen the. )ere not $and did not note the deletion of the )ords or a,o-t#(. ;n the sa"e para*raph, he !lai"ed that Defendant re. follo)ed that arti!le )ith a si"ilar s"ear arti!le on his Patteri!os Pontifi!ations ,lo*# )as ne) )hen the onl. ne) part )as the addition of the )ord s"ear.# ;n para*raph 1& the Plaintiff "arked the phrase donations fro" !itiBens of Mar.land# as ne)l. inserted, )hen in fa!t it )as not. ;n para*raph >& of the "ark-p he pretended that he added an entirel. ne) para*raph )hen in fa!t "-!h of the sa"e teCt )as -naltered as indi!ated in the !rossed o-t para*raph 4>. C. inall., in his pra.er for relief he added a !lai" that he sho-ld ,e !o"pensated

for F/,'''.''' 2si!3# )itho-t notin* the !han*e. %ike)ise, his req-est for de!larator. relief statin* that he )as inno!ent of SWA9tin* added a req-est that he also ,e de!lared inno!ent of other -n!har*ed !ri"es# $pres-"a,l. in!l-din* the for*er. of a s-""ons he has re!entl. ad"itted to( )itho-t notin* the !han*e, and in the sa"e senten!e he inserted the )ord ,ook# )itho-t notin* that !han*e either. 6. 9he o,8io-s p-rpose of Md. lo!al r-le &'6.7$!( is to "ake it easier for this !o-rt and for

the opposin* parties to see )hat !han*es )ere "ade fro" one a"end"ent to another and to fo!-s on )hat defi!ien!ies ha8e ,een addressed and )hi!h ones ha8e not. As this !o-rt !an see, Mr. Walker has !atalo*-ed o8er fort. fail-res ,. the Plaintiff to denote his !han*es, in!l-din* entire !lai"s and para*raphs. 9he Plaintiff e8en failed to note that he added 9)it!h. to the !aption altho-*h it )as the ori*inal raison detre for seekin* an a"end"ent. Gis fail-re to !o"pl. f-ll. and properl. )ith this r-le has pre@-di!ed Mr. Walker ,. for!in* hi" to do )hat this r-le )as s-pposed to "ake -nne!essar.+ Mr. Walker )as for!ed to eCa"ine the entire SAC, line:,.:line, to see )hat !han*es )ere a!t-all. "ade. 0. -rther, there see"s to ,e little eC!-se for this fail-re. Man. )ord pro!essin* pro*ra"s =

!ontain feat-res that )o-ld "ark -p the do!-"ent appropriatel., a-to"ati!all.. Spe!ifi!all. Mi!rosoft Words Co"pare Do!-"ents# feat-re !an do so, as !an "an. other pro*ra"s. One s-spe!ts that this r-le )as )ritten spe!ifi!all. !onte"platin* the -se of s-!h a pro*ra". =. Additionall., there is e8iden!e that the Plaintiff had -sed s-!h a pro*ra". ;n para*raph

&7/ of the -n"arked SAC $EC No. &'':&( one !an see the follo)in* phrase+ 9he 5;CO Enterprise )as an on*oin* relationship, ,-siness and !ri"inal, a"on* all the na"ed Defendants, )ith the !o""on p-rpose of...# 9he ke. thin* to note is that the )ord all# is str-!k thro-*h in the -n"arked SAC. 9he )ord all# did appear in the irst A"ended Co"plaint $ AC, EC No. /( in para*raph &&=, ,-t it )as str-!k o-t in the "arked -p 8ersion in para*raph &76. 9his s-**ests that he )as r-nnin* a pro*ra", s-!h as Mi!rosoft Word, that )as tra!kin* his !han*es a-to"ati!all., and then ,. so"e "ethod he eli"inated the "arkin*s for !han*es )hen !reatin* the -n"arked 8ersion of the proposed SAC. 7. ;n an. !ase, the Plaintiffs fail-re to !o"pl. )ith this r-le even after being reminded by

