No. PWG 13 3059
Now comes Plaintiff and responds in opposition to Defendant DB Capitol
Strategies' Motion to Dismiss. The Court must deny a Motion to Dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless it "appears beyond doubt
that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle
him to relief." Conley v. Gibson} 355 U.S. 41, (1957). "The question is whether in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the
Complaint states any valid claim for relief." 5A Wright &Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil 2d § 1357, at 336. The Court, when deciding a motion to dismiss,
must consider well-pled allegations in a complaint as true and must construe those
allegations in favor ofthe plaintiff. Scheuerv. Rhodes} 416 U.S. 232, 236
(1974); jenkins v. McKeithen) 395 U.S. 411, 421-22 (1969). The Court must further
disregard the contrary allegations ofthe opposing party. A.S. Abell Co. v. Chell, 412
F.2d 712, 715 (4th Cir.1969); Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871
(1990) ("a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears to a
certainty that plaintiffis entitled to no relief under any state offacts which could be
proved in support ofthe claim. ") (emphasis added).
What Is DB Capitol Strategies and What Did It Do to Plaintiff
1. Defendant DB Capitol Strategies ("DBCS") is a Virginia based law firm headed
by attorney Dan Backer. Mr. Backer is best known for his representation of
many Tea Party groups and PACs. He has a reputation for pushing the
boundaries of the law, and has sued the FEC, IRS and Plaintiff, losing most of
his cases. He is the treasurer of several Tea Party PACs such as
StopHillaryPAC. JoinTheTeaParty.us and TheTeaParty.net Exhibit A. Several
of these PACs/entities have come under scrutiny for misappropriation of
funds. Id.
2. In 2012, Mr. Backer, on behalf of Defendant Aaron Walker, sued Plaintiff in
three cases. The first, in Prince William County Virginia Circuit Court, Walker
v. Kimberlin, CL 12-631, consisted of 32 counts requesting damages of 60
million dollars. The lawsuit was so patently frivolous and malicious that
Judge Potter dismissed it in a scathing decision from the bench, saying: "The
Court finds that the complaint is not well grounded in fact, it's not warranted
by existing law, and it's imposed for an improper purpose as part of an
ongoing political dispute between the parties." Exhibit Bat 24.
3. The second was filed in this Court, Walker v Kimberlin et aI, 12-CV-01852-
JFM, and it sued Plaintiff for a series oftorts, and it was dismissed, apparently
for improper service. The third, an amended complaint, sued Plaintiff and
two non-profit organizations with which he is involved. It alleged in essence
that the Montgomery County Courts were so inept and corrupt for protecting
Plaintiff from Defendant Walker that the federal courts had to step in a stop
Plaintiff from filing anything in that Court without being first approved by a
federal administrative law judge. Judge Motz summarily rejected this suit in
a one-page dismissal along with an implied warning of sanctions ifsuch a
case were brought again. Exhibit C.
4. All of these cases were brought against Plaintiff in bad faith and for improper
purposes. They were without merit both legally and factually, but were
brought to intimidate and warn Plaintiff against seeking redress in the court
system. In the state case, Mr. Backer engaged in grossly inappropriate and
unethical conduct by repeatedly filing for sanctions against Plaintiff for
simply responding to motions. With pleaded after pleading, Mr. Backer filed
for costs against Plaintiff totaling in the tens ofthousands of dollars and even
asked for contempt. He improperly requested discovery about swattings and
other crimes as if Plaintiff had been involved in such criminal activity. Judge
Potter denied every request for sanctions and every request for discovery.
Exhibit Bat 29.
5. In the federal case, Mr. Backer included the two non-profits as defendants in
the Complaint without alleging any wrongdoing other than that they were
associated with Plaintiff. When counsel for the non-profits asked Mr. Backer
in good faith to dismiss the non-profits, Mr. Backer demanded that Plaintiff
be fired, that the non-profits turn over all records to him, and that the non-
profits pay a financial settlement. Exhibit D,
6, When counsel for the non-profits rejected that extortionate demand and filed
a Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Backer responded by sending a defamatory
document hold letter to the non-profits' largest institutional funder, and
falsely told that funder that Plaintiff and the non-profits were engaged in
criminal activity on a grand scope. Exhibit E. The letter states in part:
This letter is to inform you of the current above-styled lawsuit pending
against Mr. Brett Kimberlin, Justice Through Music Project, and Velvet
Revolution US ("the Organizations"), in which I represent Plaintiff Aaron
Walker. Your organization has come up during the development of this
litigation as a donor to one or both of these organizations, and as such
potentially enabling the tortious and potentially unlawful conduct of Mr.
Kimberlin and the Organizations. For your benefit, I have enclosed the
Complaint and a Rule 11 motion Mr. Kimberlin filed against me in a
desperate attempt to intimidate me from pursuing this case and litigating it
through trial. I have also included my response and I give you my assurance
that I will be preceding (sic) in strict accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and, in short order, with discovery which will seek
information on every aspect of the Organizations' including donor and
fundraising apparatuses. Because ofyour organization's involvement with
Mr. Kimberlin and the Organizations, and because of their potentially
tortuous and perhaps even illegal   t i v i t y ~ I am sending you this letter as a
request to preserve potential evidence in this matter. ....
7. Two days after Mr. Backer sent the defamatory letter, this Court dismissed
the case.
8. After the institutional funder received the defamatory document hold letter,
it advised Plaintiff that it would not fund his non-profits in 2013 and 2014 as
it had done for the previous five years. Exhibit F.
9. When Mr. Backer and DBCS filed the lawsuits against Plaintiff, they did not
simply try the cases in the courts. Instead, they did two things that reputable
law firms do not do. First, they created a website supposedly to keep people
informed about the cases. Exhibit G. This website falsely imputes that the
lawsuits were brought to protect conservative bloggers from Plaintiffs
lawfare and swattings. Incredibly, at that time, Plaintiff had never even filed
a lawsuit against a conservative blogger, and the only legal proceedings
Plaintiff had brought against anyone in 2012 or 2013 were Peace Orders and
criminal charges against Defendant Aaron Walker for assaulting, harassing
and stalking Plaintiff, against John Norton for coming to Plaintiffs home,
stalking Plaintiff and taking photos of him and his daughter, and against
Martin Mayer for repeatedly calling Plaintiff, Plaintiffs elderly mother, his
pre teen daughter, and his neighbors with threats and harassment.
10. Second, Mr. Backer and DBCS began a fundraising campaign through a
501(c)(3) created by Mr. Backer called the Institute for Individualism to pay
Mr. Backer and DBCS to prosecute the three cases against Plaintiff even
though they repeatedly said they were acting "pro bono.
They stated on the
DBCS-created website, "Bloggers Defense Team," that as of July 9,2012, they
raised in excess of $11,000 from Americans who bought into the false
narratives alleged in the lawsuits. Exhibit H. And the 2012 year-end IRS 990
form for the Institute for Individualism shows more than $55,000 raised. Mr.
Backer and DBCS decided to raise the funds after media reports were
published exposing Defendant Ali Akbar as a convicted felon on probation
from the State of Texas who falsely told people that Defendant National
B10ggers Club was a 501(c)(3) non-profit that could accept tax-deductible
donations. Exhibit I. Once Defendant Akbar's scam was exposed, DBCS
stepped in and provided a clean 501(c)(3) for continued fundraising based
on the false narratives created by the Defendants about Plaintiff and
swattings and suing conservative bloggers. DBCS and Mr. Backer had had a
multi-year relationship with Defendant Akbar and had previously paid him
for things such as web development, consulting and marketing. Exhibit J. In
short, DBCS and Dan Backer continued Defendant Akbar's fraud by using a
disposable non-profit to raise tens of thousands of dollars to target Plaintiff
based on false narratives about Plaintiff. (That non-profit appears to have
been shuttered at the end of 2012 and its website has been removed). Mr.
Backer falsely portrayed himself and DBCS as acting "pro bono," when in fact
he used the money raised to pay himself and others.
11. After Judge Potter and Judge Motz dismissed the cases brought by Mr. Backer
and DBCS on November 26 and December 4,2012, Plaintiff repeatedly asked
Mr. Backer to remove the website and its false narratives. Exhibit K. Mr.
Backer, however, not only refused to do so, but told Plaintiff not to contact
him again. Id. And in a demonstration of gross malice, Mr. Backer never
updated the website to reflect the fact that both cases were dismissed. In
fact, a current reading of the website on January 15, 2014 leaves the reader
believing that the Virginia case is still pending and the federal case may be
appealed. Mr. Backer and DBCS are fraudulently exploiting that false belief
by continuing to raise funds to defend cases that were dismissed more than a
year ago.
12. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff sued Defendant Walker in Montgomery
County Circuit Court for, inter alia, abuse of process and malicious
prosecution for filing numerous civil and criminal actions against him,
including the cases before Judge Potter and Judge Motz. Kimberlin v. Walker,
380966-V. On January 13, 2014, Judge Burrell held a hearing on Defendant
Walker's Motion to Dismiss that case and denied it finding that Plaintiff filed
a well pleaded case that should proceed to trial. Exhibit L. This ruling
supports Plaintiffs RICO charge, which alleges that DBCS used malicious legal
filings for the improper purpose of extortion. (The Judge also issued the
same ruling against Defendants Hoge, McCain, and KimberlinUnmasked).
Plaintiff Properly Alleged Violations of RICO
13. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") was
enacted in 1970 with the goal of eliminating the infiltration of organized
crime into legitimate organizations. See Benard v. Holt 727 F. Supp. 211, 213
(D.Md.1989); see also International Data Bank, Ltd. v. Zepkin, 812 F.2d 149,
lSS (4th Cir.1987) (stating that Congress intended "that RICO serve as a
weapon against ongoing unlawful activities whose scope and persistence
pose a special threat to social well-being."). In the instant case, the
Defendants engaged in ongoing unlawful activities against Plaintiff that
posed a threat to the social well-being.
14. DBCS argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege a proper violation of RI CO
because it merely represented Defendant Walker in two civil suits, created a
website about the cases, and raised money "to support its pro bono
representation of Walker," This is without merit and attempts to sanitize the
many predicate acts committed not only by those in the Enterprise, but by
Dan Backer and DBCS themselves.
15. Respondent superior is applicable to hold a corporation liable for RICO
violations of its employees. Mylan Labs v. Akzo, 770 E. Supp. 1053,1070 (D.
Md. 1991) ("Thus, a corporation or partnership can be held liable under RICO
for the acts of its agents and/or representatives committed within the scope
of their authority. "). In the instant case, DBCS is controlled and represented
by Dan Backer and therefore DBCS is responsible for his acts.
16. Moreover, this Court has held that law firms can be held liable under RICO
where, as here, "the professional services provided strike at the very core of
the enterprise and therefore the lawyer or accountant providing the services
is managing or operating the firm." Thomas v. Ross &Hanlies, 9 F. Supp. 2d
547,554 (D. Md. 1998).
17. Dan Backer and DBCS joined the Enterprise and committed predicate acts in
order to cause maximum harm to Plaintiff, his livelihood, his property, and
his employer. In fact, their main goal of the Enterprise was to drive Plaintiff
out of business and intimidate him from exercising his First Amendment
right to redress. In Northeast Women's Health Center v. McMonaele, 868 F.2d
1342 (3rd Cir. 1989), the Court addressed a similar fact situation where
activists used threats, intimidation, violence and extortion in an attempt to
drive a health clinic out of business.
The "right" on which the Center's case was predicated was the right to
continue to operate its business. The Center's extortion claim was that
Defendants used force, threat.') of force, fear and violence in their efforts to
force the Center out of business. The court told the jury that, "[s]pecifically,
defendants are charged with attempting and conspiring to extort from the
Center its property interest in continuing to provide abortion services[;]
from its employees, their property interest in continuing their employment
with the Center[;] and from patients, their property interest in entering into a
contractual relationship with the Center."
Rights involving the conduct of business are property rights. As we
pointed out in United States v. Local 560. 780 F.2d 267. 281 (3d Cir.1985) ....
other circuits which have considered this question are unanimous in
extending the Hobbs Act to protect intangible, as well as tangible,
property. (Citations omitted). It is, of course, no defense to extortion that
Defendants did not succeed in their ultimate goal, although, as McMonagle's
own letter admitted, Defendants' activities did contribute to the Center's loss
of its lease at the Roosevelt Boulevard location.... Attempted extortion and
conspiracy to commit extortion are crimes under the Hobbs Act, see 18 U.S.c.
§ 1951(a), and "any act which is indictable under [the Hobbs Act]" is a
predicate offense under RICO. 18 U.S.c. § 1961(1)(B).
18. Plaintiff had a "property interest" in continuing his employment as the
director of a non-profit that he had worked at for the previous eight years.
He had a "property interest" in being able to raise funds for that business to
pay his salary and the other salaries and expenses of the business. Yet, Dan
Backer and DBCS conspired, attempted and engaged in conduct intended to
extort from Plaintiffs employer it's property interest in having Plaintiff
continue as its director, and Plaintiffs property interest to continue in that
19. Dan Backer and DBCS did this by filing three patently frivolous and malicious
lawsuits in two different jurisdictions to intimidate Plaintiff from seeking
redress and retaliate against him for exercising that right In fact, the second
federal lawsuit specifically asked the Court to prohibit Plaintiff from filing
any pleadings without first seeking approval from a federal administrative
law judge. And that federal lawsuit included as defendants two non-profits
(with which Plaintiff is involved) solely for the purpose of causing economic
harm to them, and to use the suit to extort them into firing Plaintiffin
exchange for dismissing them from the lawsuit. Exhibit D.
20. And when counsel for the non-profits rejected that attempted extortion by
Dan Backer and DBCS, they retaliated by sending a highly defamatory
document hold letter to the non-profits' largest institutional funder falsely
stating that Plaintiff and the non-profits were engaged in criminal conduct.
Exhibit E. Although that funder had provided grants of more than $300,000
during its multi-year relationship with Plaintiff and the non-profits} the
defamatory document hold letter caused that institutional funder to cease its
relationship with Plaintiff and the non-profits thereby depriving it of
hundreds of thousands in future funding. See affidavit of Plaintiff, Exhibit F.
21. Once Dan Backer and DBCS sent that document hold letter, the institutional
funder began receiving intimidating communications from "activists"
complaining about its funding of the non-profits. This caused one of the
senior staff at the institutional funder to contact Plaintiff to learn more about
the activities of the Defendants because in 2010, a man wearing body armor
and carrying multiple weapons was arrested on his way to its headquarters
to kill everyone there after being incited by Defendant Glenn Beck. Exhibit
M. As a result of these intimidating communications, the institutional funder
had to increase security at its offices in New York, Washington, DC and San
22. This conduct by Defendant DB Capitol Strategies also violates 18 USC
1513(e) because it was meant to retaliate against Plaintiff for providing
information to state and federal law enforcement about the conduct of the
Defendants. Section 1513(e) provides as follows:
(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful
to any person} including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood
ofany person} for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful
information relating to the commission or possible commission of any
Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
10 years, or both. (emphasis added).
