The Honorable George J. HazelU.S. District Court for the District of Maryland6500 Cherrywood LaneGreenbelt, Maryland 20770Monday, July 28, 2014

• FILED _ 

 ENTERED

-~. - LOGtlli'O--REOEIVIiD

JUl S

82014

OLE Ai

 ~RSENBiI~

'r 

BY

 DI~~l:tVC~

8~~~RJLi~gRi

DEPUTY

Re: Brett Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. GJH-I3-3059; In Re Plaintiff's Request toFile Motion for Preliminary Injunction of July 22, 2014 (no ECF designation)Dear Judge Hazel:I write in opposition to the Plaintiff's sealed request to file a motion for a preliminary injunction.In one phrase, the Plaintiff reveals this entire lawsuit for the grubby attempt to suppress freedom of expression that it really is. He writes in his Request that this Court should engage in prior restraint because "Defendant(s] Walker and Hoge" called him "a terrorist, forger, peJjurer, pedophile and other invectives. "This Court surely knows by now that the first three statements are proven facts. For instance, there can be little denying that he is a terrorist. Here's how the Sixth Circuit described the same Brett Kimberlin:Kimberlin was convicted as the so-called "Speedway Bomber," who terrorized the city of Speedway, Indiana, by detonating a series of explosives in early September 1978. In theworst incident, Kimberlin placed one of his bombs in a gym bag, and left it in a parkinglot outside Speedway High School. Carl Delong was leaving the high school footballgame with his wife when he attempted to pick up the bag and it exploded. The blast toreoff his lower right leg and two fingers, and embedded bomb fragments in his wife's leg.He was hospitalized for six weeks, during which he was forced to undergo nineoperations to complete the amputation of his leg, reattach two fingers, repair damage tohis inner ear, and remove bomb fragments from his stomach, chest, and arm. In February1983, he committed suicide.

 Kimberlin

 v.

 While,

 7 F. 3d 527, 528-29 (6

th

Cir. 1993). The claim he is a peJjurer is equally backed up by citation to court cases.

 This Court 

 called him a peJjurer.

 Kimberlin

 v.

 Dewalt,

 12 F. Supp. 2d 487,490 n.6 (D. Md 1998). And the Plaintiff is not only convicted of crimes related to document forgery,

U.S.

 v.

 Kimberlin,

 805 F. 2d 210, 228 (7th Cir. 1986), but he has admitted to document forgery in twodifferent cases (see ECF Nos. 102 and 124) and has just been caught altering documents in a third case

(see generally

 Defendants' Joint Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default, ECF No. 19 in

 Kimberlin

v.

 Thomas and Malone,

 Case No. 13-eV-02580 (D. Md 2013).As for the claim Mr. Hoge or I called him a pedophile, that does not even belong in this Court. As Ihave pointed out before, Mr. Kimberlin has a second case where Mr. Hoge and I are among thedefendants dealing with the question of whether it is actionable defamation/false light to call Mr.

 

!"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 (9- :;<$= -9>?&>(@ A"B$ ( 4C &

 

Kimberlin a pedophile. In fact, Mr. Kimberlin is already seeking the same relief in that case, and thereis a hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction on August 7, 2014. That hearing will alsodetermine whether summary judgment is appropriate in the Defendants' favor given that Mr. Kimberlinhas presented no evidence the statement is false. In other words, the result of that hearing might be adetermination, binding to this Court, that it is not defamation to call Mr. Kimberlin a pedophile. So he is basically asking for two bites at the apple: asking for two courts to grant a prior restraint to silence thesame expression at the same time, in the hopes that some court,

 any court,

 would be willing to silenceus. The issue of whether it is even false to call him a pedophile does not belong in this Court.Even if the question was before this court, there is a strong case that the claim is true. For instance, Mr.Kimberlin has confessed in at least one forum that he is a pedophile, at least in orientation. In his career as a rock and roll singer, Mr. Kimberlin has written two songs about having sex with underage girls andeven declared in an interview that he desired to do so. See Exhibit A. Apparently the truth is Mr.Kimberlin doesn't mind people thinking he has this orientation, as long as you don't say it is a bad thing.Mr. Kimberlin is not likely to win on the merits. Even if the facts were on his side, the law is not. Asthe Supreme Court warned in

 Carroll 

 v.

 Princess Anne,

 "prior restraints of expression come[] to thisCourt bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." 393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Further, the Supreme Court has specifically said thedesire to prevent defamatory accusations and vigilante violence was not sufficient to justifY a prior restraint.!

 Near 

 v.

 Minnesota ex reI. Olson,

 283 U.S. 697,722 (1931). As the

 Near 

 court declared:There is nothing new in the fact that charges of reprehensible conduct may createresentment and the disposition to resort to violent means of redress, but this well-understood tendency did not alter the determination to protect the press againstcensorship and restraint upon publication.

 Id.

 This Request is therefore frivolous,2 it is a waste of time, and it should he denied.Respectfully,

 /bdt;!lik 

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.7537 Remington RoadManassas, Virginia 20I09(703) 216-0455AaronJWI972@gmail.com!Mr. Kimberlin's claim that any Defendant has targeted or "bullied" his family is false and, since theyare not a party to this case, irrelevant.

2

 Mr. Kimberlin's frivolous claim that publication on the internet violates this court's Case ManagementOrder (ECF No. 97), is disposed of in my letter responding to his request for a hearing for contempt(ECF No. 167), filed simultaneously with this letter.

--------_._-_.-

 ~,~_._-----"-,-----

 _.

 __ 

..

 _----------------------

 

!"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 (9- :;<$= -9>?&>(@ A"B$ ? 4C &

 

EXHIBIT

 A:

MUSIC REVIEW INCLUDING INTERVIEW WITHBRETT KIMBERLIN

 

!"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 (9- :;<$= -9>?&>(@ A"B$ ) 4C &