You are on page 1of 6




Case No. 403868V





My name is Aaron J. Walker, Esq. and I make these statements based upon my

own personal knowledge. I am an attorney in good standing in Virginia and the District of
Columbia, currently self-employed. I am over 18 years of age, and if called to do so, I am
competent to testify that the contents of this affidavit are accurate and true.

In 2011, I wrote a number of pieces for former defendant Breitbarts websites,

unrelated to this current controversy. I was not paid to do this: my only compensation was being
able to be heard by a wider audience than usual. Accordingly, I know about the workings and the
general policies of the website.
Underneath it all, the site is essentially a blog, not very different from the one I
run on my own, Allergic to Bull ( However, the major
difference is this. When I write a piece for my own private blog, if I decide to revise it for any
reason, I simply open up the editing screen, make the appropriate changes, and then press the

update button. If I wish to delete something, it is a simple matter of pressing a few buttons. I
can change whatever Ive written at will.
On the other hand, if one wishes to edit or delete a piece at, as a
preliminary matter one can only even attempt to do so if 1) she is the author or 2) she is given
administrative privileges over the website. Only the top editors of each relevant section (i.e.
Big Government, Big Politics or Breitbart Texas) are granted administrative privileges. If
one is not an administrator, but rather the author of the piece, one could open it and either
suggest changes or suggest deletion, but no changes or deletions go through unless approved of
by the site administrators.
Mandy Nagy has been a good friend of mine throughout this ordeal, dealing with
the Plaintiffs repeated false criminal charges, false peace orders and false civil suits. Upon
information and belief, she has never held a position that would grant her administrative
privileges over any part of the Breitbart website. Further, on information and belief, she had
stopped working for Breitbart before her stroke and was working for another site called Legal
Insurrection ( Therefore, I do not believe that she can remove
content from the Breitbart website even if she were inclined to do so.
In the First Amended Complaint (FAC), the Plaintiff accuses me of meeting
with William Hoge III (John Hoge) in May of 2012, passing along unspecified false
information. FAC 48. I did not meet him for the first time until about two months later.
John is a good friend today, but at the time I first encountered Mr. Kimberlin, I
had never heard of John. I did not run across him in ordinary life. He lives in Westminster,
Maryland, and I live in Manassas, Virginia.. According to Google maps it takes an hour and
forty-four minutes to drive from my house to his without traffic which is consistent with my
experience. Likewise, I dont recall even seeing his website or Twitter address before this
controversy with the Plaintiff began.


The reason why I specifically remember meeting John on July 5, 2012, was

because it was the date of a second appeal of a peace order petition sought by the instant
Plaintiff. He previously obtained a flagrantly unconstitutional peace order against me on May
29, 2012. At the final Peace Order hearing, the Plaintiff advanced two theories of how I had
supposedly harassed him.
First, the Plaintiff claimed that if I used his name in a piece, it amounted to
contact as follows.

The Plaintiff explained that he had set up Google Alerts where he

instructed the web searching service Google to send him an email every time a person used his
name. Therefore, he argued, every time I mentioned his name in a piece on the Internet, Google
would detect it and send the Plaintiff an email, and, thus, I was somehow engaged in unwanted
contact. This theory was rejected by Judge Vaughey.
Second, the Plaintiff claimed that writing anything negative about him, however
peaceful, was automatically incitement to violence, and thus harassment. This was in spite of the
uncontested fact that my writing had never met a single prong of the test in Brandenburg v. Ohio,
395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969), which states that:
the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to
forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where
such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is
likely to incite or produce such action.
When I cited this binding Supreme Court precedent in Montgomery County District Court, Judge
Vaughey rejected Brandenburg by name, agreeing with the Plaintiff that merely writing negative
things about a person is incitement of violence and, thereby, harassment. Based on that flawed
logic, Judge Vaughey forbade me from writing about the Plaintiff for six months.
In addition, Mr. Kimberlin had filed a false application for criminal charges on the
morning of the Final Peace Order hearing, claiming that I had directed others to contact and

threaten him. I had done no such thing, and the Plaintiff had never alleged there was any
evidence that I had. Nonetheless, at the end of the hearing, I was arrested on those false charges.
The Plaintiff evidently did this to make an example out of me with the hope that
he would frighten others into silence about him. If that was his goal, he failed to recognize that
his thuggish conduct actually made people pay more attention because they were alarmed at the
breach of the right of freedom of expression. I witnessed many people writing with alarm at that
threat to freedom of expression being entertained in Marylands courts. I even saw news
programs from as far away as Canada, discussing with alarm this breach of freedom of

Of course, I appealed that decision to this Court. Kimberlin v. Walker (II), No.

