You are on page 1of 60

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
*
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
*
Plaintiff
*
v. CASE NO.: !H"#$"$%&'
*
NATIONAL BLOERS CLUB, (t al.,
*
D(f(n)ant*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
+ALKER,S RE-ISED
#
MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
.ECF NO. #$&/ UNDER RULE #0. B /.#/ AND . B /.1/
1
Please note that this Memorandum is revised from a prior memorandum supporting Mr. Walker’s first
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11). !out half of it is re"#"led$ half ne%. s mu"h as pra"ti"a!le$
previous do"uments filed in this "ase have !een ignored in the name of starting from the &e"ond
mended Complaint %ith a "lean slate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'()E *F +',*-.'.E& /
.N'-*0+C'.*N N0 &+MM-1 *F -2+MEN' 1
&'N0-0 *F -E3.EW 4
.. ',E P).N'.FF ,& N*' &''E0 C).M ',' ',E 0EFEN0N'& ,3E
3.*)'E0 15 +.&.C. 61789(C) :
. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not Properl# lleged that the 0efendants Engaged in -a"keteering
"tivit# 8
1. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged a 3iolation of 15 +.&.C. 61:;4 <
9. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged that 0efendants Committed or ttempted to
Commit E=tortion in 3iolation of 15 +.&.C. 617:1 5
4. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged Wire or Mail Fraud +nder 15 +.&.C. 6614/1 and
14/4 7
() 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged n# Fraud -elated to N(C’s 6:;1(")(4)
&tatus 1;
(() 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged n# Fraud -elated to the &W'ting of
0efendants Walker$ Fre# and Eri"kson 11
(C) 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged n# Fraud -elated to the )oss of Mr.
Walker’s >o! 14
(0) 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged n# Fraud -elated to Mr. Walker’s lleged
ssault gainst the Plaintiff 14
/. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not Properl# lleged Mone# )aundering under 15 +.&.C.
617:< 1:
:. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged that 0efendants Committed -etaliation gainst a
Witness and 3i"tim in 3iolation of 15 +.&.C. 661:14 or 1:19 18
(. 'he Plaintiff has not Properl# lleged that the Claimed Pattern of -a"keteering "tivit#
,as &uffi"ient Continuit# 94
ii
C. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not Properl# lleged that an Enterprise E=ists 94
0. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not Properl# lleged that the sserted -a"keteering "tivit# ,as
Pro=imatel# Caused .n?ur# to Plaintiff’s (usiness or Propert# 9:
... ',E P).N'.FF ,& N*' &''E0 C).M ',' ',E 0EFEN0N'& ,3E
C*N&P.-E0 '* 3.*)'E 15 +.&.C. 61789(C) .N 3.*)'.*N *F 61789(0) 9<
.... ',E P).N'.FF ,& N*' P-*PE-)1 ))E2E0 3.*)'.*N *F /9 +.&.C. 61754
2.N&' 0EFEN0N' F-E1 95
.3. ',E P).N'.FF ,& N*' ))E2E0 3.*)'.*N *F /9 +.&.C. 6175: 49
3. ',.& C*+-' &,*+)0 0.&M.&& )) &''E )W C).M& 4/
. 'he Plaintiff’s &tate@(ased Claims &hould (e 0ismissed (e"ause 'here is No 3alid
Federal Auestion 4/
(. 'he Plaintiff ,as Failed to &tate a Claim for +pon Whi"h -elief Can (e 2ranted For
n# of ,is &tate )a% Claims 4/
1. 'he Plaintiff 0oesn’t Properl# &tate a Claim for 0efamation or False )ight 4:
9. 'he Plaintiff 0oesn’t Properl# llege n# "tual .nterferen"e With an E=isting
Contra"t$ or his (usiness -elationships /1
4. 'he Plaintiff’s Claim for (atter# is (arred !# Collateral Estoppel and the &tatute
of )imitations /4
/. 'he Plaintiff 0oesn’t Properl# &tate a Claim for .ntentional .nfli"tion of
Emotional 0istress //
:. Plaintiff’s Claim for Civil Conspira"# Must Fail (e"ause .t is Not an .ndependent
'ort and ,e ,as Not Pled n# of the Elements of Conspira"# /<
8. 'he Plaintiff &eriall# Fails to llege 'hat ,e Was 0amaged in -elation to ,is
&tate )a% Claims /<
3. ',.& C*+-' &,*+)0 0.&M.&& )) C).M& W.', P-E>+0.CE /5
C*NC)+&.*N /5
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
180S, Inc. v. Gordini USA, Inc.$ 8;9 F. &upp. 9d 84: (0. Md. 9;;7) /5
Abcarian v. McDonald$ 81< F. 4d 741 (<
th
Cir. 9;1;) 97
Adams v. Bain$ 87< F. 9d 1914 (/
th
Cir. 1759) :
Al-Abood v. El-Shamari$ 91< F. 4d 99: (/
th
Cir. 9;;;) 94
Ashcroft v. Ibal$ ::8 +.&. 889 (9;;7) 4$ /$ :$ 1:@1<$ 9/$ 4;$ /<
Baron !inancial "or#. v. $atan%on$ /<1 F.&upp.9d :4: (0. Md. 9;;8) /9
B&c' v. (r)#is$ :97 +.&. /7/ (9;;;) 95
B&ll Atlantic "or#. v. *+ombl,$ ::; +.&. :// (9;;<) /$ 17$ 9/$ 9:
Brand&nb)r- v. .hio$ 47: +.&. /// (1787) 15$ /8
Bra, v. Al&/andria 0om&n1s 2&alth "linic$ :;8 +.&. 984 (1774) 44
Broo's v. 0inston-Sal&m, 5: F. 4d 1<5 (/
th
Cir. 1778) 4:
Bro+n v. !&r-)son Ent&rs., Inc., No. 19@C3@151< (0. Md. 0e". 11$ 9;19) /$ 4:
"ardillo v. Do)bl&da, 3 "o., Inc.$ :15 F. 9d 845 (9
nd
Cir. 17<:) 48@4<$ 47
"ho+ v. A&-is Mort-. "or#.$ 15: F. &upp. 9d 71/ (N.0. .ll. 9;;9) 97
"h), v. (hilad&l#hia Ea-l&s$ /;< F. &upp. <1< (E.0. Pa. 17<8) 98
"ob, v. Mobl&,$ 177/ +.&. 0ist. )EB.& :19: (0. Md. 177/) /4
"olo. St. "hiro#ractic Soc., Inc. v. "ommission&r$ :8 '.C.M. (CC,) 1;15 (+.&.'.C. 1757) 1;
"omm)nications, Inc v. "onna)-hton$ /71 +.&. 8:< (1757) /;
"randon v. Unit&d Stat&s$ /7/ +.&. 1:9 (177;) 91
iv
"ro+l&, v. !o/ Broadcastin- "o.$ 5:1 F. &upp. <;; (0. Md. 177/) /1
Davidson-$ad+odn, v. 0al-Mart Assoc., Inc. 9;;5 W) 9/1:;4: (0. Md. 9;;5) /
D&c' v. En-in&&r&d 4aminat&s$ 4/7 F. 4d 19:4 (1;th Cir. 9;;4) 5$ 15
D&Shan&, v. 0inn&ba-o "o)nt, D&#t. of Social S&rvs. /57 +.&. 157 (1757) 49
!irst (acific Bancor#, Inc. v. Bro$ 5/< F. 9d :/9 (7
th
Cir. 1755) 5
!it%-&rald v. (&ntho)s& Int&rn., 4td.$ :9: F. &upp. :5: (0. Md 1751) 47
!li# Mort-. "or#. v. McElhon&$ 5/1 F. 9d :41 (/
th
Cir. 1755) 8
Gabovitch v. Sh&ar$ <; F. 4d 19:9 (1
st
Cir. 177:) 5
Garrison v. Stat& of 4o)isiana$ 4<7 +.&. 8/ (178/) 9
GE Inv&stm&nt (rivat& (lac&m&nt (artn&rs v. (ar'&r$ 9/< F. 4d :/4 (/
th
Cir. 9;;1) 94
Grassic' v. 2old&r$ No. ;7@C3@:5< (0. -... Mar"h 95$ 9;19) 9;
Griffin v. Br&c'inrid-&$ /;4 +.&. 55 (17<1) 49
Gro-an v. (latt, 54: F. 9d 5// (11th Cir. 1755) 98
2amm v. 5hon&-(o)l&nc 5or&r (harmac&)ticals$ 15< F. 4d 7/1 (5
th
Cir. 1777) 98
2arrison v. 0&stin-ho)s& Savannah 5iv&r "o.$ 1<8 F. 4d <<8 (/
th
Cir. 1777) /$ 11$ 14$ 1/
2&rb&rt v. 4ando$ <51 F. 9d 975 (9
nd
Cir. 1758) /;
2osac' v. Uto#ian 0ir&l&ss "or#.$ No. 11@C3@;/9; (0. Md. Ma# 8$ 9;11) 99
I.S. 6os&#h "o., Inc. v. 6. 4a)rit%&n A7S$ <:1 F. 9d 98: (5
th
Cir. 175/) 5
6ac'son v. S&d-+ic' "laims M-mt. S&rvs., Inc.$ <41 F. 4d ::8 (8
th
Cir. 9;14) 9
8&#n&r-*r&-o&, Inc. v. 4&ad&rshi# Soft+ar&, Inc., 19 F. 4d :9< (:
th
Cir. 177/) 15
8imb&rlin v. D&+alt$ 19 F. &upp. 9d /5< (0. Md. 1775) 9$ 48$ /;$ /5
8imb&rlin v. D.6$ <55 F. 9d /4/ (<
th
Cir. 1758) 48
v
8imb&rlin v. 9)inlan :I;$ 8 F. 4d <57 (0.C. Cir. 1774) /;
8imb&rlin v. 9)inlan :II;$ 177 F. 4d /78$ /75@77 (0.C. Cir. 1777) /;
8imb&rlin v. 0hit&$< F. 4d :9< (8
th
Cir. 1774) 1$ 9<$ 48
8)sh v. 5)tl&d-&$ /8; +.&. <17 (1754) 49@44
4ab&r v. 2arv&,$ /45 F. 4d /;/ (/th Cir. 9;;8) /5
4&+is v. Bd. of Ed. of *albot "o.$ 989 F. &upp.9d 8;5 (0. Md. 9;;4) 99
4ord v. 5il&,$ 791 F. 9d 9<9$ 177; +.&. pp. )EB.& 99/85 (/
th
Cir. 1771) 4;@41
4or&n Data "or#. v. G<S, Inc., No. 1;@C3@4/</ (0. Md. ugust 4;$ 9;11) /5
Madison v. 2arford "nt,. No. M>2@19@C3@119; (0. Md. ug. 9$ 9;14) /4
$aff& v. !r&, &t al. No. 19@C3@;5//4 (C.0. California$ 9;19) 95
.llman v. Evans$ <:; F. 9d 7<; (0.C. Cir. 175/) 19
(&ll&ti&r v. =+&if&l$ 791 F. 9d 1/8: (11
th
Cir.1771) 7$ 11
(iotro+s'i v. 0&lls !ar-o Ban', $.A.$ 9;14 W) 9/<:/7 (0. Md. 9;14) /
()blic "iti%&n v. D.6$ /71 +.& //; (1757) 91
Salinas v. U.S.$ :99 +.&. :9 (177<) 95
Schat% v. 5&#)blican Stat& 4&ad&rshi# "omm.$ 887 F. 4d :; (1
st
Cir. 9;19) 91$ /;
Sch&idl&r v. $.0, Inc.$ :4< +.&. 474 (9;;4) 7
Smith v. Es)ir&, Inc.$ /7/ F. &upp. 78< (0. Md. 175;) /1
U.S. v. A-)ilar$ :1: +.&. :74 (177:) <
U.S. v. Ara-on$ 754 F. 9d 14;8 (/
th
Cir. 1774) <
U.S. v. Ardito$ <59 F. 9d 4:5 (9
nd
Cir. 1758) <
U.S. v. Arm&l$ :5: F.4d 159 (/th Cir. 9;;7) 4;
vi
U.S. v. Bl&dso&$ 8</ F. 9d 8/< (5
th
Cir. 1759) 94@94
U.S. v. "assid,$ 51/ F. &upp. 9d :</ (9;11) 9;@91
U.S. v. Darb,$ 4< F. 4d 1;:7 (/
th
Cir. 177/) 4;
U.S. v. 8imb&rlin$ 5;: F. 9d 91; (<
th
Cir. 1758) 1$ 48$ /;
U.S. v. (&nd&r-raft$ 97< F. 4d 1175 (11
th
Cir. 9;;9) 5
U.S. v. Shiv&l,$ 79< F. 9d 5;/ (:
th
Cir. 1771) 18
U.S. v. *ill&tt$ <84 F. 9d 895 (/
th
Cir. 175:) 94
U.S. v. 0ri-ht No. 11@C-@;989 (&.0. la. Fe!ruar# 5$ 9;19) 17
US Airlin& (ilots Ass1n v. A0A((A, 44"$ 81: F. 4d 419 (/
th
Cir. 9;1;) 8
>&n&, v. 0,ch&$ 974 F. 4d <98 (/
th
Cir. 9;;9) 4$ 1;$ 99$ 9:$ 97
=and&r v. Unit&d Stat&s. 9;19 W) //<479 (0.Md. 9;19) :
FEDERAL STATUTES
1: +.&.C. 61: 98
15 +.&.C. 65<: 4;
15 +.&.C. 614/1 8$ 7
15 +.&.C. 614/4 8$ 7
15 +.&.C. 61:;4 8@<
15 +.&.C. 61:19 8$ 18$ 17@99
15 +.&.C. 61:14 8$ 18@17$ 99
15 +.&.C. 61:1/ 17
15 +.&.C. 61:1: 18$ 18
vii
15 +.&.C. 617:1 8@7$ 98
15 +.&.C. 617:8 1:
15 +.&.C. 617:< 8$ 1:@18
15 +.&.C. 61781 4$ 8@<$ 1:$ 94$ /7
15 +.&.C. 61789 passim
15 +.&.C. 6178/ 8$ 9:
15 +.&.C. 69441 9<
98 +.&.C. 6:;1 1;@11
95 +.&.C. 6148< 4/$ 95
/9 +.&.C. 61754 4$ 95@95$ 4;@49$ /7
/9 +.&.C. 6175: 4$ 49@44$ /7
FEDERAL RULES
Fed. -. Civ. P. 5 4
Fed. -. Civ. P. 7 /$ 1;@11$ 4:
Fed. -. Civ. P. 19 4$ :
Fed. -. Evid. /;5 (dvisor# Committee Notes) 5
STATE CASES
All&co Inc. v. 2arr, 3 6&an&tt& 0&inb&r- !o)ndation, Inc.$ 4/; Md. 1<8 (177/) /<
Ba-+&ll v. (&nins)la 5&-ional M&dical "&nt&r$ 1;8 Md. pp. /<; (177/) /9
Batson v. Shifl&tt$ 49: Md. 85/ (1779) /:
viii
"arr v. 0at'ins$ 99< Md. :<5 (1789) /<
Di/on v. Stat&$ 144 Md. pp. 49:$ <:: .9d :8; (9;;;) //
!o+l&r v. (rint&rs II, Inc.$ 57 Md. pp. //5 (1771) /1
E//on Mobil "or#. v. Albri-ht$ /44 Md. 4;4$ <1 .4d 4; (9;14) /:
6ac'son v. 4on-sco#&$ 47/ Mass. :<< (175:) 47
2arris v. 6on&s, 951 Md. :8; (17<<) /8
8imb&rlin v. All&n$ No 4479:/3 (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 9;11) 18
8imb&rlin v. 0al'&r :I; No. ;8;1&P;;:479;19 (Md. Mont. Co. 0ist. Ct. 9;19) 1/
8imb&rlin v. 0al'&r, &t al No. 45;7883 (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 9;14) 45$ //
8imb&rlin v. D&4on-$ 84< N.E.9d 191 (.nd. &up. Ct. 177/) 48
4amb v. Stat&$ 74 Md. pp. /99 (1771) //
4&o#old v. 4&vin$ /: .ll.9d /4/ (17<;) 47
(iscat&lli v. >an Smith$ /9/ Md. 97/$ 4: .4d 11/; (9;19) 4:$ /1
Sn,d&r v. Stat&$ 91; Md. pp. 4<; (9;14) //
S#&n-l&r v. S&ars, 5o&b)c' 3 "o.$ 184 Md. pp. 99;$ 5<5 .9d 895 (9;;:) /9
S+at& v. Schiff&rs$ 7<: &W 9d <; ('e=. pp.$ /
th
0ist. 1775) 4<
STATE STATUTES
M0. C*0E C-.M. )W 64@9;1 1/$ //
M0 C*0E C'&. C >+0. P-*C. 6:@1;: //
i=
ARTICLES AND BOOKS
.*. &"ott$ "od, Sh&ar&r? If 2& Didn1t E/ist, th& >ast 5i-ht 0in- "ons#irac, 0o)ld 2av& Inv&nt&d
2im$ &)'E$ Ma# 99$ 1777 (availa!le at httpDEE%%%.slate."omEarti"lesEne%sFandFpoliti"sEassessmentE
1777E;:E"od#Fshearer .html) visited 0e"em!er <$ 9;14 4<
Genneth &tampp$ ',E E- *F -EC*N&'-+C'.*N 158:@15<< (178<) 44
Mark &inger$ C.'.HEN GD ',E 0EEP)1 WE.-0 ME-.CN >*+-NE1 *F (-E'' G.M(E-).N (1778) 4<
-. >oseph 2elarden$ 8imb&rlin "as& a Ma%& of M)rd&r, D&c&it$ .N0.NP*).& &'-$ *"to!er 15$ 1751
(availa!le at httpDEEar"hive.ind#star."omEassetsEpdfE(218/9<8717.P0F) visited on 0e"em!er <$ 9;14
4<
5&troInd,? *h& S#&&d+a, Bombin-s, (art I? !or a 0&&' in 1@A8, th& *o+n of S#&&d+a, +as *&rrori%&d
b, a S&rial Bomb&r$ .N0.NP*).& &'-$ (availa!le at httpDEE%%%.ind#star."omEarti"leE77777777E
NEW&;8E1;;717;19E) visited 0e"em!er <$ 9;14 45
5&troInd,? *h& S#&&d+a, Bombin-s, (art II? B)ildin- th& "as& A-ainst Br&tt 8imb&rlin .N0.NP*).&
&'-$ (availa!le at httpDEE%%%.ind#star."omEarti"leE77777777ENEW&;8E1;;717;14) visited 0e"em!er
<$ 9;14 45
William &afire$ I'he Wa# We )ive No%D 1@94@;;D *n )anguageJ 0on’t 2o 'here$K *h& $&+ Bor'
*im&s$ >anuar# 94$ 9;;; (availa!le at httpDEE%%%.n#times."omE9;;;E;1E94EmagaLineEthe@%a#@%e@live@
no%@1@94@;;@on@language@don@t@go@there.html) visited >anuar# 97$ 9;1/ 4;
=
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARUMENT
'he 0efendants in"lude several vi"tims of a dangerous "rime "alled &W'ting. 'he term is
relativel# ne%$ and its definition "an !e de!ated$ !ut in the "ase of the 0efendants Walker$
9
Fre# and
Eri"kson$ this is %hat happened$ upon information and !elief. &omeone "alled the poli"e on different
dates$ impersonating one of the defendants$ usuall# using a Iha"kerK te"hniMue to tri"k emergen"#
servi"es into !elieving he %as "alling from that defendant’s phone num!er. .n ea"h "ase$ the
impersonator falsel# "onfessed to murdering their %ives. .n other %ords$ someone "alled the poli"e and
said something to the effe"t of I.’m aron Walker$ and . ?ust shot m# %ife.K 'his %as done to invoke a
severe poli"e rea"tion$ potentiall# in"luding a &W' team$ %hi"h is %h# it is "alled I&W'tingK and
%h# it is spelled this %a#. *!viousl#$ this tri"k is ver# dangerous.
