You are on page 1of 6


Gmail - FW: Kimberlin v. Allen

FW: Kimberlin v. Allen

Beth Kingsley < To: "A.W." <>

Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

From: Justice Through Music [mailto: Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 12:10 PM To: Beth Kingsley; Rebecca _ _ Subject: FW: Killberlil v. Alen

Dear Beth: Nice chatting with you. Please do not send this email to Mr. Worthing because he will post it on the Internet as he did with my legal communications to him. I also want to mention another possible conflict of interest other than your representation of ACORN. As noted, my organizations and my business partner Brad Friedman have been very involved with the ACORN issue, putting up rewards when their offices were attacked, urging accountability for James O'Keefe et al for their illegal wiretapping of ACORN employees, having Bertha on Brad Friedman's radio program, writing dozens of articles about the destruction of ACORN, and working with members of Congress and the California Attorney General's office to get to the truth about the attacks on ACORN. Mr. Worthing has been part of that attack machine, blogging for right wing ACORN hater Patrick Frey. In fact, it was Brad Friedman's expose of that cabal with regard to ACORN which caused this attack machine to first target him, and then me. In addition to this, Velvet Revolution, an organization which I am involved, has a campaign called which exposes excesses of the Chamber of Commerce. We have worked with Chamber Watch, a client of your partner Gail Harmon, and I have talked with Gail about the Chamber and its IRS issues. We in fact are presently working with the FBI in an investigation of the Chamber and prepared a White Paper for the Bureau which includes as an exhibit the filing that Gail and Cyrus Mehri prepared. One of our Board Members also has a connection to Ms. Harmon, I believe through Friends of the Earth. I will be happy to proVide her name to you as well as the White Paper if you need them to make your conflict of interest determination. The Chamber of Commerce hired military intelligence contractors to attack our



Gmail - FW: Kimberlin v. Allen

group, Chamber Watch, and me personally as part of a six million dollar campaign of destruction. See Although Team Themis was exposed, the Chamber continues to fund operations against us and me, and Mr. Worthing is part of the cabal that the Chamber uses for its nefarious purposes along with others such as those cc'd on the death threat email from Mr. Allen to Mr. Worthing. We are presently in consultation with counsel about filing a lawsuit against the Chamber et al for the Team Themis campaign of destruction, and there is a very real possibility that Mr. Worthing will be named a defendant in that action, which will most likely be filed in federal court. Finally, I want to memorialize my concern about Mr. Worthing's violations of the Rules of Professional Responsibility and the possibility that this may impact you if a Court or Bar finds that you somehow contributed to this unprofessional conduct. Mr. Worthing entered into an attorney client relationship with Seth Allen using a false name, and is trying this case on the blogs, attacking me personally and as a party, and now threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, being a lawyer and a witness, using his blog to embarrass me, and making false statements about me. See relevant rules below. I believe that any Court or Bar faced with a complaint detailing the actions of Mr. Worthing trying this case in the press with vile attacks on me, will find that his conduct violates the Rules. I subpoenaed Mr. Worthing in a civil matter and was attacked mercilessly on his blog, and in his tweets. He has called me a murder suspect, a terrorist, a perjurer, and urged others to attack me. He has called me out personally on his blog, urged readers to get the popcorn because he was going to destroy me and it will be fun to watch. This is not conduct that is allowed by an attorney. A blogger who did this could face a defamation suit, but Mr. Worthing is representing himself as an attorney who he says had an attorney client relationship with a party to this lawsuit. Therefore, he is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. I will be seeking sanctions against him for violating the Rules now that he has given the Court jurisdiction over him by filing his motion. My dilemma now is whether you too have violated the Rules by acting in a supervisory capacity to him. As you know, Rules 5.1 and 5.2 specifically require both supervisory and subordinate attorneys comply with the Rules. I urge you to discuss these matters with others in your firm and get back to me no later than Tuesday, January 3rd as to the conflict of interests and the Rules violations so I can decide how to proceed with my sanctions motion. Beth, as noted in our call, I am a reasonable person and I did not ask for this fight and I don't even blog. I want to be left alone. That's what Judge Jordan told Seth Allen to do, but he refused to comply with that order or the permanent injunction. Mr. Worthing has egged him on and advised him to violate the order. Now Mr. Worthing is arguing frivolously that the injunction is tainted because I am a felon. He is urging criminal prosecution of me for what he frivolously argues is perjury. He chose this fight and he will have to answer to the Court and the Bar for his conduct. Maybe he has a First Amendment right to blog anonymously, but he does not have a First Amendment right to violate the Rules. And I don't believe that any Court or Ba r will allow Mr. Worthing to remain anonymous after violating the Rules so blatantly. I am a victim of stalking. I have a final Peace Order issued by a judge against Mr. Allen for stalking and death threats. I have a permanent injunction against Mr. Allen prohibiting him from defaming