this court to follow it, and e8en after !lai"in* to ha8e follo)ed it, is s-ffi!ient reason to do eCa!tl. )hat this !o-rt threatened to do in its e,r-ar. /&, /'&0, %etter order+ dire!t the !lerk that the "otion for lea8e to a"end )as a!!epted in error and ret-rn it to the Plaintiff as ha8in* ,een str-!k fro" the do!ket, or, in the alternati8e, to den. lea8e to a"end. II. LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT #OULD FUTILE 1. ;n Laber v. Harvey, the o-rth Cir!-it held that lea8e to a"end a pleadin* sho-ld ,e

denied onl. )hen the a"end"ent )o-ld ,e pre@-di!ial to the opposin* part., there has ,een ,ad faith on the part of the "o8in* part., or the a"end"ent )o-ld ha8e ,een f-tile.# 064 . 6d 0'0, 0/7 $0 th Cir. /''7(. 9he f-tilit. of this a"end"ent is "anifest on the fa!e of the do!-"ent. 4. Despite the Plaintiffs ha8in* ,een told )hat )as )ron* )ith his AC ,. o8er a half: 7

doBen attorne.s, the SAC still retains a le*ion of fla)s. Ae!a-se of spa!e li"itations, Mr. Walker )ill fo!-s on onl. fo-r fatal fla)s in the proposed SAC. irst, the Plaintiff has not "ade an. non!on!l-sor.

alle*ation that he has s-ffered an. a!t-al in@-r. in his o)n propert. and ,-siness as ne!essar. -nder &4 ?.S.C. E&>70$!(. Se!ond, he has not "ade an. non!on!l-sor. alle*ation of state a!tion as req-ired ,. 0/ ?.S.C. E&>46. 9hird, he has not "ade an. non!on!l-sor. alle*ation of an in8idio-sl. dis!ri"inator. "oti8e as req-ired ,. 0/ ?.S.C. E&>4= or a neC-s to an. federal @-di!ial pro!eedin*. inall., )ith

e8er. !lai" ,ased on federal q-estion @-risdi!tion re"o8ed, this !o-rt )o-ld no lon*er ha8e s-pple"ental @-risdi!tion o8er an. state la) !lai"s, and )itho-t !o"plete di8ersit., s-!h state la) !lai"s sho-ld ,e dis"issed. Mr. Walker )ill not ,ela,or these points ,e!a-se of spa!e li"itations ,-t )ill ,riefl. ill-"inate the" as follo)s. >. irst, the Plaintiff !ontin-es to fail to "ake an. non!on!l-sor. alle*ation that he )as

in@-red in his propert. or ,-siness as a proCi"ate res-lt of the alle*ed 8iolations of 5;CO, and, indeed, "-!h of his effort to !lai" da"a*es appears to ,e an i"proper atte"pt to represent the interests of his !orporations ,efore this !o-rt )itho-t *oin* thro-*h the eCpense of hirin* an attorne. to represent the" as req-ired ,. lo!al r-les. 9he Plaintiff !lai"s to ha8e 8ario-s propert. interests in thin*s s-!h as tea!hin* ;ranian a!ti8ists and o,tainin* f-ndin* for his !o"pan., ,-t in Muigai v. IB Prop. Holdings, %%C Case No. '4+'>:CD:'&7/6:AW $D. Md., /'&'(, this !o-rt has held spe!ifi!all. that s-!h interests are ins-ffi!ient to *rant standin* -nder E&>70$!(, )ritin* that+ 2a3ltho-*h 5;CO is to ,e read ,roadl., edima, 016 ?.S. at 0>4, 2t3he phrase H,-siness or propert. also retains restri!ti8e si*nifi!an!e.# !eiter v. onotone "orp., 00/ ?.S. 66', 66> $&>1>(. S-!h restri!tion helps to ass-re that 5;CO is not eCpanded to pro8ide a federal !a-se of a!tion and tre,le da"a*es to e8er. tort plaintiff.# Maio v. #etna, Inc., //& .6d 01/, 046 $6d Cir. /'''(. Co-rts ha8e r-led that an eCpe!tan!. interest or an intan*i,le propert. interest is not s-ffi!ient for 5;CO standin*. See McLaughlin v. #m. $obacco "o., =// .6d /&=, //1 $/d Cir. /''4(< Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., &64 .6d 7'/, 7'1 $=th Cir. &>>4(< teele v. Hospital "orp. of #m., 67 .6d 7>, 1' $>th Cir. &>>0(. 1