'hese people are vi"tims of a "rime$ and ea"h has reason to suspe"t that the Plaintiff %as
involved. +pon information and !elief$ Fre#$ Walker$ Eri"kson$ and a fourth person$ Mike &ta"k (%ho is
not part of this suit)$ all pu!li"l# "riti"iLed the Plaintiff$ a "onvi"ted drug kingpin$
4
and terrorist kno%n
as I'he &peed%a# (om!er.K
/
'he# %ere all &W'ted. Walker$ in parti"ular$ had %on a legal vi"tor#
against the Plaintiff on the same da# he %as &W'ted. Further$ upon information and !elief$ a person
using an .P address asso"iated %ith the Plantiff’s self@des"ri!ed friend William &"hmalfeldt threatened
to &W' 0efendant William ,oge ...$ another "riti" of the Plaintiff$ and a person seen arguing %ith Mr.
&"hmalfeldt on the internet %as &W'ted on the ver# evening of that argument. t the same time$ the
Plaintiff’s self@identified asso"iate$ Neal -auhauser$ has !een a""used in another suit of making Ia
veiled threat of &W'ting.K
:
.n other %ords$ the Plaintiff is suing vi"tims of a "rimeN%ho have good
9
Mr. Walker refers to himself in the third person for st#listi" purposes and to de@personaliLe this "ase.
4
U.S. v. 8imb&rlin$ 5;: F. 9d 91;$ 99:@945 (<
th
Cir. 1758).
/
8imb&rlin v. 0hit&$ < F. 4d :9<$ :95 (8
th
Cir. 1774).
:
S&& mend. Compl.$ ECF No. : at O5< in McGibn&, &t. al, v. 5&t%laff, &t al. No. 1/@C3@;1;:7 (9;1/).
reason to suspe"t he %as involvedNfor pointing out fa"ts su"h as those listed in the last t%o paragraphs.
None of the 0efendants have a""used the Plaintiff of &W'ting them$ !ut it is reasona!le to !elieve the
Plaintiff is responsi!le (%ith "o@"onspirators). *pen investigations might still produ"e an arrest %arrant
for the Plaintiff.
What this la%suit represents is the latest strike in the Plaintiff’s multi@#ear "ampaign to silen"e
his "riti"s. 'he Plaintiff’s goal is to punish those %ho have spoken out against him$ those %ho have
spoken to la% enfor"ement seeking to !ring him to ?usti"e$ and attorne#s %hose onl# I"rimeK %as the
pea"eful representation of his Ienemies.K For instan"e$ the root of his ire to%ard Mr. Walker is that he
dared to give pro !ono legal help to one of the targets of the Plaintiff’s a!usive litigation$ and Mr.
Walker’s refusal to !e !ullied. 'he root of his anger to%ard Mr. (a"ker is he dared to give Mr. 0al'&r
pro !ono legal help. Presuma!l#$ ne=t the Plaintiff %ill !e angr# at the la%#ers %ho represent the
defendants in this "ase. 'hus$ this la%suit represents an attempt !# this Plaintiff to punish prote"ted
spee"h$ to punish those %ho %ould speak to la% enfor"ement a!out him$ and to punish la%#ers for
representing his Ienemies.K 'he Plaintiff also seeks to deter others from engaging in similar spee"h and
legal advo"a"#. .ndeed$ this la%suit represents an attempt to "reate a federal "riminal la% of defamation$
despite the &upreme Court’s indi"ation that "riminal defamation la%s are o!solete.
8
+nfortunatel#$ as is the "ase in a motion to dismiss$ this "ourt is reMuired to treat all %ell@pleaded
allegations in the &e"ond mended Complaint (I&CK) !# this "onvi"ted per?urer
<
as true. &till$
IPtQhread!are re"itals of the elements of a "ause of a"tion$ supported !# mere "on"lusor# statements$ do
8
Garrison v. Stat& of 4o)isiana$ 4<7 +.&. 8/$ 85@<; (178/) (e=plaining that "riminal defamation statutes
%ere "reated in the da#s %hen violent duels %ere "ommon as an alternative to su"h private violen"e).
dditionall#$ defamation la% is traditionall# a matter of state la%$ and federal "ourts are relu"tant to
invade traditional areas of state regulation %ithout a "lear statement that this %as Congress’ intent. S&&,
&.-. 6ac'son v. S&d-+ic' "laims M-mt. S&rvs., Inc.$ <41 F. 4d ::8$ :88@8< (8
th
Cir. 9;14).
<
8imb&rlin v. D&+alt$ 19 F. &upp. 9d /5<$ /7; n. 8 (0. Md 1775).
9
not suffi"e.K Ashcroft v. Ibal$ ::8 +.&. 889$ 8<5 (9;;7). s this "ourt %ill see$ man# of the allegations
are onl# supported !# su"h thread!are re"itals$ and others are not even supported !# that mu"h.
'he Plaintiff has failed to allege a single "ause of a"tion against Mr. Walker or an# defendant.
,e has not alleged the elements of a violation of an# federal statuteD of the -a"keteering .nfluen"ed and
Corrupt *rganiLations "t (I-.C*K)$ 15 +.&.C. 1781 &t s&.J of /9 +.&.C. 61754J or of /9 +.&.C.
6175:. ,aving failed to plead a single federal "ause of a"tion and %ith there !eing no diversit# of
"itiLenship$ this "ourt should not e=er"ise supplemental ?urisdi"tion over the state la% "laims$ and$
therefore$ su"h "laims should !e dismissed. Even if this "ourt did have ?urisdi"tion over his state la%
"laims$ the Plaintiff has failed to state a "laim for an# of those "auses of a"tion. .ndeed$ "onsistent %ith
the Plaintiff’s tenden"# to a!use the legal s#stem$ several of these a"tions are !arred !# "ollateral
estoppelD he has alread# had his da# in "ourt and he lost$ !ut "ontinues to pursue them.
.n short$ the defendant has failed to state a "laim for %hi"h relief "an !e granted for an# of his
"laims. .n the name of ?udi"ial e"onom#$ this dismissal should !e granted to all defendants for all "laims
%ith pre?udi"e and$ upon further motions$ %ith san"tions.
STANDARD OF RE-IE+
+nder Fed. -. Civ. P. 19(!)(8)$ a "omplaint shall !e dismissed Iif it fails to state a "laim upon
%hi"h relief "an !e granted.K >&l&ncia v. Dr&%hlo$ 9;19 W) 8:89<8/ at R/ (0. Md. 9;19). lthough this
rule’s purpose Iis to test the suffi"ien"# of a "omplaint and not to resolve "ontests surrounding the fa"ts$
the merits of a "laim$ or the appli"a!ilit# of defenses$K id., the "ourt is not reMuired to Ia""ept as true
allegations that "ontradi"t matters properl# su!?e"t to ?udi"ial noti"e or !# e=hi!it.K >&n&, v. 0,ch&$ 974
F. 4d <98$ <4; (/
th
Cir. 9;;9). Further$ a "omplaint must "ontain Ia short and plain statement of the
"laim sho%ing that the pleader is entitled to relief$K Fed. -. Civ. P. 5(a)(9)$ and must state Ia plausi!le
4
"laimK as IPtQhread!are re"itals of the elements of a "ause of a"tion$ supported !# mere "on"lusor#
statements$ do not suffi"e$K Ibal$ ::8 +.&. at 8<5S<7. 'his IreMuires more than la!els and "on"lusions$
and a formulai" re"itation of the elements of a "ause of a"tion$K B&ll Atlantic "or#. v. *+ombl,$ ::; +.&.
://$ ::: (9;;<). I "laim has fa"ial plausi!ilit# %hen the plaintiff pleads fa"tual "ontent that allo%s the
"ourt to dra% the reasona!le inferen"e that the defendant is lia!le for the mis"ondu"t alleged.K Id. at 884.
dditionall#$ on a motion to dismiss Ia "ourt ma# appl# "ommon sense and re?e"t fantasti" allegations.K
Mc"a)l&, v. 2os#ira, Inc.$ No. 11@C3@1;5 at R/ (M.0.N.C.$ 9;11).
Further$ %here the allegations in a "omplaint involve fraud$ a plaintiff also must satisf# the
heightened pleading reMuirements of Fed. -. Civ. P. 7(!) !# IstatPingQ %ith parti"ularit# the
"ir"umstan"es "onstituting fraud.K 'his serves four purposesD Ito provide the defendant %ith suffi"ient
noti"e of the !asis for the plaintiff’s "laimJ to prote"t the defendant against frivolous suitsJ to eliminate
fraud a"tions %here all of the fa"ts are learned onl# after dis"over#J and to safeguard the defendant’s
reputation.K (iotro+s'i v. 0&lls !ar-o Ban', $.A.$ 9;14 W) 9/<:/7 at R: (0. Md. 9;14) ("itations
omitted). 'hus$ a plaintiff must allege Ithe time$ pla"e and "ontents of the false representations$ as %ell
as the identit# of the person making the misrepresentation and %hat he o!tained there!#.K 2arrison v.
0&stin-ho)s& Savannah 5iv&r "o.$ 1<8 F. 4d <<8$ <5/ (/
th
Cir. 1777). ,o%ever$ Imali"e$ intent$
kno%ledge$ and other "onditions of a person’s mind P"anQ !e alleged generall#.K )ike%ise$ under
Mar#land la%$ defamation also must !e alleged %ith parti"ularit#$ in"luding a Ispe"ifi" des"ription of
the "ontent of the alleged statements$K as %ell as I%hen and ho% the# %ere "ommuni"ated.K Bro+n v.
!&r-)son Ent&rs., Inc., No. 19@C3@151<@CC( at R: (0. Md. 0e". 11$ 9;19).
5
5
S&& also Davidson-$ad+odn, v. 0al-Mart Assoc., Inc., 9;;5 W) 9/1:;4: at R: (0. Md. 9;;5)
(dismissing a defamation "ase under Mar#land la% !e"ause it Idoes not spe"if# %hat a"tual defamator#
statements %ere made !# defendants... and to %hom the statements %ere madeK).
/
.n Ibal, the &upreme Court %rote that IP%Qe !egin our anal#sis !# identif#ing the allegations in
the "omplaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth.K ::8 +.&. at 851. .t might !e useful to this
"ourt to do the same$ a"tuall# taking a "op# of the &C$ "rossing out in red ever# allegation that is not
entitled to a presumption of truth (and an# irrelevant and fantasti"al allegations)
7
and then seeing if there
is an#thing left in the %hite spa"es that %ould support an# "laim for relief.
Finall#$ as the Fourth Cir"uit noted in Adams v. Bain$ 87< F. 9d 1914$ 1917 (/
th
Cir. 1759)$
IPtQhere are t%o "riti"all# different %a#s in %hi"h to present a motion to dismiss for la"k of su!?e"t
matter ?urisdi"tionK under Fed. -. Civ. P. 19(!)(1). 'he first is !# asserting Ithat a "omplaint simpl#
fails to allege fa"ts upon %hi"h su!?e"t matter ?urisdi"tion "an !e !ased.K Id. .n that "ase$ Iall the fa"ts
alleged in the "omplaint are assumed to !e true and the plaintiff$ in effe"t$ is afforded the same
pro"edural prote"tion as he %ould re"eive under a -ule 19(!)(8) "onsideration.K Id. at 4$ /. &e"ondl#$ a
0efendant might "ontend Ithat the ?urisdi"tional allegations of the "omplaint PareQ not true$K id.$ in
%hi"h "ase Ithe "ourt is free to "onsider e=hi!its outside the pleadings to resolve fa"tual disputes
"on"erning ?urisdi"tion.K =and&r v. Unit&d Stat&s$ 9;19 W) //<479 at R/ (0.Md. 9;19) (internal
Muotation marks omitted). .ndeed$ Iit ma# !ehoove the trial "ourt to "ondu"t an evidentiar# hearing to
resolve the disputed fa"ts that underpin su!?e"t matter ?urisdi"tion.K Id.
I.
THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT STATED A CLAIM THAT THE DEFENDANTS HA-E -IOLATED
#2 U.S.C. 3#'10.C/.
'he -a"keteer .nfluen"ed and Corrupt *rganiLations "t Iis a uniMue "ause of a"tion that is
7
E.-. &C O44@48$ spinning an implausi!le and irrelevant tale %here non@defendant ,( 2ar# allegedl#
teamed up %ith non@defendants the N& and the +.&. Cham!er of Commer"e to destro# the Plaintiff.
'he implausi!ilit# of the tale speaks for itself. 'he irrelevan"e of it is demonstrated in &C O4<$ %here
the Plaintiff merel# alleges that the instant "ase involves a Iparallel "ampaignK %ithout alleging that an#
defendant had an#thing to do %ith that alleged "onspira"#.
:
"on"erned %ith eradi"ating organiLed$ long@term$ ha!itual "riminal a"tivit#.K US Airlin& (ilots Ass1n v.
A0A((A, 44"$ 81: F. 4d 419$ 41< (/
th
Cir. 9;1;). 'herefore$ this "ourt should Inot lightl# permit
ordinar# !usiness "ontra"t or fraud disputes to !e transformed into federal -.C* "laimsK !ut instead
assure Ithat the heightened "ivil and "riminal penalties of -.C* are reserved for s"hemes %hose s"ope
and persisten"e set them a!ove the routine.K !li# Mort-. "or#. v. McElhon&$ 5/1 F. 9d :41$ :45 (/
th
Cir.
1755). ,ere the Plaintiff has asked this "ourt to deviate far from this rule$ going so far as to attempt to
transform -.C* into a federal "riminal defamation statute.
+nder 15 +.&.C. 61789(")$ the follo%ing elements must !e allegedD (1) a person (9) emplo#ed !#
or asso"iated %ith (4) an# enterprise (/) engaged in$ or the a"tivities of %hi"h affe"t$ interstate or foreign
"ommer"e$ (:) "ondu"ts or parti"ipates$ dire"tl# or indire"tl#$ in the "ondu"t of su"h enterprise’s affairs
(8) through a pattern of ra"keteering a"tivit# or "olle"tion of unla%ful de!t. 'he Plaintiff has not
properl# alleged an# part of this offense. Further$ the Plaintiff fails to properl# allege he %as damaged
in his !usiness or propert# !# the alleged predi"ate a"ts as reMuired under 15 +.&.C. 6178/(").
""ordingl# the Plaintiff’s "laims under 61789(") should !e dismissed.
A. T4( Plaintiff Ha* N5t P657(6l8 All(9() t4at t4( D(f(n)ant* En9a9() in Ra:;(t((6in9
A:tivit8.
+nder 15 +.&.C. 61781(:) the term Ipattern of ra"keteering a"tivit#K reMuires (in relevant part)
Iat least t%o a"ts of ra"keteering a"tivit#.K I-a"keteering a"tivit#$K in turn$ is defined in 61781(1) as a
spe"ifi" laundr# list of federal and state "rimes. .n the instant "ase$ the Plaintiff asserts that the
follo%ing "rimes allegedl# "onstitute ra"keteering a"tivit#D (1) o!stru"tion of ?usti"e under 15 +.&.C.
61:;4$ (9) E=tortion under 15 +.&.C 617:1$ (4) mail and %ire fraud in violation of 15 +.&.C. 66 14/1
and 14/4$ (/) mone# laundering under 15 +.&.C. 617:<$ and (:) retaliation against a %itness and vi"tim
or %itness tampering under 15 +.&.C. 661:19 and 1:14. .n ea"h "ase$ the Plaintiff has failed to properl#
8
allege the elements of ea"h offense$ and$ thus$ fails to allege a single predi"ate offense supporting an
allegation of a pattern of ra"keteering a"tivit#$ let alone the t%o reMuired !# 61781(:).
1. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not Properl# lleged a 3iolation of 15 +.&.C. 61:;4.
'he entiret# of the Plaintiff’s "laim of o!stru"tion of ?usti"e is as follo%s. First$ the Plaintiff
"laims that unnamed 0efendants allegedl# lied to federal and state la% enfor"ement !# Ifalsel# a""using
Plaintiff of P&W'tingQK and supposedl# providing Ifalse eviden"e to the F(. and state and lo"al la%
enfor"ement offi"ials asserting that Plaintiff %as involved in the P&W'tingsQ$K &C O15;$ and to
allegedl# make similar "laims to Congresspersons$ O151. Further$ the Plaintiff makes a "on"lusor#
allegation that unnamed defendants IthreatenPedQ Plaintiff and "ausPedQ threats of in?ur# and death to !e
dire"ted at Plaintiff in order to intimidate him from "ooperating %ith la% enfor"ement offi"ials and from
e=er"ising this right to seek legal redress$K O154$ and supposedl# "ausing threats to !e made to state
offi"ials and ?udges$ O15/.
&u"h a"ts %ould !e reprehensi!le if the# %ere a"tuall# "ommitted$ !ut the# %ould not !e illegal
under 15 +.&.C. 61:;4. 'his statute relates %holl# to violen"e and intimidation aimed at federal ?urors$
federal ?udges (defined !roadl#)$ or various offi"ers of or in a federal "ourt$ or to o!stru"t the federal
"ourts in general.
1;
'he Plaintiff has not alleged$ in "on"lusor# fashion or other%ise$ an# relation to an#
federal "ase at all.
