You are on page 1of 24


------------------------------x : KIMBERLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : ANONYMOUS CYBER STALKER, : et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------x

Civil No. 339254


Rockville, Maryland

January 9, 2012

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. 12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210 Germantown, MD 20874 (301) 881-3344


------------------------------x : KIMBERLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : ANONYMOUS CYBER STALKER, : et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------x

Civil No. 339254

Rockville, Maryland January 9, 2012

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled matter commenced BEFORE: THE HONORABLE NELSON W. RUPP, JR., JUDGE





Judge's Ruling


am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Allen. THE COURT: And you are? MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: I'm Brett Kimberlin. P R O C E E D I N G S Civil 339254, Kimberlin versus Seth

All right. My name is Aaron Walker. I am the

blogger known as Aaron Worthing.

And I have an emergency

motion against Mr. Kimberlin for his gross misconduct in this case, and I'd like to be heard. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: I know it's unusual.

It's not here on your proceeding. I understand, Your Honor. So I'm not going to hear it. Your Honor, he filed an improper motion I had no notice until Saturday He has, in a blatant attempt to

before this Court on Friday. morning that he had done that.

stalk and oppress me, he has put -THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: saying anything. Hold it. Yes. Hold it.

I'm sorry.

First off, you don't have any right to be

And you don't have a right to be laughing.

There's a motion to withdraw as moot plaintiff's motion to compel seeking identity of Aaron Worthing. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Yes.

And then there's a, plaintiff's response And you're Mr. Worthing?

to Aaron Worthing's motion to quash.

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 today? MR. KIMBERLIN: MR. WALKER: Well, I'm Aaron Walker, and I blog as

Mr. Worthing, that's correct. THE COURT: Are you requiring that he come to court

Judge, initially I, he's an anonymous

blogger who's been involved with the stalker. THE COURT: But why are you, why is he here? And so, I didn't ask him to be here.


He just foisted himself on this hearing. THE COURT: Well, he says he's been summonsed. No.


Well, no, no, no. He wasn't summonsed.


If I may explain, Your Honor. All right. He did actually initially ask me to If he's

testify today in his initial correspondence with me.

not interested in my testimony today, then I would ask why he has subpoenaed this Court in order to obtain my identity. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: I withdrew that.

It's been withdrawn. Yes. But I understand, but why did he

do that in the first place? THE COURT: says it's withdrawn. Well, it's been withdrawn, so it's, he It's moot.

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 effect. MR. WALKER: But this is a public document. MR. WALKER: But Your Honor, if you look at what he

has filed today, all he had to do in order to file that motion was to tell the Court that he obtained my information. not have to even say my name. He did

Instead, in this public document

now, he has put my name, he has put my home address, he has put my birth date, he has put the high school I went to. the fact that I dropped out of high school in this. fact that I received a GED. University of North Texas. He put He put the

He put the fact that I went to the He went and put in the fact that I He put in the fact

sued the law school admissions council.

that I was admitted to Yale Law School and graduated in the class of 2002. He put down my current job with my current

employer and their address as well. His intent in doing this was so that it becomes a public record so that him and his friends can put this out into the public so they can stalk and harass me. face of this. It is plain on the

And I would ask Your Honor to swear him in and

ask why he put all this unnecessary information in this, in this filing. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: withdraw itself. THE COURT: Well, it's done. It's no longer in Well, it's been withdrawn as moot. Well, I'm talking about the motion to

And his

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But he -THE COURT: So why is he even a part of this case? He did it anonymously. this case. MR. KIMBERLIN: No, there's no order against him. Kimberlin? MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Judge, this -like -THE COURT: Any objection to sealing it, Mr. friends will then take this public document, his motion to withdraw as moved, and they will put it out, and then put out all of my information. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Are you asking that this be sealed? I would like this to be sealed.

I would

Say yes or no. Yes, I object.



Why? Why should all of this be a

Yes, why.

matter of public record? MR. KIMBERLIN: This man has engaged in stalking with

the defendant in this case. THE COURT: Well, there's no order against him in


Initially, I

wanted to call him as a witness.