;nstead, in Muigai this !o-rt req-ired that the plaintiff de"onstrate a !on!rete loss,# and ,e!a-se that plaintiff didnt, his 5;CO !lai"s )ere dis"issed. &'. 9hat is also the ine8ita,le o-t!o"e if the SAC is a!!epted ,. this !o-rt, ,-t )ith another

ro-nd of eCtensi8e ,riefin* )ith likel. "ore than a doBen "otions to dis"iss. 9he 8ast "a@orit. of the Plaintiffs !lai"s for in@-r. relate to alle*ed in@-ries to his !o"pan. or the. represent alle*ed personal in@-r. that !ant ,e !lai"ed -nder 5;CO. 9he sole eC!eption is his !lai" in para*raph /'0 that he has ,een in@-red ,. ha8in* interferen!e 2si!3 )ith his ,-siness as a "-si!ian, !o"poser and "ana*er2.3# 9his alle*ation is )holl. !on!l-sor.. Ass-"in* that these are his losses, he "akes no atte"pt to eCplain ho) s-!h losses a!!r-ed. 9he Plaintiff *i8es -s no idea )hat son*s, 8ideos, al,-"s, et!. he s-pposedl. had diffi!-lt. in sellin*, let alone ho) an. Defendant !a-sed s-!h diffi!-lt., and, therefore, the Plaintiffs !lai" a"o-nts to an -nadorned, the:defendant:-nla)f-ll.:har"ed:"e a!!-sation# of the sort re@e!ted in #shcroft v. I%bal, ==7 ?.S. 77/, 714 $/''>(. &&. Se!ond, in re*ards to 0/ ?.S.C. E&>46 6 none of the additional alle*ations, if a!!epted as

tr-e, are s-ffi!ient to transfor" Mr. re.s off:d-t. !ond-!t into state a!tion. ;ndeed, all of these ne) alle*ations appeared in the Plaintiffs prior oppositions to 8ario-s "otions to dis"iss and their ins-ffi!ien!. has alread. ,een de"onstrated ,. Mr. Walkers 5epl. to Plaintiffs Opposition to Walkers Motion to Dis"iss, $Walkers 5epl.,# EC No. ==(. 9here is literall. nothin* to sa. here that hadnt alread. ,een said there, and the fa!t that s-!h is the !ase de"onstrates the f-tilit. of the a"end"ent in re*ards to his !lai"s -nder E&>46. &/.
6

9hird, the Plaintiff has "ade little atte"pt to "eet the req-ire"ents of 0/ ?.S.C. E&>4=.

Mr. Walker is not p-rportin* to file this on Mr. re.s ,ehalf, ,-t is "erel. raisin* this point to de"onstrate that the a"end"ent is !o"pletel. f-tile. 9hat ne!essaril. req-ires Mr. Walker to !on8in!e this !o-rt that it is f-tile in relation to all !lai"s and all parties. 4

As an initial "atter, he has not alle*ed an. in8idio-sl. dis!ri"inator. ani"-s. Aoth the se!ond part of E&>4=$/( and the first part of E&>4=$6( !ontain li"itin* lan*-a*e req-irin* that the persons a!t )ith intent to depri8e their 8i!ti"s of the eq-al prote!tion of the la)s.# &ush v. !utledge, 07' ?.S. 1&>, 1/= $&>46(. ;n 'riffin v. Brec(enridge, 0'6 ?.S. 44, &'/ $&>1&( that lan*-a*e )as interpreted as req-irin* so"e ra!ial, or perhaps other)ise !lass:,ased, in8idio-sl. dis!ri"inator. ani"-s ,ehind the !onspirators a!tion.# 9he onl. atte"pt the Plaintiff has "ade to "eet this req-ire"ent )as his