11
'herefore$ the Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of 61:;4 in even the most
improper and "on"lusor# fashion and "annot "laim that the 0efendants have engaged in ra"keteering
a"tivit# !# "iting this statute.
1;
S&&, &.-. U.S. v. Ardito$ <59 F. 9d 4:5 (9
nd
Cir. 1758)J "ited %ith approval in U.S. v. Ara-on$ 754 F. 9d
14;8 (/
th
Cir. 1774).
11
S&& U.S. v. A-)ilar$ :1: +.&. :74$ 8;; (177:) (holding that false statements to an investigator %ho
might or might not testif# !efore a grand ?ur# is not suffi"ient under 61:;4).
<
9. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged that 0efendants Committed or ttempted to Commit
E=tortion in 3iolation of 15 +.&.C. 617:1.
.n &C OO1;9@1;/$ 158$ and 17;@179$ the Plaintiff alleges that 0efendants Walker$ (a"ker$ and
0( Capital &trategies (I0(C&K) filed a Imali"iousK federal la%suit O17; against the Plaintiff and a non@
profit that emplo#s the Plaintiff. 'hen$ in settlement negotiations these 0efendants allegedl# made a
settlement offer seeking the Plaintiff’s dismissal from emplo#ment and "ertain !usiness do"uments.
'his ver# ordinar# settlement offer$ the Plaintiff "laims$ is e=tortion in violation of 15 +.&.C. 617:1.
,o%ever$ 617:1(!) defines e=tortion as Ithe o!taining of propert# from another$ %ith his
"onsent$ indu"ed !# %rongful use of a"tual or threatened for"e$ violen"e$ or fear$ or under "olor of
offi"ial right.K 'he Plaintiff didn’t allege that there %as an# use of a"tual or threatened for"e$ violen"e
or fear as those terms are understood in the statute. What %e have here$ from the Plaintiff’s allegations$
is nothing more than a pea"ea!le offer to settle a "ase$ %hi"h is not onl# legal and "ommon$ !ut a"tivel#
en"ouraged !# pu!li" poli"#.
19
While there is no Fourth Cir"uit pre"edent on point$ other "ir"uits have "on"luded that a mere
la%suit settlement is not the kind of indu"ement that violates this statute.
14
Parti"ularl# persuasive on
this point is this passage from D&c' v. En-in&&r&d 4aminat&sD
E=tortion is the antithesis of litigation as a means of resolving disputes. 'o promote so"ial
sta!ilit#$ %e en"ourage resort to the "ourts rather than resort to for"e and violen"e. 1et
re"ogniLing a!usive litigation as a form of e=tortion %ould su!?e"t almost an#
unsu""essful la%suit to a "olora!le e=tortion (and often a -.C*) "laim... Comforta!le
that the ad?e"tive I%rongfulK in the e=tortion statute %as not intended to appl# to
19
S&& &.-. dvisor# Committee Notes on Fed. -. Evid. /;5 (des"ri!ing Ithe pu!li" poli"# favoring the
"ompromise and settlement of disputesK).
14
S&&, &.-. U.S. v. (&nd&r-raft$ 97< F. 4d 1175$ 19;8 (11
th
Cir. 9;;9)J I.S. 6os&#h "o., Inc. v. 6. 4a)rit%&n
A7S$ <:1 F. 9d 98:$ 98< (5
th
Cir. 175/) (Ithreat to sue PthatQ %as groundless and made in !ad faithK not
e=tortion under 617:1)J Gabovitch v. Sh&ar$ <; F. 4d 19:9$ 19:9 (1
st
Cir. 177:) (Ithe filing of litigation@@
no matter ho% la"king in meritNdoes not "onstitute a predi"ate ra"keteering a"t of e=tortionK)J !irst
(acific Bancor#, Inc. v. Bro$ 5/< F. 9d :/9$ :/< (7
th
Cir. 1755).
5
litigation$ %e hold that Plaintiff’s allegations of !ad@faith litigation do not state the
predi"ate a"t of e=tortion.
4/7 F. 4d 19:4$ 19:5 (1;th Cir. 9;;4). settlement offer of even frivolous litigation is not e=tortion.
Further$ dismissal from a ?o! is not Ipropert#K under 617:1. .n Sch&idl&r v. $.0, Inc.$ :4< +.&.
474 (9;;4)$ the &upreme Court "onfronted an allegation that a!ortion protesters had engaged in the
predi"ate a"t of e=tortion !# allegedl# using for"e and violen"e to prevent %omen from entering
a!ortion "lini"s. 'he Court re?e"ted the argument that intangi!le rights$ su"h as the Iright to seek
medi"al servi"es from a "lini"$K id at /;1$ %as Ipropert#K under 617:1$ stating that in order for the thing
that is !eing sought to !e "onsidered Ipropert#K under the statute$ it must !e Isomething of valueK that
the a""used "an Io!tainK and$ therefore$ Ie=er"ise$ transfer or sell$K id. at /;:. 'hat does not des"ri!e
dismissal from a ?o!$ and$ therefore$ pressure to fire a person is not e=tortion under 617:1.
'hus$ the &C still fails to properl# allege e=tortion under 617:1$ and$ therefore$ the Plaintiff
"annot "ite it as an e=ample of ra"keteering a"tivit#.
4. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged Wire or Mail Fraud +nder 15 +.&.C. 6614/1 and 14/4.
s noted in (&ll&ti&r v. =+&if&l$ IMail or %ire fraud o""urs %hen a person (1) intentionall#
parti"ipates in a s"heme to defraud another of mone# or propert# and (9) uses the mails or %ires in
furtheran"e of that s"heme.K 791 F. 9d 1/8:$ 1/75 (11
th
Cir.1771). 'he s"heme to IdefraudK must !e an
e=e"uted or une=e"uted plan to "ommit a "rime that fits the "lassi" "ommon la% elements of fraudD (1)
materialit#$ (9) a false statement$ (4) kno%ledge !# defendant that the statement is untrue$ (/) intent on
the part of the defendant to de"eive some person$ (:) ?ustifia!le relian"e !# some person on the
statement and (8) in?ur# to the Plaintiff as a result. 'his test is slightl# altered %hen the s"heme had not
!een e=e"uted (s&& id. at 1/75@77)$ !ut sin"e the Plaintiff in the instant "ase is alleging that the s"heme
had !een su""essfull# e=e"uted$ a more traditional test for fraud should appl#. Further$ ea"h "laim for
7
fraud must !e pled %ith parti"ularit# under Fed. -. Civ. P. 7(!).
'here are four "ategories of alleged false statements the Plaintiff "itesD (1) the "laim that the
Plaintiff "ost Mr. Walker his ?o!$ (9) the "laim that the Plaintiff falsel# a""used 0efendant Walker of
assault$ (4) the "laim that the Plaintiff %as involved in &W'ting the 0efendants$ and (/) that the
National (loggers Clu! (IN(CK) is a I:;1(")(4)K organiLation (referring to 98 +.&.C. 6:;1(")(4)).
,o%ever$ the Plaintiff doesn’t properl# plead fraud in an# instan"e.
() 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged n# Fraud -elated to N(C’s 6:;1(")(4) &tatus.
'he Plaintiff alleges several times that N(C andEor 0efendant k!ar falsel# stated that N(C is a
6:;1(")(4) non@profit or %as a Inon@profitNstatus pending.K ,o%ever$ in ea"h instan"e$ the Plaintiff
fails to plead fraud properl#.
First$ even if an# of the 0efendants made su"h statements$ the# %ould not !e fraudulent !e"ause
the# %ould !e true. N(C has !een granted 6:;1(")(4) status. 'hus$ an# "laim that their status %as
pending %as true and an# "laim that the# %ere forming a 6:;1(")(4) non@profit is also true.
1/
While
ordinaril# eviden"e "annot !e "onsidered on a motion to dismiss$ the "ourt is not reMuired to Ia""ept as
true allegations that "ontradi"t matters properl# su!?e"t to ?udi"ial noti"e.K >&n&,, 974 F. 4d at <4;$ and
sin"e this "ourt "an sear"h the .-& %e!site and determine N(C’s status for itself$ it "an take ?udi"ial
noti"e of this fa"t.
1:
Even if this "ourt "ouldn’t take ?udi"ial noti"e of N(C’s e=empt status$ the Plaintiff never meets
the reMuirement of parti"ularit#. 'he Plaintiff doesn’t spe"if# Ithe time$ pla"e and "ontents of the false
representations$ as %ell as the identit# of the person making the misrepresentation and %hat he o!tained
1/
"olo. St. "hiro#ractic Soc., Inc. v. "ommission&r$ :8 '.C.M. (CC,) 1;15$ 1;17 (+.&.'.C. 1757).
1:
tta"hed as E=hi!it to I0efendant ,oge’s Motion to 0ismiss Plaintiff’s &e"ond mended
CompliantK (ECF FFFFF) is a print out from the .-& %e!site indi"ating that N(C had !een granted
pu!li" "harit# status (no ECF num!er has !een assigned to this do"ument as of this %riting).
1;
there!#.K 2arrison, 1<8 F. 4d at <5/. Further$ the Plaintiff doesn’t even allege in the most "on"lusor#
fashion that the allegedl# false statements %ere material$ that the# %ere kno%n to !e false !# an#
0efendant$ or that an# 0efendant intended to de"eive an# other person or %ho e=a"tl# %as allegedl#
fooled. 'he Plaintiff even admits that it is possi!le that the 0efendants %ere merel# negligent$ stating in
&C O17/ that I0efendants through 'he -.C* Enterprise kne% or had reason to kno%K that N(C %as
not a 6:;1(")(4) "harit#. Mail and Wire fraud are intentional "rimes$ (&ll&ti&r$ 791 F. 9d at 1/75$ and$
therefore$ a person is not lia!le e="ept for intentional falsehoods. Mean%hile$ the Plaintiff has made
onl# "on"lusor# allegations that an# person relied on N(C and k!ar’s statements$ and has failed to
allege that su"h relian"e %ould !e ?ustifia!le.
18
'hus$ the Plaintiff has failed to make an# non@
"on"lusor# allegation of an# mail or %ire fraud in relation to N(C’s 6:;1(")(4) status.
(() 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged n# Fraud -elated to &W'ting of 0efendants
Walker$ Fre# and Eri"kson.
'he Plaintiff "ontinues to fail to make meet the parti"ularit# reMuirements in relation to an# of
the alleged statements that the Plaintiff &W'ted 0efendants Fre#$ Eri"kson$ or Walker. While this
memorandum %ill not go into detail relating to the failures of ea"h purported statement$
1<
a fe% notes
and representative e=amples should suffi"e.
First$ even after he %as told he must do this$ the %ords are often not even Muoted. S&&, &.-.$ &C
18
'he Plaintiff "an onl# "laim to have met his parti"ularit# reMuirement !# in"orporating the "ontents of
sites on the internet. ,o%ever$ su"h "ontent "annot !e used to fill in su"h parti"ularit# !e"ause the
"ontent of those %e!sites might have "hanged. 'he purpose of Fed. -. Civ. P. 7(!) is to give the
0efendants proper noti"e of %hat statements the# %ill have to defend !ut ho% "an the 0efendants have
su"h noti"e %hen the# "an’t !e sure if that %e!site sa#s the same thing toda# as it did %hen the Plaintiff
filed his "omplaint$ or his amended "omplaintsT ,o%ever$ if this "ourt should "hoose to "onsider su"h
e=trinsi" eviden"e$ a detailed dis"ussion of ho% that eviden"e falls short "an !e found in the
memorandum a""ompan#ing Mr. Walker’s first motion to dismiss$ ECF No. 11.
1<
Man# of the same allegations of mail and %ire fraud are simpl# re"#"led from the First mended
Complaint and %ere revie%ed in greater detail in ECF No. 11.
11
O74$ 7/$ 78$ 11;. &e"ond$ the Plaintiff still often fails to even allege that a statement %as made !laming
him for the &W'tings$ instead onl# "laiming that the alleged statements Iimpl#K or IimputeK that he
%as involved.
15
'hird$ %here a statement is alleged and Muoted$ the Muoted material often doesn’t "learl# a""use
the Plaintiff of an#thing. For instan"e$ in &C O5< the Plaintiff %rites I0efendant Fre# stated that
Plaintiff U"ould have gotten me killed$’K !ut does not sho% %ith %hat %ords the Plaintiff %as named
(and in fa"t$ Mr. Fre# did not name the Plaintiff). )ike%ise$ in O79$ the Plaintiff Muotes the anon#mous
!logger I"e of &padesK as sa#ing$ IPtQhe# are literall# going to get someone killed$K !ut doesn’t sho%
that the Plaintiff is one of those people in"luded in the term Ithe#.K
Fourth$ the statements are often am!iguous as to %hat ea"h person is a""used of doing. For
instan"e in O19:$ the Plaintiff Muotes the Franklin Center as sa#ing$ IP"Qonvi"ted domesti" terrorist (rett
Gim!erlin and his asso"iates have repeatedl# terroriLed !loggers and others %ho highlight his stor# %ith
over 1;; frivolous la%suits and / &W'ting atta"ks.K 'he statement is am!iguous as to %ho is !eing
!lamed for %hat a"t. )ike%ise in O58$ the Plaintiff Muotes a statement allegedl# from Mr. Walker (Mr.
Walker does not re"all making this statement)$ that is$ on its fa"e$ onl# dis"ussing the &W'ting of Mike
&ta"kN%hi"h is not the su!?e"t of this suitNand that is am!iguous as to %hether he is !laming
Gim!erlin$ -auhauser or I'&2K for the &W'ting. s 0.C. Cir"uit said in .llman v. Evans$ <:; F. 9d
7<;$ 75; (0.C. Cir. 175/) Istatements that are Uloosel# defina!le’ or Uvariousl# interpreta!le’ "annot in
most "onte=ts support an a"tion for defamation.K 'he same should !e said for an a"tion in fraud.
Further$ in ever# "ase$ the Plaintiff doesn’t allege that the statements or impli"ations are made
15
S&&, &.-. &C O55 (Isaid title and arti"le imputed that Plaintiff P&W'tedQ "onservative !loggersK)$
O74 (IPoQn >une 9:$ 9;19$ 0efendant &tranahan %rote an arti"le on (reit!art."om$ impl#ing that Plaintiff
%as responsi!le for the P&W'tingQ of aron WalkerK).
19
%ith kno%ledge that the# are false. 'he Plaintiff doesn’t allege that an# 0efendant kno%s %ho the
&W'ter(s) are$ so ho% %ould an# of them kno% if it is falseT Moreover$ in &C O11/ the Plaintiff
%rites IPmQan# of the 0efendants... !elieved that Plaintiff %as involved %ith the P&W'tingsQK negating
the element of kno%ledge of falsit# for an unkno%n su!set of the 0efendants. Finall#$ the Plaintiff does
not on"e allege (even in a "on"lusor# fashion) that an# of these statements or impli"ations are material$
made %ith the intent on the 0efendants’ part to de"eive an unspe"ified person$ indu"ing ?ustifia!le
relian"e !# that person$ and "ausing in?ur# to the Plaintiff as a result. 'hus$ the Plaintiff has not properl#
alleged that an# 0efendant engaged in mail or %ire fraud as it relates to an# possi!le role the Plaintiff
had in the &W'tings of Walker$ Fre# and Eri"kson.
(C) 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged n# Fraud -elated to the )oss of Mr. Walker’s >o!.
First$ the Plaintiff has failed to allege %ith appropriate parti"ularit# that 0efendant Walker (or
an#one else) had a""used the Plaintiff of "ausing Mr. Walker’s termination. &pe"ifi"all#$ the Plaintiff
failed to spe"if# %hat statements various persons made to suggest that the Plaintiff "aused the
termination of Mr. Walker’s ?o!. E.-. &C O:5$ 5<$ 1/1$ and 158. 'he Plaintiff also doesn’t spe"if# the
time and pla"e$ and often doesn’t spe"if# the Iidentit# of the person making the misrepresentation and
%hat he o!tained there!#.K 2arrison$ 1<8 F. 4d at <5/. nd as is t#pi"al$ the Plaintiff doesn’t "laim that
these allegedl# false statements %ere material$ %as made %ith intent on the part of an#one to de"eive
some unspe"ified person$ indu"ing ?ustifia!le relian"e !# su"h persons$ and "ausing the Plaintiff
damage. 'hus$ the Plaintiff has failed to properl# allege an# fraud related to the loss of Mr. Walker’s
?o!.
(0) 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged n# Fraud -elated to Mr. Walker’s lleged ssault
and (atter# gainst the Plaintiff.
s an initial matter$ the Plaintiff is !arred !# the prin"iple of "ollateral estoppel from "laiming
14
that Mr. Walker assaulted (or !attered) him at all. 'his is not the first time that the Plaintiff has
attempted to litigate this issue. Within half an hour of the alleged !atter#$ on >anuar# 7$ 9;14N!efore
the Plaintiff "laimed to have gone to the hospitalNthe Plaintiff filed for a Pea"e *rder in Montgomer#
Count# 0istri"t Court asserting that Mr. Walker had assaulted and harassed him.
17
.n an &/ #art&
temporar# pea"e order hearing (also !efore he "laimed he %ent to the hospital)$ the "ourt held that
assault (as defined in M0. C*0E C-.M. )W 64@9;1) and harassment had o""urred. 'hen$ on Fe!ruar#
5$ 9;19$ a final pea"e order hearing %as held %ith !oth parties present$ and the "ourt determined that
%hile harassment had o""urred$ no assault had o""urred. n appeal in Montgomer# Count# Cir"uit
"ourt also found that no harassment had o""urred and dismissed the entire petition. Mr. Gim!erlin %as
at all times granted a full opportunit# to present eviden"e and make his "laimsJ the ?udge simpl#
!elieved Mr. Walker. 'herefore$ the matter is settled in Mr. Walker’s favor$ and he shouldn’t !e for"ed
to litigate the matter again.
Further$ even if "ollateral estoppel didn’t appl#$ the Plaintiff has failed to properl# allege that an#
defendant had made an# fraudulent statements regarding this alleged assault. 'here is not one single
Muoted statement !# an# 0efendant related to the alleged assault.
9;
nd$ on"e again$ the Plaintiff also
doesn’t name the time and pla"e of su"h statements$ or the Iidentit# of the person making the
misrepresentation and %hat he o!tained there!#.K 2arrison$ 1<8 F. 4d at <5/. )ike%ise$ the Plaintiff
failed to allege that su"h "laims %ere material$ made %ith intent on the part of the 0efendants to de"eive
some unspe"ified person$ indu"ing ?ustifia!le relian"e !# su"h alleged person$ and "ausing the Plaintiff
damage. s a result$ the Plaintiff has not properl# alleged an# fraud related to this alleged assault or an#
17
8imb&rlin v. 0al'&r :I; No. ;8;1&P;;:479;19 (Md. Mont. Co. 0ist. Ct. 9;19).