And then when I filed the

motions to call him as a witness, he began trying the case in,

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on his blog. blog. He filed every, he posted every motion on his

And he kept accusing me of all kinds of terrible things And he ridiculed me. He taunted me. He

on his blog. threatened me.

He had people posting on his blog that I was a

terrorist and a pedophile and all this other stuff. And he engaged in unethical behavior. He said that

he represented the defendant in this case as an anonymous person. He can't, a lawyer cannot represent someone as an He asked to be identified. I mean, he went

anonymous person.

on his blog and said I am representing, I entered into an attorney-client privilege relationship with Seth Allen as Aaron Worthing. And he's not even a lawyer in this jurisdiction. He can't represent somebody as a fake I mean, that's -- and so he put He

lives in Virginia.

person, in a pseudonym.

himself out there to be identified. I mean, if he's a lawyer, fine. determine if he's a lawyer. I have a right to

He can't say that he's anonymous It just, it didn't make

and he's representing Seth Allen. sense. is.

And so I said, well, I need to find out who this guy

If he's saying he represents somebody in a case against And so I

me, then I need to be able to identify him. identified him.

And I didn't want him to come out and say --

the reason I put all that information in the document was because Mr. Worthing has called me a liar over and over and over. And I wanted to, everybody to know --

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 suspect. THE COURT: No. It was filed by Elizabeth -Kingsley. THE COURT: incredible to me. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: incredible. No. I know. It's really incredible. Why is this even in the court? This is

I mean, the whole thing is

I'm going to, there's a motion that was, to quash

that was filed on behalf of, it was filed originally by -MR. WALKER: If you're looking, it's Seth Allen, I


-- Kingsley. Yeah.


Oh, that would be the attorney who

represented me in the past. THE COURT: And she filed a motion to file

anonymously or to file under seal. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Right. And I'm going to

And she's filed that.

grant the request to file this anonymously or under seal. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Okay.

And I'll grant the request to seal the

information that's contained at Docket Entry 114, which is the motion to withdraw as moot. All right. MR. WALKER: Sir, that concludes your -Actually, I would like a little more

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. relief, if you don't mind me taking a moment. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: That's it. All right. All right. No. I'm done.


You're done.

Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Kimberlin, I received a

phone call, well, actually, my secretary received a phone call from Mr. Allen -MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Right.

-- with a 508 area code number -Right.


-- requesting that he be allowed to And he made representations that he I

participate by telephone.

had submitted written requests to participate by telephone. checked with the clerk's office. requests having been made. I don't see any written

But I've reviewed Docket Entry Nos. 99 and 100, which are your motions for contempt of court, against Mr. Allen. And

I have to tell you I'm a little puzzled as to what it is you're claiming that he's done that constitutes contempt of court. MR. KIMBERLIN: All right. I'll be happy to go into

Are we going to have Mr. Allen on the phone or -THE COURT: No. So I proceed. Okay.


I want to know why you think he should be

held in contempt of court. MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I have a memorandum. Can I

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 done? me. it, Judge. you. THE COURT: Just give me the bottom line. Okay. The -just walk you through it? THE COURT: looking at it -MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: No. I can tell you. Can I hand you a copy of it?


Well, if you can't tell me just by

I mean -I can certainly --


-- let me see what you have. I can certainly tell you.


And you're submitting today a 23-page

And, you know, these cases are set for hearings. I'm just going to walk you through


I mean, I just wanted you to have this in front of

MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: contempt of court? Judge Jordan.

Why do you think he should be held in And I don't want to hear anything about

It has nothing to do with what's before me. With what?


This has nothing to do with what's before

Judge Jordan isn't the subject of the order that you're

seeking contempt of court. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: No, I know.

So what is it that you think that he's

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KIMBERLIN: There's two things. Judge Jordan


issued an order on November 14th at a damages hearing where he issued a permanent injunction against Mr. Allen, prohibiting him from defaming me or -THE COURT: Right. I saw that.


-- interfering with my business.