l-di!ro-s atte"pt to !lai" that the Defendants )ere "oti8ated ,. ani"-s to)ard !on8i!ted felons $PlaintiffIs 5esponse to Defendants Malkin and 9)it!h.s Motion to Dis"iss, EC No. 71(, )hi!h is ins-ffi!ient -nder Bray v. #le)andria *omen Health "linic , ='7 ?.S. /76 $&>>6(. ;n Bray, the S-pre"e Co-rt re@e!ted the !lai" that ani"-s to)ard )o"en seekin* a,ortion# q-alified as in8idio-s ani"-s -nder E&>4=. ;f the S-pre"e Co-rt )ill not re!o*niBe a prote!ted !lass of indi8id-als ,ased on the desire to en*a*e in lawful a!ti8it. $s-!h as a,ortion(, it onl. follo)s that the S-pre"e Co-rt )ill not re!o*niBe a prote!ted !lass of people )ho ha8e a!t-all. en*a*ed in unlawful a!ti8it.. &6. 9he Plaintiff tries to *et aro-nd this ,. also !lai"in* that

2t3he na"ed Defendants !onspired to deter Plaintiff, ,. for!e, inti"idation, or threat, fro" attendin* !o-rt, or fro" testif.in* to an. "atter pendin* therein, freel., f-ll., and tr-thf-&l., and to in@-re Plaintiff in his person or propert. on a!!o-nt of his ha8in* so attended or testified. SAC, J /&7. 9his !losel. tra!ks the lan*-a*e of the first part of E&>4=$/(, ,-t it lea8es o-t the !r-!ial req-ire"ent that s-!h !ond-!t "-st ,e related to a federal @-di!ial pro!eedin*. &ush, 07' ?.S. at 1/0 $statin* that the first portion of E &>4=$/(# !on!erned federal @-di!ial pro!eedin*s#(. On!e a*ain, Mr. Walker has alread. pointed o-t that the Plaintiff has "ade no alle*ation of an. relationship to a federal @-di!ial pro!eedin* in the AC,0 and, despite Mr. Walker ha8in* pointed that o-t, the SAC added no
0

Defendant Walkers Me"orand-" of Points and A-thorities in S-pport of Defendant Walkers >

s-!h alle*ation. &0. 9herefore, the Plaintiffs atte"pt to sal8a*e all of his federal !a-ses of a!tion are -tterl.

f-tile. E8en after the ,enefit of the insi*ht of "ore than half a doBen attorne.s, the Plaintiff has not properl. alle*ed a 8iolation of an. federal la). Witho-t federal q-estion @-risdi!tion to s-pport

s-pple"ental @-risdi!tion o8er his state la) !lai"s, the Plaintiff "-st rel. eC!l-si8el. on di8ersit. of !itiBenship @-risdi!tion in order to *rant this !o-rt @-risdi!tion of those !lai"s. &=. Go)e8er, the Plaintiff has -tterl. failed to "eet the req-ire"ents of /4 ?.S.C. E&66/$a(.

Aesides the fa!t that there isnt a!t-al di8ersit. of !itiBenship, the Plaintiff has failed to delineate ho) "-!h he )as alle*edl. da"a*ed ,. )hi!h !a-ses of a!tion. Ge si"pl. states, *lo,all., that all !a-ses of a!tion ha8e !-"-lati8el. !a-sed hi" da"a*es in an a"o-nt eC!eedin* F1=,''', that is F/,'''.'''. 2si!3# Pres-"in* he "eant t)o "illion dollars, ho) "-!h of that a"o-nt, in the Plaintiffs "ind, )as !a-sed ,. the alle*edl. )ron*f-l a!ts -nder 5;CO and the alle*ed 8iolations of 0/ ?.S.C. EE&>46 and &>4=, and ho) "-!h of it )as !a-sed ,. his state la) !lai"sK 9he Plaintiff *i8es this !o-rt no idea. 9o ill-strate ,. eCa"ple, for all this !o-rt kno)s, the Plaintiff s-ffered F&,>/=,''& in da"a*es for the federal !a-ses of a!tion, and F10,>>> for all the state !a-ses of a!tion. ;n that s!enario, dis"issin* all federal !a-ses of a!tion )o-ld red-!e the Plaintiffs da"a*es ,elo) the F1=,''' threshold. 9he point of this h.potheti!al isnt to sa. that it is tr-eLlike this !o-rt, Mr. Walker !an onl. spe!-lateL,-t to point o-t that the Plaintiff has not "ade s-ffi!ient alle*ations to allo) this !o-rt to deter"ine )hether his state la) !lai"s, in the a**re*ate, a"o-nt to "ore than F1=,''' in da"a*es )itho-t spe!-lation. 9h-s, )itho-t a federal q-estion and )itho-t di8ersit. of !itiBenship @-risdi!tion, the SAC is an eCer!ise in f-tilit. ,e!a-se it )ill ine8ita,l. ,e dis"issed.