Gmail - FW: Kimberlin v. Allen

open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

(d) in pretrial procedure make frivolous discovery requests or fail to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests by an opposing party;

(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a Witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the gUilt or innocence of an accused; or

(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:


(1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and

(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.

(g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in a civil matter.

Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal < ethics/md/code/MD CODE.HTM#tribunal> (a) A lawyer shall not: (1) seek to influence a judge, prospective, qualified, or sworn juror, or other official by means prohibited by law; (2) before the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate outside the course of official proceedings with anyone known to the lawyer to be on the jury list fo r trial 0 f the case; (3) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate outside the course of official proceedings with any member of the jury; (4) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is not connected, communicate outside the course of official proceedings with any member of the jury about the case; (5) after discharge of ajury from further consideration of a case with which the lawyer is connected, ask questions of or make comments to ajury member that are calculated to harass or embarrass the jury member or to influence the jury member's actions in future jury service; (6) conduct a vexatious or harassing investigation of any prospective, qualified, or sworn juror; (7) communicate ex parte about an adversary proceeding with the judge or other official before whom the proceeding is pending, except as permitted by law; (8) discuss with ajudge potential employment of the judge if the lawyer or a firm <> with which the lawyer is associated has a matter that is pending before the judge; or (9) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal < ethics/md Icode IMD CODE.HTM#tribunal> . (b) A lawyer who has knowledge of any violation of paragraph (a) of this Rule, any
https:/ 4/7


Gmail - FW: Kimberlin v. Allen

improper conduct by a prospective, qualified, or sworn juror or any improper conduct by another towards prospective, qualified, or sworn juror, shall report it promptly to the court or other appropriate authority.

RPC 3.6. Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or
litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:


(1) the claim, offense, or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

o o
o o o

(2) the information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of the matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling

o o

r result of any step in Iitigatio n;


(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto; (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and (7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):

(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;

(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and

the length of the investigatio n.

(e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer1s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.



Gmail - FW Kimberlin v. Allen

Note: Adopted July 12, 1984, to be effective September 10, 1984; paragraph (b)(l) amended October 1, 1992, to be effective immediately; paragraph (a) amended, paragraph (b) deleted and restated in Official Comment, paragraph (e) amended and redesignated as paragraph (b), and new paragraph (e) adopted November 17, 2003 to be effective January 1, 2004.

Official Comment by Supreme Court

A statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jUry, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration, and the statement relates to:
(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness other than the victim of a crime, or the expected testimony of a party or Witness;

(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of gUilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;

(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the gUilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration;

(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or

(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is
included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

RPC 3.7. Lawyer as Witness

(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be
a necessary witness unless:


(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;


(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; 0 r (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the
lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by comlmaiV?ui=2&ik=4ccS7a020C&view=pt&q=bkingsley"k40harmoncurran. com&qs=tr...


Gmail - FW Kimberlin v. Allen

RPC 1.7 or RPC 1.9. RPC 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others

(a) In representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:


o o o

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client.

(b) The duties stated in this Rule apply even if compliance requires disclosure of
information otherwise protected by RPC 1.6. RPC 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no
substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

(b) A lawyer who receives a document and has reasonable cause to believe that the document was inadvertently sent shall not read the document or, if he or she has begun to do so, shall stop reading the document, promptly notify the sender, and return the document to the sender.

------ End of Forwarded Message ------ End of Forwarded Message

Socrates Final Peaace Order.pdf 49K