23. In addition, as set forth in Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Hoge and
Walker, the Enterprise engaged in fraud and money laundering because it
solicited and received tens of thousands of dollars from unsuspecting citizens
based on the fraudulent representation that Defendant National Bloggers
Club is a 501c3 non-profit. DBCS knew of this fraud and therefore took over
the fundraising activities after Defendant Akbar was exposed as a felon and
Defendant National Bloggers Club was exposed for never even filing for
501c3 status. When DBCS took over the fundraising, it continued the false
narrative that Plaintiff was a swatter engaged in "lawfare" against
conservative bloggers. And then, after the three lawsuits were summarily
dismissed by Judge Potter and Judge Motz, DBCS and Dan Backer continued
with their false narratives and their misleading fundraising by not only
failing to update their website to reflect both of the dismissals, but by
actually refusing to correct them and telling Plaintiff not to contact them
when Plaintiff requested the corrections. Exhibit J.
24. The DBCS website to this day falsely imputes that Plaintiff is a swatter
engaged in lawfare. The website falsely states that DBCS and Dan Backer's
handling of the lawsuits was done "pro bono" but in fact they raised in excess
often thousand dollars based on their false narratives and defamatory
statements about Plaintiff. They used this income from a pattern of
racketeering to continue their racketeering activities.
25. Incredibly, DBCS' Motion to Dismiss asks this Court to grant the very relief
denied by Judge Motz when he dismissed its malicious lawsuit: {{An Order for
injunctive relief to enjoin Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin from initiating any further
frivolous and meretricious litigation without the prior approval by a court
appointed master or the posting of a bond in accordance with such order to
be paid as fees for the dismissal of such claims." This request is the same
type of intimidating and obstructing conduct that DBCS has been engaged in
for the past almost two years to prohibit Plaintiff from seeking redress for
abhorrent and racketeering conduct by the Defendants.
26. The Enterprise and acts ofDBCS and Dan Backer and the other Defendants
"have the same or similar purposes, victims, or methods of commission, or
are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not
isolated events." Anderson. Foundationfor Advancement, Education and
Employment ofAmerican Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 505-06 (4
Cir 1998).
27. A RICO Enterprise can be an association of individuals and corporations.
Superior Bank, FSB v. Tandem Nat. MortB. Inc, 197 F. Supp2d 298, 324 (D. Md.
2000). DBCS and its director Dan Backer were integral parts ofthe
Enterprise. They engaged in predicate acts of extortion, fraud and
obstruction, stepped in to take over functions of other Defendants once they
were exposed as fraudulent, and used their legal muscle in an attempt to
intimidate Plaintiff, drive him out of business and injure his business and
property. Moreover, the broad damages to Plaintiff support liability for civil
RICO. Potomac Electric Powerv. Electric Motor and Supply, 262 F3d 260 (4
Cir. 2001) (even nominal amount of damages sufficient to support liability in
civil RICO case).
28. Plaintiff adopts the other RICO arguments raised in his Response to
Defendant Hoge and Walker's Motions to Dismiss.
29. Clearly, Plaintiff has alleged a very strong civil RICO case against DBCS.
Plaintiffs Claim Under 42 USC 1983 Only Applies To Defendant Frey
30. Several of the Defendants have erroneously asserted that Plaintiff brought a
Count against them under 42 USC 1983. However, on the very face of the
Complaint, it states that this Count only applies to Defendant Frey. Compo at
Plaintiff Properly Alleged AClaim of Conspiracy under 42 USC 1985(3)
31. Plaintiff hereby adopts by reference his argument on this issue as presented
in his Response to Defendants Hoge and Walker's Motions to Dismiss.
Kimberlin HogejWalker Resp at 16-26.
32. Plaintiff has alleged a conspiracy among the Defendants to deprive him of
due process, redress, speech and equal protection ofthe law under color of
law. The color of law conspiracy is proper because the Defendants conspired
with Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey to intimidate, harass,
smear and imprison Plaintiff based on false accusations of crimes. It is
proper because the Defendants conspired to threaten, harass and sue
Plaintiff to stop him from seeking redress for tortious conduct on the part of
Defendant Walker and other Defendants.
33. Defendant DBCS and its agent Dan Backer maliciously sued Plaintiff two
times in this Court under the same cause number (12-CV-01852 JFM) to keep
him from exercising his right to redress. After the first one was dismissed,
they filed a second one and used that suit to attempt to deprive him of
property, as outlined above, and to extort his employer. This and another
suit filed on behalf of Defendant Aaron Walker in Prince William County
Virginia were meant to harm and create a basis to imprison Plaintiff as
outlined in detail in the HogejWalker Response. See Emails S-X in the
HogejWalker Response showthat Mr. Frey assisted Defendant Walker in the
preparation of the malicious Virginia suit.
34. Incredibly, in the Virginia suit, DBCS and Dan Backer actually served
interrogatories, admissions and document requests on Plaintiff demanding
discovery on swattings and demanding that he admit to other crimes. And
then they asked the judge to sanction Plaintiff with fines and imprisonment
until he complied with those discovery requests. Of course, Judge Potter
denied that motion at the same time he dismissed the suit in his order from
the bench. Exhibit B.
35. Clearly, Plaintiff has shown that Defendant Frey acted under color of law and
that Defendants DBCS and its agent Dan Backer were part of the conspiracy
to harm, retaliate, intimidate, and imprison Plaintiff in violation of his First
and Fifth Amendment rights to redress, speech, equal protection and due
Plaintiff Properly Alleged Defamation
36. Adefamatory statement is one which tends to expose a person to public
scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the
community from having a good opinion of, or from associating or dealing
with, that person. "To recover for defamation under Maryland law, a plaintiff
must establish that: (1) the defendant made a defamatory statement
regarding the plaintiff to a third person; (2) the statement was false; (3) the
defendant was legally at fault in making the statement; and (4) the plaintiff
suffered harm thereby." Holt v. Camus, 128 F. Supp. 2d 812, 815 (D. Md.
37. Defendant DBSC repeatedly and maliciously defamed Plaintiff by publishing
on its website that Plaintiff was involved with swattings, that he filed "more
than 100 frivolous lawsuits," that he engaged in "lawfare," that Plaintiff "cost
Walker his job," that "Kimberlin scoffs at millions of dollars in court
judgments against him," that "Kimberlin's list of victims is still growing," that
"Kimberlin seems to spend his time and resources harassing his critics with
frivolous lawsuits," that Plaintiffs conduct "resulted in one victim having lost
his job," that Plaintiffs harassment caused "Walker's employer [to]
terminate[] him," that Plaintiff "began harassing McCain" causing him and his
family to "flee his home," and that Plaintiffs charitable work is a "disguise to
the public from bringing to light his real passion, destroying lives." Exhibit G.
38. Defendant DBSC maliciously defamed Plaintiff by sending a document hold
letter to an institutional funder, which stated that Plaintiff was engaged in
"tortious and potentially unlawful conduct of Mr. Kimberlin and the
Organizations," and "potentially tortuous and perhaps even illegal activity by
the Organizations." Exhibit E.
39. As Plaintiff states in his attached affidavit, (1) he has never been involved
with any swattings, (2) he has not filed more than 100 frivolous lawsuits, (3)
he has not engaged in lawfare, (4) he did not cost Defendant Walker his job
or even have any contact with his employer prior to his termination, (5) he
has no judgments against him let alone millions of dollars in court judgments,
(6) he did not have any lawsuits pending at that time, (7) he did not have a
growing list of swatting victims, (8) he did not cause Defendant Walker's
employer to terminate him, (9) he never began harassing Defendant McCain
causing him to flee his home, (10) he does not have a passion for destroying
lives, and (11) he was not engaged in tortious or unlawful/illegal conduct.
Exhibit F.
40. These false and defamatory statements caused Plaintiff harm to his
reputation and his employer's reputation. They caused opprobrium toward
him and threats against him and his family.
41. "Defamation law developed not only as a means of allowing an individual to
vindicate his good name, but also for the purpose of obtaining redress for
harm caused by such statements." Id. The ability to obtain redress for harm
caused by defamatory statements has also been extended to allow a person
to vindicate the good name of his business. Tronfe/d v. Nationwide Mutua/Ins.
Co, 272 VA 709, 713 (2006) (providing that defamatory words which
prejudice a person in his trade or business are actionable per se).
42. As Plaintiff set forth in his Response to Defendant Hoge and Walker's
Motions to Dismiss, at 7, Defendant Walker, who was represented by DBCS
and Dan Backer, repeatedly tried to get a judge, any judge, to rule that
Plaintiff was a public figure, but all those attempts have been denied.
Therefore, DBCS is estopped from re-litigating that argument here.
43. Nevertheless, it is clear that DBCS acted with malice in falsely accusing
Plaintiff of crimes and other nefarious conduct. Neither DBCS nor Dan
Backer conducted any reasonable investigation prior to making their false
statements about Plaintiff. Even a cursory review of PACER would show that
Plaintiff did not file 100 lawsuits and had no million-dollar judgments against
him. Moreover, DBSC knew exactly why Defendant Walker was fired because
it provided the letter to Plaintiff as part of the Virginia suit which showed
that Walker was fired for being totally incompetent, blogging about killing
Muslims on company time, and publishing a Muslim hate blog called
"Everybody Draw Mohammed" with 800 insulting depictions of the Prophet
Mohammed. Exhibit N. Clearly, DBSC acted with reckless disregard for the
truth and with actual knowledge of the falsity ofthe statements.
Plaintiff Has Properly Alleged False Light Invasion of Privacy
44. Aplaintiff may prove a claim of false light invasion of privacy by showing: (1)
that the defendant gave publicity to a matter that places the plaintiff before
the public in a false light; (2) that a reasonable person would find that the
false light in which the other person was placed highly offensive to a
reasonable person; and (3) that the defendant had knowledge of or acted
with reckless disregard as to the falsity ofthe publicized matter and the false
light in which the defendant placed the plaintiff. Bagwell v. Pennisula
Regional Medical Center, 665 A.2d 297 (1995).
45. Plaintiff clearly alleged that DBCS published matters to the public at large
that placed him false light, that a reasonable person would find the
statements accusing Plaintiff of crimes and other nefarious conduct highly
offensive, and that DBSC and its agent Dan Backer knew of the falsity and
acted with reckless disregard ofthe truth.
46.As noted above, DBCS and Dan Backer falsely stated and imputed that
Plaintiff was involved with crimes of swatting, that he owed millions in
judgments, that he caused Defendant Walker's termination, that he was
engaged in illegal conduct, and that he filed more than 100 frivolous lawsuits.
Any reasonable person who read this about Plaintiff would find the false
statements highly offensive. Moreover, all of these false statements were easy
to disprove with a small amount of fact checking by DBCS, a law firm that has
access to NexisfLexis, Google and Defendant Walker's' work records.
Plaintiff Has Properly Alleged Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
47. I The Restatement (Second) of Torts, 46 at 71, provides: r(l) One who by
extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe
emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional
distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm."
In comment (i) to the Restatement it is expressly stated that this rule also
covers a situation where the actor knows that distress is certain, or
substantially certain, to result from his conduct. In order to satisfy the element
of extreme and outrageous conduct, the conduct "must be 'so extreme in degree,
as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious,
and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.'" Batson v.   h ~ f l e t t 325 Md. 684, 733
(Md. 1992).
48. Illustrative of the cases which hold that a cause of action will lie for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, unaccompanied by physical
injury, is Womack v. Eldridge, 215 Va. 338 (1974). There, the defendant was
engaged in the business of investigating cases for attorneys. She deceitfully
obtained the plaintiffs photograph for the purpose of permitting a criminal
defense lawyer to show it to the victims in several child molesting cases in an
effort to have them identify the plaintiff as the perpetrator of the offenses,
even though he was in no way involved in the crimes. While the victims did
not identify the plaintiff, he was nevertheless questioned by the police, called
repeatedly as a witness and required to explain the circumstances under
which the defendant had obtained his photograph. As a result, plaintiff
suffered shock, mental depression, nervousness and great anxiety as to what
people would think of him and he feared that he would be accused of
molesting the boys. The court, in concluding that a cause of action had been
made out, said: "Most of the courts which have been presented with the
question in recent years have held that there may be a recovery against one
who by his extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly
causes another severe emotional distress .... "
49. In the instant case, Plaintiff has alleged that DBSC and its agent Dan Backer
engaged in outrageous and extreme conduct by falsely publishing the
defamatory statements accusing him of crimes and nefarious conduct, filing
three frivolous and malicious lawsuits against him, sending a defamatory
letter to an institutional funder falsely accusing him of crimes, attempting to
extort his employer into firing him, rallying extremists with false narratives
to attack him, filing for sanctions in the amount of tens of thousands of
dollars and imprisonment, and asking a federal court to deny him access to
the courts. This abhorrent conduct has kept Plaintiff under siege for years,
and caused extremists to come to his home, take pictures of him and his
daughter, and make threatening calls to him, his family and his neighbors.
Exhibit F. No person in a civilized society should be made to endure such
50. Moreover, Defendant conspired with the other Defendants to imprison
Plaintiff based on their false narratives that Plaintiff was involved with
swattings. This constitutes extremely outrageous conduct that intentionally
inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiff. There are not many things in this
country worse than being falsely accused of crimes and then having those
false accusations incite a lynch mob to attack relentlessly and daily with tens
of thousands of tweets and posts and articles, and stalkers over a period of
years. This is atrocious and has absolutely no place in a civilized society.
Defendant DBCS has not met its burden under Rule 12(b)(6) of showing
that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support his claims. In fact, based on
the allegations in the Complaint, as supported by the exhibits to the Plaintiffs
various Responses and his affidavit, this Court must accept the allegations as
true. DBCS' Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
Brett Kimberlin
Bethesda, MD 20817
Certificate of Service
I certify that I mailed a copy of this response to attorneys for DB Capitol
Strategies and The Franklin Center, and to Defendants Hoge and Walker. I
emaiIed this to Defendant Stranahan and the attorney for Defendants Frey
and Nagy all this 17
day ofJanuary, 2014.
Brett Kimberlin
Revealed: JoinTheTeaParty.us took $469,000 in
donations, spent one of it· on candidates
J::J Recommend IJ 7: people recommend this. Be the first of your friends.
By Stephen C. Webster
Friday. October 29. 2010 12:11 EDT
Topics: Organization. Report. Site
Report: Arizona-based ,,-ebsite too nearly $500,000 in donations but didn't tunl
out support for tea party or candidates
A\ :ebsite run out of Arizona, os e sibly
to support the so-called ea party
movement is under scm . ly after a
local news orga iza .0 dug' 0 their
finance.s and ov, ership,o y to t'i d
\-\:hat some may eharac erize as a [:!;
remarkable scam.
According to Federal Elee '0
Commissio (FEe) disdosure forms,
JoinTheTeaParty.us ook in
approxima ely 5469,000' do ations s year a d spent roughly alf its budge 0 marketing,
E-ve A
Evidence mounts TheTeaParty.net is a FAKE
Apnl 5 I Pas ed by Ladylmpac OhiO I Ne' sTags Catalist Chns Laffertj' CPA,C, JointheTeaParty'US Reverse Lead
Club Rock the fate tea p   r t ~ Tea   ~ Racing TeaParti-.net Todd Cefaratti