Motion to Dis"iss,# EC No. &&, pp. 6=:64. &'

&7.

;n the end, the reasons )h. the SAC sho-ld ,e dis"issed !an alread. ,e fo-nd in Mr.

Walkers prior filin*s seekin* dis"issal of the AC as )ell as those of the other Defendants. Si"pl. p-t, the Plaintiff has failed to address the defi!ien!ies in the AC $or 8ol-ntaril. dis"iss the !ase as he sho-ld(, renderin* an. a!!eptan!e of the SAC an eCer!ise in f-tilit. and a )aste of e8er.ones ti"e. III. LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF+S ADMITTED BAD FAITH &1. Laber v. Harvey also held that lea8e to a"end a pleadin* sho-ld ,e denied... )hen...

there has ,een ,ad faith on the part of the "o8in* part.2.3# 064 . 6d at 0/7. ;n his Derified 5esponse to e,r-ar. /&, /'&0 Order to Sho) Ca-se 5e 9)it!h. S-""ons# $hereinafter Sho) Ca-se,# EC no. &'/(, the Plaintiff finall. ans)ered in the affir"ati8e that he had for*ed a s-""ons for 9)it!h.. ;t is hard to i"a*ine a "ore eCtre"e eCa"ple of ,ad faithLindeed so "-!h so that !o-nsel for 9)it!h. a!!-ratel. stated that )e are in -n!harted )aters.#= &4. ;t is also )orth notin* that none of the Plaintiffs eC!-ses or atte"pts to "iti*ate his irst, the Plaintiff pleads in essen!e that he is an i*norant pro se liti*ant )ho didnt

!ond-!t hold )ater.

kno) ,etter. Go)e8er, that ar*-"ent )as re@e!ted last "onth ,. this !o-rt in the !ase of &imberlin v. &imberlin+nmas(ed, J-d*e 9it-s )ritin* that+ 9he Plaintiff is no stran*er to the pro!esses of this Co-rt. ollo)in* his !on8i!tion in the ?nited States Distri!t Co-rt for the So-thern Distri!t of ;ndiana for possession of a firear" not re*istered to hi", "an-fa!t-re of a firear", "ali!io-sl. da"a*in* ,. eCplosion the propert. of an entit. re!ei8in* federal finan!ial assistan!e, and da"a*in* propert. of a ,-siness -sed in and effe!tin* interstate !o""er!e, )hi!h )as affir"ed in +nited tates v. &imberlin, 4'= ./d /&' $&>47(, he !o""en!ed n-"ero-s !ases in this Co-rt a*ainst the ?nited States Parole Co""ission, in Brett ". &imberlin v. ,epartment of -ustice and +. . Parole "ommission, Case No. 4+>4:!8:''16':AW< Brett &imberlin v. +nited tates Parole "ommission, et al., Case No. 4+>1:!8:'64/>:AW< Brett ". 5epl. Me"orand-" in S-pport of Defendants Mi!helle Malkin and 9)it!h.s Motion to Dis"iss# $EC No. &'&(, p. /.
=