9;
For instan"e$ in &C O:5 the Plaintiff’s alleges that 0efendants I"on"o"ted a false narrative that
Plaintiff... %as not assaulted$K !ut never alleges that the# made su"h statements to third parties.
1/
other instan"e of mail or %ire fraud$ and "annot "ite it as an instan"e of ra"keteering a"tivit#.
/. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not Properl# lleged Mone# )aundering under 15 +.&.C. 617:<.
'he Plaintiff also alleges that unspe"ified defendants violated 15 +.&.C. 617:<$ %hi"h punishes
"ertain transa"tions involving "riminall# derived funds. 'his statute punishes transa"tions Iof a value
greater than V1;$;;;K !# a +nited &tates person or taking pla"e in the +nited &tates$ if that mone# is
derived from Ispe"ified unla%ful a"tivit#$K and the person "arr#ing out these transa"tions kno%s that it
is so derived. &u!se"tion (f)(4) states that the term Ispe"ified unla%ful a"tivit#K has the same meaning
as in 15 +.&.C. 617:8. 'hat term is defined in 617:8(")(<)() as in"luding an# "riminal a"tivit# listed
in 15 +.&.C. 61781(1)$ i.&., the same predi"ate offenses listed under -.C*.
'he Plaintiff doesn’t properl# allege an# of the elements of this offense. For instan"e$ he fails to
allege that the person making the transa"tions did so kno%ing the funds %ere derived from unla%ful
a"tivit#$ or that the# made su"h transa"tions in the +nited &tates$ or that the person doing so %as a
+nited &tates person. ,e doesn’t even spe"if# %ho a"tuall# made the transa"tions. Mean%hile$ sin"e the
Plaintiff has failed to properl# allege %ire or mail fraud !# an#one$ ne"essaril#$ the Plaintiff has failed to
properl# allege that an# 0efendant has engaged in an# transa"tion derived from su"h %ire or mail fraud$
and the Plaintiff doesn’t spe"if# an# other unla%ful a"tivit# from %hi"h it %as supposedl# derived.
Finall#$ %hile the Plaintiff alleges in OO174 and 17: that the transa"tions involved propert# of a
Ivalue greater than V1;$;;;$K this is a purel# "on"lusor# allegation. s in Ibal$ the allegation that the
transa"tion met the statute’s threshold is little more than a Iformulai" re"itation of the elements$K ::8
+.&. at 8<5$ and this "ourt should "on"lude$ as the Ibal "ourt did$ that Ithe allegations are "on"lusor#
and not entitled to !e assumed true$K id. at 851.
91
.gnoring su"h "on"lusor# allegations$ this "ourt should
91
.t is "lear the Plaintiff doesn’t a"tuall# kno% an#thing a!out these transa"tions he has alleged. 'his is
proven !# the fa"t that the Plaintiff also "laims in O174 that I0efendant k!ar refused all reMuests made
1:
find that the Plaintiff has failed to properl# plead a violation of 15 +.&.C. 617:<$ and$ thus$ "annot plead
mone# laundering as a predi"ate a"t.
:. 'he Plaintiff ,as Not lleged that 0efendants Committed -etaliation gainst a Witness
and 3i"tim in 3iolation of 15 +.&.C. 661:14 or 1:19.
.n &C OO158@15<$ the Plaintiff alleges that a num!er of fan"iful a"ts had the effe"t of retaliating
against a %itness and informant in violation of 15 +.&.C. 61:14 (!) and (e). ,o%ever$ this statute does
not "over ever# form of retaliation against a %itness. &u!se"tion (!) in relevant part punishes a person
%ho I"auses !odil# in?ur# to another person or damages the tangi!le propert# of another person$ or
threatens to do so$ %ith intent to retaliate against an# personK for various kinds of parti"ipation in a
federal pro"eeding$
99
or for providing information to a federal la% enfor"ement offi"er related the
"ommission of a Federal offense. Pea"ea!l# %riting !ad things on the internet a!out someone doesn’t
"ountJ neither does filing "riminal "harges$ pea"e orders and la%suits$ or offering a settlement in a
la%suitJ and neither does advo"ating that the Plaintiff !e sent !a"k to prison again.
ssault might !e "overed$ !ut the Plaintiff has three pro!lems in making su"h a "laim. First$
"laims of !atter# are !arred !# "ollateral estoppel$ as e=plained s)#ra, pp. 14@1:. &e"ond$ the Plaintiff
doesn’t allege that the assault %as related to an# federal "ase. .nstead$ he alleges that the !atter# %as
related to 8imb&rlin v. All&n$ No. 4479:/3 (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 9;11)$ a Mar#land state "ase.
'hird$ if the plaintiff %ants to "laim that the alleged assault meets the "riteria of 61:14(!)(9)$ he
must allege that the retaliation %as inspired !# information that %as Igiven... to a la% enfor"ement
offi"er.K +nder 61:1:(a)(/)$ that la% enfor"ement offi"er must !e a federal la% enfor"ement offi"er.
to him and the National (loggers Clu! for an a""ounting of the funds he re"eived and dis!ursed from his
false narratives a!out Plaintiff.K .f Mr. k!ar has refused to make su"h an a""ounting$ ho% "an the
Plaintiff "laim to kno% %hat that a""ounting %ould have dis"losedT
99
+nder 15 +.&.C. 61:1:(a)(1) an Ioffi"ial pro"eedingK is defined as relating to federal "ases. S&& U.S.
v. Shiv&l,$ 79< F. 9d 5;/ (:
th
Cir. 1771).
18
""ording to the Plaintiff$ the alleged assault o""urred on >anuar# 7$ 9;19$ &C OO::@:8. 'he onl#
spe"ifi" "onta"t the Plaintiff reports %ith federal la% enfor"ement %as$ Ion or a!out >ul# 1$ 9;19$K O77$
%hen he allegedl# spoke to the F(.. 'herefore$ as a matter of logi" an alleged assault appro=imatel# si=
months !efore that meeting "annot !e motivated !# that meeting unless the Plaintiff is alleging that Mr.
Walker is gifted %ith ps#"hi" po%ers.
While 61:14(!) prohi!its threats of death or !odil# in?ur#$ lia!ilit# is limited to the person
a"tuall# making those threats. 'hus$ the Plaintiff’s "laim in &C O158 that IPtQhis retaliation "ame in the
form of threats of death$ !atter# and in?ur# ca)s&d b, fals& narrativ&s cr&at&d and #)blish&d b,
D&f&ndantsK is insuffi"ient (emphasis added). (eside the fa"t it is a "on"lusor# allegation$ this passage
is not "laiming that an# of the 0efendants personall# threatened him. nd %e see again ho% the
Plaintiff is attempting to "onvert -.C* into a "riminal defamation statute.
Mean%hile in &C O158$ the Plaintiff "ontinues to vaguel# allege that unkno%n persons had
IthreatenPedQ his famil#.K 'here is still no attempt to "atalogue %ho made an# threat$ or an# other
details ne"essar# in order to allo% this "ourt to determine if it is Iplausi!le on its fa"e$K Ibal, ::8 +.&.
at 884$ that the threat %ould meet the elements of 61:14(!). s su"h$ this "on"lusor# allegation should
!e disregarded.
Ne=t$ the Plaintiff asserts that the 0efendants have violated 61:14(e) !# "laiming that
0efendants Walker$ (a"ker and 0( Capitol &trategies retaliated against Plaintiff !#
taking harmful a"tion against Plaintiff$ in"luding attempting to interfere %ith Plaintiffs
Psi"Q la%ful emplo#ment and livelihood !e"ause Plaintiff "onta"ted la% enfor"ement
offi"ials a!out (1) an intestate Psi"Q murder threat against Plaintiff !# &eth llen that %as
"ommuni"ated to 0efendants Walker$ Nag#$ Fre# and another person$ sin"e de"eased$ (9)
the assault and !atter# !# 0efendant Walker against Plaintiff in the Montgomer# Count#
Courthouse$ (4) the false allegations of P&W'tingQ. (/) and the "ivil rights violations
against Plaintiff !# 0efendant Fre#.
&C O17<. &e"tion 1:14(e) states thatD
1<
Whoever kno%ingl#$ %ith the intent to retaliate$ takes an# a"tion harmful to an# person$
incl)din- int&rf&r&nc& +ith th& la+f)l &m#lo,m&nt or liv&lihood of an, #&rson$ for
providing to a la% enfor"ement offi"er an# truthful information relating to the
"ommission or possi!le "ommission of an# Federal offense$ shall !e fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than 1; #ears$ or !oth.
(emphasis added.) While there is little "ase la% on the su!?e"t$ o!viousl# this reMuires the Plaintiff to
allegeD 1) an a"t 9) harmful to an# person$ "ommitted 4) %ith intent to retaliate /) for providing truthful
information :) to a federal la% enfor"ement offi"er 8) relating to the "ommission or possi!le
"ommission of an# federal offense.
'he most o!vious pro!lem %ith this "laim is that the Plaintiff makes no non@"on"lusor#
allegation that he %as a"tuall# harmed in his emplo#ment or livelihood in an# %a#J and the statute
noti"ea!l# does not punish the mere IattemptK to harm a person in this respe"t.
&e"ond$ the Plaintiff has not alleged an# action !# the 0efendants. While no "ourt has defined
the term Ia"tionK in 61:14(e)$ (la"k’s )a% 0i"tionar# defines Ia"tionK (%hen it is not referring to a
la%suit) as ICondu"tJ !ehaviorJ something doneJ the "ondition of a"tingJ an a"t or series of a"ts.K
()CG’& )W 0.C'.*N-1 95 (8th ed. 177;). Words are not t#pi"all# seen as a"tion. S&&, &.-.,
Brand&nb)r- v. .hio$ 47: +.&. ///$ //< (1787) (stating that the state "an for!id %ords %hen the# are
Idire"ted to in"iting or produ"ing imminent la%less actionK (emphasis added)). .n the fe% instan"es
%here %ords are seen as a"tionsNsu"h as the formation of a "ontra"t$ a "riminal putting a IhitK on
another person$ or firing an emplo#ee from a ?o!Nthe# are differentiated from ordinar# spee"h !# !eing
referred to as Iver!al a"ts.K S&&, &.-., 8&#n&r-*r&-o&, Inc. v. 4&ad&rshi# Soft+ar&, Inc., 19 F. 4d :9<$
:/; (:
th
Cir. 177/). Mean%hile$ his "laim that the filing of la%suits violates this se"tion is insuffi"ient
!e"ause Congress o!viousl# did not intend to make a la%suit a "riminal a"t. D&c'$ 4/7 F. 4d at 19:5.
.ndeed$ the Plaintiff has a!surdl# "laimed that filings in this "ase are part of "ontinued "riminal "ondu"t$
15
Pl.’s *pp. to 0(C& M'0$ ECF No. 4; at O9:.
'hird$ the Plaintiff doesn’t spe"if# %hether he provided this information to a federal offi"er$
e="ept to allege that he spoke %ith the F(. a!out &W'tings around >ul# 1$ 9;19. Even then$ he does
not share$ as reMuired in U.S. v. 0ri-ht, No. 11@C-@;989 at R9 (&.0. la. Fe!ruar# 5$ 9;19) Ithe truthful
information provided !# the %itnessK nor does he Iidentif# an# federal offense to the possi!le
"ommission of %hi"h the truthful information relates.K )ike%ise$ the Plaintiff doesn’t allege that the
0efendants kne% that he spoke to the F(.$ %hen the# found out$ %hat the# kne% a!out %hat he said or
that the# intended to retaliate against the Plaintiff for providing su"h information. For instan"e$ if the
0efendants never kne% that the Plaintiff spoke to the F(.$ then one "annot infer that an# of the alleged
"ondu"t %as in retaliation for that "onta"t. &u"h spe"ifi"it# is ne"essar# to advan"e his "laim Ia"ross the
line from "on"eiva!le to plausi!le.K *+ombl,$ ::; +.&. at :<;$ and thus the Plaintiff has failed to allege
a violation of an# part of 61:14.
'he Plaintiff also "laims that this "ondu"t "onstituted IharassmentK under 61:19(d) %hi"h statesD
(d) Whoever intentionall# harasses another person and there!# hinders$ dela#s$
prevents$ or dissuades an# person fromN...
(9) reporting to a la% enfor"ement offi"er ... the "ommission or possi!le
"ommission of a Federal offense
,arassment is not defined in 61:19(d)$ !ut it is defined in 61:1/(d)(1)$ %hi"h is designed in part to
enfor"e 61:19(d)
94
$ as follo%sD
() the term I"ourse of "ondu"tK means a series of a"ts over a period of time$ ho%ever
short$ indi"ating a "ontinuit# of purposeJ
(() the term IharassmentK means a serious a"t or "ourse of "ondu"t dire"ted at a spe"ifi"
person thatN
94
S&& 61:1/(a)(1) (stating that a "ourt "an issue a restraining order in part if Isu"h order is ne"essar# to
prevent and restrain an offense under se"tion 1:19 of this titleK).
17
(i) "auses su!stantial emotional distress in su"h personJ and
(ii) serves no legitimate purposeJ
'he Plaintiff has not laid out an# of these elements.
9/
,e has simpl# said the %ord IharassK a fe% times.
'he Plaintiff has not alleged an# Iserious a"ts$K that an# 0efendant engaged in a I"ourse of "ondu"t$K or
that the# relate to an# anti"ipated federal pro"eeding or "riminal investigation$ or that the# %ere
"al"ulated to prevent the Plaintiff from parti"ipating in those pro"eedings or investigations.
9:
'he
Plaintiff asserts that the 0efendants have %ritten man# %ords a!out him$ !ut %ords are not t#pi"all#
seen as a"ts.
Further$ if this "ourt "hose to appl# the harassment statute to the 0efendants’ pea"ea!le %ritings
Nas the Plaintiff surel# %ishes this "ourt %ouldNsu"h an appli"ation %ould !e un"onstitutional. >udge
'itus’ opinion in U.S. v. "assid,$ 51/ F. &upp. 9d :</ (9;11) is instru"tive on this point. 'here$ like
here$ the allegation %as that the I0efendant used '%itter and !logs to harassK his alleged vi"tim$ !ut the
"ondu"t at issue %as not rightfull# "riminaliLed. Id. at :<5. First$ >udge 'itus held that harassment
statutes represented "ontent@!ased regulation and$ therefore$ %ere su!?e"ted to stri"t s"rutin# under the
First mendment. &u"h statutes are not "ontent@neutral !e"ause Iit regulates spee"h !ased on the effe"t
that spee"h has on an audien"e.K Id. at :5/. .f the 0efendants praised the Plaintiff$ he %ould not !e
"laiming their spee"h %as a "rime. ,o%ever$ !e"ause the 0efendants %rote arti"les "riti"iLing him$ he
no% "laims he is !eing Iharassed.K 'his is "lassi" "ontent@!ased regulation.
'herefore$ if this "ourt should "hoose to appl# the harassment statute to mere spee"h$ the statute
9/
Further$ an# "laim that an# of the 0efendants infli"ted emotional distress upon him %ould !e !arred !#
"ollateral estoppel. S&& infra pp. //@/<.
9:
Grassic' v. 2old&r$ No. ;7@C3@:5< (0. -... Mar"h 95$ 9;19) (intent to prevent parti"ipation in a
hearing or investigation is an element of 61:19(d)).
9;
%ould not survive the stri"t s"rutin# test. s the "assid, "ourt noted$ IPtQo survive stri"t s"rutin#$ the
2overnment has the !urden of sho%ing that a "ontent@!ased restri"tion is ne"essar# to serve a
"ompelling state interest.K Id. at :5/ (internal Muotation marks removed). .n "assid,$ "riminaliLation of
e=pression %as not ne"essar# !e"ause the alleged vi"tim Ihad the a!ilit# to prote"t her o%n sensi!ilities
simpl# !# averting her e#es from the 0efendant’s (log and not looking at$ or !lo"king his '%eets.K Id.
at :5: (internal Muotation marks omitted). 'he instant Plaintiff "an !e e=pe"ted to do the same.
.f there is an# Muestion of %hether Congress intended to rea"h the 0efendants alleged e=pression
in this "ase$ this "ourt should interpret 61:19(d) so it does not. s the &upreme Court o!served in
()blic "iti%&n v. D.6$ /71 +.& //;$ /88 (1757)D
.t has long !een an a=iom of statutor# interpretation that %here an other%ise a""epta!le
"onstru"tion of a statute %ould raise serious "onstitutional pro!lems$ the Court %ill
"onstrue the statute to avoid su"h pro!lems unless su"h "onstru"tion is plainl# "ontrar# to
the intent of Congress.
(internal Muotation marks omitted). 'herefore$ this statute should !e interpreted so that pea"eful a"tivit#
intended to "ommuni"ate to the pu!li" at large is not harassment under 61:19(d).
98
'he Plaintiff also "laims a "onspira"# under 61:19(k)$ !ut literall# makes no effort to plead the
elements of "onspira"#. .nstead$ he simpl# thro%s around the %ords I"onspira"#$K and similar terms
no% and then. 'his is insuffi"ient as a matter of la%.
9<
More fundamentall#$ %ith all of the Plaintiff’s attempts to "laim %itness tampering or retaliation
98
'he do"trine of lenit# also "ounsels against an e=pansive interpretation sin"e this is a "riminal statute
!eing applied$ al!eit in a "ivil setting. s the &upreme Court said in "randon v. Unit&d Stat&s$ /7/ +.&.
1:9$ 1:5 (177;) %hen appl#ing lenit# to another "riminal statute providing the !asis for "ivil lia!ilit#$
Ithis time@honored interpretive guideline serves to ensure !oth that there is fair %arning of the
!oundaries of "riminal "ondu"t and that legislatures$ not "ourts$ define "riminal lia!ilit#.K (.nternal
Muotation marks omitted).
9<
S&&, &.-. Schat% v. 5&#)blican Stat& 4&ad&rshi# "omm.$ 887 F. 4d :;$ :8 (1
st
Cir. 9;19) (I!uLL%ords$K
%ithout %ell@pled allegations$ are insuffi"ient to make out a "laim).