I saw the order. And so Mr. Allen kept telling the


judge at the time that he was done blogging about me, that he was not going to say anything more about me. THE COURT: Well, the order says he's to enjoin

permanently from engaging in tortious conduct constituting defamation of or interference with business relations of the plaintiff, Brett Kimberlin. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Right. Uh-huh. And so --

So what is it that he's done that leads

you to believe he's violated this order? MR. KIMBERLIN: And, you know, at the time, Judge He said I want you to leave I want

Jordan was very clear to him. this man alone.

I want you to quit blogging about him.

you to quit talking about him. transcript, if you want. THE COURT:

And I can read you from the

It's on page 7.

It's one thing to say that -No.


-- but this is what's ordered here.

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about me. relations. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Right. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: I know, but I --


Defamation, interference of business

And to talk about somebody doesn't

constitution defamation. MR. KIMBERLIN: He's -THE COURT: Well, tell me what he's done that you Well, it's, he's not just talking

believe constitutes a violation of this court order. MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, first of all, in August, August

8th, Judge Rubin entered a preliminary injunction -THE COURT: Well, this is a November 14 order. I understand.


This isn't Judge Rubin's order. I understand, but there was a


preliminary injunction in this case requiring, ordering Mr. Allen to delete a number of blog posts that he had made on his blog. And Mr. Allen refused to do so, so Google actually

deleted those blog posts. So as soon as the hearing was over here on November 14th, Mr. Allen then reposted those blog posts, and that is the subject of the permanent injunction. He said, I had a

preliminary injunction already finding that these blog posts were defamatory in August. Judge Jordan made this injunction

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

14 permanent and prohibited him from, from doing so in the future. And he told him at the hearing, he said, if you write about Mr. Kimberlin, you do so at your peril and you can be in front of the court on contempt. So he was told explicitly not to

blog about me, not to defame me, not to repost these, these things that he had already posted. So since then, he's, I mean, I can just show you the different posts here. posts. It's literally hundreds of pages of

I mean, he didn't just repost what he had been ordered

to take down in August in a preliminary injunction, he went on and on. I mean, and not only that, he attacked the judge in He called him the worst names

the case, I mean, Judge Jordan. you could possibly imagine.

And this morning, he's blogged about you, Your Honor. He's called you names in two posts this morning. I mean, of

course, it's no big deal, but it just shows that there's contempt here. And he's contemptuous of the Court's order. He

has, you know, totally ignored the Court's admonition, both during the hearing and afterwards. posted. He's reposted. He's posted and posted and

And, you know, he calls me all kinds He calls me a cyber He calls me a perjurer.

of things. smearer.

He calls me a terrorist. He calls me a pedophile. THE COURT:

Well, I've read the -I mean, he --


-- 20 items that you've submitted in your

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about me. this is -THE COURT: What are those? memorandum. MR. KIMBERLIN: MR. WALKER: break in a second time. THE COURT: You know, I had a sheriff up here, Right.


Well, Your Honor, if I may, I'm sorry to

because I didn't think one would be needed. sheriff to escort you out of the courtroom. MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: the Court, if I could. THE COURT: All right. I don't understand -You're not breaking in.

I'm about to get a

Sit down.

I felt a need to explain something to

I've got the 20 items here. I mean,


Well, I can show you these.

MR. KIMBERLIN: on his blog. THE COURT:

This is the stuff that he's posting

Well, what's currently posted? This is all stuff since November 14th

MR. KIMBERLIN: that he's posted. THE COURT:

What's currently posted as of today? Oh, today about you? I'm not interested


No, I don't care.

What is he -MR. KIMBERLIN: I'm saying all this is posted on his

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 terrorist. blog. THE COURT: Didn't he take all of that down? No.



Google took it down in August.

And as soon as the judge, he got back after the November 14th hearing, he reposted it and posted more stuff. I mean, it's And

like I said, this is all since November 14th, this stuff. it's all about my business, and it's all about me. was arrested 32 years ago on a case. my time.

I mean, I I did

I got out of jail.