&&

&imberlin v. +nited tates Parole "ommission, Case No. 4+>1:!8:'/'77:AW< Brett ". &imberlin v. +. . Parole "ommission, et al., Case No. 4+>1:!8:'&741:AW, and Brett ". &imberlin v. +nited tates Parole "ommission , Case No. 4+>1:!8:''06&:AW, apparentl. in relation to his efforts to ,e paroled fro" his !on8i!tion affir"ed ,. the 1th Cir!-it in &>47. ollo)in* his release on parole, he also ,ro-*ht an a!tion in this Co-rt )hi!h )as treated as an effort to o8ert-rn his ;ndiana !on8i!tion -nder /4 ?.S.C. E //==. Gis petition )as denied, and the denial )as affir"ed ,. the 0th Cir!-it, Brett ". &imberlin v. *arden, Case No. 4+'0:!8:'/44&:AW. inall., he has ,een in8ol8ed in liti*ation !on!ernin* his personal ,ankr-pt!. in this Co-rt, Brett "oleman &imberlin v. + # v. In !e. Brett "oleman &imberlin v. -ames $urner , Case No. 4+>4:!8:'6=47:AW and Brett &imberlin v. + $rustee, Case No. 4+>4:!8:''0>':AW. Me"orand-" Opinion, EC No. &/, &imberlin v. &imberlin+nmas(ed, Case No. 4+&6:!8:'/=4':5W9 pp. 6:0. 9he idea that the Plaintiff is so"e ,a,e in the )oods# )hen it !o"es to liti*ation is l-di!ro-s. And e8en if he )ere a ne)!o"er, ho) "-!h eCperien!e does one need to kno) not to take a offi!ial do!-"ent, re"o8e infor"ation fro" it and add in ne) infor"ation, passin* it off as an ori*inalK &>. -rther, an. !lai" that this )as si"pl. an honest "istake# is e8is!erated ,. the fa!t irst, in

that, e8en )hen pretendin* to !o"e !lean, the Plaintiff !ontin-ed to "islead this !o-rt. para*raph 6 of the Sho) Ca-se, the Plaintiff )rites that 2)3hen the Clerk intitiall. sent Plaintiff /& s-""ons, Plaintiff spent ho-rs !o"pilin* the" )ith the Co"plaints, the en8elopes and !ertified !ards onl. to dis!o8er that the s-""ons for 9)it!h. )as "issin*. At the ti"e, Plaintiff ass-"ed that the Clerk had inad8ertentl. for*otten to in!l-de that s-""ons sin!e 9)it!h. )as na"ed as a Defendant in the Co"plaint and 9)it!h.s addressed )as listed in para*raph /= of the Co"plaint. 9herefore, Plaintiff t.ped the address on a s-""ons and in!l-ded it )ith the Co"plaint to Defendant 9)it!h. and sent it !ertified to that address.

Not onl. does this *loss o8er the eCtent of his "is!ond-!tLskippin* the part )here he re"o8ed the address that )as a!t-all. )ritten, and ser8ed a false !op. of the !o"plaint )ith 9)it!h. added to the !aptionLit doesnt fa!t-all. hold )ater. Ge is !lai"in* that he altered the s-""ons immediately after re!ei8in* the other s-""onses, ,-t se8eral fa!ts de"onstrate that he had done so "-!h later. As noted in the Me"orand-" in S-pport of Defendant Mi!helle Malkin and Non:Part. 9)it!h.Is Motion to &/

Dis"iss# $EC No. 0&( p. 6, the for*ed s-""ons )as "ailed to Sale" Co""-ni!ations on or a,o-t Jan-ar. 6, /'&0. While Sale" Co""-ni!ations had p-r!hased 9)it!h., that p-r!hase had not o!!-rred -ntil De!e",er, /'&6, "ore than a "onth after Mr. Mi",erlin re!ei8ed those s-""ons. ;ndeed, -pon infor"ation and ,elief, that p-r!hase )as not p-,li!l. kno)n -ntil De!e",er &'. 9herefore, lo*i!all. speakin*, the for*er. "-st ha8e ,een !o""itted at so"e point after that. /'. 9he Plaintiff "istates the tr-th a se!ond ti"e in the Sho) Ca-se )hen he !lai"s in

para*raph 7 that he has apolo*iBed to all parties.# 9he Plaintiff has ne8er apolo*iBed to Mr. Walker. /&. 9he Plaintiff )o-ld o)e Mr. Walker an apolo*. for t)o reasons. irst, it )as e8identl.