91
under 61:14 or 61:19$ he makes no non@"on"lusor# allegation that the 0efendants %ere motivated !# a
desire to prevent or punish "ommuni"ation %ith the F(.. 'he Plaintiff thinks that if he might speak to
the F(. in the future$ or if he had alread# done so$ that this "ourt should assume that all "riti"ism of the
Plaintiff %as motivated !# a desire to punish or deter speaking to the F(.. (ut in >&n&,, 974 F. 4d at
<4;$ the Fourth Cir"uit "autioned that in evaluating a motion to dismiss$ IP%Qe are not reMuired... to
a""ept as true un%arranted dedu"tions of fa"t$ or unreasona!le inferen"esK (internal Muotations omitted).
'hat is %hat the Plaintiff is asking this "ourt to doD to infer unreasona!l# that the 0efendants %ere
motivated !# a desire to prevent or punish "ommuni"ation %ith the F(..
.n fa"t$ the Plaintiff’s "on"lusor# allegations that the 0efendants attempted to harass him to keep
him from speaking to the F(.$ and retaliated against him for doing so is in dire"t "ontradi"tion %ith his
allegation in &C O1;; that Mr. Walker and Mr. Fre# falsel# a""used the Plaintiff of &W'ing to federal
offi"ials$ Iin order to have Plaintiff arrested or harassed !# la% enfor"ement agents.K 'hus$ on one
hand$ the Plaintiff "laims that t%o of the 0efendants %anted to make the F(. talk to the Plaintiff in order
to harass him in O1;; and$ on the other hand$ the Plaintiff "laims in OO158@57 that unnamed 0efendants
harassed him in order to prevent the Plaintiff from talking to the F(. and retaliated against him for
having done so. Even if the Plaintiff’s allegations %ere not "on"lusor#$ the self@"ontradi"tor# nature of
these allegations %ould ro! !oth allegations of the presumption of truth. S&& &.-. 2osac' v. Uto#ian
0ir&l&ss "or#.$ No. 11@C3@;/9; (0. Md. Ma# 8$ 9;11) (I%hen a "omplaint "ontains in"onsistent and
self@"ontradi"tor# statements$ it fails to state a "laimK)J 4&+is v. Bd. of Ed. of *albot "o.$ 989 F. &upp. 9d
8;5$ 81: (0. Md. 9;;4) (granting motion to dismiss Ilight of these "ontradi"tor# allegationsK). .n short$
%hether "on"lusor# or not$ the Plaintiff’s allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth if he "an’t
keep his stor# straight.
99
.n "on"lusion$ the Plaintiff has failed to properl# allege a single predi"ate a"t under 15 +.&.C.
61781(1)$ let alone the t%o a"ts reMuired !# 61781(:)$ and$ therefore$ the Plaintiff’s "laims under
61789(") should !e dismissed %ith pre?udi"e.
B. T4( Plaintiff Ha* N5t P657(6l8 All(9() t4at t4( Clai<() Patt(6n 5f Ra:;(t((6in9 A:tivit8
Ha* S=ffi:i(nt C5ntin=it8.
Even if the Plaintiff had properl# alleged an# predi"ate a"t under 61781(1)$ it "annot add up to a
pattern of ra"keteering a"tivit#. s the "ourt noted in U.S. v. Bl&dso&$ -.C* is not simpl# supposed to
!e a senten"ing enhan"ement for a given list of predi"ate offenses$ 8</ F. 9d 8/<$ 8:7 (5
th
Cir. 1759)J
"ited favora!l# in U.S. v. *ill&tt$ <84 F. 9d 895$ 849 (/
th
Cir. 175:). 'herefore$ the -.C* plaintiff must
also allege Ithat the predi"ate a"ts are related and that the# "onstitute or pose a threat of "ontinued
"riminal a"tivit#.K Al-Abood v. El-Shamari$ 91< F. 4d 99:$ 945 (/
th
Cir. 9;;;). )ike%ise$ patterns
"onsisting solel# of fraud or involving onl# one named vi"tim are unlikel# to satisf# that "ontinuit#
reMuirement. Id. .nstead$ I-.C* lia!ilit# is reserved for ongoing unla%ful a"tivities %hose s"ope and
persisten"e pose a spe"ial threat to so"ial %ell@!eing.K GE Inv&stm&nt (rivat& (lac&m&nt (artn&rs v.
(ar'&r$ 9/< F. 4d :/4$ :/7 (/
th
Cir. 9;;1). side from "on"lusor# allegations$ &.-., &C O1/5 and 1:/$
the Plaintiff has made no sho%ing of either "ontinuit# or a spe"ial threat to so"ial %ell@!eing.
C. T4( Plaintiff Ha* N5t P657(6l8 All(9() t4at an Ent(676i*( E>i*t*.
s noted in Bl&dso&$ %hile the -.C* statute does not attempt to define and punish Isomething as
ill@defined as UorganiLed "rimeP$Q’... ea"h element of P-.C*Q... %as designed to limit the appli"a!ilit# of
the statute and separate individuals engaged in organiLed "rime from ordinar# "riminals.K 8</ F. 9d at
884. 'herefore$ IPtQhe Enterprise reMuirement must !e interpreted in this light.K Id. ""ordingl#$ a
"omplaint alleging an enterprise as an Iasso"iation in fa"tK under 15 +.&.C. 61789(") must demonstrate
!# %ell@pleaded fa"ts that this alleged enterprise has some I"ontinuit# of stru"ture and personalit#$ and
94
the parti"ipants must maintain a "ommon purpose.K Id. at 88:. &triking out all "on"lusor# allegations$
there is nothing to sho% that there is an# kind of stru"ture at all.
For instan"e$ the Plaintiff alleges no fa"ts suggesting that there is an Iongoing organiLation$
formal or informal$ of those asso"iates in %hi"h the# fun"tion as a "ontinuing unit.K Id at 88/. ,e
simpl# ass&rts that there is su"h an organiLation %ithout alleging an# fa"ts to !a"k that assertion up.
95
Further$ there is little attempt to e=plain its hierar"h#$ to e=plain %ho "alls the shots and %ho doesn’t.
'here is still no rh#me or reason to ho% persons are "hosen !# the Plaintiff to a""use of !eing in
this alleged (and no% shriveled) enterprise. .n O14;$ the Plaintiff alleges that IPmQore than 1:$;;;
results "ome up on 2oogle %hen pairing U(rett Gim!erlin %ith P&W'tingQ.’K 1et the Plaintiff has not
sued 1:$;;; people. .n O11/$ the Plaintiff "laims that IPmQan# of the 0efendants and other non@
defendant !loggers and reporters !elieved that Plaintiff %as involved in the P&W'tingsQK !ut doesn’t
e=plain %h# some 0efendants are a""used of !eing in the enterprise even though allegedl# the# %ere
inno"entl# duped$ %hile eMuall# inno"ent third parties %ere not named as mem!ers of this enterprise.
'he Plaintiff "omplains in O1/9 a!out pie"es %ritten !# (o! *%ens$ 'om (lumer$ William >a"o!son$
0onald 0ouglass$ Mike -ogers$ Patri"k 0ollard$ and others$ !ut none of these %riters are named as
mem!ers of the enterprise. 'he Plaintiff never e=plains %h#.
,o%ever$ for Ms. Nag#$ all it takes is a single ne%s arti"le allegedl# IsmearingK the Plaintiff$
O45$ for the Plaintiff to guess several times that she %as "onspiring %ith other defendants and generall#
part of the enterprise. t the same time$ 0efendant Eri"kson is alleged to have ?oined the enterprise
t+ic&D first$ Ion or a!out Ma# 1:$ 9;19$K %hen he "onta"ted lo"al poli"e to %arn them he might !e
&W'ted$ O54$ and then$ allegedl#$ he ?oined the enterprise a se"ond time IPoQn Ma# 9<$ 9;19$K %hen he
95
S&& Ibal$ ::8 +.&. at 8<5 (IPnQor does a "omplaint suffi"e if it tenders Unaked assertionPsQ’ devoid of
Ufurther fa"tual enhan"ementP$Q’K Muoting *+ombl,$ ::; +.&. at ::<).
9/
%rote an arti"le dis"ussing the "rime "ommitted against him$ O7:$ another e=ample of ho% the Plaintiff
"an’t keep his stor# straight. )ike%ise$ 0efendant '%it"h# is !eing a""used of !eing a part of the
enterprise !e"ause of an arti"le Ithat "ompiled doLens of t%eets P!# third partiesQ that together impute
that Plaintiff "ommitted the P&W'tingQ.K O 78. &o for '%it"h# it %as enough to Muote third parties as
allegedl# IimputingK responsi!ilit# to the Plaintiff for &W'ting. 1et$ even though Mr. Walker
appeared on a %e!site run !# 'he ,uffington Post and the# allo%ed him to allegedl# IimputPeQ that
Plaintiff P&W'Qted him$K O58$ 'he,uffingtonPost."om$ .n". is not named as a 0efendant in this suit.
)ike%ise$ in O1/; the Plaintiff alleges that I0efendant k!ar gave an intervie% to 'he E=aminer in
%hi"h he imputed that the Plaintiff %as responsi!le for P&W'tingsQ$K !ut the "ompan# that o%ns that
site$ Clarit# 0igital 2roup ))C$ is not a defendant. .f the Plaintiff has an# reason to rule an# person in
or out of this supposed enterprise$ he has #et to dis"lose it. )ike the plaintiff in *+ombl,, ::; +.&. at
:/5@/7$ the instant Plaintiff thinks it is suffi"ient to allege that 0efendants engaged in Iparallel
"ondu"t... a!sent some fa"tual "onte=t suggesting agreementK in order to prove "on"erted a"tion.
,o%ever$ on a motion to dismiss$ a "ourt is not reMuired to make Iun%arranted dedu"tions of fa"t$ or
unreasona!le inferen"es$K >&n&,$ 974 F. 4d at <4;$ and the Plaintiff has not made suffi"ient allegations to
allo% this "ourt to dedu"e that an# person is a mem!er of the alleged enterprise or to infer that one
e=ists. ""ordingl#$ this "ourt should find that the Plaintiff has not properl# alleged that an enterprise
e=ists and dismiss all "laims under 15 +.&.C. 61789(").
D. T4( Plaintiff Ha* N5t P657(6l8 All(9() t4at t4( A**(6t() Ra:;(t((6in9 A:tivit8 Ha*
P65>i<at(l8 Ca=*() In?=68 t5 Plaintiff,* B=*in(** 56 P657(6t8.
'he Plaintiff !egins his se"tion on in?ur# !# "laiming a form of damages he "annot "laim under
-.C*. .n paragraph 1:9$ the Plaintiff %rites in "on"lusor# fashion that he Ihas suffered in?ur# to his
nam&$ propert# and !usiness$K (emphasis added). Even if true$ 15 +.&.C. 6178/(") makes it "lear that a
9:
person "an onl# re"over for in?uries to I!usiness or propert#.K ,e "annot re"over for in?ur# to his
Iname$K !e"ause su"h in?ur# is onl# re"overa!le under a theor# of defamation. S&&, &.-., 2amm v.
5hon&-(o)l&nc 5or&r (harmac&)ticals$ 15< F. 4d 7/1$ 7/7 (5
th
Cir. 1777) (Ireputational in?ur# is not
in?ur# to !usiness or propert#K under -.C*)J "h), v. (hilad&l#hia Ea-l&s$ /;< F. &upp. <1<$ <98 (E.0.
Pa. 17<8) (I%hile plaintiff asserts a "laim for damages for defamation... he does not appear to assert that
an# in?ur# to his U!usiness or propert#$’K under 1: +.&.C. 61:).
97
)ike%ise$ the Plaintiff has no standing to allege damage due to Ihaving his emplo#er defamed$K
sin"e he is suing in his individual "apa"it#. Nor "an he re"over for pu!li" relations "osts in terms of
Ihaving to spend untold hours$ da#s$ and %eeks defending against these false narrativesK !e"ause su"h
allegations go to damage to name$ are too indire"t to have !een pro=imatel# "aused !# the 0efendants’
alleged a"tions$ and are too "on"lusor# to !e "onsidered in an# "ase.
Mean%hile$ his "laim of having lost emplo#ment opportunities is purel# "on"lusor#. 'he onl#
non@"on"lusor# allegation relating to his emplo#ment is found in &C O1;4$ %hen the Plaintiff alleges
that I0efendants Walker and 0( Capital &trategies att&m#t&d to use 0efendant Walker’s frivolous
federal la%suit to e=tort a settlement that %ould reMuire the termination of Plaintiff’s emplo#ment at the
non@profitK (emphasis added). Putting aside that dismissal from a ?o! is not propert# under 617:1$
s)#ra, pages 5@7$ the Plaintiff never alleges that he %as a"tuall# fired for this reason$ and the use of the
%ord IattemptedK is an admission that he %as not.
Finall#$ his "laim to have lost funding opportunities is "on"lusor# and$ upon information and
!elief$ refers purel# to losses !# his "orporation and not to the Plaintiff. .n fa"t$ the onl# partiall#
97
(oth -.C* and the Cla#ton "t$ 1: +.&.C. 61:$ limits private a"tions to Ian# person %ho shall !e
in?ured in his !usiness or propert#K !# a violation of the antitrust la%sK and therefore su"h parallel
language is interpreted identi"all#. Gro-an v. (latt, 54: F. 9d 5//$ 5/8@/< (11th Cir. 1755).
98
spe"ifi" allegation of a loss of funding is in &C O 1:9 %here he "laims that the &tate 0epartment
"an"eled a grant to >usti"e 'hrough Musi" %hen it learned that a "onvi"ted terrorist %as using that
mone# to IhostPQ a"tivists from .ran$ 'urke#$ GaLakhstan$ Eg#pt$ 1emen$ )i!#a$ &audi ra!ia$ 'unisia$
(ahrain$ >ordan and else%here.K Id. 'he Plaintiff does not properl# allege that this in?ur# %as "aused
!# an# %rongful a"t$
4;
and$ in an# "ase$ that is a loss to his emplo#er and not to him.
'hus$ the Plaintiff has failed to properl# allege an# in?ur# to his !usiness or propert#$ or an#
element of a violation of 15 +.&.C. 61789(") and dismissal of this "ount %ith pre?udi"e is appropriate.
II.
THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT STATED A CLAIM THAT THE DEFENDANTS HA-E
CONSPIRED TO -IOLATE #2 U.S.C. 3#'10.C/ IN -IOLATION OF 3#'10.D/.
'he Plaintiff also alleges that the 0efendants "onspired to violate 61789(") under 61789(d) and
then other%ise treats 61789(d) as though its elements are identi"al to 61789("). S&&, &.-. &C OO1<8 and
1<<$ and 1<; and 1<9 (repeating previous paragraphs$ almost %ord@for@%ord$ !ut %ith the %ord
I"onspiredK added in in "on"lusor# fashion and %ith emphasis).
,o%ever$ the elements are not identi"al. .n order to allege a violation of 61789(d) as a
"onspira"# to violate 61789(")$ the Plaintiff must allege thatD (1) an enterprise e=ists or that it %ould
have e=isted if the offense %as "ompleted$ (9) that the enterprise did$ or %ould have engaged in$ or
%ould have affe"ted interstate or foreign "ommer"eJ (4) that ea"h 0efendant kno%ingl# agreed that a
"onspirator %ould "ommit a violation of 61789(")$ and (/) that a ra"keteering a"tivit# "ommitted as an
4;
'he &C doesn’t Muote an# part of the t%o arti"les he !lames for "osting >usti"e 'hrough Musi" the
grant$ !ut %hat little "an !e gleaned a!out their "ontent suggests that the# %ere not false in the slightest
%a#. 'he title of the first$ IWh# is the &tate 0epartment Partnering %ith &peed%a# (om!er (rett
Gim!erlinPTQW refers to the Plaintiff !# a term that had previousl# !een used !# the &i=th Cir"uit$
8imb&rlin v. 0hit&$ < F. 4d at :95$ and the internet address for the '%it"h# pie"e appears to suggest it
"alled him a terrorist$ %hi"h is perfe"tl# reasona!le given that his !om!ings fit the definition of
domesti" terrorism under 15 +.&.C. 69441(:). 'hus$ "ontrar# to %hat the Plaintiff evidentl# thinks$ it is
not defamation to "all him either the &peed%a# (om!er or a terrorist.
9<
overt a"t in furtheran"e of that agreement (:) pro=imatel# "aused damage to the Plaintiff’s !usiness and
propert#.
41
Not onl# has the Plaintiff failed to properl# allege an enterprise a"tuall# e=isted$ he also
failed to allege it %ould have e=isted if some agreement had !een "arried into for"e. .n fa"t$ the Plaintiff
has failed to allege an# su"h agreement even in the most "on"lusor# fashion. Finall#$ the Plaintiff has
on"e again failed to properl# allege he %as in?ured !# an# predi"ate a"ts$ or even that there %ere su"h
a"ts. 'herefore$ this "ourt should dismiss all "laims under 15 +.&.C. 61789(d) %ith pre?udi"e.
III.
THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PROPERLY ALLEED A -IOLATION OF @0 U.S.C. 3#'2$
AAINST DEFENDANT FREY.
$0
.n order to state a "laim under /9 +.&.C. 61754$ the Plaintiff must allege suffi"ient fa"ts that$ if
true$ %ould lead this "ourt to !elieve that (1) a person$ (9) a"ting under "olor of state la%$ (4) su!?e"ted
or "aused to !e su!?e"ted$ (/) the Plaintiff to the deprivation of rights "onferred !# the +.&. Constitution
or Federal la%$ (:) pro=imatel# "ausing (8) damage to the Plaintiff. 'he Plaintiff has failed to state a
"laim under 61754.
First$ 0efendant Fre# did not a"t under "olor of la%. 'he most useful "ase on this point is $aff&
v. !r&, &t al. No. 19@C3@;5//4 (C.0. Cal.$ 9;19).
44
.n that "ase$ involving the same 0efendant Fre# and
the same statute$ the "ourt found that Fre# had not a"ted under "olor of la%. s %ith the instant "ase$ the
41
Salinas v. U.S.$ :99 +.&. :9 (177<) (setting out the first three elements)$ and B&c' v. (r)#is$ :97 +.&.
/7/ (9;;;) (holding that a Plaintiff "annot re"over under 61789(d) unless he is pro=imatel# in?ured !#
ra"keteering a"tivit# that is "ommitted as an overt a"t in furtheran"e of su"h -.C* "onspira"#).
49
0efendant Walker has standing to "hallenge this and ever# "ause of a"tion !ased on federal la%$ even
%here his o%n "ondu"t is not at issue$ !e"ause this "ourt "an onl# have ?urisdi"tion over the Plaintiff’s
state la% "laims !# virtue of supplemental ?urisdi"tion under 95 +.&.C. 6148<(a). 'herefore$ 0efendant
Walker has a valid interest in seeing all federal "laims dismissed as to all 0efendants$ so that all state
"laims against Mr. Walker might !e dismissed for %ant of ?urisdi"tion. Further the Plaintiff "ontinues to
allege that Mr. Walker "onspired %ith Mr. Fre# to violate his "ivil rights in &C O91:.