HIt to @MellssaTweets for alertmg us to nus.
Every once in a While someone comes along /Vho preys on the beliefs. tenets and
successes of other people and entities and takes greed into their own hands to
advance their own personal agenda and coffers
Such could be t'le case With The Tea Party.net
At first glance their website looks great. We have the video. we have the voter registration drive which even
links a a map of the US where one can learn how to register to vote. The website is immaculate and has no
errors that I could find.
But when reports started pouring in about people who had signed up for email alerts being spammed with ads
to bUy gold silverware and knick knacks and other items did things become suspicious.
CBS 5 in Phoenix broke the story last November and apparently because the rest of the country has been
occupied with other matters like Egypt. Libya budge defici s. and energy woes it escaped our notice But not
any longer.
If one scrolls down to the bottom of their home page this is the "owner" of the website
Paid for by Stop This Insanity Inc. a 501 c4 No authorized by any candidate or candidate's
committee 'W'A'W TheTeaParty net
Glengary Inc. registered the website and the admin is one Todd Cefaratti in Gilbert. AZ. Hit to @erickbrockway
Check out "Stop This Insanity" donor list Notice anything unusual? Not the typical S10 $15 525 donations
Instead we have 5500 5600 $1 000 even several 55 000 donors
Morgan Loew has this Video report on TeaParty.net on Phoenix CBS5 sorry no imbed code. Loew tells us that
no one at a pre-election rally in Phoenix had ever heard of JointheTeaParty.L1s And FYI JointheTeaParty.US
links to The Tea Party.net.
Sign in ,. Register .J:<, out   ~
IStop Hillaryl PAC revs up
Tweet ., Share o t- • ~ 16 -J 49
8,' Jt.,r:1ES ARKII'J 17/22
1? 7'32 ,AJ..1EDT Updated: 7/22113 12:16 pril EDT
A conserva ive e art 0 oppose a possible Hillary Clinton's 2016 presiden ial campaign is
stepping up its game his week
The organization which fas crea ed for he express purpose 0 preventing Clin on rom being
elec ed 0 he VVhi e House announced its leadership Monday The eam includes
Conservative Colorado S ate Sen Ted Harvey as honorary chairman Garrett r"larquis who has
experience with if\fO presiden ial campaigns and worked in the Sena e or Sen John McCain is
the na ional spokesman. Alex Shively a ormer adviser in he House and Sena e is he poli ical
directof Jacob Leis a aide 0 ormer Rep, r'larilyn r lusgrave is he operational direc Of" and
Dan Backer a VVashington a orney and lobbyist is the treasurer and general counsel
according 0 the PAC's website,
Case No. CL12-631-00
Circuit Courtroom 4
Prince William County Courthouse
Manassas, Virginia
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The above-entitled matter came on to be heard
before the HONORABLE RICHARD B. POTTER, Judge, in and for
the Circuit Court of Prince William County, in the
Courthouse, Manassas, Virginia, beginning at 11:15 o'clock
On Behalf of the Plaintiff:
On Behalf of the Defendant:
(Pro Se)
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
2 (The Court Reporter was previously sworn by
3 the Clerk of the Court.)
4 THE COURT: Aaron J. Walker, Plaintiff, versu
5 Brett Kimberlin and Ron Brynaert and Neal Rauhauser,
6 Defendants, in 12-631.
7 Whose is present on behalf of the Plaintiff,
8 Mr. Walker?
9 MR. BACKER: Dan Backer, Your Honor, on behal
10 of Mr. Walker who is present as well.
12 here?
THE COURT: All right. And is Mr. Kimberlin
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: And Mr. Kimberlin is present, Mr
15 Bryneart is not and Mr. Rauhauser are not present.
16 All right, this comes on -- as you know we've
17 consolidated at least three motions that are on the docke
18 to heard today and put them all on one date for a date
19 certain from the motions day and I appreciate your
20 patience because I know we had to continue it to today's
21 date.
22 So we will proceed. I think the threshold
23 motion is clearly the motion to dismiss. You need to
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 proceed on that one first and then we will take up the
2 other motions.
3 The three motions being the Plaintiff's motio
4 or the Defendant's motion to dismiss, which we will take
5 up first, and in addition to that we have Plaintiff's
6 motion for sanctions and Plaintiff's motions for
7 protective order and stay.
8 All right, so we will start with Mr.
9 Kimberlin; you want to heard, sir?
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Backer?
MR. BACKER: Yes, we filed a default motion
13 against the Defendants Brynaert and Rauhauser as well and
14 tried to consolidate to today's date. I just wanted that
15 to be brought to your attention.
16 THE COURT: I saw one at the last minute but
17 thought it was set for it was stuck in my Term Day
18 docket but it may well be on this docket today.
When did you file that, do you know?
MR. BACKER: We filed a couple of weeks befor
21 -- last Friday would have been the earliest possible date
22 and then we asked that it be consolidated with today as
23 well. So I'm guessing seventeen, eighteen days ago.
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 THE COURT: All right. Well, as long as
2 you've filed it with the Clerk we can go ahead and p r o     ~
3 with it.
MR. BACKER: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right, let's take the motions
6 -- first the motion to dismiss. Mr. Kimberlin, do you
7 want to heard?
8 MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I do.
9 First of all, a couple of days ago I filed a
10 motion to take judicial notice of a decision from the
11 Federal Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. I just want to mak p
12 sure that you saw that before we get started.
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. So I would ask that thE
15 Court take that into consideration in this case. The
16 issues are fairly similar.
17 There is one count in that complaint that is
18 almost identical to a count in this case. It's the
19 tortuous interference with contract.
20 Mr. Walker alleged in that case that he was
21 fired from his job because of my contacting his job or
22 something to that effect, which I never did.
23 The Judge, the Federal Judge, in that case
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 rejected all of Mr. Walker's claims and dismissed the
2 federal complaint against both me and the organizations in
3 which I'm involved.
4 So I believe that that decision collaterally
5 stops Mr. Walker in this case from arguing the same
6 points.
7 As to my motion to dismiss, numerous claims a
8 to the complaint in this case, there are dozens of counts
9 eleven criminal counts that he's alleging under different
10 jurisdictions, some from Virginia, some from Maryland,
11 some from New York, some from D.C., some from Federal.
12 And all these, except for one, have no privatE
13 right of civil action. The only one that does have a
14 private right of civil action is the business reputation,
15 499 issue, from the state of Virginia.
16 In that case it requires a conviction, 499,
17 prior to the filing of civil action under 18.2-500. So I
18 don't think that counts four, five, six, seven, twenty-
19 three, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty,
20 and thirty-one and thirty-two are allowable in this case
21 because they are criminal statutes and some of them are
22 foreign jurisdictions.
23 As to any -- again going to the foreign
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 jurisdictions, count four is from a federal criminal
2 statute. Count five is from a Maryland criminal statute.
3 Count six is from a federal criminal statute. Count seven
4 is from a Maryland criminal statute. Count nine a
5 Maryland civil statute. Count eleven a Maryland civil
6 statute. Count thirteen a Maryland civil statute. Count
7 fifteen a Maryland civil statute. Sixteen, D.C. civil
8 statute. Eighteen Maryland civil statute. Nineteen D.C.
9 civil statute. Twenty-one a D.C. civil statute. Twenty-
10 two New York civil statute. Twenty-three again is the
11 business conspiracy statute under Virginia criminal law.
12 Twenty-five is under Maryland law, again civil. Twenty-
13 six New York law civil. Twenty-seven federal stalking
14 under federal law. Twenty-eight federal stalking under
15 federal law. Twenty-nine federal stalking under criminal
16 law of New York. And count thirty and thirty-one under
17 New York criminal law. And count thirty-two under
18 Virginia criminal law.
19 Again, I believe that this case is a civil
20 case and it's a Virginia case. It's not a Maryland case,
21 it's not a New York case, it's not a D.C. case, it's not
22 federal case.
23 And for the Plaintiff to allege that this
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 Court has jurisdiction to apply those statutes is
2 erroneous.
3 Secondly, as far as jurisdiction goes, I neve
4 set foot in this county during the time that these
5 allegations occurred, therefore I ask the Court to find
6 that it does not have a jurisdiction over this case.
7 The only thing that the Plaintiff is alleging
8 is that he read an e-mail or a post from the internet on
9 his computer here in Virginia and I think that that
10 doesn't give this Court jurisdiction to hear the case.
11 So as far as foreign jurisdictions, there is
12 twenty-one counts that rely on foreign statutes. Four,
13 five, six, seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, fifteen,
14 sixteen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-
15 two, twenty-three, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven,
16 twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two
17 and I believe that all of these are improper in this Cour
18 and should be dismissed.
19 As far as counts two, four, and five they
20 allege extortion and defamation and the extortion and
21 defamation occurred according to the complaint as part of
22 a settlement matter in a Maryland civil caBe in which I
23 was involved.
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 And the Fourth Circuit has been very clear
2 that it's held that as a matter of public policy
3 settlement negotiations are necessarily inadmissible and
4 other cases to encourage frank discussions and that comes
5 from the Fiberglass Insulators, Inc. versus Dupuy 856 F.
6 2nd 652 and 654.
7 In this case counts two, four, and five alleg
8 that I defamed Mr. Walker by sending his attorney, Beth
9 Kingsley, and e-mail as part of settlement. And it's
10 interesting that Mr. Walker actually sent an e-mail back
11 with a counter settlement after I sent that e-mail.
12 So for him to allege now that it's extortion
13 and defamation is just not appropriate and certainly is
14 not actionable in this case.
15 As far as the entire case, basically it boils
16 down to the fact that Mr. Walker doesn't like what I said
17 or what Neal said or what Ron said. Ron is a reporter   ~
18 for me to be sued for talking to a reporter or allegedly
19 talking to a reporter is a very slippery slope as far as
20 the First Amendment is concerned.
21 I have a right to talk about Mr. Walker. I
22 knew his identity. I knew that Mr. Walker used a fake
23 name, Aaron Worthing, in a civil case in Maryland. And I
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 asked him to identify himself and he refused, so I asked
2 him the Court to issue an order and to get his identity.
3 I discovered his identity from a third party
4 and I informed the Court in that case in a motion that Mr.
5 Walker was actually -- I mean, Mr. Worthing was actually
6 Mr. Walker.
7 That's basically the extent of it. I have
8 never done anything else except to write to his attorney
9 and so once that happened, once I identified Mr. Walker,
10 Mr. Walker then went to his employer and told his m p   o y ~
11 that he's been identified and he informed his employer
12 that he had been the publisher of a blog called Everyone
13 Draw Mohammed which without belaboring the point, it was
14 an anti-Muslim blog or an anti-prophet Mohammed blog.
15 And of course he has a first amendment right
16 to publish that blog, but he informed his employer that
17 he's been identified. His employer was obviously
18 concerned that this could cause problems for the firm and
19 for his co-workers, so they terminated him.
20 But they didn't just terminate him at whim.
21 They went into his office and --
22 MR. BACKER: Excuse me, Your Honor. May I
23 object at all during his statement?
:3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
2 objection?
THE COURT: What's the grounds of the
MR. BACKER: Mr. Kimberlin is attempting to
4 testify and insert facts into this conversation when this
5 is about a questionable blog, whether or not the
6 allegations in the complaint justify a -- or can be
7 sustained in the face of a motion to dismiss which
8 presumes the facts are as alleged.
9 Mr. Kimberlin is attempting to testify here
10 and insert facts into evidence instead of arguing the law.
11 THE COURT: You need to stick to motion to
12 dismiss Mr. Kimberlin.
13 MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, the point is therE
14 was no defamation. I never contacted his attorney -- I
15 mean, his employer. So I couldn't defame him to his
16 employer.
17 And I have a First Amendment right both under
18 access to the Court in that civil case in Maryland to
19 inform the Judge about the identity of Mr. Walker. Mr.
20 Walker had filed papers in that court using a fake name,
21 Aaron Worthing.
22 I had a right to identify him in that court
23 under the First Amendment and I also had a right to speak
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
lout about his identity under the First Amendment. He has
2 no right to gag me from talking about him if I know who h?
3 is. And that's what he has asked this Court to do in this
4 particular law suit.
5 He's asked this Court to issue an injunction
6 prohibiting me from ever telling anyone in count thirty-
7 two -- from ever telling anyone that he is Aaron Walker
8 Aaron Worthing, the publisher of the hate Mohammed blog
9 because he doesn't want people to know.
11 object--
MR. BACKER: Again, Your Honor, I'm going to
MR. KIMBERLIN: I have a right to speak --
THE COURT: These are the facts that are set
14 forth in the pleadings, Counsel, so I will overrule the
15 objection at this point.
18 and finish.
MR. KIMBERLIN: And I have --
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Kimberlin, go ahead
MR. KIMBERLIN: a right. I have a right to
20 speak about that. I have a right to speak about that. H3
21 had no right to gag me at that time and he has now sued m3
22 saying that I tried to get him killed basically or harm
23 him or get him fired. And I never talked to his employer
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 at all.
2 He's the one that contacted his employer. He
3 filed this lawsuit in this case using his own name,
4 admitting that he was Aaron Worthing and Aaron Walker,   ~
5 he sued me for going into a court and exercising my First
6 Amendment right to access to the Court and informing the
7 Judge about the identity of a lawyer who had filed papers
8 using a fake name.
9 And I had a right to do that under the First
10 Amendment. It's not actionable. He can sue me but it's
11 protected First Amendment activity and this is free
12 speech.
13 And again going back to the federal decision,
14 he's filed that case basically accusing me of abusing
15 process and getting him fired and interfering with his
16 First Amendment rights. Well, the Judge in that case
17 decided against him and decided against him without even ~
18 hearing, just looking at the pleadings. Deciding against
19 him the day after the motion to dismiss was filed.
20 And I think that shows the kind of thing that
21 we're dealing with here. We've got a case that's been
22 filed against me for almost a year and thousands of tweets
23 about me and thousands of blog posts about me and then Mr.
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 Walker raising tons of money to litigate this case becaus2
2 it's so big and it's First Amendment and all this stuff.
3 But it really boils down to the fact that he
4 was identified as the pUblisher of a Muslim hate blog and
5 he didn't like that. He wanted to do that with anonymity
6 forever and insult Muslims and get Americans killed
7 overseas and you know I had a right to expose that. I   ~
8 a right to discuss that.
9 And he's turned this into a political battle.
10 It's partisan politics at its worst. And you know I
11 believe that this case fails to rise to the level of a
12 decent legitimate this Court should consider and I ask
13 that the Court dismiss it.
14 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Counsel want to
15 heard in response the motion to dismiss.
16 MR. BACKER: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
17 First with respect to the Maryland decision,
18 the Maryland litigation was a federal case involving
19 different parties and different claims specifically
20 focused on the constitutional law implications of Mr.
21 Kimberlin's use of state mechanisms to further his
22 conduct.
23 These are completely different claims and we
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 don't believe that any of these claims -- the claims here
2 are barred by a ruling there.
3 Moreover, a facial reading of the order by th
4 Judge simply states that the case was dismissed several
5 weeks after Mr. Kimberlin filed his motion to dismiss and
6 after I responded. It happened to coincide with another,
7 a separate motion.
8 But based solely on the grounds that the
9 remedy sought specifically was improperly pled.
10 Specifically, we should have asked for compensatory
11 damages and didn't. And that is on the face of the order.
12 It does not in any way address any of the
13 substantive points from that claim. And as I'm sure Your
14 Honor knows and I just repeat for the record, Rule 1.6
15 regarding res judicata, res judicata claimed preclusion
16 specifically states that a claim must rise from identified
17 conduct, a transactional occurrence. It must be decided
18 on the merits. In this case it was not.
19 Moreover, it bars a second or subsequent
20 similar action in a Virginia court. But this case
21 precluded the Maryland litigation which was commenced in
22 response to activities in Maryland unrelated to the claims
23 here.
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 There is only one possibly corresponding clair
2 that between these two matters and that is our count
3 fifteen of the Virginia claim, interference with business
4 relations under Maryland law and tortuous interference of
5 contract in the federal case. So there is the only cross
6 over there.
7 So we believe that we fall well within the
8 scope of the -- or rather outside of the scope of Rule 1.p
9 res judicata, claim for preclusion, because the test isn'
10 met.
11 Moving on, most of the counts that Mr.
12 Kimberlin argues that most of the counts in our complaint
13 are based on statutes outside Virginia and therefore c   n ~
14 possibly be actionable.
15 I would start by saying that in the Choice of
16 Law analysis, Virginia courts have consistently adhered tp
17 the lex loci delicti standard which says with the last   c ~
18 completing the tort occurred governs where the tort may b ~
19 tried.
20 That's from General Insurance of America, Inc
21 v. Overby-Seawall Company in the Eastern District of
22 Virginia.
23 Because the last act of each of the torts tha
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 we're alleging occurred here in Virginia, either
2 personally or through communications to individuals here
3 in Virginia or with respect to internet matters through
4 servers and computers located in Virginia, we believe the
5 lex loci delicti standard clearly holds and allows us to
6 bring these foreign matters under Virginia jurisprudence.
7 Next Mr. Kimberlin discusses that the crimina-
8 statutes are inapt and that we but Virginia Section
9 18.2-500 of the Virginia Criminal Code specifically g r a n t ~
10 a private cause of action civil court to any person
11 injured in his profession by a business conspiracy.
12 And so within the scope of North American
13 Mortgage Investors v. Pomponio -- I'm sorry, that's an
14 unrelated -- that one I will bring up a little bit later.
15 But the Virginia Code does allow us to bring
16 tort actions for criminal violations including criminal
17 violations from outside the jurisdiction.
18 Next, Mr. Kimberlin argues that -- essential 1
19 Mr. Kimberlin is raising a demurrer as we argued in our
20 response. And then he's saying that this Court, lack of
21 venue and lack of personal jurisdiction and so forth.   ~
22 these arguments are irrelevant and superfluous because he
23 waived his right to bring most of these arguments when he
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 answered the complaint in the first place.
2 And frankly as to personal jurisdiction, you
3 know, Mr. Kimberlin has been corning to this Court and
4 arguing before this Court and filing motions before this
5 Court in this matter well before he filed what is an
6 improperly pled demurrer in this motion to dismiss.
7 So venue and personal jurisdiction as we
8 argued in our response are apt.
9 Quite a lot to cover here. Next I'd like to
10 mention that Mr. Kimberlin talked about his    