Mr. Walkers s-""ons he altered. Se!ond, the Plaintiff pre8io-sl. !alled Mr. Walker a liar ,efore this !o-rt for a!!-sin* hi" of for*in* that sa"e s-""ons. Spe!ifi!all. the Plaintiff )rote+ Defendant Walker... filed these pleadin*s so he !o-ld p-,lish .et "ore arti!les on his ,lo* a!!-sin* Plaintiff of "ore i"a*ined !ri"es. See EChi,it A,entitled, Con8i!ted Do!-"ent: or*er Arett Mi",erlins ra-d On 9he Co-rt,# dated e,r-ar. 7, /'&0. PlaintiffIs 5esponse in Opposition to Defendant Walkers Motion to EC!eed Pa*e %i"it and to Strike $EC No. 7&(, J &0. 9hat eChi,it )as an partial and ina!!-rate portion of an arti!le )here Mr. Walker dis!-ssed the e8iden!e that the Plaintiff had for*ed the sa"e s-""ons and the potential !ri"inal !onseq-en!es of that a!t. 9h-s, on e,r-ar. &&, /'&0, the Plaintiff !lai"ed that the for*er. )as an i"a*ined !ri"e.# ECa!tl. a "onth later, he !onfessed to it. 9he Plaintiff o)ed Mr. Walker an apolo*. for !allin* hi" a liar ,efore this !o-rt, ,-t instead "isled this !o-rt a,o-t "akin* s-!h an apolo*.. //. Dr. Martin %-ther Min*, Jr. on!e "o!ked those )ho ,elie8e that 2i3ts all ri*ht to

diso,e. the 9en Co""and"ents, ,-t @-st dont diso,e. the Ele8enth+ H9ho- shall not *et !a-*ht.# 7 9he fa!t that the Plaintiff !hose to "islead this !o-rt e8en in his Sho) Ca-se )here he pretends to !o"e Dr. Martin %-ther Min*, Jr., !ediscovering Lost /alues, http+OO8i"eo.!o"O/06414&1( 8isited Mar!h /6, /'&0.
7

A?D;O 5ECO5D;NN

$a8aila,le at

&6

!lean, pro8es that he isnt sorr. that he for*ed a s-""ons. Ges @-st sorr. he *ot !a-*ht.1 CONCLUSION /6. 9his !o-rt sho-ld den. lea8e to a"end for the follo)in* three reasons. irst, despite

!lai"in* to ha8e done so, the Plaintiff did not !o"pl. )ith Md. lo!al r-le &'6.7$!( ,. pro8idin* an a!!-rate !op. of his proposed SAC )ith the !han*es indi!ated. Se!ond, it )o-ld ,e an eCer!ise in f-tilit. as he has not addressed the "ost ,asi! short!o"in*s of his AC. 9hird, the Plaintiffs o)n ,ad faith, "isstatin* the tr-th e8en )hen pretendin* to !o"e !lean a,o-t his for*in* of a s-""ons, *i8es this !o-rt @-st !a-se to den. lea8e to a"end. ;ndeed, the Plaintiffs proposed SAC doesnt e8en in!l-de a proper si*nat-re ,lo!k -nder ed. 5. Ci8. P. &&$a(, and he didnt e8en pla!e the "otion for lea8e in the "ail for ser8i!e on Mr. Walker -ntil Mar!h &/, /'&0, in 8iolation of !o-rt r-les and other orders ,. this !o-rt.4 9his !o-rt has ,een 8er. tolerant of the Plaintiffs !onstant ref-sal to pla. ,. the r-les, ,-t at
1