44
"op# of the tentative ruling and the minute order finaliLing that tentative ruling is atta"hed as E=hi!it
for this "ourt’s "onvenien"e.
95
ma?orit# of the Naffe’s "laim that Fre# had a"ted under "olor of la% %as !ased on the fa"t that his da#
?o! %as as a state emplo#ee and he mentioned that he %orked for the state on his %e!site. s the "ourt
held in $aff&$ Ia pu!li" emplo#ee does not %ear his or her Upu!li" emplo#ee hat’ at all times$ no matter
%hat their a"tivities$ even if those a"tivities have some tangential relation to their role(s) or duties.K 'he
fa"t he gave legal advi"e to Mr. Walker is not relevantD an# attorne# "an do that. Moreover$ the fa"t that
his emplo#er respe"ts Mr. Fre#’s First mendment rights does not transform his "ondu"t into state
a"tion. 'he $aff& "ourt found that IPMQuite simpl#$ nothing Plaintiff has alleged plausi!l# suggests that
Fre# a"ted$ or purported or pretended to a"t$ in the performan"e of his offi"ial duties.K 'he instant
Plaintiff has offered a!solutel# no reason %h# this "ourt should find other%ise.
'o tr# to meet this !urden$ the Plaintiff implausi!l# alleges that a threat "ame from the )..
Count# &heriff’s 0epartment at Fre#’s "ommand$ &C O118. 'here are several pro!lems %ith this.
First$ the Plaintiff has misMuoted his o%n e=hi!it. .n &C O118$ he "laims the message said
I)E3E ,.M )*NE. 0*N’' 2* ',E-E.K nd #et$ in O/5 of his opposition to Mr. Walker’s
previous motion to dismiss$ ECF 97$ he "ites to an atta"hed E=hi!it 1. .f the "ourt e=amines E=hi!it 1$
the entiret# of the alleged message is I0on’t go there.K 'he phrase Ileave him alone$K %as %holl# made
up !# the Plaintiff. 'his "ourt "an "onsider this do"ument !e"ause it "onstitutes a ?udi"ial admission$
4/
and$ as noted !# the Fourth Cir"uit$ this "ourt is not o!ligated to Ia""ept as true allegations that
"ontradi"t matters properl# su!?e"t to ?udi"ial noti"e or !# e=hi!it.K >&n&,$ 974 F. 4d at <4;. .n
Abcarian v. McDonald$ 81< F. 4d 741$ 744 (<
th
Cir. 9;1;) the "ourt held that IP%Qhere those allegations
are "ontradi"ted !# %ritten e=hi!its... the e=hi!its trump the allegations.K 'his "ourt should not allo%
4/
"ho+ v. A&-is Mort-. "or#.$ 15: F. &upp. 9d 71/$ 718 (N.0. .ll. 9;;9) (holding that an admission in
an opposition to a motion to dismiss is a ?udi"ial admission that "an !e "onsidered in granting a motion
to dismiss).
97
the Plaintiff to misstate the "ontents of his o%n e=hi!it.
+nder either version of the statement$ the Plaintiff has not made out a plausi!le allegation that it
%as a threat$ let alone that it %as sent at the dire"tion of Mr. Fre#. Whether a statement is "onsidered a
threat is ?udged !# an o!?e"tive Ireasona!le personK standard$ U.S. v. Darb,$ 4< F. 4d 1;:7$ 1;8/ (/
th
Cir. 177/)$
4:
and this doesn’t Mualif#.
48
.t takes several additional leaps of logi" to !elieve that the
message %as sent at Mr. Fre#’s !ehest$ %ith the a!surd promise that Fre#$ a state prose"utor$ "ould
prote"t someone from f&d&ral "riminal prose"ution.
4<
'he Plaintiff %ants this "ourt to !elieve that this is
almost like a res ipsa loMuitur situation in tort la%$ !ut the situation does not speak for itself. 'he &C
must allege more Ithan a sheer possi!ilit# that a defendant has a"ted unla%full#$K Ibal$ ::8 +.&. at 8<5$
in order to survive a motion to dismiss$ !ut possi!ilit# is all the Plaintiff has.
'he Plaintiff also "laims in &C O/4 that I0efendant Fre# used his position to laun"h
investigations of Plaintiff !# his supervisors at the )os ngeles Count# 0istri"t ttorne#’s *ffi"e and
%ith the F(..K ,o%ever$ he makes no parti"ular allegation that Mr. Fre# did an#thing more than %hat a
private "itiLen "ould have done in the same "ir"umstan"es. For instan"e$ in 4ord v. 5il&,$ 791 F. 9d 9<9$
177; +.&. pp. )EB.& 99/85 (/
th
Cir. 1771)$
38
the Fourth Cir"uit held a firefighter %as not a state a"tor
for 61754 purposes %hen he allegedl# made a false report to a poli"e offi"er %hile that firefighter %as
4:
S&& also U.S. v. Arm&l$ :5: F.4d 159$ 15: (/th Cir. 9;;7) (appl#ing reasona!le person standard to a
threat).
48
'he phrase Idon’t go thereK has literall# doLens of meanings$ fe% of %hi"h are threatening. S&&, &.-.,
William &afire$ I'he Wa# We )ive No%D 1@94@;;D *n )anguageJ 0on’t 2o 'here$K *h& $&+ Bor'
*im&s$ >anuar# 94$ 9;;; (availa!le at httpDEE%%%.n#times."omE9;;;E;1E94EmagaLineEthe@%a#@%e@live@
no%@1@94@;;@on@language@don@t@go@there.html) visited >anuar# 97$ 9;1/. 2iven that the Plaintiff
alleges it %as sent through >usti"e 'hrough Musi" Pro?e"t’s (I>'MP’sK) "onta"t page to the organiLation
as a %hole and >'MP is a"tive in man# "auses$ it might have referred to man# different issues.
4<
.nterstate threats are a federal offense under 15 +.&.C. 65<:(").
45
4ord v. 5il&, is an Iunpu!lished disposition$K !ut Fourth Cir"uit )o"al -ule 49.1 states that %hile
"itation of su"h opinions are IdisfavoredK the# "an !e "ited %hen Ino pu!lished opinionX %ould serve
as %ell.K
4;
on dut#$ "ausing a "itiLen to !e arrested. 'he "ourt found that Ithe mere fact that Riley was a
public employee” and on duty did not transform him into a state actor. Id. at *3. Instead,
because “Riley was exercising no greater power than that available to any other citizen
when he provided information to the police and pursued a criminal complaint” Riley was
not a state actor. Id. at *4. Like in Riley, there is no non-conclusory allegation that Mr.
Frey did anything more than what any victim of a crime can do, and, therefore, this
alleged conduct does not transform him into a state actor.
Meanwhile, the Plaintif writes “[w]hen [Mr. Frey] issued his threat to investigate
and imprison Plaintif,” in SAC ¶113, as though he had previously accused Mr. Frey of
making such a threat to him in the SAC. He had not. Thus, his claim of a threat to
investigate is purely conclusory and not entitled to the presumption of truth.
Finall#$ as usual$ the Plaintiff stum!les on the issue of damages. 'he Plaintiff has not alleged
that an# a"t or omission !# 0efendant Fre# "aused the Plaintiff to !e deprived of an# federal right. 'he
Plaintiff "laims that Fre# parti"ipated in the "reation of Ifalse narrativesK a!out him$ O9;5$ thus
allegedl# defaming him$ !ut there is no federal la% prote"ting the Plaintiff from defamation. 'he
Plaintiff "laims that Mr. Fre# attempted to "onvin"e (arrett (ro%n to violate some unstated right of the
Plaintiff !ut admits that Mr. (ro%n refused to do so$ O19;. Even Ms. )ord (in 4ord v. 5il&,) suffered
!eing arrestedJ ho% %as the Plaintiff harmed !# the alleged investigations and threats of investigations
!# Mr. Fre#T )ike%ise$ the Plaintiff "omplains that Mr. Fre# IfailPedQ to "onta"t la% enfor"ement %hen
41
a person threatened to murder Plaintiff.K Id. First$ Mr. Fre# has no dut# to prote"t the Plaintiff from
private violen"e. D&Shan&, v. 0inn&ba-o "o)nt, D&#t. of Social S&rvs.$ /57 +.&. 157$ 17:@178 (1757).
&e"ond$ the Plaintiff admits in O/1 that I0efendant Nag# did "onta"t the authorities.K &o in %hat %a#
%as the Plaintiff harmed !# this alleged failure$ let alone deprived of an# federal right !# itT What
pre"isel# %ould have happened differentl# if Mr. Fre# dupli"ated Ms. Nag#’s effortsT 'he Plaintiff
doesn’t sa#$ and his opportunities to e=plain have run out. 'hus$ for all the forgoing reasons the
Plaintiff’s "laims !ased on /9 +.&.C. 61754 should !e dismissed %ith pre?udi"e.
I-.
THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT ALLEED A -IOLATION OF @0 U.S.C. 3#'2&.
'he Plaintiff "laims that "ertain defendants have violated the Gu Glu= Glan "t of 15<1$ /9
+.&.C. 6175:(9) and (4)$ !ut "ontinues to make little attempt to meet the reMuirements of this statute.
First$ he has not alleged an# invidiousl# dis"riminator# animus. (oth the se"ond part of
6175:(9) and the first part of 6175:(4) "ontain limiting language reMuiring that the persons a"t %ith
Iintent to deprive their vi"tims of the eMual prote"tion of the la%s.K 8)sh v. 5)tl&d-&$ /8; +.&. <17$ <9:
(1754). .n Griffin v. Br&c'&nrid-&$ /;4 +.&. 55$ 1;9 (17<1)$ that language %as interpreted as IreMuiring
some ra"ial$ or perhaps other%ise "lass@!ased$ invidiousl# dis"riminator# animus !ehind the
"onspirators’ a"tion.K 'he onl# attempt the Plaintiff ever made to allege su"h animus %as his ludi"rous
Istra% manK "laim that 0efendants %ere motivated !# hatred of "onvi"ted felons in the Plaintiff’s
opposition to Mrs. Malkin’s and '%it"h#’s first motion to dismiss$ ECF No. 8<$ %riting in O/ that
0efendants Malkin and '%it"h# argue in their Motion that their "ondu"t is ?ustified
!e"ause Plaintiff %as "onvi"ted of "rimes 4: plus #ears ago. -eading their !rief is
a!solutel# sho"king !e"ause it makes the same arguments made in !#gone eras %here
!la"ks %ere hanged !e"ause of their "olor$ %here %omen %ere !urned as %it"hes !e"ause
the# %ere different$ %here ga#s %ere tortured and tied to fen"e posts to die !e"ause of
their se=ual orientation$ and %here >e%s and 2#psies %ere e=terminated in the name of
ethni" purit#. .n all these "ases$ the a"tors ?ustified their !ehavior on the grounds that the
49
vi"tims %ere not %orth# of life !e"ause the# %ere lesser humans.
'his is insuffi"ient under Bra, v. Al&/andria 0om&n1s 2&alth "linic$ :;8 +.&. 984$ 987 (1774). .n Bra,$
the &upreme Court re?e"ted the "laim that animus to%ard I%omen seeking a!ortionK Mualified as
invidious animus under 6175:. .f the &upreme Court %ill not re"ogniLe a prote"ted "lass of individuals
!ased on the desire to engage in la+f)l a"tivit# (a!ortion)$ it onl# follo%s that the Court %ill not
re"ogniLe a prote"ted "lass of people %ho have a"tuall# engaged in )nla+f)l a"tivit# su"h as drug
dealing$ do"ument forger#$ and espe"iall# !om!ings. Put simpl#$ the Gu Glu= Glan "t of 15<1 %as
designed to defeat terrorism$
47
not to prote"t terrorists.
'he Plaintiff tries to get around this !# also "laiming that
PtQhe named 0efendants "onspired to deter Plaintiff$ !# for"e$ intimidation$ or threat$
from attending "ourt$ or from testif#ing to an# matter pending therein$ freel#$ full#$ and
truthfu1l#$ and to in?ure Plaintiff in his person or propert# on a""ount of his having so
attended or testified.
&C O918. 'his "losel# tra"ks the language of the first part of 6175:(9)$ !ut it omits the "ru"ial
reMuirement that su"h "ondu"t must !e related to a federal ?udi"ial pro"eeding. 8)sh$ /8; +.&. at <9/
(stating that Ithe first portion of 6175:(9)K "on"erned Ifederal ?udi"ial pro"eedingsK). s noted a!ove$
s)#ra pp. <@5$ the Plaintiff has made no allegation of an# relationship to a federal ?udi"ial pro"eeding.
Finall#$ the se"ond part of 6175:(4) "on"erns itself %ith ele"tions and the Plaintiff has alleged
nothing in relation to an# ele"tion. 'hus$ the Plaintiff has failed to state a "laim for relief under the Gu
Glu= Glan "t of 15<1$ and that "laim should !e dismissed %ith pre?udi"e.
47
'he Glan is rightfull# "onsidered a terrorist organiLation. S&&, &.-. Genneth &tampp$ ',E E- *F
-EC*N&'-+C'.*N 158:@15<< at 177 (178<) (IPoQrganiLed terrorism %as popularl# asso"iated %ith the
Glu Glu= Glan$ formed in 'ennessee in 1588K).
44
-.
THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS ALL STATE LA+ CLAIMS.
'he Plaintiff has also alleged a num!er of "laims !ased on state la%. (e"ause there is no
diversit# of "itiLenship$ this "ourt "an onl# have ?urisdi"tion on these "laims !# e=er"ising its
supplemental ?urisdi"tion under 95 +.&.C. 6148<(a).
Ever# single state@!ased "laim should !e dismissed. First$ !e"ause the Plaintiff failed to state a
"laim under an# federal la%Nmaking dismissal of ever# federal "laim appropriateNthis "ourt no longer
has original ?urisdi"tion over an# matter. &e"ond$ the Plaintiff has failed to state a "laim for an# of these
state@!ased "laims upon %hi"h relief "an !e granted. 'herefore$ this "ourt should dismiss all state la%
"laims$ either for %ant of ?urisdi"tion or for failure to state a "laim for %hi"h relief "an !e granted.
A. T4( Plaintiff,* Stat("Ba*() Clai<* S45=l) B( Di*<i**() B(:a=*( T4(6( i* N5 -ali) F()(6al
A=(*ti5n.
'he Plaintiff "annot "laim diversit# of "itiLenship ?urisdi"tion over these "laims !e"ause this "ase
does not have a"tual diversit# of "itiLenship. Further$ he does not properl# allege that his state la%
"laims alone$ singl# or in the aggregate$ amount to more than V<:$;;; in damages. 'herefore$ this "ourt
"an onl# e=er"ise ?urisdi"tion over state la% "laims using its supplemental ?urisdi"tion under 95 +.&.C.
6148<(a). ,o%ever$ 6148<(a) reMuires that this "ourt have Ioriginal ?urisdi"tionK over at least one "laim
!efore it$ and 6148<(")(4) instru"ts this "ourt to de"line supplemental ?urisdi"tion %hen Ithe distri"t
"ourt has dismissed all "laims over %hi"h it has original ?urisdi"tion.K s demonstrated a!ove$ the
Plaintiff has failed to state a "ause of a"tion for a violation of an, federal la%. Without an# federal
Muestion$ this "ourt should dismiss all remaining state "laims !e"ause it la"ks ?urisdi"tion over them.
B. T4( Plaintiff Ha* Fail() t5 Stat( a Clai< f56 U75n +4i:4 R(li(f Can B( 6ant() F56 An8
5f Hi* Stat( LaB Clai<*.
'urning to the merits of the Plaintiff’s state@la% "laims$ the Plaintiff has failed to properl# allege
4/
an# of them. 'hus$ even if this "ourt had ?urisdi"tion over his state la% "laims$ this "ourt should dismiss
for failure to state a "laim for %hi"h relief "an !e granted.
1. 'he Plaintiff 0oesn’t Properl# &tate a Claim for 0efamation or False )ight.
.n (iscat&lli v. >an Smith$ /9/ Md. 97/$ 4: .4d 11/;$ 11/< (9;19)$ the Mar#land Court of
ppeals stated that
.n order to plead properl# a defamation "laim under Mar#land la%$ a plaintiff must allege
spe"ifi" fa"ts esta!lishing four elements to the satisfa"tion of the fa"t@finderD (1) that the
defendant made a defamator# statement to a third person$ (9) that the statement %as false$ (4)
that the defendant %as legall# at fault in making the statement$ and (/) that the plaintiff there!#
suffered harm.
(.nternal Muotation marks omitted). 'his is not a merel# a reMuirement that one plead these fa"ts
generall#$ !ut that one plead %ith parti"ularit# "ompara!le to that reMuired under Fed. -. Civ. P. 7(!).
For instan"e$ in Bro+n v. !&r-)son Ent&rs., Inc. No. 19@C3@151< at R: (0. Md. 0e". 11$ 9;19) this "ourt
held that a "omplaint that I"ontainPedQ no spe"ifi" des"ription of the "ontent of the alleged statements$
nor %hen and ho% the# %ere "ommuni"atedK %as insuffi"ient and it %as dismissed. s noted s)#ra in
the se"tion on alleged %ire and mail fraud$ pp. 7@1:$ the Plaintiff has seriall# failed to plead that level of
detail and for this reason the "laim for defamation should !e dismissed.
.t is parti"ularl# important to reMuire the Plaintiff to plead %hen su"h statements o""urred
!e"ause M0 C*0E C'&. C >+0. P-*C. 6:@1;5 states that IPaQn a"tion for assault$ li!el$ or slander shall
!e filed %ithin one #ear from the date it a""rues.K 'hat statute of limitations %as tolled on *"to!er 1:$
9;14$ %hen this suit %as filed. While alleging that a statement is made outside the statute of limitations
is not an element of defamation$ reMuiring the Plaintiff to state %hen the alleged statements %ere made
%ould make it "lear to this "ourt %hether the statute of limitations defense applies.
/;
/;
Broo's v. 0inston-Sal&m, 5: F. 4d 1<5$ 151 (/
th
Cir. 1778) (Idismissal... is appropriate %hen the fa"e
of the "omplaint "learl# reveals the e=isten"e of a meritorious affirmative defenseK).
4:
-ea"hing the merits$ the plaintiff seriall# fails to allege that an# statements %ere made$ generall#
"laiming that responsi!ilit# for the &W'tings %ere implied or imputed. Further$ one has to %onder
ho% su"h Iimpli"ationsK of &W'ting$ even if untrue$ %ould harm the Plaintiff’s reputation.