I run two non-profits in this, in this wonderful city

working with kids and congress members and community leaders. And you know, I have two kids and a wife. not leave me alone. years ago. And this guy will

He wants to post stuff that happened 32

You know, he dug up 32-year-old mug shots of me

that I had never even seen before, that had never been posted. THE COURT: It's all true. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: It's not true. Well, that doesn't constitute defamation.

What, that you were arrested? I'm not a terrorist. I'm not a


I'm not a pedophile.

I mean, that's not true.

You know, and the other thing is, you know, my original case had to do with not just defamation. with interference with business. interfere with my business. interfere. It had to do

What he's doing in this is to

He posts this on the blog to

And we had a big hearing about this at the damages

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23rd. hearing.

17 And the judge, Judge Jordan heard over and over, you

know, how, what his goal is -THE COURT: And you have there what's currently on

the, what currently exists, is that correct? MR. KIMBERLIN: November 14th. THE COURT: But that's currently what's on his -That's what on his blog, yeah. Like I said, this is all since


As of right now? Yes. And I have a list of it -Let me see it. Okay.


All right.


You want to see it?

All right.

This one is dated November

I don't see anything in here that would constitute -MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Well, I mean --

-- defamation. -- there's a lot of stuff in there, But what does is he


so I could certainly find it, you know.

mixes, he posts something, and then he'll say, oh, and then Kimberlin, the speedway bomber, the terrorist, the perjurer, and the pedophile did this or that. And you know, what he does

is he tries to do this so that he can get it on Google or get it on the search engines, and then people who might want to donate to my business, which is what Judge Jordan heard the whole case about, won't want to help me, won't want to donate

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 true. to my non-profits. business.

18 And he does this intentionally to harm my

And Judge Jordan was very explicit, you know, don't Leave him alone. And he doesn't

mess with this guy anymore. leave me alone.

I mean, he's even threatened Judge Jordan.

And like I say, it's not true, what he says is not I'm not a hoaxster. I'm not a fraudster. I'm a fraudster. That's what I'm a con man,

he calls me.

I'm a hoaxster.

all this stuff.

You know, our non-profits are sanctioned by

Guide Star, Network for Good, the Secretary of State of Maryland, the Better Business Bureau. We have not had any Only in his mind am

problems with anything, except Mr. Allen.

I a fraudster or a hoaxster or a conman and all these other things. And he'll do a long post that you're reading, and then all of a sudden in the middle of it, you'll see, you know, Kimberlin this, Kimberlin and his partner, Brad Friedman, are hoaxsters, fraudsters. and to harass me. harassment. And he does this to hurt my business

And the original complaint charged

That's what this man is doing. All right. I've read the one dated


November 16, 2011, and I don't see anything in there that would constitute defamation. MR. KIMBERLIN: Judge, it's not just defamation. That's what Judge Jordan

It's interference with my business. was very clear about.

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alone. And he, you know, he's reposted posts that were already ordered deleted by Judge Rubin in a preliminary injunction.


And Judge Jordan, after a long hearing, made that And he just went straight out and

injunction permanent.

reposted them and bragged about it, and said, you know, that he wasn't going to listen to the Court. to Judge Jordan. THE COURT: November 16, 2011. All right. And I've read the second one dated I don't see any defamation in there. I've just read the one dated November 19, He wasn't going to listen

and I don't see any defamation in there. MR. KIMBERLIN: from my blogs with -THE COURT: what you said? MR. KIMBERLIN: He'll take pictures of things from He posts things from your blogs, is that Judge, when he, when he posts things

our non-profit organization's blogs, and he'll put them in here, interspersed with allegations of murder and terrorism and hoaxting and frauding and things like that. That is Judge That's his

harassment, and it's interference with my business. Jordan told him not to interfere with my business. whole goal.

He's admitted on his blogs that he wants to

destroy my business. Judge Jordan told him at the hearing, leave this man He's not left me alone. He's doubled down. Judge

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 blogs. Jordan told him to let me get on with my life. THE COURT:


I've read the November 18 and November 24

I don't see anything in there that's defamation. MR. KIMBERLIN: I have a peace order against Mr.

Allen because he threatened to murder me. THE COURT: I have read the one dated December 10 and I don't see anything in there November 20. I've read the one

another one dated November 18. that constitutes defamation. for December 20.