9hat a!t of ,ad faith alone @-stifies san!tions in!l-din* ref-sin* to allo) an a"end"ent to the !o"plaint, ,-t there is additional e8iden!e of ,ad faith in the SAC. ;n the interest of ,re8it., onl. three )ill ,e "entioned. irst, the Plaintiff a,s-rdl. !lai"s that Defendant Eri!kson @oined the Enterprise t)i!e, SAC JJ 46 and >=. Se!ond, in para*raph >', the Plaintiff )rites that on Ma. /=, /'&/, 8ario-s parties in!l-din* Mr. Walker and Mr. re. falsel. and "ali!io-sl. i"p-te2d3 that Plaintiff s)atted Defendant re. and Defendant Walker.# 9his )as a "onth ,efore Mr. Walker )as SWA9ted. SAC, J 47. 9hird, in para*raph &&7, the Plaintiff falsifies the q-ote of a "essa*e that alle*edl. ori*inated fro" a !o"p-ter in the %os An*eles Co-nt. Sheriffs offi!e. 9he Plaintiff !lai"ed it said %EADE G;M A%ONE. DON9 NO 9GE5E# ,-t his o)n eChi,it $Plaintiffs 5esponse to Defendants Go*e and Walkers Motion to Dis"iss,# EChi,it P, EC No. />( stated that the "essa*e onl. said Dont *o there.# 9his !o-rt !an !onsider that eChi,it )hen e8al-atin* this "otion ,e!a-se it !onstit-tes a @-di!ial ad"ission ,. the PlaintiffLat least to his pre@-di!eLthat it is a tr-e and !orre!t !op. of the "essa*e he had re!ei8ed. #merican $itle Ins. "o. v. Lacelaw "orp., 47& ./d //0, //7 $>th Cir.,&>44( $2f3a!t-al assertions in pleadin*s and pretrial orders, -nless a"ended, are !onsidered @-di!ial ad"issions !on!l-si8el. ,indin* on the part. )ho "ade the".#( Mr. Walker pointed o-t in his 5epl. $pp. &>:/'( that the Plaintiff had "istated the tr-th a,o-t his o)n eChi,it, and, .et, rather than !orre!t his error, the Plaintiff repeated it in the SAC. ;s there an. stron*er e8iden!e of ,ad faith than repeatin* a falsehood e8en after it is pro8en to ,e falseK 4 9he Plaintiff also in!l-des i""aterial $and ,afflin*( alle*ations in his SAC in para*raphs 66:67, )here he o-tlines an alle*ed !onspira!. a*ainst hi" in8ol8in* the Cha",er of Co""er!e, the A;, and the &0

so"e point this toleran!e "-st end. 9his !o-rt sho-ld den. the Plaintiffs "otion for lea8e to a"end, hear the "otions to dis"iss the AC and dis"iss this !ase.

Monda., Mar!h /0, /'&0

5espe!tf-ll. s-,"itted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq. Da AarQ 0444/ 2personal infor"ation reda!ted3 AaronJW1/R*"ail.!o"

NSA. ;n para*raph 67, the SAC !ites fro" a pie!e that !lai"s that the NSA is tr.in* to !ontrol the internet ,. sor!er. and in!l-des the follo)in* passa*e+ Ma*i!. Aelief. 5eli*ion. De!eption. So!ial net)orks. Net the pi!t-reK# Joseph Cannon, Mind Blowing0, CANNON ;5E, e,. /=, /'&0 $a8aila,le at http+OO!annonfire.,lo*spot.!o"O/'&0O'/O"ind:,lo)in*.ht"l(, 8isited Mar!h //, /'&0. Aesides ,ein* -n,elie8a,le, this !onspira!. theor.Le8en if tr-eLis i""aterial. 9he Plaintiff does not alle*e that an. of the instant Defendants are part of this alle*ed !onspira!.. Ge onl. !lai"s that the Defendants are part of a parallel !a"pai*n.# SAC, J 61. 9hat is, he !lai"s that )hat the instant Defendants did is similar to this s-pposed GA Nar.O A;ONSA !onspira!. a*ainst hi". E8en if tr-e, the fa!t so"eone "i*ht ha8e done so"ethin* si"ilar is i""aterial to deter"inin* )hat these Defendants did and its le*alit.. &=