Parti"ularl# is instru"tive on this point is "ardillo v. Do)bl&da, 3 "o., Inc.$ :15 F. 9d 845 (9
nd
Cir.
17<:). .n "ardillo, the "ase involved "laims of defamation$ and the plaintiff also had an e=tensive rap
sheet that %as des"ri!ed as follo%sD
appellant is serving 91 #ears$ senten"ed for assorted federal felonies$ in"luding separate
"onvi"tions for stolen se"urities and !ail@?umping in the +nited &tates 0istri"t Court for
the &outhern 0istri"t of Florida$ !ail@?umping in the 0istri"t of Mar#land$ and "onspira"#
and interstate transportation of stolen se"urities in the 0istri"t of Ne% ,ampshire. ,e has
!een previousl# "onvi"ted of re"eiving stolen propert# and numerous minor infra"tions of
the la% in Massa"husetts %here he lived. ,is ans%ers to interrogatories indi"ate that he
%as in Pmo!ster 3in"entQ 'eresa’s "ompan# IfreMuentl#K from 1784@87... and %as
Ddire"tl# involvedK %ith 'eresa Iin several minor "rimes$ none of %hi"h %ere note%orth#
or profita!le.K
Id. at 8/;. (# "omparison$ the instant Plaintiff is a "onvi"ted terrorist %ho set off eight !om!s in si=
da#s in the to%n of &peed%a#$ .ndiana. 0hit&, < F. 4d at :95$ :4;. 'he last of his !om!s "laimed the
life of a father and veteran named Carl 0e)ong and in?ured his %ife$ &andra 0e)ong. 8imb&rlin v.
D&4on-$ 84< N.E.9d 191 (.nd. &up. Ct. 177/). Mr. 0e)ong’s %ido% %on a ?udgment against the
Plaintiff in "ivil "ourt$ id.$ %hi"h the Plaintiff pro"eeded to "heat her out of$ his "ondu"t !e"oming so
outrageous that his parole %as revoked !e"ause of it. 8imb&rlin v. D&+alt$ 19 F. &upp. 9d /5< (0. Md.
1775). ,e sued this %ido%$ Iher la%#er$ the pro!ation offi"er$ and various (ureau of Prisons and
0epartment of >usti"e offi"ials$K id. at /7;$ for attempting to "olle"t this de!t. S&& also 8imb&rlin v.
D.6$ <55 F. 9d /4/ (<
th
Cir. 1758) (affirming dismissal of that suit). ll that is in addition to !eing a
"onvi"ted per?urer$ D&+alt$ 19 F. &upp. 9d at /7; n. 8$ and drug smuggler U.S. v. 8imb&rlin$ 5;: F. 9d at
99:@945.
48
.n "ardillo$ the &e"ond Cir"uit "on"luded that the plaintiff’s rap sheet %as suffi"ient to render
him defamation@proof as follo%sD
%e "onsider as a matter of la% that appellant is$ for purposes of this "ase$ li!el@proof$ i. e.$
so unlikel# !# virtue of his life as a ha!itual "riminal to !e a!le to re"over an#thing other
than nominal damages as to %arrant dismissal of the "ase$ involving as it does First
mendment "onsiderations.
:15 F. 9d at 847. .f -o!ert Cardillo’s histor# of mainl# non@violent offenses of little fame rendered him
defamation@proof$ then "ertainl# a "onvi"ted !om!er %ho terroriLed an entire to%n and ultimatel# "ost a
man his lifeNnot to mention his organiLed "riminal a"tivities as a drug kingpinNshould render the
instant plaintiff eMuall# defamation@proof.
Further$ sin"e the operative Muestion is %hether the alleged defamation "ould a"tuall# damage a
plaintiff’s reputation or if the damage had alread# !een done$ "ourts have held that prior negative
pu!li"it# should !e taken into a""ount %hen "onsidering %hether one is defamation proof.
/1
.n 1777$
&late magaLine "alled the Plaintiff a Iha!itual liar$ and all@around so"iopath.K
/9
n arti"le pu!lished ?ust
after his "onvi"tions for the &peed%a# (om!ings a""used the Plaintiff of plotting !ehind !ars to (1)
frame someone else for his "rimes$ (9) arrange for the murder of one of his prose"utors and several other
persons$ and (4) to attempt to destro# the politi"al "areer of the same prose"utor in a sting operation.
/4

!ook %ritten %ith the Plaintiff’s help !# Mark &inger insinuated that he %as a pedophile engaged in a
relationship %ith a ten #ear old girl named 0e!!ie (arton.
//
'his authoriLed !iograph# also suggested
/1
S+at& v. Schiff&rs$ 7<: &.W.9d <;$ </ ('e=. pp.$ /
th
0ist. 1775) (Ithe earlier ne%spaper arti"les and
the dis"iplinar# orders des"ri!e "ondu"t that %ould have ruined &%ate’s reputation prior to the
pu!li"ation of &"hiffers’s arti"le.K)
/9
.*. &"ott$ "od, Sh&ar&r? If 2& Didn1t E/ist, th& >ast 5i-ht 0in- "ons#irac, 0o)ld 2av& Inv&nt&d
2im$ &)'E$ Ma# 99$ 1777 (availa!le at httpDEE%%%.slate."omEarti"lesEne%sFandFpoliti"sE assessmentE
1777E;:E"od#Fshearer.html) visited 0e"em!er <$ 9;14
/4
-. >oseph 2elarden$ 8imb&rlin "as& a Ma%& of M)rd&r, D&c&it$ .N0.NP*).& &'-$ *"to!er 15$ 1751
(availa!le at httpDEEar"hive.ind#star."omEassetsEpdfE(218/9<8717.P0F) visited on 0e"em!er <$ 9;14.
//
Mark &inger$ C.'.HEN GD ',E 0EEP)1 WE.-0 ME-.CN >*+-NE1 *F (-E'' G.M(E-).N <8@<5
4<
that he %as involved in the murder of >ulia &"#phers$ the grandmother of the #oung suspe"ted vi"tim$
C.'.HEN G at 59 &t s&$ and that the !om!ings %ere "ommitted in order to distra"t the poli"e from that
murder$ id. at 57 &t s&.
/:
&inger’s !ook also a""uses Gim!erlin of ve=atious litigation
/8
and features
Gim!erlin speaking in detail a!out his life as a drug kingpin (C.'.HEN G at 8;@81 and #assim)$
"onfessing to ta= evasion (id. at 81@89)$ "onfessing to a ra"ist prison fight %here he "alled his opponent
the In@%ordK repeatedl# (id. at 154)J and "onfessing to sa!otaging militar# eMuipment thus pla"ing our
troops in danger (id. at 15/). .ndeed$ sin"e this "ase has !egun$ he has !een "aught forging do"uments in
t%o "ourts and passing them off as genuine$ adding to his long list of reprehensi!le "ondu"t.
/<
E=a"tl# %hat negative "on"lusions does the Plaintiff think a reader %ill dra% a!out him !ased on
allegedl# implied involvement in &W'tingsT 'hat he is "apa!le of a"ting %ith indifferen"e to human
lifeT )eaving a !om! near a high s"hool foot!all game so that Carl 0e)ong "ould find it and !lo% off
his leg %ould have alread# proven that to the reader’s satisfa"tion$ as %ould his sa!otage of militar#
eMuipment$ the ?ailhouse murder plots$ and the suspi"ion of involvement in the murder of >ulia &"#phers.
0oes he think he %as defamed !# the suggestion that he %ould !e involved in de"eiving la%
enfor"ementT 'he previousl# pu!lished reports that he tried to frame someone else for the &peed%a#
(1778) (IC.'.HEN GK). &inger identifies the Plaintiff’s #oung suspe"ted vi"tim as I>essi"aK (arton.
/:
S&& also 5&troInd,? *h& S#&&d+a, Bombin-s, (art I? !or a 0&&' in 1@A8, th& *o+n of S#&&d+a, +as
*&rrori%&d b, a S&rial Bomb&r$ .N0.NP*).& &'-$ (availa!le at httpDEE%%%.ind#star."omEarti"leE
77777777ENEW&;8E1;;717;19E) visited 0e"em!er <$ 9;14 and 5&troInd,? *h& S#&&d+a, Bombin-s,
(art II? B)ildin- th& "as& A-ainst Br&tt 8imb&rlin .N0.NP*).& &'-$ (availa!le at httpDEE%%%.
ind#star."omEarti"leE77777777ENEW&;8E1;;717;14) visited 0e"em!er <$ 9;14.
/8
I'here "ould !e no mistaking P(rett Gim!erlin’sQ fundamental ?urisprudential strateg#D &ue the
!astardsJ then sue them moreJ then some more.K C.'.HEN G at 154.
/<
S&& I3erified -esponse to Fe!ruar# 91$ 9;1/ *rder to &ho% Cause -e '%it"h# &ummons$K ECF No.
1;9 (admitting to forging a summons in this "ase) and &upplemental Memorandum of 0efendants
Mi"helle Malkin and '%it"h# in &upport of -eMuest for 0ismissal (ECF No. 19/) (do"umenting ho% the
Plaintiff admitted to a forger# in the parallel suit of 8imb&rlin v. 0al'&r, &t al., No. 45;7883 (Md. Mont.
Co. Cir. Ct. 9;1/)).
45
(om!ings$ as %ell as Mark &inger’s suggestion that he "ommitted the &peed%a# (om!ings in order to
defle"t the poli"e from investigating the murder of >ulia &"#phers esta!lishes that.
*r "onsider the spe"ifi" harm that Mr. Gim!erlin alleges that the 0efendants have done to his
reputation$ "laiming in &C O99: this alleged defamation ImakePsQ Plaintiff appear odious$ infamous
andEor frightening.K n# person familiar %ith his proven "areer in "rime is likel# to dra% the same
"on"lusion. *ne doesn’t need to a""use a man %ho earned the ni"kname of I'he &peed%a# (om!erK of
&W'ting to make people think he is odious$ infamous and frightening. perusal of pu!li"l# availa!le
"ourt re"ords is suffi"ient. 'he Plaintiff’s reputation is so poor it is diffi"ult$ if not impossi!le$ to harm it
further. )ike in "ardillo$ the instant Plaintiff might at !est o!tain nominal damages$ and$ therefore$ the
First mendment "ounsels against hearing an# defamation "laims at all$ as it did in "ardillo.
Further$ the plaintiff has also pleaded no fa"ts that tend to esta!lish mali"e as is reMuired %hen
the person is a pu!li" figureNand there "an !e little dou!t that the instant Plaintiff is a pu!li" figure.
'his "ourt has said that pu!li" figures are people %ho
have$ !# their o%n "ondu"t$ Ivoluntaril# e=posed themselves to in"reased risk of in?ur#
from defamator# falsehood "on"erning them.K P"iting G&rt% v. 5ob&rt 0&lch, Inc.$ /15
+.&. 494$ 4/: (17</).Q .n other %ords$ !# voluntaril# a!andoning anon#mit# in favor of
the pu!li" spotlight and its attendant heat$ pu!li" figures have kno%ingl# e=posed
themselves to a predi"ta!le risk of !eing !urned.
!it%-&rald v. (&ntho)s& Int&rn., 4td.$ :9: F. &upp. :5:$ :57 (0. Md. 1751). .n the Plaintiff’s "ase$ he
has terroriLed an entire "it# !# setting off eight !om!s in si= da#s. 'he "ases of 6ac'son v. 4on-sco#&$
47/ Mass. :<< (175:) (involving the perpetrator of I'he ,it"h ,ike MurdersK) and 4&o#old v. 4&vin$ /:
.ll.9d /4/ (17<;) (involving Nathan )eopold of I)eopold and )oe!K fame) also stand for the prin"iple
that if one "ommits a suffi"ientl# infamous "rime or set of "rimes$ one is "onsidered a pu!li" figure from
47
that da# for%ard.
/5
'he same Plaintiff also pu!li"l# "laimed to have sold drugs to 3i"e@Presidential Candidate 0an
Aua#le in order to s%a# a Presidential ele"tion and su!seMuentl# sued prison offi"ials for attempting to
silen"e him. 8imb&rlin v. 9)inlan :I;$ 8 F. 4d <57$ <71 (0.C. Cir. 1774). 'he 9)inlan "ourt notes that
Gim!erlin attempted to set up press "onferen"es to pu!li"iLe his "laims against the 3i"e President. Id.
S&& also 8imb&rlin v. 9)inlan :II;$ 177 F. 4d /78$ /75@77 (0.C. Cir. 1777) (detailing more of the
Plaintiff’s attempts to pu!li"iLe his "laims a!out Aua#le). s if that %eren’t enough$ he %ent on to
"reate an authoriLed !iograph# of his life$ !elieving that the pu!li" at large %ould !e interested in his
e=ploits. D&+alt$ 19 F. &upp. 9d at /7;@/71. 'hese are ?ust the fa"ts that this "ourt "an take ?udi"ial
noti"e of. 'he fa"t is that the Plaintiff has tried to !e famous for most of his life. ,e ?ust doesn’t like
%hat he is famous for.
(e"ause he is a pu!li" figure$ the Plaintiff must plead fa"ts that sho% mali"e. ,e has utterl#
failed to do so. Con"lusor# allegations of a failure to investigate is not suffi"ient to sho% mali"e$
"omm)nications, Inc v. "onna)-hton$ /71 +.&. 8:<$ 855 (1757) and in 2&rb&rt v. 4ando$ <51 F. 9d 975$
4;5 n. 8 (9
nd
Cir. 1758)$ a de"laration of I.’ll destro# #ouK %as insuffi"ient. .ndeed$ this "ase most
resem!les Schat% v. 5&#)blican Stat& 4&ad&rshi# "omm.$ %here the "ourt %roteD
We turn our attention$ then$ !a"k to %hether &"hatLYs allegations plausi!l# support an
a"tual@mali"e "laim. ,is "omplaint used a"tual@mali"e !uLL%ords$ "ontending that the
-&)C had Ikno%ledgeK that its statements %ere IfalseK or had Iserious dou!tsK a!out
their truth and a Ire"kless disregardK for %hether the# %ere false. (ut these are merel#
legal "on"lusions$ %hi"h must !e !a"ked !# %ell@pled fa"ts.
887 F. 4d at :8. (uLL%ords are all the Plaintiff offers$ and$ therefore$ he has failed to plead mali"e. For
/5
S&& &.-.$ U.S. v. 8imb&rlin$ 5;: F. 9d at 994@9/ (<
th
Cir. 1758) ((rett Gim!erlin arguing for relief from
the effe"ts of negative pu!li"it#$ "iting Ie=tensive media "overage of the 17<5 !om!ings and defendant’s
trials and other trou!les in the #ears !et%een the !om!ings and this third trialK).
/;
all of these reasons$ his "laim for defamation should !e dismissed.
'urning to false light$ as this "ourt has noted in "ro+l&, v. !o/ Broadcastin- "o.$ IPiQn
Mar#land$ a "laim for false light invasion of priva"# ma# not stand unless the "laim also meets the
standards for defamation$K 5:1 F. &upp. <;;$ <;/ (0. Md. 177/).
/7
'his in"ludes atta"hing the same
statute of limitations. Smith v. Es)ir&, Inc.$ /7/ F. &upp. 78<$ 7<; (0. M0$ 175;) (IPtQo hold other%ise
%ould severel# under"ut the poli"# "onsiderations %hi"h led to the ena"tment of the one@#ear statute
governing defamation "ases.K) 'hus$ his "laims for false light fail for pre"isel# the same reasons his
"laims for defamation fail. ConseMuentl#$ the Plaintiff has failed to state a "laim for defamation or false
light under Mar#land la%$ and$ therefore$ that "laim should !e dismissed %ith pre?udi"e.
9. 'he Plaintiff 0oesn’t Properl# llege n# "tual .nterferen"e With an E=isting Contra"t$
or his (usiness -elationships.
'he Plaintiff seems to have misla!eled !oth "ount si= and seven. (esides the fa"t he has la!eled
t%o "laims his seventh (the other !eing (atter#)$ he has asserted under "ount si= that "ertain defendants
have "ommitted Iinterferen"e %ith !usiness relations$K !ut he spe"ifi"all# alleges that he has some kind
of emplo#ment agreement %ith his non@profit and that the defendants kne% of it. .n Mar#land those are
properl# elements of 'ortious .nterferen"e %ith an E=isting Contra"t. 'he elements of that tort areD
(1) e=isten"e of a "ontra"t !et%een plaintiff and a third part#J (9) defendant’s kno%ledge
of that "ontra"tJ (4) defendant’s intentional interferen"e %ith that "ontra"tJ (/) !rea"h of
that "ontra"t !# the third part#J and (:) resulting damages to the plaintiff.
!o+l&r v. (rint&rs II, Inc.$ 57 Md. pp. //5$ /8< (1771). (eside the fa"t that the Plaintiff made onl# a
"on"lusor# allegation that an emplo#ment "ontra"t e=isted or that an# 0efendant kne% that su"h a
"ontra"t e=isted (one %onders %h# this "ourt should assume that an# defendant %ould 'no+ he is not an
/7
S&& also (iscat&lli v. >an Smith$ /9/ Md. 97/ $ 4: .4d 11/;$ 11/8@:< (9;19) (IPaQn allegation of false
light must meet the same legal standards as an allegation of defamationK).
/1
at@%ill emplo#ee)$ he has not made an# non@"on"lusor# allegation of an# !rea"h of that "ontra"t$ and the
Plaintiff’s o%n language suggests the# did not. S&&, &.-., &C O9:7 (alleging that defendants
Iintentionall# att&m#t&d to interfere %ithK his emplo#ment relationship (emphasis added)). 'herefore$
the Plaintiff has not pled intentional inferen"e %ith an e=isting "ontra"t.
)ike%ise$ the first seventh "ount talks a!out prospe"tive e"onomi" advantage$ !ut it is the same
"ause of a"tion as tortious interferen"e %ith !usiness relationships.
:;
'he elements of this tort in
Mar#land are as follo%sD
(1) intentional and %illful a"tsJ (9) "al"ulated to "ause damage to the plaintiffs in their
la%ful !usinessJ (4) done %ith the unla%ful purpose to "ause su"h damage and loss$
%ithout right or ?ustifia!le "ause on the part of the defendants (%hi"h "onstitutes mali"e)J
and (/) a"tual damage and loss resulting.
S#&n-l&r v. S&ars, 5o&b)c' 3 "o.$ 184 Md. pp. 99;$ 5<5 .9d 895$ 8/1 (9;;:). nd on"e again$ the
Plaintiff doesn’t make an# non@"on"lusor# allegations of damage. ,e "laims in a "on"lusor# fashion he
has suffered damage I!oth as an emplo#ee of >usti"e 'rough Musi" Psi"Q and as a musi"ian.K &C O98:.