8526D (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2012). The appeal was set for July 5, 2012, and I found that date
to be insulting: I would have had to go through Independence Day without my freedom of
expression restored. So I also filed (by counsel) a motion to modify or stay the Peace Order
restoring my right to write peaceably about the Plaintiff. On June 25, 2012, Judge Rupp granted
the motion and modified the Peace Order so that I could discuss the Plaintiff, so long as I didnt
threaten him or incite violence against himciting Brandenburg by name.
That evening, as I was writing about the days events, I was SWATted. While I do
not believe Mr. Kimberlin personally made the SWATting call, I believe that it was done at his
command, out of anger at seeing my freedom of expression restored. Certainly, the principle of
Occams Razor would suggest that the person who decided I should be SWATted that day
decided it should happen in order to retaliate against me for my victory in court. However, just
as my unlawful arrest drew more attention to Brett Kimberlin, so did my SWATting.
Therefore, the hearing was a matter of some media attention, including David
Hogberg of Investors Business Daily was in attendance. This was also the first time I met John
Hoge, or had any communication with him at all. I do not remember our conversation in detail,

but I do remember that he represented that he was interested in the story because he is a great
believer in the First Amendment and because the hearing was happening in his proverbial
backyard. He offered to take me to lunch when the hearing concluded.
At the hearing itself, Judge Rupp ended up dismissing the petition at the end of
the Plaintiffs presentation without it being necessary to offer any evidence in my defense.
Afterward, Mr. Hoge and I went to lunch and subsequently remained in contact.
Today, he is one of my best friendssecond only to my wifein part because he chose to be my
friend at a time when others were scared to be associated with me. I hold no grudges against
those who didnt stand by methey were quite reasonably frightened of this convicted bomber
but I admire those who did stand by me that much more. In any case, I never met or
communicated with Mr. Hoge before July 5, 2012.

In the FAC, as with the Complaint and numerous other court documents, the

Plaintiff claims that I have written that his daughter ought to be targeted under the principle of
the corruption of the blood. FAC 151. This is not only false, but the exact opposite of what I
did say.

The first time I discussed the concept of the corruption of blood in relation to his

family was to reject the concept of collective guilt. This is what I wrote:
For me, one of the great underappreciated clauses of our Constitution is in the
Treason clause. It says: but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. The second
part of that is fairly easy to understand, but what about the first[?] What the hell
do they mean by the corruption of the blood?
Well, the answer is they are saying you cannot punish the family of a traitor as
though they were traitors, too. It is a talisman of what makes this country great.
Fundamentally we dont care who your ancestors were. They could have been
kings, they could have been beggars. They could have been heroes and they
could have been terrorists. We dont care. Because you are judged as you.

So not knowing this girl, she enjoys the presumption of innocence that belongs to
all strangers. Given the way Brett Kimberlin lies about everything, I have no
reason to think he is telling her the truth about what is going on and therefore I
have no reason to think she approves of what is actually happening here. If she
knew the truth she would know that her father has been working for years to
suppress the truth about his illegal and immoral conduct, and his criminal and
immoral conduct, combined with his attempt to silence his critics, has brought all
this attention on this family.
But allegedly a few people have harassed her online, on her facebook and the like.
There is always concern, of course, that Brett or his allies might be faking a lot of
that behavior. But regardless, if any person draws any negative conclusion about
her based on her father, they are not being charitable enough. They are forgetting
that even when we are talking about Benedict Arnold, we do not hold the child
responsible for the conduct of the father.
The only other times I have discussed the doctrine of the corruption of blood has been either to
essentially repeat that same sentiment or to point out that the Plaintiff has lied about what I said
(he has told this lie a lot).
I, Aaron J. Walker, Esq. solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents
of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that all
exhibits attached are true and correct copies of the originals.