You are on page 1of 5

MARYLAND

:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Aaron Walker,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 398855-V

Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants

MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANTS’ SEALED, EX PARTE MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
PROTECTION ORDER (DKT. NO. 25) AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY MR. KIMBERLIN SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED
NOW COMES, the Plaintiff, Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Motion to Strike the
Defendants’ Sealed, Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction
and Protection Order and Motion to Show Cause Why Mr. Kimberlin Should Not be Sanctioned
and states the following:
1. According to the Maryland Judiciary Case Search’s electronic docket, on or about July 21, 2015,
the Defendants filed a “Sealed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction
and Protection Order.”
2. There is no record of a motion to seal being filed by either Defendant or granted by this Court.
Most likely, Mr. Kimberlin simply demanded that it be sealed and the Clerk’s Office placed it
under seal. Upon information and belief, he has done so in the past.
3. As of this writing on July 25, 2015, Mr. Walker has not received service of process for this
motion.
4. This is not the first time Mr. Kimberlin has failed to serve documents upon Mr. Walker. In the
current case of Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), No. 403868V (Md. Mont. Co.

Cir. Ct. 2016), Mr. Walker filed a motion to strike based on lack of service (Dkt. No. 9). Mr.
Walker incorporates the entirety of that filing by reference.1
5. Unlike the last time Mr. Walker wasn’t served by Mr. or Mrs. Kimberlin, this Motion is presently
under seal. For this reason, Mr. Walker does not believe he will be able to obtain a copy from the
Clerk, even if he provides photographic identification proving he is the Plaintiff.
6. Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion is effectively an improper attempt to obtain ex parte relief
from this Court. Mr. Walker has no idea what the Defendants have asked of this Court or what
possible grounds there are for their request. Since they have not filed a Motion to Seal (as is the
appropriate procedure), Mr. Walker does not even know why they think they are entitled to such
an ex parte communication. They have effectively robbed Mr. Walker of both notice and any
effective opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (“the
necessity of due notice and an opportunity of being heard is described as among the immutable
principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the
Union may disregard”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
7. This is not the first time Mr. Kimberlin has attempted to file a sealed motion, without filing a
motion to seal and without serving a copy on Mr. Walker and other opposing parties . In the
federal case of Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), No. GJH-13-3059 (D. Md., March
17, 2013), Mr. Kimberlin improperly filed a letter requesting permission 2 to seek a preliminary
injunction against several people—including Mr. Walker—and filed it under seal without moving
for it to be placed under seal. He then steadfastly refused to serve Mr. Walker and other pro se
defendants. When another attorney in the case, Paul Allen Levy, objected to this conduct, Mr.
Kimberlin responded with “vulgarity that I [Levy] prefer not to place in the public record.” The
majority of that story is detailed in Exhibit A.
1 An unsigned copy of this filing, sans exhibits, is attached to this motion as Exhibit A for this
Court’s convenience.
2 That court had imposed a case management order, stating that no party could file many types of
motions without pre-clearance from the court. Mr. Kimberlin violated that order repeatedly.
2

8. In that case Judge Hazel summarily unsealed Mr. Kimberlin’s letter, 3 and this Court could
reasonably follow suit and grant other relief appropriate in this case, see infra ¶11. However, Mr.
Walker respectfully disagrees with Judge Hazel’s decision. In that case it seemed that Mr.
Kimberlin was attempting to save Tetyana’s teenage daughter, from embarrassment. 4 As a result,
the only person who might have suffered any consequences due to Mr. Kimberlin’s misconduct,
was that teenager.
9. While Mr. Walker believes Mr. Kimberlin should suffer consequences because of the
Defendants’ attempt to improperly engage in ex parte communication with this Court, he does
not believe any third party should suffer as a result.

Indeed, Article 27 of the Maryland

Declaration of Rights states that “no conviction shall work corruption of blood,” a talisman of
the American legal and moral norm that we do not punish children for the conduct of their
parents. See also U.S. CONST. Art. III, §3, ¶2 (“no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood.”)
10. Accordingly, Mr. Walker believes that the fairest outcome for all involved—including third
parties who might be embarrassed by whatever is contained in that sealed motion—is to strike
the motion in its entirety and return it to the Defendants. Then the Defendants can choose among
three options: 1) to re-file it in edited form, 2) to re-file it with a motion to seal any specific
exhibits containing sensitive information, or 3) not to re-file it at all. If a motion to strike is
granted, Mr. Walker also moves that the docket and record reflect that the Defendants have made
an appearance in this case on July 21, 2015.
11. Alternatively, if this Court does not strike the Defendants’ Motion, then Mr. Walker moves that
this Court unseal the Defendants’ Motion and order the clerk to mail a copy to Mr. Walker.

3 A copy of the letter, as downloaded from PACER, is attached as Exhibit B.
4 For his part, Mr. Kimberlin has never made any attempt to justify his conduct. But, given the
circumstances, it seems to be the thing most likely to have triggered this conduct.
3

Under those circumstances, Mr. Walker should be given the ordinary time to respond under the
Maryland Rules commensurate with the late date of service.
12. Finally, Mr. Walker moves for an Order to Show Cause (under this Court’s inherent authority to
manage its docket, under Station Maint. Solutions, Inc. v. Two Farms, Inc., 209 Md.App. 464, 60
A.3d 72, 86 (2013)) requiring Mr. Kimberlin to show why he should not be sanctioned for his
chronic and willful failure to provide service of process. Mr. Walker believes this misconduct is
driven entirely by Mr. Kimberlin and does not seek sanctions against Mrs. Kimberlin at this
time.5

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Defendant Walker respectfully requests that the
Defendants’ Motion be stricken and returned to them; and that the docket and record reflect that
the Defendants have made an appearance in this case on July 21, 2015. In the alternative, Mr.
Walker requests that their motion be unsealed, that the Clerk of the Court be commanded to mail
a copy of the Motion and all Exhibits thereto to Mr. Walker and that Mr. Walker be granted
additional time to respond commensurate with the late date of actual service. Finally, Mr. Walker
moves for an Order to Show Cause requiring Mr. Kimberlin to explain why he should not be
sanctioned for this conduct.

5 It is also significant to Mr. Walker that Mrs. Kimberlin has not, to Mr. Walker’s knowledge,
engaged in similar conduct in the past, in sharp contrast to her husband.
4

Monday, July 27, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
Va Bar# 48882
[redacted]
Manassas, Virginia 20108
AaronJW72@gmail.com
[redacted]
(no fax)

5