11 with Beth Kingsley, the former attorney of Mr. Walker in
12 this other Maryland matter awhile back, is inadmissible.
13 However, Mr. Kimberlin has himself taken privilege to use
14 the exact same discovery -- settlement negotiations
15 with other counsel and injected them into this case by
16 concluding those discussions in his motions filed here.
17 Specifically, our conversations with Mr.
18 Jeffrey Cohen who's an attorney representing the two
19 organizations that Mr. Kimberlin is an employee of, our
20 negotiations with him ended up in this filing. So it's a
21 little hypocritical to argue that only the negotiations olr
22 the settlement negotiations that benefit him may be
23 admitted.
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 Mr. Kimberlin also argues that this was a
2 partisan political matter and you know Your Honor to be
3 frank, these two gentlemen have different political
4 ideologies is irrelevant to the torts here. I'm not awar'"
5 that the words Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or
6 Liberal really appear anywhere in our complaint. But if
7 they do, they're merely descriptive.
8 This is not a political matter. It's a
9 question as to the tort claims and the tort -- the
10 tortuous conduct of Mr. Kimberlin towards Mr. Walker.
11 And as we detailed in Exhibit A in our
12 response, we feel that each and everyone of these claims
13 is justified with respect to Mr. Kimberlin and certainly
14 with respect to the other defendants who Mr. Kimberlin
15 continues to argue on their behalf that counts against
16 them somehow should be dismissed as well.
17 Your Honor, we believe this case is apt. We
18 believe the arguments that the counts raise are
19 meritorious and that this motion should be denied.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Kimberlin, in response.
21 MR. KIMBERLIN: Thank you.
22 First of all, I didn't waive anything
23 intentionally. I did mention in the answers to the
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 complaint of jurisdiction that that would be one of my
defenses. So I don't think that's been waived.
As far as the other defendants, I've been
4 charged with a conspiracy count or multiple conspiracy
5 counts and basically I'm accused of somehow talking to a
6 reporter and this is some conspiracy.
7 I mean when a person talks to a reporter and
8 he gets sued for conspiracy, you know, it's pretty strang
9 in the United States and of course I'm going to argue tha
10 there's no conspiracy because there is none.
11 And if that happens to get the charges
12 dismissed against Mr. Rauhouser and Mr. Brynaert, well, SJ
13 be it. But to say that there's a conspiracy that they
14 presented not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy.
15 I mean all I did was file a motion in court
16 and sent an e-mail to his attorney. That's the basis of
17 this entire case.
18 He doesn't say I did anything else. Now I
19 have a right to file a motion in court. If the Judge
20 doesn't like it, or if they don't like it, they can
21 complain to the Judge.
22 You know, they don't come and sue me in
23 another court and say that I've done all of these things
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 which I didn't do.
I filed a single pleading, a one-page
2 pleading and all this has come out because I identified
3 him as Aaron Walker and that he filed pleadings using a
4 fake name in that court.
5 If somebody came into this court, you know,
6 and filed a pleading in this court using a fake name, I
7 would want them identified, too. I think you would too,
8 Judge.
9 So you know that's basically what this case
10 boils down to. I identified this man as Aaron Walker and
11 I've suffered all of this abuse ever since.
12 I've never blogged once about this man. I've
13 never said one thing out of the courthouse about this man
14 or have a legal situation about this man.
15 He's tweeted about me thousands and thousands
16 and thousands of times. I've gotten death threats to my
17 family and I've had people stalking me at my house with
18 craziness. And I've had to get peace orders against the
19 people who are doing this because this man has created
20 this narrative, this false narrative, that Brett i m   e r l i ~
21 got him fired from his job and we know that's not true.
22 We know that's not true because his employer
23 wrote him back in January telling him exactly why he was
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 fired for being incompetent, for blogging on company time
2 and for poking at a major religion to hope that x t r m   s t ~
3 would come out and hurt him or hurt the people at the
4 firm.
5 And that's it. That's why he was fired. But
6 he's suffered this abuse on me because he wants to be the
7 victim and he wants this Court to buy into that and say,
8 yes could sue Mr. Kimberlin. You can take him to court
9 and put him on the stand and get all this discovery in.
10 Put him under oath and get him fired from his job. That's
11 what they want.
12 And I'm asking you to look at this case for
13 what it is. It's a hit job on me. It's base on nothing
14 that's actionable.
15 Thank you.
16 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. We'll take about
17 a ten minute recess and then I'll come back.
18 (Recess.)
19 THE COURT: We're back on the record.
20 The Plaintiff has brought a complaint against
21 the Defendant Kimberlin, and two other Defendants who are
22 not before the Court today personally.
23 Their complaint contains thirty-two counts of
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 which fourteen involve the Defendant Kimberlin. Counts
2 two, four, five, eight, nine, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen,
3 twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six,
4 twenty-seven, and thirty-two.
5 The Defendant Kimberlin has filed a motion to
6 dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, the
7 lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and violation of th3
8 First Amendment.
9 Kimberlin's motion to dismiss will be granted
10 That is motions for any additional sanctions will be
11 denied.
12 In light of the Court's ruling on the motion
13 to dismiss, the other pending motions by the Court are
14 moot and therefore dismissed as well.
15 Plaintiff's motion for default judgment
16 against the co-defendants are also denied and the case is
17 dismissed.
18 Upon consideration of the totality of the
19 pleadings including the attached exhibits and the r g u m   n ~
20 of the parties and counsel it is clear to this Court that
21 the Plaintiff seeks two million dollars in punitive
22 damages, but makes no claim for compensatory damages so
23 that the Plaintiff (inaudible) is not recognizable under
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 the law.
2 It's also clear from the various pleadings ane
3 exhibits filed in this case that the parties have been
4 involved in extensive disputes that have involved
5 political and religious issues.
6 These various claims including criminal and
7 civil allegations and litigations in state and federal
8 courts all of which appear to have been dismissed. The
9 most recent case filed by the Plaintiff against the
10 Defendant Kimberlin and his two organizations was
11 dismissed by order of the U.S. District Court in the
12 District of Maryland on November 28, 2012, just six days
13 ago, in which the Judge stated and I quote, "I deem it
14 unwise to intervene in the bitter political disputes
15 between the parties."
16 This Court takes the same position. It's
17 clear that this case is simply a continuation of m r   t l s ~
18 and vindictive litigation between the parties.
19 While the law in Virginia is clear that
20 failing to state a claim is an issue generally addressed
21 by demurrer, and Defendant Kimberlin has not filed a
22 demurrer in this case.
23 It's also true that Virginia law provides tha
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 the signature of an attorney or a party with any pleading
2 before this Court constitutes a certification by him that
3 the pleading is well grounded in fact, warranted by
4 existing law, and is not interposed for any improper
5 purpose such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay 0
6 needless increase in the cost of litigation.
7 The Court finds that the complaint is not weI
8 grounded in fact, it's not warranted by existing law, and
9 it's imposed for an improper purpose as part of an ongoinJ
10 political dispute between the parties.
11 While the statute provides for sanctions by
12 the Court, this Court will grant the motion to dismiss by
13 Defendant Kimberlin.
14 The Court denies the motion for any further
15 sanctions.
16 The Court further finds that count two is
17 based upon a claim of defamation. Under Virginia law,   ~
18 elements on defamation are:
1 )
Of an actual statement and,
22 In order to assert a claim of defamation
23 however the Plaintiff must first show that the Defendant
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 published a false factual statement that concerns and
2 harms the Plaintiff.
3 But here by the Plaintiff's own allegations
4 including paragraph fifty-one they indicate that the
5 statements allegedly made by the Defendant were not
6 directed at the Plaintiff.
7 In addition, as the Defendant has stated in
8 his motion to dismiss and here today expressions of
9 opinion are constitutionally protected and they're not
10 actual as defamation.
11 So as a matter of law the Court finds that th
12 statements set forth in the complaint do not contain
13 provable false factual statements but are relative in
14 nature and depend upon the viewpoint of the speaker.
15 Counts four and five are dismissed for lack 0
16 proper jurisdiction and venue.
17 As to count eight, it is based on allegation
18 of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In orde
19 to recover on a claim of intentional infliction of
20 emotional distress the Plaintiff must satisfy four
21 elements of proof:
22 1) That the Defendant's conduct was
23 intentional and reckless and,
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591·3136
o R T
1 2)
The Defendant's conduct was outrageous an<
2 intolerable and,
3 3) There was a causal connection between thE
4 wrongdoers conduct and the resulting emotional distress,
6 severe.
4) The resulting emotional distress was
7 Even taken in the light most favorable to the
8 Plaintiff, the Court cannot find that the alleged
9 statements of the Defendant Kimberlin were outrageous or
10 could be the basis of any severe emotional distress.
11 As to count fourteen, that count is based on
12 the tort of interference with business expectations and
13 the elements of that tort include:
14 1) A business relationship or expectancy of
15 probability of future economic benefit to Plaintiff as an
16 objective test and,
17 2) Defendant's knowledge of that relationshi
18 or expectancy and,
19 3) Reasonable certainty that absent the
20 Defendant's intentional misconduct Plaintiff would have
21 continued in that relationship and,
23 and,
4 ) The interference was by improper methods
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 5) Damages resulted from that improper
2 interference.
3 The complaint fails to state all of the
4 elements. It fails to state sufficient facts that were i1
5 any way improper methods by the Defendant.
6 Counts fifteen and sixteen are dismissed for
7 lack of jurisdiction and venue.
8 Count twenty-three is based on the Virginia
9 business conspiracy. And the elements of that are:
1) An allegation of two or more persons,
2) An agreement and,
3) To willfully and maliciously interfere
13 with another in his trade, reputation, business, or
14 profession by any means and,
15 4) Malice, that is an intentional purpose an
16 without justification.
17 The given complaint fails to state sufficient
18 facts to support the elements of the tort and fails to
19 state those specific facts with reckless and
20 particularity.
21 Count twenty-four is based on the tort of
22 Virginia Common Law of Conspiracy and the elements of the
23 tort include:
3 R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
Two or more persons combined to,
Accomplish by some concerted action for
3 some criminal or unlawful purpose, or an unlawful purpose
4 by unlawful and criminal means.
5 If a Plaintiff fails to allege the tort with
6 reckless and particularity.
7 Counts twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-
8 seven are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and venue n ~
9 for the reasons set forth herein.
10 Count thirty-two is based upon Plaintiff's
11 request for an injunction, but an injunction requires one
12 irreparable harm and two, a lack of adequate remedy of
13 law.
14 In view of the fact no compensatory damages
15 are sought, there can be no showing of irreparable harm   ~
16 the allegations set forth in the complaint or any showing
17 that the Plaintiff would not have an adequate remedy of
18 law or a claim of merit.
19 Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss
20 counts two, four, five, eight, nine, fourteen, fifteen,
21 sixteen, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-
22 six, and twenty-seven, and thirty-two is granted.
23 The motion is granted and those counts are al
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
1 dismissed with prejudice. The Court shall note the
2 exceptions of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the
3 ruling of the Court.
4 The other motions are therefore rendered moot
5 and are also dismissed. At the same time the Court will
6 dismiss the motion for default judgment against the co-
7 defendants upon the same grounds as set forth by the
8 Court.
9 I will ask counsel to prepare an order which
10 simply reflects the ruling of the Court which is that the
11 Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the case is
12 dismissed.
13 Thank you, gentlemen.
14 * * * * *
15 (Whereupon, at approximately 11:57 o'clock
16 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was
17 concluded.)
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
* * * * *
I, SUZANNE GONZALES, a Verbatim Reporter, do
hereby certify that I took the stenographic notes of the
foregoing proceedings which I thereafter reduced to
typewriting; that the foregoing is a true record of said
proceedings; that I am neither counsel for, related to,
nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which
these proceedings were held; and, further, that I am not
relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed
by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
interested in the outcome of the action.
Verbatim Reporter
R E E N & K E R N S
(703) 591-3136
o R T
Case 8:12-cv-01852-JFM Document 33 Filed 11/28/12 Page 1 of 2
Aaron Walker has brought this action against Brett Kimberlin and two organizations with
which Kimberlin is associated. Kimberlin has filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for Rule 11
sanctions against Walker's attorney. Kimberlin's motion to dismiss will be granted but his
motion for Rule 11 sanctions will be denied.
The parties apparently have been involved in intense political disputes over the years.
Walker complains that Kimberlin has filed meritless law suits against him. He seeks a
declaration from this court that Kimberlin is a vexatious litigant and requiring that he seek
approval from an administrative lawjudge before he can bring any type of action against Walker.
Obviously, this court has no authority to require a court to appoint an administrative lawjudge to
approve the filing of any suits tiled by Kimberlin or any organization associated with him against
Walker. Although Walker also seeks $150,000 in punitive damages, he makes no claim for
compensatory damages. Thus, the claims he asserts are not cognizable. See Scott v. Jenkins, 690
A.2d 1000, 1008 (Md. 1997); Shabazz v. Bob Evans farms, Inc., 881 A.2d 1212, 1233-34 (Md.
As to the Rule 11 motion, I deem it unwise to intervene in the bitter political disputes
between the parties. In any event, although plaintiff is cautioned that the institution of any
-- c
- y::::
Case 8:12-cv-01852-JFM Document 33 Filed 11/28/12 Page 2 of 2
similar suit in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions, I have concluded that here the
imposition of Rule 11 sanctions would not be appropriate.
J.ltderick Motz
United States District Judge
From: Dan Backer [mailto:danbacker.esg@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 20124:20 PM
To: Jeff Cohen
Subject: RE: follow-up to our conversation
Mr. Cohen:
Thank you for your note. I'm sorry we could not come to an accord. We will be moving forward
with this litigation and discovery in due course.
Please feel free to contact me at any time in furtherance of our various and mutual obligations
to confer under the applicable rules.
Dan Backer, Esq.
VSB #78256
From: Jeff Cohen [mailto:cohen@mwzb.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 4:05 PM
To: Dan Backer
Subject: RE: follow-up to our conversation
Dan you have left me no choice. These nonprofits have nothing to do with the issues you raise.
I'm sorry that you do not see that but the nonprofits can ill afford to spend precious money and
time on matters such as these. Your settlement terms are a nonstarter. I suggested a simple
solution which I will reiterate. My counter offer is simple. Please remove the nonprofits without
prejudice and should your discovery lead you to the good faith believe that they were involved
in the accusations which are actionable then please add them. That is what is fair and if the roles
were reversed I would do. I want to be on record here because we spoke about this but I have
never formalized the offer. I don't like making threats but you are being very unfair by
overlaying accusations about Brett onto the nonprofits. Please reconsider.
Jeffrey. R. Cohen
Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan
2200 Clarendon Blvd.
Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22201
703 243-6333
fax 703 243-6410
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged and is
intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. Unless you are the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy or
disclose to anyone the message and any attachments or any information contained in
the message. If you have received this message in error, please notify Millen, White,
Zelano & Branigan, P.e. immediately at (703)243-6333 or mail@mwzb.com and destroy
all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
From: Dan Backer [mailto:danbacker.esg@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 4:00 PM
To: Jeff Cohen
Subject: RE: follow-up to our conversation
Mr. Cohen:
Quite frankly I am surprised at your response. Did you honestly think we had no
basis in fact to include these nonprofits in the suit?
Please see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10119/1eftist-bloggers-sordid-
past-raises-guestions-real-intentl <http://www.foxnews.com!politics!2010!lO!19!leftist-
In addition, Mr. Kimberlin has a history of using legitimate ventures to mask
illegal ends. Please see Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett
Kimberlin at 52-53 (1996).
The allegations in the Complaint are not "unsupported suppositions" they are
legitimate areas of inquiry into the dealings Mr. Kimberlin has had with my client
and quite frankly many other people and entities. Inquiries into how Mr.
Kimberlin accesses and uses funds he receives through these nonprofits are not
only legitimate but I would not be serving my client if I did not pursue all
available avenues. The legal address of each entity is his home; he conducts
various business through the emails associated with these entities, and he has
repeatedly stated in various court hearings that these are "his entities," and that
he "runs" them.
The communication I sent you was an earnest effort at sparing you the trouble
and expense of protracted litigation that may interfere with these well-meaning
nonprofits' ability to further their exempt purpose and drain your own pro bono
time. Neither of those is desirable if Mr. Kimberlin is acting outside the scope of
his agency with these organizations, and I would think you'd appreciate the
opportunity to reevaluate Mr. Kimberlin's role in furthering these organizations'
missions given how his conduct may reflect upon them & their proper oversight
of his agency role. Moreover, we are not asking for anything we would not be
entitled to in discovery, or that would not be granted by motion, or through final
Your threat of sanctions is both troubling and completely unjustifiable. And
honestly, it sounds a lot like the tactics Mr. Kimberlin himself avails when
someone asks questions he doesn't like.
If that is the path you choose, however, it will be met appropriately. I would
hope we can avoid this and amicably settle the interests of our clients.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this
Dan Backer, Esq.
VSB #78256
From: Jeff Cohen [mailto:cohen@mwzb.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 2:07 PM
To: Dan Backer
Subject: RE: follow-up to our conversation
Dan this is not fair nor what I expected at all. Your accusations against the nonprofits are simply
nothing other than unsupported supposition. I know you don't mean to but your terms teeter
on a form of unintended extortion. I would like the nonprofits removed because that is what is