.n relationship to future !usiness the IplaintiffPQ must identif# a possi!le future relationship %hi"h is
likel# to o""ur$ a!sent the interferen"e$ %ith spe"ifi"it#.K Baron !inancial "or#. v. $atan%on$ /<1
F.&upp.9d :4:$ :/8 (0. Md. 9;;8). ,e doesn’t even attempt to do this. &impl# put$ he makes no
spe"ifi" allegations of ho% this damage manifested itself$ meriting dismissal of this "ount.
Nor does he allege an# fa"ts that %ould lead this "ourt to !elieve that it %as +ron-f)l acts that
pro=imatel# "aused interferen"e %ith an e=isting "ontra"t or his !usiness relationships. s the S#&n-l&r
"ourt noted$ not all interferen"e %as prohi!itedD
'ortious or deli!erate intent to harm a plaintiff’s !usiness relationship is not alone
suffi"ient to support an intentional interferen"e "laim. 'here must also !e proof that the
:;
S&& Ba-+&ll v. (&nins)la 5&-ional M&dical "&nt&r$ 1;8 Md. pp. /<;$ :;/ (177/) (noting that t%o
torts are the same).
/9
defendant’s "ondu"t in interfering %ith "ontra"t or !usiness relations %as a""omplished
through improper means. ConseMuentl#$ to re"over for tortious interferen"e %ith !usiness
or "ontra"tual relationships$ the defendant’s "ondu"t must !e Iindependentl# %rongful or
unla%ful$ Muite apart from its effe"t on the plaintiff’s !usiness relationships.K
Id. at 8/1@8/9. &o$ for instan"e$ if the reason %h# he suffered these losses %as !e"ause of pu!li"it# of
truthful information related to his "riminal past$ that %ould not support a "laim of tortio)s interferen"e
%ith !usiness relationships. 2iven that the Plaintiff has trou!le understanding %h# the &tate 0epartment
%ould not %ant I'he &peed%a# (om!erK training activists from Iran$ &C O1:9$ it is parti"ularl#
important that this "ourt demand spe"ifi"it#$ so it "an have some assuran"e that the alleged interferen"e
%as a"tuall# tortious.
'he &C having failed to make an# non@"on"lusor# allegation of either tortious interferen"e
%ith an e=isting "ontra"t$ or %ith !usiness relationships$ su"h "laims should !e dismissed %ith pre?udi"e.
4. 'he Plaintiff’s Claim for (atter# is (arred !# Collateral Estoppel and the &tatute of
)imitations.
'he Plaintiff’s "laim of !atter# arises from the in"ident on >anuar# 7$ 9;19. s noted a!ove$
s)#ra, pp. 14@1:$ an# "laim that Mr. Walker assaulted the Plaintiff on that da# is pre"luded !# "ollateral
estoppel. 'he Plaintiff had his da# in "ourt on these "laims. ,e lost. Mr. Walker should not !e for"ed to
litigate the issue again.
.n addition$ his "laim is untimel#. 'his "ourt has regularl# held that M0 C*0E C'&. C >+0.
P-*C. 6:@1;:$ %hi"h states that IPaQn a"tion for assault$ li!el$ or slander shall !e filed %ithin one #ear
from the date it a""ruesK applies eMuall# to a"tions for !atter#. S&& &.-. "ob, v. Mobl&,$ 177/ +.&. 0ist.
)EB.& :19:$ R: (0. Md. 177/) (IPaQfter pointing out that Ms. Co!# had not alleged the intentional torts
of assault and !atter#$ !oth of %hi"h %ould !e !arred !# Mar#land’s one #ear statute of limitations...K)
and Madison v. 2arford "nt,, No. M>2@19@C3@119;$ R/: n. 45 (0. Md. ug. 9$ 9;14) (IPaQssault and
/4
!atter# "laims are su!?e"t to a one #ear limitation period under Mar#land la%. S&& M0. C*0E C'&. C
>+0. P-*C. 6:@1;:.K).
:1
*n the fa"e of the "omplaint the Plaintiff alleges that the in"ident involving the
alleged !atter# o""urred on >anuar# 7$ 9;19$ &C OO::@:8$ and therefore it falls %ell outside this statute
of limitations. 'herefore$ even if the "laim %as not pre"luded !# "ollateral estoppel$ an# "laim for
!atter# should !e dismissed !e"ause the statute of limitation had run out.
/. 'he Plaintiff 0oesn’t Properl# &tate a Claim for .ntentional .nfli"tion of Emotional
0istress.
s a preliminar# matter$ the Plaintiff’s "laim for .ntentional .nfli"tion of Emotional 0istress
(I..E0K) is also !arred !# "ollateral estoppel. 'he Plaintiff has filed a parallel suit against Mr. Walker
and four other 0efendants (k!ar$ ,oge$ M"Cain and IGim!erlin+nmaskedK). 8imb&rlin v. 0al'&r, &t
al., No. 45;7883 (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 9;1/). 'hat "omplaint also alleged that these five defendants
"ommitted the same tort against the same Plaintiff. *n >ul# 1$ 9;1/$ Mr. Gim!erlin lost that "laim on
&ummar# >udgment. 'his represents a determination$ on the merits$ that Mr. Walker and the other four
0efendants have not "ommitted that tort against him. Furthermore$ the grounds of that de"ision appl# to
:1
'he reason for this is that in Mar#land la%$ the terms IassaultK and I!atter#K are deepl# !lended and
often "onfused. For instan"e 4amb v. Stat&$ 74 Md. pp. /99$ /95 (1771)$ des"ri!es in great detail ho%
the terms are treated the sameD
(# %a# of informal (or sometimes even formal) shorthand$ !oth the "ase la% and the
statutor# la% freMuentl# use the simple noun IassaultK to "onnote a "onsummated !atter#
alone and at other times to "onnote the "om!ination of the in"hoate attempt to !eat or to
!atter follo%ed immediatel# !# the "onsummation of that attempt. 'hus used$ IassaultK is
a s#non#m for I!atter#K and is also a s#non#m for the "om!ined form Iassault and
!atter#.K
'hus often assault is shorthand for a num!er of a"ts that in"lude %hat is in other states referred to as
!atter#. S&&, &.-., M0. C*0E C-.M. )W 64@9;1(!) (defining IassaultK as Iassault$ !atter#$ and assault
and !atter#K)J Sn,d&r v. Stat&$ 91; Md. pp. 4<;$ 45;@451 (9;14) (IP"Qommon la% assault$ then$ is a
"hameleon "on"ept that no one should attempt to des"ri!e too pre"isel#K)J Di/on v. Stat&$ 144 Md. pp.
49:$ <:: .9d :8;$ :<; (9;;;) (IPaQssault generall# reMuires either an a"tual !atter#$ an attempted
!atter#$ or an attempt to frighten... as its !asi" elementK).
//
all 0efendants in the instant "ase$ not simpl# those that the t%o "ases have in "ommon. s this "ourt
%ill see %hen e=amining the trans"ript the sole !asis of the summar# ?udgment %as the Plaintiff’s failure
to offer an# eviden"e of emotional distress and thus the summar# ?udgment against him represents a
finding of fa"t that he has felt no emotional distress in the relevant period. 'his should !e suffi"ient to
dispose of the issue for all defendants.
:9
Even if "ollateral estoppel didn’t appl#$ the Plaintiff has failed to properl# plead the tort. .n order
to state a "laim for ..E0$ the Plaintiff must allege suffi"ient fa"ts that$ if true$ %ould lead this "ourt to
!elieve that the "ondu"t is re"kless or intentional$ that it is e=treme and outrageous$ that it pro=imatel#
"aused the Plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress$ and that su"h emotional distress is severe$ pro=imatel#
"ausing damage to the Plaintiff. Batson v. Shifl&tt$ 49: Md. 85/$ <44 (1779). Further$ Mar#land la%
reMuires that the Plaintiff must also demonstrate that his emotional distress has a ph#si"al manifestation.
s the Mar#land Court of ppeals affirmed ?ust last #ear$ IPaQ plaintiff must prove$ ho%ever$ a U"learl#
apparent and su!stantial ph#si"al in?ur#’ in one of four %a#sD (1) an e=ternal "onditionJ or (9) s#mptoms
of a resulting pathologi"alJ (4) ph#siologi"alJ or (/) mental state.K E//on Mobil "or#. v. Albri-ht$ /44
Md. 4;4$ <1 .4d 4;$ 84 (9;14). 'he reMuirement of su"h a sho%ing of ph#si"al manifestation is a
guard against falsehoods$ allo%ing some o!?e"tive measure of the person’s mental state. 'he instant
Plaintiff has not made an# non@"on"lusor# allegation that he has felt an, emotional distress and has
made no allegations at all of a ph#si"al manifestation of su"h distress. s a result$ his "laim to have
suffered .ntentional .nfli"tion of Emotional 0istress fails.
:9
Mr. Walker is %orking %ith Mr. ,oge to furnish this "ourt %ith an offi"ial trans"ript. Mr. ,oge has
also atta"hed "ertified "opies of relevant portions of the Plaintiff’s most re"ent "omplaint and the order
granting summar# ?udgment as E=hi!its ( and C to his latest motion to dismiss. S&& I0efendant ,oge’s
Motion to 0ismiss Plaintiff’s &e"ond mended CompliantK (ECF No. FFFFF) (no ECF num!er has !een
assigned to this do"ument as of this %riting).
/:
dditionall#$ he has failed to allege e=treme and outrageous "ondu"t. 'he Plaintiff onl# alleges
t%o a"tions that "ould have pro=imatel#Nlegall#N"aused the Plaintiff harm and %as "arried out !# an#
of the 0efendantsD defamation in the form of alleged impli"ations of &W'ting and the alleged assault.
'he "laim that the Plaintiff re"eived threats of death and in?ur# "annot !e "onsidered !e"ause he has not
alleged that an# of 0efendants are the legal "ause of su"h threats. S&&, &.-. Brand&nb)r-$ 47: +.&. at
//< (1787) (esta!lishing the legal standard for in"itement). )ike%ise$ allegations that 0efendants have
"alled for him to !e sent !a"k to prison againN%hi"h are onl# supported !# "on"lusor# allegations$
an#%a#N%ould not amount to an#thing more than petitioning the government for a redress of
grievan"es$ %hi"h is prote"ted !# the First mendment. s noted earlier$ an# "laim that Mr. Walker
assaulted the Plaintiff is !arred !# "ollateral estoppel.
Even then$ the alleged defamation and alleged assault does not meet the standards for Ie=treme
and outrageous "ondu"t.K s the "ourt e=plained in 2arris v. 6on&s, 951 Md. :8;$ :<1 (17<<)D
.t is onl# %here it is e=treme that the lia!ilit# arises. Complete emotional tranMuilit# is
seldom attaina!le in this %orld$ and some degree of transient and trivial emotional
distress is a part of the pri"e of living among people. 'he la% intervenes onl# %here the
distress infli"ted is so severe that no reasona!le man "ould !e e=pe"ted to endure it.
What %e have is ver# ordinar, allegations of defamation and assault. nd as noted in 2arris$
'he personalit# of the individual to %hom the mis"ondu"t is dire"ted is also a fa"tor.
'here is a differen"e !et%een violent and vile profanit# addressed to a lad#$ and the same
language to a (utte miner and a +nited &tates marine.
Id. at :85 (internal Muotation marks omitted). ,ere the alleged "ondu"t is dire"ted at a hardened
"riminal$ I'he &peed%a# (om!er$K %hose o%n "ondu"t has "aused a man to lose his life. 'he idea that
he is a deli"ate flo%er %ho "annot stand to see people sa# !ad things a!out him on the internet is not
supported !# an#thing %ritten in his "omplaintNor !# simple logi".
Finall#$ the Plaintiff doesn’t make an# non@"on"lusor# allegations esta!lishing pro=imate
/8
"ausation of his non@distress. For all of these reasons$ this "laim should !e dismissed %ith pre?udi"e.
:. Plaintiff’s Claim for Civil Conspira"# Must Fail (e"ause .t is Not an .ndependent 'ort
and ,e ,as Not Pled n# of the Elements of Conspira"#.
First$ under Mar#land la% there is no independent tort of "ivil "onspira"#. All&co Inc. v. 2arr,
3 6&an&tt& 0&inb&r- !o)ndation, Inc.$ 4/; Md. 1<8$ 171 (177/). .t is onl# a method of aggregating
responsi!ilit# for torts. s stated in "arr v. 0at'ins, IPtQhe a"t done must !e one %hi"h if done !# one
alone %ould !e unla%ful$K 99< Md. :<5$ :55 (1789). ,aving failed to properl# allege an# state la% tort$
the Plaintiff has like%ise failed to allege an# "onspira"# to "ommit an# tort.
&e"ond$ as noted throughout this memorandum$ the Plaintiff has made no effort to a"tuall# allege
the elements needed to make out "onspira"#. ,e simpl# sa#s I"onspira"#$K and similar terms throughout
the &C. &u"h "on"lusor# allegations are not suffi"ient to atta"h "onspira"# lia!ilit#.
8. 'he Plaintiff &eriall# Fails to llege 'hat ,e Was 0amaged in -elation to ,is &tate )a%
Claims.
s noted !efore$ under Ibal, IPtQhread!are re"itals of the elements of a "ause of a"tion$
supported !# mere "on"lusor# statements$ do not suffi"eP$QK ::8 +.&. at 8<5. (ut repeatedl# %hen it
"omes to the Plaintiff’s allegation of damages$ that is all he has. Whether it is in &C OO994@99:
relating to defamation$ in O9:: in relation to false light$ in OO981 and 985 relating to interferen"e %ith
"ontra"t or !usiness relations$ and in O95; in relation to intentional infli"tion of emotional distress$ his
allegations that he %as damaged are stri"tl# #ro forma "on"lusor# allegations and re"itations of the
damage elements that are not entitled to a presumption of truth. &in"e damages are a ne"essar# element
of ea"h state@!ased "laim$ ea"h of these state@!ased "laims should !e dismissed %ith pre?udi"e for this
reason$ as %ell as for the reasons outlined previousl#.
/<
-I.
THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS ALL CLAIMS +ITH PRE!UDICE.
.n a ver# real %a#$ this "ourt has alread# impli"itl# de"ided that an# dismissal should !e granted
%ith pre?udi"e %hen it reiterated that Ino further amendment %ill !e permitted.K S&& )etter *rder$ >une
9/$ 9;1/ (ECF No. 144) p. 1. When determining %hether to dismiss a "laim %ith pre?udi"e$ I"ourts
appl# the same standard as if a motion for leave to amend PhadQ !een filed.K 4or&n Data "or#. v. G<S,
Inc., No. 1;@C3@4/</ (0. Md. ugust 4;$ 9;11). fter all$ %hat is the point in telling the Plaintiff he
"annot amend the "omplaint if he "an ?ust re@file the same suit after dismissal %ith an altered "omplaintT
Further$ ?ust as leave to amend should !e denied %hen a Plaintiff has demonstrated !ad faith$
4ab&r v. 2arv&,$ /45 F. 4d /;/$ /98 (/th Cir. 9;;8)$ a motion to dismiss %ith pre?udi"e should !e
granted on the same grounds$ 180S, Inc. v. Gordini USA, Inc.$ 8;9 F. &upp. 9d 84:$ 847 (0. Md. 9;;7).
Not onl# has this "ourt previousl# found this same Plaintiff to have a"ted in !ad faith$
:4
!ut Mr. Walker
and others have "ontinuousl# demonstrated the Plaintiff’s !ad faithD forging a summons to '%it"h# (ECF
No. 1;9)$ altering "ertified mail green "ards (ECF No 19/)$ misrepresenting the %ords of the
0efendants$ misrepresenting the "ontents of his e=hi!its$ misrepresenting the rulings of other "ourts$
misrepresenting his o%n "riminal re"ord (ECF No. :/)$ and attempting to appeal to his "ourt through
disa!ilit# !igotr# (ECF No. <1)$ to name !ut a fe% e=amples. .ndeed$ Mr. Walker !elieves that the
Plaintiff’s "ondu"t merits san"tions and %ill !e seeking them in the future. ""ordingl#$ an# dismissal
should !e granted %ith pre?udi"e.
CONCLUSION
'he Plaintiff has failed to properl# allege an# "laim upon %hi"h relief "ould !e granted. 'he
Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of 15 +.&.C. 61789(") having failed to properl# allege that an
:4
S&& D&+alt$ 19 F. &upp. 9d at /7/$ /7: (0. Md 1775).
/5
enterprise e=isted$ that there %as a pattern of ra"keteering a"tivit# or that he %as in?ured in his !usiness
and propert# !# su"h a"tivit#. ,e has not even properl# alleged a single predi"ate a"t under 61781(1).
Moreover$ the Plaintiff has made nothing !ut the most "on"lusor# attempt to allege a violation of
61789(d) and the Plaintiff has not properl# alleged that 0efendant Fre# has violated /9 +.&.C. 61754.
Mean%hile$ the Plaintiff has not alleged a single violation of /9 +.&.C. 6175:(9) or (4)$ alternatel#
failing to allege appropriate invidiousl# dis"riminator# animus or a relationship to an# federal
pro"eeding$ meriting dismissal of the last of the Plaintiff’s "laims under federal la% %ith pre?udi"e.
With the Plaintiff having failed to properl# allege a single violation of federal la%$ this "ourt no
longer has supplemental ?urisdi"tion over the state la% "laims$ and "an dismiss them for this reason.
dditionall#$ the Plaintiff has failed to state a "ause of a"tion for an# of the state la% "laims.
.n "on"lusion$ all federal "auses of a"tion should !e dismissed$ %ith pre?udi"e$ for failing to state
a "laim for %hi"h relief "an !e granted. Mean%hile$ the state "laims should also !e dismissed for failing
to state a "laim for %hi"h relief "an !e granted or for %ant of ?urisdi"tion. .n either "ase$ all state la%
"laims should !e dismissed %ith pre?udi"e$ and all other relief that is appropriate should !e granted to
0efendant Walker. Finall#$ in the name of ?udi"ial e"onom#$ su"h dismissals should !e granted to all
0efendants$ !e"ause ea"h of these arguments appl# %ith eMual or greater for"e to them.
/7
'uesda#$ >ul# 1:$ 9;1/ -espe"tfull# su!mitted$

aron >. Walker$ EsM.
3a (arZ /5559
Preda"tedQ
Preda"tedQ
Preda"tedQ
aron>W<9[gmail."om
:;