And there certainly are offensive comments,

but I don't see they rise the level of defamation. MR. KIMBERLIN: But they interfere with my business. And he does It

That's the second part of Judge Jordan's ruling.

this on purpose, because my business is basically virtual. relies on the internet. THE COURT: And people --

What evidence do you have that this, that

anything has, anything specifically has interfered with your business? MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I know for a fact that people,

when they Google my name, the first thing that comes up is Mr. Allen's posts about me being a terrorist or a whatever. they go and read his blog. organization. hearing. And

And then they don't donate to our

This was a very big issue in the November 14th

And Judge Jordan found that Mr. Allen was interfering And he ordered him not to do that. He

with my business.

ordered him to, if he was going to write, that he did so at his

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 own peril. And for him to be able to repost posts that Judge Jordan had already found to be defammatory in a preliminary injunction is wrong.


I mean, that's why Judge Jordan made that

a permanent injunction, so that Mr. Allen would not be reposting the same stuff. years ago. He regurgitates the same stuff 32

And Judge Jordan, you know, when he was issuing his Even That's

order, he said 32 years is a long time, Mr. Allen.

though you say you're propounding the truth, what for? what Judge Jordan said.

Mr. Kimberlin should be allowed to And he says at

get along with his life, get on with his life. the end, give the man a break.

His kids and wife don't need That's what

to be reading about his past on the internet. Judge Jordan told him.

And he told Judge Jordan over and over, Judge, I'm done blogging about Mr. Kimberlin. about him anymore. I'm done. I won't blog

That's what he said.

And the Judge gave

him a break with $100 nominal judgment and said just don't blog about this guy anymore. doubles down. And now what does he do? He

And he said this morning in his post that if you And he used a

don't rule in his favor, you're going to get it. lot worse terms than that. THE COURT:

He said in this last blog, which is

apparently dated December 31st, this is the first I've seen of any requests to postpone the hearing and to allow him to

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testify telephonically.

22 And in this blog, and I don't know why

he thinks the Court's going to know what he blogs about, but in any event, he says that he was never served with the petition for contempt. MR. KIMBERLIN: says a lot of things. I realize what he says. I mean, he

I mean, he, when he was before Judge He cried --

Jordan, he cried poverty. THE COURT:

Well, what evidence is there of service

of the contempt petition? MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I mean, that's up to the court.

I mean the court sent him -THE COURT: No, it's up to you. No. The court sent him service.


MR. KIMBERLIN: mean, he's known about it. known about the case. blogged about it.

And, of course, he knows about it. He's been blogging about it. He's

I mean, like I said, this morning he

He said that it's a half-hour session, that I mean, he knows everything about

Judge Rupp has the case. this case.

And, you know, of course, the court sent me copies

of the order about the hearing and sent him copies, too. I mean, if you want to continue this hearing, I'll be happy to agree to a continuance and allow Mr. Allen to come here and make his case. like that. That's fine with me. I would actually

am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: All right. Yes. Anything further?


MR. KIMBERLIN: allow Mr. Allen to appear?

Could we get a continuance and

And I, if we get a hearing date, I

will hire a sheriff to serve him personally in Massachusetts. JUDGE'S RULING Well, I've reviewed what's been submitted. I've

reviewed one, two, three, four, five, six, seven different sets of blogs that have been submitted, as well as the memorandum, which contains on page 7, items 1 through 20 of support of the plaintiff's petition to hold Mr. Allen in contempt. I do not

find that there is sufficient evidence that would allow me to conclude that Mr. Allen is in contempt after reviewing all of these documents. I'm going to deny the petition for contempt.

The Court's in recess. THE CLERK: All rise.

The Court stands in recess. (The proceedings were concluded.)



Digitally signed by Audrey Murphy DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. hereby certifies that the

foregoing pages represent an accurate transcript of the duplicated electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in the matter of: Civil No. 339254 KIMBERLIN v. ANONYMOUS CYBER STALKER, ET AL.


Audrey Murphy Transcriber