correct and proper. Rule 11 sanctions would apply in this case so I ask most earnestly that you
remove the nonprofits. I remain available to speak with you this week in order to address this
Jeffrey. R. Cohen
Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan
2200 Clarendon Blvd.
Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22201
703 243-6333
fax 703 243-641 0
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged and is
intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. Unless you are the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy or
disclose to anyone the message and any attachments or any information contained in
the message. If you have received this message in error, please notify Millen, White,
Zelano & Branigan, P.c. immediately at (703)243-6333 or mail@mwzb.com and destroy
all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
From: Dan Backer [mailto:danbacker.esg@gmail.coml
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 2:01 PM
To: Jeff Cohen
Subject: RE: follow-up to our conversation
Dear Mr. Cohen:
As promised in our conversation last week, I am responding to your stated desire to release the
organizations "Justice Through Music" and "Velvet Revolution" ("the Organizations") from the
ongoing case JFM-12-1852 in United States District Court, District of Maryland Greenbelt
Division. I would note that I am corresponding with you in your stated capacity as counsel to
the Organizations, and not Mr. Kimberlin, whose legal interests are necessarily distinct from
those of the Organizations.
Preliminarily, I would like to reiterate that I fully understand your desire to remove these
Organizations from potentially arduous and protracted litigation and I respect the fact you are
representing them pro bono. And, I appreciate that we appear to agree that political
considerations or differences have no place in what is a purely legal matter.
I do, however, have serious questions about Mr. Kimberlin's use of the Organizations to effect
potentially nefarious, dishonest, and possibly illegal conduct. Moreover, his conduct may very
well impugn the good work of the Organizations, and create liability for them and others. In
order to satisfy these questions; properly represent the interest of my client; and ensure the
Organizations are not knowingly or negligently engaged in conduct outside their exempt
purpose, I would like the following conditions and information from you:
• Legally separate the Organizations from Mr. Kimberlin, tenninate his involvement
with them, and agree never to again employ him with the Organizations or others in the
future, or to otherwise fund those activities which he is involved in.
• Disclose all infonnation about the Organizations that would nonnally be available
in discovery, including detailed financial statements, bank statements, and other
• A reasonable financial settlement from the Organizations, or one made on its
behalf, to compensate my client for his injuries with respect to Mr. Kimberlin's
potentially improper use of the Organizations' outside the lawful scope of their exempt
If we can agree to final terms based on the above outline I am willing to release the
Organizations from all claims and liability with respect to this suit, or otherwise. It is my belief
that we can accomplish this with great expediency so as to pose as little disruptions to the
Organizations as possible.
Neither I nor my client has any animus towards the Organizations or their good works, and we
firmly believe in robust political discourse as essential to our society and do not wish to impede
the lawful exercise of those good works. Our issue is solely with Mr. Kimberlin's possible misuse
of the Organizations for sordid ends unrelated to their exempt purpose.
Please let me know if you have any questions and I look forward to your reply.
Dan Backer, Esq.
VSB #78256
November 26, 2012
Threshold Foundation
Attn: Legal Department
P.O. Box 29903
San Francisco, CA 94129
Re: Document Hold Request for Litigation in the Matter of Walker v. Kimberlin et al. 8:I2-cv-
01 852-JFM United States District Court, District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division.
Dear Sir and/or Madam:
This letter is to inform you of the curreut above-styled lawsuit pending against Mr. Brett
Kimberlin, Justice Through Music Project, and Velvet Revolution US (''the Organizations"), in
which I represent Plaintiff Aaron Walker. Your organization has come up during the
development of this litigation as a donor to one or both of these organizations, and as such
potentially enabling the tortious and otherwise potentially unlawful conduct of Mr. Kimberlin
and the Organizations. For your benefit, I have enclosed the Complaint and a Rule 11 motion
Mr. Kimberlin has filed against me in a desperate attempt to intimidate me from pursuing this
case and litigating it through trial. I have also included my response and I give you my assurance
that I will be preceding in strict accordance with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and, in
short order, with discovery which will seek information on every aspect of the Organizations'
including donor and fundraising apparatuses. Because of your organization's involvement with
Mr. Kimberlin and the Organizations, and because of their potentially tortious and perhaps even
illegal activity, I am sending you this letter as a request to preserve potential evidence in this
matter. I am requesting you preserve all documents that relate in any way to these matters, or
communications from, to, or with these individuals or their agents
Please preserve all evidence, in any form, potentially relevant to this action, including all
relevant electronic data.
We request that your data be preserved and maintained, in its native format, in
accordance with the following: you should ensure steps are taken to preserve all information
potentially relevant to this matter, including electronic data; you should contact all former
employees and/or donors to ensure they understand the importance of preserving all potentially
relevant evidence; and you should immediately suspend any programs that automatically dispose
ofor recycle digital or paper files, digital back-up tapes, optical diskettes, or other storage media,
and recover any electronically stored information that has already been disposed through these
o \NB/\CKFR.ESQ@GMAIL.COM " 202-210-5431 (OFFICE) .. 202-478-0750 (FAX)
You should preserve all potentially relevant data, including electronic data, containing
any infonnation relating to the subject matter ofthis litigation. Although the following
paragraphs list common forms of information please preserve aU other categories ofdocuments
and infonnation potentially relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
a. Electronic Data to be Preserved
The following types of electronic data containing infonnation relating to the subject
matter ofthis litigation, and/or electronic data of your donors and other relevant third-parties,
should be preserved in its native format: All electronic mail and information about electronic
mail sent or received by any person; aU databases, including field and structural information as
well as records, all logs of activity on any computer system used to process or store data; and all
other electronic data, including, but not limited to, all word processing files and file fragments,
tweets, direct messages, voice mails, or other means of communication, electronic data created
by applications which process financial, accounting and billing information, including donor
information, all electronic calendar and scheduling program files and file fragments, and
electronic spreadsheet files and file fragments.
b. On-line Data Storage
Unless an exact mirror image has been made and will be preserved and kept accessible
for purposes of this litigation, you should not delete any existing electronic data storage devices,
including, but not limited to online storage and/or direct access storage devices, including, but
not limited to, any file server or data array (e.g. RAID or rootkit) physically or remotely attached
to your computers through wired or wireless networking. You should preserve any electronic
data storage devices and/or media that may contain information relating to the subject matter of
potential litigation.
c. Off-line Data Storage, Backups, and Archives
You should not delete any data stored on any electronic media used for offline storage,
such as magnetic tapes and cartridges, CDs, DVDs, USB devices (e.g. "thumb drives"), hard
drives and the like, used with any computer, file server or data array (e.g. RAID), whether
physically or remotely attached to your computers through wired or wireless access that contain
any electronic infonnation relating to the subject matter ofthis litigation.
o \NBACKLJUSQ@GM;\IL.COM." 202-210-5431 (OFFICE)." 202-478-0750 (FAX)
d. Fixed Drives on Stand-Alone Personal Computers and Network Workstations
Unless an exact mirror image has been made, including hidden and/or deleted files, and
will be preserved and kept accessible for purposes of this litigation, you should not alter, delete
or over-write any relevant electronic data that exists on fIxed drives attached to stand-alone
microcomputers, network workstations and/or data arrays at the time of fIling this action or
perform other procedures, such as data compression and disk defragmentation or optimization
routines that may impact such data.
e. Applications and Utilities
You should preserve copies ofall applications and utilities that may be used to process
electronic data discussed in this letter.
f. Log of System Modifications
You should maintain an activity log ofdocument modifIcations made to any electronic
data processing system that may affect any system's capability to process any electronic data
relating to the subject matter of the litigation.
g. Personal Computers and All Other Devices used by Employees, Independent
Contractors, and Others
Please immediately make an exact mirror image of all electronic data and write full
directory listings (including hidden and deleted files) for all directories and   with
regard to all fixed drives attached internally, externally, physically and/or remotely by wired or
wireless access to any personal computers used by any person in your control.
Please collect, maintain intact, and keep available during the pendency ofthis litigation
all removable electronic media, attached internally, externally, physically and/or remotely by
wired or wireless access to any personal computers used by any person in your control, such as
floppy diskettes, magnetic tapes and cartridges, CDs, DVDs, USB devices (e.g. "thumb drives")
and the like that existed before the delivery ofthis letter.
Please collect, maintain intact, and keep available during the pendency ofthis litigation
all other relevant devices used internally, externally, physically and/or remotely by wired or
wireless access to any system used by any person in your control. This includes all cellular
phones, personal data assistants (e.g. Blackberry), voicemail messages, text messages (SMS or
otherwise), instant messages and/or any other device that stores electronic information (e.g.
RAM on printing devices or FAX machines) and the like that existed before the delivery of this
DA'lB \CKER..ESQ@CMAILCOM • 202-210-5431 (OFFICE) • 202-478-0750 (FAX)
h. Evidence Created after Receipt of this Letter
Please preserve any electronic data or other forms of evidence created after receipt of this
letter in a manner consistent with the directions in this letter.
i. Metadata
Please preserve all metadata. Please do not to alter, delete, and/or over-write any
metadata related to any ofthe electronic data described in the paragraphs above.
Finally please identify and preserve all potentially relevant documents and information
related in any way to the subject matter ofthis litigation. You should preserve all documents and
information, regardless ofthe form, nowin your possession and those created or received after
this notice that may be relevant to this matter. You should not discard any potentially relevant
documents, including, but not limited to, email, Word documents, Excel documents, slide shows,
photographs, videos, surveillance logs, surveillance reports, and other data in any form relating
to any aspect of this matter.
Please feel free to contact me to discuss questions you may have regarding your legal
obligation and any other information contained in this letter
Backer, Esq.
VA Bar No. 78256
209 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 2109
Washington, DC 20003
202-210-5431 direct
202-478-0750 fax
Attorneyfor plaintiff
D \ '\.JB \CKFRJSQ<;'l)(, VIAILCOM .. 202-210-5431 (OFFICE) .. 202-478-0750 (FAX)
I Brett Kimberlin declare, pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1746, that the
following is true and correct:
1. I am the Plaintiff in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. ,No. PWG 13
3059, in the U.S. District Court of Maryland, Greenbelt Division.
2. I am the Director of Justice Through Music, a Maryland based non-profit
dedicated to civic participation, especially young people. Justice Through
Music and The Brad Blog formed another Maryland based non-profit called
Velvet Revolution, which is dedicated to election issues and government and
corporate accountability.
3. These organizations have received more than $300,000 in grants from
Threshold foundation since 2006 for election protection, accountability
campaigns and general support.
4. In November 2012, I received a copy of a document hold letter sent by Dan
Backer November 26, 2012 to the Threshold Foundation. That letter falsely
stated that Plaintiff and the non-profits were engaged in tortious and illegal
5. On or about November 27, 2012, I received a call from a senior staff member
of Threshold Foundation who advised me that the foundation was worried
about extremists attacking offices ofthe foundation. He described a recent
incident in California where a man with high-powered weapons was arrested
on his way to "kill" employees of the foundation after being incited to kill by
conservative talk show host Glenn Beck. He told me that the foundation was
increasing security at all the foundation offices in California, Washington DC
and New York City.
6. I was informed at the following funding cycle that the foundation was not
going to fund either of the non-profits in either 2013 or 2014.
7. I have never been involved with any swattings.
8. I have not filed more than 100 frivolous lawsuits.
9. I have not engaged in Iawfare.
10. I did not cost Defendant Walker his job or even have any contact with his
employer prior to his termination.
11. I have no judgments against me let alone millions of dollars in court
12. I did not have any lawsuits pending at that time DBCS published on its blog
that I scoffed at paying current judgments.
13. I did not have a growing list of swatting victims.
14. I did not cause Defendant Walker's employer to terminate him.
15. I never began harassing Defendant McCain causing him to flee his home.
16. I do not have a passion for destroying lives.
17. The conduct of the Defendants in this case has made me feel under siege for
more than two years, and caused extremists to come to my home, take
pictures of me and my daughter, and make threatening calls to me, my family
and my neighbors.
18. I have had to install a robust security system at my home, and institute other
security precautions for my family because of the threats I have received
from the Defendants.
19. I was particularly frightened when Justice Through Music received a threat
from someone at the LA County Sheriffs Department on May 23, 2012 after I
had reported unethical conduct by LA County Deputy District Attorney
Patrick Frey. The threat was ominous and not accompanied by a name,
making it more threatening. The fact that it came from a law enforcement
department in a rogue and opaque manner made me feel like the department
or someone in it could harm me or my family in a similar fashion.
20. I have received numerous threats, including death threats, warning me not to
go to court or talk to the police about the Defendants or their conduct.
21. None of the Defendants in this case ever cont
to do with swattings.
Dated this 16
day ofJanuary, 2014
1/15/14 Bloggers Defense Team
About - N=- Organization - Narrative - Documents Right
Preserve Free Speech!
Donate To
The Bloggel's Defense Team
Donate Now!
A Court ordering a conservative blogger to shut down and be
silent, denying him his fundamental right to free speech as
an American, an investigative journalist, and a publisher of
political news & opinion JUST SHOULDNT HAPPEN IN
AMERICA. But it did - and worse.
Aaron Walker had the courage to write about convicted drug
dealer and terrorist Brett Kimberlin, the infamous
"Speedway Bomber." Most notorious for placing a bomb in a
public school that so horribly maimed an innocent man that
it ultimately led to his suicide, Kimberlin is now funded by
the far left, including George Soros, Barbara Streisand, and
Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Walker is now under COURT ORDER
to be silent and not speak about this criminal- or face arrest.
Bloggers are vital to counter the establishment media and
promote an alternative message to Americans. In the past
few years, online-activists have been indispensable to a fun
airing of political events and bad public policy. To counter
this effective exercise offree speech, Brett Kimberlin has
been loosed on the public to engage in harassing "lawfare" -
( he has filed more than 100 frivolous lawsuits) to
intimidate and silence bloggers with baseless accusations,
mounting legal bills, unconstitutional criminal sanctions and
arrests. For merely speaking their minds. Meanwhile,
Kimberlin scoffs at millions of dollars in court judgments
against him - including one by his own Mother - while
playing fast and loose with charitable giving laws that anow
millions to be funneled from Liberal donors to support his
twisted, anti-speech agenda. That is WRONG.
While Kimberlin's lawfare assault on Aaron Walker - which
cost Walker his job, his reputation, and falsified criminal
charges - is finally garnering media attention, Kimberlin's
list of victims is still growing, and the stakes are becoming
life and death. Kimberlin "associates" are suspected in far
more sinister forms of harassment - including the
"SWATting" of an Assistant DA in California. This
"SWATing", involved a phony call made to the police to
report a violent crime in order to incite a SWAT team's
response to the victim's home - a highly dangerous and
potentially fatal "prank". Amazingly (or not), the
mainstream media has ignored the near fatal jeopardy of a
public official and others. Meanwhile Kimberlin's
"charitable" organizations have attracted donations from a
who's-who ofliberal foundations - funds that seem to do
little to advance charitable goals but do seem to keep
Kimberlin & company in the Harass-the-Opposition-Blogger
Preselve Free Speech!
Donate To
The Bloggers Defense Team
l I l i   _ ~ E l
1/15/14 Bloggers Defense Team
Those who believe in free speech must unite to defend the
victims of Kimberlin's harassment, fight back against these
sordid tactics, and pursue both Kimberlin and his allies and
donors for this unlawful conduct and their knowing or tacit
DB Capitol Strategies, in partnership with Right Solutions, a
501C3 public charity, is building a nationwide team of
lawyers to defend the victims and taking the fight to
Kimberlin. To win this battle in courtrooms around the
country, we need your support. We've fired the first salvo in
defense of Aaron Walker by filing a federal lawsuit against
Kimberlin and seeking an injunction to prevent the state
from arresting an American exercising his right to free
speech. This is only the first step. We are committed to
helping Aaron Walker and others expose Kimberlin and his
well-funded allies in their efforts to silence their foes.
Kimberlin styles himself a progressive activist and has
started two leftist nonprofit groups: Justice Through Music
and Velvet Revolution. Justice through Music allegedly
helps young people become activists through music and
voter registration while Velvet Revolution is currently
supporting the "Occupy" movement and other leftist causes.
These two organizations have attracted over $1.8 million in
recent years from major left-wing funders; Kimberlin
donors include the George Soros-funded Tides Foundation,
the Barbara Streisand Foundation and the (Teresa Heinz-
Kerry helmed) Heinz Foundation. But while his nonprofits
are prolific fundraisers, they seem to do little else.
According to a report by Fox News, the only thing these
organizations do well is spend lots of liberal dollars - but it's
not clear on what.
Instead of "advocacy", Kimberlin seems to spend his time
and resources harassing his critics with frivolous lawsuits
and baseless accusations. This has no place in a vibrant
Republic. His vicious shenanigans have resulted in two
arrests on questionable charges resulting in at least one
victim having lost his job and he has even harassed the
families of his foes. Ki mberlin's use of "lawfare" targets
more than just Conservatives; he win pursue anyone who
inquires into his past and his organizations. According to
blogger Lee Stranahan, his list of targets inel udes:

• Kimberlin made baseless claims
bloggersdefenseteam.com/?narrative 2n

Bloggers Defense Team

according to Frey
1/15/14 Bloggers Defense Team


threatened her with a lawsuit

debunked claims
the mandatoIY civil hearing
What kind of person is capable of such vile, pernicious,
hyperactive and ongoing harassment? Alook at who Brett
Kimberlin really is sheds some light.
Brett Kimberlin's sordid story begins over thirty-five years
ago in Indiana, While still in high school he was convicted on
a federal charge of perjury, and soon after graduating he was
About The Blogger's Defense Team
DB Capitol Strategies, in partnership with RightSolutions, a 501C3 public charity, is building a nationwide team oflawyers to fight those who would silence online free
Our first salvo in that effort has been to file a federal lawsuit against Brett Kimberlin, seeking, in part, an injWlction to prevent the state from ever again arresting Mr.
Aaron Walker, an American citizen, for exercising his right to free speech, and to release him from any prior censorship restrictions imposed by unlawful judgements.
This is only the first step in what we call the "Bloggers Defense 'learn." We are firmly committed to exposing and combating the efforts of Brett Kimberlin, otherwise
known as the Speedway Bomber, and his well-funded allies who will use any means of harassment to silence political opposition.
No citizen of the United States should ever be arrested merely for blogging - especially not for blogging about the crimes of a public figures and the crimes of convicted
This is an issue that should cross all party lines and divisions. Free speech is what makes our country great, and we must all forever defend it - or forever lose it.
JOIN US in this fight by contributing to the Right Solutions Bloggers Defense Fund Today!
Ahmll ~ Organization Narrative Documents
PreselVe Free Speech!
l>on4to To
l'he BlopJ;ers Defense Tcnm
Donate Now/
The Bloggers Defense Team is a legal project of Right Solutions, a SOlc3 charity dedicated to free speech rights, and is managed by DB Capital Strategies, a Washington D.C. law firm.
It is directed by Dan Backer and Steve Hoersting.
If you believe that you are the target of lawfare, harassment, cyberstalking or worse at the hands of Brett Kimberlin or those that work with him or for him, please feel free to
contact us at bloggersdefense at bloggersdefenseteam dot com. We will do our best to review the details of your case and determine if The Bloggers Defense Team can assist you, or jf
you should be referred to other parties.
Preserve Free Speech!
The   l O ~ r J Defense Team
Don t
= .......~ ~
Ifyou are an attorney interested in free speech issues and would like to assist The Bloggers Defense Team's attorneys in their efforts to assist the victims of Jawfare, SWATIng,
cyberstalking and harassment. we want to hear from you. Please contact us at bloggersdefense at bloggersdefenseteam dot com.
For Immediate Release
Bloggers Defense Team
Blogger & journalist Aaron Walker is continuing his fight for bloggers' freedom of speech with
his lawsuit against Brett Kimberlin and his allies, with significant new developments underway.
Mr. Kimberlin has engaged in a series of harassing legal maneuvers - "Lawfare" - to silence his
new media critics. These tactics have included filing numerous "peace orders" in an attempt to
have Courts. silence journalists, Bar complaints to cost his foes their professions, and harassing
communications to employers ofbloggers and even to employers of their spouses. Kimberlin's
associates have also been suspected of much more nefarious forms of harassment, including the
growing, dangerous tactic known as "SWATting" in which a caller contacts the police falsely
claiming there is an emergency at the victims home that requires armed intervention. In fact,
several conservative bloggers that criticized Kimberlin have endured this evil ploy over the
past year. Most recently Aaron Walker was anonymously SWATted mere hours after a
Maryland court lifted an unconstitutional prior restraint on his freedom of speech.
In January, Aaron Walker sued Brett Kimberlin and his associates, Ron Brynaert and Neal
Rauhauser, inVirginia, on charges of defamation, state and federal extortion, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. After having been sidelined by a barrage of Kimberlin legal
harassment in Maryland - which led to a temporary and wholly unconstitutional Comt order
silencing Walker's blogging - the Virginia litigation is now continuing. Written discovery has
been served on Kimberlin, with a response due in short order. His cohorts, Brynaert and
Rauhauser, attempted to duck service and never answered the lawsuit, despite their actual
knowledge, and default judgment motions have now been filed against them - a major step
While this case is making progress, there is much more to do. Kimberlin and company have
many other victims and the tactics they've mastered will celtainly be used by others to silence
and harass their critics. '
To support the cost of pro bono representation of Aaron Walker and other victims,
RightSolutions, a SOlc3, has launched the Bloggers Defense Team to raise tax-deductible
contributions to continue fighting back, and is underwriting the costs of the Virginia state
lawsuit and another Maryland Federal lawsuit.
Victims are also calling upon members of Congress and the Depaltment of Justice to form an
FBI task force to coordinate law enforcement resources to investigate not only the SWATtings,
but the Lawfare and continued and potentially illegal harassment activities aimed at silencing
speech and political opinion.
The internet should be the ultimate "marketplace of ideas" where all are free to share opinions
without threat oflegal harassment, cyber-bullying, or real world threats.
For more information, or to donate to the Blogger's Defense Team, go
hltp:/lbloggersdefenseteam.com/?news 1/2
1/16/2014 Bloggers Defense Team
For Immediate Release
Right Solutions, an independent 501C3, announces today the launch of a new website for its
project to defend free speech and the rights ofbloggers via the courts:
Led by attorneys Dan Backer and Steve Hoersting, The Bloggers Defense Team has already
launched its initial legal salvos in defense ofAaron Walker, who has been the victim oflawfare
and cyber-harassment at the hands of Brett Kimberlin, convicted domestic bomber and felon.
Walker has been the target of multiple lawsuits for his writing about Kimberlin (a public
figure), and was even brieflyjailed for daring to engage in free speech journalism. While this
miscarriage ofjustice in Maryland state court was promptly overtuTned, Aaron Walker's fight
continues unabated, as the freedoms ofblogger journalists across America are still threatened.
In just two weeks since its launch, BDT has already filed a Federal complaint against Kimberlin
and his unsavory lawfare tactics, raised over $6,000.00 in online donations and launched its
informational website to reach out to the general public. The Team has also filed a federal
lawsuit in Maryland with local attorney Bruce Godfrey, and is preparing for additional legal
action in Virginia, and nationwide, on behalf of other bloggers seeking help to defend their free
The Bloggers Defense Team also continues to seek out and offer aid to others who may have
been the victims of online harassment, lawfare, or other attempts to attack their free speech
rights - which is an attack on every American's free speech.
For consideration of aid, media interviews, or other information, please contact the Blogger's
Defense Team: bloggersdefense at bloggersdefenseteam dot com.
http://bloggersdefenseteam.comi?news 2/2
1116/2014 Dan Backer Thanks Donors - Day-by-Day Auction Continues I Right Solutions
Ri ht
gII 1,,,,· 11'''11 II lI"h,.·!>, 11/,'(/ I" dl<!, "lilli' II

Dan Backer Thanks Donors - Day-by-Day Auction
Bloggers Defense Team:
Thank You & Update
As lead counsel for the Bloggers Defense Team and a director of RightSolutions org, I wanted to
introduce myself, update you on our efforts so far and share how we've spent the generous
contributions of you and so many others. I'd also like to let you know where we are going. And I
want to reiterate how much we appreciate your support of this effort through your contribution of $- it
is critical to our efforts in defense of truly free speech in the face of extremist harassment that
supporters like you stand with us. THANK YOU.
Your past support was critical to (jeveloping our initial litigation and
public relations strategy and your continued support is needed
even more as we implement that strategy on multiple fronts. You
can continue to support free speech on the internet by CLICKING
tlfRE. or visiting us at www.BloggersDefenseTeam com.
Who we are, who I am&why I'm doing this.
The Bloggers Defense Team consists of a number of ConseNative
bloggers who have been and continue to be the victims of various forms of harassment by Liberal
extremists seeking to silence political dissent. The Defense Team is a project of RightSolutions.org,
a nonprofit dedicated to advancing free speech. I had no idea the scope of this problem until I was
asked to become involved in this effort by these bloggers, and I was shocked at what I found.
                        ... 115
1116/2014 Dan Backer Thanks Donors - Day-by-Day Auction Continues IRight Solutions
It is fundamentally appalling to me that ideologues on EITHER side would be so intolerant of
OTHERS' free speech. Instead of engaging in a spirited debate of ideas and words, these extremists
resort to harassment and even possible criminal activity to silence opposing views. That's not what
this country is about, and those who would destroy our freedoms for their own agenda must NOT be
allowed to win. Freedom begins with free speech, and the liberty to express your ideas - including
I'm a political law attorney in Washington DC, and I work with Conservative political organizations
and PACs to help them understand and comply with rapidly changing campaign finance and political
laws. My firm also prides itself on challenging laws that enable government to redistribute speech
rights or dictate who gets to speak, when, how mUCh, how loudly, at what times, and wearing what
color hats.
Right Solutions and I agreed to help set up and defend the Bloggers Defense Team because it's just
plain wrong that people should be harassed, intimidated, threatened, and even be the victims of
serious criminal acts just because they chose to speak. There's no excuse for that, and if we don't
stand up against this behavior, the bad guys win. Through all the vitriol and personal animosity and
wacky conspiracies of those who choose not to play by the Constitution's rules, the bottom line is
this: Everyone is entitled to free speech (even the bad guys), and no one should be subject to abuse
because someone else disagrees with them.
Howwe've used your support and why it is so important.
Since we launched on June 22nd, we've raised $11,261.12 through 267 contributions from 241
donors - THANK YOU ALL! (especially repeat donors!) Right Solutions, the 501(c)3 public charity
that oversees this legal defense fund, shares my commitment to be a good steward of your generous
support. I'd like to share with you how we've used those funds.
First though, I want to be clear - I have not personally taken one dime of these funds for myself. I'm
lUcky enough to be able to support this effort with my pro bono time, and these resources are better
used supporting the costs of litigation - especially other lawyers whose work is essential and who
si mply can't work for free.
$6,500.00 Fees paid directly to attorneys for their work on this matter.
$409.92 PayPal processing fees to date.
$600.00 Court filing costs and other legal process fees associated with this case.
$250.74 Postage costs for Service of Process - it's been a big amount because we constantly
have to serve paperwork by certified express mail with return receipt on multiple
parties, and that adds up fast.
$1,428.00 State-by-State filing fees for charitable solicitation registration. Asignificant amount
of time was invested in this activity pro bono to comply with the burdensome
paperwork requirements of 38 states.
$2,000.00 Administrative and legal costs incurred by Right Solutions.
As these cases continue to heat up, our main cost going forward will be attorney fees for those
working on these matters, and a small amount for other litigation costs. Our best guess is that we will
need to spend (and therefore raise) $5,000 each month to provide the support we need to continue
aggressively pursuing this case with adequate legal resources. I understand that seems like a lot,
but it's barely a fraction of the enormous time spent on these cases by these attorneys. And with your
support we can keep them working continuously on this effort.
Litigation update and outlook.
There are currently two cases underway. The first is in Virginia State Court and focuses on the
h.<lrRssinn r.onolJ(:t hv r.onllidRO oomRstir. tRrrorist fi. onlO oR.<lIRr RrAtt KimhRrlin AKA "thR SORROW.<lV
file:lllocalhostlUserslUserlDocuments/Dan%20Backer%20Thanks%20Donors%20%E2%80%93%20Day-by-Day%20Auction%2OC-antinues%20%20%20Right%... 2/5
1116/2014 Dan Backer Thanks Donors - Day-by-Day Auction O:mtinues I Right Solutions
"-'---"'0 -_ .. _- -J -_ _- --.,.---- --- -'-::1 --_ _ __.•... , _ -,...--_ •• _J
Bomber," and his associates Neil Rauhauser and Ron Brynaert, against Aaron Walker, who blogs at
"Allergic to Bull". Aaron (an attorney himself) originally filed this case on his own in January and
we've since taken over the litigation responsibilities. Litigation takes time, it's a very slow process,
and has many procedural steps along the way - some of which we'll win and some of which may not
go our way. In the end, our goal is to defend the right of Aaron and every individual to be free of the
kind of horrific harassment he has been subject to by these three, and hold them accountable for
their actions in a court of law.
Our second case is in U.S. District (federal) Court in Maryland, focusing on a different set of issues.
Here, we are looking at the way'Brett Kimberlin and others are using the courts and legal systems as
a weapon to silence the free speech rights of Aaron and others. These tactics are called "Lawfare,"
which is using the law to conduct warfare on free speech, set a dangerous precedent that must be
opposed. Fear of harassing litigation and malicious civil actions should NEVER silence a free press
and free media - including bloggers who don't have multi-million dollar legal teams at their disposal.
Standing up to these tactics and exposing them for what they are is essential to protect the free
speech rights of ALL Americans.
I'd like to thank you all again for your support, and encourage you to continue that support so we can
sustain this fight forthe long haul. The bad guys only win when the good guys don't stand up to
them, and YOUR support is absolutely necessary for the good guys to win!
Dan Backer, Esq.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked  
This visual editor brought to you by fckeditor for word.1>ress pluiPn
StylesStyles StylesFontFont FontSizeFont Size SizeBoldItalicStrike Throuj;hText ColorBackground
file:lllocalhostlUserslUserlDocumentsIDan%20Backer%20Thanks%20Donors%20%E2%80%93%20Day-by-Day%20Auction%20C0ntinues%20%20%20Right%... 3/5
efile GRAPHIC rint - DO NOT PROCESS As Filed Data - DLN:93492133023083

Short Form
Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax
Under section 501(e), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code
(except blaek lung benefit trust or private foundation)
... 5ponsonng orgaOlzallOns of donor advISed runds, or9anlzallans thaI operate one or more hosprtal faolflles, and
certa.n controlling organIZatIOns as defined III sectIOn 512(bl(13) must file form 990 (see InstlUCllons)
All other organIZatIOns WIth gross receipts less than $200,000 and total assets less than $500.000 allhe end of the
Deponlnert ofbTleasuoy year may use thIS fOlm
Inlemal Reveooe sev,ce The oryanlZiJlIOn may have to use a copy of thIS retum to satISfy state repoltmg reqwrements
MB No 1545-1150
Open to Public
CIlV or town, state or oountry, and np .. 4
DAYTON. OH 454193815
Number and street (or PObox, If maillS not to streel addressj oom/surte
A For the 20U calendar ear or tax ear be inn; 01-01-2012 and endl 12-31-2012
B Check If apphcllble C Name 01 organizatIOn
r Address <.hange INSTITUTE FOR l1lDMDUAlISM
r Name change
r 1l11tl8lretum
r TermYlated
r Amended relum
r AppltcatlOn pend'"!I
o Employer identlflcatlon numb....
ETelephone number
(937) 623-6102
F GfOup ExemptIOn
GAccountlnO Method P' Cash r Accrual Other (specIfy) _
J Tax-t!lCI8mpt statu.(check only Olle)-p'     501(cl( ) <OI(lnsert no)r 4947(0)(1) or r 527
H CheCK r If the oroaOlzatlon IS not
reqUired to attach Schedule B
(Form 990, 990-EZ. or 990-PF)
K Check .f the organization IS not a section 509(a)(3) supporting organizatIOn or a section 527 organization and ItS gross receipts are
normally not more than $50,000 A Form 990-EZ or Form 990 return IS not requIred though Form 990-N (e-postcard) may be required (see
instructIons) But 'f the organization chooses to file a return, be sure to fIle a complete return
L Add hnes 5b, 6c, and 7b, to line 9 to determine oross receipts If gross receipts are $200,000 or more, or If total assets (Part II, line 25,
column (B) below) are $500,000 or more, lile Form 990 Instead of Form 990-EZ $ 55,480
1m" Revenue, Expenses, and Changes In Net Assets or Fund Balances (see the instructions for Part I)
Check If the organization used Schedule 0 to respond to any question In thiS Part 1 ••••••••••••••••
1 Contributions, giftS, grants, and slm,lar amounts receIved 1 35,430
2 Program service revenue including government fees and contracts 2 20,000
3 Membership dues and assessments 3
4 1nvestment Income 4
Sa Gross amount from sale of assets other than mventory
.1 Sa I
b Less cost or other baSIS and sales expenses .1 5b I

Gain or (loss) from sale of assets other than Inventory (Subtract hne 5 b from line 5 a)

C 5c
C( 6 Gaming and fundralslng events
a Gross Income from gaming (attach Schedule G If greater than $15,000)
·168 I
b Gross Income from fundralslng events (not Includ.ng $ of contributions
from fundralslng events reported on hne 1) (attach Schedule G If the
16b I
sum of such gross mcome and contTlbutlons exceeds $15,000)
e Less direct expenses from gaming and fundralsmo events .1 6c I
d Net Income or (loss) from gamino and fundralslng events (add hnes 6a and 6b and subtract line 6c) 6d
7a Gross salas of IIlventory, less returns and allowances
·17a I
b Less cost of goods sold
·17b I
c Gross profit or (loss) from sales of IIlventory (Subtract hne 7b from hne 7a) 7c
8 Other revenue (descnbe III Schedule 0) 8 50
9 Total revenue. Add hnes 1.2,3,4, 5c, 6d, 7c, and 8 ..
10 Grants and Similar amounts paid (hst In Schedule 0) . 10
11 Benefits paid to or for members 11
12 Salanes, other compensation, and employee benefIts 12
13 Professional fees and other payments to Independent contractors 13 30,811
14 Occupancy. rent, utilities, and mallltenance 14
15 Pnntlng, publIcations, postage, and shipping 15
16 Other expenses (descnbe In Schedule 0) 16 4,620
17 Tot'll expenses. Add hnes 10 through 16 ..

18 Exces" or (defiCIt) for the year (Subtract hne 17 from line 9) 18 20,049
Net assets or fund balances at beOlnnlng of year (from hne 27, column (A» (must agree WIth
end-of-year figure reported on prior year's return) 19 -13.654
20 Other changes m net assets or fund balances (explain ,n Schedule 0) 20 0
21 Net assets or fund balances at end of year Comb.ne lines 18 through 20
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions. Cat No 106421 Form 990-EZ (2012)
1/16/2014 The National Bloggers Oub and their Super PAC Friends I Crooks and Liars
The National Bloggers Club And Their Super PAC
By Matt Osborne September 12, 20123:00 pm
Share Share
authored with Alex Brant-Zawadzki and Bill Schmalfeldt. Research assistance by Melissa
Brewer. Ali Akbar, now President of the National Bloggers Club, is one of the conservative
blogosphere's most infamous characters. He began his campaign
Co-authored with Alex Brant-Zawadzki and Bill Schmalfeldt. Research assistance by Melissa Brewer.
Ali Akbar, now President of the National Bloggers Club, is one of the conservative blogosphere's most
infamous characters. He began his campaign of notoriety with a crime spree in 2006, blazing a six-year
trail of fraud. That's him up there, in the mug shots. Akbar's story is as improbable as the Tea Party
movement itself, and a lesson on the privileges of power in the age of Citizens United. How did a petty
crook rise to these heights in such a short time? Why does he enjoy such influential connections today?
We ask these questions because we see an emerging bipartisan consensusthat Akbar's National
Bloggers Club (NBC) is entirely notional. Akbar has never applied to the IRS for 501 (c)3 status -- despite
having claimed as much on the NBC Facebook page. While the NBC requires an unusual amount of
personal information from donors, they do not offer those donors an EIN (Employer ID Number) to make
their contributions tax deductible.
http://crooksandliars.comlmatt-osborne/national-bloggers-club-and-their-supe   \-t 1/1
Chuck Todd Asks if Democrats Should
Have Given More to Republicans to Get
UI Benefits Extended
1116/2014 The National Bloggers Oub and their Super PACFriends I Crooks and Liars
if the National Bloggers Club has applied. It is an easy online process. Yet we Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr to perform
have been unable to locate an EIN in any database, and inquiries by both liberal at Grammys
and conservative bloggers have been met with silence. When journalist Bill
Schmalfeldt contacted the Internal Revenue Service, he was informed that no EIN
existed in their database for a National Bloggers Club.
This would be less distressing if Akbar didn't have a long history of covering up
his tracks and minimizing his criminal past. In 2006, he stole items from a
woman's home; he later broke into a vehicle, stole a debit card, and withdrew
money from the victim's account, earning a felony conviction. Yet this record did
not keep Akbar out of Republican politics.
Barely a year later, Akbar was accused of discussing election fraud tactics. The
accuser, Joey A. Dauben, was a former colleague. In coverage of the controversy,
I Akbar was frequently and mistakenly identified as aJohn McCain campaign
staffer due to his involvement in Bloggers for McCain, a "cooperating" website
independent from the campaign itself. Akbar also caught flak for "scrubbing the
web" to cover the tracks of Michael Meissner, a former police chief who was
charged with posing as a woman and soliciting photos of underaged boys.
In April 2008, Akbar pleaded guilty to the debit card fraud and was sentenced to
four years probation and restitution of the stolen money. His probation ended in
I May of this year. In the meantime, Akbar has built quite a blog empire for himself
-- and runs it from his mother's house.
By 2008 Akbar had linked up with Eric Odom's Don't Go movement. They likely
met up when Akbar's firm, Republic Modern, designed the old website of Sam
Adams Alliance, for which Odom was the new media director. When Odom
started American Liberty Alliance (ALA), a tea party website that was mainly in the
business of monetizing other Tea Party sites with ads, he brought Akbar along
with him. Starting off as ALA's Technology Consultant, Akbar would eventually
became Chairman of ALA's Board, spending much of his time collecting non-
deductible donations.
Yes, despite claiming to be in the application process for 501(c) 4 status in August
2009, ALA eventually was embarrassed into posting the following caveat on their
I website (though not their donation page): "The American Liberty Alliance is not a
501c3, 501c4 or a PAC. We are not registered as a non-profit and we do not raise
funds as such." Yet they incorporated under the name "American Liberty Alliance
- A Non-Profit Corporation."
The most excoriating examination of the ALA came from Erick Erickson, who
reported that ALA had eventually been rolled up into an Eric Odom PAC:
For a number of months I have had more than my share ofphone calls from
conservative donors, bloggers, activists, campaigns, and others wishing
someone would speak out. Several tried pushing this story into the
mainstream media, but we all know what would happen there? we'd turn
people into martyrs who shouldn't be.
At best this conduct looks like ignorance of the complex bureaucracy and
regulations surrounding the FEe. At its worst, it looks like . .. well, you decide.
I'm sure even more will come out now that I'm willing to speak up and it does
not look like a case of simple ignorance. If it were an isolated incident it'd be
one thing, but it is a pattern.
Indeed, the pattern begins with a profitable deception. Although ALA was
I registered as a non-profit in Nevada, as far as we can determine they never
actually applied for non-profit status with the IRS, despite always claiming they
Shepard Smith Calls Anti-Net Neutrality
Pundit A 'Corporate Shill'
Senate Democrats: Change Filibuster
Rules, Make Them Talk
Open Thread
C&L's Late Nite Music Club with Mas
VI,;/l hI If: >
HI 0 .1 (lI.L
Raw Replay
AOL Hot Seat
Vagabond Scholar
These dubious credentials in the new Tea Party movement propelled Akbar into
the upper echelons of conservative organizing, where he has apparently met Karl
Rove. Yet Akbar seems to have done remarkably little real work during his
ascension. Take the NBC's website, for example, which contains no content -- just
a redirect to the group's Facebook page. There, you will find grassroots
conservatives wondering how to join, and why the donation practices are so
» c:
at cna Bo';ge sC uo
[J Dashboard ( - Wor...
15 https/'www.facebookcom
tke: Maps... D -Account Manager ...
1116/2014 The National Bloggers Qub and their Super PACFriends I Crooks and Liars
law firm listed as the NBC's registered agent have been rebuffed. (Update: the Lawyers, Guns & Money
address appears to be a "virtual" office.) Jesus General
The Political Carnival
Mugsy's Rap Shet
The Huffington Post
Daily Kos
Glenn Greenwald
Whiskey Fire
Politics TV
Blue Gal
Naomi Klein
One good move
See AU
Resa laRu Kirkland
lID Guys, I;m putting this together, but it wm NOT happen if!...
• .J t
Kira Davis
So good to finally met Ali Akbar at Right Online last weeki
~ l Q l
Becky Noble
Would love to join! .How do I do it? My blog is 'NWW. theconse...

, . ~  

Cecilie Gamst Berg
I want to donate but why do I have to provide every single ...
Recent Comments
Jamie White Wyatt
How do you join the National BIoggers Club?
More Posts
'-- Shasta11
Karma is a bitch Christie.
I Like many of Akbar's websites, content doesn't seem to be key. For example,
despite supposedly representing a robust movement, Akbar's Tea Party Brew.com
has surprisingly few posts. Bill Murphy, now the Social Media Director for the
Romney campaign, wrote the final post at that site in February. By then, he had
been Akbar's venture partner since 2009.
Murphy (right) was Director of Strategic Initiatives for
American Liberty Alliance, though the position does not
appear on his Linkedln resume. Murphywas also Akbar's
partner in an organization called Vice & Victory, which put
on the BlogBash party at CPAC in February. Akbar was
listed as the Host Organizer and Murphy as the Event
Coordinator. BlogBash's director is usually identified as
Devon Wills, but many of NBC's announcements and press
releases offer contact information for "Bill Murphy at
director@blogbash.com." Yet the BlogBash website doesn't
even mention the NBC, which supposedly organized the
When he appeared on the radio program of conservative
Larry Sinclair in March, Murphy also identified himself as the Director of the NBC
-- though that position also does not appear on his resume. Whenever he has
been asked about such omissions, Murphy has responded by further scrubbing
his Linkedln profile. Sinclair now calls foul on Akbar and Murphy's notional
blogging club for using Andrew Breitbart's name to raise money for a scholarship
fund -- again, while claiming 501 (3)c status was "pending:"
Panel investigating bridge scandal enlists Rod
Blagojevich prosecutor; subpoenas coming
soon' 0 minutes ago
'-- James Ratliff
I'm sorry somehow when I copied this I missed
the fellows name. But this is what he said. Black
people as a whole, are the single most drain on
the United States and will ultimately result in
Megyn Kelly Promotes Impeachment Of Obama
To Sen. McConnell· 1 minute ago
• Peter G
Wow. I guess that puts him squarely behind the
White House since the current diplomatic
htlp:llcrooksandliars.com/matl-osborne/national-bloggers-club-and-their-supe 3/19
Cory Booker takes heat over Menendez's Iran
sanctions bill· 1 minute ago
Todd also reported that that "Senate voted
down the extension 55/45 as if there were 55

1116/2014 The National Bloggers Oub and their Super PACFriends I Crooks and Liars
In March 2012 we received an email which came from Bill Murphy and Ali initiative also calls for stronger sanctions
Akbar from BlogBash.org and Vice and Victory email addresses announcing the should negotiations fail. Next thing you know
creation of an Andrew Breitbart Scholarship Fund. After receiving the email you are going to...
and because of our own personal encounters with AndrewSinclair News
decided we would do a feature story on the Scholarship fund. /n preparing the
story we sent an email tojoel Pollak who was the primary Breitbart.com
principle since the untimely death ofAndrewearly the morning of March 1,
2012. In the email to Mr. Pollak we asked if Pollak would be interested in going
on Through the Mirror wlLarry Sinclair to talk about the recently established
Breitbart Scholarship Fund. Pollak responded almost ImmedIately by
telling us he knew nothIng of any such fund; that anyone usIng
Andrews name along with any such fund was doing so without
authorization and Pollak even went to the point of saying that any
such organIzation was In his opinion a scam. (Emphasis added)
I Aside from Michelle Malkin, nobody knows who is on the board of the NBC, or
how they were selected. NBC won't even say whether they have any bylaws, and
I has never applied for non-profit status. If the NBC was an ACORN office, Malkin
would denounce it as a criminal organization. Instead, she is Akbar's pUblic ally
and defender.
These inconsistencies had already drawn criticism from conservatives when we
began reporting on them. First was Paul Lemmen, a convicted con artist working
out his redemption in his blog, "An Ex Con's View." As the details of Akbar's
criminal record appeared on the website Breitbart Unmasked in May and June,
Lemmen expressed disdain for the fact that "the other side" had been the one to
reveal Akbar's criminal past. Citing the NBC's disturbing lack of transparency and
its behavior with donors, Lemmen called for transparency and accountability.
As a result of his outspoken blogging, Lemmen received the close attention of
NBC "enforcer" and Andrew Breitbart protege Lee Stranahan amid a series of
attack posts by other bloggers. Lemmen fell silent for a while, reemerging later to
write on more general topics. Today, he is a member of North American
Conservative Bloggers United (NACBU), a new association of conservative indie
bloggers opposed to the NBC and its opaque operations. In supporting Lemmen,
David West called out Akbar for elitism:
no votes instead of explaining that 55 were FOR
the extension. Anyone appearing on Morning
Joe Anecdote on a...
Chuck Todd Asks if Democrats Should Have
Given More to Republicans to Get UI Benefits
Extended·3 minutes ago
L-- James Ratliff
Like a republican fellow I know has said many
times. He thinks n!---rs are fine. Everyone
should own a few!
That is the GOP for you!
Megyn Kelly Promotes Impeachment Of Obama
To Sen. McConnell· 3 minutes ago
See, Ali Akbar was the technical guru' for a while behind the Don't Go
Movement which / was a part of as Northwest Regional Coordinator. /,
however, was ignored back then by Mr Ackbar. When he formed the NBC, / was
ignored as well.
oJ 11,,1111, lOISQU
The NBC billed itself in part as an organization that could give bloggers
desperately-needed press credentials. Those who have received credentials are
unable to activate them as instructed. The NBC does not explain how to receive a
credential, or even describe any standards for applicants. NACBU organizer
"Impolite Canadian" just wanted to webcast an event; after being rebuffed in all
attempts to learn more about how to obtain the privileges of membership, the
pseudonymous blogger concluded that NBC was simply a club of Akbar's friends:
It's like they all of a sudden became part of the "elites': encouraging and
defending the "mastermind': but when asked howdoes one join this "elite"
cfub, you get the "I dunno man, it just happened, u know?".
There are only 340 "likes" on the NBC Facebook page at the time of this writing--
far fewer than one would expect for a popular netroots organization. Ladd
Ehlinger,Jr., aka FilmLadd, questioned whether the NBC was even a real
ScrewAli's political connections. You love him? Want to blacklist me? Be my
guest. Won't be the first time that's happened. Been happening for two years
now anyway. It's the sort of thing / think Ali likes to do to people who get
crosswise with him - trash them, prevent them from getting work, and so on. /
http://crooksandliars.comlrnatt-osborne/national-bloggers-club-and-their-supe 4/19
1116/2014 The National Bloggers Oub and their Super PACFriends I Crooks and Liars
could regale you with first-hand stories I've heard, but this post is already too
goddamn long.
Akbar did not prevent Ladd from getting work. In fact, Ehlinger received a plum
new gig from Washington lobbyist Dan Backer of DB Capitol Strategies. He serves
as Treasurer for many well-known PACs, including the Conservative Action Fund,
which has already given Akbar's "Vice &Victory Fund" over $44,000 in 2012.
Backer is also Treasurer for'Stop This Insanity Inc PAC, which recently signed
Ehlinger to a complex $10,000 contract. Ehlinger hasn't spoken out on the subject
of Ali Akbar ever since. (CORRECTION: see below)
Backer (right) is the attorney who created "hybrid Super
PACs" through his Carey v. FEC lawsuit in 2011. As part of
his contract, Ehlinger agreed to be classified as an
employee and then kick back $1,500 to Stop This Insanity
Inc PAC, creating an opportunity to challenge federal limits
on employee PAC contributions. Backer also wants to lift
limits on contributions to federal candidates. True freedom,
Backer argues, is American billionaires donating more hard
I political money every year than an average American family
Dan Backer's other PAC products include Todd Cefaratti, who became infamous
for fleecing PAC donors and using his for-profit JoinTheTeaParty.us website as a
lead generator for spam. Cefaratti was found out by activists at Free Republic,
who quickly discovered that his real estate sales lead business was named
Glengary Inc. Despite grassroots revulsion at this character from a David Mamet
play, Cefaratti spoke at CPAC in February. He and his Glengary LLC are also party
to Dan Backer's FEC suit with Ehlinger. Stop This Insanity Inc. runs another one of
I Cefaratti's websites, TheTeaParty.net.
The "made men" of the Inner Party are never held accountable. Their revolution
has been monetized: shirts, buttons, email addresses, and page views turn
dedicated activists into revenue streams for "producers." Meanwhile, these same
"producers" also get paid by billionaires and PAC lawyers who benefit from
stoking the grassroots fires on behalf of their corporate agenda. It's a great job if
you can get it. No wonder Akbar likes to throw big, exclusive parties at CPAC and
the Republican National Convention.
In order to make the BlogBash party an instant institution this year, Akbar and
Murphy took money from a host of the usual suspects in astroturf politics,
including Americans For Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and the vote-suppressing
True The Vote organization. Billionaire and megadonor Foster Friess also helped
throw Akbar's party at CPAC, then cracked a terrible joke about aspirin as a form
of birth control: "You know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for
contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly."
Friess has vowed to spend a large chunk of his fortune through Karl Rove's
American Crossroads this year.
We believe the National Bloggers Club encapsulates a problem common to Tea
Party organizing since February 2009. As with Mark Meckler, the multilevel
marketing billionaire who organized Tea Party Patriots, we see a disturbing
pattern of grift in the National Bloggers Club. Sincere Americans have been
organized to prevent corporate regulation and billionaire tax hikes; the
organizers fleece them while also accepting money from representatives of these
same corporations and billionaires.
This charade may be close to an end, however. Larry Sinclair has presented the
National Bloggers Club with a demand they publish the following:
The names of every National Bloggers Club Board member including the date
each became associated with the NBC
http://crooksandliars.comlrnalt-osborne/national-bloggers-club-and-their-supe 5/19
1/16/2014 The National Bloggers Gub and their Super PACFriends I Crooks and Liars
A complete financial report showing the amounts of all monies paid to in
contributions; services; or sponsorships made to NBC or BlogBash.
A Complete financial reporting of all funds paid out by NBC or BlogBash
including the names of those receiving said payments and the reasons for
A complete financial accounting ofall funds paid out by NBC/Blogbash
including an accounting of what the payments were for and if they were made
for the personal benefit of Ali Akbar or any other member of the NBC Board.
A complete accounting of all contributions made to the Breitbart Scholarship
Fund as well as an accounting of all disbursements of said funds as well as the
name of the financial institution(s) where contributions are on deposit.
A statement as to Bill Murphy's position with NBC and BlogBash; whether
Murphy has been involved in any NBClBlogBash activities and or promotions
since becoming Mitt Romney for President Social Media Director?
The IRS 501(c)(3) documents confirming the below stated claim by NBC:
"National Sloggers Club is a new501(c)(3) founded by top newmedia
operatives, bloggers andjournalists as a loose association of bloggers who are
for free enterprise and limited government and to advocate on bloggers
behalf. "
In the spirit of nonpartisan opposition to criminal misbehavior and opaque
political activity, we join these conservative voices in calling for accountabil ity.
Akbar has been dishonest about his criminal record. His organization has been
dishonest about its non-profit status. The NBC did not ask Breitbart's family
before asking for donations in his name. Their associations with powerful figures
in the world of campaign finance have not been able to fully silence grassroots
opposition to their questionable practices:
These aren't unfair questions. They are very simple, basic questions spoken
without malice or any agenda save that of telling the truth. And has already
been noted, the truth has no agenda. It's just the truth.
Conservative bloggers are asking for simple transparency -- and being refused.
Liberal bloggers meet only scorn and harassment for asking the same legitimate
questions. We believe it is time for "real" journalists to consider this information,
as no mere blogger of any political persuasion will ever glean answers from the
National Bloggers Club or their Super PAC friends. They are apparently a law unto
Ar'"'''M''''' you're not a real
any of if is a sign of gUilt or THE
not gOing to talk about
CORRECTION: Advised via Twitter that Ladd Ehlinger had recently denounced Ali
Akbar on Twitter, we include the following items for your consideration:
http://crooksandliars,com/matt-osborne/national-bloggers-club-and-their-supe 6/19
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:31 PM
Subject: RE: I spoke too soon
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 20134:37 PM
From: Dan Backer <danbacker.esq@gmail.com>
To: Justice Through Music !@comcast.net>
Mr. Kimberlin:
I am not in control of any websites or monies related to your disputes with Mr.
Since ignoring you has not worked, let me be plain: Please do not contact me
again. I will consider any communication from you subsequent to this message to
be harassment. You may want to review the relevant federal and state statutes
regarding unsolicited communications.
Dan Backer
From: Justice Through Music        
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:16 PM
To: Dan Backer
Subject: I spoke too soon
Dear Mr. Backer:
It appears that some of your site about the Walker cases and me are no longer active while
others still are. I am sure that this is an oversight on your part so here is what I am seeing and
I ask you to remove the active ones and the donate buttons to meet your ethical obligations:
Not active:
http://rightsolutions.org/ <http://rightsolutions.org/>
http://rightsolutions.org/projects/bloggersdefenseteam/ <http://rightsolutions.org/
Page 1 of 2
http://bloggersdefenseteam.com/?news <http://bloggersdefenseteam.com/?news>
http://bloggersdefenseteam.com/?organization <http://bloggersdefenseteam.com/?
http://bloggersdefenseteam.com/?narrative <http://bloggersdefenseteam.com/?
http://bloggersdefenseteam.com/?documents <http://bloggersdefenseteam.com/?
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/WtS8FdSJ/Bloggers-Defense-Team/ <https://
cmd _flow&SESSION=BaYwrvrtHVOUjc9cYPp2UITi77GtLmKIvb5EKcevvysM
Thank you,
Brett Kimberlin
Page 2 of2
Wednesday, January IS, 2014 11:32 PM
Subject: Second request
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:32 AM
From: Justice Through Music I l@comcast.net>
To: Dan Backer <danbacker.esq@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Backer:
I wrote you last month asking that you cease and desist asking readers of your blog to donate
to you to litigate the Aaron Walker state and federal cases. I have not gotten any response
from you and I just checked to confirm that your blog remains unchanged.
As you informed Mr. Cohen, you are no longer representing Mr. Walker. Therefore, it is not
appropriate for you or your firm to advertise on your blog that you are representing him and
that you need funds to continue litigation that has ended in two rulings against your former
I am asking you/ as a member in good standing of the Virginia Bar, to do the right thing and
remove from your blog all references to the Walker litigation. In the event you want to
maintain reference to the Iitigation, you need to post that you are no longer representing Mr.
Walker and that your litigation resulted in two decisions against your client. In all fairness, you
should include copies of the court decisions.
In addition, as you know, it is a violation of the VA Bar rules to ask for donations for litigation
in which you are not involved. Therefore, I again remind you of your obligation to remove
your requests for donations.
I assume that you you will comply with my requests and that you overlooked my previous
request. I ask that you let me know in writing by February 15/ 2013 as to your compliance or
response so I can close the books on this matter. I am hopeful that this can be resolved
Brett Kimberlin
Page 1 of 1
1115/2014 Case Information
Date: 01/15/2014 Docket Number: 69
Docket .
Type: Docket Filed By: Court Status: Denied
01/15/2014 Docket Number: 70
Docket Date:
Docket Type: Docket
Docket Text:
Filed By: Court Status: Denied
Status: Denied Filed By: Court Docket
Docket Date: 01/15/2014 Docket Number: 71
Docket Text:
Date: 01/15/2014 Docket Number: 72
  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t i o n ORDER,.ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Docket .
Type: Docket Filed By: Court Status: Denied
Status: Denied Filed By: Court Docket
Docket Date: 01/15/2014 Docket Number: 73
Docket Text:
Date: 01/15/2014 Docket Number: 74
  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t i o n ORDER, PLACE CASE ON STAY DOCKET
Docket .
Type: Docket Filed By: Court Status: Granted
htlp://casesearch.coUTts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseld=380966V&loc=68&detaiILoc=MCO 1/1
1115/2014 Marina Times - The Presidio's Tides fuundation apparent target of attack· by heavily armed suspect
Volume 28 • Issue 9 I Celebrating our 25th year!! I marinatimes.com I September 2011
The Presidio's Tides Foundation apparent target of attack by
heavily armed suspect
By Bruce Bellingham
Published August 2010
After CHP officers had a shootout with a Tuolumne County man
July 17, they say they discovered his plans to kill staffers at the
ACLU in San Francisco and at the Tides Foundation in the
Byron Williams, 45, was stopped by police for speeding wmle
driving his mother's Toyota Tundra on Interstate 580 at Harrison
Street in Oakland.
I J.Ar j
Tides Foundation
A 12-minute gun battle ensued. Williams was wearing body armor Photo: a.Mason
and had a number of weapons, including a .308-caliber armor-
piercing rifle. Police say he was on ms way to kill people who work at the ACLU as well as the
Tides Foundation, which supports progressive causes. Located at the Thoreau center in the
Presidio, next to the Letterman Digital Arts Center, Tides has been singled out for criticism by
Fox News' Glenn Beck as being a danger to American society. Inturn, the Tides Foundation says
Beck's remarks drive "unbalanced" people like Williams to turn to violence. This gives new
meaning to Fox's vaunted motto, "fair and balanced." The Tides Foundation issued this
Statement from Tides CEO Drummond Pike
"We are greatly dismayed to learn from law enforcement officials that the man arrested over the
weekend (July 17) following a shootout with the CHP had targeted the Tides FOlmdation for
violence. To the best of our knowledge, this person has never had contact with any Tides
organization or program. As there is an ongoing investigation into this incident, we will not
speculate as to what ms motivations may have been.
"We are relieved that no one other than the assailant was hurt seriously in the incident, and we
are relieved that he was prevented from carrying out his misguided plans, whatever they may
have been.
"On occasion, the shadow of violence falls on American civic life and it should never be accepted
or tolerated. Often, it is encouraged by partisan voices who label activities of which they
disapprove by suggesting they are "anti-American" or some other epithet.
"This incident serves to remind us that it should be the obligation of every American, especially
those whose voices are amplified by the media, to foster civil discourse and dialogue among
those who may disagree about public matters. One does not win an argument by inciting
unbalanced people to violence. As Americans, we know we are best at solving problems when we
reach broadly across boundaries for the best of ideas. Intolerance that closes our eyes defeats
our aspirations.
"The Tides organizations support innovative, creative nonprofit work to address social
problems. We work for sustainability, better education, solutions to the AIDS epidemic,
comprehensive immigration reform, and human rights. We strive to encourage every American
to be as involved in public life as they can be and to resolve differences through the honest
exchange of ideas."
The Grateful   ~
I I ,
.1 $-S6l8ARlC www.gm.tuldogsf.com
http://www.rnarinatimes.comlauglO/news_presidiotides.html 112
1/15/2014 NIarina Times - The Presidio's Tides FOundation apparent target of attack by heavily armed suspect
Suspect remains in custody
The sLlspect was taken to Highlands Hospital in Oakland for treatment of wounds sustained
during the 1-580 shootout. He appeared at his arraignment on July 20 and now faces four
attempted murder charges and three felony weapons possession charges.
Williams, a convicted bank robber who was released from federal prison in 2008, currently has
two convictions on his record. Charges in connection with this arrest could result in a "third
strike" under California sentencing rules, meaning a possibility of 25 years to life in prison if
http://www.marillatimes.com/aug10/news_presidiotides.htm1 2/2
10/2/12 Gmail- Your courier can come by this aftemoon."
Your courier can come by this afternoon...

To: Aaron WaIRe_grnafCcom>
Man, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM
Thank you for agreeing to have the laptop and other company property picked up by a courier today. I will have
someone from Laser Courier out there later this afternoon. As for your property, we will take all of the property
identified in your email out of your office and delivered to your address by courier no later than Wednesday. To that
end, we have confirmed that you were not reimbursed for any expenses related to legal publications, other than the
health care industry publications, so all of those books will be included in the package that we deliver to your home.
We note, however, that the fact that you might need any of your personal reference materials, which you kept in
PHRI's office, to draft a complaint in private litigation is not the responsibility of PHRI. Also, unless you have a
deadline for filing your complaint this week, which is almost certainly not true, then you will be able to make use of
those materials in plenty of time to draft your complaint.
It is unfortunate that you still do not graspthe graVity of what you have done, and the risk that you have created for
your co-workers at PHRI. Ifthe situation is serious enough for you to alert no less than two local police departments,
then it is serious enough for PHRI to protect its employees and prohibit you from returning to its offices. If you have
any ability to empathize with the concerns of PHRl's personnel, you would not even attempt to return, even after
hours. Apparently, you chose to start a blog for the express purpose of showing disrespect to the adherents of a
major religion, which could be calculated to incite violent reprisals on the part of the most extreme elements of that
religion. You also wrote disparagingly, even if accurately, about at least one person that you have described as a
"terrorist." Perhaps that is the reason that you did so under a pseudonym - and understandably so given the threats
leveled against others who published material that is considered offensive to such people. Now that your identity
has been revealed, however, anyone with whom you associate can be considered a potential target. Thus, PHRI has
a duty to act in ways that keep you from further exposing its employees to such risks. Finally, you write that
whatever fear you have created is "beyond all rationality." 1fthat is true, then why did you call the police, and why
do you possess firearms? You cleverly denied possessing "handguns" in your email, but you did not deny possessing
firearms of any kind. Whatever second amendment rights you exercise, it can be assumed that self-protection under
the current circumstances is one of the primary reasons that you do so.
As for the reasons for your termination, while PHRI would have been justified in terminating you for your grossly
irresponsible actions related to your blogging, especially on company time (many of your posts bear time stamps
during normal working hours} the actual reason for your termination is the incredibly irresponsible way that you
performed legal services for PHRI (or failed to) over the past four years, both as an outside attorney and, since July of
2011, as an employee of PHRI. As I to you on Friday, the state of your office is almost beyond
description. Most of the legal documents in your office are piled haphazardly in no less than five legal size paper
boxes, without regard to any kind of organization, filing, chronology, etc. The fewfiles that were actually stored in
your file cabinet are not filed alphabetically or by subject matter. Even those appear to be incomplete and provide
no basis for determining what actions were taken or remain to be taken to conclude the matter. It is also obvious
that most of the work that you did in that office, as revealed by the stacks of documents on top of your desk, relate
to personal business, including your various b10g activities. In fact, it is difficult to determine what you were working
on for PHRI over the last few weeks, if anything. (Your characterization of your office as "messy" is belied by the
photographs that we took to document the actual condition of that room.) The few documents that did relate to
PHRI business do not indicate the current status of the matters to which they relate and PHRI is now in the position
of retracing steps and contacting numerous third parties to determine where things stand. Obviously, those efforts
will cost PHRI significant sums, including the cost for outside counsel to communicate with third party counsel and
continue the representation of PHRI, as necessary. Given those circumstances, it seems clear that you failed to
https:llmail. google.   iew=pt&q=kimberlin after''103A2011%2F1%2F1 bef ... 1/2
10/2112 Gmail - Your courier can come by this afternoon...
perform your duties as counsel to PHRI, in favor of pursuing your personal interests, while being paid by PHRI. Thus,
PHRI is entirely justified to terminate your employment for cause related to your failure to perform in accordance
with its expectations and with your obligations as a member ofthe Virginia State Bar. Obviously, even if PHRI had a
severance policy, which it does not, you would not be entitled to receive any such compensation under the
circumstances. Rather, PHRI would be justified if it sought reimbursement from your for amounts paid for services
that you did not perform or during periods during which you did not perform services.
In light of all the above, and in the context of your activities outside the scope of your employment, if you must
consider yourself to be a victim, it is only of your own irresponsible actions. PHRI does not have a responsibility to
provide you with a "soft landing" from those actions in the form of unearned compensation. It is interested,
however, in entering into an agreement with you that will provide certain benefits to both parties. Accordingly,
PHRI proposes to agree that your termination was by mutual consent rather than as a termination for cause, that
the parties will waive any claims that they have against the other, and that the parties will agree to confidentiality
terms that will include a provision that they will not refer to each other in any form (including in anything that you
author such as blogs, books, etc.). PHRI also proposes to pay you and your wife through the end of last week and to
provide a certain amount of severance to Mary in recognition of her many years of service to PHRI. She is not
considered to be responsible for the current circumstances and PHRI regrets that she has been caught up in these
issues. If you are willing to agree to the terms set forth in general above, I will draft an agreement for your review.
We would like to get it done by Wednesday, along with the return of your property. If you are not Willing to enter
into such an agreement, please let me know immediately.
Jim Hodges
Hodges & Associates, P.c.
11325 Random Hills Road, Suite 400
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(703) 779-5700
(703) 779-0200
p.s. To respond to your personal question to me, no, I was not afraid of you when I met you in the lobby of my
building (although I did not know that you possess firearms at that time). But I met you in the lobby to avoid the
appearance of you haVing any association with the company that provides me with office space. You chose to poke
at a group that is known for violent reprisals, apparently in the name of asserting first amendment rights (even
though the U.S. Government is not involved in suppressing cartoons about Mohammed). And you were fearful
enough of your adversaries to alert the police in two counties. So it would be unreasonable for you to condemn
common sense efforts to protect those who have nothing to do with your activities as "beyond all rationality." In
hindsight, do you still consider your "Everyone draw Mohammed" blog to be rational? If so, I would not consider you
to be a credible appraiser of rationality.
From: Aaron Walker  
Date: Man, 16Jan 2012 13:41:17 -0500
To: James Hodges •••
Subject: Your courier can come by this afternoon...
[Ouoted text hidden)
https:/Imail.google.com/maill?ui=2&ik=9c272c2395&v iew=pt&q=kimberlin after%3A2011 %2F1%2F1 bef ... 212

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful